Pickled Politics






  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown





  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    Let’s treat the plotters as common criminals


    by Leon on 13th August, 2006 at 10:18 pm    

    Excellent piece by Mathew Parris:

    Some will see this as a good week to bury liberal scruples. Prepare yourself for the distinct possibility of a flight home by the Prime Minister, a recall of Parliament, one of those impassioned rallying speeches at which Tony Blair excels, and for renewed talk that “the rules of the game have changed”. Prepare yourself for a crude conflation of Israeli war aims with the security of the West, and of Hezbollah with al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgency. Prepare for a Reid-fest on the airwaves, and for renewed muttering about arrest without trial, house arrest and shifting the burden of evidence. “Join up the dots,” Mr Blair urged us last week. This weekend, dot-joiners will be on the rampage.

    How sides seem to have been switched since the last century turned. Rebels and mutineers used to insist that there was a war on, and governments used to insist that there wasn’t. Hardliners took the view that people who blew things up were common criminals, to be dealt with case by case. Liberals argued that it was more useful to see them as idealists in a warped and misguided army.

    Now it’s the other way round. Hardliners see a war between opposing forces. Liberals see a more fractured picture, a rebel cast of dangerous but messed-up people, idiots, nutters and psychopaths, some organised, some clever, others out of control: essentially a matter, however grave, for the police.

    Some good points but the overall one about how this should be seen is pertinent and may even be the only way to stop this lunacy. I’ve long thought characterising these acts/people as ‘evil’ is pointless. It confuses the real issue of criminal activity as well as giving its supporters/adherents a greater sense of importance. Further to this it places a heavy political burden on police officers/security services that would rather just get on with their jobs than produce spectacular plot foiling dramatics for the TV cameras…

    The language used to describe a current set of situations (and the actors behind) them is creating a higher sense of drama than is needed to solve this mess. Perhaps it’s time for calmer heads to prevail?



    Print this page and comments   |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: The World, Middle East




    83 Comments below   |  

    1. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 9:51 am  

      Hiya Leon, good points. and yes rachel has a very pertinent point about language. it’s all about the rhetoric.

      one of the really interesting things about being in grad school in the US post 9-11 was the focus on rhetoric at the dept i was at -> we had some interesting seminars on War and Rhetoric and it was really incredible how so many students were ‘frightened’ to be seen at these lectures.

    2. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 10:41 am  

      it was really incredible how so many students were ‘frightened’ to be seen at these lectures

      Seriously?? Why?

    3. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:17 am  

      liberal mode: off

      I completely disagree, I think they should be treated as committed High Treason.

      “That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”

      I’m sure all our hardcore Islamists will see the logic in this. Just like the harsh laws in the Sharia, this a deterrent and would need only be used once. I’m sure that Bikhair, Izzy and Refresh will support me in this view.

      Lets blow the dust of Tyburn and get “medieval on their arses”. Guys Fawks day is a message from history about what we ought do to those that try and overturn our political system.

      liberal mode: on

      Seriously these people aren’t common criminals; they are political terrorists that seek to enact its revenge on the people of this country. To call them common criminals is to be in completely denial of this fact and the danger that they represent.

      TFI

    4. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:23 am  

      post 9-11 ‘can’t be seen to be anti-american’ fears..

      any analysis of the rhetoric of war was seen to be ‘critical’ of your government in ‘times of war’.

      i.e. unpatriotic.

      seriously - you should’ve been there, man - that whole living in the US for that year was like some Orwellian nightmare come true.

    5. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:24 am  

      can’t have High Treason unless your ‘Religion’ is the Nation- State. What makes that any different to the terrorist then? Ha ha.

    6. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:26 am  

      I cannot believe how many Violent Wannabe- Terrorists are around this Forum, seriously i find it very worrying.

      All some people seem to be looking for is a suitable ‘Banner’ to hide their violent thoughts behind.

      Oooh - what if some ‘glorifying’ cause finds them?

    7. Refresh — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:27 am  

      TFI

      “I’m sure that Bikhair, Izzy and Refresh will support me in this view.”

      What view am I supposed to support? Leave me out of it.

    8. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:30 am  

      yeah Guy Fawkes day is serious propaganda. Spot on TFI :-)

      Maybe some of us aren’t as blood-thirsty as you think?

