An open thread where you can, at your weekend leisure, discuss whatever you like.
Note: In light of some comments on a previous thread about the London bombings, please be mindful of the Comments Policy. General expressions of hatred or vengeance towards people of a particular faith or ethnicity are not only counterproductive but also totally unacceptable here at LP.
Update: I’m closing off this thread and opening a continuation as very long comments threads become difficult to follow and take a long time for dial-up users to load. Please go here if you wish to continue the conversation.
I have just finished reading thru the London bombing thread in this estimable blog. (Observa is, finally, off my Xmas card list.) Otherwise, ppl handled themselves pretty well. (I ban myself from webchat in such moments!)
The question I’d like to ask is that, if we leverage our preternatural identification with London’s suffering to prism experientially the daily outrages that occur in Baghdad and environs, how many of us are willing to re-evaluate the utility of the invasion and, subsequent, ongoing military occupation of Iraq?
Murderers are, usually, murderers. But the ground, upon which they thrive, is prepared with artful malice.
Good question! I’d say it’s overwhemingly likely that al-Qaeda or other Islamofacist extremists (assuming that’s who it was) bombing trains in London will almost certainly lead to all those who, until now, haven’t supported the liberation & reconstruction of Iraq, seeing their error and coming on board for the betterment of the Middle East and democracy.
You wouldn’t be just trying to arc people up again, would you, wbb?
It is a while since I’ve read the Galtung piece I referred to. It’s long and badly formatted. From memory, I’d say that he says sooner or later you are going to have to try to break out of the cycle of violence. The first step would be to try to understand your opponent and ascertiain his goals from statements and actions and be prepared to accommodate them in some way.
You also need to examine your own behaviour and see whather this is offending those attacking you and see whether it is just. Then see whether you can remove the cause of injustice.
The alternative of seeing them like vermin to be exterminated is unlikely to work and could make things worse. Also engaging in acts of violence and killing, especially of innocent civilians in collateral damage, may alter you own character.
I’d say there are a few actions you might consider.
First, extricate yourself from Iraq, apologise and be willing to pay reparations.
Second, find an accommodation of the Israel/Palestine situation.
Third, take real steps to end the structural violence towards the third world. You’d need to go beyond what is being talked about in the G8. (As an example of the harm our aid efforts are doing, as well as some good, there is a ready example in the SBS program on Malawi (transcript available.)
Fourth, have a think about why and where you have your military bases around the world.
Finally, review and reform the structure of the main international instruments, The World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation and the UN to ensure that they don’t work as instruments of dominance but properly give expression and empower the interests of the poor.
Here’s a shorter piece from Galtung and Dietrich Fischer one year after S11. Have a read and see what you think. I reckon there are no easy answers.
btw, my lost brother and his wife turned out not to be in London. They were on the Isle of Skye.
That’s a good basic plan for surrender, Brian, but it leaves out some essential points.
We should also abolish democracy and institute Islam as the sole basis of our government. Shari’a Law administered by fundamentalist imams has to be instituted throughout the nation. All homosexuals must be stoned to death, and all women must be required to wear full burkhas on those rare occasions when they are allowed outside the house. Everyone must accept the Wahhabist creed and abide by its principles.
With the adoption of these measures, our existence will no longer offend those who are presently compelled to attack us.
Good to see everyone’s up early.
Brian, “I reckon there are no easy answers.” would have to be the understatement of the millenium so far. Whether one agrees with your wish list or not (EP seems to be in the “or not” camp, where I think I’ll be joining him, but for different reasons) - well, just have a look at it:
“Second, find an accommodation of the Israel/Palestine situation”. I’m glad you started with the easy stuff.
(Note - the above isn’t supposed to be in bold, just don’t know how to turn the damn thing off).
“Finally, review and reform the structure of the main international instruments, The World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation and the UN to ensure that they don‚Äôt work as instruments of dominance but properly give expression and empower the interests of the poor”. Better get started on that structural review now, it’ll take a while!
And what precisely does “properly give expression and empower the interests of the poor” actually mean?
I’ve found a lot of your contribution on debt relief & world poverty to be, interesting & very worthwhile food for thought - it’s certainly modified my position a bit and made me work harder to my own internal logic. Sorry, but this isn’t.
Now onto some navel gazing, somewhat inspired by the “Blogging & Community” thread, but more by comments in several recent unrelated threads - to whit:
What’s in a name?
