This is the synopsis from Amazon on The Art of War by Sun Tzu:
Twenty-Five Hundred years ago, Sun Tzu wrote this classic book of military strategy based on Chinese warfare and military thought. Since that time, all levels of military have used the teaching on Sun Tzu to warfare and cilivzation have adapted these teachings for use in politics, business and everyday life. The Art of War is a book which should be used to gain advantage of opponents in the boardroom and battlefield alike.

It's 68 pages. You'd think it'd be bigger.

Is it just Mr. Tzu saying, "Have bigger weapons", "Have weapons that travel further so you don't have to be so close to the bad guys", and "Hell, if none of that works, dip the pages of this book in lemon juice, charge up to your enemies and jab the book in their eyes"?

The Sun newspaper recently showed the story of a 13 year old CHILD fathering a child with his 16 year old girlfriend. Now, aside from the obvious horribleness of this - I mean, the child (the one just born) will be 16, and the dad won't even be 30!

This is an awful state of affairs. Yet, I feel somehow warm and fuzzy because it's a child that's not a muslim. Given the alarming rate at which the cattle, I mean, muslim women in this country are giving birth far outstripping the rate of indigenous people, more non-muslim babies is a good thing.

However... isn't it against the law to have sex under 16? Shouldn't both of these children be carted off to court now? Will that happen? No.

Dutch MP refused entry to Britain
From BBC News:
A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK. Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords. But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office. He told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy. The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK.

'Free speech'
Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year. After being questioned at Heathrow, the MP said he had been to the House of Lords two weeks ago and there had been "no problem". He added: "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London." Mr Wilders added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back." He said the government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown was the "biggest coward in Europe".

Mr Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "fully supports the decision" taken by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Mr Wilders was invited to the House of Lords for a screening of Fitna by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson. The peer said it was a "matter of free speech", telling the BBC: "We are going to show it anyway because we think MPs and peers should see this film."

'No purpose'
He added: "The film isn't offensive unless you are a violent Islamist. Most of my Muslim friends think it's a very good film." Fitna's opening scenes show a copy of the Koran followed by footage of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. The Lords screening went ahead as planned, despite Mr Wilder's non-attendance. BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said about 30 people had been at the screening and had given a round of applause, while calling for a debate on the issues raised. The Dutch prime minister has said the film serves "no purpose other than to offend".

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC's Hardtalk: "The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do." He added that the film contained "extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country". Mr Miliband also said: "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.

'No respect'
"The government opposes extremism in all forms," it said in a statement, adding that it had tightened up rules on excluding those engaging in "unacceptable behaviour" in October. The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views. Earlier this year, a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to put the MP on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination by making anti-Islamic statements.

(UNELECTED) Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who expressed his concerns to the parliamentary authorities about Mr Wilders' visit (BY THREATENING TO ORGANISE TEN THOUSAND MUSLIMS TO PROTEST AT PARLIAMENT), told the BBC: "This man doesn't have any respect for law (AND THREATENING VIOLENCE IS LAWFUL?!). He's doing this for publicity and he's seeking that and getting that." He added: "If this man was allowed into this country it would certainly cause problems within communities around Britain." (YOU MEAN, MUSLIMS.)

The Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Wilders was "an open and relentless preacher of hate". (UNLIKE MOST MUSLIM IMAMS WHO PREACH NOTHING BUT LOVE AND TOLERANCE...)

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group."
---

So, Geert Wilders is definitely refused entry to the UK because MUSLIMS would have been violent in the streets. How is this Mr. Wilders' fault? If muslims can't control themselves, who should really be banned from this country?

Didn't Wacky Jacqui Smith specifically allow a preacher of hatred into this country just last year? How does she balance that up? Let the hate-spewing muslim in, and ban the guy who's trying to warn us of the dangers of this kind of extremism? Double standards, Wacky, double standards! You f**king moron.

Melanie Phillips puts the point more succinctly than I ever could, in this article.

Oh, by the way, 'Lord' Ahmed is about to go on trial for dangerous driving that led to the death of a motorist. Here's the article. Yes, this is exactly the sort of person we want in the House of Lords. Yes, definitely...

Galapagos damage 'must be curbed'
From BBC News:
Famed for their unique biological treasures, the Galapagos Islands face irreversible damage unless tourism is curbed, according to conservationists. On the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, the director of the Darwin Foundation says there is only a decade to avoid an ecological disaster.

