Terror update (alert state: dozy)

I’m sort-of-on-holiday this week, hence low postage. Meanwhile, Phil says all one could ever need to say about The Terrorists in a general sense. In a more specific sense, it appears that the terrorists are dead, and that their suicide/murder ratio is fucking rubbish. Which is good to know, and is a nice antidote to the maniacal ‘Muslims will surely top us all’ ranting coming out of certain right-wing quarters before and since 7/7.

Incidentally, the BBC (unlike SBBS) has a duty to be an impartial broadcasting organisation. Its house style is to avoid referring to armed insurgent groups using the loaded ‘terrorist’ word, irrespective of their location; this is its offically stated position, and only one that a crazyloon could claim was mistaken. Why create problems for yourself drawing the line between terrorists and non-terrorists, when words like ‘gunman’ and ‘bomber’ suffice for both groups?

This means that it’s the BBC’s *duty* to refer to the cunts who carried out last week’s attacks as bombers – otherwise it’s guilty of allowing its concern for British lives in particular to distort its editorial values. And people who complain about this are silly.

(there’s another good piece of BBC-ness here)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

63 thoughts on “Terror update (alert state: dozy)

  1. I find it strange too the suggestion that the term ‘bomber’ is less precise than ‘terrorist’. In the context, which is unavoidable, no-one is going to think ‘oh they must be nice bombers’, but it’s possible that one may wonder how these particularly terrorists carried out their terrorising.

  2. Oh be fair. Oliver Kamm points out that there is significant risk in using the word "bombers" that they might have been confused with the heroic Lancaster crews of WW2, who were also out and about last week. We can’t have the BBC contributing to the general impression that the people who put the bombs on the trains are the moral equivalent of the Dam Busters.

    (he didn’t say that! he did! did he? go and check if you don’t believe me! no! i bet you five quid he did. oh my god he did!)

  3. Yes, he did. But, if we follow Norm’s definition of terrorists, then the Dresden bombers and the like are at least ‘terrorists’. They may not be the moral equivalent of the London bombers, but that point highlights just why we should be careful when we use the word terrorist. Especially since the declaration of a ‘War on Terrorism’, which makes terrorism into an ideology to be fought and eliminated rather than a tactic which exists and is used by people of all ideologies.

  4. I did try and post a response over at HP, but was ignored. So either 1. it was a spectacularly stupid point, or 2. it was such a good point there’s no adequate response. I’m not usually a cutter and paster, but:

    The length and inconclusive nature of this thread proves exactly why the BBC shouldn’t be using the word terrorist. It’s clear that Thursday’s events were terrorism. Torture and genocide have precise definitions, but most available definitions (even Norm’s) would struggle with, say, a lethal action by the Indonesian army in Aceh aimed at rooting out ‘rebels’ and intimidating with force the local population. How about a missile fired into a marketplace in Sudan that kills a known ‘terrorist’ but also kills 20 other people, predictably. Or the violent and lethal suppression of a demonstration in Ethiopia? Or the assassination of Mugabe and 10 people that were standing next to him? Imagine the editorial meetings every time something, somewhere happened and they had to describe the event. It’s not the BBC’s job to mediate in these semantic disputes. Better to give us the facts (4 bombs on public transport, many dead) and let us all work out for ourselves that these people are terrorists. We can work out from the context that bombs on trains are qualitatively different from bombs over Germany in WW2.

    Relatedly: When exactly has Kamm heard a suicide bomber described as an ‘activist’, as he claims?

  5. While we’re doing the three minute hate, Oliver has a review of "Death of a Salesman" up that would do Charles Pooter proud. It’s not really up there with Michael Totten’s "My Dinner With Hitchens" post but it’s in the same genre.

  6. It appears that the suicide bombers in question payed and displayed to park their car at Luton Airport on their way to London. I think this is marvellous. There can be no doubt that these guys were proper True Brits. In wonder if they said that they were "terribly sorry" before detonating themselves anf if the last words they heard were "that’s perfectly all right".