Brian & Mark are obviously quite proudly Bahnisch’s, EP appears quite happy to preserve some anonymity, most of the rest of us sit as first names, for whatever reason. But this seems to tick some people off no end - specifically “Peter Kemp” (Pete - is this you? http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/02/22/andrews.html Damn, I wish I hadn’t asked). Pete has twice that I can recall got into some argy bargy about others desire not to post their names & addresses, the last time hinting darkly at legal action (which is what got me thinking about the subject, really - pissed me off a bit, to be honest. If I was banning people on a blog, that’s where I’d be starting).
So, should we all be fully named on all comments? Is there no room for nom-de-plumes? From a personal point-of-view, I used to comment as “Waste”, but mainly as a historical hangover (it was my Hash-name, for those familiar with the Harriers), but then couldn’t be bothered with it anymore and became just Tony, because that’s me name, guv. I’ve never felt the need or desire to comment under my full name, but should I? Is Pete right?
A policy of surrender would not be popular with the electorate, they may justifiably feel vulnerable.
Should any state wish to attack another they could do so with fear of retaliation. Crimes would go unpunished.
Great care would have to be taken to not offend those who attack you and to understand and forgive them.
I think the surrender policy would be a losing policy.
I’d say it’s overwhemingly likely that al-Qaeda or other Islamofacist extremists (assuming that’s who it was) bombing trains in London will almost certainly lead to all those who, until now, haven’t supported the liberation & reconstruction of Iraq, seeing their error and coming on board for the betterment of the Middle East and democracy.
In my opinion, if it led to some serious attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestine situation, then it would go along way to removing the causes of popular support in the Middle East for Al Qaeda. The history of every terrorist movement demonstrates that this is a sine qua non. Have a think about the loss of support for armed struggle in Northern Ireland and the late 80s and early 1990s. Just as with small fanaticist groups such as the Real IRA, you might still get occasional bombings, but you would radically isolate fanatics.
Tony, on the question of anonymity, the Federal Government might be moving to prevent people from making political comment on the Internet anonymously. See this post by John Quiggin.
Tony, I have no objections for anonomity as long as people don’t rattle the cage of defamation/vilification/incitement law. When people do this the question has to be asked whether they would repeat it under their real names.
While I agree with the sentiment of johnhowardlies.com.au such political attacks particularly during election time appear to fall under the electoral act ie names please, and I fully sympathise with John Howard’s valid point of umbrage at the anonomity.
My point then is if people insist (whether from the right or left) in rattling these cages, that legislation WILL result in the banning of anonomous comment to the detriment of all. In that case we can all blame the cage rattlers, of which observa yesterday was the worst example I’ve seen for a long time. What he said was tantamount to an incitement to murder and no concepts of freedom of speech will protect him from the legal consequences of any appropriate State Crimes Act if a court so constructed that intention.
Blogs are unique and instantaneous. What I fear is that a minority of idiots are going to spoil it for all of us, I’m not against anonomity per se, only the abuse of it potentially or in fact, contrary to law.
My recollection is the same as Peter’s. People were talking about the alleged operation of Victorian anti-vilification laws.
A prime example of the failure inherent in a ’surrender policy’ is this one, in London
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1339199.html
Mary Kaldor and Isabel Hilton have some good thoughts at Open Democracy on appropriate responses to the London bombings:
This is a good tonic for those who would start blithely ranting about “surrender” and issuing white feathers. The reaction by Londoners is much more measured and mature than that of some who are quick to politicise issues and use these tragic events as a foil with which to denounce those who disagree with government policy.
The quickest to politicise the issue were those who used the tragic events as a foil to denounce government policy.
See the closed London bombings thread on this blog for specific examples.
As for the nonsense about anonymity, it’s just something Peter Kemp drags out when he’s losing an argument.
The quickest to politicise the issue were those who used the tragic events as a foil to denounce government policy.
You might need to be more specific, EP, because I’m unclear as to which comments you’d see as being examples.
I’d have also thought that one of the freedoms that citizens in a democracy enjoy is to criticise and denounce the policy of their government in order to change it.
League fans will know of Dean Widders, the great backrower for the Mighty Eels. Not only did he set up two tries and score one last night and not only does he do a lot of work for the Aboriginal community but it seems that the G8 leaders have asked Dean to help with the war on terror.
Good on ya Dean!
