Tuesday, August 29, 2006
DISPIRITING TIMES
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
Labels: Afghanistan, economy, EU, immigration, Israel, Lebanon, media, politics, terrorism, USA
Monday, April 10, 2006
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Somewhat boring but essential point nonetheless:
Somewhat boring but essential point nonetheless:
Fighting terrorism is like being a goalkeeper. You can make a hundred brilliantPaul Wilkinson
saves but the only shot that people remember is the one that gets past
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said. "The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
Well, he’s got the wording right, but then he usually does – it’s the implementation that normally leave to be desired . . .
Labels: defence, economy, global affairs, terrorism, USA
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
“BOMB AL JAZEERAH!”- WHY?
So we see the return of the story about how Bush allegedly wanted to bomb the headquarters of the Al Jazeerah tv channel in Quatar. I don’t know whether or not this is accurate but there is something else I have been wondering about: why would he even consider it? I am just assuming from hearsay that al-J’s reporting of Western military effort is biased against the Coalition. But if that’s what was bugging Bush, he would have been singling out al-J rather unfairly, given that there are plenty of other tv channels that are not noted for their enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. Some of them rather closer to home too.
Ok, so perhaps he really is the kind of war-mongeringly thoughtless nutter that the anti-war likes to make him out to be. Despite being a fully committed pro-American über-hawk I cannot of course rule this out theoretically. Well, I’ll leave that to the theorists then.
Another possibility that also can’t be discounted is that he was joking. Who knows? He might have been discussing the difficulty of getting any kind of good PR, and after mulling over the frustration of al-J specifically, might have jested, “we should just bomb them!”. If that were the case I can also see why no one would want this published because it would appear rather immature to be making jokes like that in the midst of a war crisis. And that’s still an understatement.
But here’s my guess at what could have been the driving factor. Apologies for the fuzzy detail and I don’t have any links at present, but I remember there was a story about al-J paying insurgents to carry out attacks so they had some exciting material. Additionally there were a whole host of allegations about collusion between al-J reporters and insurgents. I don’t know if those stories ever really got substantiated, but it would be quite a serious situation if it were true. Perhaps Bush indeed suggested to Blair that bombing al-J’s HQ might be an option of dealing with the problem. To my knowledge nothing was ever done. So the problem I see for Bush in regards to this memo is that it shows he had evidence of al-J/insurgent cooperation and then did nothing about it. This would be a real damper in regards to his standing with more hawkish types. Remember of course when this supposed discussion took place, frustration and even anger was on the boil about Bush N’ Blair’s refusal to send enough troops in the right fashion to win in Iraq (see archives of timmyhawk and Weekly Standard ad nauseam). Bush and Blair may simply now be trying to avoid coming under even more pressure from within their own camps.
There is one final reason for suppressing the memo. It’s a memo of a confidential, i.e. secret, deliberation between heads of government. If such conversations can in future not take place because of an overbearing fear of unprofessional civil servants leaking anything that tickles their fancy, communication between our governments will become ever more difficult, and in consequence it will become evermore harder to act. Particularly damaging to the Government in times of war.
Well that’s my quid’s worth, we’ll see one day I suppose. We always do in the end.
So we see the return of the story about how Bush allegedly wanted to bomb the headquarters of the Al Jazeerah tv channel in Quatar. I don’t know whether or not this is accurate but there is something else I have been wondering about: why would he even consider it? I am just assuming from hearsay that al-J’s reporting of Western military effort is biased against the Coalition. But if that’s what was bugging Bush, he would have been singling out al-J rather unfairly, given that there are plenty of other tv channels that are not noted for their enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. Some of them rather closer to home too.
Ok, so perhaps he really is the kind of war-mongeringly thoughtless nutter that the anti-war likes to make him out to be. Despite being a fully committed pro-American über-hawk I cannot of course rule this out theoretically. Well, I’ll leave that to the theorists then.
Another possibility that also can’t be discounted is that he was joking. Who knows? He might have been discussing the difficulty of getting any kind of good PR, and after mulling over the frustration of al-J specifically, might have jested, “we should just bomb them!”. If that were the case I can also see why no one would want this published because it would appear rather immature to be making jokes like that in the midst of a war crisis. And that’s still an understatement.
But here’s my guess at what could have been the driving factor. Apologies for the fuzzy detail and I don’t have any links at present, but I remember there was a story about al-J paying insurgents to carry out attacks so they had some exciting material. Additionally there were a whole host of allegations about collusion between al-J reporters and insurgents. I don’t know if those stories ever really got substantiated, but it would be quite a serious situation if it were true. Perhaps Bush indeed suggested to Blair that bombing al-J’s HQ might be an option of dealing with the problem. To my knowledge nothing was ever done. So the problem I see for Bush in regards to this memo is that it shows he had evidence of al-J/insurgent cooperation and then did nothing about it. This would be a real damper in regards to his standing with more hawkish types. Remember of course when this supposed discussion took place, frustration and even anger was on the boil about Bush N’ Blair’s refusal to send enough troops in the right fashion to win in Iraq (see archives of timmyhawk and Weekly Standard ad nauseam). Bush and Blair may simply now be trying to avoid coming under even more pressure from within their own camps.