  7. Perhaps exploding yourself is a valid alternative to paying the extortionate parking fees levied by British Rail?

  8. Fuck. You deleted my comment just because I didn’t give my poncy Email.

  9. While we’re doing the three minute hate, Oliver has a review of "Death of a Salesman" up that would do Charles Pooter proud.

    It’s a beauty, isn’t it? I particularly like his assertion that ‘Death of a Salesman’, "fails as tragedy [...] because [Willy] lacks the element of choice". Why, it’s almost as if Kamm hasn’t got the first fucking idea what tragedy is, and doesn’t realise that Willy’s lack of free will is why ‘Death’ is classified as tragedy rather than melodrama. But no, surely he’s just playing with us.

  10. "he didn’t say that! he did! did he? go and check if you don’t believe me!"

    I did check and he didn’t say it. I guess you must be sore because kamm writes for the comment page of the Times and you write for the comments box of a blog. No need to send me the five quid. just donate it to the bombing appeals fund.

  11. Kamm: "The noun ‘bomber’ might refer to the murderers of 52 civilians in London, whom all civilised people execrate, or to the airmen who flew missions into Germany in WWII, whose heroism we have celebrated this week… Listeners can pick and choose what interpretations they like; but what is lost is anything resembling journalistic precision".

    George: you’re a tit, and you owe D^2 £5.

  12. England will go the way of Rome because there wont be enough worthy English people around.But fear not my fellow Caucasians because the good news is that the future EU will look like Brazil with White people dominating everything and niggers providing bread and circuses.

  13. Well of course,niggers wont actually be providers of bread and circuses in the sense of origination, but only,you understand,at point of use.I’m glad we are clear on that in case Geldof is lurking around.

  14. John – why haven’t you barred Rebbiker/Streicher’s IP address yet? He’s fucking boring.

    Regarding the suicide bombers who paid for parking tickets, the only similar example I can think of from recorded history would have been the son (Adolf?) of Austrian Social Democrat leader Viktor Adler, who assassinated the prime minister Count von Strügkh in 1916 in a restaurant in Vienna. He sat down at a table, drank two beers, then paid his bill, shot the prime minister three times, and sat down to await the police.

  15. George C,

    No. Kamm is as fuckwitted as John’s blog. He says

    the terms chosen by the BBC are useless, because imprecise; and being imprecise, they will lead to misunderstanding…. I cited that example… to demonstrate that the BBC by design uses language that is imprecise. A term equally applicable to extreme opposites such as those I have cited cannot tell us anything consequential.

    Yes it bloody well can. It can tell us that some people set of bombs on the tube. I’d call that "consequential".

    In this case, is there any danger whatsoever that the use of the word "bomber" will lead to misunderstanding or confusion? No clearly not, as he himself admits.

    So how then is the term "bomber" then "useless" or "imprecise" in this context? Well it does have another meaning: a large aeroplane which drops bombs. Since there’s no danger whatsoever of confusion between these two meanings, in this case there is nothing remotely imprecise or confusing about the chosen terminology, let alone imprecise "by design".
    You owe D^2 5 quid.

  16. George C –
    a) I’m not radically impressed by your need to drag my employers into this – suffice to say, I’m on annual leave this week, am not using their computers at all, and can do what the fuck I like, although will probably delete their name from your posts for Googlage reasons;
    b) I’m interested to know why you think "suicidally", given that 1) I was right 2) nobody on that thread argued against me
    c) I *did* know that. Whatever. Crash your car, we’ll see how brave you are, and then we can talk.

  17. No john, you’re wrong. People with jobs shouldn’t do anything else, ever. In fact nor should people without jobs – they should be busy finding jobs.

    Hobbies are for communists.

