Terror and appeasement

david skinner

O don't know where I picked this up, but it is a quote worth remembering :Winston Churchill defined an appeaser as "one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."

London Calling

With due respect Melanie, as I do enjoy your posts, I'm sensing a wash cycle of subject matter here.

Global warming ,Academia, Jews 18 or is it 19? Talking to Terrorists and Global Warming, Academia, Jews 20 and so on and around again?

I'm Dizzy, especially since it goes on forever and no one ever agrees and all disolves into therapy hour in ....... The Anne, Phil, Patricia and Verity Show.

Could we have more subject matter please?

Or is this the cycle of Life?

Laura H

Melanie is not a one-woman news service. She is a commentator and, like most commentators, will specialise in key areas.

The level of background reading in these areas is enormous work.

What do you expect here? Recipe pages?

As to the ineffable Hugh Orde, if this policy is taken to its logical lengths and people become more progressively dhimmified (which is the purpose of the terrorism – the killing is just the means to this end), what does he think the response will be?

Does Hugh Orde really think people will sit back and take it so that bit by appeasing bit we slip doen the road to a Caliphate?

Or will there be a counter movement, itself terrorist in nature that will start planting its own bombs?

If the government sends out the signal that people who plant bombs get preferential treatment, it stands to reason that people will follow that logic and obey it.

N. Simon

London Calling,

I'm sure that Melanie would be glad to change subject matter when the War Against the Jews has been obliterated from the planet, when the Academia come to their senses, and when people realise that there's been global warming affecting this planet for the past 15 or so million years, and the only difference between then and now, is that at present global warming is BIG business and is making not only governments, but Al Bore a small fortune.

David

Can you explain how talking to Middle Eastern terrorists precipitated the conflict which Government's of the West are now facing? Surely it is to do with our foreign policy in this region for the past number of decades that is to blame?

Also Republicans fought Loyalists, not Nationalists.

And the British Army did not defeat the IRA. There was no longer support in both communities for further violence and Sinn Fein understood their aims could be met through political objectives alone (this was promised to them from backdoor talks with the British and Irish Establishments). So in fact TALKING with Terrorists does achieve a desired outcome, which sort of rubbishes your entire argument.

As for the CIA statement that they have beaten Al Qaeda - This is utter nonsense also. Purely released for propaganda purposes. Al Qeada is not a group, but an idea, and until the concerns of the people of the Middle East are addressed this idea will continue to fester.

Talking to "terrorists" is the only answer.

It is better than riding roughshod across their countries and breeding further hatred and newer and stronger allies for our enemies.

Travis Bickle

Seems very simple, these fundamentalists want everyone to convert to Islam, or kill anyone else that won't.

What exactly does this (yet another) wet Police Chief expect to be able to negotiate with them about?

Headless chicken

So Al Qaeda are fighting to eliminate all of us, are they? And they want to establish a Caliphate in the UK? Really?

Can we just try a little reality check?

First there's absolutely no evidence for this. But secondly, if there were, it would reveal them only as the most ridiculous fantasists.

Al Q are a ragbag who managed to carry off a televisual spectacular 6 years ago. Since then besides inspiring a few pale imitations, they've done pretty much nothing.

Of course if they were a real threat what we'd actually need would be a bit of "stiff upper lip" in place of the Mel P headless chicken.

david skinner

London Calling, I am sure that many of us would like to get back to tending our allotments or whatever brings a sense of lasting satisfaction, but we are in a war of which we see the effects all around us; it is no good sticking our head in the sand, whistling a little a tune, or wanting to be distracted by other subject matter. The wash cycle that you refer to is as old as history itself, the futility and vanity of which is experienced in every age, not just ours. The reason Melanie has such a global readership is precisely because she has the courage and dare I say “fundamentalist passion” to expose the same delusions, deception, denial and ultimately destruction that exist in every age; but perhaps you are comfortable with this endless cycle and just don’t want to be disturbed. Awake O sleeper!

Alex Bensky

The curious thing is that most of the people who want us just to sit down and talk with the terrorists in the expectation that agreement can be reached also describe themselves as multiculturalists. But they deny the idea that people from different cultures may think differently or have different goals.

Ellen

“Headless chicken” it was just that sort of complacency that meant no-one saw 9/11 coming.

And you call rivers of blood pouring round the underground a “pale imitation”, and dismiss the countless plots stopped and successfully prosecuted, and discount the countless more suspects being watched, and ignore the poisonous speeches of Osama Bin Laden.

There’s plenty of evidence only people like you don’t like looking at it.

Not so much a “Headless chicken” as a brainless chicken.

Ian G

Nobody is trying to establish a caliphate? So why does a Muslim PCSO in Alum Rock, Birmingham (UK) think that he can declare that Alum Rock is Muslim are where Christian preachers are not allowed to evangelise? So far the West Midlands Police Force have not issuedan apology or sacked him or abuse of power.

field

Actually I've nothing against talking to terrorists. We should talk to them and argue with them and assert our commitment to our values against theirs and demonstrate how their values are substandard.

