Saturday, March 16, 2013

Swiss Tourist gang raped in India



This is another example of the polarization of good and evil. Not long ago there was a huge public outcry in India when a woman was gang raped and brutally murdered. The public outcry was good and the deranged brutal gang rape was evil. We’re told that one of the suspects has died in prison. Apparently by suicide.

Not long after, despite the public outrage, there was another brutal gang rape involving once again another bus driver. The driver drove past the woman’s stop and took her to a place where he met up with some other men and gang raped her. Astonishing given the public outcry of the previous incident.

Now the breaking news is yet another gang rape in India, this time of a Swiss tourist. Obviously a lot of people are rightfully outraged by this kind of conduct yet it continues. Thus we see a small percentage of the population who revel in deranged acts. Dare I say 1% of the population. As I’ve previously mentioned, back in the day the term 1% meant cream of the crop, not bottom on the barrel. Now the term has clearly changed it’s meaning.

Rape is a horrendous crime. Gang rape is simply deranged. I’ve made references to needing some time with Doctor Phil. When I say that I’m being sarcastic because I can’t stand that show. All the drama and touchy feely talk is beyond me. Yet when we see this plague of parasites who revel in gang rape it is clear a mental problem exists that needs to be addressed.

This brings us to Prince George and the Devil’s Butler. In Prince George there were two cases where members of the GTS were charged with gang rape in the Renegades clubhouse. Both cases the accused got off. In one case the judge said because the victim went to the clubhouse and accepted cocaine from them, she was not a credible witness. Another example how a corrupt judge can pervert the law. No means no. If the victim was a willing participant in a sexual act with one person, and several others join in against her will, then that is still gang rape. Taking drugs does not forfeit your right to say no and mean that it’s legal to gang rape the person after wards. That judgment is a stain on all of us.

Then we have that other case in Prince George where a young woman and several young men beat and sodomized a young teenager almost to death and left him for dead in a snow bank. This is the epitome of mental illness. Calling anyone who reports that crime or testifies in that case a rat on in their case a squid is deranged. It is a sign of a mental illness. It is abnormal behavior.

I always tell young kids to experience travel. Get out of the fish bowl and see that life in the real world isn’t the same as the bizarre ideals held by a few peers in a small town or a small borrow of a big city. Joking about sodomizing anyone with an iron rod or a broom stick is really messed up.

Realizing there is likely a publication ban on that trial and that I have no idea what has been said in court, I did notice lately, one of the accused had a picture on facebook of them with a cat. One of the commenters joked and said be careful or the car gets the broomstick and everyone else was laughing. These are sick kids and I don’t mean sic yo I mean they are really messed up.

One blog reader wrote in suggesting that those who participated in the gang rape in India with an iron bar should be gang raped in public with an iron bar. I certainly don’t sustain that but I can certainly understand their outrage which is normal and healthy. Joking about it is not. Personally I think a firing squad would be more humane and appropriate.

I think Utah is the only state that still has the death penalty by way of firing squad. I realize Amnesty International does a lot of really good work raising public awareness about political prisoners. I’m not sure if I would support that same zeal in the removal of the death penalty in all cases. Cases of serial killers or gang rape makes me wonder if sometimes the death penalty might be appropriate. Clearly these young kids in Prince George who are joking about sodomizing a cat with a broom stick after they sodomized a teenage boy with a broom stick need a reality check.

As I’ve mentioned, that book about The Devil’s Butler referring to someone the Vancouver Satan’s Angels kidnapped and sodomized with a broom stick is a historic example of a deranged behavior that has continued. The Vancouver Hells Angels were caught trafficking cocaine through puppet clubs in Prince George many years ago. Ricky Ciarniello's involvement with David Black and the Devil’s Butler is very disturbing.

18 comments:

  1. Do you know what David Black is doing these days? Did he become a Hells Angel?

    ---------------------

    I remember those plaid flannel shirts he is wearing from the 70's and early 80's. They were very popular work shirts made of thick flannel and perfect for winter and summer conditions. Good quality at a cheap price.