  18. George C,

    I don’t know why I’m bothering, but Kamm (i) is a fuckwit, and (ii) claims that the term bomber is "useless", "imprecise", and "cannot tell us anything consequential". If there’s no risk of confusion with the other meaning of the word, then it is clearly neither useless nor imprecise, and can tell us something consequential. So the implication can only be that there is a significant risk of confusion.

    The alternative is not credible: that Kamm is defending his claim that the BBC by design uses language that is imprecise by citing an example where he admits that the BBC does nothing of the kind.

    So you owe D^2 5 quid.

    The fact that Kamm, having been found out, decided not to retract his original allegation but simultaneously to claim it and its exact opposite changes nothing, and only goes to prove point (i) very forcibly.

    Incidentally, to indulge in some Kamm-like word-games, when I said that Kamm is as fuckwitted as John’s blog, what I meant was that Kamm is at least as fuckwitted as John’s blog, and more accurately, is far, far more fuckwitted than John’s only occasionally fuckwitted blog.

  19. Larry: Again Kamm may or may not be a huge fuckwit. He may or may not have "simultaneously claimed it and its exact opposite". (Tho he didn’t.I am no Neocon and no BBC-basher but his argument looks completely consistent to me). But they aren’t relevant to whether he said what dsqaured says he said. He didn’t. so Dsquared owes that fiver.

    If john b did know what he says he knows then he’s especially stupid for writing such a fuckwitted post. He’s also grandstandingly, suicidally stupid for saying that legal terror has no effect on whether a country is a democracy or not.He’s strangley missed out Kamm’s comment on that thread. "I do consider that certain of the comments in this thread – notably "Hitler was elected Chancellor in precisely the same way as Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister" and "’Legally-instituted terror’ has no bearing or relevance to the presence or absence of democracy" – are foolish and disgraceful, and I won’t be responding to them beyond this comment, or at least not with these interlocutors." I.e. he thought you were a fuckwit so wouldn’t answer you.On that point if nothing else he was dead-on.

  20. "I particularly like his assertion that ‘Death of a Salesman’, "fails as tragedy [...] because [Willy] lacks the element of choice". Why, it’s almost as if Kamm hasn’t got the first fucking idea what tragedy is, and doesn’t realise that Willy’s lack of free will is why ‘Death’ is classified as tragedy rather than melodrama."

    Looks like this blog attracts fuckwits as well as being written by one. Look waht I found from a professor of theater: "tragedy depicts men and women who, dissatisfied with the hand destiny has dealt them, challenge the rules of the game. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but always they demonstrate the power of free will to stand against fate or the gods".

  21. George C,

    Kamm was talking about the two meanings of the word "bomber", and went on to conclude that "what is lost is anything resembling journalistic precision".

    If you don’t want to pay up your 5 quid, then you need to explain how this makes any sense whatsoever if he Kamm doesn’t also mean to imply that there’s a significant risk of confusion between the two meanings of the word "bomber".

    You need to answer this: in what conceivable way is it "imprecise" to use a particular word in a context where its intended meaning is entirely clear, and no confusion is possible?

  22. Larry, that’s easy. It’s imprecise because it can apply to both cases, like saying Nelson Mandela and Harold Shipman are "men". You don’t mistake Mandela for psycho, you just think what’s the point of using such imprecise language that it applies to a hero just as much as a killer. In any case dsquared didn’t say "Kamm implies" but "Kamm points out". No he didn’t, so dsqaured pays.

    And john b is a fuckwit whose unlikely to be writing for the Times anytime soon.

  23. And john b is a fuckwit whose unlikely to be writing for the Times anytime soon.

    Yeah! Shut the fuck up, John B – you’re not entitled to an opinion. Who the hell do you think you are, anyway, a blogger or something?

  24. It’s imprecise because it can apply to both cases

    So because a word has 2 meanings, it’s "imprecise" to use it even in a context where the intended meaning is abundantly clear. Yeah right.