Re Winston Churchill - he did also say "Jaw jaw is better than war war". He had a way with words, did he not!

I think Melanie "core curriculum" is well chosen. There are a number of serious threats to our civilisation and she deals with them. All civilisations face threats to their continued existence - that's why civilisations fall! A wise civilisation identifies the threats and deals with them while it can.

Ted Tedford

David: 'Defeat' is not synonymous with 'destruction', a mistake often made. Melanie is quite correct to make the claim: the British security forces took the IRA to a point where their freedom of action was so limited as to be negligible - they had no option but to pursue the political strand.

The British achieved this by a combination of attrition - convictions and/or killing - and disruption - infiltration by informers. The criminalisation strand was essential in denying the 'volunteers' the glamour of being thought soldiers; and the killings proved the point that, where the paramilitaries met the British Army face-to-face, they came off worse.

Public support for the IRA's 'military' campaign peaked in the early 80s, but they were more than happy to carry on the atrocities even as the SDLP started to take the votes of disgusted Republicans/nationalists.

And, as you point out, it was possible to negotiate with the IRA, because they *had* political aims.

As for the assessment of AQ's defeat being 'pure propaganda': you're sort of right. It illustrates the multi-faceted nature of the campaign against Islamism. And, like all good propaganda (or 'information'), it is founded in truth. You don't need to trust the CIA: look at the internal squabbles within the various Islamist movements. There's undoubtedly an element of 'propaganda', but surely that is a *good* thing: AQ and its affiliates has had information dominance, thanks in part to the nastiness of their message and the prurience of the western media. It's time they were on the receiving end of some counter-information at last.

Thunkster

London Calling: "I'm sensing a wash cycle of subject matter here" It isn't déjà vu all over again LC, it is the mainstream (LIBERAL) media that's stuck on the spin cycle. The dirty linen needs to be repeatedly washed in public until the stains on the truth are removed. Ooo you really should've got Ann's name right - not only bad form but risky! A tap on the head should cure Frank's Water problem. If the pulley was a bit ropey last weekend remember that he has been brilliant in the past (oi vay suddenly everyone is a critic) and he got Gramsci banged to rights. (not before he fell down the stairs at the station) Melanie's blog is a educational experience - well it's taught me a lesson ;-)))

Straydingo

Headless Chicken,
I am interpreting you’re post as nothing more than a wind up designed to get the juices flowing on this posting board.

This interpretation is based on the assumption you are an intelligent and educated individual who is not prone to making rash statements on serious topics and who exploits more sources of information than just that of the Guardian & BBC when formulating an opinion on complex topics such as this.

Anyone that is interested & objective enough to post on this subject will quickly discover, through a minimal amount of research, what it is that is fuelling the ideologies of Global Islamists and understand what their desired end game is.

I believe in conducting one’s own research so as to ensure objectivity...however, a good place to start is visiting the websites of Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood etc. From here you will quickly illuminate the dark corners that are currently avoided by the prestigious media outlets such as the ones previously mentioned.

Verity

The aptly self-styled Headless Chicken writes: "So Al Qaeda are fighting to eliminate all of us, are they? And they want to establish a Caliphate in the UK? Really?

"Can we just try a little reality check?"

Certainly. Try the Koran. They're not just focussed on the UK, although this is their best bet in the short term, but the idea is to convert the world's 5bn people to Islam.

Islam teaches that everyone is born us Muslim. This is the natural course of things. Somehow, around 3.5bn people sinfully drifted away from their true nature, which is Islamic.

The direct is that we should all be re-netted and landed, either be persuasion, lies and deception(taqyya and kitman), or at the point of a sword. Or these days, a bomb.

This is the al-Qaeda, Hamas fundamentalist mindset. But Britain appears to have more than its share of fundamentalists, no matter how they disguise it with persuasion. Believe me, the Muslim Council is one of the radicals and they should be shut down and Bakri sent packing.

Headless chicken

Ian G. Your vagueness and grammar make it difficult for me to understand what you are saying, but a few comments from a PCSO - Police Community Support Officer? - in Bham would I think be pretty scant evidence of a worldwide Islamic conspiracy to establish a Caliphate. Mel, of course, likes to bring up the "Protocols", but this little theory seems much the same.

Ellen. I think it's a measure of where we are that to say the London bombings, nasty as they were, were only pinpricks seems provocative. It shouldn't be and it shouldn't seem complacent. It's not.

My own connection with Islamic terrorism is pretty modest - one of the Glascow bombers attended the mosque in my street - but frankly that's a great deal closer than most people get. And do I think the sky is about to fall in? Frankly no.

My own mother's house was badly damaged in WW2. Many of her neigbours houses were destroyed. Some of her neighbours were killed. Many others had similar experiences. They got on with things. It is supposed to be "our finest hour". That spirit seems to have largely gone, certainly in these parts.