    You can't get the original flannel work shirts anymore in Vancouver. The flannel work shirts these days are either too thin or come with some liner.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean the Surrey dinner jacket? Yes I remember those. Along with Dayton’s of course. I assume David Black patched over with the rest of the chapter. I have no idea what he’s up to now if he’s still around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A word about an occurrence I've mentioned here; which I believe was mis-spoken by AK, in factual terms (not SAS):

    "SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: The lynch mob, the man of God and the truth about an atrocity seared on Britain's psyche."

    "A Roman Catholic priest kneels in a car park as he administers the last rites over the bloodied and almost naked body of a British soldier. It is an iconic image, a horror frozen in time."

    "Father Alec Reid’s hands are clutched in prayer or anguish, his left cheek smeared with blood because he’d tried to give the man the kiss of life."

    "Minutes earlier the NCO had been seized by a frenzied mob, tortured and executed. A few yards away, out of frame, lies the corpse of a colleague, similarly abused and then slaughtered."

    http://tinyurl.com/c28cpqz (DailyMail)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the thread. That article fails to connect the fact that right before that incident the crazed UVF terrorist was throwing hand grenades at random into a funeral at Milltown Cemetery in Belfast murdering innocent civilians. I was in the city then but was counseled not to attend the funeral. I had a friend who chased down the gunman and gave him the boots until a British Army helicopter came down and saved the murderer’s life.

    I see nothing noble about the occupation of a foreign land. Ireland, Falklands, South Africa it’s all the same. British Imperialism is not something I support. Not something I want to argue about on this holy day either. St Paddy’s Day is a time of joyful celebration. Not slanderous politics.

    The nearest thing to the crucifixion of Christ? That is a satanic lie. It’s more like the French or the Dutch getting a hold of one of Hitler’s invading forces and murdering him for his invasion and oppression of a foreign land. That article is disgusting. Bad timing. SAS: Stripped and Shot. Just like Hitler’s SS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait, the Falklands? That one wouldn't seem to be as clear cut as the other examples you cite...There are no Argentine's there, and the overwhelming majority of residents prefer to remain British...
    While the archipelago is a long way from Britain, it is also 500 km from Argentina. The sole reason for them to be part of Argentina would seem to be that Argentina is closest....even though there are no Argentines there....the truth is this is more about offshore oil and mineral rights as anything else, much the same as similar disputes between China and Japan, China and the Philippines, Japan and Russia, etc..

    I can't see that the Falklands is as clear cut a case as other post-Colonial situations where there were indigenous inhabitants from the beginning, the Falklands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans, if we are going by historical example France and Spain itself would seem to have more claim than Argentina does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It’s a lot closer to Argentina than England is. It’s foreign occupation of a foreign land just like South Africa. There were a lot of racist white Brits in South Africa that supported apartheid. That doesn’t make occupying South Africa right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Just Like"? Seriously? It's not at all like South Africa, hence my pointing out that it's different? Trust you to try and muddy the waters by throwing racism and apartheid in here. Exactly when were there any Argentines living on the Falklands? Oh that's right, NEVER. It's been British since Christ was a corporal.

    Geographic location is the only argument the Argentines have in their favor. You might also wish to consider that the whole conflict was kicked off by a failing military dictatorship to try and whip up domestic support. You know, that same military dictatorship that was torturing folks and making people disappear? You're really on their side in all this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I oppose Imperialism. Falklands included. South Africa is the perfect example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As do well all I hope.....but how are the two comparable?

      South Africa was colonized by Holland and Britain, but became it's own (apartheid ruled) country over a century ago. The white minority ruled over a black majority native to the land.

      Britain never ruled over anyone but Britons in the Falklands, Argentina never occupied or ruled the archipelago, merely claimed it at various points in the 300+ years of various colonists from Briton, France, etc. and never actually controlled or administered it.