    You know how in the dictionary how most words have those little numerical superscripts after them, each corresponding to a possible meaning? Well then I’ll look forward to Kamm campaigning to have most of the English language needlessly scrapped on the utterly spurious grounds of "imprecision".

    And the difference between "pointing [something] out" and "meaning to imply" it, is zero for everyone who isn’t disingenuously trying to wriggle out of paying up on a bet that they’ve just lost.

    Quite itonic isn’t it, that you come over here and call everyone a fuckwit, before getting your arse kicked in an argument, and losing a bet which you’re too mean and stubborn to make good on.

  25. If I were feeling particularly egotistical and defensive at this point, I could also mention the article I wrote for the FT…

  26. Blogsites and all shades of media round the world are ridiculing the BBC’s anal T-word policy. The BBC has already backed way from it since the fuss started.

    john b fils to mention that the BBC deleted all 11 mentions of the T word from its account of Blair’s Commons statement on Monday. And refused to call the slaughter this week of 25 kids in Baghdad terrorism. Support for the BBC’s spinelessness and appeasement underlines what a smug and vapid fuckwit john b really is.

    Also most people go somewhere hot or interesting when on annual leave. john b stays at home and writes nonsense on his PC. Attention-seeking prick.

  27. Oh – and in several of his earlier posts john b describes 7/7 as terrorism. Hypocrisy. The term is perfectly understandable and it is appropriate to what happened. Indeed 7/7 fits exactly the recent and long-overdue UN definition of terrorism.

    But prissy john b gets uptight about people complaining that the BBC can’t call a spade a spade. And even edits the word out of what people like the PM are saying. Prat.

  28. Also most people go somewhere hot

    Okay, somebody’s obviously not actually in London or anywhere near Britain at all. It’s too hot to move, man.

  29. JohninLondon:
    _john b stays at home and writes nonsense on his PC_

    … as opposed to spending Friday night counting missing words on the BBC website? Hmmm.

  30. I counted the number of missing words on Monday evening – looking at the full text on the Guardian website. The BBC had not posted the full text at that time.

    john b is a prat for supporting the anal BBC policy to the use of the word terrorism. All the other media are using it, john b himself uses it.

  31. Lorna

    Normal people book annual leave and go away somewhere – because they can’t be sure what weather they will get in London.

    You suggest I’m not in sticky London or even in Britain. You are a bloody idiot. I live 800 yards from the Thames.

    Stick to the point – john b is a prat for condoning the BBC’s appeasing policy on the T word. He is defending the indefensible. Even the BBC is buckling now. All over the blogosphere and in media left and right – eg LA Times, Dallas Morning News – the BBC is being lampooned.

  32. JiL – first of all, many apologies for having 7 weeks’ holiday to use up this year, and not enough spare cash to spend all of them abroad. London’s rather pleasant this time of year (and I’ve spent a grand total of about three hours this week posting nonsense on my PC).

    Re your main point: I say *in the fucking article you’re commenting on* that SBBS is not an impartial news organisation, whereas the BBC is. I’m happy to call the terrorists evil murdering cunts who thorougly deserve an eternity of horrible torture in the hands of the devil. I wouldn’t particularly trust a news organisation which reported in those terms…

  33. But they are also evil murdering cunts who thorougly deserve an eternity of horrible torture in the hands of the devil. Period. So should the BBC call them evil murdering cunts who thorougly deserve an eternity of horrible torture in the hands of the devil?

    You seem to be under the impression that the BBC is DENYING that they’re terrorists. It isn’t.

  34. The BBC should call them terrorists when everyone else does. It should not excise the word, as it did this [past week from its own previously-filed stories and from Blair’s long statement. And it shoud stop deliberately avoiding the word to describe suicide bombing against civilians – anywhere.

    Helen Boaden at the BBC admitted this week that its policy is like dancing on the head of a pin. In other words – a bloody stupid policy.

