One more to add to the collection

Why is it that I feel the same way about the BBC's coverage of the environment that I used to feel about the National Geographic magazine: not news but adornment? I used to have a subscription to the NG, but I found it moved into artwork rather than reportage.

This seems similar:

'The stalactites hang like glass daggers over the glacial lake. Ice peaks rise against the bright blue sky like crystal pyramids.
Mounds of dark rock rise up between the snow and ice, discoloured after years of being covered by the glacier.

This is Pastoruri. In the past 10 years, its ice caps have retreated by about 200 metres'

What's wrong with this article is that there's no news in it; none. Glaciers have been retreating and advancing unpredictably for as long as they've been around- and it's not news to point out the latest advance or retreat in a random location. You can't find a single current news item in this article about Peru. Nothing's happening; no drought or flood- even though they're natural too. Such things are simply not news- they're speculatively playing upon a trend of public thinking, what might one day seem to be simple hysteria. Wikipedia is interesting on this:

'Glacial movement has recently become politicized in discussions of global warming. Opponents of global warming like to point out that although some glaciers are retreating, others are advancing and therefore must be growing.'

So guess which side the BBC's on. Go on.

Manufacturing Environmental Consensus with the BBC

I am a news watcher, it's true- and I watch far more than I comment. So, I have this little antenna grown out of experience that in some media areas night follows day- and in my experience never is this truer than with the BBC's environmental agenda. The awesomely consistent BBC takes every possible cue from nature to discuss GLOBAL WARMING- this wonderful post-communist magic schtick with which to harrass the evil capitalist kulak scum.

So, no sooner can you say 'flood'ˇand 'drought' than you will find the Beeb ruminating its favourite unfalsifiable 'news' story.

And what's worst is the pious tone of 'we don't know but we think it's only safe to ram it down your throats' that they use.

It's so medieval, this fixation with signs and wonders, this attempt to build significance out of every jot and tittle of nature's revelation.

And, if nature doesn't suggest it in a medievalist's dream headline form, they'll go looking for it. And, like any of your medieval scholars you care to mention, they'll get their facts wrong.

The environment... ah, so poignant, so pictorial, telegenic eeeven.

And a great way to bash Bush!!!

How on earth the Beeb thought to replace the elastic minded and high minded Alistair Cooke with a Liberal consensus man like Harold Evans I don't know.

But anyway, here's a great debunking of the manufactured (Beeb-authorised) consensus about Bush and science. (thanks to The Ablution and A Tangled Web)

Apologia... blah blah

Of course, saying all this risks making one seem terribly reactionary and closed minded, since where science pushes, we're supposed to give- but, well, yes, I am closed-minded to medievalist tripe when presented looking, smelling and tasting like medievalist tripe, with the same intentions largely that inspired that medievalist tripe ie. reinforcing an orthodoxy deemed beneficial for the public mind by the self-appointed custodians of the public mind. Besides which, as the Harold Evans article makes clear, it's really the ivory tower brigade who are upset, and it's well known they're a project the Left in the States has been working on these last few decades (in Britain the battle was over much earlier). Of course I believe in answering environment problems with science (though to me that has generally meant coastal defences versus groynes versus marshland areas etc etc, or similar direct and verifiable arguments), but this push 'n' pull argument stretching a wafer thin cause and effect scenario over global distances is really All About Oil- and the Left's agenda with it.

Dead Weight Telegraph.

I suspect their figures for sales still remain fairly strong, but the Telegraph is a failed right-of-centre newspaper.

Why? No sufficient reason (of course the major one is their successful chase of a dumbed down market, especially among the younger generation sad to say) but prioritising a tone of presentation and a settled value system above real convictions about the world are the cause of its material decay- of course compounded by ownership difficulties and a crisis of confidence in its philosophical mentor, Lord Black.

See, what grists my mill is BBC bias and incompetence- the natural effluence of a state run caballistic organisation- but nowadays I find I have hardly a half decent publication to give good points of comparison. True, the Times is a little sharper than formerly, but it can't fill the void left by the Telegraph's decline.

For instance, today we have Con Coughlin reporting how 'All week long, as Israeli soldiers and settlers fought running battles in the soon-to-be-dismantled Jewish settlements, their Palestinian neighbours could hardly contain their delight.'

