Curtis Talks Sense

Adam Curtis is probably second only to Jean Charles de Menezes in the ‘person most grossly libelled and smeared by right-wing idiots following the July 7 bombings’ stakes.

To be fair, both behaved rather objectionably: Mr de Menezes had the gall to try and go to work while looking a bit ethnic, while Mr Curtis had the gall to make a TV programme last year that cast doubt on the fairy story of Osama Bin Laden as sinister cult leader plotting to take over the world. He claimed that Al Qaeda was an ideology that motivates sociopathic misfits to set up DIY cells, rather than a coherent organisation with a unified structure or supply chain.

Not only has Mr Curtis’s thesis become generally accepted among people of all ideologies who know anything at all about the War on Terror and its permutations; not only is it backed up by every development in Iraq and Afghanistan; but it’s even directly supported by the July 7 events (among other things, it explains both why the bombs were so rubbish, and why the police failed to catch anyone ahead of the attacks).

Despite – well, because of – being correct, Mr Curtis was immediately smeared by authoritarian tossers post-July-7 as having claimed Al Qaeda and/or terrorism didn’t exist, and therefore having been proven wrong by those events. This is most bizarre behaviour, confirming my long-held belief that people who support the War On Terror (strong, Bombing The Ay-Rabs variant) are all mad.

Anyway. All this is a rather long introduction to an excellent new piece by Adam Curtis on the new dangers facing us, and the stupid knee-jerk reactions that could make them even worse. Guess who’s likely to implement them…?

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

72 thoughts on “Curtis Talks Sense

  1. Haven’t had a chance to read his piece yet but congratulations for putting the pro-Curtis position so well. However I have to take issue with your opinion on those who support the GWOT. IMO They are not so much mad as plain fucking stupid: arguments don’t stack up, they’re based on misinterpretation of the facts, they rely on flawed, racist analysis – whoever it was described the Tories as the stupid party was guilty of massive understatement.

    A few months ago I vainly tried to take issue with some of the rightwing bloggers who got their collective dress over their head about "Nightmares" following its Cannes screening and TX on Canadian telly. Without exception they all (even the odd few who’d actually seen the series) completely misinterpreted it.

  2. I’d agree, although "Tories" is unfair – there appear to be just as many blinkered idiots on the NuLab side of things…

  3. One of the things I’ve noticed about the rather more unhinged pro-war types, is the fact they consistently want to argue against a warped stereotype of their opponents rather than what their opponents actually say. That’s true in the case of Curtis, as in many other examples.

  4. An example of Tom’s point: "Adam Curtis, who previously gave us the thesis that politicians were falsely exploiting popular fear – falsely in that what we were going to be attacked by wasn’t an organization but an idea …" Norm. Since an idea didn’t leap out and shout "Boo!" or whatever it is ideas do when they attack, and since four men working in concert is an organisation, Norm is clearly correct.

  5. It wasn’t because of the al-Qa’eda stuff that I thought Curtis’s documentary was crap (although the fact of al-Qa’eda not being a single organisation was hardly news), but because of the ludicrous ‘Straussian neocon’ conspiracy theory that he seemed obsessed by. The theory was ludicrous, not only for its crude psychological reductionism and leaps-of-logic, but also because it was rather badly researched, too.

  6. Yes, that Norm quote is a very good example. It’s a dishnonest sumnation of the argument.

    I am not sure if Geras even knows its dishonest, or if such characterisations come naturally to him. I suppose the goldfish bowl of the pro-war blogosphere helps to reinforce such behaviour, especially if your blog has no comment facility, no instant rebuttal.

    I wonder if the little Decent Left blogger community that see Geras as some sort of guru are a kind of substitution for the students and the rarified air of academia? But more maleable.

    It’s shelling peas for him, I suspect.

  7. If you solution, like Geras, Sullivan and others, is simply to kill everyone who disagrees with you, or at least batter them until they accept you are right; then the solution you are seeking is always going to be short on facts and analysis and long on rhetoric and polemic

  8. I’ve never heard a politician describe al-Qaeda the way Curtis pretends they do. That’s why he’s observably talking paranoid twaddle.

  9. "In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion."

    "A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful."

    Both of those from the BBC page.

    You still think this is true?

  10. I’ll help clear this up with a bit of the use of the HTML bold tag:

    In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

    The thesis of TPON was that there is no "organised network" of terrorists. This appears to have been borne out by what we know so far about both sets of July bombers.