    And any one who defends the weaselly policy is an equivocating prat.

  35. johninlondon,

    Europe needs to deal with its romantacized view of the jihadists. When palestinians blow up Israeli civilians they are "freedom fighters", terrorists who blow up Iraqi civilians are "insurgents". No wonder BBC feels like it can get away with what it’s doing.

  36. any one who defends the weaselly policy is an equivocating prat

    Well maybe, but on the other hand anyone who thinks that the BBC policy constitutes "appeasing" the terrorists is a monumental fucking moron.

  37. Stan LS, I don’t think that you meant what you said. You have just said that the BBC cannot be appeasing the terrorists as they do not label them so. Given that you have been attacking the policy of not using the word terrorist, lining up with a monumental fucking moron, I think that your thoughts have become at least a little scrambled.

    You thought you were being clever, as well, didn’t you?

  38. Andrew,

    "Given that you have been attacking the policy of not using the word terrorist…"

    Really? That what I was doing? Quote me?

  39. Larry

    You simply don’t know why Reuters and the BBC adopted the policy. Do some research.

  40. Stan LS:

    "Europe needs to deal with its romantacized view of the jihadists. When palestinians blow up Israeli civilians they are "freedom fighters", terrorists who blow up Iraqi civilians are "insurgents". No wonder BBC feels like it can get away with what it’s doing."

    This paragraph, written in support of comments made by JiL, suggests that the BBC is ‘getting away’ with describing bombers with labels other than ‘terrorist’. Forgive me, I realise, as my comment above demonstrated, that you have some serious problems using the English language in an accurate and coherent manner. Given these terrible communication problems that you appear to suffer from, it is possible that the paragraph I quoted above is not an attack on the BBC policy of not using the word terrorist.

  41. I merely pointed BBC’s consistency. They may do as they please, I really don’t care. You got issues, by the way.

  42. You simply don’t know why Reuters and the BBC adopted the policy.

    Let me guess – is it because they are members of "The Left": a secret brotherhood of evil unprincipled bastards who are in league with Al Qaeda, and who spend their every second plotting the restoration of the global Caliphate?

  43. What issues are these? Please help me, Dr Stan.

    Hmm, to write of ‘getting away with something’ and strongly hinting that this something is morally condemnable, by offering your comments in support of a JiL, who argued that the BBC are appeasing terrorists, is merely pointing out the BBC’s consistency?

  44. andrew,

    You can’t have a civil discussion – that’s your issue.

    Note the first sentence of that post – "Europe needs to deal with its romantacized view of the jihadists". The problem is not with BBC per se, but with how Europe views (or, hopefully, viewed) terrorist acts. Demonstrations in support of Hamas, and Arafat (whose Al Aksa brigades are responsible for quite a number, if not the majority, of suicide bombings in Israel) all have been taken place in Europe for the past 10 years. Kind of gave legitimacy to the acts, no?

  45. I fail to see where I have been uncivil.

    "Monumental fucking moron" was a reference to Larry’s description of JiL, which, given his description of the BBC as being terrorist appeasers, is perfectly accurate.

    "No wonder BBC feels like it can get away with what it’s doing."

    This is specifically about the BBC. ‘Get away’ certainly implies moral condemnation of that which is ‘gotten away’.

    "…not to mention the Chechens.."

    And what is your position on the Chechen conflict? A country that has had its capital city levelled by Russian bombs, totally brutalized by an ideology of ‘Greater Russia’ imperialism. Don’t tell me that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Putin – an ex-KGB butcher and no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values.

  46. Andrew,

    "This is specifically about the BBC. ‘Get away’ certainly implies moral condemnation of that which is ‘gotten away’."

    Ok, let me rephrase myself. No wonder BBC finds it to be acceptable…

    "Don’t tell me that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Putin – an ex-KGB butcher and no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values."