Whilst the latter point may be valid, though simply opinionated, the first part seems to be away with the fairies when it comes to the reality I have seen in endless live broadcasts from the settlements. 'Running battles'- good grief. How many dead, I wonder? And Con Coughlin's supposed to be a senior journalist.

Then, from that trademark 'toned up' reality, some kind of Wilbur Smithonian luridness indeed more suitable to 13 year olds, we come to another feature of the Telegraph today- the dramatisation of the right. Maybe they feel a little marginalised in Blair's Britain, in need of a good fairytale or two, but really the adoption of the 'dramatic' left wing presentation of people like John Bolton is a major, major own-goal.

Of course I will applaud if Bolton takes on the UN over its Palestinian propaganda, but headlines like this are pure mythopoeia- 'Bush's 'bruiser' squares up to UN in row over Palestinian propaganda'

John Bolton is a respectable, intelligent man who doesn't, and doesn't need to, 'square up' to anyone. To depict him thus is just to massage the spine of the pathetic Left who regard his very existence as an affront.

Then they repeat the old canard that the Republicans are 'bitterly' critical of the UN. I prefer by far 'deeply' critical Republicans to the 'bitterly' critical ones- but anything for a bit of colour I suppose must suit the Telegraph today.

The sad part is this: more and more the Telegraph, which was formerly substantive enough to criticise organs like the BBC, actually needs the BBC's analyses of society to regurgitate the narrative which sells Telegraph newspapers. Thus the BBC's stranglehold on political analysis is strengthened from most surprising sources.

More positive analysis of the Gaza pullout- from the generally hawkish American Thinker- which imho is looking better and better for Ariel.

True, in the meantime our own aunty Beeb's coverage contains pointed references to the 'next steps' of Israeli concession- but I think the reality is that Sharon's move has done several things for him. It has strengthened his military position, because now he can threaten overwhelming force in retaliation for Gaza sponsored violence. As the Am. Th. puts it:'If the Palestinians and their terrorist allies continue their assaults on the Israeli people, there will be hell to pay, and this time, there will be no Israeli citizens in the way of a full-blown assault.'
It has also made his willingness to deal with unrealistic geopolitical situations with the firmness and rationality not of a poetic nationalistic figure, European-style, but of a winner of grand strategic conflicts. But further than that, it's put money where mouth was regarding the intention to ultimately allow a Palestinian State in the region. Few can doubt the will of Israel to permit honest Palestinian self-governance now. As with so many things Israel has to prove itself again and again to be better than the rest.

However, the Beeb's warnings to Sharon need consideration:

'It's widely believed that his grand strategy is to close the more isolated of the West Bank settlements and consolidate Israel's control over the territory behind the newly constructed security barrier.

That would re-energise his domestic opponents and arouse widespread international protest.' - Jim Fish

'then there is the other plank of his unilateral disengagement policy - consolidation of settlement blocs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem

Israel says the barrier is a temporary security measure, but to most analysts it looks like the drawing of Israel's border to annex more Palestinian land and shore up a Jewish majority in the Israeli state.

Such a move could put the possibility of a return to peace talks on hold for a long time to come.' - Martin Asser. - emboldening mine

But, by the Beeb's standards their coverage has been flattering to Sharon, which suggests a division between the Liberaloids of the BBC and their ilk, and the Pallie Islamofascists for whom no concession short of killing every last Jew is sufficient. Such a division might be something that can be built on.

The Conservative Revolutionary in Chief.

Yep- Mark Steyn again- a constant presence on this website. One of the few genuine treasures of transnationalism, I'd say, and a major irritation to the moonbat fringe, or the head in the sand liberal drones who somehow suck out a life somewhere on the epidermis of the body politic.

What's fascinating, following the work of someone so current in everything he does is to see the reactions- is to watch the waves. I've read some intemperate opponents insulting him personally and ridiculing his accuracy, yet- and I don't think it takes a genius to be accurate- nine times out of ten the critics are the innaccurate ones.

The Pub Philosopher has a great example- the Leicester Somalis. I'd thought I could recall my Leicestershire uncle saying something about this, but still Steyn's claim that 10,000 Somalis had moved to Leicester from 2001 struck me as remarkable, and questionable by those who always try to question those who puncture their multi-culti ideology through simple shocking observation. The Pub Philosopher checked it out, and found Steyn to be more than reliable- and I'd guess the sources he used, for instance a Parliamentary Select Committee- might even be the same.