  11. Er….hello? Anyone here read the papers? Since 7th July, we’ve had a deluge of stuff in print and online demonising Muslims in a way that Joe McCarthy would be proud of; Tony’s stock has risen in a way noone thought possible for a "lame duck" PM after the election; more repressive legislation shunted through in the name of TWAT (thank you, Jim Bliss); hate crimes up several hundred per cent; a survey showing we’d happily exchange civil liberties in the name of TWAT; oh, and a secret shoot-to-kill policy that only came to light when the police killed the wrong guy, followed by an admission by Sir Ian Blair to the effect that you or I could be next.

    Not forgetting that al-Qaeda’s most troubling long-term manifestation is as a brand for disaffected space cadets worldwide.

    And you still don’t think Blair/Bush and McTerror don’t benefit from each other at our expense?

  12. I don’t think the Straussian NeoCon link is wholly rubbish: Straussian approaches to political theory were a major influence in US academis during that period, and you don’t have to believe that the NeoCons were convinced to do what they do because of Strauss. In my view, its more plausible to hold that a bunch of aspiring evil, power grabbing and elitist bastards had access to a Prof who justified their tendencies (lying, elitism, power-grabbing etc) on grounds of Plato and dubious approaches to textual interpretation*. Of course, I haven’t devoted that much time to a rigorous analysis of the claims Curtis makes, but a certain amount of over-simplification might be forgiven him.

    * Straussian textual interpretation is the most ridiculous and utterly unfounded thing I’ve seen anywhere in ‘academia’ apart from ‘Creation Science’.

  13. Sarah: Straussians and neocons are wholly separate groups, with only somewhat an overlap (Norman Podhoretz went out of his way once to dump on Strauss and all his works). The Shadhia Drury / Anne Norton view of Straussians as cunning conspiracy of atheist elitists is silly. Conspiracy? Straussians fight like cats and dogs, often in print and often to the point of holding very public and long-running grudges. Atheist? Strauss was probably an atheist, but hardly a happy, assertive one; Bloom and his students were closer; but compare Fr Ernest Fortin or Robert Kraynak (Catholics) or Werner Dannhauser or Paul Eidelberg (Orthodox Jews). Elitists? Well, yes, but only insofar as most conservatives are – preferring rule by cleverer people than mediocre people (how unreasonable). George Anastaplo, a favourite of Mr Strauss, was hardly an establishment defender (or treated as such).

    As for the influence of Straussian approaches to political theory during that period (i.e., the fifties, sixties, and seventies): very little. He was massively out of keeping with the time, being vocally opposed to positivist political science (then riding high) and uninterested in analytical philosophy (ditto, cf. Rawls and Nozick). Strauss’s only successes were with his students and a couple of fellow travellers (Kendall, say); he was effective at building that into a school, that’s all.

    (Incidentally, it’s a myth that Strauss justified lying or power-grabbing; he wasn’t that keen on elitism; it’s just that he wasn’t agin’ ’em, either. He pretty much endorsed meritocracy when he spoke to such issues directly.)

  14. The "wholly" is a bit overwrought there – but just because some neocons are Straussians (or v.v.) the two shouldn’t be conflated.

  15. Correct me if I’m wrong here… I’ve never studied Strauss and I’m genuinely asking a question, not making an allegation… Blimpish, would it not be true to suggest that the policies of the "neo-cons"; whilst not being strictly ‘Straussian’; nevertheless evolved from the ideas of Strauss?

  16. I’ve noticed that conservatives always come on a bit like the man in the monty python cheese shop when you start on about Strauss. "Ah, no, you see he wasn’t a conservative/neocon/paleocon"; "Strauss never actually said that"; "TPON was very poorly researched."

    It’s just another rhetorical tactic for avoiding the basic, incontrovertible thrust of Curtis’ argument.

  17. The thesis of TPON was that there is no "organised network" of terrorists. This appears to have been borne out by what we know so far about both sets of July bombers.

    Face it dsquared, you know fuck all about the July Bombers other that what you have chosen to read in the papers.

    But back to your above point.

    There is a reason that Al Qaeda do not have an organised network in the way you would define it, and instead have a loose cell network based on use of the internet etc.

    Can you think what that reason might be?