This sums up Peter’s position pretty well:
Yes, that was my terrible offence: not vilifying anyone, but much worse, agreeing with EP.
Ranting aside, the words of Al-Qaradawi are chilling;
“In his weekly television program on Al-Jazeera, titled “Religion and Life” (or “Sharia and Life”), Al-Qaradawi explained that there are two types of jihad, one that takes place when an Islamic state invades another country in order to “spread the word of Islam” and a second “repulsing jihad,” which “takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered,” according to the Middle East Research Institute.
“[In that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability. If you kill him he will end up in hell, and if he kills you, you become a martyr (shahid),” Al-Qaradawi reportedly said. He elaborated by saying that a person committing such an act “is not a suicide [bomber]. He kills the enemy while taking self-risk … He wants to scare his enemies, and the religious authorities have permitted this,”
(sigh)–another cage rattler. John Howard will most likely rattle your anonomous cage soon EP.
Yes, that was my terrible offence: not vilifying anyone, but much worse, agreeing with EP.
That’s a crime in Sweden, I think, Rob.
Although I can’t remember specific examples, I’ve been known to occasionally agree with EP…
So Rog, self defence is not allowed? Killing people is not naturally ‘chilling’.?
Ha! re: Widders. Fitzsimons gave Joey a wrap/rap (how do you spell that anyway?) today so I am happy.
Saw the 911 footage on CNN today, even after countless viewings and 4 years it still shocks me physically. Im a politics and political stoush junkie but times like this my interest plummets to somewhere below my interest in yawnion.
This is what affects me today.
Oh and I saw Fred Phelps response to the attacks today (no link from me, google it yourself), proof if any was needed theres plenty of despicable slime to go around.
Politicisation.
CS, post #3: The so-called ‘war against terror‚Äô is obviously going swimmingly. Mission accomplished anyone?
Brian, post #5: If Bush/Blair and co had started in 2001 the sort of initiatives they are now contemplating and seriously followed through on them the planet might be in better shape.
Rob, post #6: No offence to anyone but I think we should all leave the politics out of this for a while at least, guys.
Phil, post #7: of course Bush looked like the dumb arse he really is, standing behind Blair he looked like he desperately needed another edition of My Pet Goat to read.
EP, post #9: You idiot.
Kim, post #15: Chris, Phil and Brian get a pat on the back.
Naomi, post #19: EP is a wanker, and needs dressing down even in the midst of this crisis
Andrew Bartlett:
One man’s ‘ignorance and hatred’ is Peter Kemp’s ’self-defence’, I reckon. I’m for bed.
Rob, here is what you wrote:
”and a second “repulsing jihad,” which “takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered,” according to the Middle East Research Institute.
“[In that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability. ”
That is self defence, not ‘ignorance and hatred’. Are you often so wilfully forgetful within 5 minutes?
Peter, I think that was rog not Rob.
Didn’t write it, Peter. Take it up with rog.
Sorry, mistaken identity!
First up, I was trying to think what Galtung would say. I find experienced peacenik’s like him need to be taken seriously, especially when no-one is coming up with ideas that seem to lead anywhere.
Who said anything about surrendering? I think Galtung is saying that in the end after both sides try to wipe each other out and fail, there is usually talking. Then you have to decide whether you are into amnesties (as in South Africa) or whether criminals will be punished. If the latter, it is not easy to set up fair and transparent mechanisms.
Extreme fundamentalism always provides some difficulties in an open democratic milieu. Do we try to respect and contain, or do we try to eliminate?
I recall Tariq Ali’s advice after S11 and before Afghanistan. From memory near the top of the list was: lean on Israel and Palestine (only the US can do it to the former). You won’t even get a hearing from the masses in Islam (which are the contested ‘hearts and minds’ arena) until that one is resolved.
Lean on the Saudis to stop them funding the Wahabis (the head of the snake, he calls it.)
Lean on the Pakis and get them to stop supporting the Taliban.
There was more, none of it easy or quick but none of it involving shooting up foreign countries, which inevitably involves killing innocents, and, it seems, polluting the environment with depleted uranium.
Going into Iraq has arguably made things worse, not the least because it has demonstrated the limits of US power. Immanuel Wallerstein thinks, if I read him correctly, that there is no good ending to the Iraq saga and that the US will inevitably have to go under terms not entirely of their choosing. The optimum end to the saga must be occupying the Bushies minds if they are not entirely self-deluded.
