The murder of the former Libyan dictator Mu'ammar Gaddafi isn't a historically unprecedented event.

The Arab Spring has in many political circles been compared and contrasted to the various revolutionary events in the Eastern European Warsaw Pact satellite states in 1989 - which corresponded with the breakup and fall of the Soviet Union. When one looks at such a comparison one does find a very interesting parallel. Whilst the Arab Spring has shown two prominent Arab autocrats (relatively) peacefully capitulate to popular opposition it has also shown another willing to bomb and plunge his country into war and violence in order to maintain his hold on power. I am of course referring to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi whose murder at the hands of rebel forces shares many similarities to the murder of Nicolae Ceausescu at the end of the Romanian Revolution in 1989, which was the bloodiest of the 1989 Revolutions given Ceausescu's unrelenting campaign of violent exploits and extortion of the Romanian people under the hands of his brutal and sadistic Securitate secret police.

Whilst following his capture by angry mobs of Romanians who had lived in a state of abjection for decades under his rule Ceausescu was temporarily held in a tank before him and his wife Elena were given a show trial and charged with genocide and then executed on Christmas Day 1989. Because of this rushed and sloppy process it was never learned how Ceausescu had ruled Romania, however the sheer abjection and state of beggary the Romanian people had been subject too quickly became evident, as the festering and squalid conditions of the countries orphanages were uncovered in a manner reminiscent to the liberation of concentration camps following the defeat of the Third Reich in 1945. This was in stark contrast to how richly the Ceausescu's lived, a prime example of their overindulgence was the fact that even their private nuclear fallout shelter was marble floored.

The Libyan people lived in similar abjection, with the Gaddafi family squandering the countries wealth and resources on ensuring it remained the dominant authority in the country, at the expense of not substantially developing the states infrastructure. The widespread fervour and enthusiasm the rebels displayed which has led to the murder of Gaddafi upon his capture shows that this murder was clearly an ill thought out impulse that came from years of pent up rage as a result of being trodden down upon by such a brute megalomaniac. It was a controversial action and may prove to be a mistake, as now all hopes of a trial to charge and indict him and bring reparations and justice where possible for his many crimes and actions throughout the past 42 years have been dashed.

The actions of the Romanian people in deposing Ceausescu is also inextricably tied with Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. In a 1990 interview with CNN's Diane Sawyer it was clear that the brutal and violent overthrow of Ceausescu resonated a lot with the Iraqi dictator. He therefore vowed that he would not follow the same fate. And the amount of violence and cruelty and sheer brutality he exerted on the Iraqi people until the end of his rule in 2003 showed that he was willing to do anything to stay true to his word. In the same year as that interview Iraq invaded Kuwait. This was followed up in 1991 by the US led military coalition attacking Iraq through large scale aerial bombing and driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and engaging them in a decisive 100 hour ground war that led on to the February 28th ceasefire which was put into place shortly after the defeated and demoralized Iraqi Army limped back over the Kuwaiti border. Shortly afterwards a widespread uprising in the Shi'a south spread against Saddam's rule (in a strikingly similar manner to eastern Libya revolting against Gaddafi's rule earlier this year). Around the time this was taking place coalition forces granted Iraq the use of some of its remaining helicopters under the impression that they would be used to transport necessities since the countries infrastructure had been crippled by coalition air strikes. However the helicopters were instead utilized by the Saddam's loyalist Republican Guard forces to put down the revolt killing over 100,000 people. Their bodies dumped in mass graves which are still being found and uncovered throughout the south of Iraq to the present day, a clear testament to Saddam's unrelenting subversion and brutality.

In a manner similar to how the UN mandated no fly zones were executed over Libya to prevent Gaddafi strafing the inhabitants of Benghazi no fly zones had been previously put in place above southern Iraq and Northern Iraqi Kurdistan to prevent Saddam's forces from continuing to afflict their genocidal wrath on the Kurds and Shi'a respectively.

The UN mandated no fly zones over Libya led on to the NATO forces gradually aiding the rebels through tactical air strikes in their quest to dismantle Gaddafi's regime. Up the point of the said incident in Sirte, where French jets and pilot-less American drones attacked Gaddafi's loyalist convoy as it attempted to flee south, the NATO forces at the time weren't aware Gaddafi was in the convoy but nonetheless the strike did heavily contribute to his final capture.

