The mayor, Daniel Pipes, Salma Yaqoob and others
On Saturday the Mayor held a conference / debate with the American polemicist Daniel Pipes as guest speaker. The event was seriously over-subscribed, with interest and passions running high. I only attended the morning event since the rest of the conference was peppered with boring sounding discussions with people who would end up largely agreeing with each other. My bet is that Livingstone didn’t want to invite too many of his detractors other than Pipes and Murray.
The morning opened with Ken Livingstone going first, then Daniel Pipes, then Salma Yaqoob and finally Douglas Murray. Each said nothing new but their arguments were interesting. I managed to ask Pipes a question at the end, with hilarious results. I’ll come back to that.
Livingstone’s was a rambly sort of speech without structure. He is an idealist and in essence said that London set an example of how a city can be multicultural, thriving and dynamic without descending into anarchy. He didn’t pre-empt any criticism that would be forthcoming nor venture into controversial territory - he stated in a round-about sort of way that the example of London illustrates that people generally want the same things in life and can easily co-exist. That would be fine in its own but it did not address the central point - how do you deal with people who want to destroy multi-culturalism and hate democracy.
Daniel Pipes’ speech, I will admit despite my distaste for his politics, was much more structured, well thought-out and argued. There were of course holes in his argument (and I’ll come back to that) but his central point was this - there isn’t a Clash of Civilisations as much as a Clash of Civilisations v Barbarism. The latter is defined as totalitarianism akin to fascism where (religious) supremacists want to destroy democracy and forcibly convert the rest to their ideology.
It is a simplistic analysis of course and will appeal to anyone who has watched a video by Osama Bin Laden, heard a speech by Hizb ut-Tahrir or even watched last week’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme. It’s not like there is a scarcity of religious nutjobs loudly demanding complete submission to their goals. Pipes said this is war and the west should not be afraid to fight it till death. He ventured into history without mentioning any American funding of Mujahadeen groups during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Salma Yaqoob followed with an ok performance. She made some good points, calling it a fight between two barbarian groups (the neo-cons and the Islamists) who thrived on war and confrontation, with most people stuck in the middle. While it was clear she had given thought to countering Pipes’ arguments in advance, she didn’t put forward any coherently argued solution except blaming the west for everything. She was happy to play to her own audience rather than win over new recruits. She shouts and rants a lot too, putting words into Pipes’ mouth, without carefully dissecting his words. He always came across as the more reasonable thinker.
Douglas Murray followed with a calm speech although he couldn’t help sneering every minute or so when mentioning anyone Muslim. He might as well have spat on the floor everytime he mentioned Salma Yaqoob or her links to various organisations (Birmingham Central Mosque, the trial of seven Yemenis, Respect party etc). Anyway, he didn’t say much that was new other than parrot the neo-con line.
A Q&A session with the audience followed with lots of people making rambly, incoherent speeches and lots making good points. Of interest to me were these points: Inayat Bunglawala pulled up Pipes on an interesting point - that while Pipes claims his problem is only with ‘Islamist’ Muslims in the speech, he had written an article in the Jerusalem Post recently implying the problem were Muslims in general. Or anyone that did not fit into his ‘Judeo-Christian values’ framework. In other words Pipes likes the kinds of Muslims who will do what he likes rather than just those who stay within the law. The latter will all be branded as ‘barbarians’ and presumably liable to indefinite stints in detention. Pipes didn’t counter well enough. That round went to Inayat.
He tore apart Salma Yaqoob though, who called 7/7 “reprisal attacks” against American aggression and firmly put herself into ’should think carefully before speaking’ category. If Livingstone had invited someone a bit more thoughtful like Maleiha Malik then the neo-cons may not have won the day. Someone also pulled up Daniel Pipes on his infamous McCarthyite campaign ‘Campus Watch’, which was dismissed as an attempt to “provide more information”. Aren’t they always.
Livingstone let it be known he was against faith schools. He also made an interesting point about Al-Qaradawi. He clearly stated he didn’t agree with a lot of the latter’s policies but the dialogue was necessary and Qaradawi was a progressive. The change would come within Islam, he said.
Of course people are going to complain, but KL inviting Qaradawi over isn’t that different to Tony Blair inviting over the Chinese government, giving Narendra Modi a visa or selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia. No one seems to seriously suggest Britain cut off diplomatic ties with China, India or KSA.
My bigger worry is that he sees Qaradawi as a “progressive”. Compared to who, Genghis Khan? I don’t want to call myself progressive if Livingstone is bloody well going to put Qaradawi in the same category! Livingstone is also confused. He should try and understand there are already liberal strands within Islam and more progressive thinkers so he would be better off courting them instead of an establishment man like Qaradawi. There are plenty of popular reformers within Iran, Saudi, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Lebanon and other places for example. Qaradawi certainly isn’t likely to lead a call for Muslim women to be given more rights in the Middle East.
The problem is that Livingstone, who I sympathised with most out of a bunch of bad choices, does not have a solution. He even seems reluctant to admit there may be a problem. Unofrtunately no one managed to land a ‘killer punch’ (metaphorically) on Pipes.
After the event finished I approached him. This is essentially how the conversation went: “Mr Pipes I’m a great believer in democracy, freedom of speech and liberty etc, so I guess that puts me in the “civilised” camp according to your analysis. But how do you respond is your government is spying on its people, curtailing the rights of people and generally behaving as if it doesn’t take civil liberties seriously? Isn’t that what the barbarians would do?”
He replies: “Well… uhh… those people are the enemies… uh.. we are in a new era and we need to take those measures to figure out how to deal with them. The traditional methods don’t work… uhm..” *tries to move away*
But I persist. “What about places like Belmarsh prison and Guantanamo Bay? Aren’t we denying those people the same rights that you claim makes us civilised?”
He says, with a straight face, I kid you not, “Well you know, those people are treated marvelously they have their rights and facilities. Ask that lady there (mentions some name) who went there only last week and she’ll tell you how well they are treated.”
“Erm… thanks Mr Pipes I’ll, err… do that….” *still shocked by the fact he said that seriously.
Anyway, it shouldn’t be news that neo-conservatives generally live in their own world devoid of reality. According to them, actions have no reactions and other people behave exactly as the US military commands them to. If something goes wrong, it isn’t because the plan was bad but because they didn’t put enough military resources into it. These people are a threat to society.
Overall, the debate was indeed a “pro-wrestling exhibition” and I wasn’t convinced by either side. Livingstone and Yaqoob tried to sell an idealised version of society without dealing with problems (both saw US foreign policy as the only problem, a point most Londoners have gone past I’d say), while Pipes and Murray identified the problem but presented a terrible solution.
More commentary on Adloyada and Harry’s Place.
Sunny,
We had 4 tickets, but due to last minute problems with arrangements we were unable to make the journey. If we had got there, I would have sought you out to say a mighty hello.
With regards other perspectives do you have any other links? I’ve read both Adlyada and HP, but since both share the same attitudes, I don’t feel particularly enlightened.
Journalist ‘Sunny’s self professed shock at Dr.Pipes response to his question about Gitmo is a reflection on his own ignorance and bias.
That “lady” whom Dr.Pipes suggested he speak to in response to his questions about Gitmo, explaining that she had returned from there ‘only last week’ and whose name Sunny chose to ignore,was MSNBC news analyst and anchor Monica Crowley.
