Nick or our (eventual) new contributing author, Mr. Rumcove, really ought to be covering this—they’re both English–but well, they’re not going to, the slackers. Nick is working on his novel and Steven is off regaling himself in York. Since they’r…

And the follow-on point from that is that, just as most Iranian progressives are careful not to offer implicit support to a US attack, so should british-based progressives be aware that there are things they could say that would offer support to an al qaeda attack.

It’s a trap pacifists and the highly moral sometimes fall into: if you falsely say that the UK is some malevolent empire, sole source of all that is bad in the world, the Little but smarter Satan, oppressor of Palestine and Kashmir and Chechnya, then anyone who is persuaded by what you say, with perfectly normal views on the use of violence, will come to think an attack is a good thing. They will passively, or maybe even actively, support it.

Being a pacifist, the person who persuaded them of their position would not support such an attack, and maybe not understand the thinking of those who act that way.

That doesn’t mean stop criticising, it just means be wary of wrong assumptions over who you have influence over, and what they will do if you succeed in influencing them.

In the modern globalised world, you generally can’t make those assumptions, can’t predict who will read and act on what you write.

To me at least, that makes it vital to try and say things that are true, rather than ‘helpful’ according to some simple but wrong model of what people will do when they hear you.

Shiv Malik seems to have changed his tune:

Immediately after 9/11 he wrote:

https://www2.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/09/11599.html?c=on#c11659

“Worlds gone crazy

17.09.2001 03:32
The world has gone crazy. 5000 businessmen and military personnel die and suddenly we are at war. With, whom? In what way? With a prime suspect who no one has any proof of guilt and who himself denies responsibility. More people die each day from starvation or bad water as a result of IMF loans yet were are all the three minute silences for them. Over 1.5 million children have died in Iraq as a direct result of the American imposed embargo. Which CNN viewer knows their suffering, much longer and much more painful?
It is sickening watching countries who poured vitriol on the U.S. in their daily papers for years, suddenly Kowtowing to it’s demands and sending in messages of condolences. It is disgusting watching the press of the supposedly “free and civilised” world printing such obvious propaganda and attempting to rile masses to whatever cause the Whitehouse may choose. Where are those questions like “why did this happen”? Why is the press simply Muslim bashing? Where’s all the reflection that’s supposed to happen at a time like this? Why is no one noticing what’s happening in Palestine?
Someone needs some sense right now. S.M.”

There are more details of this at http://shivmalik.blogspot.com/2005/10/scandal-did-shiv-malik-justify-911.html

Thanks for your reply at 85. Whilst I agree with you that it was British colonial policy to divide and rule, which is what they’d been doing in colonial India, there seems to have been a common view that a Partition was necessary.

Given that the UK was abrogating it’s role in the Indian Sub-continent as a whole, in other words giving up on the whole idea of Empire, I would have thought that avoiding a major civil war as a consequence of that decision probably had quite a lot to do with it.

As it was, the outcomes were pretty horrific. It is all a bit late, sixty years or so, to be discussing this anyway, I think. I would very much doubt that either side would want to put their differences aside and get together again.

A miserable weekend of foul weather and even fouler relatives looms. The only thing that could make it bearable would be one of your witty and elegant open threads.

I am sure Anas didn’t intend that. I am crotchety this evening, and bad tempered.

So you should be. At least no one is accusing you of censorship this time.

I am very tired of being made out to be an idiot on here all the time.

I want to write on this (i.e., the boycott) on my blog, not just because I like scoring points in arguments against people (can’t deny I do enjoy that) but to get the whole boycott thing clear in my own head. That involves having to answer the obvious objections as well as some of the cleverer ones about the practicalities like Chairwoman’s.

I will tell you that most of my African friends, however, always bought Cape fruit when they could, as they thought everything else was rubbish.

I can understand a boycott against Israeli goods better than I can understand a boycott against Israeli academics – although both are discriminatory if you’re not going to follow Arif’s example and just try to eat and purchase ethically generally rather than singling out one regime.

But I have always been against the card vote in any shape or form, quite frankly, it stinks. The majority of union members take no part in the activity of their unions beyond paying their dues and reaping the benefits. Union meetings are usually attended by enthusiasts, and the proverbial two men and a dog, who attend because they enjoy a pint afterwards (the Chairman was a Postal Officer for a miserable year early in our marriage, and also his office’s Union Rep, or Shop Steward as they were then known, and he found the monthly meetings profoundly depressing on account of the lack of member participation), and for organisers to take advantage of this situation to promote their own agenda, no matter what it is, has to ultimately lack integrity.

When I was young and hasty, I often held the opinion that the end justified the means. An older Chairwoman disagrees.

If you want to debate the possibility of actually boycotting any country’s products in this technologically incestuous world, I might join in, but some days I just don’t feel like it

Re: the funniness of BB’s post, I think I misread you as saying that because Hamas were involved with Shalit’s capture they can’t be trusted when it came to AJ. But you were talking about the Army of Islam. Must pay closer attention next time.

I have left a comment on you Troubled Hidiths page don’t know if you have had a chance to look at that but am looking forward to engaging in a debate with you if your up for it.

Also the discussion of this thread is to do with terrorism, so factors that are related to terrorism are obviously going to get mentioned, specifically terrorism in the UK and those issues linked to it also will be the topic of discussion, so this isn’t a case where “he started it” no she started it “he started it” .for ever and ever. Yes I admit the whole thing is starting to become abit stale but it doesn’t help when some people go off on a tangent like muzamdar discussing things that have nothing to do with anything, concentrating too much on the examples rather than refuting or proving the criticism at hand. If there is nothing more to discuss then maybe this thread should be brought to an end

As to the whole partition of India, I couldn’t care less about who gave in to who’s interests, my point was that Britain was the one there dividing and conquering, the only benefactor there was Britain. But this has nothing to do with the thread so I don’t know why we are even discussing this, my earlier comment was a response to Douglas Clark’s question.