    9. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:34 am  

      See TFI plays into their hands perfectly, calling them political terrorists…they are criminals.

      We need to dampen down the words we use about this because it’s getting in the way of our understanding (if you don’t believe me see all that nonsense about “arc of extremism” etc) and our ability to deal with these problems.

    10. mirax — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:51 am  

      Something to think about:

      When in 2000, a small muslim cult, the Al Maunah, attacked a government armoury, stealing weapons and killing two army officers in the process, the Malaysian government had not the slightest hesitation in charging them with treason and sedition and hanging them pronto.

      TFI is not wrong perse if he wants to align himself with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Malaysia.

      Myself, I’d go for the criminal classification as there’s been too much glorification of these morons already. Mind you , Leon, this being so, the UK muslim ‘representatives’ cannot then carry on about foreign policy and global injustice. That twaddle automatically ends with this classification. Everyone gets this? Good, carry on as you were.

    11. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:54 am  

      Did anyone see Shami Chakrabarti this morning, oppposing racial profiling? I know this is off the topic, but she is a true champion for democratic rights. Nuff respect!

    12. Old Pickler — on 14th August, 2006 at 12:17 pm  

      privy members shall be cut off

      How many privy members did they have in those days?

      I’d give my right prick to be normal.

    13. Refresh — on 14th August, 2006 at 2:08 pm  

      OP - and I thought you’d already been circumcised.

    14. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 2:12 pm  

      faizal, she sure is.

    15. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 2:15 pm  

      I’d give my right prick to be normal.

      I think many would give your right prick for you to be normal.

      Faizal, never saw it but she does tend to make sense and is one of the few daring to raise the issues that she does…

    16. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:28 pm  

      She’s one of only a few activists i know who can really argue her case convincingly against big hitting politicans (we need more activists with a law background!).
      I used to think of her as bit of a news head line grabber (when she sopke on issues that i thought went out of the liberty remit, but she has increasingly shown how much influence she posses when debating issues that affect, in particular, BME issues in this country.

    17. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:47 pm  

      I was mostly joking. But I did want to highlight the historical method of dealing with those that tried to over turn our government, and I wanted to highlight the barbaric laws we used to implement to prevent them from doing so. They closely resonate with the type of Law Islamists call for when punishing immoral women, gays or “those that insult Islam”.

      Leon, to claim these people aren’t political terrorists, is the same as to say there is no just thing as “Islamic Terrorism”, you are playing with semantics not looking at the problem and certainly not being progressive.

      One remembers the joke in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy where they cannot turn off the cloning machine without killing someone. The lawyers tried new spellings of the word “murder” to see if they could get around it.

      Refresh, I take back what I said if you reject the harsh punishments handed out by Sharia Law as opposed to justifying them like Bakair and Izzy do.

      TFI

    18. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

      Whats an “Islamist”?

    19. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:51 pm  

      Its like an Alarmist, but made of Islams.

      TFI

    20. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:54 pm  

      faizal,

      Why don’t you define a moderate Muslim, a British Muslim and an extremist Muslim?

      One you have done so, I can help you understand what an Islamist is using your own terms.

      TFI

    21. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

      to claim these people aren’t political terrorists, is the same as to say there is no just thing as “Islamic Terrorism”, you are playing with semantics not looking at the problem and certainly not being progressive.

      Nice try at trying to turn my words into something else. Fact is that all these hyper emotional words are contributing to a sense of drama and fear regarding these acts of criminality.

      To solve crimes you need a rational basis and detective work, not big speechs about wars of terror, arcs of extremism or attempts to tie anything remotely Islam and criminal together into a great world war…

    22. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

      What we needs is a Vimes (Pratchett readers will get the reference) like character to go after these people!

    23. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:02 pm  

      Thats alright dude. I was just being lazy. I’ve looked it up;
      “An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.”

      I was suprised that this term existed. Thought it was a media sound bite. Well, learn something new everyday!

    24. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:02 pm  

      Leon, do you consider the letter from the Muslim community that UK foreign policy to be “ammunition to extremists” and puts British lives “at increased risk”, to be “playing into their hands perfectly”?

      TFI

    25. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

      TFI

      “hardcore Islamists”- are there different degrees of islamists?