This UN intervention didn't directly kill Gaddafi, the Libyan people did, out of the clear rage and humiliation which stemmed from decades of needless repression at the hands of this man. He was killed in manner similar to that of Ceausescu, and the relief and realization that he is gone and can never again instigate brute violence on his countrymen is something that resonating with the majority of Libyans. And while they may not have learned from Romania 22 years ago the United Nations Security Council has learned from Iraq 20 years ago. In respect to the fact (to paraphrase John F. Kennedy) that dictators who make peaceful revolution impossible make such violent revolution and insurrection inevitable.

A potential massacre has therefore been prevented in Libya since the Colonel as he was known was forcibly deprived of his ability to afflict death and destruction upon the very country and people he presided over.

Colonel Gaddafi's inevitable defeat as he sits in his small coastal hometown besieged on all sides by revolutionary forces constitutes an end of a nearly half century long era of Libyan history.

With the present situation in Libya that stems from the onset of the civil war that broke out last February in response to popular demonstrators which toppled dictators in both neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia it is clear that dictator of 42 years Mu'ammar Gaddafi will not be able to regain control of Libya and reinstitute his authoritarian rule. In a manner similar to how Saddam Hussein fled to his hometown of Tikrit on the onset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq Gaddafi has opted to make his ?last stand? in his hometown of Sirte with the remainder of his loyalist forces. Besieged on all sides by the NATO backed rebel forces that now fight under the flag of the National Transitional Council (NTC) government it is clear that this constitutes the end of Gaddafi's rule. But also the end of a long era in Libyan history that made Libya synonymous with Gaddafi, and Libya itself regarded for the most part of the last 40 years a state sponsor of international terrorism.

The Colonel's sordid statements that he made during the onset of this conflict were he proclaimed himself to be Libya and that therefore Libya will die with him reflect the mentality of a man who was willing not to capitulate due to popular demand and opposition but instead attempt to destroy his opposition by strafing civil centres with aircraft sorties. When neighbouring dictator of 29 years Hosni Mubarak saw the mounting opposition in his country symbolized in the turnout of at least 300,000 Egyptians in Tahrir Square Cairo he instigated a military crackdown. Egyptian military vehicles closed in and around the square where the countrywide protests were centred in and around. Those camping in the square for those 18 days were deafened as F-16 fighter jets swooped low over their heads. However they stood firm and literally shoulder to shoulder in unity with each other in their opposition, forcing Mubarak to peacefully capitulate and concede power. A mere few days after this incident two bomb laden Libyan Air Force Dassault Mirage F-1 fighter jets landed in Malta, its pilots having defected upon being given orders by the Colonel to indiscriminately bomb opposition groups in the countries second largest city of Benghazi. Their defection a clear testament to the fact that the Arab worlds longest ruling Arab leader (since 1900) would not peacefully let a popular transitional government form. Even if the majority of the Libyan people decided like the majority of the Egyptian people did with regards to Mubarak that it was due time to move their country and themselves into a post Gaddafi era, it was clear that Gaddafi would instead attempt to plunge the country into chaos and destruction in order to deprive them of their own self-determination.

Under Gaddafi Libya has been classed by the United Nations as a pariah state. And on top of being an authoritarian state was a state where the majority of Libyans lived in abjection, even though their state possessed enough oil resources to enrich its population of 5.6 million, or at least provide them with a more tangible and effective national infrastructure.

Following his youthful days as the revolutionary when he led the overthrow of King Idris in 1969 Gaddafi gradually tightened his grip on power over Libya, imprisoning different forms of opposition and gradually building an authoritarian state through the Libyan Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) with himself being the focal point of power and authority. He appointed himself with the title of King of Africa and undertook several foreign policy endeavours. Some retrospectively admirable ones such as the financing of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress which was at the time classed as a terrorist organization. His sphere of influence extended as far north from Africa as the Republic of Ireland where in 1973 the Irish Navy intercepted the Claudia vessel - which was carrying a large arms shipment intended to be given to the IRA to support its campaign of violence in Northern Ireland. Gaddafi also proclaimed support for various Palestinian terrorist organizations around the same time he praised the Lod Airport massacre in Israel in 1972. Libya under his rule would later go on to engage Egypt in a short border conflict in 1977 as a result of a series of diplomatic failures following Gaddafi's disapproval of then Prime Minister Sadet agreement to undertake peace and conciliation talks with Israel.