Of course the real issue here isn't supposed complacency but demonisation. Some of us feel really very uncomfortable - hey, yes uncomfortable, we're liberals and mild words can sometimes mask stronger feelings - with it the demonisation of Islam and with the apparent relish with which we see it pursued.

Verity

Field, you just don't get it. Try thinking outside the box. "assert our commitment to our values against theirs and demonstrate how their values are substandard."

In other words, sit down around the negotiating table and reason with them. I despair.

Bob Gray

Mike: how the devil are you? Have a laugh here - http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/06/blogging-and-self-contradiction.php
Best regards.

Steve W.

The reverse logic of Sir Hugh Orde’s argument must be that any interest groups wishing to have their viewpoints prioritised would be well advised to start blowing up innocent people. Terrorism would not just be an option but a perfectly sensible option.

Chris Beeby

Melanie is right as (nearly) always. We have agreed to disagree about drug policy, though we do agree on the perniciousness of recreational pharmaceuticals. Anyway, the bees in Melanie's bonnet should be buzzing in everyone's. Strength to your tireless elbow, Mel. The Manchester fan.

Tom

The only thing we can negotiate is our surrender. I for opne will take up arms and so will a lot of us if these half wits think they can sell our freedoms away.

david skinner

Field, as for Winston saying "Jaw jaw is better than war war" , it all depends on the context in which he said this. Even if the context was OK , he like all of us change our views with time or are just simply inconsistent . Having said that, Winston certainly did have a way with words, his famous statement about Islam, whether he held to this view thereafter or not, is as fresh and relevant today as when it was first made it in 1898.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm

Men and women change their views, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, but God’s word never changes.

James

In regard to 'rational self-interest': one first must grasp the concept before one is able to recognise its absence in others. Few, if any, amongst the West's liberal elite will have encounted the concept; to a man amongst the ummah, it will doubtless remain, alas, a terra incognita.

Commondog

Headless Chicken.

You're struggling with this one mate.

Whenever I use the old "Your vagueness and grammar make it difficult for me to understand what you are saying" gambit, I try and make sure the item referred to is 1. vague and 2. poorly constructed.

In this case Ian G's comment contains two spelling errors, one missed space, and the ommision of one 'a'.

Hardly enough to mar anyone's comprehension of his valid message, but then again, if that's all you've got I suppose?

(You're not Patricia are you?)

elixelx

Yes, Mr. Churchill believed in "jaw jaw", but he still threw the alleged intermediary, Rudolf Hess, into prison and threw away the key; and he still demanded "unconditional surrender" from Hitler, even in the dark days of 1942, because the world was not big enough for Britain and Nazi Germany, yet he made constant overtures to Mussolini.
Some enemies, let it be shouted from the rooftops, are more enemy than others; and, just as one has acquaintances and bosom buddies, so one can talk to some enemies and not to others.
Now all that remains is to find out which is which!

George Steiner

You fellows are going around in circles again. The policeman chap used the word negotiations. And that is what you should concentrate on.

In negotiations you don't give, you trade.

In a negotiation the other side wants something that you have or can give. In turn you want something from them.

We know more or less what Al Qaeda wants. You should concentrate on discussing what you can trade.

To be clear, what you can trade that is yours to give.

Headless chicken

Commondog. "Struggling"? Well no not really, at least only to understand Ian G's argument. As for you, you pick up an aside, suggest it's "all (I've) got" and then ignore the point I make. Brilliant but perhaps a tad disingenious? not to say maybe stupid or dishonest.

It's not worth pursuing really but as for "vagueness", it's not clear to me:

1 what precisely this PCSO is alleged to have said, to whom or in what circumstances, or
2 how this is supposed to prove that this PCSO is part of a conspiracy to establish a Caliphate

Now I may be very stupid but I'm afraid I would need quite a bit of help filling in the gaps. Nothing said so far suggests the conclusion apparently being drawn.

Now quite apart from the obvious point (this really should be too obvious to need stating, but apparently it does) that the chances of a Caliphate being created that would extend to the UK, are just about nil isn't this rally about demonisation and a case of anything goes in the hateful cause.

Ian G

Thank you, Commondog. It's a missed space, a missed 'a' and a missed 'f'. Typos, but I hunt and peck! I should have checked.

As for vagueness, well it's so vague that Melanie has found the story and blogged on it! Dhimmitude, Caliphate, no-go zones... a rose by any other name? Thirty years ago I used to attend an evangelical Baptist church in George Arthur Road, just off the Alum Rock Road, and it wasn't the only such church in the area. I object to someone telling me that my country is now off limits to me.

Mike

Drop your gun-belt Melanie! Israel is talking with Syria via Turkey, with Hizbollah via Germany and with Hamas via Egypt. Thought I would just mention it.

Headless chicken

Ian G

"As for vagueness, well it's so vague that Melanie has found the story and blogged on it!"