  18. Jim: no, it wouldn’t. Most of those normally called neocons tended to be liberals who fell out with the Left over (first) the Cold War and (second) the sixties. The only one of the bigname original neocons who immediately springs to mind as a Straussian is Irving Kristol – who, aside from being a part-time Straussian only, came to be one long after he’d been dismissed as a neocon by Michael Harrington.

    HIOP: an example of TPON being very poorly researched – one of the lines it trotted out was that the neoconservatives were a group of Washington intellectuals. Anybody with even a casual knowledge of the neocon scene knows that they were New Yorkers and proud of it.

    And to say that Curtis’s argument is ‘incontrovertible’ is such an obvious rhetorical tactic; unless you’re you believe that Curtis has some kind of divine wisdom of the sort Straussians hope for.

  19. I love it, "what you’ve chosen to read". Do you mind if I imagine you saying "chosen" with a sort of Rik Mayall sneer?

  20. For people interested in the Strauss angle, Anne Norton’s book <I>Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire</I>, published by Yale not so long ago, is very informative, short, and a good read. Norton’s not a Straussian, but she was trained by Straussians, and has been observing them at fairly close quarters for 30+ years. Hers is a much, much better work than Shadia Drury’s pre-9/11 book on Strauss and American conservatism, which (as far as I can tell) is a mediocre sequel to her (much better) book on Strauss himself.

    (Frivolous aside: The most straightforward reason that Straussians have a disproportionate influence in Washington is because they are smart conservatives who find it difficult to get academic jobs in non-Straussian university departments (i.e., almost all of them), so they leave academia and go to work for the foundations, politicians, government departments, and so on, who are happy to employ them. Smart liberals with doctorates don’t face the same problems getting hired, on the other hand, and so end up as sociology and political science professors for the rest of their lives, having not much influence on anything really.)

  21. I think there’s truth in the idea that the were a lot of people in and around the US government who saw 9/11 as an opportunity for pushing forward a set of policiers that had very little to do with the actual threat, but using that threat as a pretext for securing support. What Curtis in particular seems to have overstated is the Straussian thing. Though in that he might have been guilty of taking the Straussians seriously at their own assessment of their role. Or maybe he just read Ravelstein and spooked himself.

  22. Chris B, your parenthetical coda should be attached to everything David Horowitz publishes. DH seems to believe that university teachers –whose contact with students is what? — at the most an hour lecture and tutorial every week in term time — can change a student’s belief from one political pole to the other, despite this never having been observed. "[S]mart conservatives who … leave academia and go to work for the foundations, politicians, government departments, and so on, who are happy to employ them" may explain a lot about the direction New Labour has taken since 1997 when it became able to afford far more advisors.

  23. For me, the Power of Nighmares, was dangerous as it was a conspiracy theory, a one- sided polemic. An elite group (the neocons) taking over the world. Indeed the PoN tried to re- write history in the light of AQ, by going back to the Cold War. For it was the Neocons who were behind Ronald Reagan and his decision to take on and defeat the Soviet Union (the Evil Empire).

    Therefore the PoN will have an audience who want to believe it so badly. Many of the left are convinced that Reagan was a fool and that the Soviet Union was not really that bad and did not really need to be defeated anyway. This is the line of argument that John B and many of the genuine readers of this site probably believe. Reagan was duped into taking on the wrong enemy. Yey.

    The second ready made audience for this film is people who believe that there is a conspiracy of some shadowy elite trying to take over the world. Lefties certainly believe that the world is full of nice people, but it is not so nice (greed, etc,etc), therefore they need somebody to blame. Step forward the shadowy rulers of the world, who are lying and deceiving the common man into doing bad things. Yey.

    Whereas lefties believe in this shadowy elite thing, so do many groups of people. Scapegoating of a minority has probably happened throughout history. And probably the minority most scapegoated are the jews. Wait a minute are the Neocons not jews?

    From another Panorama program (“The War Party”), from the impartial BBC who seem to specialise in Anti – American documentaries:

    “I mean it’s not secret. The majority of Neo-conservatives have been and remain Jewish, that is a fact. “

    Now Curtis did say that he deliberately left out from the PoN the fact that the Neocons are jewish. But then again Curtis left out many details and seemed highly selective in putting forward his “thesis”. But then again it has been made clear in previous BBC documentaries that the Neocons are jewish. Al Jazeera reviewed the PoN and did actually criticise the BBC for ommiting the fact that the Neocons are jewish.