    26. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:09 pm  

      faizal, cheers mate sorry if I was abrupt to you. I thought you were going to reject the term claiming it as an oxymoron or something. The number of times I’ve seen people write or say: “I’m nota British Muslim, or a moderate Muslim, or your pet Muslim, I am just Muslim Muslim” …

      TFI

    27. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:12 pm  

      Faizal, they are the ones that listen to German techno in their spare time.

      TFI

    28. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:14 pm  

      do you consider the letter from the Muslim community that UK foreign policy to be “ammunition to extremists” and puts British lives “at increased risk”, to be “playing into their hands perfectly”?

      Couldn’t comment, haven’t read the letter (well briefly read a few lines) or commented or the thread Sunny put up. Hasn’t really fallen within my attention due to other things (my birthday mainly!)…

    29. faizal — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:17 pm  

      What did you do for your b’day?

    30. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:18 pm  

      Happy Birthday Leon! :-)

    31. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

      Leon, before you band around statements like:

      “See TFI plays into their hands perfectly, calling them political terrorists…they are criminals.”

      You ought pay attention to those people that really matter, like the MCB and see if they are “playing into their hands perfectly” - which they are by handing the responsiliblity the Bristish government and stand in solarity with those that perpatrate these crimes.

      To much time pointing at what happened Forest Gate and not enough pointing at what happened on 7/7 for my liking.

      TFI
      PS. Happy birthday!

    32. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

      OI! No thread derailing!

      (but thank yew anyway! Faz, Friday was BBQ with my family in North London, went to see We Will Rock You at the Dominion in the evening and on Saturday was out to dinner with some friends).

    33. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:28 pm  

      Should read “You ought pay attention to those people whose opinons that really matter,”

      Really I’m nobody. I cannot play into “their hands”

      TFI

    34. Arif — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:34 pm  

      The core issue here, for me, is the idea of a hate crime. These are more than common criminals because they are trying to kill people from particular groups in order to make people from those groups feel particularly vulnerable. I’d think of treason as a hate crime which is targeted against any people who are citizens under the same State as you, so it is probably relevant to talk about it here.

      While I wouldn’t brand people as evil because they commit treason, I do think that their crimes should be considered in a different way from non-political individual criminal acts, because they are terrorising a group as well as harming individuals.

    35. Jai — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:37 pm  

      Speaking of “language and rhetoric”, one of the guys over on Sepia Mutiny recently posted an extract from a satirical article written from a mock-jihadi perspective. It also refers to many of the things currently going on in the UK (airline plot, HuT etc) so please check it out — will only take 2 minutes to read:

      http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003674.html#comment78666

      It’s brilliantly written.

    36. Kismet Hardy — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:38 pm  

      So there are two guys in the wrestling ring, vastly different in size and strength, a bit like david and goliath except david’s called, I dunno, Mohammed Abdul Bakri Abu Haliwell.

      Knowing he’ll get his butt whipped, Mohammed strikes before the bell rings, ripping off Goliath’s head and dunking it into a wastebasket.

      ‘Why did you do that?’ asks the referre.

      Explains Mohammed: Because I-slam-1st

      (I’m sorry, I can’t give you back the two minutes you just lost reading this)

    37. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:38 pm  

      You ought pay attention to those people that really matter, like the MCB and see if they are “playing into their hands perfectly” - which they are by handing the responsiliblity the Bristish government and stand in solarity with those that perpatrate these crimes.

      You used the language, I was just calling it as I see it. I agree that the MCB aren’t much better etc (although they don’t have the capacity to run countries and go to war) but what does that matter?

      I wrote a few weeks back about the two sides of the same coin; the Neo Cons and the Bin Laden lot. Same applies here. Just because I’m focusing on one today doesn’t mean I support the other.

      I’m getting a little tired of that simplistic attitude, to be frank, that says if you critisise one side you must be a supporter of the other. It serves to distract from meaningful debate by forcing an explanation every five minutes…it’s a pointless, and dare I say, childish debating tactic.

      I view things in terms of power. Who has it, how they use it and how can it be challenged. Clear?

    38. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:38 pm  

      Perfectly put Arif.

      These people are quite literally “Enemies of the State” and should be treated as such.

      TFI

    39. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:42 pm  

      These people are quite literally “Enemies of the State” and should be treated as such.

      I see your point but that is a dangerous road to go down.

    40. j0nz — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:45 pm  

      Let’s treat the plotters as common criminals

      Are you fucking nuts?! They’d get out in a couple of years on good behaviour.