    Right, because it’s that simple. Either I am with Chechens, or I am with Putin, right? Or is it that anyone who’s fighting Putin is automatically a hero? Doesn’t it it tell you something that these Chechen "rebels" are Wahhabi – a form of Islam that is foreign to Chechnya (came there in the early 90’s with the influx of Saudi $)? Basayev is a Wahabbi. Hattab was a wahabbi (and a Jordanian), same goes for Gelayev, Barayev, etc. Can you name a non wahabbi chechen "rebel" warlord? Don’t you see a pattern here?

    Are these "rebels" non butchers? They have beheaded quite a number of civilians, moderate imams, priests, not to mention pow’s. Friends of "human rights" and "civilized values"?? Blowing up trains, taking over and setting bombs in the theater? School in beslan? Hospital in Budyonovsk???

    Who started the 2nd Chechen war, by the way? Any idea?

  47. I didn’t say you had to stand with Chechen warlords, but they are operating in a country shattered by Russian imperialism. Who started the Second Chechen War? Well, if you are referring to the bombings, we should make it clear that there is some dispute over who was responsible for these, and unless you are a fan of the FSB as upstanding moral actors this cannot be dismissed as ‘conspiricy theory’. Furthermore, why should the response to a bombing be the invasion of a nation and the murder of 250,000 people (and 25,000 Russian troops)? What is the purpose of this action? Does it reduce human suffering? No. Does it strengthen the power of a Russian elite? Yes.

    The powerful actors in this tragedy are the Russians, and thus the overwhelming responsibility lies in their hands for what has happened and for the ending of this humanitarian catastrophe.

    The growth of Wahhabism in Chechnya did not happen until after the First Chechen War. Maskhadov was not a Wahhabist, neither was Dudaev. But, as has been the pattern for American imperialsim – undermine Sihanouk, so Cambodia falls into the hands of Pol Pot; repression of Communist opposition to Shah, leading to religious revolution rather than secular; refusal to negotiate with Ho Chi Mihn, forcing a democrat who idolised the founding fathers of the USA towards the Communist bloc, leading to a brutalising war; adopting a ridiculously hostile stance towards the young revolutionary Cuba, pushing the nation towards dictatorship and a seige mentality; and on and on. A pattern of violent rejection of national self-determination brutalising the people and pushing them and/or their leaders towards extremist ideology.

  48. Well, if you are referring to the bombings

    I was not referring to the apartment bombings, but I am familiar with the different theories regarding that incident. What I was referring to is the fact that Basayev has invaded Dagestan in the August of 1999 with the goal of unifying Chechnya and Dagestan into one Islamic Taliban-like (this is according to the "rebels" themselves) state. For some reason that fact is rarely brought up as the cause of the Russian invasion. Invading Dagestan, with the goal of annexation, would be a reason enough for the Russians to attack. After all, Dagestan is a part of Russia.

    Chechens also managed to piss off Dagestanis who were sympathetic to their plight prior.

    Furthermore, why should the response to a bombing be the invasion of a nation and the murder of 250,000 people (and 25,000 Russian troops)?

    I am not here to defend Putin’s policies or commend the Russian army. I am merely commenting on how Europeans romanticize terorrists. Chechen rebels are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." Arafat, Hamas, etc, are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." But are they being vilified in Europe? Nope. They get all the sympathy.

    By the way, that 25,000 number of russian dead is most likely to be higher. Way higher.

    <I>The powerful actors in this tragedy are the Russians, and thus the overwhelming responsibility lies in their hands for what has happened and for the ending of this humanitarian catastrophe.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around. If not for the influx of $ from saudis and other rich oil sheikhs, that war would probably have never taken place. People who blindly support these terrorists share the blame as well, because they legitimize them and their ways. Blowing up airplanes, metros, theaters, holding hostages in hospitals and schools, and your first reaction to my mention of the Chechens is "Don’t tell me that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Putin"…

    Maskhadov and Dudaev were not wahabbi, that much is true. But Maskhadov did stick by Basayev’s side as Basayev tried to annex Dagestan. He stood by his side during the theater campaign, and only after Beslan did most find his renounciation to be sincere.