There is one final reason for suppressing the memo. It’s a memo of a confidential, i.e. secret, deliberation between heads of government. If such conversations can in future not take place because of an overbearing fear of unprofessional civil servants leaking anything that tickles their fancy, communication between our governments will become ever more difficult, and in consequence it will become evermore harder to act. Particularly damaging to the Government in times of war.
Well that’s my quid’s worth, we’ll see one day I suppose. We always do in the end.
Labels: defence, Iraq, media, terrorism, USA
Monday, December 05, 2005
FAIR PORTRAYAL OF MUSLIMS IN BRITISH MEDIA
Well I suppose it had to happen some day. David t at Harry’s Place has the story. Whilst it may be the remaining liberal do-gooder instinct in me that are the main course for my occasional concern over the vilification of Muslims, I think right-wing hawks should bear in mind that this matters a lot. Think about some of the arguments raised against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Very prominent amongst them was the idea that these military actions were going to inflame Muslims to the extent that hordes of terrorists, including within our own country, were to be unleashed on the world. That is nonsence of course. But it’s an argument that has a lot of traction for the simple reason that the only British Muslim voices that are giving space in the msm are those of extremist nutters like Abu Hamza, or the often mealy mouthed apologists from self-declared community representations. The latter may say no to terrorism, but, well, there’s always a but. A but that often implies that the terrorists actions may be sort of wrong, but that their arguments were basically right; just a bit misguided the chaps. If this image of seething Muslim masses that are incapable of operating their own independent critical faculties to reach individual moral decisions, were true (which it isn’t), I can see that the best course of action in fighting terror would indeed be to lie low and hope you don’t get noticed.
But if you agree that the best way to fight terror is by confronting and facing down the enemy, with all means necessary, then it is obviously necessary to counter the myth of the mad and wild Muslim hordes. For if people believe in this myth they will be unwilling to shoulder the burdens of fighting a war that in their minds would unwinnable and best avoided. Of course by not acting against terror cells you actually let them grow as we saw with bin Laden’s gang in the 1990s.
So, by believing the racist mythology that there’s a jihadi lurking behind every Muslim neighbour, you actually increase the chances that it will be so.
Well I suppose it had to happen some day. David t at Harry’s Place has the story. Whilst it may be the remaining liberal do-gooder instinct in me that are the main course for my occasional concern over the vilification of Muslims, I think right-wing hawks should bear in mind that this matters a lot. Think about some of the arguments raised against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Very prominent amongst them was the idea that these military actions were going to inflame Muslims to the extent that hordes of terrorists, including within our own country, were to be unleashed on the world. That is nonsence of course. But it’s an argument that has a lot of traction for the simple reason that the only British Muslim voices that are giving space in the msm are those of extremist nutters like Abu Hamza, or the often mealy mouthed apologists from self-declared community representations. The latter may say no to terrorism, but, well, there’s always a but. A but that often implies that the terrorists actions may be sort of wrong, but that their arguments were basically right; just a bit misguided the chaps. If this image of seething Muslim masses that are incapable of operating their own independent critical faculties to reach individual moral decisions, were true (which it isn’t), I can see that the best course of action in fighting terror would indeed be to lie low and hope you don’t get noticed.
But if you agree that the best way to fight terror is by confronting and facing down the enemy, with all means necessary, then it is obviously necessary to counter the myth of the mad and wild Muslim hordes. For if people believe in this myth they will be unwilling to shoulder the burdens of fighting a war that in their minds would unwinnable and best avoided. Of course by not acting against terror cells you actually let them grow as we saw with bin Laden’s gang in the 1990s.
So, by believing the racist mythology that there’s a jihadi lurking behind every Muslim neighbour, you actually increase the chances that it will be so.
Labels: Islam, media, nation, religion, terrorism
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
NOTES: CHINESE STATE VISIT, AZERI VOTE, "PROFESSIONALS" ON LAW MAKING
So, Red China's head is on a state visit. Whilst I see the necessity of not being actively hostile to countries like Communist China, can someone please tell me why we roll out the red carpet (literally red!) for people like this? I mean business meetings with the Government is ok, but parading down the Mall with the Queen and the Household Division, having London landmarks lit up in red and having gigantic Chinese flag stuck on Horseguards Parade? I find it quite repellent. State visits should only be granted to visitors from moderately acceptable regimes. 'nuff said.
As for those elections in Azerbaijan, there are reports about quite a lot of irregularities and there has been at least verbal censure from the West, though I doubt anything much in practical steps will happen, as I hinted at recently. Katy at blogrel has some good news on the mood she picked up from Azeris about the Karabagh conflict. I think that is also the most practical solution to the conflict. All sides, particularly the outside powers, can keep their strategic goodies, but it would improve the lot of the people actually having to live there on the ground.