In a BBC interview, Gabriel Lopez calls for limits on the level of visitors. Last year, the number of tourists reached a record of 173,000, a four-fold increase over the past 20 years. "The Galapagos is still the best preserved archipelago in the world. But what's at stake if current trends continue is that the Galapagos will be lost. Yes the Galapagos will still be there but the richness will be lost."

The rising numbers have led to a boom in the construction of hotels and a surge in imports from mainland Ecuador. And the result is a sharp spike in the number of alien species arriving in this fragile ecosystem: 112 were recorded in 1900 but by 2007 the total had leaped to 1,321. At the harbour in the main town of Puerto Ayora, I watched dock workers transfer crates and sacks of rice and maize from cargo ships on to barges for the journey ashore.

The airport on Baltra island, which serves the archipelago, sometimes handles half a dozen flights every day - the number has doubled in the last eight years. The aircraft cabins are sprayed before landing but evidently some insects are getting through. One of the most aggressive is the fire ant - tiny but with a powerful sting - an example in its own right of the evolutionary principle of survival of the vicious.

In a field outside the village of Bellavista, insect specialist Henri Herrera scraped away leaf litter to reveal a seething mass of the tiny red creatures. "They're getting everywhere - it's a disaster. It could even mean that for some species the ants stop evolution." Fire ants are known to attack baby birds and young tortoises and their march from one island to another seems inexorable.

Other threats include a parasitic fly which attacks young finches and mosquitoes - which could serve as a vector for diseases which are known to exist on the mainland but have not yet arrived here. The government of Ecuador has drawn up an action plan to curb this menace. Criticised by the UN agency UNESCO - which in 2007 listed the Galapagos as a world heritage site in danger - the authorities are now introducing tougher measures.

The director of the Galapagos National Park, Edgar Munoz, accepts that invasive species pose the most serious risk to the islands but says the government's actions will tackle the threat. "What we're hoping to accomplish is fifty more years in which any problems will be diminished."

Earlier conservation efforts - to cull several islands of feral goats which eat the plants giant tortoises depend on - have proved successful but some experts warn that eliminating particular insects will be far harder. For Ecuador, a developing country, the Galapagos provides a major source of revenue. But a balance will need to found if the islands are to preserve what makes them so special.
---

If you only do one thing today, make the decision to not visit the Galapagos Islands. They need to be preserved. As much as I agree with, understand and accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and as much as I would dearly love to visit this important site, it is far more important that it is preserved than I get the satisfaction of visiting. I would ask you all to do the same. Thank you.

Yes, Islam, not any other religion...
From BBC News:
The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims. The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints. Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition. The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.

In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him." Mr Kumar and Mr Sinha appeared in court on Wednesday and were granted bail.

Apology
Angry Muslims have been demonstrating in front of the offices of the Statesman since its republication of the article. Police have broken up the demonstrations using baton charges several times this week. Some Muslims close to the Jamiat-e-Ulema e Hind (The Organisation of Indian Scholars, a leading Islamic group in India) later filed a complaint with police alleging that the publication had "outraged their religious feelings", which is an offence under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr Kumar has said he has already issued a public apology for reproducing the article. "I admit it was an editorial misjudgement but it was never intentional," Mr Kumar told the BBC in an interview.
---

Yes, muslims are being offended left, right and centre at the moment, aren't they? Rather than deal with the root cause of everyone's views on islam, they prefer to protest in the streets, getting violent, issuing death threats etc. Religion of PEACE? Show me the money!

Where are the Christians or Jews protesting about the daily TV programmes in islamic countries that describe them as pigs, dogs, apes etc.? Nowhere. But the moment you 'offend' a muslim's religious beliefs, you get issued with a death threat!

Where are the Christian nations protesting at the UN and calling for defamation of religions (OTHER THAN ISLAM) to be considered illegal? Currently, the 57 members that make up the Organisaiton of Islamic Conference (OIC) have managed to get a non-binding resolution that makes telling the truth about islam illegal. Luckily this is non-binding, but for how long? Where is the Organisaiton of Jewish Conference, or the Organisaiton of Jainism Conference? Nowhere, because they don't care if you offend their beliefs. They aren't as idiotic as the muslims when it comes to telling the truth about their cult. Did I say cult? I meant religion.

Johann Hari was right is asking why he must respect these oppressive religions. If I have to respect an ideology that demands death to everyone who doesn't follow it, then I should also have to respect the beliefs of the KKK and the Nazis, and you won't find me doing that any time soon.