His fingerprints have been found in the crime scenes of terrorist acts as far away as the Philippines and state actions abroad have included the murder of British police officer Yvonne Fletcher who was shot dead when undertaking her duty in trying to control a group of protesters who had gathered in protest around the Libyan embassy in London. Libya was also the prime suspect in the bombing of the La Belle discotheque (a place frequented by US servicemen when on leave) in West Germany in 1986, which led to the United States and the United Kingdom launching Operation El Dorado Canyon an aerial bombardment of Libyan military installations and also an attempt to take out the Colonel himself (who was warned in advance by an Italian politician who phoned him).

Throughout this time Libya was also engaged in sporadic conflict with Chad, as Gaddafi wanted to annex the northern part of Chad which is known as the Aouzou Strip and rein a substantial amount of influence over Chad in which to use to extend and exert his influence and power over Central Africa. Also throughout this period Libya was engaged in skirmishes with the United States Navy, two notable incidents took place in 1981 and 1989 that saw the US F-14 Tomcats shot down Libyan MiG and Sukhoi fighter jets when they attempted to engage them, Gaddafi was hotly disputing the official span of the Gulf of Sidra which constituted Libyan national and sovereign territorial waters.

Gaddafi's failure to force the French out of Chad and his subsequent defeat in the prolonged conflict in Chad led to him avenging himself by providing support for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the blowing up of which (over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland) killed 270 people. He also instigated the bombing of the lesser known UTA Flight 772 killing 170 people a year afterwards.

Shortly after (mere days in fact) Saddam Hussein was found unshaven and cowering in a hole in the ground near his hometown of Tikrit in Iraq in December 2003 the Colonel approached US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair and declared his stockpile of chemical weapons, which were inspected and transported to Oak Ridge, Tennessee for storage. Gaddafi had clearly taken what had happened to Saddam as a warning for things to come in the region so by decommissioning and dismantling his WMD program he was essentially buying his regime and the status quo of his totalitarian rule more time as he grew old, weary and senile.

However time was still of the essence. And when a spark flared up what we now refer to as the Arab Spring it was clear that Gaddafi had to go, and he showed himself to be willing to suppress and destroy most of his people as their willingness to pursue self determination constituted a threat to the status quo of his regimes survival and dominance.

Today in the midst of Gaddafi's rapid downfall there seems to be a pioneering fervour gripping Libya. As a result of this said fervour Gaddafi's rule is crumbling in the face of mounting and widespread enthusiasm and anticipation for a brighter more prosperous and free Libya. This approaching post Gaddafi era will however have the shadow and ghost of the Gaddafi era which will be cast over Libya as it crosses this frontier into the next phase of its history.

Jimmy Carter has once again visited North Korea and has accused the US and South Korea of human rights violations since they're he claims withholding food aid to the north.

Does he have a point?
Should the United States and South Korea be responsible for feeding the North Korean people?

Anyone who wants to get an idea of what life inside North Korea is like I would strongly recommend watching the 2001 Peter Tetteroo and Raymond Feddema documentary 'Welcome to North Korea' which shows what life is like in the 1984 type Orwellian dystopia that is the DPRK.

It's the legacy of Kim il Sung who turned the northern part of the Korean peninsula into a personality cult surrounding him as the Great Leader. He implemented the Juche Idea, Juche meaning "spirit of self-reliance" and even made a Juche calendar beginning on his own birthday - North Koreans are taught to fear outsiders and are indoctrinated from birth to believe that they are the pure and innocent children of the hermaphrodite father Kim il Sung who protects them from the cruel outside world, this mentality is what gave us the North Korea of today - a pariah famine state.
The Juche Tower which can be seen from nearly every corner of Pyongyang is the only thing that remains illuminated throughout the night when the frequent power outages plunge the city into pitch darkness - which is ironic when you think about it considering the only light in complete darkness is shone on the symbol of the so called success of North Korea's self sufficiency.