So she has. But explain for me if you will how Melanie's blog makes what you wrote less vague. Whether Mel added flesh to your bones wouldn't really be the point; what you wrote would still stand.

Of course none of this has any real relevance. Except that it seems to illustrate that when the agenda is hate, any old argument will do.

Verity

1:16 p.m. George Steiner writes: In a negotiation the other side wants something that you have or can give. In turn you want something from them.

In the normal course of trade between two parties, that is correct.

We know more or less what Al Qaeda wants. Yes. Total submission and acceptance either of Allah as your diety or dhimmitude.

You should concentrate on discussing what you can trade.

George Steiner. We have nothing to trade that they want. Nothing. Except our territory, which they intend to take.

To be clear, what you can trade that is yours to give. Among rational human beings, yes. Among fanatics, what we have to trade is theirs to take at will, unless we defend it fiercely.

All you dismissive people really must do some reading before racing in with your naive, simplistic pensées.

May I suggest that you, Headless Chicken and others writing, "Tut, tut, old fellow! Steady on, old chap!" go to Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch and ponder on them. Also read Melanie Phillips's Londonistan and read Bruce Bawer, a writer who is living in Amsterdam, in the thick of it. They're not targetting just Britain, you know.

Jenny

You worry about people being demonised, do you, Headless chicken?

Who do you suppose is demonising whom with comments like these (not mine, of course):

“Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

“Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies.”

“Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them.”

“Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them.”

“Fight them until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah\'s.”

Might I suggest that all of that is entirely non-negotiable.

Verity

1:46 Well said, Jenny!

May I suggest that it is among the majority of the women posting here that there is clarity of vision and a firm grasp of reality.

It is among a clutch of the men, striking postures of lofty, measured, keyboard generals that there is a doolally atmosphere.

Headless chicken

Jenny

"You worry about people being demonised, do you, Headless chicken?"

Well yes I do, mainly because I fear to what it might lead. The experience of European Jews in particular was that demonisation often leads to victimisation. But they're experience has hardly been unique in this regard.

"Who do you suppose is demonising whom with comments like these (not mine, of course"

On the twin assumptions that these quotes are Islamic in origin and that you wish to discredit Islam, then I suppose by quoting them you may be trying demonise Islam. Of course similarly unpleasant things could probably be found in the bible, so it might just hesitate before reading too much into them here.

But you seem to be suggesting somehow these comments themselves are demonising. I'm afraid I really don't see this. Who are they demonising? Certainly there's little to admire in them, but they're instructions, jolly unpleasant ones it's true, but they don't demonise anyone. So I don't understand the point.

Hannah

No, David, it’s not about foreign policy.

The Islamists know full well how to use propaganda and this argument is presently a main plank of it. It has been employed because it plays with the gallery of useful idiots.

Their sympathisers and apologists have tried everything from ‘they’re disenfranchised’ (Osama is a spoilt brat playboy and one of the 7/7 bombers had £125,000 in cash found in his flat) to ‘they hate Western decadence’ (seen the numbers of Muslim drug dealers in prison? – and what a reason to kill someone – because they’re drunk, wow).

As each bogus excuse falls by the wayside another one comes along, dutifully parroted by al-Beebzera and Channel 4 News.

The truth is there were substantial Islamist terrorist conspiracies on British soil before Iraq, before 7/7 and before 9/11. In some ways it has actually turned out to be our misfortune that Dhiren Borat and friends, who planned carnage on British people, were not successful. This is because they were caught and so didn’t make any shockwaves in the media.

The grovelling cowards in our mainstream media now date Britain’s Islamist terrorist problems as all coming post-Iraq, all because 7/7 was the first successful attack.

This is a total lie.

What’s more, what did the peaceful people of Lebanon do wrong to see their country wrecked by Islamists? What have the innocents in the Horn of Africa done wrong to see the same going on there? What about Israel?

All these conflicts have the same fount of hatred behind them, but each has a different smokescreen constructed for it by the Islamists and sucked up by the useful idiots who don’t have the stomach to acknowledge what’s driving them: the Caliphate.

Headless chicken says: “First there's absolutely no evidence for this. But secondly, if there were [is this how someone reasons when they have no head?], it would reveal them only as the most ridiculous fantasists.”

These people aren’t ridiculous fantasists. They are not held up for ridicule but instead hold power and influence in parliaments and lobby groups listened to by governments.

Let’s take Hamas MP Yunis al-Astal, who salivates at taking over Rome, Europe and then, whaddya know, the “entire world”:
[Rome would become] “an advanced post for the Islamic conquests which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe…Allah has chosen you for himself and for his religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests through da'wa [preaching] and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/638886/the-war-against-the-jews-18.thtml

There are heaps of people and organisations in Britain such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which completely contradict your rubbish about no evidence for the ambitions of a Caliphate.

Mind you, all this comes from someone who call the biggest ever single act of mass murder to ever be planned and executed on these shores as a “pinprick” carried out by a “ragbag”.