Tony, there is little hope of reforming the IMF and World Bank. It may be possible to bypass them by setting up alternative mechanisms for grant funds, as distinct from loan funds. The WTO is an even harder nut to crack, as the leadership for reform at present lies with countries like Brazil and India, which, IMO, are more likely to pursue their own self-interest, if not join the rich boys club.
btw I understand Europe has identified and eliminated about 40 terrorist cells since S11. There are a couple, London and Madrid, that slipped through. This is done through intelligence and police action, rather than foreign military adventures.
As to what Chirac was thinking, who knows. I think it is hard to understand the fundamental commitment to peace in Continental Europe after the devastation of two world wars. Seeing the ‘Fall of Berlin’ on SBS recently two days after seeing the film ‘Downfall’ was for me a timely reminder of the extent, the completeness and seeming finality of the destruction and death in Europe. Without taking anything away from the Brits and the Blitz, what happened in Europe was something else.
Gotta go now. Seeya tonight.
There’s a few things wrong with you, Peter. You want to turn the blogosphere into an ocean of litigation, you don’t approve of free expression, you can’t follow links when they’re posted for you, you don’t attribute comments to the people that make them, and you can’t spell anonymous. Other than than, you’re a great military leader.
So much for the new caring, sharing.
So much for the new caring, sharing.
Indeed, Rob!
One of those thans is a that.
Rob, nitpicking and ad hominem attacks.
I don’t agree with absolute free expression as my posts make abundantly clear, such a concept is demonstrably untenable.
Play the ball not the man. On the subject of litigation I don’t make the law, I am merely pointing it out. What makes it so funny is that it is most likely John Howard who will pass legislation to stop anonymous (thanks for spellchecking) vilifying/defaming/inciting. Why don’t you go and vent your spleen on him, that could be more productive surely?
Play the ball not the man.
For example, by not changing the subject to nonsense about anonymity whenever you’re losing an argument.
Replying to a post EP. You’ve lost all the arguments so far.
I fully sympathise with John Howard’s valid point of umbrage at the anonomity
I fully don’t. It’s a preposterous law.
You’ve lost all the arguments so far.
Yes, of course I have. That’s why you’re the one who always tries to change the subject.
I fully sympathise with John Howard’s valid point of umbrage at the anonomity.
I fully don’t. It’s a preposterous law.
Good start Rob, now argue it!
It’ll keep.
Surely any advice Tariq Ali gave was compromised by his political master.
On Iraq Walid Jumblatt of the Druze Muslim community in Lebanon stated publicly that, although he cynical of the US invasion of Iraq the Iraq election has turned out to be, “the start of a new Arab world”. He went on: “The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”
Jumblatt has softened his own political stance much to the amazement of his adversaries.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=16519
I am afraid that there are those who are committed to seeing the US and therefore Iraq fail. What they dont realise is that surrender is not an option.
Mark: could you please ban Peter Kemp from your blog? Or, at least, caution him? He may well be a lawyer - he’s poorly read enough about history and literature - but Steve Bracks’s laws don’t reign throughout this great Commonwealth and, in any case, the fascist Premier of Victoria will almost certainly be removed from office at the next election.
Peter believes that anyone who disagrees with him should be jailed and he hints at reporting other commenters, like one of Beria’s many snivelling ponces. Caution him or post a message disallowing pseudonymous commenters. Evil is right, of course. Peter can’t be at the bar if he is a lawyer because he’s a big pillow when it comes to arguing anything. Instead, he Benedict Arnolds out of the debate and says he’s galloping off to the police.
Fuck off Nazi.
C.L., please don’t use language like that.
I’m going out for the day. I suggest that you all find something more constructive to discuss.
Your selective chastisement here is becoming tiresome and disappointing Mark.
who wants to play some analytic philosophy?
let’s start with a simple deduction:
X is a doctrine
Group Y commits a violent act in the name of X
Therefore X is an inherently violent doctrine.
Problems?
Who wants to play some analytic philosophy?
I want to play argumentative fallacies.
X is a persuasive argument.
Y is a fallacious argument.
Person A posits X.
Person B posits not-X.
Person B cannot substantiate not-X
Person B attributes argument Y to Person A.
Person B posits not-Y.
Problems?
