BLOG POSTS

Every nation has the finest, most moral, army on Earth. Even Adolf Hitler praised his troops for the honorable manner in which they fought in France and Poland. The US military in Afghanistan, we are constantly told by the media, consists of a fine bunch of brave men and women doing their duty for their country.

Usually, those on the losing side have a different tale to tell.

Even prior to the war in Gaza ending, in January this year, Israel was defending its forces and denying any possibility of war crimes. Despite international observers, and stories of despicable brutality told by the Palestinians themselves, the Israeli government continued to deny any such events had occurred.

Now, however, Israeli soldiers are speaking out, describing the atrocities they saw committed by their own side. Evidence has emerged of heavy involvement by rabbis, circulating religious pamphlets among the troops that described the war as a ‘war of religion’.

“All the articles had one clear message,” one soldier said. “We are the people of Israel, we arrived in the country almost by miracle, now we need to fight to uproot the gentiles who interfere with re-conquering the Holy Land.”

“Many soldiers’ feelings were that this was a war of religion,” he added.^[1]

There’s nothing quite like injecting a religious cause into conflict, to bolster the moral high ground.

Despite statements from Israeli soldiers, describing Palestinians murdered in cold blood, Defence Minister Ehud Barak recently told Israel Radio:

I still say we have the most moral army in the world. Of course there may be exceptions but I have absolutely no doubt this will be inspected on a case-by-case basis.”

Say it often enough, Barak, and someone, somewhere, may eventually believe you.

^{[1] “Israel troops admit Gaza abuses” BBC, March 19th 2009}

Filed under: Out of Israeli mouths

Despite the possibility of Sparrow Chat being labeled an anti-religious tome, the Pope’s visit to Africa cannot be allowed to pass without comment, given his deliberately false proclamation to journalists before he landed on the continent.

In fact, Sparrow Chat is in no way anti-religious. It just condemns the papery, pestilence, and perpetually lying proclamations of those charged with perpetrating a fraud for the purposes of enriching their purses and enforcing their power.

The present occupant of the Vatican is one of the worst for a long time. Were he to have been born six hundred years ago he would likely have rivaled the infamous Alexander VI, or Innocent VIII. Fortunately, popes today are no longer able to murder and fornicate at will – at least, not so easily.

It’s not generally known if, during the elaborate papal consecration ceremonies, the ‘sexual verification’ of the new pontiff is still practiced. Since the thirteenth century and the infamous case of Pope Joan ( a Pope John believed to have possibly been a woman) legend has it that new popes have had to prostrate themselves on a low seat while selected clergy examined the pontiff’s intimate parts to ascertain his credentials. Once verified to everyone’s satisfaction, it’s a short journey from the low seat of examination to the high throne of Saint Peter.

While the procedure is considered by some to be mere myth, one Adam of Usk – a Welsh cleric who spent time in Rome during the fifteenth century – recounts the procedure in his Chronicum of the period:

……and having arrived there, the pope dismounts and enters the church to be enthroned. Here he sits on a throne of porphery through which a hole has been cut for this purpose, and is examined by one of the younger cardinals to ensure that he has male genitalia; whereupon, while “Te Deum Laudamus” is sung, he is led to the high altar.” ^[1]

In fairness, no-one has truly ascertained the authenticity of this practice. Given that medieval popes generally sired umpteen illegitimate offspring prior to ascending to the highest spiritual office the church could bestow, the process would appear somewhat irrelevant. Adam of Usk, however, was in no doubt.

Pope Benedict XVI is unlikely to have needed such an examination. Membership of the Hitler Youth was confined to males and, unless he was really a member of its sister organization, the League of German Girls, he would have been ‘checked out’ on entering the organization.

His dictatorial manner, and love of those proclamations to which we must all conform or be damned to everlasting hellfire, were always apparent even before he touched down on African soil.

The condemnation of condoms as an instrument of the Devil; his insistence that they not only have no beneficial effect in preventing the spread of HIV, but actually contribute to it, are symptoms of a being well used to blindly accepting orders from on high, without stopping for a moment to question their wisdom.

Presumably, as he gave no explanation of his ‘condom proclamation’, he’s still sticking to the old and long-disproved Vatican theory that HIV viruses pass through condoms and infect people.

Pope Benedict XVI knows that isn’t true.

He is the holiest creation of the Roman Catholic church on earth, yet just like his medieval predecessors he blithely resorts to blatant lies and hypocrisy, knowing full well that many of his followers will believe him simply because he’s the Pope, and a pope’s word is sacrosanct.

It’s estimated that two million people have died from HIV/AIDS in Africa. No-one would suggest they all contracted the disease because of the Roman Catholic doctrine, but there are in excess of 150 million African Catholics on the continent. With an HIV/AIDS rate nationally of around 4%, possibly six million Catholics are presently infected.

Denying the faithful condoms, by condemning them to everlasting hellfire if they use them, is probably resulting in thousands more being infected and eventually dying.

Does that make Benedict XVI better, or worse, than medieval counterparts like Innocent VIII or Alexander VI, who simply used a more direct approach to slaughter many of their flock?

^{[1] “The Myth of Pope Joan” by Alain Boureau, Lydia G. Cochrane pp.13}

^{[2] “Vatican in HIV condom row” BBC, October 9th 2003}

Filed under: Papal bull

In May 2005, when the US/UK invasion of Iraq was going badly, the US government attempted to divert public opinion from the atrocities of the war by holding a series of Congressional hearings relating to the earlier Western sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, in particular the “Oil-for Food” program.

Certain companies and individuals were accused of sanction-busting over this program. Among them was the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the British Member of Parliament, George Galloway.

Presumably Congress decided it could divert the bitter public opinion fomenting over the war by assuming the high moral ground regarding Iraq sanction-busting. To that end they held a series of Congressional hearings, perhaps better described as witch-hunts.

The preemptive invasion of Iraq, with all its accompanying horrors, is already drifting into the mists of history. The public memory is short, at least in the US, and matters of the domestic economy now dominate its media. Those responsible for committing international war crimes no longer serve in the government, having slipped away to more anonymous occupations.

There is still a reckoning to be made. No-one can be responsible for the decimation of a nation and walk away unpunished.

When the US Congress called on George Galloway to answer his accusers, they expected much fawning and grovelling before them. Let’s be honest, it’s what they’re used to from their own kind.

What they got was something entirely different.

The US Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican “Norm” Coleman, took on a British Bulldog – and lost.

^{While US congressmen and British politicians continue to whine over the plight of a world entirely of their making, George Galloway has been busy elsewhere. Check out “This Old Brit” for details, and my thanks to him for bringing it to Sparrow Chat’s attention.}

Filed under: There’s dogs and there’s curs