Your argument about an Ulster analogy is rubbish, too, David.

Such idle tomfoolery has been exposed as the sham it is by David Trimble on his website in a document he released entitled ‘Misunderstanding Ulster’.

http://www.davidtrimble.org/publications.htm

You say, David, “Al Qeada is not a group, but an idea” – wrong. Al Qaeda is a group, based upon the idea of Islamism. It is but one brand name of the franchise that wishes to impose the Caliphate.

What’s more, David, if you want to know about how “the concerns of the people of the Middle East are addressed”, maybe you should go and ask the Christian dhimmis who are only allowed to live on rubbish heaps in Egypt about this. Maybe you’d like to ask them: “Is this what it’s like when Islam has political dominance over non-Muslims? You spend your whole live living on a ****heap?” Careful, though, Egypt’s authorities don’t like giving Westerners access to these people. I wonder why.

This is not a war over ‘offence at Western decadence’, ‘disenfranchisement’, ‘foreign policy’ or – God save us from Jacqui Smith – ‘mental illness’ , this is a war fought in the name of God, which is why the last thing you hear before your flesh gets ripped to pieces is the war cry of ‘Allah Akbar!’

Sir Hugh Orde and his dhimmwit flunkeys propose only to rip this country apart even more than it is. People aren’t taking up arms now to defend their values – and that’s what this conflict is about – because they expect that the state they hoped stood for freedom would do its duty and defend them on all fronts.

At what point, though, will ordinary well-educated people organise themselves into their own units to protect themselves from an Islamised state?

What Sir Hugh proposes is to pour petrol on to a bonfire.

David Lindsay

So we did talk to the IRA. But then, the IRA ever really existed, and indeed exists to this day.

Whereas “al-Qaeda” is, at most, a tendency, possibly (but probably not) expressing itself as something just about coherent enough to count as a very loose network indeed.

Certainly, such specifically “al-Qaeda” ideology as can be identified is a thoroughly Postmodern pastiche. Whatever else Irish Republicanism might be, it is not, and has never been, a Postmodern pastiche.

In any case, just as there was always continuous contact with the IRA in the midst of ferocious public denials, so I am prepared to bet anything you like that, even if through intermediaries, there is, and has always been, contact with each and all of the particularly irksome parts of that network (if such it be): Hamas (clearly), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (clearly), the Saudi Wahhabi (clearly), the Maududians of Pakistan (clearly), the “Taliban” (clearly – we call them “tribal elders” and such like when they are in favour, but “Taliban” when they are not), and so forth.

Doubtless including Osama bin Laden.

Thinkster

On a related note:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7434193.stm

A fine for her opinion?

Headless chicken

Hannah

I stand by my (previously stated) view that there is no evidence that Al Q has as one of its aims a Caliphate in the UK. Whether others do, as you try to suggest, may be mute.

As for ridiculous fantasists in this connection, it occurs to me that there may be two kinds: those for whom a UK Caliphate is a utopian fantasy and those for whom it is the opposite. Either would be ridiculous.

In relation to Hamas, I see no basis for thinking that the categories "Hamas MP" and "ridiculous fantasist" are necessarily mutually exclusive -indeed I'm sure it would be quite possible to be both. What makes you think they couldn't be? Are you suggesting members of Hamas are such sensible chaps that they are immune to idle dreaming?

test

test

james wheatley

Totally agree with headless chicken

James C

About a month I submitted a post on Melanie’s blog which showed the shocking level of discrimination to which the Nationalists of Northern Ireland had been subject since the formation of the Northern Ireland state. By 1994, however, when the ceasefire was called, this discrimination had disappeared. Nonetheless, it is obvious that, had it still existed, the IRA would have had far more reason to fight on, and far more support to do so from the Nationalist community. Under such conditions, moderates like Gerry Adams would probably have been non-existent.

The fact is relevant to this thread, because, although Melanie makes no mention of Muslim grievances, I think you will find that if some group has a grudge it becomes very difficult to defeat militarily since it will always have a ready supply of recruits. Given this fact, and the sheer size and extent of the worldwide Muslim community, I do not see what reason Melanie has for thinking that a group like Al Qaeda can be completely overcome without the movement of implausibly large numbers of people. You cannot defeat a group like this in the same way as you would defeat a regular army. After all, one cell consisting of just a few people can wreak havoc.

On the subject of negotiation, though some Muslim complaints are credible, others, like the destruction of Israel, are preposterous. I mean, what would you say in the negotiations? “In return for certain concessions, the Israelis are prepared to remove some of the restrictions on the Palestinians, but they will not assent to the destruction of the state of Israel and its people” Where would you start?

Commondog

Hedless Chicken.

You want it both ways.

You first discount a point on the grounds that it cannot be supported by evidence, and then proceed with a series of your own points, all of which are pure supposition.

On the way your refer to the post 9/11 atrocities as 'pale imitations'. When challenged, your attempt to backtrack by suggesting there is a mindset problem if this description is viewed as complacent or provocative.