In this light I found Steyn's comment as part of his Hugh Hewitt interview here very interesting.:

'That's the great thing about a lot of what's happened on the internet. You can actually read the Pakistani papers before you go to bed each night. That's the new world.'

Well, if you're Mark Steyn you can, and you do- whereas many of us could and don't.

But I wanted to point out another good Mark Steyn call- the Menezes case, for which he received flak from the Right. Steyn produced a little topical take in response to recent revelations about the case- basically explaining himself a little more and claiming a modest vindication.

Good on him- and we need to recognise the integrity at work in his writing. My response to those on the Right, is to say that for over a decade I (we?) have been concerned that the police have become ever more technocratic and politically correct. Thus now we need to ask whether that hasn't made them practically less competent at traditional policing, such that they can't even present a coherent witness description to the press- Laban reports fascinatingly- and announce a policy unknown to the British culture of policing in the fashion we've seen in the Menezes case. Then, we could take the opportunity to cull the force (I'm thinking particularly of the Met here) of many of the politically correct showboaters who've muscled their way ahead by being good at mouthing the pieties of modern politically correct policing- starting with Mr Blair. That's positive thinking.

Rhetorical highs and leading in the modern age

Quite a grand title, eh? But relevant to the subject that's on my mind most at the moment, which is Israel's Gaza pullout and where it will lead to- and to the more general question of our time, which is, 'do our leaders know what they're doing?', which you can apply to everything from the Europroject to the war in Iraq, to abortion to speed cameras and surveillance.

But turning to Gaza for a moment- here is a really great analysis of the strategy of Ariel Sharon, as well as some vital statements from his recent speeches trying to reassure his people that he knows what he's doing. To me there's a fascinating parallel between Sharon's inarticulacy, lamented by writer Herb Keinon, and Bush's, which many people regret who support the President. I personally was reassured by this from Sharon:

'"Now the Palestinians bear the burden of proof," he told the nation Monday night. "They must fight terror organizations, dismantle its infrastructure and show sincere intentions of peace in order to sit with us at the negotiating table. The world awaits the Palestinian response-a hand offered in peace or continued terrorist fire. To a hand offered in peace, we will respond with an olive branch. But if they choose fire, we will respond with fire, more severe than ever."'

I highlight the last part; I love it bacause it shows that the warrior Sharon has not hung up his holster just yet, but loaded it with a greater readiness to make use of it than previously. That, to me, is what the Gaza pullout is about. The idea that some endorse that it's about creating a judenrein is to me a bit absurd- 8000 Jews in a population of 1.3 million is practically judenrein already. You stand a greater chance of long term Jewish presence in the area by giving it over to a process of gradual civilianisation, to the point where reciprocal arrangements for free movement might allow for a significant Jewish presence on a sustainable long-term basis. A long way off, I realise- but the only choice for Palestinians if they're not to be singed by Sharon's avenging military flame as the consequence for creating a terrorist haven and launch pad (which, incidentally, it already seems to be). Provided Sharon will flay the abusers of his gesture, and flay them hard, I see no problem.

I reccommend you read it all though, and read carefully- there's a tremendous amount of subtlety in Sharon's thinking that is perceived and teased out by Keinon (I'll let him make the presumptions of Sharon's thinking process).

So, given that Sharon is right, as I believe, and believing that Bush is right, though with an unenviable scale of problems to deal with- first and foremost being Isalmofascism- what are we to make of their inarticulacy? Is it that in today's society words have been debased such that real thinkers use them less and find them less useful? Is it that society is too childish to chew on deep reasoning expressed in words, and unable to sustain the concentration to listen for sufficiently long? Is it that the press actually has all the wrong things in mind when it addresses the news, being far more trustworthy with the presentation of simple gossip than with ideas and announcements? I think all of those- which is why we can analyse a politician today in terms of the number of words they like to use- the more, the worse being a general rule. That's why Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry, are, to say the least, a bit suspect- and we should be listening for the still small voice instead. What a pity the Conservatives in Britain ditched their Quiet Man.

And here seems to be the place to lament the failures of the Met. Ok, they got the bombers- thanks to the public- but they've lost the P.R. battle, thanks to their own incompetence and dishonesty and well, downright viciousness, over the Menendez case. Sadly- as Bill Quick comments (more gratitude to Instapundit).