      Now it’s the other way round. Hardliners see a war between opposing forces. Liberals see a more fractured picture

      What an absolute patronising GIT. Liberals often see terrorists as freedom fighters - that’s the truth of it Mr fucking Parris.

    41. Arif — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:51 pm  

      TFI, you may consider them “Enemies of the State” - and that may be how treason is normally defined, but it is not - in my eyes - what I see as objectionable about their crimes. For one thing, I’m sure many people would consider me to be an enemy of the state for my views.

      I see them as enemies of people under the power of the State. They are not directly attacking the State. If they were, I might actually consider them to be less seriously criminal! They are attacking people and attempting to terrorise them, this bothers me. The fact that they are doing it in order to undermine an aspect of the State’s authority doesn’t bother me so much.

    42. Kismet Hardy — on 14th August, 2006 at 4:58 pm  

      If enemies of the state are all potential bombers and such, what’s your take on these chaps?

      www.fun-da-mental.co.uk

    43. j0nz — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:00 pm  

      I see your point but that is a dangerous road to go down.

      So is devaluating the devasting affect of mass terrorism. There’s nothing more dangerous than tendency to appeasement for fascistesque ideologies.

    44. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:01 pm  

      Leon,

      I am disgreeing with your central point about treating terrorists as ordinary criminals and your ludricous assertion that I am “playing into their hands perfectly”.

      I’ve not gone anywhere near “a childish debate” other than suggesting that hardcore Islamists listen to German techno.

      I thought it was OK to challenge the ideas and assumptions of the posters here. I’m sorry if you don’t like people doing that.

      I feel that by re-labelling these people “criminals” has exactly the opposite effect, by playing with semantics YOU are playing into their hands “perfectly”.

      You may see things in terms of who has and hasn’t the “power”, I see things in terms of right and wrong with my own personal moral compass as my guide.

      I think that you are wrong. Take it on the chin and don’t complain about my “simplistic attitude” while claiming that MCB “don’t have the capacity to run countries and go to war” then ask “who has the power?” and ask how to challenge them.

      This way you dismiss the MCB and the Islamofruitcakes and put everything at the door of UK and US government. Nice one.

      Half the reason that we are in this mess is that we won’t call it for what it is. Being honest with ourselves and admitting that we have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

      Renaming wannabe mass murdering f**kheads as you suggest is stepping away from facing the problem.

      TFI

    45. j0nz — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:07 pm  

      Terrorists! Pah! Nothing more than misguided young men! Perhaps if Blair was impeached for his war crimes, these young rebels wouldn’t have to demonstrate so loudly! Bravo to them, I say!

      /liberal head in the clouds diarrhea

    46. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:08 pm  

      So is devaluating the devasting affect of mass terrorism. There’s nothing more dangerous than tendency to appeasement for fascistesque ideologies.

      Who’s appeasing?!

    47. Alison — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:13 pm  

      Well said:’devaluating the devasting affect of mass terrorism’… which is what is proposed by softening the language. The softly softly semantics approach that tiptoes round such a strident ideology is ludicrous. Calmer heads have prevailed and get nowhere other than to allow the likes of a nos of organisations to pen an open letter of nonsense to the government pushing the blame towards anyone else as usual. Im happy the letter backfired and in itself instigated a stronger ‘rhetoric’ to challenge such puerile tactics. To address the problem we need to call it what it is!

    48. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:14 pm  

      TFI: you seem to be caught up on one part of my comment while ignoring the rest:

      We need to dampen down the words we use about this because it’s getting in the way of our understanding (if you don’t believe me see all that nonsense about “arc of extremism” etc) and our ability to deal with these problems.

      And as I said above, the language used by politicians/media is placing a heavy political burden on the police etc who just want to catch the bastards. Not play up to the cameras or achieve red top headlines.

    49. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:15 pm  

      Who’s appeasing?!

      According you Leon I am, simply by calling them what they are.

      TFI

    50. j0nz — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:25 pm  

      We need to dampen down the words we use about this because it’s getting in the way of our understanding

      Oh piss off Parris. Why don’t you piss off to Islamistan and try to “understand” sharia. Dickhead.

    51. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:40 pm  

      j0nz that was WAY out of order.