In the current imbroglio over the new anti-terror laws I notice one oddity about Blair's stance in regards to how he treats the advice of the "professionals", ie the police and intelligence services. It seems they are the best fount of knowledge when it comes to balancing political goods, in this case security and liberty. At the same time, there is some disgruntlement by Blair about Sir Christopher Meyer's views on Iraq. What this underlines is how, when it came to making the decision about Iraq, Blair was quite happy to ignore the wishes of the "professionals", ie the diplomatic corps and the military, when making a political decision. And quite rightly so, too. Strange though, that now the professionals agree with him, he's quite eager to roll their expertise out. Funny that . . .
So, Red China's head is on a state visit. Whilst I see the necessity of not being actively hostile to countries like Communist China, can someone please tell me why we roll out the red carpet (literally red!) for people like this? I mean business meetings with the Government is ok, but parading down the Mall with the Queen and the Household Division, having London landmarks lit up in red and having gigantic Chinese flag stuck on Horseguards Parade? I find it quite repellent. State visits should only be granted to visitors from moderately acceptable regimes. 'nuff said.
As for those elections in Azerbaijan, there are reports about quite a lot of irregularities and there has been at least verbal censure from the West, though I doubt anything much in practical steps will happen, as I hinted at recently. Katy at blogrel has some good news on the mood she picked up from Azeris about the Karabagh conflict. I think that is also the most practical solution to the conflict. All sides, particularly the outside powers, can keep their strategic goodies, but it would improve the lot of the people actually having to live there on the ground.
In the current imbroglio over the new anti-terror laws I notice one oddity about Blair's stance in regards to how he treats the advice of the "professionals", ie the police and intelligence services. It seems they are the best fount of knowledge when it comes to balancing political goods, in this case security and liberty. At the same time, there is some disgruntlement by Blair about Sir Christopher Meyer's views on Iraq. What this underlines is how, when it came to making the decision about Iraq, Blair was quite happy to ignore the wishes of the "professionals", ie the diplomatic corps and the military, when making a political decision. And quite rightly so, too. Strange though, that now the professionals agree with him, he's quite eager to roll their expertise out. Funny that . . .
Labels: Azerbaijan, China, law & order, terrorism
Sunday, September 11, 2005
9/11 FOUR YEARS ON
To get you started here's a presentation of the events of four years ago. Despite all the arguments about al Quaeda's exact shape or form, I think it helps to understand the threat we face in perhaps more general terms. Brink Lindsey wrote a three-piece for NRO about three years ago which still remains a good read (part 1 here, part 2 here and part 3 here). I'm summarising some of thoughts about the democracy against terrorism debate, which should be finished this evening. Otherwise the only thing that remains to be said is that the struggle continues. Onward to the business I say!
To get you started here's a presentation of the events of four years ago. Despite all the arguments about al Quaeda's exact shape or form, I think it helps to understand the threat we face in perhaps more general terms. Brink Lindsey wrote a three-piece for NRO about three years ago which still remains a good read (part 1 here, part 2 here and part 3 here). I'm summarising some of thoughts about the democracy against terrorism debate, which should be finished this evening. Otherwise the only thing that remains to be said is that the struggle continues. Onward to the business I say!
Friday, July 29, 2005
SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM STROLLING THROUGH LONDON
I’m not very focused on blogging at the moment, what with my real life making quite some demands, but I am at last trying to give this blog a proper focus and have made my by-line a bit more meaningful. Admittedly it’s still rather more aspirational. . .
But to keep this site alive I though I’d post about some things that caught my attention in London today.
Saw some volunteers of Shelter. The motto on their t-shirt is “bad housing wrecks lives”. Won’t disagree with that, but Shelter’s main task is to fight homelessness, rather than bad housing, and it sends out a rather confusing message. Which is a shame because homelessness is a real problem as a look this city around will confirm. “Bad” housing is a rather subjective term in the end.
Took the no11 down Whitehall. There are Union Jacks flying from all the lampposts. I don’t know how recent an addition this is, as I don’t normally travel through there. Does anybody know whether they’re staying up? I hope so. Beyond giving my patriotic heart warm feelings, the flags also introduce some much-needed colour into Whitehall, which would aesthetically be more aptly described as Greyhall.
Saw the new monument that is up, “To the women of World War Two”. Sorry to say this, but I don’t like it. It is too big, too plump and in the wrong place. Leaving aside whether there should be such a monument to begin with. Who does it commemorate after all? People who had the bad luck to be caught up in a war, but who due to being adult and female somehow warrant special attention. Sorry again to say this, but children and old men suffered and served on the home front just as much as the women did, and they won’t be getting a monument, simply because that would not serve any cause of identity politics. Monuments should either be individual, entirely universal or dedicated to those who purposefully put themselves at risk for the greater good.