Religion should be private, and no one should be restricted by law from pointing out the obvious idiocy of religions and their followers.

I'm seriously thinking of giving up writing apps for the iPhone.

I spend many hours every week updating the games I've already released, and writing new games, but I don't see much of an income from it. There are definitely problems with the App Store; problems that Apple don't seem to want to fix. For instance, when you submit an app to Apple it takes a few days or weeks for them to review it. When they decide it's okay to release it goes live on the App Store but its release date is the date you submitted it to Apple. That means that your app is not shown in the right place on the listings when sorted by release date (that's the default). Your app may be live but no one trawls through more than a few pages of the listings, so you miss out on sales.

Secondly, promo codes - which developers can give away to people giving them a free copy of their app - are only available to US iTunes Store users. I have given away about 90 promo codes for my game, Linx, and I've had about 50 reviews from those people (thanks!), but those reviews are ONLY seen in the US iTunes Store. When someone browses the UK store they see my game with zero reviews. It's the same game in the US store as it is in the UK store, so why can't people see the reviews for the SAME APP in all stores?

I have spent a not-too-small sum of money on advertising my games, and this doesn't seem to translate to sales of the games. Review sites happily tell people that if you send them a promo code they'll review your app, but they never get around to it. I have sent promo codes to more than ten review sites, and only two of them have reviewed Linx - this is in two months.

Finally, the App Store is suffering from a phenomenon known as 'the $0.99 app problem'. People don't seem to want to pay more than a dollar for an app. In fact, people seem to want to get everything for nothing. Developers can't price their apps higher than $0.99 because users skip over them. But if a developer prices their app at $0.99 they can't then ever put the app on sale because there's no price lower than $0.99 other than free, and how does that get you any sales?

I can afford to pay the $99 annual fee, but that's not the only cost to keep my apps on the App Store. This year alone, I have spent more than a hundred hours updating my apps. I have made very little in new sales (well below £100). This is a pathetic return. Look at the reviews on Linx - they are all 4 or 5 stars! Where are the sales?

My apps have never been in the "NEW" section on the front page of the App Store, but it currently contains a number of apps released more than a month ago. If your app isn't on the front page or in the first page or two of each section, it is effectively dead.

And what's with the current influx of pointless fart apps? One is enough. More than one is just plain pointless. Apple need to start rejecting the trash apps and only letting in the good ones.

Until Apple fix these things, a large number of independent developers will fall into the same position as me. Do I continue wasting my time for a maximum of 30p an hour, or do I simply give up and get back to socialising with my friends? Currently, programming for the iPhone is not as good as Apple makes out. An app that plays a sound when you press a button is perhaps the simplest thing you can do, and yet there are hundreds of apps that do exactly this. So what if someone wrote an app in 20 minutes that plays a grenade sound? This is not innovative. This is not good. This is not clever. This is not worth the column inches that review sites and Apple news sites give to it.

Is it time to hang up the coding gloves? It looks increasingly likely that I won't be paying Apple my $99 developer's fee this coming July.

I've kinda been neglecting my duties as the righter of wrongs in this world - at least as far as this blog goes - but there's a good reason for it... I've been writing a new game for the iPhone!

It's called Linx and it's available NOW on the iTunes App Store! You can get it here.

There is also a free version here...

The point of writing this game was to get some money to buy a house. In London, this means I need about £500,000. If you spread the word to everyone you know who's got one of those lovely iPhones or iPod touches, I'll be able to beat the credit crunch and get that house within a few months.

No, seriously, it was an exercise in writing a fun app and expanding my Objective-C skills. I think you'll enjoy it. Please do go and buy a copy of Linx. You've spent more money on far worse things :)

From Metro:
A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a vehicle which was plastered with an advert saying: "There's probably no God." Ron Heather, 62, told his bosses he was horrified at the atheist vehicle, before walking out of his shift. He told the Daily Mail: "I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face. My first reaction was horror. I'd heard about this silly campaign in London but I had no idea it was coming to Southampton."

The First Bus vehicle was one of hundreds put on buses across the UK. The £140,000 atheist advertising campaign features the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The fundraising drive was prompted by a suggestion from comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who received support from the British Humanist Association (BHA) and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins. Ms Sherine had objected to a set of Christian advertisements running on London buses in a piece written for the Guardian's The Comment is Free in June.
---

Two things here:
Firstly, this is not a "silly campaign". Atheists have every right to advertise the FACT that there's probably no god. If Christians can advertise that there is a god, atheists can advertise that there probably isn't. Mr Heather should provide us with proof that his god really, actually exists.