      TFI

    52. Alison — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:42 pm  

      Haven’t al-Beeb been using this dampening down tactic now for years - can you say muslim terrorist yet?
      Besides they’ll filter all the government-speak.. so we shouldnt fret yet.

      Lets please not treat people who propose terrorism as a legitimate form of protest as common criminals. They are anything but. Fortunately and perhaps FINALLY the likes of Parris was a mute voice in this weekends papers.

      The only heavy burden on the police is the culture of DENIAL that is being cossetted. ‘Dampening language’ is the tone that accompanies this denial.

    53. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:51 pm  

      Leon,

      I’m not ignoring the rest of your argument or your holistic view point that I’ve garnered from reading this site for many months.

      I’m focusing on the keys points you have raised in this post, which I consider them to be objectionable appeasement.

      You aren’t informed of the Sunny’s post “Letter by Muslim MPs and organisations”, for me to suggest that you look at it before bleating on about appeasement is for me to engage in “childish debate”.

      If you cannot keep up, don’t step up.

      I suggest that you reserve your pseudo intellectual slurs for people that might take them to heart.

      TFI

    54. Refresh — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:55 pm  

      TFI

      When Sharia has been implemented it has been for the purposes of controlling the population. A very specific example was in Pakistan, when General Zia was in charge of the mujahideen push against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

      The whole effort was to control all aspects of peoples lives - in reality it was to consolidate power in the hands of the military, harnessing Islamic parties (who rarely win any sort of elections).

      I have quoted (here I think) where a US secretary of state welcomed the notion of ‘giving’ more Sharia to muslims.

      My view of Sharia is very simple - if its controlling people then it can’t be any good for you. If its encouraging a peaceful and just society then that’s good. This is of course true of any judicial system.

      When a judicial system is in the hands of the elite then fear it. It is not about justice at all.

      Another aspect of Islam and Sharia specifically is that it is supposed to be a living thing which keeps with the times and is meant to be of value to society.

      Amputation for stealing, as an example, is an outrage especially when the circumstances may have more to do with the offender’s need, say, out of poverty. And as a society it is of no use at all - how is the amputee then supposed to earn a living. The alternative then of course is falling back on the resources of the state.

      To put it another way, I would like to see those criminals in power to have their limbs amputated first before they even touch a poor boy stealing bread.

      Where there has been sex crimes, there is no way the system works to deliver justice if taken as presented in the blogs. It falls too heavily on a judiciary who may be politicised, in other words corrupt.

      Death sentence under Sharia itself has the same problems as it does in every other system - what if you got it wrong. One of my strongest reasons for opposing the death penalty.

      As it happens, I think those criminals who sow discord in society are in themselves punishable. And it matters not that it happens in a muslim state or a non-muslim state.

      If a society is at peace, anyone and I mean anyone should be punishable for disturbing the peace. If I can put it like that.

      With regards the very recent terror alert. Even if there were no bombs involved and there were people seeking to disrupt innocent peoples right to go about their business through malicious email activity - then they are to be punished.

      For me there are more laws in Britain which are closer to justice and therefore Sharia than those implemented by the ruling elites in muslim states.

      Does that help?

    55. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:58 pm  

      Searching for “Islamic Terrorists” on the news.bbc.co.uk site gives 162 hits.

      http://www.google.com/search?hs=KcK&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+%22islamic+terrorist%22&btnG=Search

      Searching for “Muslim Terrorists” on the news.bbc.co.uk site gives 26 hits.

      http://www.google.com/search?hs=PcK&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+%22Muslim+terrorist%22&btnG=Search

      http://www.google.com/search?hs=2dK&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+%22irish+terrorist%22&btnG=Search

      Searching for “Irish Terrorist” on the news.bbc.co.uk site gives 26 hits.

      http://www.google.com/search?hs=2dK&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+%22irish+terrorist%22&btnG=Search

      The cheeky thing the BBC did in my opinon was to edit the web site and relabel the 7/7 kids as “bombers” from “terrorists” once it came to light that they were English.

      That is playing with semantics and it helps nobody.

      TFI

    56. Alison — on 14th August, 2006 at 5:58 pm  

      J0nz’s no mincing of words was aimed at Parris dreadful saturday Times piece, TFI..whom he thought someone was quoting from. Apparently not.
      But generally id go along with his sentiment re Parris in this instance!