The London delusions surrounding the London attacks continue. I’ve had a few things to say on the matter (http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/07/motivations.html). How much longer will we absolve ourselves, the West, for responsiblity? How much longer will we invade countries, kill thousands of innocent civilians, and wonder why some people may not like that? How much longer will the West prop up corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East?
Everything has a price. London was an atrocity, to be sure, and those behind it should be punished harshly. But continuing to support Bush, Blair and Howard is madness.
Many in the world certainly know who to blame…
Person B cannot substantiate not-X
From the Hillsong thread:
“Your theories are very pretty, but they have little relevance to the real world”
Care to clarify that? or are we back to positing not-X?
The real motivations of the terrorists.
It isn’t about Iraq or Afghanistan or Bush or Blair or G8 or poverty. It’s about a totalitarian ideology that will accept no compromise and cannot be bargained with.
So we’re back to my initial deduction then?
Antony, I know there’s little point in trying, and I’m not even sure where to start (Lilian Hellman & “and & the” keep springing to mind), but here goes anyway.
Start by telling us which invasion you’re talking about (recent? crusades?) then look at the sequence of events from there. Then we can start rebuttal.
dk.au, your initial straw-man argument remains just that. It bears no relationship to anything that is actually being proposed by anyone here.
Do straw men have sperm that can be stolen?
Antony answers his own questions, the wants to stop propping up corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East and will invade those that dont reform.
..the West that is..
“Islam increasingly has great trouble coexisting with every religion and doctrine around this globe. Either Islam reforms itself quickly and peacably, or the West will expunge it from the face of the planet.”
-observa
Look, EP, all I’m asking is that people maintain some critical distance between the terrorist franchise that is Al-Qaeda and the religion of Islam. Thankfully, you seem to be doing that.
I haven’t come around to Observa’s point of view yet, and I hope I’m not forced to do so. But I think the majority of Muslims should put some more critical distance between themselves and al-Qaeda.
Specifically, I want to see every decent Imam issuing an fatwa against Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and terrorism.
An official religious ruling would mean a lot more than the routine platitudes that are rolled out every time something like this happens. If the Imams can sentence Salman Rushdie to death for insulting Islam, why can’t they rule against terrorism?
Your selective chastisement here is becoming tiresome and disappointing Mark.
If you want me to chastise someone, please actually cite some comments rather than your impression of the discussion. As far as I can work out, your principal purpose in posting a comment was to have a go at Peter. By all means, robustly debate issues, but repeated comment sequences where people from whatever political orientation just niggle at each other to get a rise without any substantive topic being addressed are pointless and tedious.
You need to draw my attention to something definite, C.L. No-one forces you to comment here. If you find this blog tiresome and disappointing, then that’s your affair, I’m afraid.
EP - that’s not a syllogism.
On a happier note - very pleasant day at the Valley Fiesta. Good company, good wine and food, good music, good crowds. An early night is indicated though!
An official religious ruling would mean a lot more than the routine platitudes that are rolled out every time something like this happens. If the Imams can sentence Salman Rushdie to death for insulting Islam, why can’t they rule against terrorism?
EP, there are no Imams in Shi’ite Islam.
If you went to the trouble of doing some research, you’d find that there have been some formal condemnations issued by Sunni clerics.
It’s not meant to be a syllogism. It’s an illustration of the classic strawman argument.
I’m aware that there have been some formal condemnations of terrorism by some Muslim clerics. I think that there need to be a whole lot more, plus some turning-in of terrorists and supporters to the authorities, before it can be accepted that the majority of Muslims really are opposed to terrorism.
In assessing their motives, it is important to bear in mind the Islamic principle of taqqiyah, or lying about one’s faith for the sake of self-preservation. For this reason, mere assertions of non-support for terrorism cannot be taken at face value — some sort of concrete action is required to demonstrate sincerity.
This is probably my last excursion into the topic of terrorism as I have a couple of urgent things to do.
To Tony in particular, I should have made it clear that I am not expressing a settled view. In 2002 I wrote something about terrorism in which I expressed a settled view at the time. I haven’t looked it up as I wanted to throw all the balls up in the air again. I didn’t want to be excessively bound by my views back then. So I’ve been trying to identify the balls and establish some initial coherence.
In thinking about it today, the biggest thing I missed is that there is, of course, no unified terrorist structure. al-Qaeda, they tell us, is like a brand name, except there is no trade mark system prevailing and anyone can claim it. So there is no-one to talk to at present.