Which brings me on to the fairly new memorial to fallen police officers. Now this is an entirely different story. After all the police volunteer to serve, and given the risen importance of policing for national security it is also timely that their sacrifices should have a proper representation. Unlike the WW2 women one, this elegant Lord Foster-designed memorial is neatly tucked away in a quite space between Horse Guards and the Mall. This is a memorial I like, even though I should admit that I wouldn’t have suggested it myself.
It is true that there’s quite a lot of armed police out and about, but personally I think it’s good there’s more police on the street. That said that depends where you encounter them. Out in the exurbs where I grew up and most of my family live, I would find the presence of police anywhere, let alone sub-machine gun wielding ones on public transport, distinctly threatening. And in case you’re scared they might gun you down because of confusing you with a Brazilian electrician, err, suicide bomber, London transport are trying to give you tips how to stay alive . . .
After last week’s rather less pleasing offering, the New Statesman is trying to redeem itself this week, with a cool-designed cover “Why Britain is Great”. Mind you, not yet bhaving read the article I wonder if there are going to find rather other things great about this country, than, say, last week’s Spectator did . . .
I’m not very focused on blogging at the moment, what with my real life making quite some demands, but I am at last trying to give this blog a proper focus and have made my by-line a bit more meaningful. Admittedly it’s still rather more aspirational. . .
But to keep this site alive I though I’d post about some things that caught my attention in London today.
Saw some volunteers of Shelter. The motto on their t-shirt is “bad housing wrecks lives”. Won’t disagree with that, but Shelter’s main task is to fight homelessness, rather than bad housing, and it sends out a rather confusing message. Which is a shame because homelessness is a real problem as a look this city around will confirm. “Bad” housing is a rather subjective term in the end.
Took the no11 down Whitehall. There are Union Jacks flying from all the lampposts. I don’t know how recent an addition this is, as I don’t normally travel through there. Does anybody know whether they’re staying up? I hope so. Beyond giving my patriotic heart warm feelings, the flags also introduce some much-needed colour into Whitehall, which would aesthetically be more aptly described as Greyhall.
Saw the new monument that is up, “To the women of World War Two”. Sorry to say this, but I don’t like it. It is too big, too plump and in the wrong place. Leaving aside whether there should be such a monument to begin with. Who does it commemorate after all? People who had the bad luck to be caught up in a war, but who due to being adult and female somehow warrant special attention. Sorry again to say this, but children and old men suffered and served on the home front just as much as the women did, and they won’t be getting a monument, simply because that would not serve any cause of identity politics. Monuments should either be individual, entirely universal or dedicated to those who purposefully put themselves at risk for the greater good.
Which brings me on to the fairly new memorial to fallen police officers. Now this is an entirely different story. After all the police volunteer to serve, and given the risen importance of policing for national security it is also timely that their sacrifices should have a proper representation. Unlike the WW2 women one, this elegant Lord Foster-designed memorial is neatly tucked away in a quite space between Horse Guards and the Mall. This is a memorial I like, even though I should admit that I wouldn’t have suggested it myself.
It is true that there’s quite a lot of armed police out and about, but personally I think it’s good there’s more police on the street. That said that depends where you encounter them. Out in the exurbs where I grew up and most of my family live, I would find the presence of police anywhere, let alone sub-machine gun wielding ones on public transport, distinctly threatening. And in case you’re scared they might gun you down because of confusing you with a Brazilian electrician, err, suicide bomber, London transport are trying to give you tips how to stay alive . . .
After last week’s rather less pleasing offering, the New Statesman is trying to redeem itself this week, with a cool-designed cover “Why Britain is Great”. Mind you, not yet bhaving read the article I wonder if there are going to find rather other things great about this country, than, say, last week’s Spectator did . . .
Labels: economy, nation, politics, society, terrorism
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
WHY WE WERE ATTACKED
So, why would such a grouping decide to carry out attacks in Britain? In summary:
Islamic fundamentalism vs. Islam and the West: there is a civil war within Islam between an extremist minority and the mainstream; a lot of this is about Islam’s relationship to the West; striking at the West is an important function for the extremists to show they mean business, to drive a wedge between Islam and the West and to claim they are the winning side, while feeding the terrorists’ fantasy of a global jihad; as Britain is a Western country, Britain was always a potential target
Ambiguity: terrorists like to exploit ambiguities in a country’s political will, and Britain’s deep divisions over fighting terror and the Iraq war made Britain an attractive target.
Iraq:British forces are preventing an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship coming into place
Afghanistan: British forces removed and are preventing the resurgence of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship
lack of secondary deterrence: Sorry to say something like this when obviously so many people in Madrid feel sympathetic to us Londoners, but the decision of the Zapatero government to withdraw Spanish troops form Iraq overhastily, certainly gave the jihadists a victory and encouraged them that their methods were successful.
G8: as for the timing, publicity basically, all the world’s tv cameras were centred on the UK anyway
Whatever the precise combination of factors, it was unjustifiable.
Full stop.