    57. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 6:08 pm  

      Refresh,

      Sharia minus the cruel and unusual punishments is much less objectionable thing in my opinion. Not that I think that its version of family law ought to be introduced in this country, you understand.

      Thank you for taking the time to explain your view on it to me, you didn’t have to do so and it is very much appreciated that you did.

      TFI

    58. Refresh — on 14th August, 2006 at 6:14 pm  

      TFI - I think its useful to understand the forces at work. Never let powerful people near power.

      Give people you respect the authority to act on your behalf but no more.

      No one is introducing Sharia here. Don’t fall for that rubbish. The closest thing to that would be what has happened in the Jewish communities amongst ultra-orthodox.

      In any case I am not sure what you mean by family law.

    59. Bert Preast — on 14th August, 2006 at 6:16 pm  

      They can’t be looked at as common criminals. They are like nothing we’ve had to face before. If someone had suggested to me that the IRA planned to smuggle a nuclear device into England and detonate it, I’d have laughed in their faces. With the islamists, I would not be inclined to laugh.

      New threats, new rules. If we want to get anywhere.

    60. leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 6:27 pm  

      You aren’t informed of the Sunny’s post “Letter by Muslim MPs and organisations”, for me to suggest that you look at it before bleating on about appeasement is for me to engage in “childish debate”.

      That was a point about the implication that by not critiqueing both sides your somehow supporting another. It was a more general point of something I see on here not entirely only about your debating ’style’. And please, enough with the macho language!

      So what if I haven’t read Sunny’s post? My first post on here was a direct attack on the new (at the time) president of the MCB. I’m no fan of them but I recognise that they aren’t planning any bombing (that I’m aware of) and have no capacity to do so. Blair etc are and do. That said in terms of language I’m increasinly viewing both of them as two sides of the same coin (with the citzenry stuck in the middle).

      As I said above, I view things in terms of power. Who has and how it’s used etc.

    61. Refresh — on 14th August, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

      “As I said above, I view things in terms of power. Who has and how it’s used etc.”

      Precisely!

    62. Bert Preast — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:02 pm  

      Blair and co have power, and the record shows that they will use that power for what they see as the good of the UK. He and his cronie’s power is very much moderated by opposition, backbenchers and the lords.

      Saddam Hussein had power, and the record shows he used that power to try to turn himself into an Arab champion. His power was only moderated by people like Blair.

      The MCB has influence, though I’m not sure about power. Are they using that influence to genuinely further the interests of British muslims? Their reaction to plots such as these makes me sceptical.

    63. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:09 pm  

      Good post BP although I wouldn’t say that Hussein was moderated by people like Blair he was in fact supported and created by people like Rumsfeld etc (until he went against their interests and invaded Kuwait).

    64. Bert Preast — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:13 pm  

      How come his power was made up of like T72s and stuff?

      Rumsfeld did not create Saddam. All he did was treat him civil and then give him several chances to mend his ways. Which is how most people think it should be done.

      Personally, I think as soon as a leader erects a statue of themselves, it’s okay to shoot them.

    65. Leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:23 pm  

      I didn’t say he created him on his own! Rumsfeld was part of the same government that was supporting him (along with the Russians Brits).

      Personally, I think as soon as a leader erects a statue of themselves, it’s okay to shoot them.

      Haha! Shamefully I’m starting to agree, bring on Blairs statue announcment!

    66. Bert Preast — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:48 pm  

      Iraq got little more than moral support from the US an UK. It was the Iranians charging about in Chieftan tanks, while Saddam had to make do with the WP and Chinese kit.

      He was created by, if anyone, the Iraqi Arab nationalists and the WP. The WP made huge efforts with him to draw him into their sphere of influence without realising he thought he had his own. Either that or they just needed to shift a shitload of arms.

    67. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 8:07 pm  

      Leon,

      That was a point about the implication that by not critiquing both sides your somehow supporting another.

      OK so I’m not seeing your point of view by insisting on calling terrorists, terrorists. This is understood.

      Lets have a quick review of your later comment:

      Haha! Shamefully I’m starting to agree, bring on Blairs statue announcment! [so that we can shoot him]

      I can clearly see that you see both sides of an argument and keep a level head.

      Review: Leon thinks that Tony Blair should be shot, and that Islamist terrorists should be rebrand them to been in a more positive light.

      My debating ’style’ is to point out when people are being hypocritical.

      You, Leon, are a hypocrite.