Anyone wanting to form a clearer understanding of the propaganda the majority of North Koreans take as literal fact should read The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters by B.R. Myers which examines the propaganda and leaves the reader at a cynical conclusion about the countries future.

It is clear that the vast majority of North Koreans believe the party line and would most likely fight any foreign attempts at an intervention to liberate them from their sadistic leader, who unbeknownst to them have them in a bondage of myths and gross misrepresentations concerning the outside world.
In fact the party line is so well drilled into the average North Korean that during the horrific conditions of the famine that begun in 1995 (just after Kim il Sung's death) and lasted until 1997 and left an estimated million dead in its wake patriotism and the will to fight and die in a war against the Americans actually increased.

So is withholding food aid from North Korea a way to punish the regime and force it to change its policies?
Not really as the regime clearly sees its people as nothing more than their disposable property, so when we the west hold back food aid to them and they die its on our conscious - as the criminal leadership in Pyongyang continues to use its resources for its military and nuclear program in which to threaten South Korea and the United States with continuing its defiance of the International Community it long ago alienated itself from.

Clearly the moral thing in retrospect to do is provide enough food aid to steadily keep North Korea from a humanitarian crisis, and what we most definitely should not do is point the finger at South Korea and the United States for the stunted malnourished brainwashed minions that have been made out of the Koreans who live on the northern half of the Korean peninsula.

With the current revolutionary situation in Egypt one can't help but to see a parallel between how the United States is handling this and how it mishandled and was caught with its pants down during the violent overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran.

A mere 10 weeks before the beginning of the 1979 revolution Jimmy Carter in a toasting with the Shah referred to his Iran as 'an island of stability in one of the more troubled parts of the world'

These words rang hollow as mass protests against the Shah begun shortly afterwards - which eventually culminated into a violent Islamic revolution and the installation of the Khoemini Islamic theocracy in place of the Pahlavi dynasty.

On the surface this showed how the Iranian ruling elite back in the Shah's days along with the United States were clearly out of touch with the masses of Iranians who had taken to the streets to protest the Shah, even though it did culminate in an extremist Islamic revolution there was a revolution beforehand that was violently countered by these Islamic extremists, they were Iranians who wanted democracy and didn't want to live in fear of their lives that they could be tortured for speaking out against the Shah by the secret police the SAVAK, who really were replaced in turn by the Basij whom today are the main opposition to Iranian protesters who took to the streets in opposition of the pre-determined fraudulent election in 2009.

Clearly the United States throughout the 1970's hadn't a vested interest in Iran but in the Shah himself whom they along with the British had brought back to power in 1953 during a coup to crush a popular democratic figure Mohammad Mossadeq who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil.

America and Britain then sold him a great deal of military hardware throughout the 1970s, Britain sold him naval frigates and Chieftain main battle tanks while the United States provided the Imperial Iranian Air Force with F-4 Phantom II's, F-5 Freedom Fighters and later Grumman F-14 Tomcats which was one of the most superior jet fighters of its time - and were prepared to sell him a further 160 F-16 Fighting Falcons and 7 AWACS planes clearly setting up Iran to be a powerful military obstacle against Soviet expansion into the Persian Gulf region.

When it was clear the Shah couldn't suppress popular dissent through shooting protesters and when protesters begun giving the majority of the soldiers on the streets of Tehran (who were understandable very hesitant to shoot their fellow citizens) flowers it was clear the Shah's days were over, and any hopes of the US being allied with the new regime were hopelessly crushed when Islamic students stormed the American embassy and held 53 American hostages for 444 days leaving Carter at the will of the hostage-takers which was one of the primary reasons he was defeated in the 1980 election against Ronald Reagan who himself would later start an arms-for-hostages scheme in 1985 to get back American hostages seized by Hezbollah by selling arms to their masters in Tehran.
Within weeks as a result of investing everything in one man over the years America's former ally was forcibly replaced by another man who was hostile to America and in turn turned Iran against the United States, that man Khoemini died and was replaced by another theocrat Khameini who like the Shah of the day is now clearly alienated and out of touch with the masses of Iranians who today want what their predecessors wanted in 1979, and that is a democratic and secular Iran, and if America recognize that fact it might once again get a strong foothold in Iranian politics and Iranian affairs, but this time it will be a meaningful one, not simply a foothold in the affairs of a self appointed dictator and representative of the Iranian people who has a monopoly of fear and violence over his own people to have what he says go!