So, why would such a grouping decide to carry out attacks in Britain? In summary:
Islamic fundamentalism vs. Islam and the West: there is a civil war within Islam between an extremist minority and the mainstream; a lot of this is about Islam’s relationship to the West; striking at the West is an important function for the extremists to show they mean business, to drive a wedge between Islam and the West and to claim they are the winning side, while feeding the terrorists’ fantasy of a global jihad; as Britain is a Western country, Britain was always a potential target
Ambiguity: terrorists like to exploit ambiguities in a country’s political will, and Britain’s deep divisions over fighting terror and the Iraq war made Britain an attractive target.
Iraq:British forces are preventing an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship coming into place
Afghanistan: British forces removed and are preventing the resurgence of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship
lack of secondary deterrence: Sorry to say something like this when obviously so many people in Madrid feel sympathetic to us Londoners, but the decision of the Zapatero government to withdraw Spanish troops form Iraq overhastily, certainly gave the jihadists a victory and encouraged them that their methods were successful.
G8: as for the timing, publicity basically, all the world’s tv cameras were centred on the UK anyway
Whatever the precise combination of factors, it was unjustifiable.
Full stop.
Labels: Iraq, Islam, terrorism
Thursday, July 07, 2005
LONDON ATTACKS - FIRST IMPRESSIONS
Well, there isn't really anything new to say anymore, that I haven't said before, about terrorism. So far, everybody's has been very calm here and there's no sense of panic. The important thing is simply to go on as normal, because the first rule of conterterrorism is not to be scared into changing our ways. Then of course we should find those responsible and destroy them.
Labels: terrorism
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
GITMO WORSE THAN GULAG
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
Labels: Germany, history, politics, terrorism, USA
Monday, January 31, 2005
NEOCONS GOING GREEN
The story has been popping up here and there already, but I think I’d just point to this article to underline the trend of US foreign policy hawks endorsing fuel efficiency. They
The story has been popping up here and there already, but I think I’d just point to this article to underline the trend of US foreign policy hawks endorsing fuel efficiency. They
are going green for geopolitical reasons, not environmental ones. They seek to reduce the flow of American dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies, Saudi Arabia in particular. Petrodollars have made Saudi Arabia too rich a source of terrorist funding and Islamic radicals. Last month, Gaffney told a conference in Washington that America has become dependent on oil that is imported from countries that, "by and large, are hostile to us." This fact, he said, makes reducing oil imports "a national security imperative."
Indeed. On this theme see also this posting from last year.
Update: See also Thomas Friedmann and Irwin Stelzer.
Labels: economy, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, USA
Monday, January 17, 2005
YES, TELEVISION IS RUBBISH
Well, so I went away for a couple of days and “forgot” to take enough work with me, so I had plentiful time to watch the box. It was a fairly sobering experience I can tell you. Here are two samples of what caught my ire:
-Newsnight Review: One of the topic’s was an exhibition of pre-Ottoman Turkish culture. For sure it looked interesting and beautiful and all, but that’s not really the point though. They all just sat around fawning at how great and fanstastic and everything it all was and saying how the “American neocon Christian right” and assorted other baddies should look at this and be ashamed and change course (presumeably because Ossama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein present the continuation of the greatest traditions of Islamic-Turkish civilization; or what?). Anyways, the point I’d have to make about this is that there was a consensus on the whole issue by all the pannelists. I mean what is the point of having a “debate” in which everyone agrees on everything? Ok, so in the age of political correctness I didn’t really expect anyone to say “Yes, the Turks incorporated all the best of the Christian cultures they found in the lands they had newly conquered and then they expelled and exterminated those Christians”; or perhaps more mildly “This show is purely being put on for political reasons to boost Turkey’s drive to enter the European Union by getting it some positive cultural press”.
In sum a pointless programme really.
-Ultimate Force: What on earth was this? Now look, I like a good Army action flick as much as the next guy, but somehow it just got everything wrong: the acting, the politics, the fighting. Actually coming to think of it, that’s a little unfair. All of these aspects were right, but just not quite wholesome yet. It’s like somebody handed in the script and said, “oh, something roughly like this, but I need mor time to finish it”, and the producers said, “Nah, it’ll be fine. Nobody cares to have a good quality British army action series”. Well I would. Disappointing, though like all the above programmes I’ll probably be mindless enough to watch it again at the next opportunity (that being next week).
Well that’s enough moaning for now.
On the plus side . . .
I finally got round to watching the videotaped first part of the BBC2 series on Auschwitz, which I can can so far only recommend; well put together and the dramatisations are sensible instead of their normal habit of distracting from the issue and looking silly at the same time. I’m looking forward to seeing how the series will go from here.