The little homily about your proximity to a Mosque and your Mother's WWII exploits, contributes zilch to the discussion. "It is supposed to be our finest hour"
What is? No really, what?

Then the demonisation thing.

Why do you think I can stop myself being concerned about Hindus? Sikhs? Buddhists? Jews? Christians etc? Could be the absence within their ranks, of pilots who fly planes full of civvies into tall buildings full of same; accompanied by congregations cheering and shaking hands upon hearing of the successful mission?

Or then again it could be their proven willingness to live alongside their fellow citizens without threats or intimidation? Always a winner with the neighbours that one.

I don't know whether you're a plant or a plank. Which is it?

Frank Pulley

James C

"Moderates like Gerry Adams"??
Now that is the oxymoronic simile to end them all. Unless you would care to posit, "Moderates like Uncle Joe Stalin". I would concede that one would trump Gentle Gerry.

Jesus H Christ! I think we should definitely abandon the Care in the Community programme or at least deny them access to computers. Now trot off and take your medication, James, there's a good chap.

Verity

James C, "Northern Ireland", "Northern Ireland", "Northern Ireland". IRA, IRA, IRA, IRA.

How is this ancient experience relevant to an aggressive, alien belief system that wants to convert the world at the point of the sword? Maybe I missed something in N Ireland.

James C opines: "I think you will find that if some group has a grudge" blah blah blah blah IRA IRA Northern Ireland, penguins, angry broadband subscribers, Northern Ireland ...blah blah blah blah.

Can you get just one simple point before my brain explodes? The militant Muslims DO NOT HAVE A GRUDGE. Can you understand that? They are set on winning the world over for their Allah. It is their holy mission in their eyes. They don't have a grudge. See, you people have to stop equating every damn' conflict in the world to N Ireland. I know it was a big deal for you, but not this big.

James C

Verity,

First, Melanie says we should defeat these groups militarily. I merely pointed out that our present situation is not at all like a conventional war, and as a result it is extremely difficult to defeat them completely. Suppose, for example, there is at this very moment a group of militant Muslim students in, say, Germany, who intend to carry out some terrorist act; and suppose further that none of them have criminal convictions or any known connection to any radical group. How do you propose to frustrate them? Send in a tank division?

Second, Muslims of all descriptions have grievances against the West. They say we exploit them for their oil, that in places like Iraq we are almost indifferent to the number of Iraqi casualties, and that we prop up corrupt governments if it is in our interests to do so. Of course, we can point out their hypocrisy. We can show that in many places where Muslims suffer, Muslims themselves do not seem to do much to alleviate the distress. In fact, in some instances, notably Palestine, they are undoubtedly pleased because it furthers their case. Nonetheless, these grievances are in my view significant contributory factors. Your view, in my estimation, is totally oversimplified.

The relevance of Northern Ireland is obvious. The IRA’s goal was a united Ireland, but if the Nationalist community living there had seen the prevailing system as just, there would have been no support for them.
You say “May I suggest that it is among the majority of the women posting here that there is clarity of vision and a firm grasp of reality. It is among a clutch of the men, striking postures of lofty, measured, keyboard generals that there is a doolally atmosphere.” As it happens, I am not striking a posture, but merely trying to find a way in which the security of democratic nations can be secured with the minimum loss of life. Not an entirely irrational position, I would have thought.

James C

Frank,

"Moderates like Gerry Adams" – point taken. I mean moderate in comparison with large sections of the IRA, many of whom entirely opposed the switch to peaceful methods.

Headless chicken

Commondog

I think the way you argue may reveal quite a lot. You suggest I "want it both ways", an accusation that is generally taken to mean someone is advancing two contradictory propositions (and hence that the argument has logical flaws), and then on no basis whatever that I've "backtracked" implying that I'm losing the argument. Both accusations are entirely unsupported however, not to say false.

"You first discount a point on the grounds that it cannot be supported by evidence, and then proceed with a series of your own points, all of which are pure supposition"

Your "two ways" point is that I supposedly make a series of points "all of which are pure supposition". Well there are some arguments, but re-reading the posts I can find only three suppositions: 1 that Jenny's quotes are Islamic in origin, 2 that Jenny wishes to discredit Islam, and 3 that someone could be both a ridiculous fantasist and a Hamas MP. Nothing much hangs on the first two. If you wish to argue that there is no way a Hamas MP could be a ridiculous fantasist, good luck; I won't oppose you. Again nothing much hangs on it.

"On the way your refer to the post 9/11 atrocities as 'pale imitations'. When challenged, your attempt to backtrack by suggesting there is a mindset problem if this description is viewed as complacent or provocative."

Of course phrases like "pale imitations" are mildly provocative and intended to be so, but that's pretty much what they were. So no backtracking.

"The little homily about your proximity to a Mosque and your Mother's WWII exploits, contributes zilch to the discussion. "It is supposed to be our finest hour"
What is? No really, what?"