      TFI

    68. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 8:17 pm  

      See TFI plays into their hands perfectly, calling them political terrorists…they are criminals.

      Leon, you are a hypocrite that weasles with words and smears those that disagree with him.

      TFI

    69. leon — on 14th August, 2006 at 8:46 pm  

      I was joking you dolt. I don’t actually believe in extra judicial killings (don’t agree in state execution either). May you continue to enjoy your anger with your strawman.

    70. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th August, 2006 at 10:21 pm  

      Leon,

      Of course I know that you were joking.

      That was a point about the implication that by not critiqueing both sides your somehow supporting another.

      By refusing to label terrorists as terrorists you aren’t critiqueing both sides. You are giving moral stature to them.

      I call you a hypocrite because I believe that you are very keen to demonise Bush and Blair and not so keen to demonise those that attempt to launch an attack on our own country as “terrorists”.

      I’m not keen on Blair, I disagree with many of his policies. However we have a democratic progress for removing leaders that we don’t like and its not called Civil War.

      Those people in Britain that believe that violence should be directed at the British public to change the direction of the governmental body are in danger of sparking the flames that could start a civil war.

      These people are traitors (to the Queen if you like), terrorists and should be treated with complete distain and are UNBELIVABLY dangerous. Rebranding them as something more cuddly so that people that agree with them in principle don’t have to come to terms with the fact they are fuelling civil unrest is the height of naivity.

      This entire thing reminds me of an discussion I had with Izzy on another board. He stated that he would like to see Islam return to its fundementals, when I suggested that must make him a fundementalist. He then rejected that because it had the wrong connations despite admitting that he fitted the defination in every way.

      We have words for certain things, the reason why the label “terrorist” is a strong emotive word, it is because they are associated with killing innocent people and prompting civil wars.

      TFI

    71. jonz — on 15th August, 2006 at 8:10 am  

      No surpise real surprise that Refresh is has a kneejerk defence of Sharia, yet seeks to deny the very essence of it.

      My view of Sharia is very simple - if its controlling people then it can’t be any good for you. If its encouraging a peaceful and just society then that’s good. This is of course true of any judicial system.

      What is Sharia? Sharia essentially mandates very harsh physical punishments for slights against the society or others.

      Amputation for stealing, as an example, is an outrage especially when the circumstances may have more to do with the offender’s need, say, out of poverty. And as a society it is of no use at all - how is the amputee then supposed to earn a living. The alternative then of course is falling back on the resources of the state.

      You can’t pick and choose. Sharia is barbaric. Face it.

      Death sentence under Sharia itself has the same problems as it does in every other system - what if you got it wrong. One of my strongest reasons for opposing the death penalty.

      What if you get it right Refresh? You commit the ‘evil’ known as adultery - you get stoned to death. Nice. What about the ‘evil’ of drinking alcohol? What if you did do it?

      If a society is at peace, anyone and I mean anyone should be punishable for disturbing the peace. If I can put it like that.

      And here folks is another clue to the ‘thinking’ of Refresh. What would you define as “disturbing the peace”? And what would be the punishment?

    72. Refresh — on 15th August, 2006 at 9:39 am  

      j0nz

      I haven’t stopped laughing since seeing your response.

      You’re welcome to wallow in your own interpretation of what I wrote.

      I notice you don’t pick up on the point that it is being used to control people and in the example I gave you, how the US was promoting its use.

      Nor do you appreciate how like all judicial systems do you understand its their to be abused if you have the power.

      I can understand your reactions - well established through being overfed in the hive that is Jihad Watch.

      Did you appreciate my opposition to all forms of ‘corporal’ punishment right up to executions?

      As for disturbing the peace - its anything that the law (and for your benefit) British law says is disturbing the peace.

      You want to commit adultery - go right ahead, nothing to do with me. Drink? Be my guest. Do I care - no I do not. But understand this, should you commit a crime or harm your neighbour whilst under the influence then you will be punished. Call it what you like - Sharia or whatever.

      As for those in power committing crimes - do you want to draw up your own list: Here are some clues, they sit in the Middle East, they sit in South Asia, they sit in the White House and he sits in Downing Street.

      Keep looking for the clues - but don’t forget to also see what is actually right there in front of you.