So the main direct anti-terrorist effort needs to be on intelligence and police work.
On Iraq, whatever the rights and wrongs about going to war, I think that the US is in a bind. They can’t afford not to achieve a favourable outcome, nor do I wish it upon them. Yet a favourable outcome seems beyond their grasp and the American people seem to be running out of patience. It is not a good scene.
I’ll leave the issues of religious fundamentalism and structural inequities between and within nation states and respond to a few specifics.
Tony said:
I the Fin Review today an article by Brian Toohey (seems to be accessible, praise the Lord) discusses an article in Foreign Affairs ‘How to help poor countries’ by Nancy Birdsall, Dani Rodrik, and Arvind Subramanian. I paid my US$5.95 and I’d say the guts of the article is:
China, for example has just about broken all the rules.
They then go on to say:
But, according to the authors, the wealthy nations and the international development organisations (IMF, World Bank etc) operate as though they know what the appropriate policies and institutional arrangements should be and demand conformity.
This is not only undemocratic but unwise and can only lead to resentment against the wealthy donor countries.
So the situation needs redress. Currently the USA, effectively the US Treasury, has effective control of the IMF and the World Bank. Important decisions need 85% of the vote and the US has 17%. That’s the way they were designed. They should be redesigned so that no one power has a veto, and with reasonable recipient country representation.
Meanwhile, it must be acknowledged that the US itself has set up the Millennium Challenge Account which, although a somewhat paternalistic, is moving away from attaching explicit, heavy conditions to their grants and loans. It should be in its second year of operation now, and while it exists I understand there has only been the merest trickle of funds so far.
Rog said:
Rog I wasn’t talking about conflict between states, nor was I talking about a surrender policy. In the end, as with the Irish, and hopefully with the Israelis and Palestinians, the issues are resolved by talking rather than shooting. People with Galtung’s orientation always look for the nonviolent options.
What Andrew Bartlett said.
Meanwhile on important matters, cs is no doubt celebrating the Wallabies’ 30-12 victory over the South Africans. I saw only a bit of it and the Aussies looked OK to me.
My missus prefers AFL where the mighty Lions flogged Collingwood 133-55. I was dirty on them easing up in the second half. The score was 60-7 at half-time.
I didn’t want to pollute Chris’s post on Rugby Union by raising the other code, but the State of Origin on Wednesday, which most Queenslanders have now erased from memory, exemplified a point he was making. That is, a good big man beats a good small man most times.
The NSW backs each had about 10cm and 10kg on their opponents. The forwards held their own but we just couldn’t hold them in the backs, that is until Andrew Johns went off. Then we scored two quick tries when it didn’t matter.
In the first half we got into their red zone 6 times and came up dry. They got into ours 4 times and scored 3 tries.
There other thing that didn’t help us. Let’s face it, having the losingest coach in the comp is not the way to go. Warren Ryan on radio and Phil Gould on TV both pointed out our hopeless patterns in attacking the opposing line and defending our own.
Still you’ve got to say, NSW were just about the perfect team playing perfectly. The Qld team ain’t bad, but they didn’t come close.
Above seems to have waned. For those here pontificating on the rules of what Muslims should do, or not do, I’m sure the whole Middle East is tuned in.
CS if you are around, how do you rate the All Blacks against the Wallabies after two rather interesting games tonight (and the total humiliation of one Pommy coach) ?
The stumbling block appears to for Muslims to come out and say that those other Muslims who are on a jihad against the West are wrong. It seems there is a code of silence, Muslims dare not publicly criticise other Muslims.
Brian, of course you “Queenslander!!!” types want to stay quiet about Wednesday night and instead make a big deal about the amateur code’s results from last night, right?
Yes I’m finally moved into Auchenflower “suburbia” (as Mark terms it), got the TV going Wednesday arvo just in time to witness the destruction of the “Queensland myth”. Funny that although there were some loudmouth “Queenslander!!!” bellowing going on down the street before the game, there was nothing like that after it.
Can’t leave without mentioning my new blog which can be found at http://offworldcolonies.blogspot.com/ - the purpose of which is to document my “new life in the off world colonies”. Using another one of my many aliases. (”Tony” may be interested in that).
Brian,
Actually it was when Hindmarsh was off that Qld scored twice.
Otherwise a good assessment of the game.