The points about the mosque and what you call my "Mother's WWII exploits" were to try to introduce a sense of scale and perspective. Evidently they produce a strong reaction so are not entirely lost on you.

I was puzzled that you don't appear to understand the reference to "our finest hour", but if you are not British there is perhaps no reason why you should, so I'll explain. In British WWII mythology after the fall of France, Britain "stood alone" against the Nazis and it was our "finest hour". The RAF fought the Battle of Britain in the skys but there was also great civilian suffering as many cities, including London, were bombed. The phrase "finest hour" refers to our resistance and fortitude during that period and during the war generally. It comes I think from Churchill - something about if the British empire lasts 1000 years they will look back on this as our finest hour.

As regards demonisation I note your response which is essentially to reiterrate grounds for hatred. That's one of the ways demonisation works. It's often based on some elements of truth, from which extrapolations are made in ways that will foster fear and prejudice. Generally the picture painted of the demonised group will be wholly bad, although exceptions may sometimes be made.

I'm tempted to say on demonisation that perhaps the real give away is the rhetoric and the any old argument will do attitude. Plenty of that here.

James C

Verity,

One last point, if I haven’t bored you enough. One tactic which has been suggested in the fight against terror is that of banning extremist propaganda. But on your theory, it is only propaganda which tells Muslims that their duty is to convert the world that should be banned, so that all other propaganda defaming the West or Israel can be permitted. But surely you must admit that such material is dangerous? Or do you suppose we should allow more or less any lie to be propagated about the nature and aims of democratic countries? My own view is that the dangerousness of such lies can hardly be overestimated.

Brian

It is a good job that someone with Sir Hugh Orde's opinions wasn't the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in the early and mid 1960s. That was the heyday of the seemingly impregnable London gangs headed by the Krays and the Richardsons.

I don't believe Sir Hugh would really have said then:
'The only way we can defeat these criminals is to enter into negotiations with them, find out what they want, see what we can accomodate, and then see if we can de-criminalise them?'

Any Commissioner of the Met talking thus would have been relieved of his post (and probably his pension) immediately - and rightly so.

By the same token, if the Macmillan, Douglas-Hume or Wilson governments had thrown the equivalent of £12.5 million - as this government has just done - at any special group of people in England and Wales, based on their religious beliefs, purely to try and stop them becoming mass-murderers, that government would not have survived very long.

As it is the West Midlands Police has welcomed this move instead of calling it outrageous bribery - and what is more bribery that won't work. Clueless, spineless dhimmis giving away our tax money in an attempt to appease the unappeaseable.

Verity

3:07pm James C, I appreciate the courtesy of your civil reply, and take a lot of your points.

I reiterate, though, that seeing this drive for world domination through IRA-coloured spectacles is a terrible, terrible mistake. The two are not remotely connected. At its most basic, we could understand the IRA mindset because we are all roughly from the same culture - as we are with all northern Europeans. We have absolutely nothing in common with people who hang young men from cranes because they were born homosexual, call another tribe of the human race - the Jews - descendents of pigs and monkey, plot genocide and plot the obliteration of a democratic state, subjugate women to an insane and obsessive degree - and plot domination not just of a piece of territory, but the entire world.

The British absolutely must stop comparing the IRA with Islamic terrorism.

Giorgio The Hamster

Hamas MPs aren’t ridiculous fantasists for the Israeli families who have lost loved ones and live in daily fear of rocket attacks. These actions are real and the people who provide the momentum behind them are real.

They make clear the scale of their ambition, much of which is echoed in The Koran.

If they don’t mean these words, why do they say them?

Why are Hamas’ brethren killing all these people in Israel, Madrid, New York Indonesia, London, Africa? And so on and so on? All these killings one common thread and they’re not ridiculous fantasies. They are a blood-drenched realities.

And since when were the IRA trying to convert everyone to Catholicism or carrying out 'honour' killings?

Commondog

Headless Chicken.

Look up 'supposition' then go read again your first comment. You challenge an assertion as having no evidence and then offer your own 'uncertain, unverifiable beliefs'.

There, no need to look it up now.

Oh and the 'finest hour' still no word on which period you seem to hang the phrase on and what the point might be?

Headless chicken

Giorgio, I'm not sure what your point is, but I don't think you're getting mine. It's not my purpose to argue that Hamas are ridiculous fantasists.

Commondog. Well I don't know what dictionary you are using, but I think you're in a muddle. Mine has "act of supposing, that which is supposed, assumption" which is what I took you to mean. "Unverifiable", which you suggest, seems wrong to me, since a supposition may prove to be right or wrong. In any event I wouldn't have thought it helps you very much. One the one side you've got my statement that there is no evidence for something (accepting by implicaton that there might be evidence for it). You're trying to juxtapose that with something else. But for the juxtaposition to work don't you need some other statement on the other side, that is equally susceptible to evidence? If all you've got is a supposition which is unverifiable you haven't got that.