    By the way, Basayev was named the Commander of the Chechen Armed Forces in 1996 and then prime minister of Chechnya in 1998.

    As for wahhabism in chechnya, here is a interesting article.

    As for the rest… Ok, so US was not crazy about the communists during the Cold War, your point?

  49. My point was that, had the Russians not violently suppressed the Chechens in the First Chechen War, we would more than likely not have seen the rise of Wahhabism, and terrorism, in Chechnya.

    The history of modern imperialism (and we can add the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to that list) presents the lesson that repression of self-determination and the installation of client governments all to often leads the people and their leaders into the hands of extremist ideologies.

    "Arafat, Hamas, etc, are "no friend of democracy, human rights, or civilised values." But are they being vilified in Europe? Nope. They get all the sympathy." This simply is not true. The European view is much more balanced than that. You may see articles and demonstrations supporting these groups and people, but you will also see articles and demonstrations and, more importantly, government policy, opposing these people and organisations. And, as the conflict in Chechnya demonstrates, the last thing that can be afforded is villification, as standing by one side – as our leaders have done – is no solution at all, nor is it a principled or morally defensible position to take.

  50. <I>My point was that, had the Russians not violently suppressed the Chechens in the First Chechen War, we would more than likely not have seen the rise of Wahhabism, and terrorism, in Chechnya.

    Yes, let’s deflect blame from the rebels. Everyone is guilty except for the people who are cutting off heads.

    the installation of client governments all to often leads the people and their leaders into the hands of extremist ideologies

    Well, Taliban was the product of the Pakistani madrasses, if I am not mistaken. Chechnya wouldn’t be involved in these drawn out wars with Russia if not for the financing that came from the outside.

    And, as the conflict in Chechnya demonstrates, the last thing that can be afforded is villification

    We can’t afford to villify those who take over schools, hopsitals, blow up metros, discos, take hostages, chop off heads, etc.??? How can we afford not to?

  51. Side note: I prefer Rebikker to the likes of Stan. At least he’s *universally recognised* as a daft bigoted cunt with nothing worthwhile to say.

  52. Yes, let’s deflect blame from the Russains. Anyone but the people using fuel air bombs on cities.

    Look, what I am arguing is that this policy of villification can lead not nothing but further radicalisation and further death and misery. If we are to villify the rebels, then we must villify the Russians.

    But as the world actually is, we must work harder on changing Russian attitudes to Chechnya. This is because we have diplomatic contact with the Russians and engage in trade with them, so we have avenues of influence that we do not have with the Chechen rebels. This is also because the Russians, whatever they think, hold most of the cards in play. They have the overwhelming power in this conflict.

    Incidentally, while the Taliban may have graduated from Pakistani madrasses, there would be no crippled, shattered, brutalised country for them to seize power in had it not been for a ‘clash of imperialisms’ in Afghanistan.

    Just as when we discuss the rise of the Nazis it is insufficient to simply discuss the writing of Mein Kampf or the psychological states of individual Nazis, so it is insufficient to look at the rise of other extremist ideologies without reference to the [production of the] social and economic wastelands in which they find willing recruits.

  53. Look, what I am arguing is that this policy of villification can lead not nothing but further radicalisation and further death and misery.

    Ah! So by not villifying those who chop of heads, attack schools and hospitals we will be preventing "further radicalisation"?? How much further can they be radicalized, anyway?

    If we are to villify the rebels, then we must villify the Russians.

    No problem. If the shoe fits…

    Just as when we discuss the rise of the Nazis it is insufficient to simply discuss the writing of Mein Kampf or the psychological states of individual Nazis,

    Ah, yes. Nazis.. Europe still hasn’t learned that lesson. Peace in our time?

Comments are closed.