In a 2009 interview President Obama referred to Egyptian dictator of 29 years Hosni Mubarak as a force for stability in the region after refusing to 'label' him a dictator as such, Mubarak did indeed come to power as a stabilizing force against the chaos and riots that followed the assassination of Anwar Sadet who had along with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin made the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979.

Egypt which had been almost exclusively a Soviet arms customer since the time of Abdul Nasser gradually turned to buying US arms in the 1980's the same time the US begun its Bright Star exercises, which are essentially military training exercises with Egypt and later other nations (following Bright Star 95) in the case of another war breaking out in the Middle East.

Since then Egypt has invested a lot of American weaponry into its armed forces, including a hefty amount of F-16 Falcons (which are currently swooping low over protesters in Tahrir Square) and M1A1 Abrams tanks (which are currently overlooking protesters in Tahrir Square), in a bid to stay in power one wonders how suppressive Mubarak will be against his own people with his US made weapons or the implications of who will fill a power vacuum if he does step down considering the Muslim Brotherhood are amongst one of the more organized single parties who have been opposing Mubarak for some time.

If armed Mubarak loyalists turn against the general Egyptian people will they in turn then turn to the Muslim Brotherhood like the more liberal sects of the masses of Iranian protesters used Khoemini not as a symbol of fighting religious oppression, but a symbol of staunch opposition and resistance to the Shah's oppressive rule.

And if the Muslim Brotherhood do come to power then the question is what will the implications be for Israel and its blockade on the Gaza Strip, will the Egyptian Army still enforce the blockade on its 7km wide border in southern Gaza that borders the Sinai peninsula or will an extremist Islamic regime like the Muslim Brotherhood instead decide to funnel weapons to Hamas to be used against Israel, could this in turn escalate into hostilities with Egypt not seen since the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Although it's a bit early to try and predict what exactly will happen in Egypt it is already clear that all the Obama Administration can do is wait to see how this transpires and see who they can talk to when the fog of uncertainty that hangs over Egypt's near future clears.

As NATO extends its operation over Libya for another 90 days one cannot help but to ponder when the NATO member states will focus on going after Gaddafi, and seize the first chance they get to neither kill him or capture him to prevent further bloodshed being inflicted by his command.

When Colonel Gaddafi failed to adhere to the International Community and openly lied about not killing civilians as he stepped up his assault on Benghazi the United Nations passed Resolution 1970 and 1973 giving coalition member states the authority to enforce a no fly zone over Libya, to protect its citizens who were being killed by indiscriminate strafing attacks by the Libyan Air Force on Gaddafi's orders, on the eve of the implementation of this no fly zone David Cameron stated quote;

"Tonight, British forces are in action over Libya. They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and to support the Libyan people.

We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Gaddafi has meted out against his own people. And far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about, he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality that we can all see.

So what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right."

It has been clear from the beginning of this campaign that Gaddafi is essentially the problem, and since he clearly has no hope of coming out of all of this with control of a stable Libya he should be promptly removed from the scene rather than be left to prolong the conflict, the NATO countries are already engaged with him and his army and are actively backing the rebel forces from eastern Libya (known locally as Free Libya).

His ramblings over fighting to the death is an evident blot on the coalitions current mission, which is protecting the Libyan people from the depraved forces of which Gaddafi is the commander and chief, this should make him a primary target as his capture or death will be a major strategic victory for the coalition and the rebels.

The U.K. has deployed a handful of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in support of rebels, they however have come too late to be of any use to these rebel fighters in their prolonged and bloody struggle against Gaddafi's loyalists forces for control over the port city of Misrata, they have proven that while they may be no Northern Alliance they are determined to fight and bleed in a bid to bring an end to Gaddafi's 42 year reign.

A Special Forces incursion similar to the one that took out Bin Laden could be employed to neither capture him or kill him, if the coalition achieved neither it is arguable that his loyalist forces, realizing it really is the end will neither give up or (more likely given these thugs sadistic record) come straight onto the rebels playing field in an unorganized series of sporadic attacks motivated by their fury, and quickly fall apart as a result of having no clear objective and then subsequently dry up in Libya's state transition.