      There is a difference between colonialism and imperialism, not to say that they don't often go hand in hand but they don't here. By your logic the Frenchmen who occupy the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon off of Newfoundland should pack up and go home, if they do not Canada should invade. Perhaps we can take Quebec back while we are at it...... :/

      Delete
  9. South Africa was just plain wrong. If you don't like black people then stay the fuck out of their country. I'm not aware of the difference between colonialism and imperialism. To me they're pretty much the same thing. South Africa was similar to Ireland. It was the occupation of a foreign land against their will. In the case of the north it involved planting loyalists so to speak to control or rule over the locals just like in SA.

    France had many colonies in Africa. They even recently use force to maintain one because the rebels were Islamic. Canada and Australia were different because although we were colonies we became our own sovereign republics. We elect our own governments and spend our own taxes. The Queen on the money is just figurative. Might as well have a beaver or a moose, it makes no difference. Taking Quebec would mean returning the rest of Canada. The people here are sovereign. Maggie sent war ships to exert control of the Falklands. That means it wasn't sovereign like Canada or Quebec. It was the foreign occupation of a sovereign land.

    I did meet an old heavy man in London who referred to Canada as a colony once. I just about jumped over the table and choked him out. I was working in England when it was the royal wedding. Prince Charles and Dianna. The media was going psycho with oh here she is. She's stepping out now and this is what she's wearing folks. The designers are off to the studio to create reproductions now. I said what the hell is that? You'd think it was the bloody moon walk and man's first step on the moon. The Caribbean guy I was working with chuckled but the British guy got all offended and said the monarchy is really important to us here. I was like yeah? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I'm not aware of the difference between colonialism and imperialism."

    With imperialism there has to be someone to subjugate. The Falklands are just a colony.

    The Falklands were uninhabited when first discovered by a Dutch explorer in 1600. They bounced around between British, French, Portuguese and Spanish claims/settlers, being also claimed by the United Provinces of the River Plate (based on a privateer captain raising a flag there, no one even knew he'd done so until a year later) and by the Republic of Buenos Aires (pre-Argentina, which didn't exist then) at one point, who saw no better use for the place than a penal colony. The prisoners mutinied and killed all the staff. British rule was re-established in 1840 and has remained such to the present day.

    No Argentinians were ever present when Europeans arrived. None. No one's land was stolen, no one was oppressed, etc. Europeans colonized the Falklands and other islands in the archipelago for 2 centuries before anyone who could be remotely described as an Argentinian became involved in any way, shape or form. The islands have been British for the last 170 years.

    Yes, this is EXACTLY like South Africa...... :rolleyes: Face it, it's a land grab based on who is closer, that simple. I notice you are not bothering to address the fact that there are no Argentinians there, or that no one there wants to be ruled by Argentina. And quite frankly, who can blame them? The Argentina that wanted them back in the early 80's was a murderous military junta who tortured opponents of the regime and made people disappear. But, yeah, Britain defending British subjects living there from banana republic dictators is OBVIOUSLY evil imperialism, evil I tell you! And hey, don't even bother listening to the folks who actually live there as far as what THEY want......you do realize you are coming down AGAINST self determination here, right? I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the British Empire but try and judge this one on actual facts rather than emotion and other situations which just don't compare, no matter how convenient it would be for your outlook if they did.

    I also notice that you don't even address the question of those French islands right off the coast of Newfoundland. Canada should be demanding that all those Frenchmen pack up and go home, as those two islands obviously belong to Canada because of their location alone, history and precedent be damned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really don’t have the time of day for splitting hairs over obscure details. South Africa started out as a colony. Then it became it’s own country as you say ruled by white British and Dutch. The whole process was wrong. Planting people in a country to take over it’s leadership and oppress the locals. I oppose that too.

      Delete
  11. TR78, for AK, this is about being British only. He don't like the Brits. one bit, and the reason is Ireland.

    AK therefore thinks the Falklands are "the same"...but as Ireland.