Well, so I went away for a couple of days and “forgot” to take enough work with me, so I had plentiful time to watch the box. It was a fairly sobering experience I can tell you. Here are two samples of what caught my ire:
-Newsnight Review: One of the topic’s was an exhibition of pre-Ottoman Turkish culture. For sure it looked interesting and beautiful and all, but that’s not really the point though. They all just sat around fawning at how great and fanstastic and everything it all was and saying how the “American neocon Christian right” and assorted other baddies should look at this and be ashamed and change course (presumeably because Ossama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein present the continuation of the greatest traditions of Islamic-Turkish civilization; or what?). Anyways, the point I’d have to make about this is that there was a consensus on the whole issue by all the pannelists. I mean what is the point of having a “debate” in which everyone agrees on everything? Ok, so in the age of political correctness I didn’t really expect anyone to say “Yes, the Turks incorporated all the best of the Christian cultures they found in the lands they had newly conquered and then they expelled and exterminated those Christians”; or perhaps more mildly “This show is purely being put on for political reasons to boost Turkey’s drive to enter the European Union by getting it some positive cultural press”.
In sum a pointless programme really.
-Ultimate Force: What on earth was this? Now look, I like a good Army action flick as much as the next guy, but somehow it just got everything wrong: the acting, the politics, the fighting. Actually coming to think of it, that’s a little unfair. All of these aspects were right, but just not quite wholesome yet. It’s like somebody handed in the script and said, “oh, something roughly like this, but I need mor time to finish it”, and the producers said, “Nah, it’ll be fine. Nobody cares to have a good quality British army action series”. Well I would. Disappointing, though like all the above programmes I’ll probably be mindless enough to watch it again at the next opportunity (that being next week).
Well that’s enough moaning for now.
On the plus side . . .
I finally got round to watching the videotaped first part of the BBC2 series on Auschwitz, which I can can so far only recommend; well put together and the dramatisations are sensible instead of their normal habit of distracting from the issue and looking silly at the same time. I’m looking forward to seeing how the series will go from here.
Labels: history, Islam, media, terrorism, Turkey
LEGAL ISSUES AND TERROR ADDENDUM
Carrying on the theme from last week’s posting on the legal status of terror suspect detentions I found this a good point, made by a Michael Chertoff:
Carrying on the theme from last week’s posting on the legal status of terror suspect detentions I found this a good point, made by a Michael Chertoff:
Right now, much of the definition of the rules is being undertaken by the courts, in a more or less ad hoc manner. But we may need to think more systematically and universally about the issue of combatants. Two years into the war on terror, it is time to move beyond case-by-case development. We need to debate a long-term and sustainable architecture for the process of determining when, why, and for how long someone may be detained as an enemy combatant, and what judicial review should be available.
Indeed. But hang on a minute, did I write “makes this point”? Correction, that should have read “made the point”: the article is from December 1, 2003. And where have we got so far in the process of sorting these legal dilemmas? Not much to show.
Indeed following the recent criticisms by Human Rights Watch -whether you think they’re warranted or not- I can only wonder why the Bush and indeed Blair governments are not putting more effort into defending their behaviour. As I have tried to show with last week’s posting, and what Chertoff’s article linked to above shows again, is that there are strong and compelling arguments that can be made to defend Gitmo, Belmarsh etc. As I pointed out as well, I remain to be convinced either way. But why on earth the government isn’t trying to defend its policy properly remains a mystery.
Indeed following the recent criticisms by Human Rights Watch -whether you think they’re warranted or not- I can only wonder why the Bush and indeed Blair governments are not putting more effort into defending their behaviour. As I have tried to show with last week’s posting, and what Chertoff’s article linked to above shows again, is that there are strong and compelling arguments that can be made to defend Gitmo, Belmarsh etc. As I pointed out as well, I remain to be convinced either way. But why on earth the government isn’t trying to defend its policy properly remains a mystery.
Labels: defence, law & order, terrorism
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
GITMO AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE REAL PROBLEM
With the four left over British detainees from the US base in Guantanamo Bay apparently heading back to these isles soon, this is a good time to reflect in the legal and political issues surrounding the detention of these four and of course the hundreds of others being held in various places.
On these questions I found this article by a Ted Lapkin quite interesting. He makes several points about the legality of detention without trial and similar practices in fighting terrorism, showing that these practices are all perfectly withing the bounds of international legal accords. Well, it’s a convincing read. However, I’m no legal expert and I found that articles making the opposite point sounded equally convincing, so I’m keeping an open mind about this for now. (see Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch for the other side of the argument.)
But Lapkin touches on a different problem in his article as well (scroll down to the final paragraph under the heading “Do Human Rights Groups Undermine International Law?”):
With the four left over British detainees from the US base in Guantanamo Bay apparently heading back to these isles soon, this is a good time to reflect in the legal and political issues surrounding the detention of these four and of course the hundreds of others being held in various places.
On these questions I found this article by a Ted Lapkin quite interesting. He makes several points about the legality of detention without trial and similar practices in fighting terrorism, showing that these practices are all perfectly withing the bounds of international legal accords. Well, it’s a convincing read. However, I’m no legal expert and I found that articles making the opposite point sounded equally convincing, so I’m keeping an open mind about this for now. (see Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch for the other side of the argument.)
But Lapkin touches on a different problem in his article as well (scroll down to the final paragraph under the heading “Do Human Rights Groups Undermine International Law?”):
The authors of the 1949 Geneva Conventions were realists who recognized that by attempting to ban everything, they would stop nothing.