And since I'm not always right, but about this I was quickly on the case, I'll remind you, should you care to follow the link, what I said about it, and how I supported Mark Steyn's sterling response.

Roll up roll up- one of the great attractions behind what Hugh Hewitt calls 'the Information Reformation' is the chance to see the freakishly large hidden undergirth of the revealed news on the world these days. Brought up on the BBC's thin P.C. pickings, I really larded it when I came across the blogosphere and realised what lay beneath. Well, I didn't find out precisely what lay beneath, but just that there was a lot of it.

And this is typified by the Oil-for-Food scam, which, as a certain Miss Rossett points out, is a kind of interwoven sub-plot for the history of our times, enwrapping all manner of unsavouries into the same globalised samosa.

These, it turns out, included Enron. Rossett points out that Enron's involvement doesn't appear to have been illegal- like so many they just seem to have been 'ask no questions' types, useful to the kind of folks more intimately soaked in the juices of Oil-for-Food.

But she also comes up with a meaty little nugget about Saddam's business principles, which links with another issue de nos jours: Israel's legitimacy. Apparently Saddam's men solicited from 'business partners' this kind of assurance:

"We herewith confirm never to have sold directly or indirectly to Israel and further confirm that this policy will remain permanently in force during the entire validity of our contract."

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church of America- naturally. Let me say first that six years ago I discussed this church with a hispanic-American Pastor who happened to be in Spain and who had got to know their hierarchy through close association, and he partly condemned them for anti-semitism. So, it was no surprise to read James Lileks:

The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- not the members, but the learned elders -- has announced it will use its stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians.

Interesting in this context how Enron chief chappy Ken Lay, though no Presbyterian, but rather a Baptist like GWB, came out of the US religious heartland. Not that I think that US church as a whole is corrupted, but I think it is sailing close to that wind. I just think it's amazing how widespread is a de facto conspiracy against Israel- either endorsed explicitly or tacitly (and explicit endorsement may be less malign than tacit endorsement, when it comes to it).

But when speaking of corruption, can we pass George Galloway by on the other side? No, even obliquely he needs a mention. 'Can we get him for treason?' is a question every honest Brit should ask, but funnily enough it takes a Jewish American to ask it thoroughly.

(there- I've basically done the Instapundit round, in my own fashion- where, incidentally, I found this a little disquietening)

Meanwhile, as DumbJon ably reported, the BBC have been a little queasy about blogs recently (too much samosa, I'd guess).

I mentioned I went to Cracow at the weekend. Well, I have written about it, but I've put it on my odds and ends of longer writing site, here.

I'm also thinking alot about the Gaza situation, which is moving in lots of respects, but comment will have to wait for another day.

What's BBC headline news- This, about 'a racist man' who just happens to be white; who is headlined a 'thug' (quotemarked); who nicely backs up the BBC's maligned 'backlash-against-Muslims' thesis. (actually we're talking about a pathetic person little more than a boy, without plans, schemes, self-control or a future- as far as I can see.)

What's Not- This interview, via Frum, which details the mindset of an Islamofascist. It produces some fascinating nuggets about the concept of terrorism, the thinking of the jihadis- and the cold-hearted evil of them. Also the cleverness, combined with an utter willingness to ignore whatever logical processes and matters of fact they please. Definitely we need to understand them as they have big plans.

Some might say one's news (a crime committed, a judge sentencing), the other's just someone's expressions of their views- not even precisely current. Yet where's the BBC's Islamofascist page to go alongside all the other social trends they love to chronicle so lavishly? You can have this, or this. You pays your money, you get no choice.

And, btw, what in whoever's name is the news value of this article? (about Laura Bush's appointment of a chef). [post updated to reflect a second reading!]

Update: I'm unsure if the link is working. You get to it via Steynonline, naturally.

Self respect.

It's all we need in the current world, actually, which is why I think Steyn is so right in his analysis of what we need and what we don't (and by the way, I don't mean the kind of self-respect that self-regarding agony aunts preach). Delicious. I am sure multiculti rubbish could survive Islamonazi bombers, but can it survive Steyn? Read on, Macduff.