Sunny would have done his readers and himself a service if he had spent less time trying to bash Dr.Pipes and more on presenting them with accurate information.
The opening debate certainly had an electrifying atmosphere, as if the future of our world was about to be decided in the next 3 hours in this posh London auditorium.
I had to look down at my ticket stub to confirm I had not accidentally stumbled into a heavyweight boxing match.
As someone mentioned during the Q & A afterwards, the entire debate had a beautifully theatrical feel to it, but was lacking in terms of solidified arguments, with logical rationalizations backed by real-world examples and set proofs.
I thought all 4 individual speeches were strong and suave, but the obvious selectivity of all information relayed was a little disappointing. I was waiting for Ken Livingstone and Salma Yaqoob to actually address the issue of pseudo-Islamic extremism and how the rising ideology could be realistically handled…and simultaneously I was waiting for Daniel Pipes or Douglas Murray to get off their war-horses and show some small trace of humility or empathy, alas it never happened.
Douglas Murray was practically drenched in his own arrogance and superiority throughout, and as for Daniel Pipes trying to deal us his slight-of-hand ‘I want victory, not war’ statement, it was pure crap, unadulterated. Am I alone in wondering if Pipes and Murray may not actually be human at all, but ultra-sophisticated high-tech neo-con androids?
I was actually quite impressed at the range of oratory skills on show, and was surprised to see Salma making witty on-the-spot dissections and rebuttals of Pipes points, which made him so mad that he kept accusing her of putting words in his mouth! (How dare this Muz-lem woman know about stuff??)
She wisely reminded the public not to be fooled by this softly-spoken man who actually advocates a policy of eternal bloodshed to spread his ‘democracy’ into ‘civilisation’ by all means necessary.
Ken Livingstone also made me really proud to be a Londoner, he may have rambled slightly, but his knowledge of history was impressive and his left-leaning comments were both refreshing and necessary to keep things in context with the fact we were having this debate in London.
I realised watching the debate that Pipes and Murray must be 2 of the sharpest neo-con minds doing the rounds. They actually managed to strategically squirm their way out of various specific questions directed at them (not least by Sunny! ha-ha), and even switch the entire situation around at times. There was at least once during Douglas Murray’s speech that I felt myself strongly agreeing with him about the need for us to re-group civilization and fight the ‘enemies’ of justice and freedom… and then I stopped in my tracks, aware of what I was doing…now THAT is what I find scary, they made their madness look delicious to me for a couple of seconds! Was I in some kind of hypnosis or something? I’m guessing their mastercard is to play that melody on everyone forever, kind of like ideological pied-pipers, leading us all to a collective suicide.
However, my highlight of this debate was undoubtedly Inayat Bunglawala’s question at the end. I’ve never liked much of his writings, but credit where credit is due, his question and delivery at the end was fucking perfect.
It was the most direct smack between the eyes I heard in 2 hours, and Daniel Pipes’s inability to answer it coherently said a lot more about the weakness of his position than another hour of poised attacks from Ken Livingstone and Salma Yaqoob ever could.
Ps: Sunny, the metaphorical ‘killer punch’ you refer to against Daniel Pipes did occur, but it was made hours later by a pumped-up Tariq Ramadan in the seminar ‘Is there an Islamic threat’ in which he rationally ripped-up what he heard in the morning’s debate. It seems there is some long-standing ill history between the two, due to the fact Daniel Pipes stitched-up Tariq Ramadan to the US Gov as an Al-Qaeda supporter who had met Osama Bin Laden on several occasions. The truth? Tariq had once met Bin-Laden’s half-brother for 3 mins at a conference in the Middle East.
Leonard - thanks for the tip, that’s the name I couldn’t remember. It doesn’t detract from my original article however.
You may think that Gitmo is a ‘marvelous’ place for those concerned, and may think I’m biased… I don’t mind one bit that you think that.
Nyrone - nice one… Salma did do well in places but I’m afraid I noticed she twisted his words at times. And I would have preferred a more surgical incision of his arguments rather than constant rhetoric. She seemed to be under the delusion that she was preaching to the converted as she does most of the time. Pipes and Murray on the other hand knew it would be a hostile audience and played it slick.
I wanted to listen to Tariq Ramadan but I’ve done so many times nows so it would have been nothing new. The title of that discussion was absurd enough.
Refresh - You should have! Would have been nice to get together for a chat. I haven’t seen many other reviews although someone may write something for eteraz.org
It sounds to me like Ken Livingstone is looking for dialogue while the other speakers were looking for debate. Each has its place, I guess. Dialogue implicitly assumes that someting constructive can come from talking to people you currently disagree with or don’t understand. But it doesn’t get very far with interlocutors who don’t trust you. And Salma, Daniel and Douglas sound (in this context) as though they believe that people who disagree with them are just too bad or stupid to have anything to teach them.
And what about the role of the audience? If Ken is trying to bring people together in a vision which celebrates different perspectives, but the audience is pumped up for a boxing match, I guess it affects the speakers to want to give their supporters the emotional rush that is expected. They wouldn’t want to let down their fans.
I’d say the lads in Guantanamo are being treated far better than their expectations. That doesn’t often occur with captured soldiers.
“KL inviting Qaradawi over isn’t that different to Tony Blair inviting over the Chinese government, giving Narendra Modi a visa or selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia. No one seems to seriously suggest Britain cut off diplomatic ties with China, India or KSA.”
You gave the main difference yourself. We don’t have diplomatic ties with Qaradawi, nor can we be sure who he’s representative of.
Nyrone, thanks for that excellent contribution. If you come across any more from others (or wish to add more) I for one would be pleased.
Arif, I believe Ken Livingstone has always been one for dialogue. And I guess this was one way to get this particular dialogue started.
The whole anti-Ken cult really got going because of his views on imperialism and Iraq. Imperialism in Ireland and his opposition to Saddam Hussein’s and then Bush-Blair’s Iraq. Lets hope this cult is in its final throes.
I have yet to find any serious contender for Mayor, in fact I have long (and I mean long) held the belief that Livingstone is a future Prime Minister. Who knows it may happen yet.
Thanks so much for this update! I had a ticket, but couldn’t go at the last minute. Fascinating stuff!
Is any of this online at all — or was it filmed with a view to putting it online? At least if it was we could make our own minds up.
It would seem that the one person who seemed to be able to argue against Pipes was Innat, you say that “Round One went to Innat, because Innat said that Pipes had said that “all Muslims are the problem not just militant Islam”.
Whereas I am no expert on Mr Pipes, it is clear from this interbview that Mr Pipes believes that it is only militant Islam:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2307
It may be worth researching whether the only person to be able to counter Pipes, was in fact being truthfull/factual?
Sure, he isn’t progressive at all in the liberal sense. However he has a relatively large constituency of people who listen to him - and for now he is willing to talk. That’s progress of some small sorts. To talk to isn’t to condone. If your argument is that he is one of the lesser nutballs of this world, then I might agree. To group him in with genghis arguably does Pipes’ work for him.
Didn’t he release a fatwa regarding the suitability of women candidates in the Bahrani elections? AFAICT you’d be hard pressed to find someone who is both mainstream and makes anything more than highly equivocal statements on this issue - even inside academia, witness Tariq Ramadan’s ‘pleading the fifth’ on the issue of stoning.
So name names - so that we can discuss their suitability or otherwise. Though, ISTR the last time you did this Sir Golmal of the Malformed URL managed to imply that they were spiritually impoverished.
in fact I have long (and I mean long) held the belief that Livingstone is a future Prime Minister. Who knows it may happen yet.
hahaha
Ken has his heart in the right place, but he is naive.
Sunny, did you say that Salma Yaqoob was chastised by Bunglawala or Pipes for her ‘reprisal attacks’ comment?
Jagdeep
Yes its a funny thought. Consider where he is today and where he was when Blair chucked him out of the Labour Party.
Its just a shame that his age is now probably against him.
I was there. Some interesting points made. I thoroughly enjoyed it. We really are seeing the death of monotheistic religeons, the last and most primative being Islam ( given the inferior role it gives women).
It doesn’t take an expert to separate Pipe’s academic work from his personal prejudices. His incendary position is an embarrassment to most of the sensible right.
But kudos to Bunglawala for being able to indentify Pipe’s real agenda, which is to demonise “Muslims” by knitting up a conspiracy theory and keep “Muslims” out of American academia.
Bert# 7 is appalling and as a soldier you had the geneva convention unlike those poor sods.
As for the debate as has been said on Harry’s place Ken selected some easy placemen from the right to shoot down. Sadly he does not pick his allies as well as he picks opponents.
“I noted that Livingstone had invited two speakers - Pipes and Murray - who are very much located on the right of the political spectrum.”
“I wasn’t keen to get involved in what seemed to me to be a fake debate, the purpose of which was to allow Livingstone to suggest that you were either with the political right against “the muslims” or with Livingstone with “the muslims”.”
David T in Harry’s place comments.
Ken could have invited Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji or many liberal and reformist Muslims to the debate. Instead he goes for the men of straw. It also sums up Kens patronising attitudes towards muslims.
This is pissing off. Everytime someone mentions Harry’s Place in here I click on the HP link above, and 8 out of 10 times I get a 403 Forbidden message telling me I don’t have permission to read the page. Does Harry have some special kind of internet Muslim detecting software or something? Or does anyone else get this?
Anas, be thankful you are forbidden. Your talents are much better appreciated here.
HP and Pipes would love to have ‘internet Muslim detecting’ software.
ZinZin - Our soldiers are under the protection of the Geneva convention? It must’ve undergone some pretty radical changes since I was in then, as dragging bodies through the streets and sawing heads off with kitchen knives was more or less frowned upon in the old days. Can you name a single instance since WW2 where captured British soldiers have had reason to thank the Geneva conventions? I can’t.
Anas has talents?
It is not a matter of left or right. It is a matter of equal rights for men and women in the public space that allows free debate. Religeons are ideological world views invented by earlier civilization to control their peoples. Like recent ideologies they seek to constrain the free exchange of ideas. In the long run they do not work. The belief that some supernatural being has mandated for all time how we should behave is so primative that it itself beggers belief. I grew up in the 60’s. I threw off the relatively liberal Christianity that I was exposed to, only to confront a more primative Islamic ideology in the 90’s. Clearly we are going thru a transition. Possibly a very bloody one. Fortunately most peoples of the world are not interested in following Islam and its primative views. It is a clash of free thinkers against blinkered primatives.
Sid
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you have formed the opinion:
“It doesn’t take an expert to separate Pipe’s academic work from his personal prejudices.”
It should be easy for you to provide some info if it really does not take an expert?
‘But I persist. “What about places like Belmarsh prison and Guantanamo Bay? Aren’t we denying those people the same rights that you claim makes us civilised?”’
People who get captured fighting out of uniform customarily have the right to decide whether or not they want a blindfold before they’re hung.
That pretty much sums up the rights captured guerrillas have.
Sorry Bert But i am not accepting a fools errand. As for the radical changes it has undergone well thanks to GWB it has been junked.
To insist that they are treated better than soldiers who have recourse to the Geneva conventions is ludricous as they are denied recourse to this document which is there to assist them. Saying that it does not help British soldiers is not a good enough argument. Laws against murder don’t help murder victims but thats no reason to scrape them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
ZinZin - the Geneva conventions were not junked by us. They were junked by people like those in Guantanamo, part-time soldiers who hide among their own population. Nothing wrong with that of course, but don’t start bleating about conventions when you fuck up and get caught, eh?
Can you give me some names of innocents detained there? From what I remember all the released Britons have since showed themselves up as guilty as hell to all but the terminally gullible.
And the British have Belmarsh. Which is nothing to do with the army.
“provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”
Answered your own question, really. As they don’t, they’re lucky to still be breathing.
>>So name names - so that we can discuss their suitability or otherwise.
A bit scary that qaradawi is considered the least worst of the lot of mainstream muslim leaders.
But there are reformers/liberals - very much a minority, but not deried or despised like I. Manji who is really considered beyond the pale.
Amina Wadud, Khaled abou el fadl, Farish A Noor etc off the top of my head
There is a longer list at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
But a religion of over a billion people should have thrown up a few more names.
“Can you give me some names of innocents detained there? From what I remember all the released Britons have since showed themselves up as guilty as hell to all but the terminally gullible.”
No smoke without fire is that your new line of attack. Pathetic.
not deried - not derided
ZinZin - claiming you were there to fight for the Northern Alliance just doesn’t wash. All the propaganda was for the Taleban, and UK muslims travelling there were joining them. What do you think they were up to?
But a religion of over a billion people should have thrown up a few more names.
I’d blame that on Ken’s rolladeck, not a billion people.
A POW who breaks specific provisions of the laws of war may be penalized, but not penalized worse than the tribunal would penalize its own soldiers for the same offense (and usually a disciplinary, not judicial, punishment if its own soldiers normally wouldn’t be brought to trial for a particular offense) and POW’s may not be penalized based on rank or gender, nor with corporal punishment, collective punishments for individual acts, lack of daylight, or torture/cruelty (GC IV, Art. 82 through Art. 88).
Still doesn’t make Guantanomo right does it Bert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
It should be easy for you to provide some info if it really does not take an expert?
I’m sorry I don’t have an exhaustive list of talk points on Pipes that I can reel off for you Lee. But from what’ve read its apparent Pipes’ “academic rigour” wrapped in a highly subjective, derisory polemic isn’t designed for centrists.
Relying on a reading of Pipes to form your views on Muslims is analogous to relying on a reading of Chomsky to form your views on USA.
>> As they don’t, they’re lucky to still be breathing.
You have frighteningly low standards, Bert. Nothing, not even the behaviour of the detainees, justifies Guantanamo and the junking of the Geneva Convention by the USA. Maybe you’d next be ambiguous on the issue of internment of civilian populations like Pipes has been.
Never said it did. Personally I’d say you have 48 hours to gain useful information then you may as well slot the snidey bastards. Which is why I said it’s better than they could expect.
As the US has the death penalty I’m unsure as to why you’re quoting GC IV, Art. 82 through Art. 88 at me. Also you may remember the horrendous photos of British troops abusing prisoners in the Mirror - that turned out to be standard British army training. I’ve done the escape and evasion course and it’s rough and you get tortured. But soldiers still volunteer to do it.
But in the meantime, you can read this article on Pipes by one of America’s more sensible right-wing commenters.
Mirax - it’s a war. It’s all about the business of killing the other lads. I have not condoned Guantanamo, just admitted in my book they’d have been lucky to see more than the next dawn or so. I don’t see how they’d be more of a loss than their comrades who fell in combat?
Bert your rewriting history that mirror photo was a hoax carried out by some squaddies unhappy with the Mirrors anti-war editorial line.
I brought up the GC IV articles82-88 to prove that you are wrong to state that despite their alleged crimes that guantanomo is justified.
Anyway this wil be my last post on this issue as rage has overtaken you and your IQ has dropped as a result. Shame really as you usually make a good contribution to PP.
ZinZin - Military conspiracy theories? Soldiers these days have a weary acce4ptance that the media will do all it can to undermine them, and they’re pretty used to it. See Rose Gentle, Cindy Sheehan etc. What exactly makes their opinions worthy of mainstream media coverage? Frankly they haven’t a clue what they’re on about.
I didn’t state that Guantanamo is justified. See above. To my mind it’s pointless holding mere foot soldiers.
Sid - Good linkage. Hitchens has a handle on Pipes there, I think.
Anas- I get that 403 message sometimes, and I tend to agree with Harry’s Place.
This is pissing off. Everytime someone mentions Harry’s Place in here I click on the HP link above, and 8 out of 10 times I get a 403 Forbidden message telling me I don’t have permission to read the page.
I get it myself Anas and I post there.
You wouldn’t be using AOL would you? I have a feeling its something to do with their software.
[…] This is what Salma Yaqoob thinks: […]
My thoughts on the choice of Pipes (and indeed Murray) as debating opponents at the time was this.
Pipes and Murray are very much located on the right of the political spectrum. Both have expressed views which I find distasteful and somewhat disturbing.
I also an early draft of the titles of the other debates at the conference, which included a number of frankly nonsensical motions being debated based on presuppositions which I do not accept. I could expand on my point: but Oliver Kamm makes the point well, when he points out:
“The conference’s title is a disparaging allusion to a book by the political scientist Samuel Huntington. Yet Huntington’s ostensibly conservative-realist argument is echoed in the assumptions of the multiculturalist Left. “Western universalism is dangerous to the world, declares Huntington, “because it could lead to a major intercivilisational war.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2530241,00.html
Kamm expanded on the point on his blog:
I also commented on the singular fact that the Mayor of London had put on a conference, with an explicit reference to a celebrated book by the political scientist Samuel Huntington, while plainly not understanding the book’s thesis. Huntington is an opponent of Western universalism, which he believes is a threat to peace.
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/livingstones_fo.html
Similarly, the list of invitees was significantly drawn from within the red-green coalition: including, as it originally did, Tariq Ramadan, Lee Jasper, Salma Yaqoob, Denis Fernando, Soumaya Ghannoushi, Inayat Bunglawala, Tariq Ali, somebody from Al Jazeera, somebody from a Venezuelan TV, and the spook, Alastair Crooke.
By contrast, Oliver Kamm and I were invited very late in the day, essentially as an afterthought. I thought that odd. Others formed a similar conclusion, independently of me:
In fairness, I should add that I and another liberal writer scornful of Mr Livingstone’s identity politics received an invitations to speak, apparently as an afterthought, a few days ago. Perhaps the event’s exhortatory character had become too blatant.
So, I wasn’t keen to get involved in what seemed to me to be a fake debate, the purpose of which was to allow Livingstone to suggest that you were either with the political right against “the muslims” or with Livingstone and “the left” with “the muslims”.
The idea, I surmised, was to allow Livingstone to say - “Look, we had a debate, and Pipes and Murray bashed the muslims. But me and Salma stood up for you. Which side is your bread buttered, eh?”
I may have been wrong, in the event, about the day. But I spent it looking at the Sutton Hoo treasures at the British Museum, so I can’t say I’m that sad I missed it.
, it shouldn’t be news that neo-conservatives generally live in their own world devoid of reality.
Actually, it’s you who are “devoid of reality”. The reason that Gitmo exists, that the government is “spying” on people, that civil rights are being curtailed, is that the US and Britain ARE AT WAR. That’s what happens in war time — the state goes on to a military footing. The vast majority are supportive of these measures because we don’t want to be killed by the enemy: crazy Islamicists. It’s only the insignificant mintority like yourself, reading from the Marxist hymnbook and other conspiracist tracts, who can’t see the wood for the trees.
I see Harry’s place has directed their readers over here and are not openeing a thread on this subject.
typo - opening
One more thing — the left likes to tell itself how free-thinking and broadminded it is, but the original post really gives the game away, doesn’t it? After all, if Sunny didn’t restrict his reading to those who agree with his world-view, and genuinely engaged with all shades of opinion — especially those who disagree with him, as a genuine free-thinker does — then he would hardly be left speechless when Daniel Pipes made an utterly standard (on the right) defence of Guantanamo Bay.
Great just what we need a bunch of loony Eustonites infesting PP…
Leon - I agree!
DavidT, get your tanks of our lawn!!!!!
Just because HP is all screwed up doesn’t mean you wreck our little haven of reasonableness.
Anas,
Its all your fault. If ever you have problems getting into a ‘forbidden’ site do not mention it here. Its obviously considered an open invitation for the forbidden to come and initially assist you in your local difficulties; followed swiftly by a wholesale invasion.
Didn’t history teach you anything?
Great just what we need a bunch of loony Eustonites infesting PP…
I’ve got news for you — there will always be people who disagree with you. And people who disagree with me. So the sooner you get used to it, the better. Conservatism 101.
David T, cheers for the link.
Similarly, the list of invitees was significantly drawn from within the red-green coalition:
That I agree with. Although they did have other people like M Malik and Martin Bright also speaking. Unfortunately it seems Livingstone has developed his own clique and only calls them up during such events. This list of speakers is almost half identical to the recent one on equality or something. No doubt future events will have the same people saying the same things to the same audiences. It’s getting rather tiring.
Montag,
Ignore them, they’re just commie robots. I’m interested in your idea, ‘That’s what happens in war time — the state goes on to a military footing.’
This has put into words what I have felt for some time (in fact I’m going to have a bumper-sticker made up) and I look forward to you expanding on it.
But should we limit it only to war? After all, Falklands was only ever a ‘crisis’, and there have been several ‘emergencies’ and what-have-you’s. These also warrant a pragmatic look at how helpful ‘freedom’ is to the war on terror.
Sunny, David, can you make your mind up. Was it a worthwhile event or wasn’t it?
Having Bush’s High Priest of Discord speak at this event was definitely worth doing, lets see the colour of his eyes. But I get the feeling even that isn’t good enough for you two.
You are being entirely silly picking over the chicken bones.
You got a problem with a left-green alliance? I suppose yours would be pink-blue? So bloody childish.
Freedom is essential to a ‘war’ which is unlike war in the traditional sense. This is a war between competing visions of the ideal form of society, or - if you like - an ideological conflict between those who advocate no more than self-realisation and those who wish to propagate and enforce submission. This, after all is the nature of the conflict according to the theocrats, who are quite open about it.
What follows from that is this. It is impossible to advocate freedom without being scrupulous to ensure that that value is not subjugated to expedience. To forget that is to lose the battle.
Anyhow, don’t gripe about me directing people to PP. We argue from all positions at HP. A bit of variety does you good. I close threads and direct to other, open ones, out of courtesy. And we’ve had two open threads on the Livingstonefest already.
Refresh
Well, it seems to have turned out O.K.. But I still expect Livingstone make a habit of referring back to the time he defended “the muslims” from Pipes and Murray.
You got a problem with a left-green alliance? I suppose yours would be pink-blue? So bloody childish.
Yes, I do have a problem with a red-green alliance, just as I’d have one with a red-brown alliance. We famously had one of the first type of alliance in Iran 20 years ago. And one of the second type about 60 years ago. Neither turned out well. Neither will this one.
What has in fact happened, as a result of this alliance, is that the clerical fascist (as Tony Cliff correctly called it) fringes of politics have been brought into the political mainstream, and have been given a platform on which to spread their message.
A pink blue alliance is unlikely, and isn’t going to happen. What there is, however, is a basic agreement that the sine qua non of engagement in democratic politics, is a fundamental commitment to the values of democracy and equality.
What makes the red-green alliance so unlikely, and so objectionable, is that it does not share that commitment. More than that: those it has chosen to ally with are antagonistic to all the values that it shares. There’s no agreement on socialism v. bourgeois theocracy. There’s no agreement on equality, on the basis of gender, nor sexuality, nor faith or lack thereof. There’s no agreement on secularism. There is only an agreement on the need to oppose the United States, and the destruction of the State of Israel. Oh, and a vague fondness for street politics, and public posturing.
So, yes. I do think that a red-green alliance is a bad idea.
DavidT - oh to have such clarity!
Sid
I am glad that you responded in an honest and thoughtfull manner, and I agree with your Chomsky analogy (I would also add George Galloway to that- so predictably and inevitably anti American). However, accusations of racism are cheap and are really a sign that you are loosing an argument.
So, at pain of seeming tedious. I would suggest that if your only argument against Pipes is that he is racist, then big up to Pipes. He has won.
One thing that has been hugely encouraging about the last couple of weeks is the realisation that its ok to call a racist, racist.
I’ve done the escape and evasion course and it’s rough and you get tortured. But soldiers still volunteer to do it.
I don’t know what scares me more, this log or your past.
Bert Prest, what I’m wondering is whether the army training destroyed every last vestige of human feeling and compasion in you, or whether you joined the army because you had none in the first place?
Lee
I don’t think I’ve said anywhere that I think Pipes is a racist. Although, it would be difficult to label this, which is his advocacy of Muslim internment as mirax as already alluded to, as anything else.
This reflexive and frequently hysterical condemnation of Gitmo by the left really does the debate over precisely what can be done about 4th Generation captives in a war no favours at all. It should not be answered by a reflexive defense of Gitmo either - but the fact is that by Historical standards - and even modern Historical standards (e.g Post WW2) the treatment of the those held at Gitmo has been exemplary.
Conventionally the Geneva and Haugue documents have been treated as reciprocal bindings on Combatants - even if strictly speaking they are intended to be unilateral - that is to say that even in theatres where in general the conventions were observed (e.g the WW2 western and Desert fronts) a breach by one side would usually evoke a retaliotory breach by the other - the SS jugends divison in Normandy and Falaise murdered Candian captives and afterwards SS soldiers in that campaign rarely survived capture at Canadian hands, similarly there was a period in which US soldiers adopted a “take no prisoners” approach in the wake of an SS massacre, in both cases conventional overall respect of the conventions - at least between these particular comabatants was re-established on the principle of reciprocity. In the case of the Warsaw uprising the AK went to some lengths, despite being a guerilla army, to establish a discipline over it’s soldiers and enforced respect for the customs of war despite the fact that the Germans deployed against them such formations as the Dirlewanger and Kaminsky brigades who were murderous brigands in uniformwho went on an especially murderous rampage in the suburbs of Warsaw. But the codical to the Battle was that on the whole the Polish AK ultimately surrendered as soldiers to the Werhmacht and were treated as such.
This detour through some historical examples is merely to show that a) Conventions of war are reciprocal arrangements b) and the conventions do provide a path for even iregular forces to adhere to them.
In the case of AQ and the Taleban it is very hard to see how they were spontaneous resistance to a foreign invasion when they had been military formations in training camps and in the battle against the Northern Alliance for near a decade. Nor is it easy to see how they inadvertantly caught up in one war when they had gobe there to fight another - after all AQ’s war against America had been long declared - and was a part of the indoctrination that all the AQ and Taleban soldiers recieved, and that is backed by mountains of dcuments as well as the accounts of the preachings offered by the religious/political leadership.
Likewise even if AQ or the Taleban did not recognise them as war crimes they were fully aware of the actions which we as well as the Conventions define as war crimes were being committed. The Embassy bombings as well as the generalised rulings about the permisability of killing any American , not just soldiers, were not the secrets of an inner cadre as might be said of some German war crimes, after all the reason the likes of the Taleban or AQ do not adhere to the likes of the Geneva convetion is that they are openly contemptuous of the very notions behind it.
None of this answers the question of what is to be done with captives fighting for non state (or unrecognised states) organisations dedicated to a battle plan in which the commision of atrocity is the central tactical order, and whose combatants don’t just break one or two of the provisions which would disqualify them as combatants under the conventions , but each and every one. And it does seem lunacy to find objectionable their classification as unlawful combatants - even if we are to disagree about the implications of such a classification.
The lefts position of Gitmo is further confused because it seems impossible to discern whether they are campaigning for these captives to be subject to Criminal law in the jurisdiction of the country they wage war against or whether they are subject to the provisions governing POW’s - as the two are contradictory. If POW’s their rights to the court system are nearly non-existent, and they are generally understood as being subject to being held for the duration of the conflict - in this case it would seem to require an A.Q surrender to change that status.
I don’t think the legal limbo they exist in at the moment is satisfactory - but if the left wants to be part of the debate about how that is to be resolved then they need to get serious. Calling Gitmo the Gulag of our times is not serious. Playing from the A.Q playbook in lending credulity to simultaneous allegations of both innocence and brutality without very careful examination is also not serious - particularly because the polemical use made of such propoganda is the recruitment of Jihadists for the continuance of a terrorist war.
This is beginning to feel like a mugging.
Still making excuses for Gitmo I see Johan.
but if the left wants to be part of the debate about how that is to be resolved then they need to get serious.
The left is serious - it needs to be shut down. And sorry to burst your bubble but the consensus among British politicians is the same. The same goes for most American politicians except Bush and his little crew. Do you not remember the Supreme Court ruling?
David T:
What follows from that is this. It is impossible to advocate freedom without being scrupulous to ensure that that value is not subjugated to expedience. To forget that is to lose the battle
I could be flippant and suggest that losing the battle might be preferable to losing the war, but it would obscure the point that Lincoln made about suicide pacts and every democracy has had to face in time of war since then, and before as well. This really should not be a binary debate - and it is unfourtunate that too much of both the left and right turn it into one. Quite simply the values any society fights for in a war, if it is even remotely a mortal struggle, will always be at least partially subject to expedience. I think that is true of Tyrannies as much as Democracies as perverse as that sounds. In the case of Democracies that really means that debate has to happen - and it ha to happen on the basis that some of the values being defended or fought for are going to be compromised by the exigencies of war, just as on the other side there must be an admission that some expediencies are more costly in the long term than the immediate crisis they address (Japanese internment is a good example). But the real commandment has to be that both sides of the debate keep a level head - and in the case of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib I think the critics have done little to protect the values they purport to defend, whilst doing very great damage to the cause of fighting a far greater threat to those values. In that respect Abu Ghraib is of particular concern - it would be one thing if “our” side ( and the necessity of those quotes itself speaks volumes) had decided to cover-up an incident that revealed official policy - but Abu Ghriab was instead an example of the US military having absorbed the lamentable lessons of My Lai and doing things differently - albeit in difficult circumstances. But the tenor of the criticism became such that it is difficult not to feel that parts of the left (and the right - e.g Sullivan) insist on a standard of perfection for the prosecution of the war which appears to me to be simply unobtainable, and that if that standard cannot be met then it is better to withdraw from the struggle and hope for the best, and retreat before an enemy to whom which we will have handed allies foolish enough to trust our commitment, an enemy who has far fewer scruples. The left should have vigorously defended the fact that the Abu Ghraib prosecution was a concrete example that “our” side was quite serious about the values it fought for - and instead it vigorously assisted in making of Abu Ghraib the greatest propoganda coup for the terrorists of the war so far. It is not just to make the ideal the enemy of the good but the strongest ally of the bad.
Again, spurious accusations:
and in the case of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib I think the critics have done little to protect the values they purport to defend
You mean by excusing what happened there presumably? Just because for reasons of “expediency” you prefer to overlook some of the values you claim to want to defend, it doesn’t mean you start condoning torture. Where does this “expediency” end by the way? Any ideas?
insist on a standard of perfection for the prosecution of the war which appears to me to be simply unobtainable
I think I prefer the neo-cons to instead have an understanding of what they’re getting themselves into and not pretend people will roll over and do their bid at the click of a finger.
By the way, you may be interested in this:
At Guantanamo, soldiers have assaulted me, placed me in solitary confinement, threatened to kill me, threatened to kill my daughter and told me I will stay in Cuba for the rest of my life. They have deprived me of sleep, forced me to listen to extremely loud music and shined intense lights in my face. They have placed me in cold rooms for hours without food, drink or the ability to go to the bathroom or wash for prayers. They have wrapped me in the Israeli flag and told me there is a holy war between the Cross and the Star of David on one hand and the Crescent on the other. They have beaten me unconscious.
If, for the sake of expediency and fighting a war, you want to do away with your own values (temporarily of course!), then why can’t your “enemy” claim the same? Why can’t others use that silly excuse?
Sunny:
You accuse me of spurious accusations but then proceed to insinuate that I condone torture or overlook the values being fought for.
I thought that the debate cannot be conducted in binary terms - I want to be fair and not make assumptions that may be unwarranted - do you think that it is possible to prosecute a campaign - for example such as that being face in relation to the insurgency in Iraq - without any compromise of liberal secular values at all? Or is it your position that the strictest of adherence to such values will always be worth the short term, or even long term cost ?
The reason I ask this is that usually when you try and get an answer on , for example, the classic ticking bomb scenario it is virtually impossible to get from a values absolutist any answer that does not dismiss the scenario itself as unrealistic or entirely hypothetical. Well there are in fact ticking bombs going off almost every day in Iraq at the moment - almost always with very great loss of civilian life, do you have some idea that I have not heard of that would enable one to prosecute such a war without any compromise at all of liberal democratic values ? And if not, is it your position that when a war gets to that stage democracies must simply quit the battlefield and not have anything to do with what happens afterwards beyond remonstrating with the remaining combatants and offering such humanitarian assitance as can be provided ? And to do this even when the violence spills over into the Democracies home territory?
I really want to know if you think that the demonstrable expediencies adopted in the prosecution of both the Second World War and the Cold war as well as the interventions in the Balkans were such as to have fatally damaged the democracies that made them? And to be clear that question is not the same as asking whether any such compromises were justified - which is a seperate question - which I will also ask you - can you think of any cases where there was a justifiable compromise of liberal values in a war or struggle against an illiberal opponent or in every case would it have been preferable to bear whatever cost was entailed by refusing such a comropise?
Johan W,
What you don’t address in your huge post is whether or not the people detained at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, or come to that any of those rendered elsewhere - away from the spotlight - are in fact enemy combatants, or even dropped litter in Kabul or Baghdad.
There has been no evidence presented that has stood up.
What we are seeing is an updated Bedlam. Except your good self of course, who is so full of legal precedent you can’t see the wood for the trees.
Sunny:
And PS on the link to Jumah al-Dossar’s claims that he was/is being tortured at Gitmo.
This is one of those cases that I am pretty sure that the dichotmy is that either one believes this testimony or it is obvious that one supports torture. I actually think there are good reasons why this testimony and other like it should be treated with a good deal of skepticism, and that it is possible to be skeptical of such testimony and still oppose the use of torture at Gitmo or generally.
The reasons I have for being skeptical are that contrary to Jumah’s testimony the red cross have not claimed to have witnessed torture at Gutanamo - what they claim is that they have received testimony.
Secondly the instructions given to AQ members in the event of capture are quite specific about the making of spurious claims of ill treatment as a propoganda tactic where the captive can still contribute to the Jihad. These instructions are well documented.
As a practical matter and to be as honest with you as I can I do think that in general it would be true to say that those most likely to believe Al-Dosarri’s testimony are also the most likely to be absolutists on the question of torture, and that those most likely to disbeleive his testimony or believe it to be grossly exagerated and embellished are also those more inclined to accept that Torture may be necesarry in exceptional circumstances, and also be very restrictive in what they think qualifies as Torture and what fails to merit that label, whilst those inclined to accept thsi testimony as proof that trumps any other evidence or testimony to the contrary are also most likely to accept definitions of torture that encompass loud music or uncomfortable chairs.
So Al-Dossari’s testimony may be false but those believing it would still be correct that those disbelieving it do not share their absolute position on the question of torture and would right to question any protestation that they do.
But what would I think be an entirely unwarranted assumption is that just because someone may believe that Torture or some coercive duress may be sometimes necessarry, they also beleive that it should be routine or resorted to in other but the most exceptional circumstances.
douglas clark:
I will try to adress your question - becasue it is an critically important one - but I will offer the rueful observation that it would be nice if there was some reciprocity when it came to answering questions on this subject.
You say there has been no evidence that has stood up - I was unaware that any trials had concluded in matters affecting detainee’s arrested outside the US or on grounds that they were detained and their acts of what they are to be charged with does not easily render itself subject to US legal jurisdiction. The proposed military commision has been successfully challenged and it’s purported replacement has not yet concluded any proceedings so that it would be fairer to say that no evidence has been tested in a satisfactory court yet rather than insinuating that all the evidence has failed such a test.
That said it is the case that a number of detianees have been released so obviously there is some process at work that tries to ascertain whether a detainee is in fact a combatant or not - and in a number of cases that process has concluded that the detainee either is not a combatant, or if they were are now judged to not represent a serious risk, or in some cases it appears that detainees may have been released despite the possibility that they were in fact combatants but that their country of citizenship successfully petitioned for their release into their jurisdiction. In 19 known cases, irrespective of their status before being detained at Gitmo, detainee’s have been released who subsequently have been apprehended or killed on the Battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan.
My in principle answer to your question is that yes it is critically important that some method of ascertaining at the least whether a detainee actually is an enemy combatant, lawful or not, be put in place that is rigorous enough to satisfy most public opinion.
My practical view is that such an arrangement might not actually mean the war is lost, but that the enemy gets to fight with something approaching impunity. Of course if we are very vigilant we may well be able to prevent or forestall most attacks in the more settled parts of the world - and will probably conclude that the odd 7/7 or Madrid or 9/11 is not enough to make very big changes to how we handle domestic terrorism, but less settled and organised societies will be pretty much on their own against such threats - and we will avert our eyes I think rather than risk dirtying our hands. I suppose we could have recourse to some august international tribunal for such cases like the Haugue or ICC - places where even if one is able to be convicted at all - the penalty for massacring a whole village or blowing up a few hundred people is less than what a couple of Jewelry smash and grabs would get you - and even then you will only face that prospect if you were incompetent enough to actually lose whatever conflict you were engaged in when the atrocities were comitted.
I don’t want the operations of this war to operate in a legal limbo land - or be in the position where junior grade officers are judge and jury over peoples life or fate. But I do want the difficulties of prosecuting a conflict against non state actors and irregulars by a democracy to be acknowledged and the debate as to how it can be done to be serious and those who suggest that there really are some very morally and legally ambiguous decisions which must be faced in such a conflict not be automatically accused of seeking to abandon liberal democratic values altogether.
Anas #66 - the latter I suppose. But no panic, fun and substance abuse has since reintroduced me to humanity. Though I can still get uppity when people whinge about the treatment of those who torture their own detainees to death as a matter of course. I’m struggling to grasp how this makes me inhuman.
Montag, quite simply, you’re an ass.
Johan W,
I take your point that it has not been tested in court, although I think you would perhaps agree that those third party victims who were released - UK, Canadian and Australian citizens if memory serves - have not even faced charges in their native countries. Which is fairly damning on the standard of evidence used to hold the rest in what are, by British standards at least, well below what we’d apply to mass murderers. So, whilst my point was moot, on that point at least, yours looks increasingly shaky too.
You say that there are 19 known cases of ex Gitmo detainees who have subsequently been re-apprehended or killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan. The problem is not that 19, but the thousands and thousands that were radicalised by the disgusting treatment that the US meted out.
Does it occur to you that there would have been no problem with detaining enemy combatants, whether in or out of uniform, if the conditions that applied to regular combatants had been applied to these folk? It was an incredible piece of double think to deny them the protection of the Geneva Convention on what is strictly, a technicality. Whilst lawyers can argue how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, it does seem to me that the US took the wrong approach with folk that are at least alleged combatants in a war declared by the President himself. It was a spectacular own goal.
And done to appease the red necks in his electorate. If you can’t be tough on terrorists, or even catch them, then round up a few folk and treat them like shit to encourage the others. It also showed that GW Bush was tough on terror. This played out quite well for him in the last election for President, did it not?
It may well be that judicial review is difficult, it does not excuse the condition that these people are detained under. During the Second World War a lot of people were rounded up and kept in captivity by both sides, without the almost universal disapproval that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have achieved.
You have an administration in the US that is not really interested in the Human Rights of detainees. Their developing theme nowadays is to hide these folk in compliant third world torture states. This is known as outsourcing in more mainstream businesses. In other words, it is all of a piece. An essentially corrupt policy.
Thanks to apologists for torture as a means of gaining intelligence, there is a growing opinion that torture is necessary. I have seen not a shred of evidence that supports that viewpoint either. We are being asked to take on trust that useful material is being obtained. I think that is a bare faced lie, and one swallow will not make a summer.
My fundamental point is this. You do not win a war by becoming exactly the same as your enemy. Otherwise you might as well just surrender now, as you have become your enemy.
Montag and Johan W, yikes! Interesting that HP regulars come to PP, spouting Nick Cohen’s new-found value system of WAR and torture, and their bullshit gets thrown into sharp relief here. Such as this rubbish from Johan W:
But I do want the difficulties of prosecuting a conflict against non state actors and irregulars by a democracy to be acknowledged and the debate as to how it can be done to be serious and those who suggest that there really are some very morally and legally ambiguous decisions which must be faced in such a conflict not be automatically accused of seeking to abandon liberal democratic values altogether.
Which is class Cohen double-speak for, we’re in unchartered territory, the enemy is stonger and more vicious than ever before so we as Liberal Democracies should be permitted to bypass “legally ambiguous decisions” and utilise torture and civilian bombings.
Use any utilitarian ideology you want to perform your illegal and anti-humanitarian acts of war and torture. But you forfeit the right to do so in the name of Liberal Democracy.
“we as Liberal Democracies should be permitted to bypass “legally ambiguous decisions” and utilise torture and civilian bombings.”
Saddam made many public appearances - what would have been your view had we dropped a 500 pounder on him during one of these, killing him and the hundred or two civilians who were unlucky enough to be near him at the time?
After the Iranian Holocaust-Denial conference in Tehran comes the Israeli ‘Global Jihad Warning - The Muslims Want to Take Over the World’ conference in Tel Aviv.
After the Iranian Holocaust-Denial conference in Tehran comes the Israeli ‘Global Jihad Warning - The Muslims Want to Take Over the World’ conference in Tel Aviv.
What a surprise…
Sunny
This is a genuine question - something I’ve been meaning to ask for quite a long time, but I beleive you were not ready for it - why is Harry’s Place listed as a comrade to PP, when you have removed far better ones?
For goodness sake adopt DavidT (nice guy) if you must - but we don’t need his unruly fascist tribe.
wonder what’s worse? An unruly fascist tribe or one that rules?
crap observation.com
Mr Square
Good observation - at least it made me laugh.
I hope a lott more bombs will go off in London. This BS about neo-cons is so degrading for the excellent analyses of Mr Pipes.
When Winston Churchill warned for the Nazi’s, starting in 1932, he was called a war monger and maybe also a neo-con; aren’t you making the same mistake or are you willing to take the gamble?
Man, I feel all human again.
“I hope a lott more bombs will go off in London. This BS about neo-cons is so degrading for the excellent analyses of Mr Pipes.”
This is truly a grave turn - where people start hoping for more bombs so they can justify their stance. One might be given to think, it almost doesn’t matter who plants the bombs as long as there are bombs.
Isn’t one Pearl Harbour, one Iraq, one Afghanistan, one million dead enough for this fantasist.
@ art, cheers for proving me right about loony Eustonites.
I apologise for statement #66 BP I was just getting a bit frustrated. I should cut down on the ad hominem.
No worries mate. It’s all in the best possible taste.
“..forcibly convert the rest to their ideology.”
golly! could apply to forced application of ‘democracy’ couldn’t it. as well as all sorts of other things. of course the central point is if you’ve forced it on people it by definition ain’t democracy anymore.
the issue of ‘hating’ democracy is an interesting one. who hates democracy? people clearly have different definitions of democracy. some might say that after the florida debacle that ‘Bush hates democracy’. hating democracy is a funny term - i’d say a lot of people want power, and will find different ways of defining democracy accordingly. if it gets them more power - great. if not - then they’ll probably diss it.
differentiating between ‘clash of civilizations’ and clas of civilization and barbarism is hardly useful actually. huntington’s underlying premise is pretty much that - although not said so specifically and explicitly of course, he implies in his reasoning that some ‘civilizations’ are inherently more ‘barbaric’ than others.
It’s pointless hating the rain
No, it is not.
Yes it is. Because you can’t do anything to stop it happenning
yes, isn’t it funny when people say things like “this is war and the west should not be afraid to fight it till death.” all they’re doing is being uncannily similar to Osama bin Laden and other nutty fundamentalists. i always did think they had plenty in common.
We ain’t got no money, Honey, But we got rain
Nature brings rain, human nature brings democracy, inhuman nature brings fascism
Hating any of the above is pointless. Instead, decide whether you want to get an umbrella, hide away or splash in it
Or can you? Actually, you are probably right. It is pointless, though that will not stop most people from carrying on hating it.
sonia- Good point about Huntington; he sees one type of civilization as barabric.
Like the creature from the Black Lagoon they come crawling, without introspection, self-awareness or understanding, the hirsute keyboard war-mongerers of Hairy’s Place!
Sonia,
Good point at 97.
An American comic once said, “if Capital and Labor ever get together, God help the rest of us’. Well, it made me laugh.
Seemed strangely apposite to this debate.
A bit unfair on the creature, don’t you think Jagdeep?
What’s Harry’s Place? Are they like Stormfront? I had fun on Stormfront. It took two whole months before they banned me. I got banned on ligali after a day. I’m trying to get banned from as many places as possible so I can have my life back
I got here via Harry’s Place. Today is full of surprises, eh?
Andrew Sullivan is a right winger I genuinely respect. He is a man with guts, integrity, introspection, principles. He saw what was wrong about his support for the war, and has been unrelenting in examining the moral failure and assumptions that lay behind it. Big respect to him — even when I disagree with him, he gives the right a good name because he is a man of moral integrity and honour.
Compare the likes of him with the band of Hairy’s Place, whose whole take on everything is mediated through the need to do the opposite of what that other moron Lenin’s Place regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, and the gutlessness and moral cowardice of the Hairy’s Place Lagoon becomes clear. Not an ounce of critical self awareness, introspection, acknowledgment of failure.
Put Andrew Sullivan in your links Sunny — we need more Anglo-American Gay Republicans with integrity and honour like him.
I would say to anyone fed up with the craven apologists for suicide bombing that part of the morally decrepit Left has become, and the inverse of that, the moronic war mongerer’s of the Hairy’s Place school, who want critical self awareness on the pressing issues of our time, to make their home at Pickled Politics, the natural home of the truly decent left.
Qaradawi is “progressive” ? *smirk* oh right well i suppose that all depends on one’s definition of progressive! ( this is a man who thinks all muslim men would be ‘aroused’ if there was a female imam in a mosque..!!)
sonia
Qaradawi — That’s why I say Ken Livingstone has his heart in the right place, but he is naive as hell.
” this is a man who thinks all muslim men would be ‘aroused’ if there was a female imam in a mosque..!!)”
I get aroused by those domes atop mosques because they make me think of breasts
phwooar, cop a load of her minarets, I enjoy saying at such times
chuckle - well done sunny for your questions - heh heh what a laugh.
102 - douglas - heh that’s a good one.
rumbold - yep, and then based on later texts he’s written, huntington appears to think lots of people are barbaric - judging from what he’s written about Hispanics in Who Are We? he’s well worried about the issue of bilingualism (and ATMs in california!) i daresay he thinks britain ought not to be complaining ‘alf as much ..(given that ATM’s don’t offer Hindi as the primary langugage ) *chortle*
yes, isn’t it funny when people say things like “this is war and the west should not be afraid to fight it till death.” all they’re doing is being uncannily similar to Osama bin Laden and other nutty fundamentalists. i always did think they had plenty in common.
Exactly and that’s part of the problem. Too many people have bought into this idea that the Neo Cons are sane and Bin Laden is the devil incarnate when in fact both are extremists willing to use violence to get their way.
As usual it’s us that get caught in the crossfire…
precisely Leon - and to use their own terminology they’ve ‘expanded the theater of conflict’.
if we could say to them - ‘take it somewhere else!’
“Andrew Sullivan is a right winger I genuinely respect. He is a man with guts, integrity, introspection, principles:” On the contrary, I find him capricious and unstable in his views, and has performed a complete about face not on questions of general principles but on the basis of his personal baggage. He used to write the most absurdly adoring pieces in praise of George Bush in every area of his policy, be it domestic or foreign. Bush could do no wrong in areas which which went way beyond support for the war, so that even I, who supported the war and some of the actions of Mr Bush, found it absurd. Against all evidence of a particular stupidity of the day of Bush, he would bend over backwards to say in fact Bush was being so clever that only he, Sullivan could detect the deep clever strategy Bush was pursuing. Until, one day the Bush administration did something which did not accord with Sullivan’s libertarianism in general and gay rights in particular, and Sullivan switched like a light.
I liked Sullivan when he was a giant and really little but it all went weird with those talking horses
I think you should have done some more research. Guantanamo Bay is not a restriction of rights. Those detained their were in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, being unlawful combatants. As such some were potentially risking summary execution on the battlefield. None had the right to prisoner-of-war status. Had they been left in Afghanistan that is the outcome that would have been likely. Guantanamo Bay actually now extends to them the rights they would have had as prisoners of war had they been lawful commbatants, although initially that was not always the case.
I actually had to learn parts of the Geneva Conventions. I do not just make assumptions from news reports of pressure groups.
Belmarsh prison was a farce caused by the ridiculous unwillingness to deport people from this country. Those detainees could at any time have left prison, and several of them did. They simply were not allowed to remain free in the UK. They were not UK citizens, and they had shown hostility to the UK. What gives them the natural right to freedom within the UK? What rights are you claiming they were denied?
P.S. Someone mentioned “disgucting” treatment the US “meted out” at Gitmo. That is a lie. In fact the conditions are very good for such detention, and got more lax for many prisoners until they abused the conditions to train other prisoners in terrorist techniques and to try and foment revolt in the detention camp. Many of the stories of abuse have been completely untrue, lies made up by left-wing opponents of the camp (remember the Koran down the toilet? A lie that caused rioting round the world. So who is radicalising muslims, those that set up Guantanamo or those that lie about it?)
P.S. Someone mentioned “disgusting” treatment the US “meted out” at Gitmo. That is a lie. In fact the conditions are very good for such detention, and got more lax for many prisoners until they abused the conditions to train other prisoners in terrorist techniques and to try and foment revolt in the detention camp. Many of the stories of abuse have been completely untrue, lies made up by left-wing opponents of the camp (remember the Koran down the toilet? A lie that caused rioting round the world. So who is radicalising muslims, those that set up Guantanamo or those that lie about it?)