Secondly, if Mr Heather can refuse to drive a bus because of its advertising, can I refuse to drive a bus because it has a Christian advert on it? No, because I'd be reprimanded for religious discrimination. Somehow, people have got it into their heads that being religious is 'correct' and being an atheist is not. I don't believe in your gods because you are taught to believe in them on FAITH ALONE. Faith is belief without proof. Why should I believe in what a 2,000-year-old book says? It's got tons of errors in it. It is outdated, and it would have me stone my wife to death if she committed adultery. Is that really how we want to live our lives? If I tell you to believe that the bogeyman exists, would you do so? Would you cower in fear every time you enter a dark room? No, you wouldn't. So, why is your belief 'more true' than mine?

F**king religious pillocks.

From The Telegraph:
Islam is the fastest-growing religion in Britain: the number of Muslims has grown from 1.6 million to two million since 2000. Moreover, every major public institution has changed its policies to accommodate the demands of Islamic "community leaders". The Government, the Opposition, the police, schools, the Church of England, the BBC and now Channel 4 are all helping Muslims construct a parallel Islamic state.

Early next year, the think tank Civitas will publish a survey of 100 British Muslim schools. Entitled When Worlds Collide, it will argue that some of them are pushing pupils into ghettos. Young women, in particular, are forbidden to pursue career opportunities. "Every year, an incalculable number of Muslim young women are lost to the wider world," says the report. One school website links to al-Qaeda; another directs pupils to a scholar who advocates the murder of Jews.

Until recently, these radical mullahs were blamed for turning disaffected youths into bombers. But, in August, a leaked MI5 report revealed that Islamist terrorists tend not to be obvious religious extremists. The Muslim community usually knows nothing about them.

For years, the Government has offered Muslim leaders self-governance in return for information about "dangerous" elements. But if terrorists cannot be accurately identified, this is a waste of time. Unelected community leaders extend control over Muslims, yet society is no safer.

Self-censorship is crucial to this growing separatism. The BBC's director-general, Mark Thompson, says that Muslims should be treated more sensitively than Christians.

In America, Random House cancelled publication of Sherry Jones's novel The Jewel of Medina, about Mohammed's six-year-old bride Ayisha. But Martin Ryna of Gibson Square in London did agree to publish. Three men were subsequently charged with conspiring to damage his home. Islamic groups have threatened Borders bookshops with violence if they sell the novel.

Although most Muslims do not condone such attacks, many support the proposal that Islam should enjoy privileged status. After the 7/7 terrorist murders, the Home Office commissioned reports from Muslim working parties. Their recommendations included "Muslim teacher accreditation" to ensure special treatment for Muslim children; Muslim oversight of policing methods; and a new verbal etiquette in which Islamist terrorism should be referred to as "criminal" rather than religiously inspired. There were also hints that British Muslims should be allowed an unofficial veto over foreign policy.

In the event, the Government backed away from the more extreme demands. Others have been quietly met. A National Association of Muslim Police was set up in 2007 and is regularly consulted by senior officers.

Government ministers rarely put the words "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence. Conservative front benchers follow the same practice, except when addressing the Conservative Friends of Israel. "I have been told off by three members of the shadow cabinet for using the phrase 'Islamist terrorism' when I have appeared with them," says Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion.

The major development, however, has been the encroachment of Sharia law into public life. Last February, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, declared that British Sharia was "inevitable." In fact, instruments for expanding it already exist. A network of Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (MATs) has been set up with Home Office support. In theory, these bodies are just a form of "alternative dispute resolution". They are "unable to deal with criminal offences", says the MAT website. Yet it also confirms that they can "assist" the police with domestic violence, sometimes "with a view to reconsidering criminal charges".

MATs also deal with wills, where Sharia discriminates against females. The Government is also anxious to attract Muslim investment by regulating British Islamic banking; the only way to do that is to grant legal recognition to Sharia.

According to Murray, "what we are seeing is the state deferring to a seventh-century Arabian tradesman as a source for secular law". He was speaking on Christmas Eve. The next day, Ahmadinejad spoke to the nation. Yesterday it was reported that Baroness Butler-Sloss, one of Britain's most senior legal figures, wants Sharia divorces to be enshrined in law. For the first time in decades, religion is moulding public life in this country; but that religion is not Christianity.
---

Time to stop Muslim immigration to this country. Time to stop the pandering of our lefty-liberal politicians to Muslim 'sensibilities'. Time to stop changing our secular laws to accommodate 7th century idiocy. Time to get rid of the politicians who think all cultures are equal. This is the UK. It is not UKistan.