'Like the Innu, they’re a dysfunctional amalgam of traditional and Western culture, fundamentalist Islam filtered through an old-school European fascist movement. Like the Innu, they’re hooked on welfare and the glorification of self-destruction. Like the Innu, they’re the creations of Western largesse — from the firebrand imams bilking the British welfare state, to the bananaphobic imams of taxpayer-funded Aussie schools, to Osama bin Laden himself, who took his pa’s dough from the US-fuelled Saudi construction boom and sunk it into a hole in the ground in Tora Bora'

Tragic Cookie

I haven't mentioned the death of Robin Cook, I don't think. I didn't find out about it immediately, and when I saw some headline a couple of week back, I thought it must have been referring to some other high profile people whose health is very fragile.

For what it's worth I do think of Cook's death as a tragedy. Not, as sometimes, because you feel that a person still has much to give. I didn't feel that way about him. In fact the opposite was true- i felt he was washed up. I felt that misjudgements and ill-judged actions in all areas of his life had left him drained- a husk of an immensely promising man. No doubt he was still down to earth and what not, as people say- but if Tony Blair didn't attend his funeral out of pique rather than the need to rest his own slightly peaky frame, I could understand why.

Cook was losing no opportunity to turn the knife on Blair, and had a rationale behind that of contempt for the PM, especially in his judgement over Iraq. I don't think the little man's judgement, acid though it was, was any longer focussed or balanced effectively- and despite his looks he loved acting as a poster boy for the anti-war left. Altogether Cook's deep resentment of Blair- very little of it fair- would suggest that the last person he would want to envisage at his funeral would be the nemesis of his political ambitions. An interesting contrast to Lady Thatcher's presence at Ted Heath's funeral- while in that case I imagine there'd have been consultation about Heath's wishes in that regard, as we all know the history there. Maybe the 'great sulk' of our Edward was finally over- but Cook's has never been adequately recognised or understood. Perhaps Blair does understand it. Perhaps he even a little respects it.

ps. I've just realised that McCririck's comments included the Thatcher parallel. (Nice Scotsman article here.) All that differs is our interpretation of the facts.

Note-

Just to say I am away for a few days and will probably not have time to post much. I'm exploring Krakow .

You know, I'd be so sad if Italy quit the Euro. One couldn't blame them. It's hardly a dynamic club to be a part of- as the BBC reports with the revealing defence that 'the performance was slightly better than feared'.

Reach exceeding grasp with the BBC. Unparalleled in its cultural reach to find out what's happening somewhere completely obscure (I think the AP is too biased even to count, and Reuters' bread and butter is found in obscure reporting- yet the BBC lavish correspondents all over the world despite being just another national broadcaster), and capable of tallying these things into a story, the BBC has little clue why things happen, relying on a very tired stock of ideas and the words of utterly unreliable governments who by moral equivalence have to be worked up into possessing some kind of authoritativeness.

Hence, an allegedly cancerous man's bus suicide bombing in China is explained via a tired old template that you sense is well known to the Chinese authorities:

'The motive for Monday's attack is unclear, but it follows criticism by medical professionals that the costs of healthcare have risen beyond the means of many people living in rural areas.'

So rather than chalk this one up to the global jihad, as this poster would have it, we are supposed to think this is a protest at globalisation and the loss of Chinese socialist security.

According to the Jawa's reasoning:

'What many people in the West are unaware of, is that China is fighting a low-level Islamist insurgency in its Western provinces. Fujian Province, however is not in Western China but in Southeastern China. Not generally a hot bed for Islamist sentiments.'

Well, all I can say is their awareness would not have grown from the BBC's reporting of the incident. But really- a suicide bombing to protest at lack of cancer treatment? Well, maybe in China... I don't know.

However, one commenter at the Jawa thought very differently:

'Fujain province is 30% Muslim and they had huge riots there about 6 months ago as the Muslims want Sharia law.
This is certainly Islamist 72-virgin job.
Shame on Islam and Muslims who support Islamic government (which is about 80% of Muslims).
Criticism of Islam should be decriminalized.'

As I mentioned, I don't know the full truth of this, but Reuters carries the same story with the same apparently state-sponsored explanation, and a little more detail. Remembering the way that eyewitnesses proved unreliable in London, and remembering that eyewitness in police states can be a touch influenced by official expectations, we can't give too much credence to the lucky lady who got off the bus early. Neither Reuters or the BBC stress the haste with which the Chinese Government's explanation has covered all the interpretations of the story.