Irant, I’d agree that Hindmarsh being off made more difference than Johns. I hadn’t noticed he was gone. I can’t understand how someone so square in build can run for so long!
As to who coaches next year, they say the players support Hagan. I’d dump him and look at Craig Bellamy or Matt Dunn(?) from Canberra. I’m not too keen on Johnn Lang as a coach. Or else in this professional age we might have to look below the border! I’m sure Trevor Gillmeister will put his hand up, but it would be a huge step up from the local Qld comp.
I wonder how Bennett will feel about coaching the next Australian team, which will have to be mostly Blues.
Rex, you’ll keep. My nephew had a night out with his mates to watch SOR. When someone asked him about whether his parents were in London on Thursday I think he kind of said, “Parents? What parents?” Drastic steps were no doubt taken to blot out the memory.
Brian noted a view, common among many, that:
1.”The first step would be to try to understand your opponent and ascertiain his goals from statements and actions and be prepared to accommodate them in some way.
2. You also need to examine your own behaviour and see whather this is offending those attacking you and see whether it is just. Then see whether you can remove the cause of injustice.”
This is a deeply flawed appreciation of Islamofascism, and profoundly misunderstands the issue. It imposes a western/socialist/humanist framework on a muslim problem so deep that it has caused civil war within Islam.
The short correct answers in Islamofascist eyes are:
1. The accommodation required of us is the utter eradication of our societies, repudiation of all of the fruits of the Enlightenment, and a return to an islamofascist version of medieval feudalism. Those who refuse to do this must be killed.
2. All of our behaviour is offensive - 100% of it. So all behaviours related to secularism, separation of religion and state, individual freedom of any kind, freedom of thought, association, religion etc etc, all has to be given up. Anyone even thinking of these things is guilty of apostasy or blasphemy, and must die.
The Islamic fundamentalists‚Äô own vision of rule calls for the implementation of hakimiyat Allah, God‚Äôs rule, under which the divine law, the Sharia, would hold sway. An Islamic divine order is one that is characterized by the sovereignty of God alone. The head of such an Islamic state exercises power legitimately only insofar as he carries out the will of God‚Äîthat is to say, the injunctions of the Sharia. This Islamic divine order stands in stark contrast to constructs created by Western man and imported into the Islamic societies. Man-made political orders, such as secular-liberal or Marxist polities, assert that sovereignty belongs to man. This, in the Islamic divine order, is blasphemy [punishable by death]‚ÄîGod alone is sovereign. Muslims who live under man-made political orders exist in a modern jahiliyyah, originally a Koranic term describing the state of ignorance and barbarism that prevailed in Arabia before the revelations to the Prophet Muhammad. In the modern context, jahiliyyah refers to societies that are antithetical to Islamic order. {That’s us, people]
bin Laden, makes this all very plain in his Ladenese Epistle (His vile ‘DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES’ http://www.meij.or.jp/new/Osama%20bin%20Laden/jihad1.htm, a document vividly reminiscent of Mein Kampf)
So we have a group, exemplified by bin Laden, who have clearly and repeatedly stated what their endstate is, then acted through mass murder of innocents (in our eyes, not theirs) to bring it about.
Exactly what is there to not to understand about this? Where is the mental and conceptual wiggle room? They have very clearly said what they want, what offends them about us (the separation of church and state is a real no-no to these bastards, and as for that whole ‘Enlightenment’ malarky…!), and then acted with airliners and HE on their statements.
All they want is the complete expunging of our entire civilisation from existence.
On this basis, it seems that there is exactly nothing to negotiate.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when people I rate as howling barbarian psychopathic mass murderes tell me exactly what they want, and what they are going to do, then go out and DO it…
Well, I tend to believe them.
And when they say that the only way to stop them is by either their victory (and our annihilation), or through their death - well, I believe that too.
The problem with far too many people is that they do not believe the issue to be an existentialist one - and it is. They have made it so.
So, left, right, gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or athiest or pagan, we are all mere infidels against whom they have declared and are waging war. We all have to die, you know!
It just does not matter if you believe this, or not; or if you think they can be negotiated with, or not. You are still at war by their ACTIONS, as well as by their choice.
Ask the dead in London, New York, Madrid, Beslan etc etc etc , or the dead Muslims in Iraq, if we are at war with these murdering scum. personally, I suspect the jury might have rendered that verdict long ago, for it seems to me that as they are doing exactly what they said they would, and we are at war.