Distinction between permissible and impermissible violence is the keystone of international humanitarian law. . . . The practical implementation of the rules depends upon soldiers' ability to discriminate between what is military and what is not. . . .
Anything that obscures the distinction between combatant and noncombatant undermines the entire foundation of international humanitarian law. Any erosion in the ability to differentiate between civilians and soldiers on the battlefield inevitably would automatically place noncombatants at greater risk. . . . Yet, by seeking to ban detention of illegal combatants in facilities like Guantánamo Bay, this is precisely where the recommendations of the human rights industry would lead.
. . .
To blur this distinction and to unnecessarily apply the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants would erode that distinction and constitute not only a legal mistake, but an ethical one as well.
It’s a strong argument and certainly shows the need to find new ways of dealing with terrorists and those suspected as such. We simply can’t stick to the old rule book and to pretend otherwise would be a waste of time. Clearly it is time to start thinking about new ways to deal with these problems. (Here’s one possible suggestion:special terrorism courts).
Labels: defence, law & order, terrorism
Sunday, January 09, 2005
GOOD LUCK PALESTINE
Today the Palestinians are holding leadership elections. Hopefully this will give them a chance to put the negative legacy of the Arafat years behind them.
I want to focus on only one aspect that is very important for an Israeli-Palestinian peace: anti-Israel rejectionism. While it’s understandable under the conditions that many Palestinians harbour animus against Israel, there is no reason why these resentments should be supported and strengthened by politicians, both Palestinian and foreign. This is deeply destructive and makes the route to peace unnecessarily harder than it would be already.
Above all -and this counts mainly for many Western observers- it rests on a non-sense, namely that all would be well in the region if it weren’t for Israel. In the current edition of Foreign Policy this notion is debunked by Josef Joffe:
Today the Palestinians are holding leadership elections. Hopefully this will give them a chance to put the negative legacy of the Arafat years behind them.
I want to focus on only one aspect that is very important for an Israeli-Palestinian peace: anti-Israel rejectionism. While it’s understandable under the conditions that many Palestinians harbour animus against Israel, there is no reason why these resentments should be supported and strengthened by politicians, both Palestinian and foreign. This is deeply destructive and makes the route to peace unnecessarily harder than it would be already.
Above all -and this counts mainly for many Western observers- it rests on a non-sense, namely that all would be well in the region if it weren’t for Israel. In the current edition of Foreign Policy this notion is debunked by Josef Joffe:
It won’t do to lay the democracy and development deficits of the Arab world on the doorstep of the Jewish state. Israel is a pretext, not a cause, and therefore its dispatch will not heal the self-inflicted wounds of the Arab-Islamic world. Nor will the mild version of “statocide,” a binational state, do the trick—not in view of the “civilization of clashes” (to borrow a term from British historian Niall Ferguson) that is the hallmark of Arab political culture. The mortal struggle between Israelis and Palestinians would simply shift from the outside to the inside.
Accepting this is one first step the Palestinians will have to take in building a new politics, a politics that will make co-existence with Israel easier or in fact possible at all.
Of course this is a message that all outsiders must also keep at the forefront of thinking about the problems, in order to have realistic expectations about what can be achieved in a wider geopolitical context by an Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Sadly probably not all too much, as Amir Taheri noted quite recently.)
My hope is however that this will at least give the Palestinians a step forward, they certainly need some peace and have suffered enough in the past years and that will be good in itself.
PS: If your German’s up to scratch there’s an article in the Zeit, the German weekly Joffe edits, on the upcoming Palestinian elections that makes for fairly upbeat reading. I hope the author’s right that this could bring about a turning about for the Palestinians.
Of course this is a message that all outsiders must also keep at the forefront of thinking about the problems, in order to have realistic expectations about what can be achieved in a wider geopolitical context by an Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Sadly probably not all too much, as Amir Taheri noted quite recently.)
My hope is however that this will at least give the Palestinians a step forward, they certainly need some peace and have suffered enough in the past years and that will be good in itself.
PS: If your German’s up to scratch there’s an article in the Zeit, the German weekly Joffe edits, on the upcoming Palestinian elections that makes for fairly upbeat reading. I hope the author’s right that this could bring about a turning about for the Palestinians.
PPS: Just reread above post. Apologies for the muddledness of it, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say myself anymore.
Labels: Islam, Israel, terrorism
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY WITH SYRIA
This report in the Telegraph on Syrian volunteers joining the Iraqi insurgency makes for disheartening reading.
But what struck me, when I reread it this morning, was that to some extent more able siplomacy could have cut back very much on the size of the problem. Here is a representative voice:
This report in the Telegraph on Syrian volunteers joining the Iraqi insurgency makes for disheartening reading.
But what struck me, when I reread it this morning, was that to some extent more able siplomacy could have cut back very much on the size of the problem. Here is a representative voice:
Like many Syrians, he is convinced that his country will be invaded next and that it is only by keeping the US bogged down in Iraq that Syria will be spared.