    The PoN of nightmares stands on the Al JAzeera web site amongst other such clasics as:

    “Mossad responsible for Hari assassination”
    “Iraq it was all about oil” (from another BBC documentary)
    “Tsunami caused by US”
    “American foreign policy set by the jewish lobby”

    Now, if I was an angry young muslim, would such a one- sided view of the world inflame me? Islam is the perfect religion, but Islamic countries are not perfect. It must be the jews fault. Yey.

    Curtis does indeed talk sense, if that’s what you want to hear.

    PS: The PoN also admits the awkward fact that AQ did exist as a network of cells, but that two thirds of its leadership (that did not exist) have been killed or captured by the So Called War On Terror

  24. Goofy, I’m afraid if you claim the Power of Nightmares is "a conspiracy theory" in the same sense as the belief that "Iraq was all about oil" then you are simply validating PoN.

    Iraq was all about oil.

  25. Goofy, I do find it remarkable the way people like you and whatserface claim to know what’s going on inside the head of people whose politics and mindset you have absolutely nothing in common with. The key claim of TPON was not "shadowy conspiracy" but mutuality of interest between the conservative elite exemplified by PNAC, and the islamist nationalism inspired by Sayyid Qutb.

    And if you must reduce every issue to "Zionism good, Islam bad – and anyone who disagrees is an anti-Semite", perhaps you’d be better off in the shallow end, ie McCarthy’s Place. Take thingy with you.

  26. I’m clearly not the only person whose arguments you are incapable of addressing without resorting to petty attacks.

    Poor old ‘hell’.

    You can’t bring yourself to mention my name. How sad.

  27. What a load of bollocks. I don’t have the time, OP, to trawl through these threads and list every petty attack you’ve made. Are you denying that you have done so?

  28. I see you are now resorting to foul language, descending to the level of HIOP. Perhaps this is where you belong.

  29. I’m afraid, OP, that I don’t see anything foul about "bollocks". Nor about "fuck" or "shit" or "wank" or any of the other words that I suspect you may have a problem with. I moderate my language based upon the context, and our gracious host on this blog clearly feels the same way about language as I, so I am happy to use whatever words I choose here.

    I’m not "resorting" to anything other than accuracy when I describe your previous statement as "a load of bollocks" (I cast a quick glance back at the comments on the "Why I’m not right-wing" thread and discovered plenty of your "petty attacks".

    You clearly think that people should limit their vocabulary to accommodate your personal views on language. I don’t. If you do have a problem with the language used here, then I suggest you don’t read it. If, on the other hand, you can deal with the language used, then I suggest you don’t waste everyone’s time by pretending you can’t.

    You see the use of the word "bollocks" as a descent to a lower level. I see the faux-prudishness of attacking someone’s language rather than their ideas in the same way.

  30. I can certainly ‘deal with it’, but I just question its validity as a tool of argument.

    And I find the ‘c’ word offensive when applied to a woman, just as both of us would find the word ‘Paki’ offensive, or ‘nigger’.

    Multiculturalism trumps sexism, however, rendering one acceptable and the other not.

  31. OP, what are you talking about? I wasn’t using "bollocks" as "a tool of argument". Had I described your statement as a "load of rubbish" would the meaning have been any different? Would I be employing the word "rubbish" as "a tool of argument"? The argument is in the meaning, OP, not in the words used to convey it. I assumed the meaning was clear.

    Incidentally I find neither "nigger" nor "paki" to be offensive in and of themselves. It’s all about context. I often find myself using the word "nigger" when singing along to Tricky or Wu Tang Clan tracks, for instance, yet I’m clearly not being offensive. "Paki" is the same (though I don’t, I concede, know any songs that use it the way Tricky might use "nigger").

    As for your final point; I have already described islam as a profoundly destructive cultural force (I also believe the same about christianity and judaism of course, but they’re not under discussion). So when did I ever even imply that sexism is acceptable under the guise of multiculturalism?