But definition questions aside, what "suppositions" of mine are referrng too? and what point are you making?

On "our finest hour", this is proving pretty hard work. I thought I had made it clear that the phrase refers to the period of WWII. To labour the point further, I was contrasting our own period unfavourably with that period.

Stephen Cox

It seems people still believe the tripe that discussion works.As for Sir Hugh Orde I dont think discussion ended the Last major terrorism issue to face the world namely World War Two.Sadly we will always have the Quislings and the Vichy et al these days we just call them left wing rather than Traitors

Rachey Roo

What points are you making, Headless chicken?

You can barely draw breath before saying 'this isn't true, but even if it is...'.

Let's hope you're never up in front of the beak for anything or the bench will be in stitches.

Headless chicken

Rachey Roo. Happy to restate.

Melanie says Al Q want to eliminate us. Others here think we're on the way to a Caliphate in the UK. Perhaps Melanie does too.

I don't think there is evidence for either of these things.

I think the idea that we are on the way to Caliphate in the UK is a ridiculous fantasy - a utopian dream, if you're an Islamist, a distopian nightmare, if you're not. But either way a fantasy.

I don't think such claims can be taken seriously.

I think what they are really about is demonising muslims and generating fear and prejudice.

I oppose the demonisation of any group because it leads to victimisation. It does this by creating an environment in which in relation to the demonised group what would otherwise be unthinkable no longer is.

I believe the demonisation of Jews played an important part in their victimisation and that they are not the only group to have suffered in this way.

Apparently this is controversial.

Commondog

Headless Chicken.

If you hold that a point is invalid on the grounds that there is no supporting evidence for it, then how do you justify proceeding from this, to the series of points you make which are themselves, pure supposition?

I realise this point is merely a paraphrase of my first one, but your tactic thus far has been to evade the point by means of a long-winded and ultimately, lame logical excursion.

The WWII observation? The use of Churchill's call has been so overdone that you need to marry it to an original idea to make it work. You didn't.

The demonisation charge is valid as far as it goes. But it omits the possibility that at some stage, there might arise a body or organisation which justifies the fears of people's tendency to demonise?

Are you really so sure that your sanguine standpoint is in reality no more than an unwillingness to face a very troubled world?

Jerry

Headless chicken,

If people say and do things, they're evidence. There's heaps of evidence about the march of the Caliphate. All you do is ignore the evidence.

If these things didn't matter, there wouldn't be dead bodies on the tube and people going to prison for similar plots.

Never has a poster's name been so apt. No wonder you're headless, you can't see a thing.

Headless chicken

Commondog, I'm glad you see the validity of the demonisation charge.

I don't think there is anything I can usefully add however on the other points, which appear to be pretty peripheral in any event. On our “finest hour” twice I had to explain the point to you, and now apparently you think it's a cliché. I've asked you to explain your supposition point and can't respond if I don't understand it.

Jerry

Oh dear, you don't seem able to bring off even a cheap jibe about my name. I can see how being headless would, among other disadvantages, mean you couldn't see – no head, so no eyes, so no sight. But how would being sightless make you headless? My experience is that blind people are rarely without heads.

As for “the Caliphate”, since it doesn't exist, it seems rather odd to refer to it being “on the march”. But that aside, ask yourself seriously do you really think there is any realistic chance of a Caliphate that extends to the UK?

Sure some people would like to establish one across the muslim world. A corresponding unity across the christian world would be unthinkable. Are you convinced the muslim world is any different – Turkey, Afganistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Saudi Arabia, parts of Nigeria, Indonesia, all under a Caliph? I would have thought there might be quite a few obstacles to getting that off the ground and as many problems keeping it together.

To suppose that entity could extend to the UK... I can't believe anyone could really think this. But you appear to.

Headless chicken

Just checking the above post appeared okay and would add this.

I can't really believe Jerry does think there's any real prospect of a Caliphate here. I think it's just about demonisation, fear and prejudice, and it's that any argument will do approach again.

The point, unfortunately, is not the truth, but the satisfying loathing an argument can engender.

Commondog

Headless Chicken.

"...as far as it goes." Which isn't very far.

You don't go on to comment on the ommision I refer to, which is key to that deficiency.

Headless chicken

Commondog. It's as if I'd suggested that Chester City (third from bottom of League 2, the old fourth division) were not going to win the Premiership in four years time, and you criticise me for not leaving open the possibility that they will. Your earlier post makes clear that even you accept that there is no body or organisation to justify the (pseudo-) fears we have been discussing – my posts you say “omit( ) the possibility that at some stage, there might arise a body or organisation which justifies the fears of people's tendency to demonise”,

Since you don't appear to be challenging most of what I've said and won't explain you own position, and since you have insulted me and misrepresented this discussion on another thread, this discussion is at an end.

Commondog

Chester City..... Caliphate.......

Edward de Bono didn't scratch the surface.