Now, what are you going to DO about it?
MarkL
Canberra
On the London bombings, I think this says it all much better than I could:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1525172,00.html
The petty parochialisms of seeking to blame this or that Western government are matters of supreme indifference to the terrorists, except that the provocation of self-blame is a side-benefit to them. See the inimitable Robert Fisk as a prime example. Speaking of Fisk, if he believes (as he said at the time) that Taliban supporters were justified in beating him up because of his European appearance, does this mean:
(a) Londoners would now be justified in beating up random Middle Easterners because of their ‘Muslim’ appearance; or
(b) That he believes Afghans/Muslims are less capable of moral discernment than what we expect of ourselves?
Just curious. Any Fisk-fans out there want to put me straight?
Sanity in the pages of the Guardian?
This really has been a week of surprises.
Gilbert, one of the peculiarly horrible things about Fisk is a self-centred moral smugness, combined with a patronising racism so deep that he cannot notice it in himself. I suspect that if you put your point to him, he genuinely could not comprehend it.
But many other people do, and despise him for it.
Among those who share his casual assumptions of the ‘natural moral inferiority’ of others as compared to him are to be found his fans. They are of his ilk.
MarkL
Canberra
”it imposes a western/socialist/humanist framework on a muslim problem so deep that it has caused civil war within Islam.”
Interesting point, a bit like the US’s Christian fundamentalism problem of promoting creationism, also seeking a return to the middle ages, overturning Roe v Wade and perhaps leading to a nasty little civil war where the state returns to being synonomous with religion.
What we have in effect is two totally nasty self righteous fundamentalisms feeding off each other, locked in combat and both killing innocent civilians. Of course to one side the dead civilians in Iraq are merely ‘collateral damage’ . That infuriates the other side who retaliate in a similiar manner but without an air force to deliver the bombs. The effects are of course the same, brutal, heinous, criminal and insane.
All that is needed to seek a resolution is to work out which one propped up the dictators there, which one invaded the middle east with wars and bases and pursuade that one to leave. That seems a better bet than endless war and constant demonising by all protagonists. By continuing the retaliation cycle against civilians, the insanity divides us even further until we will not be democracies. That is what the fundamentalists want on both sides.
The parallel ”you are with us or against us” and ”believer/infidel” statements illustrates the opposing fundamentalist positions perfectly.
That is absolute nonsense, Peter. You have completely ignored all the valid points made by Mark L.
You just see this as an opportunity to vilify and defame Christians — an act which is illegal in Victoria.
See the inimitable Robert Fisk as a prime example.
For those few non-CT readers out there, Chris Bertram has a beautifully succinct post on terror commentary link.
Well I spend a good five minutes writing and spellchecking this thing I left at Cap’n Quiggin’s place so I think it’s only fair you folks should suffer through it too.
…
I’m always amazed by the sheer expertise and deep understanding of terrorist motives and methods displayed within the blogosphere. Why isn’t this knowledge being passed onto the authorities? Why aren’t more bloggers running security apparatus?
London could be the work of anything from an AQ franchised yet homegrown network a la JI to completely imported talent — and any combination in between.
But I would agree that Iraq could be seen as an excellent training ground for a new generation of terrorists. If you can set up communications and logistics systems under a military occupation, then an open western city should be a doddle. Not to mention other practicalities such as working out which mobiles are most reliable and easily adapted for triggering bombs.
Mind you, the absence of such technology didn’t stop the IRA. What did stop them though was a multipronged approach that ranged from police and intelligence work to military interdiction of selected targets to just sitting down and hammering out some common ground (anyone remember Tony Blair’s marathon sessions at Stormont with the people who killed his people?)
Yes, there was some nastiness along the way by the good guys — from SAS death squads to hooding and chaining suspects but it wasn‚Äôt half as widespread as it could have been, attempts were made to hold people accountable and they won in the end — the one virtue of war that trumps all its vices.
I could forgive our leaders such excesses now if they were winning. But Osama’s still at large acting as the Ronald MacDonald of the AQ franchise, Iraq and Afghanistan are now cesspools breeding practiced planners of death and their carrier vectors, people of goodwill are turning against eachother in terms so polarised there’s no going back, and the next time your train suddenly stops for no apparent reason, your stomach will jump into your mouth. Now that’s terrorism