    [Aside: the ‘c’ word as you so cutely put it… you feel comfortable spelling out ‘nigger’; which you agree you find offensive; but have to asterisk out, or allude obliquely to ‘cunt’ which you only find offensive "when applied to a woman". What’s with that? As it happens I’m a big fan of the word ‘cunt’ (though as mentioned, I don’t use it as an insult). We have very few casual words for ‘vagina’ despite having an abundance for ‘penis’. And ‘cunt’ is one of the oldest and most noble of the words we do have. It derives, originally, from ‘coney’ – meaning rabbit – and evolved through ‘cunny’ into ‘cunt’. The consensus seems to be that ‘coney’ was first used as slang because rabbits are "soft, furry and nice to stroke". As I say, a noble word indeed.]

  32. It is fine used in that way, but that is not how the foul mouthed yobs posting here use it.

    It has become acceptable as a term of abuse, which in the old days of feminism it would not have been, amongst the politically correct. This is because feminism has been downgraded as a political force and subordinated to anti-Western politics, including multi-culturalism with the latter’s promotion of the primitive and excusing of sexist attitudes from non-Western cultures.

  33. I use the word cunt to apply to both men and women. I find it particularly apt when the burblings of the person in question resemble, not so much a coherent argument, as the flatulent yawns emanating from a prolapsed vagina.

    Perhaps I should go to finishing school. Perhaps I should walk around with a book on my head. Perhaps I should mind my Ps and Qs so as to keep on the right side of rightwing women who couldn’t give a flying fuck about their ‘sisters’ but hijack feminist ideas as some sort of figleaf for their own class-based interests and half-baked views.

    How about cocksucker? Cretin? Troll? McCarthyite? Racist? Bigot?

    Nah. Cunt’s so much better. It really yanks their chain.

  34. HIOP you are tedious and humourless, which in my book is far worse than being a cunt and a cocksucker.

  35. HIOP you are tedious and humourless, which in my book is far worse than being a cunt and a cocksucker.

    This would be the new book that you’ve only just opened, presumably, as it doesn’t exactly square with the countless masterclasses in humourless tedium (not to mention monomaniacally obsessive repetition of the same half-dozen points across hundreds of more or less identically-worded posts) that you’ve been hosting round these parts for the last few weeks.

    Either that or you’re admitting that yesterday’s rant about sharia law bringing the City of London to its knees through banning interest was intentionally funny.

  36. Michael – I said no such thing. My objection was to the banning of interest, even if it applied just to Muslims, which is what Jim (ignorance is) Bliss seems to thing. Sharia law, in any form whatsoever, even if it only applies to Muslims, and even if the penalties fall short of the full horror, is completely unacceptable and incompatible with our civilisation. In Britain, 60% of Muslims, according to a Guardian poll, want it in the UK, albeit not with full penalties. Therefore, exptrapolating, 1.2 million ‘British’ citizens want, instead of British law a barbaric, backward, misogynist form of law that has no place here.

    No such problems arise with Hindus, Jews, Sikhs or any other minority. This is why Islam is uniquely subversive and disruptive and does not belong here.

  37. …and in choosing to respond exclusively to my second point, you’ve managed to illustrate my first to perfection.

    And I notice you’ve also gone out of your way to insulted both Jim ("ignorance is") Bliss and Lorna ("you silly idiot") in your last two posts despite professing to deplore "petty attacks" in this very thread.

    Still, a sublime lack of self-awareness is one of the key characteristics of monomaniacal obsessives, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.

  38. As well as describing Lorna as a silly idiot, which she is, I also answered here point logically. However, her brain cannot process logical argument, so no doubt she will come up with the same old fatuous nonsense again.

    And I notice that you, also, have failed to address my point about sharia law and the fact that most British Muslims want a system that is incompatible with ours. In fact nobody on this blog has addressed ths.

  39. And I notice that you, also, have failed to address my point about sharia law.

    That’s because, contrary to your sweeping "nobody on this blog" claim, Jim Bliss did a more than adequate job on that score yesterday.

    Since you clearly didn’t take any of his points on board, dare I suggest that it might be more profitable to re-read and pay more attention to that discussion instead of starting yet another damn near identical one in a different thread?

  40. In fact I more than addressed Jim’s points. The reason for my apparent repetitiveness is that people posting here are incapable of hoisting in a simple argument first time round.

    Jim argued that Sharia would be introduced in the UK for Muslims only. I argued that it was by no means certain that that was what 1.2 million UK muslims want, when they say they want sharia, and in any case it was equally repellent to have this backward law applying to any British citizens, which Muslims are, quite apart from the problems of two different legal systems in the same country.