Meanwhile, as this story reports:

'Both the Russian and Chinese governments are confronted by mounting Islamist radicalism and separatist movements on their soil that are believed to be fueled and financed by al-Qaeda. The US-led military operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda were therefore perceived in Moscow and Beijing as being in their interests. '

Could it be that this bombing is one more shot across the bows of the Chinese Government?

And this source may shed some light on the issue:

'The conflicting movements of Uighur separatism, abetted by Islamist organizations abroad, and Chinese internal and economic interests, suggest that further and serious conflict may be expected.
The dearth of research into radical Islam in Asia is in itself a cause for concern. One reason for this may be that states affected by separatism such as the Philippines, Thailand, and China prefer not to admit to a problem. This may be cultural. The Asian concept of saving face may be an element of the difficulty. It may, however, be a fear of losing overseas investment if there is an emphasis on factors that suggest future instability.'

China certainly has an Islamist problem. How far it extends is an interesting question- but Fujian is one of the historic stopping off points for Islam in China and undoubtedly part of the sphere of Islam's historic ambition.

***

This as Mauritania goes the way of all Islam infested backwaters, and the BBC finds someone to blame it all on the US and Israel: 'Most Mauritanians believe that the US has double standards when it comes to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... The Americans have failed the Mauritanian regime... a large Israeli-built hospital in Nouakchott is boycotted by most Mauritanians on principle... there is a feeling that US President George Bush is leading a crusade against Islam.'

But it's ok- all is well with the world- like so many 'leading journalists' he's Londonistan-based.

Blair sees back of comical Bakri? Or not maybe.

It could have been the first fruits of Blair's tough line on treason- but it could also be one of the last. It's good to get rid of Bakri, even if his al mujahagoon rabble had already wound up, having served a purpose. He says he's coming back, but five weeks either means his mother thinks he needs feeding up, or that he's giving himself time to assess the situation and whether uncle T.B. calms down at all.

The treason issue, added to this recent Sunday Times expose, seems to have turned up the heat on old Mohammed. But is it enough? No, it seems to me.

As I may have hinted above, Bakri is a joker, a man who can hardly articulate the English language and who gives his exhortations while picking on some else's chicken and chips- having arrived at his rabble-rousing two hours late. If he was a genius perhaps I might see that as charisma at work, but I'm sure he's not that. On the other hand he could certainly be a lot more careful about his appearance, actions and language than he has been- so his goonishness is surely partly an act. If he has contacts with the Al Qaeda leadership then it's only a sign that bin Laden, as so many intellectuals from upwardly mobile classes do, knows how to use a rabble for his own ends, and Bakri's an idiot useful enough for that.

I saw an effete (I mean really effete) Telegraph journalist opining on Sky recently that the July bombers must be rather dim wits. He wasn't specifically referring to the failed bombers, but to such bombers in general. People like Bakri and followers certainly reinforce that stereotype, but it's one dimensional and deliberately so. Bakri and friends may get out of control, but they reinforce the respectability of the Iqbal Sacranies of this world- and it's people from Sacranie's class who are the heavyweights who really inspire the kind of people deep enough and organised enough to perpetrate terrorist acts. I don't think Blair's bureaucratic gnashings will really nip those buds- even if they give that appearance.

And speaking of Blair's bureaucratic gnashings, it was interesting to read Charlie Falconer adjusting the spin after the public mind had been turned by it, saying that 'it is "extraordinarily unlikely" treason charges will be used against outspoken Islamic radicals.' I guess he doesn't want Bakri to think Uncle T.B. is all that angry with him.

It was also interesting to read, regarding the prospects for a more French style inquisitorial court system to deal with the folly of the CPS, er, sorry, the terrorist threat, that 'The Home Office says any idea of moving towards a French-style inquisitorial, rather than adversarial court system, is "very long term" and not being actively considered.'

Fascinating that it's on the long term agenda at all- along with all the other capitulations to the Euroculture, no doubt. Slipping in such nuggets amidst an issue of absorbing potency is the political version of laying cards on the table- for whom is an interesting question.

Bring out the old words.

Blair seems to have decided that he needs to take some old-fashioned words out of the New labout spin locker to inject some stiffness into the upper. I didn't even imagine that Blair and co. had bothered to keep the word 'treason'- but here it is restored for new spinning duty, dutifully disseminated by our national boredcaster.