After the United States led military coalition's main operation to expel the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War the oppressed Shia majority in southern Iraq started an uprising against Saddam Hussein's brutal sectarian Baathist rule, it was often stated after this uprising was brutally crushed (with over 100,000 Shia's slaughtered by the Iraqi Army) that they had been started under the impression that the United States military (who had only weeks before been raining bombs on their cities) would aid them in their bloody struggle against Saddam, this statement by then president George H.W. Bush is often said to be the incitement for such an uprising;

"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."

While this author does not believe that this was Bush's intention there is a clear comparison to be seen here, in this case those Iraqis were slaughtered by Republican Guard loyalists who utilized Iraqi helicopters (that weren't prohibited by the coalitions ban on Iraqi aircraft - as they were allowed on the basis of transporting necessities which in turn couldn't be brought by road as a result of the havoc wrecked on the national infrastructure) in rapidly and violently crushing the uprising. In Libya coalition fighter jets are already in the air in support of the Libyan rebels and have already engaged Gaddafi's forces on numerous occasions, to sit it out now and give Gaddafi's forces a chance to re-mobilize substantial means (as the Republican Guard did in similar circumstances) to once again kill civilians would be extremely naive, short sighted and would be a major stigma on the UN and NATO's record.

For those of you that haven't heard the latest rabid media plague surrounding the Raoul Moat shootings I envy your ignorance.

The guy in question shot his ex-girlfriend, her boyfriend, a police officer and then himself after being in a 6 hour standoff with police.

But that was simply the catalyst for an annoying Facebook fan-page that went viral in the mainstream media.

It's not the Facebook pages themselves with names such as 'RIP Raoul Moat You Legend' that call him a "loving father and canny lad" after he killed himself in the middle of a showdown with the police but the fallout from the government and the media that has really gone up my nose!

You see Northumberland is a part of England made up of mostly unemployed white working class people, they hate the government and their society and (especially) the police, so when they see some guy shoot himself in the head while taking on the police for six hours they feel its a way of hitting back at the system, so rather by impulse and having nothing better to do they hit the 'like' button on the Facebook page dedicated to a gunman who shot his girlfriend, since "he was still a human being!"

However David Cameron doesn't like that, and he made that point crystal clear, he didn't like it, so neither should you!

That's where this whole thing exploded in a typical media shit storm, apparently being stuck up in his clouds of self righteousness Cameron decided he didn't like the fact that a mere 8,000 people joined this group by word of mouth, so by condemning them not only did the media pick up on it (and as in a democracy) report to us on every last detail Cameron in his infinite wisdom and understanding of the internet coupled with free speech decided he wanted the page closed down, it was closed down and Facebook subsequently issued a statement ensuring us that Cameron had nothing to do with it, and what would he have to do with it if the pages creator closed it because it had attracted so much unwanted attention? *

Now unemployed white working class people (probably from around Northumberland) have found there are ways to piss off the society and authority they deprive so much, and knowing the internet they've already gotten a good head-start in making and sharing fan/tribute pages that will spread like an ugly rash.

Bravo Cameron, well played!

* Apart from the fact Facebook had to ensure us that they hadn't given in to the demands made by Cameron!

It's been a week since the Israeli Navy raided the Free Gaza flotilla and murdered at least nine activists;
During past week following this event one thing that stood out for me was Netanyahu's 'love boat' speech:

I think he missed his calling on the way he worded it.

If he had said something along the lines of it was a 'boat of gay peace loving activists' then the Pope would have been sure to condemn the entire flotilla and would encourage all closed minded 'good Christians' to do likewise since they all know God hates his gay children!

And we all know the Pope prefers to attack people for being who they are rather than face up to the fact that the inhabitants of the 'Holy Land' (particularly of the famous 'holy' cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem) face terror and oppression on a daily basis.

But then again that's something Jesus would probably do!

"We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.

If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
  --- Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking has done a good job with making his listeners feel inadequate, 200 years following the virtual genocide of the primitive Native Americans our baseball cap wearing automatic weapon wielding civilization can only ponder what the will of such an advanced alien race would be when dealing with us!