    Jim at least seems to understand this argument. Neither you nor Lorna have the necessary intellectual capacity to do so.

  41. Old joke, old joke, old joke, not funny, not funny, not funny, never was, never was, never was.

  42. …Islam, Islam, Sharia, the reason for my apparent repetitiveness is that people posting here are incapable of getting a simple joke first time round, Islam, Islam, women’s rights, Islam,…

  43. I’ll help you out here OR – this thread’s getting long, lotsa comments, at least I’m not boring bla bla bla.

    At least I’m orgininal enough to repeat my own stuff, not someone else’s.

    Hee hee hee, lotsa comments.

  44. …Islam, Islam, necessary intellectual capacity, Islam, Islam, moron, Islam, hee hee hee, Islam, Islam, this thread’s getting long, lotsa comments, at least I’m not boring, Islam, Islam, thanks OP, Islam,…

  45. Neither you nor Lorna have the necessary intellectual capacity to do so.

    Ho hum – if in doubt, simply dredge up the old "lacks the necessary intellectual capacity" rejoinder: that’ll slay them in the aisles. Verily, the new Dorothy Parker has descended among us, and us mere mortals are abject in our unworthiness.

    OP, does it not occur to you that being unwilling to engage with your posts because they’re brain-numbingly tedious isn’t quite the same thing as not being able to because they’re so brilliantly argued?

    I might have been inclined to match Jim and Lora’s truly saint-like patience a few years ago, but these days I try to keep it in reserve for my two small children, who at least have genuine immaturity as an excuse for their incessant high-volume attention-seeking behaviour. What’s yours?

  46. Michael, I’m afraid my patience isn’t nearly as saint-like as I’d like it to be. In fact it ran out completely with the "Jim (ignorance is) Bliss" crack. I don’t find it insulting or offensive let me hasten to say (‘Bliss’ is a pseudonym chosen partly for the ‘ignorance is bliss’ joke). But for OP to get so fucking self-righteous about "petty attacks", and then make that comment… I can actually think of few things more petty than making fun of a person’s name during a debate.

    What a fucking idiot she truly is.

  47. What baffles me is the way certain people think that if they invade someone else’s webspace purely for the purpose of posting shrilly repetitive variations on the same theme, coupled with constant petty insults aimed at both individuals and the site’s entire collective readership, their views should nonetheless still be taken seriously and treated with due courtesy.

    Why on earth should they be? If you can’t show the most basic respect for others – even those you disagree with on a fundamental level – what possible grounds do you have for expecting kid-gloves treatment in return?

  48. by the way, if anyone’s interested in seeing how an archaic, sexist and illiberal code of religious law can, in fact, exist side by side with British common law in a constructive manner, the google terms are "london+borough+barnet+eruv".

  49. That brings back memories – I worked in Hampstead for six years, and it was a rare issue of the Ham & High that didn’t cover the eruv row. In fact, once the whole Hampstead McDonald’s kerfuffle had sorted itself out (the other big local controversy of the late 1980s/early 1990s), that was the story that pretty much dominated the region for years.

    If I remember rightly, the whole community was split down the middle – on the one hand, the eruv offered a neat solution to a very real problem (ultra-Orthodox Jews interpreting a ban on operating machinery on the Sabbath so literally that they wouldn’t even carry keys), but on the other its very existence would create a kind of virtual ghetto of a kind that couldn’t help but have unsavoury associations.

    But the mere fact that this particular saga dragged on for years shows that these things are rarely cut and dried – even if the poll OP cited was replicated in the real world to the extreme extent she’s inferring (i.e. with 60% of British Muslims actively campaigning for a localised form of sharia law), there’s also going to be one hell of a lot of opposition – not just from the 40% who don’t want it but also from a great many non-Muslims.

    Which is why I think it’s highly unlikely to happen even on a highly localised level – and of course it categorically isn’t going to happen to 97% of the UK population under any circumstances whatsoever.

  50. Jim Bliss

    No offence, but I think you validated my theory? That those who believe that "Iraq was all about oil" are the same people who believed the "Power of Bollocks".

    Keep on truckin, but one day you have to grow up. But I do suggest that you delay it as long as possible. …After all I did….


  51. Ps Jim

    No offence, but what is wrong with you, you seem to be following BBC conspiracy theories. Do you not have a remote?

    Or more importantly, a brain to think for yourself?


Comments are closed.