It's absolutely amazing, too, to think that we only abolished the death penalty in 1998- even though I used to remind people regularly who thought we didn't have it all, querulous pedant that I was. It was the inactivity of the penalty for over half a century that made it seem like a joke term; like describing a volcano as a volcano when it's been inactive for a thousand years. But now, Blair presents, in archetypal Blair fashion, the all-new, defanged, nuLabour charge of treason. I'd like to think that Galloway might be first up, though as with everything else Blair's government has managed to take all the fun out of it before deployment. Dumb Jon has some wise words on the Blair's other spinnouncements.

Update: I should have pointed out that the death penalty for treason had been inactive for over fifty years when it was abolished- the death penalty for murder had been enacted as recently as 1965. Timeline here.

French logistics: paying ransoms and funding bombings, assuming the money isn't spent on Iraq's wide range of consumer goods and leisure activites. Maybe the BBC could remember that the next time they trumpet the 'worst atrocity yet'. Time to address the root causes.

Suggestion(s)

Might it not be true that there might be different types of racist/religiously motivated murder in the UK? I only ask because there seems to be a complacent media blanket extended over the issue such that unless race is mentioned in the attack, we can't describe it as racist (the same doesn't apply to religion, since peeing against the Mosque wall would probably be sufficient- or even near an air vent, I suppose, if you are in the pee C US military). Apropos this matter, I have a suggestion. Could it not be true that murders committed by racial minorities rarely use racial language because they are killing a member of group not well defined by saying 'whitey' just before the blow is struck?

Besides, if your crime is motivated by hatred of the host society, which is white in nature, is that not as racially motivated as an attack on a minority which is linked to the habitual actions or character of that minority?

It seems to me that admitting the use of the 'N' word or the 'P' word or equivalent as a necessary and sufficient condition for the full media treatment will rather fall short in the real world. As linkalicious Laban points out- it does

I believe I'm looking for a more nuanced approach.

DumbJon thinks we shouldn't prioritise racially motivated murders. I think that would be a better approach, but it won't wash really, as the journos have a point that a story which links to a wider phenomenon is more newsworthy than a random event- and one point is about all they can handle. Of course, though, random events aren't really random- even a nutter killing indiscriminately says a lot about the society which has let him reach such a nadir. If the BBC want to talk about moral laxness every time there's a senseless murder involving a sexual dimension; or the folly of drugs relaxation every time there's murder that involves cannabis, then fine- but I think they should report the news without relying on the subtexts which happen to match the colour of their own poster collection of social issues. So I'm agreeing with DJ the idealist here.

And I'm agreeing with this. When you hear that ''Muslim association calls Gerald Howarth's remarks 'naïve' and 'arrogant'' you know instinctively they must be good. And they are. He's the shadow Defence Secretary in the UK by the way. It must be said that people who sympathise with our enemies should be encouraged to leave, and people who threaten action against us should be made to leave. Don't know where that leaves Galloway, though he and al Qaeda agree on much, but I'd personally ensure that his passport details were somehow lost from the system, making his re-entry difficult. Maybe the Islamic world could babysit for a while?

A nose for casualties. A BBC journalist has been counting:

'the latest Haditha attack ranks among the biggest US losses.
Last December, 14 US troops and four civilian contractors died in a suicide bombing targeting a military base in Mosul.
Only air crashes, with or without hostile fire, have resulted in higher US death tolls, including 16 in the November 2003 loss of a Chinook helicopter near Falluja and 31 in a helicopter crash in January 2005 near the Jordanian border'

One Way Traffic

When looking at this article from the point of view of bias analysis I don't know where to start- but that's because there's a de facto conspiracy involved in it.

For a start the Police's frontman for the story is the deliciously token 'Met Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur', who obligingly offered the kind of personal comment we very rarely get from our technocrat constabulary these days, that 'he had never seen so much anger among young Muslims. '

So, it's the police as community race relations officers again.

But taking a step back, the very term 'religious hate crimes' is an immensely and distastefully Orwellian one, which the BBC choose to lede with. It's just one of those pieces of routinely intimidatory language that now shapes public discourse.

They then claim authoritatively that 'There were 269 religious hate crimes in the three weeks after 7 July, compared with 40 in the same period of 2004.'