I'm fed up of seeing how Islam is encroaching on our culture and turning civilisation into a dirty word. Labour need to f*ck off out of government and give the people of this country their country back. No, I'm not a member of the BNP; I'm simply someone who's getting f*cked off with having to pander to the idiotic bonkers notions of certain people. YOUR god has nothing to do with me, so keep it out of the laws of my country.

Ahmadinejad show 'causes offence'
From BBC News:
Allowing Iran's president to deliver Channel 4's Alternative Christmas Message will cause "international offence", the UK government has said. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was shown telling viewers of the British TV channel "the general will of nations" was for a return to "human values".

The decision angered some MPs, who branded him a "dangerous fanatic" with anti-Semitic and anti-gay views. Channel 4 said it had offered viewers an "alternative world view".

The speech, in Farsi with English subtitles, was the channel's 16th alternative message and was shown after a brief introduction to Mr Ahmadinejad contextualising his views. In it, Mr Ahmadinejad congratulated the people of Britain on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. He said that problems in society were rooted in the rejection of the message of the prophets of God, including Jesus. And he criticised the "indifference of some governments and powers" towards the teachings of "the divine prophets".

However, a Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said: "President Ahmadinejad has during his time in office made a series of appalling anti-Semitic statements. "The British media are rightly free to make their own editorial choices, but this invitation will cause offence and bemusement not just at home but amongst friendly countries abroad." Labour MP Louise Ellman, chairwoman of the Labour Jewish Movement, said: "I condemn Channel 4's decision to give an unchallenged platform to a dangerous fanatic who denies the Holocaust, while preparing for another, and claims homosexuality does not exist while his regime hangs gay young men from cranes in the street. "Who will deliver next year's alternative Christmas message? Will it be David Irving or Robert Mugabe?"

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard, a member of the Commons all-party media group, said: "Channel 4 has given a platform to a man who wants to annihilate Israel and continues to persecute Christians at Christmas time. "This raises serious questions about whether Channel 4 should receive an increased public subsidy for their programmes." Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor said: "In Iran, converts to Christianity face the death penalty. "It is perverse that this despot is allowed to speculate on the views of Jesus, while his government leads Christ's followers to the gallows." He said Channel 4's decision to broadcast the message was a "scandal and a national embarrassment" and in "its search for ratings and shock factor, Channel 4 had lost its ethical way".

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell joined the attack, calling the president a "criminal despot, who ranks with Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and the Burmese military junta as one of the world's most bloody tyrants".

'Enormously influential'
But Channel 4 defended its decision to broadcast the message. Head of news and current affairs Dorothy Byrne said: "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. "As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view." A spokesman added: "Channel 4's role is to allow viewers to hear directly from people of world importance with sufficient context to enable them to make up their own minds." He said the channel had not asked for increased public funding, rather an indirect subsidy to overcome a funding shortfall caused by the digital switchover. Channel 4's first alternative message was delivered by gay icon Quentin Crisp in 1993. Others to have given the broadcast include French actress Brigitte Bardot, former X Factor judge Sharon Osbourne and TV chef Jamie Oliver. Last year's message was given by Sergeant Major Andrew Stockton, a British soldier who lost an arm fighting in Afghanistan. Unlike previous years, the president's message was broadcast at night and not at the same time as the Queen's speech.
---

Channel 4 gave a bonkers loony despot a platform to spread a bonkers loony message about how the West has decided to give up on religion. They shouldn't have broadcast this message. He said some trash about the "divine prophets". Right, firstly, there is no evidence they were divine; and secondly, there is no evidence they were prophets, since nothing they have had written down or about them has come true. Thirdly, the 'holy' books they refer to are about as holy as a pork pie, and they contain errors, contradictions and downright stupidity.

This loony freak (who looks like a character out of Planet of the Apes) wants to wipe Israel off the map PURELY because they are Jews and not Muslims, yet he wants us to embrace religion? F-off! He kills Iranian gay men for being gay. He denies the holocaust ever happened. He's a f*cking retard.

Channel 4, if it weren't for shows like The IT Crowd, you would lose me as a viewer. In fact, when this series is over, you probably will. Big Brother is cr*p.

As a parting note, F*CK YOU, AHMADINEJACKET!