"All we know is that Syria is the next station in the American plan. The Americans are all Jews and unbelievers," said Abdullah.
Now, leave aside his rather surprising finding that the 97% of Americans who are not Jewish are apparently atheists, he is making a clear point about the Syrian regime’s sense of threat. This should have been avoidable to some extent, by making it clear that there was going to be no push into Damascus after the one into Baghdad. Of course that wouldn’t have eradicated this kind of activity of supporting the insurgency and passive support of the Assad regime, but it would have been substantially less. This would be something to look at: to get Syria to do a Gaddafi. It would help us with our troubles in Iraq, would make an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal easier and would be beneficial to Syria by avoiding potentially damaging confrontations with the West.
Labels: Iraq, Israel, Lybia, Syria, terrorism
Thursday, August 19, 2004
WAR BLOGS AND ISLAMOPHOBIA
Thanks to the national anthem for the link and the link to this post on Islamophobia in pro-war blogland. I'd just recommend reading the whole thing because it's hard to excerpt it. But I think this is something worth having a closer look at:
Thanks to the national anthem for the link and the link to this post on Islamophobia in pro-war blogland. I'd just recommend reading the whole thing because it's hard to excerpt it. But I think this is something worth having a closer look at:
I've long, as a Jew, found a highly useful test for distinguishing legitimate commentary from hate; I take the noun of the statement in question, switch it to "Jew," or the adjective to "Jewish," and see how I think it stands up.
One can also switch out, say, one religious figure for another who did things, in a different religious tradition, we now would call horrible and despicable. Enjoy the game! "If the bastard wasn't a Jew they would have said so." "I'd just be satisfied with covering those Jews with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers."
Feel free to use "Christian, " or "atheist," or "Hindu," or whatever works best for yourself.
The good thing about this method is that we in the West are more used to recognizing and condemning anti-Semitism for sad historical reasons. Anti-Islamic and Anti-Muslim prejudice is however something we haven' t quite got a grip on yet, I feel.
However I would alter this recommendation slightly. When discussing Islam the religion, don't replace it with Judaism. Judaism is a religion closely linked with Jewish ethnicity and thus is not easily comparable with a universal religion like Islam. For me personally, I find it more effective to replace Islam with Christianity, and then imagine that Christianity is a minority religion. On the other hand the Jewish comparison works quite well when you look at bigoted remarks about Muslims as people. Try out some of the examples Gary Farber quotes and I think you'll see what I mean.
Just to be entirely clear, there is nothing wrong with criticising Islam the religion. It is not something for me as I prefer to sweep in front of my own door, but there is no reason to be opposed completely. As for hating Islam, that is slightly different and depends strongly on the context. If, like with Polly Toynbee, that hatred is combined with an equal hatred of all religion I would simply think it's a wrong way to look at religion per se which plays an important role in human existence and can't just be wished away. But if the only religion being subjected to hatred were Islam I would certainly feel that somebody is fishing around in murkier waters.
However I would alter this recommendation slightly. When discussing Islam the religion, don't replace it with Judaism. Judaism is a religion closely linked with Jewish ethnicity and thus is not easily comparable with a universal religion like Islam. For me personally, I find it more effective to replace Islam with Christianity, and then imagine that Christianity is a minority religion. On the other hand the Jewish comparison works quite well when you look at bigoted remarks about Muslims as people. Try out some of the examples Gary Farber quotes and I think you'll see what I mean.
Just to be entirely clear, there is nothing wrong with criticising Islam the religion. It is not something for me as I prefer to sweep in front of my own door, but there is no reason to be opposed completely. As for hating Islam, that is slightly different and depends strongly on the context. If, like with Polly Toynbee, that hatred is combined with an equal hatred of all religion I would simply think it's a wrong way to look at religion per se which plays an important role in human existence and can't just be wished away. But if the only religion being subjected to hatred were Islam I would certainly feel that somebody is fishing around in murkier waters.
And this is where it comes to the question of being bigoted towards Muslims, as opposed to be being bigoted towards Islam. I know, many will think I'm trying to split hair atoms here, but I think there is a difference and that that difference is quite significant too. Hating Islam is at its worst just irritating and I wouldn't use the term Islamophobia to describe such an attitude that I would go talking of Christophobia, Hinduphobia etc. Islamophobia is a term I would use to describe a hatred of people who are Muslim. This hatred is then accompanied by a whole plethora of conspiracy theories and fear mongering. It breeds an image of Muslim people as incorrigibly evil and tries to eliminate their human individuality. If you find something and you're confused whether you think it fits this bill, just replace Muslim with Jew/Jewish and then see what effect it has and try to compare it to the kind of things the Nazis said about Jews. That is what I would understand as Islamophobic. And that is a dangerous bigotry that we must recognize and condemn as the evil it is.
Update: Had to make a highly embarrasing correction (see comments below).
Labels: Islam, nation, terrorism