    TR78, most of my Vancouver High-School friends were Irish, McDermots & McCallums and Brennans. We spent five years arguing about the IRA, everyone who's Irish seems to stick up for them....I didn't ....

    One experienced German agent, smuggling guns to Ireland during WWI, said this, "The Irish know how to die for Ireland, but they don't know how to live for Ireland..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I don't like Imperialism. I'm part British.

      Delete
    2. That's a pretty clever quote..... :)

      It seems to me that most people confused a desire to have a Northern Ireland free of British rule with support for the IRA, a the leadership of whom were all committed Marxists
      who did NOT carry out a war where only enemy combatants were targeted, they managed to kill more Irish than Brits. Sounds like a "fail" to me.

      I tell you what though, I'd truly (for the military/counterinsurgency perspective on it) like to someday see the complete history of SAS operations in Northern Island released. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime though, the British Government still has as classified stuff from WW2 that is not scheduled to be released until 2030 something....I'm pretty sure that it would show that they "won" shortly after they decided to out-terrorize the terrorists....a lesson there for sure, and I say that with mixed feelings because there's absolutely nothing really to stop a government from using the same methodology against people who are actually trying to maintain their freedom against encroaching government as opposed to the IRA which just wanted the Brits out.

      Delete
    3. I just got back from K town and am wasted. Figuratively speaking of course. I just ask that people stop positing stuff on the blog that is clearly bullsh*t just to flame me. I really don’t want to talk about this. All of the IRA were not Marxists and they did not kill more Irish than Brits did. The cause in the south was not a failure. They became a free state then a free republic. Many want the same thing for the north. The descendants of the people the British planted there don’t which makes it problematic.

      The IRA or the Provisional IRA fought for the US Constitutional model. That’s why donating to the IRA through Noraid was at one time a tax deductible contribution in the US. Another part of the IRA known as the INLA were socialists. They referred to Russia was Big Brother and received support from them before the fall of the Iron curtain.

      One could rightly argue that some branches of the IRA were indeed Marxist but not all were. Yet those who were differed from our stereotypes. They still called themselves Republicans as in supporting a free republic which was different than what we saw after the Russian Revolution and in East Berlin. James Connolly was a Communist so to speak. He was one of the signers of the Irish Proclamation that was very similar to the American Declaration of Independence. It also guaranteed to protect human rights which is the primary concern of most who oppose Communism.

      I can go on and on about British atrocities but won’t at this time. We need to look forward without making up bullshit to slander the peace process by rationalizing the invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Kinda like was done in Iraq now that you mention it.

      I don’t support terrorism. The idea behind it however is a refusal to surrender after being conquered. In Scotland the highlanders would attack and retreat into the mountains. As for out terrorizing the terrorists, one of the places to look is the claim that the British supplied the bombs for the UVF guys that killed 33 and injured 300 civilians in Dublin and Monaghan county on May 17 1974: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/26/northernireland.ireland

      Delete
  12. I didn't say they killed more Irish than the Brits did. I said they killed more Irish than they did Brits. Big difference but I can see how you might have missed that in a quick read, the wording is similar.

    I have always said the second invasion of Iraq and the last ten year of involvement were a mistake. I believe it would have served America's interest more to leave Sadaam in power as a counterbalance to the mullah's in Tehran. A lot cheaper too.

    Last post on this bro, I promise..... :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. The IRA killed more Irish than they killed Brits? That's a big stretch. They killed informants in Michael Collins' day. The Provisional government executed them for treason. Which is a slippery slope not taking time for proper trials. Yet to say they killed more Irish than they did British is a real stretch. There was a tit for tat war with the Loyalists who were supporting and supported by the British. Yet both sides failed in that the old law of an eye for an eye didn't mean when someone commits murder you respond by killing an innocent member of their race or religion. I will follow up on that HIDDEN HAND - THE FORGOTTEN MASSACRE documentary: http://irishfreedomcommittee.com/HISTORY/DublinMonaghan/dublin_monaghan_historybackground.htm

    ReplyDelete