    73. Leon — on 15th August, 2006 at 9:43 am  

      I call you a hypocrite because I believe that you are very keen to demonise Bush and Blair and not so keen to demonise those that attempt to launch an attack on our own country as “terrorists”.

      I’m sorry but that’s bollox! But for the hard of reading I’ll repeat; I view things in terms of power, who has it and how it’s (ab)used.

      I live in this country so of course it’s natural I’m more concerned with those I (and others) have a better chance of influencing. If I lived in Iran I’d probably be about as critical (while recognising the geo-political realities of the world) of the regime there.

      Like I say just because someone critises one side doesn’t automatically mean they support the other. Accusing people of this (as I said above) is a tedious debating tactic.

      But anyway, it’s clear you’d prefer to go around in circles so I think i’m spent with this one…

    74. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 15th August, 2006 at 11:20 am  

      Refresh, I saw this on the front cover of the Mail as I passed the newsagents morning. This is what I mean by my “family law” comment earlier.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400605&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

      Leon, we have different opinions we can agree to disagree. I’m only incensed because you claimed that “I play into their hands perfectly” by calling them by the name the English Language defines for them: terrorists.

      Meanwhile I hope by now you have read the intelligent discussion on appeasement on Sunny’s thread “Letter by Muslim MPs and organisations” as opposed to this politically correct “lets see if we can change the spelling of ‘terrorist’ to make them seem less nasty and dangerous” thread which you have featured here.

      I hope that you have taken the time to read what Shahid Malik wrote in the Times this morning.

      Don’t you think that “I view things in terms of power, who has it and how it’s (ab)used.” is a rather over simplistic view of the world that dumps all actions at the feet of those that YOU decide “has power”, while ignoring the actions that don’t have power even if their aspiration is to obtain it?

      It is good that you think that you would critique Iran if you lived there, but your self proclaimed understanding of geo-political realities must appreciate that if you did live there, you don’t have the freedom to do so.

      Its clear to me that you see the world in dangerously narrow way defined by “I only see power” and that preffer to blind yourself to current realities you don’t like that leads to you being dangerous uninformed.

      TFI

    75. soru — on 15th August, 2006 at 12:28 pm  

      ‘I live in this country so of course it’s natural I’m more concerned with those I (and others) have a better chance of influencing.’

      What do you think is more likely, Bush reading this blog, or some jihadi wanna-bee ?

      The people making the bombs are british, never forget that. They are not alien or strange, they are responding to political currents within this country.

    76. jonz — on 15th August, 2006 at 1:17 pm  

      The people making the bombs are british, never forget that. They are not alien or strange, they are responding to political currents within this country.

      I think they are responsing to events such as 9/11 … i.e. wow is than’t cool that one of our brothers can so drastically attack the world’s superpower.

      And let’s not forget that, by their own admission, they do it in the name of Islam.

    77. sonia — on 15th August, 2006 at 1:31 pm  

      oooh i thought it was funny how everyone on the other thread kept saying oh yes we must not let terrorists dictate our foreign policy..

      ha ha

      WHAT WAS THE USA’S REACTION TO 9/11 ALL ABOUT THEN? oh right we’ve slightly tweaked our ‘Foreign Policy’- (we are now going to bomb Afghanistan- such a minor point) to RESPOND to the situation - we cannot let the terrorists think we will ’sit and do nothing’.

      ah yes! :-) chortle chortle indeed.

    78. sonia — on 15th August, 2006 at 1:36 pm  

      oh yeah right - let’s not allow the ‘terrorists’ to dictate our foreign policy. gosh.

    79. Kismet Hardy — on 15th August, 2006 at 1:46 pm  

      Sonia you’re so cool.

    80. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 15th August, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

      In fact lets not them dicate to our home policy either. Take for an example what happened in Spain, a government lost its seat over the Madrid bombings.

      TFI

    81. Kismet Hardy — on 17th August, 2006 at 7:59 pm  

      Hey just came by this blog

      www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

      Is it true they didn’t have plane tickets and some not even passports?

      I’ve been cooped up for days so I really don’t know. Tell me if you can

      Cheers

    82. leon — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:08 pm  

      No idea but craig murrays skeptisism is a breath of fresh air after the media barrage (should that be bollox?) about all this…

    83. Kismet Hardy — on 17th August, 2006 at 8:19 pm  

      Here’s another interesting one about the mass murdering liquid explosive

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

      Hm

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.