Jihadist weaponry

The image of Hayat Boumeddiene, alleged accomplice of the terrorists responsible for the Charlie Hebdo slaughter, shows her using a crossbow, a weapon of choice for many Arabs until recent times. It had to be because innovation of arms, as with other technologies, lagged behind the West as many Middle Eastern Countries lived a third world existence still seen in Yemen and Somalia today. Much as they despise the West it is interesting that today the typical Arab Jihadist wouldn't be without its 'satan' technology; the Kalashnikovs, the rocket launchers, grenades, the kevlar based body armour, the mobile phones, the computers and the world-wide web. All available from the decadent West because since the days of the Prophet their capacity for innovation has been stifled. Where are the Arab machine guns, the Arab tanks, Arab fighter jets etc? Indeed it could be argued that if it hadn't been for oil, most of the Arab countries would still be third world incapable of financing global terrorism.
Is it not the case that although they claim to hate the West and its values in reality they know that they are jealous of the advanced way of life to be found, for instance, in Europe and America and like spoilt children would prefer to see this destroyed rather than live perpetually in the shadow. The leaders of the more enlightened Muslim States are already taking steps to ensure their survival post oil. They are buying as much prime land in Europe and America as they can and I wonder what the leadership of Al Qu'eda think about that!

Weaponisation of the NHS

The Labour Party leader, Mr. Ed Miliband is short of topics on which he can challenge the coalition Government. The economy is recovering, unemployment is down, business confidence is up and Mrs May seems impregnable at the Home Office leaving him with very little to talk about if you disregard the dubious question of the standard of living. I say dubious because they really must have rummaged about amongst the statistics to find anything grim amongst all the relatively good news, especially since all the bad news came as a consequence of the last Labour Government. Remember the note left by the outgoing Socialist Treasury Minister, Liam Byrne, after the last election, apologising that all the money had gone.
Now, it seems, Miliband has turned his attention to that good old standby the NHS urging his Party to weaponise the health service in the fight for votes. Never mind that the NHS in Wales is failing under a Labour administration, never mind the debacle of the Mid Staffs Hospital on Andy Burnham's watch, never mind that the privatisation of the NHS was began by the same man at Hitchingbrookes. These facts are conveniently ignored as the Party arms itself for battle. Not for them a policy of promoting enterprise, creating jobs, attracting inward investment that will benefit the economy. No; the Labour Party is battling on a front line consisting of an institution that deals with sick, unproductive people at considerable, almost LIMITLESS cost to the taxpayer. Of course it is important to many, particularly the old and vulnerable but to make it the number one priority in reaching out to the electorate suggests a Party devoid of talent, devoid of ideas, pinning their hopes on a gullible and uneducated core vote. The Lemmings voting for the Lemming Party.

Two thoughts from both ends of the Religious Spectrum.

I have been thinking on two matters at opposing ends of the religious spectrum.

Consider these two scenarios. If a merciful and loving God created the universe and mankind you would surely believe that we would all be singing from the same hymn sheet. On the other hand, if you imagine that mankind created God, it is likely that the deity would reflect local culture and practice and therefore vary from place to place.
Now, ignoring the nonsense about 'free will' being a gift of God, which of these scenarios best fits the picture we see round the world today?

I have been pondering on Professor Richard Dawkins' eponymous creation: The Foundation for Reason and Science. Surely it is an oxymoron! The basis for both science and philosophy is mathematics and that in turn revolves around the integrity of the number 'one'. But the question arises; what is the number 'one' and how certain are we about what it represents? For example we cannot give with certainty the correct answer to the question; what is the square root of one and are even less certain when we talk of fourth roots? This uncertainty must mean that if we wish to build an edifice, we should do it on foundations that are concrete rather than the shifting sands of dubious mathematics.

Kevill Davies is the author of:  SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS.