Your shout

Ravi

Melanie, my observation is that under "The War on The Jews", while the linked theme is Antisemitism the story itself may be from a number of diverse incidents. So, linking together all entries under this title would tend to limit the cross-referencing against other criteria. Doesn't the blog let you place articles into a number of different categories and let us apply that filter (like many blogs do). I think it would be more helpful to have category tagging so that we could locate a series called "War on The Jews" but also find it under "Islamism", "Antisemitism", "Archbishop of Canterbury" etc where it cross-references these additional categories Regards.

Alcuin

I agree with Ravi - it would allow more pertinent titles - but have no problem with they way you currently organise your blog. See, for example, Harry's Place.

Commondog

The important thing is that the stuff just keeps coming. Let us worry about finding it.

Thad

Ravi's on the ball - you can have it both ways with tagging, and use the subject titles as well.

BJ

I think the problem may be more the repetitive nature of the content rather than the taxonomy. Regards

jose garcia

well, we would be a lot happier, if you sometimes replied to comments on the blogs,

about the numbering , i am fine with it

thank you

kpg5233

You write it, I will find it. I like the broad headings.

Frank Pulley

Melanie: You worry too much. You write it, we'll read it and comment accordingly. The labels are fine. It's a blog, not an encyclopaedia. No doubt you will trim your sails to deal with both fair winds and foul in order to maintain your impetus. Just one technical gripe - can't your techie jig it so that paragraphing is a default feature in the commentary box? It's sometimes hard on the old mince pies in the small wee hours. And how about an open thread once a week, so that we can respond to your published articles - or would that cross-fertilisation be verboten under the new laws on hybrid embryos? :-)

Tom

How about using a simple colon? E.g. 'War against the Jews (12): ...'

In general linking topics is good, particularly where the link between the previous posts is quite strong.

Scipio

Keep it as it is.

field

Horses for courses.

I think with the War On the Jews series, you're making a valid polemical point that there is a connection between genocidal war on the Jews, the new anti-semitism and the weaker antipathy towards Jews and Israel to be found particularly in Europe.

That's probably more effective than the War on the West.

And generally speaking it's nicer and more interesting to have original titles each time.

If you're looking for topics, where do you stand on Free Tibet? I look forward to seeing continuing protest against Chinese policy of cultural genocide, torture and intimidation in Tibet.

I think you should get stuck into the subject. It's a good test for all those who claim to be simply moved by injustice with reference to the Palestinians. If they are moved by injustice then they should be moved Krakotoa scale by what's been going on in Tibet. If they are not, then what might query what is it about Palestine with its few thousand deaths that gets them so worked up.

Of course I can see you might not want to draw anby parallels, but personally speaking I think there is nothign to fear in debating the subject.

Carol Gould

I think 'The War Against the Jews ' is an excellent and compelling generic title; you should put your 2007-08 essays into chronological order and turn this into a new book of the same title.

THX1138

Why can't we have a preview box before we post? They do over on Guido & you can swear.

GNO

Just like Carol Gould, I feel a book of these essays would be good and probably reach a far wider audiance.

But most of all, keep up the good work!

David

Melanie,
I agree with Ravi but also find the "titling" and "linking" also meaningful and useful. I would suggest, in such series, that you also provide, with each successive posting, quick links to the previous ones in that series.
Keep up your important work, Melanie. You are a voice in a (not wilderness but) desert parched of reason and realism.

epaminondas

Linked series, plz

Behind the arras

I'm very happy with the status quo on this (my favourite) blog, Melanie.

On a technical point, though, it is very difficult to digest other posters' thoughts without paragraph breaks in.

I have only ever been able to do this when I'm using Safari on a Mac (but not Firefox on a Mac). Anything else and it's all squished together.

The episodic titles help to know we're picking up on a similar theme and often illustrate the panorama into which one or another incident falls.

I'm not familiar with blog filters and tagging, but perhaps they would add another dimension to this superlative blog.

There is so much here that is useful and informative, I feel it would be good to have another book from you wrapping up so much of what you've covered recently, particularly in relation to Israel and the wider war on the West. I have only taken an interest in this sort of issue post 9/11 and so I've learnt an awful lot by reading your posts since discovering your site.

Apropos Tibet, field, you may have missed Melanie's barnstorming performance on Question Time recently where there was a question about China and the Olympics. Melanie, as usual, was not in the mood for endorsing anyone who grovels towards tyrants.

I've had much pleasure, too, from the current series of The Moral Maze. I thought I'd fall off my seat laughing when you cross-examined Sebastian 'everyone's a prostitute' Horsley. I had to Google him afterwards to see if he was real.

Just keep it up, Melanie, keep it up!

Ravi

BTW - I missed a trick and maybe this is the answer. You may not need to change anything at all. I used the "Search this blog" button on the right-hand sidebar and searched for "War on the Jews". I got all the articles in the series plus some others. I guess the keyword search is enough for anyone wanting to find something. Anyway, having to tag all your articles with keywords is a pain and two months later you create a new category and wish some of the past articles were re-tagged. Nightmare. On reflection, keep it the way it is and we can use a keyword search, Also, I echo the request for you to sometimes respond to a comment.

Dag_T

I think your titles are great. Don't change anything.

Ian C

I have always been able to cross-refer through the search facility so I think Ravi is correct. I do agree that we should be able to break our replies with paragraphs, disagree that swearing should be tolerated and would prefer it if you could respond to comments made - especially views you have not considered before (so we know) and put-downs for the immoderate rantings and non-sequiturs that degrade the quality of the blog.

Robin

I like to think that most of us who follow this must-read blog are quite capable of coping with however it's organized.

As Commondog rightly said, the stuff just needs to keep coming.

There's a case for better formatting on the expanded views and one for interactive comments. As to you making responses, I suspect it might just drag you into more work than you need. Those of us you read and occasionally post can deal with the oddballs who sometimes pop up.

Alistair D

I think it would be useful to have the entries linked, though from Ravi's most recent entry it seems this is already doable via the search facility.

Bernard Freedman

Melanie: If linking would make it easier to find your blogs, I would be all in favor of it. Keep up your incisive work that I invariably agree with (except for global warming). Please include more references to Londonistan to provide more context to your items.

GaryL

I can understand your choice of icon, but why the left hand?

An alternate general title for both series could be "The war called peace".

If republished as a collection in book form, George Orwell's collected essays, journalism & letters would be a good model. The whole conglomerate of his thoughts, both public and private, were published in their chronological sequence, with indexes.

Ethan Edwards

I'm happy with it just the way it is. The only change I would like to see is for you, Melanie, to post comments in response to those of your readers.

Many thanks for the excellent work you are doing. It really is much appreciated.

B.Williamson

The blogs are fine. If tabulation is required it's no hardship to copy and paste into Word or Appleworks documents which are then saved on hard drives. What counts more is the invaluable input and correctives to the ridiculouly biased stances of Polly Toynbee, Seamus Milne, Robert Fisk, Barbara Plett, Orla Guerin and that grandmaster of oily deception, Jeremy Bowen. Keep it up, this is the stuff of, less we forget real history and the moulding of a world in massive turmoil.

Stanislav Koblinski

Your request for feedback is appreciated, as is the possibility to comment here, but please don't feel you need to reply to comments. Personally I'd prefer you used your valuable time writing more articles.

Morgan Rigg

I don't see how it is off-putting at all. I say continue with the titles. Keep fighting the good fight.

Roslyn Pine

Leave well alone and keep it as it is.

Huw Thornton

I think it's fine as it is............sometimes I'm bowled over by the ingenuity involved in getting so much disparate material under a single heading! Always a good read.

Peter A

I think the issues here linked in series lend themselves to just that.It is no hardship to actually read the blog to discover its contents.I like what Melanie does and reckon she should carry on as usual.

Jordynne Olivia Lobo

Dear Ms. Phillips,

Carry on entitling your entries as you like: it's their Churchillian content, not their taglines, that I come for. Keep up your splendid work in behalf of Western Civilization, won't you?

A Chaffey

I agree with Jose Garcia that it would be nice if you sometime replied to comments. On the technical side Cif have a feature that allows people to recommend comments. Unfortunately no one uses it, perhaps cos it's not very obvious, but it seems an excellent idea. Have you/the Spectator considered it? More generally I see lots of positive comments here, but for myself I find the constant vitriol rather wearing. Any chance you could be a little less nasty? or is that your USP?

Rob

I prefer the sign posts.
Thumbs up!

Antoine

To be honest I'm a liberal lefty who reads this blog out of a certain morbid fascination - as such I'm not sure my opinion counts, but I have no issues with the format in any case.

The content, on the other hand, scares the hell out of me - far more than Islamism et al does. You all really think that?

Barry Kaplovitz

Please link them. I would to be able to go all the way back to the beginning and re-read these related posts over time.

KateA

I actually find the linked titles most useful. Also, I support the contributors who have suggested a 'Collection' in book form.

You are a beacon of courage and rational thought Melanie. Take care.

Ron Minihan

Dear Ms Phillips,
The structure of your blog is fine. I especially think your use of Lucy Davidovich's classic title "The War Against the Jews" very apropos.The content is quiet superb.You are a very rare contemporary
personality who not only tries to think but also actually can.

Frank Pulley

Antoine: Go on ... admit it, you know you really love it! The truth is quite easy to swallow if you realise it's good for you. But it does taste differently to all that crap you've been digesting from the fundaments of the Guardianistas ('et al'). BTW, you should be frightened - and when the adrenaline flows, remember, that's a signal! You have to make a choice: fight or flight ... or just accept Dhimmitude like the good and craven peace loving little 'leftie liberal' that you are. And undoubtedly Melanie will be grateful for your opinion about the format, she's a gracious lady, even when she is roused - which sadly is most of the time these days, but completely justified, given the abysmal administration we are currently suffering.

Murad Adam

No. I am not frustrated by titles such as: ‘War against the Jews’ or ‘War against the west’. Because these are accurate title. Islamists are at war with the Jews everywhere and with the West. To think or say otherwise is fooling oneslef.
Journalism is a big and serious responsibility. Journalists should act like saints, with great conscience and scruples. For example, journalists should oppose the West's burning desire to threaten World Peace by installing Missile Attack installations in Ukraine, Check republic and Georgia, under the pretext thay they want to defend Europe. WE all know that is a lie and deception. They put them there to attack Russia and China. Journalists have the responsibility to explain that to the public. Because the Stupid Public believe what they are told without looking beyond their noses.

Roy

Keep them coming. In whatever order.

Janet

I don't know how many gizmos you can add to a blog before there's too many. It seems fine to me.

Presentation aside, the writing on this blog is sheer perfection. No less.

Paul

I enjoy reading the comments on this blog and would be very interested to read any valid points that Antoine feels he has to contribute.

Edward the Thirst

Antoine.
I admire your stance and very genuinely, I think it would be good to hear from you just why you find the contents here so scary? Again in total respect, I ask you how can this stuff be a threat? Do YOU really think it is and why?

Possum

If it ain't broke...

Antoine

Edward - yes, yes I do.

To work through just why that is I should probably declare my starting point here - I have a feeling its maybe a wee bit atypical relative to other readers? I'm a 23 year-old, white Scot, and and all being well I'll soon be a medical doctor (so, to be honest, my interest probably owes a certain amount to the avoidance of revision too). I speak passable Urdu and shoddy Arabic, I live in a Muslim area of Glasgow and I've spent time in both Pakistan and Iran. The only serious girlfirend I've had thus far was Jewish and indeed partly Israeli and wholly Zionist, and I've known friends that died in suicide attacks in both Iraq and Jerusalem. I've also worked with Asylum Seekers in Glasgow at various times.

I have a feeling this might go some way towards explaining why I just don't recognize the world as it's presented on these pages?
The recurring themes include Climate Change, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Islamism and the MMR debate - and I suppose my opposition to Melanie's stances on each of these could be split into two categories;
Firstly, as regards the scientific subjects mentioned (also that of evolution), put simply, I prefer to trust those whose field this is. The first rule of science is that no prior conviction is sacred, and thus no hypothesis is too outlandish for consideration; as a result, the way to make your name as a researcher is to kill a sacred cow - to confront orthodoxy. This is well and good. At the same time however, hypotheses drawn from suspicion + anecdote that upon investigation turn out to be unprovable cannot be claimed as truth. In these cases I have no intrinsic attachment to the theories in question - but I accept them on the strength of the evidence base. On both I'll be more than happy to issue retractions and apologies the moment the balance of the peer-reviewed research indicates my mistake.
Secondly, as regards the political issues - my feelings are that mankind's only hope is to realize that ultimately we're all in the same boat; as such conflict, individualism and poverty trouble me. Without getting into the specifics of the problems in the Middle East - I arrive at this issue from the outside of both communities and try to take a non-partisan view, which leads me to the conclusion that inhumane and counter-productive steps are taken by governments and individuals on both sides - to which both would then angrily respond - 'but look how much worse they are, look how biased the media coverage is, look how the world condones their crimes'. On the issue of Islam, I think that religions are funny old things, and that the Koran is extremely complex + contains both sound moral advice and an unhealthy tolerance for violence - but then it's not like that religion has a monopoly on the latter - indeed the tendency towards violence would seem to me to be the greatest weakness in the human condition, as equally applied across races + faiths. As such Islam does not worry me in the same way that it does many of the posters here - though I would acknowledge that cohesion is better in Scotland, probably due simply to lower numbers - who knows, maybe I'd be more concerned if I lived in England.

Perhaps the best summary I could give for my disagreement with this blog is that I still have optimism + find little of that here? Anyway, hope that is of interest,
take care.

Ricardo

Antoine, you say: “no hypothesis is too outlandish for consideration” so I don’t understand your beef with Melanie on MMR. Look back at Melanie’s pieces on MMR. They are not anti-MMR as some people would characterise them, they are would-like-to-know-more-about MMR.

You talk about relying on an “evidence base” – but what if you’re not allowed to add to that evidence base. Doesn’t that skewer any attempt at proper enquiry? That’s precisely what’s happened to the MMR debate in this country.

What concerns Melanie is the way this debate is being closed down. Presumably the people who wish to do so think they are acting in children’s best interest because they’d rather children faced the risk of vaccination that not be vaccinated at all.

So when can we have this debate? When can the scientists who wish to look closer at this vaccine be given the budget and resources to do so? It looks like the answer is never. That’s not good enough, I’m afraid.

On politics, you seem to confuse your laudable sense of optimism with blinkered thinking.

Melanie doesn’t do blinkered thinking – and that gives me much to be optimistic about.

Celestine

"Islam does not worry me in the same way that it does many of the posters here... who knows, maybe I'd be more concerned if I lived in England".

Think about that sentence for a second. It has the air of: "I can't get worked up over this because I'm not in the target zone." I don't think you'd apply the same logic to the Third Reich and the Jews (at least I hope not) but it's precisely because so mnay of us do live in the target zone that we care.

Moreover, as Melanie Phillips keeps emphasising, horrifying as the terror is, what's even worse to contemplate is what that terror is done for: submission. Submission is the meaning of the word Islam.

Sadly, the signal seems to have gone out that terror works.

Discriminatory privileges that favour Muslim men in polygamous marriages? Suits you, sir.

Open up the economy to Shariah bonds? Suits you, sir.

Look away when it comes to arranged marriages? Suits you, sir.

Where does all this stop, exactly? Or is that the point? It doesn't? DO we just become an Islamic state inch by inch?

What if you wake up one day in an Islamic state and it's too late to say: "Oh yeah, this stuff really matters, actually."

To broaden the scope of this, what if you woke up one day with an autistic baby in your hands and wondered why they seemed fine before their MMR vaccine, but not now?

Would Melanie Phillips' unflinching approach make sense then? Isn't that too late?

Antoine

The point was not a lack of concern through distance from the target - more that I don't profess any great understanding of how London works not having spent much time there. I merely wished to point out that my conclusions were based upon observations within a different country - and I'm ready to accept that your situation might be different. Please can we not make the standard knee-jerk comparisons to Nazism over such relatively minor points - lest they lose their effect with over-use.

As to your point on MMR; in that situation, I would have found myself the victim of a tragic anecdote, and without wishing to downplay how awful that must be for those involved, anecdotes are not a good basis for deciding the scientific nature of the world. Humans are illogical, and all of us can only ever directly experience a tiny minority of the world from one limited point of view - this is why an evidence base matters when deciding how things really are.

Now I must leave but will reply in full upon returning from the pub...

Edward the Thirst

Antoine.
Your every thought seems stifled by a desperate compulsion to find in everything, an equable mean.
1.You're a Scot, you speak Urdu
2.You are happy in the company of Muslim and Jewish people.
3.All religions perpetrate violence to precisely the same degree.
Everything seems to boil down to the old 'we're all pink on the inside' mantra. It all sounds lovely, but it's simply a brace on any ability to see what is happening on the ground.
At 23 it's only right you should 'have optimism' but something between the lines tells me you do know that we are in the foothills of many troubled times, and why oh why do they have to coincide with your years.
You would I assure you be less sanguine were you to live in what remains of England.

A. Segell

Keep the headers - this is about ongoing stories.

Frank Pulley

Celestine
'Unflinching.' A wonderful encapsulation of our host. Relieve me at my post, will you, I'm off to bed.

Antoine.
Try and hold on to that hope; it will be more and more difficult as time goes by, particularly in the trade you have chosen. So treat this blog as insurance against what could and possibly will happen; you must address that scenario, onerous though it is. It's a wicked old world but people like you could and must try to make it better. Sadly, it's too late for us old Saga louts to do anything but play Cassandra, but it's heartening to see such innocence still abroad. Great response to Ricardo, incidentally and good luck with your vocation and career.

KateA

I hope this is the appropriate area under which to query a perplexing - maybe technical - problem.

My (I think) 'reasonable' comments quite often disappear into the ether; i.e. I click 'post comment', the screen comes up blank and stays that way.

In the early hours of this morning, a blank screen maintained for one full hour whereupon I gave up and went to bed!

Perhaps the service only operates within a specific time frame? It would be useful to know those times.

Jane

Antoine, if the Nazis wanted to rid the world of Jews and to have the whole world under the control of the Third Reich and the Islamists want to rid the world of Jews and have the whole world operate according to the Sharia, that hardly seems like a "knee-jerk comparison".

In relation to MMR, the previous poster wanted to know why Dr Wakefiled isn't being allowed to expand his evidence base, to which you say: "this is why an evidence base matters when deciding how things really are". Precisely.

What's your point?

This scientist has had all government and drug company funding pulled from him.

He's the man asking to expand the evidence base and yet you seem to imply that's it's proper that he shouldn't expand his evidence base.

How does that figure?

Magpie

"Anecdotes are not a good basis for deciding the scientific nature of the world" - quite right. We turn to science to offer us a way out of anecdote. Science, as you point out, Antoine, relies upon an evidence base.

I wouldn't call an evidence base to which you are not allowed to gather and add more evidence to a respectable and worthy evidence base.

I'd call it an incomplete and therefore potentially flawed one.

All Dr Wakefield wishes to do is gather and assess more evidence. He is unable to do this without the support of the medical establishment.

It's like saying: "Sorry, Mr Galileo, we can only use the evidence base we have so far of looking at the world. Please go and burn your books and stop asking all these questions."

Monica

"Please can we not make the standard knee-jerk comparisons to Nazism" If they are knee-jerk, why in Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" do we see Islamists doing Nazi salutes and one Islamist holding a placard saying: "God bless Hitler"?

The Islamists know full well themselves they are emulating the Nazis.

As for jihad being a London issue, if you watch "Fitna" - indeed if you follow the news at all - you'll realise jihad is a global issue.

Antoine

Okay, I'm going to try and make my response to the various points here in order - things are losing coherency because I've been posting at antisocial times, so they take a long time to get moderated and appear - right;

1 - Ricardo.

No one is forbidding further research per say - though you would struggle to get ethics approval for a randomized control trial without more concrete grounds for suspicion when we know that the intervention in question has a good record of preventing some pretty serious diseases. I have no real problem with further population studies being carried out - the various meta-analyses that have occurred thus far have pretty much satisfied me, but by all means let them continue until others feel the same. So far so relatively un-contentious?

For the minutae that lead me to this this opinion I'd refer folk to the bmj's free online archive - which is a fine thing and probably the single biggest resource I use in my studies, and also the analysis provided by their columnist Ben Goldacre at http://www.badscience.net/?cat=21 . Before commenting upon the fact that he's from the dreaded guardian (which, incidentally i take all kinds of issue with) - please note that much of his content is a pretty searing critique of how The Observer reported various recent developments.
You also claim;

"On politics, you seem to confuse your laudable sense of optimism with blinkered thinking."

Um...that doesn't give me much to refute, please elaborate if you like.

2 - Celestine.
Okay, I replied in part to this already, but you also mention our different levels of concern about the rise of Islam in this country. Actually I'll try and provide a resonse that also answers Edward the Thirst and Frank Pulley...

I would characterize my interest more as a sincere attempt to understand the nature of things, than an attempt to remain scrupulously ideologically neutral, if that makes sense? It seems important though that I try and begin from as close to an impartial position as possible, to free myself of prejudice and bias as much as possible the better to reach rational conclusions - actually this kind of links in to what I was saying about how science should be too. So for example one of the things I love about Orwell was his readiness to criticize communism despite identifying himself as a socialist - when most British leftist intellectuals sought to justify the unjustifiable. This means that in my thinking on Islam, for example, I try very hard to weigh all things evenly, and I arrive at a mixed kind of conclusion rather than one of fear and pessimism. To be sure there are modern-day leftist intellectuals who fall into that exact same trap and judge people by whom they fight against rather than what they fight for - but this does not mean that a more nuanced analysis of the situation necessarily arrives at wholesale condemnation of an entire civilization. I am young, but my guess would be that I've spent more time in Mosques than your average infidel, and more time in conversation with Imams and devout Muslims too - of course we usually disagree on all manner of points, but this does not mean that I couldn't regard many as deeply humane individuals who broadly struggle towards the same ends as I do, merely within a different ideological framework. I don't for a moment condone, for example, the state of Pakistani gender equality - but nor do I believe that it is intrinsically linked to Islam, or an intractable fact which means that common ground is unattainable and a "clash of civilisations" inevitable. You don't have to go all that far to find secular or indeed Christian societies with comparable levels of repression in their recent past.

To address your specific examples of the Islamic influence within Britain - okay sharia bonds don't get me overly excited, I don't really see a moral threat arising from them. Polygamous marriages - no of course not, and many Muslims would agree with me. Without going into the precise exegesis and cultural backdrop, you can actually make a strong Koranic case against that practice in modern times. Arranged marriage - as distinct from forced marriage, which I condemn wholesale, I find very interesting. Firstly there is nothing intrinsically Muslim about the practice - Hindus, Sikhs, Orthodox Jews (I believe), Indian Christians and many other cultures do likewise. Note that I haven't said that i necessarily support it, just that I find it interesting, and that I can see a certain logic to it within a situation where it is the cultural norm - such as India. Many of the people I worked with there were at the age where their parents had started making plans, and they were generally pretty positive about that state of affairs. I do think it's less workable for folk who've grown up in this country, and that it can be a source of great suffering - but in principle if there really is no element of coercion and that's how people choose to organise their relationships then I wouldn't say it's the place either me or the state to object.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get a response from my 60-year old self at this point? Perhaps all these opinions will be beaten out of me, but from here I don't think so. What Edward says about the storm-clouds brewing may well be true, but without having lived through any other era it's hard to know. Has there ever been a time when people felt assured of a bright future? I simultaneously suspect that we'll always find things to fear, and also that ultimately things aren't going to end terribly well. Strangely I find that I can view this with a certain detachment, and it becomes a further component of a conflicted tragic-comic world that is so profoundly peculiar + beautiful.

Frank - I see nothing especially craven about this - but thanks for the good wishes in your latter post.

Jane - I've pretty much said what I have to say on MMR above, but as regards the whole comparison-with-the-Nazis issue, if you read back Celestine's post my analysis is that the comparison was not one of sharia and Nazi ideologies, but rather the suggestion that my percieved lack of concern due to a lack of personal jeopardy was in some way akin to a lack of sympathy with the victims of the holocaust. As I said - I didn't feel that name-checking the single worst crime that the world has ever seen within that context served the argument particularly well. A direct comparison between Nazism and Sharia would be a separate issue , we can have that discussion some time, but it's now late + (embarrassingly) I'm off out to the pub once again.

A good night to all.

Frank Pulley

Antoine

That was the comprehensive joint communique that I have ever read on this or any other blog; frank and fulsome. I withdraw the word 'craven' from my earlier blast. It was unfair and based on empirical study of other 'liberal lefties' (which you claim to be - in a previous post). Now that you have exposed yourself so fully I suspect that you are neither craven nor a liberal leftie. Just confused like the rest of us. But still optimistic - unlike most of us in this pub. :-)

In politics though, rather like you own profession, there does come a time when both the research and brainstorming have to stop, the tournique applied and emergency treatment carried out. Western civilisation is bleeding from several main arteries - they appear to be scimitar wounds to me. But if the next blow is to the carotid artery, what good would a tourniquet be then Doctor? Time is short. We are at war and sympathy for the enemy should be reserved for when it is vanquished and supplicating rather than resurgent.

So many people simply can't see the wood for the trees - or indeed the elephant in the glade (to paraphrase the topical metaphor). Islam is on the move in word and diabolical deed. It cannot be reasoned with; 'moderation' is a ploy - at best a delaying tactic. Remember that to all Muslims, not just Islamofascists, you and I are infidels. We either resist or submit, there is no compromise.

Frank Pulley

Sorry; emendation to above post: please insert 'most' between 'the' and 'comprehensive' in the first line of my last comment.

Harry

With the greatest of respect to you, Antoine, your inability to acknowledge the similarities between Nazism and Islamism demonstrates your desire to think the best of people (your optimism) at the expense of being blinkered to some very dark truths indeed.

For not only is the comparison appropriate when you examine the two ideologies, but the scenes in Fitna with Islamists doing Nazi salutes and ‘blessing’ Hitler, it is also appropriate when you consider how many underestimated the rise of the Nazis. In the 1930s many people thought about Nazism in the way that many now do with Islamism – that it would simply peter out.

On MMR I note you say that no-one is against more research “per se” but that Dr Wakefield won’t get funding and permission to because of MMR’s “good record of preventing some pretty serious diseases”. In other words, you can – but you can’t really. My, what a neat little Catch 22. How do you get a more “concrete suspicion” if you can’t do the research properly?

Sadly, MMR isn’t about a one-off anecdote, it’s about a series of parents here and elsewhere who’ve noticed changes in their children after receiving the vaccine.

I can see what the government has to fear from such enquiries. It would undermine an, as you say, largely beneficial vaccine. But is this the way to treat mass vaccination? Play it by percentages? It’s good for most so sweep it under the carpet if it’s harmful to a few?

I can see why Dr Wakefield’s studies would worry drug companies, too. There’s a lot of money wrapped up in this.

To me, the failure to allow Dr Wakefield to be thorough and exhaustive is simply shameful.

To those interested in this story, today’s Daily Mail (1 April) carries a letter on it from Peter Blythe PhD, Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology, Chester on the matter.

It refers to a report by UPI editor Dan Olmstead dated 7 December 2005. The report quotes a Dr Mayer Eisenstein of Homefirst Health Services, Chicago, who has found some very interesting figures regarding MMR in children who have never been vaccinated in his catchment area.

I can’t find a link to the Mail letter – maybe that’s not online, but this is an update from UPI:

http://www.homefirst.com/faqs/examples/the_age_of_autism_the_final_word.html

Note the words Dan Olmstead bolds up: “According to its medical director, Mayer Eisenstein, he's aware of only one case of autism and one case of asthma among those kids – not the 1 in 150 and 1 in 10 that are the national averages for those disorders – and he has the medical records to prove it. 

I wrote about that in 2005, yet when I met again with Mayer in Chicago last week, he told me not one public health official or medical association has contacted him to express any interest. Nor has any other journalist – not a one.”

So shame on the medical establishment for hounding Dr Wakefield and shame on the media for not probing the Chicago more.

Harry

To elaborate on Sharia bonds, Antoine.

Leaving aside for one moment the wider “snowballing” effect of Sharia that is caused by Islamic bonds once they are added to all the other drip, drip of Sharia this and Sharia that, there is another other problem with Islamic bonds: the concept of “zakat”.

Zakat, is money generated by Sharia transactions that is then given to Islamic “charities”. I put the word “charities” in inverted commas because after watching John Ware’s Panorama on some Palestinian “charities” (see Melanie’s archive), we know that some of this money can end up going towards supporting terrorism.

This very useful essay notes how the thin end of the Sharia wedge is now being muscled in on by some very dodgy characters indeed. It notes how initially there were moves to have just Sharia-compliant products, but now hey presto, the pressure is on for Sharia-based products.

With the growth of this, zakat grows, and who should be waiting in the wings to pounce on that money?

“It is no coincidence that the most enthusiastic supporter of the new International Commission for Zakat is Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Chairman of the World Forum for Muslim Scholars, a supporter of Hamas and the Palestinian intifada. The Quranic basis for his position is to be found in the admonition that zakat may be given to help those who are confined for the cause of Allah (fisabillillah) (Sura 2:273). Dr. Ajeel Jassem al-Nashami, the Secretary General of the International Organization for Zakat in Kuwait, in his interpretation of Sura 9:60, observes that of the eight forms of zakat that are enumerated, four of them are designated for jihad, and the other four for the help of the needy. For Qaradawi, Islamic charities who provide support for the families of suicide bombers, represent the practical face of financial jihad.”

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/08/islamic-finance.html

Consider:
1) Islamic finance was conceived and developed to encourage separatism
2) Combined with other concessions to the Sharia, it can only help to speed up this aim
3) It has, via zukat, the potential to directly fund terrorism

So why on earth does Gordon Brown boast about making Britain the “gateway” to Sharia finance and propose to allow UK Sharia bonds?

Harry

To expand further on Sharia bonds...

Leaving aside for one moment the wider “snowballing” effect of Sharia that is caused by Islamic bonds once they are added to all the other drip, drip of Sharia this and Sharia that, there is another other problem with Islamic bonds: the concept of “zakat”.

Zakat, is money generated by Sharia transactions that is then given to Islamic “charities”. I put the word “charities” in inverted commas because after watching John Ware’s Panorama on some Palestinian “charities” (see Melanie’s archive), we know that some of this money can end up going towards supporting terrorism.

This very useful essay notes how the thin end of the Sharia wedge is now being muscled in on by some very dodgy characters indeed. It notes how initially there were moves to have just Sharia-compliant products, but now hey presto, the pressure is on for Sharia-based products.

With the growth of this, zakat grows, and who should be waiting in the wings to pounce on that money?

“It is no coincidence that the most enthusiastic supporter of the new International Commission for Zakat is Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Chairman of the World Forum for Muslim Scholars, a supporter of Hamas and the Palestinian intifada. The Quranic basis for his position is to be found in the admonition that zakat may be given to help those who are confined for the cause of Allah (fisabillillah) (Sura 2:273). Dr. Ajeel Jassem al-Nashami, the Secretary General of the International Organization for Zakat in Kuwait, in his interpretation of Sura 9:60, observes that of the eight forms of zakat that are enumerated, four of them are designated for jihad, and the other four for the help of the needy. For Qaradawi, Islamic charities who provide support for the families of suicide bombers, represent the practical face of financial jihad.”

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/08/islamic-finance.html

Consider:
1) Islamic finance was conceived and developed to encourage separatism
2) Combined with other concessions to the Sharia, it can only help to speed up this aim
3) It has, via zukat, the potential to directly fund terrorism

So why on earth does Gordon Brown boast about making Britain the “gateway” to Sharia finance and propose to allow UK Sharia bonds?