Why is this wrong? Because, as they then admit, most were 'verbal abuse and minor assaults'.
It's barely possible to register such 'crimes', let alone verify them. I remember minding my own business one day some years ago, drinking a can of coke. A stranger on a bike cycled slowly past, and very casually, spat directly at me and at my can, scoring what to me was a humiliating bullseye by hitting squarely the opening from two or three feet away. Needless to say I did not report this incident- but was it a hate crime? Heaven knows, to be honest. Or, if the above case seems freakish, I know many elderly people who have been verbally abused and had property damaged just for being old and ageing- these have included my own Grandmother.

But what no one seems to question in this reporting is whether there has actually been the dramatic rise in so-called ' religious hatred crimes' or whether the sensitivity of muslims is somehow so heightened in the wake of the bombings that every possible thing, which previously often went unremarked, is now being reported.

Needless to say the policeman plays ball (and why wouldn't he, being from an ethnic minority and a muslim himself):

'Communities were particularly frustrated by the increased use of stop-and-search and the new "shoot-to-kill to protect" policy of dealing with suicide bombers, he said.'

Cue then the BBC to start editorialising: 'The alarming figures emerged as Home Office minister Hazel Blears held the first in a series of meetings on Tuesday with Muslim community groups across the country. '

Naturally, no-one, especially the BBC, is asking a further, even more sensitive question: whether there is any concerted effort among muslims to push their grievances to the fore as a way of putting politicians in this country on the defensive, as clearly Hazel Blears is seen to be in this article. Undoubtedly there are enough radicals out there, and their sympathisers, to keep many a police complaints officer busy with false testimonies. As the muslims always tell us that there is more than one way to fight jihad I can't help wondering, myself.

RottyPup has more.

I fail to see what's good about David Davis's latest spiel about multiculturalism not working- apart from the sentiment itself.

After all, Mr Davis says 'Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society'

But what's clear about this? Why do I have to accept mainstream Islam as part of society? None of Christianity's recommendations or prohibitions are accepted today in society, so why should Islam's have a special place? And does he mean that the police in Bedfordshire have the right idea and this is moderate Islam? (via DumbJon)

And if so, he's not going to change anything whatsoever if, in some freak non-representative accident such as Islamists blowing up the Labour Party whilst in conference, he gets the opportunity.

Behold the sickening Galloway: going further (if you'll pardon the pun in the light of the quotes) than I've ever heard him go before. He's a traitor- but of course we knew that. It's just as bad as watching comical Ali aired for tens of minutes on the BBC. Not for the faint hearted. (from Harry's Place).

In case you have problems with the video, let me give some quotes:

'The idea that Muslims have some kind of sickness in their bodies' (of Tony Blair's view of Muslims).

'Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners- Baghdad and Jerusalem'

'The foreigners are doing to your daughters what they will'

Laban Tall has a great post about the Anthony Walker murder. He compares the coverage of the Walker murder to that of several white boys murdered out of racial animosity. He also gives the stats for interracial murders, which are interesting.

Laban's tacked-on conclusion may be my only quibble with his post. He says ' I'd just like to say that I've no objection to the amount of air that the Anthony Walker case is getting. I'd just like to see all all murders getting that kind of coverage'

I hope that he meant 'all such racially motivated murders'. I'd be all in favour of that. After all, the argument for media prioritising of such murders as Walker's is that racial murders are part of a larger story, not isolated spasms of emotional conflagration as many murders are. However, what's needed is an even-handed presentation of this apparently awful racial tension in the UK (actually it isn't, but the repercussions in politically correct lifestyle restriction are pretty awful, as are the consequences for such integral roles of the state as controlling immigration).

That would mean people getting sick of hearing about white people killed by ethnic minorities in Britain, even more than vice versa- and the most sick of all at hearing it would be the ethnic minorities themselves. Many decent people would be sick of having to analyse their role in all of this, just as we lily livered whites are when berated by BBC-led guilt-edged coverage.

The stumbling block to all of this is the possibility of quite widespread revenge attacks (which doesn't seem so much of a problem when those radicalised are the minority- though I guess radicalisation is hardly the flavour of the month). These might come because the Law is rarely seen to be effective- there is no catharsis in seeing the guilty punished, so the liberal elite are somewhat justified in damping the stories of white trauma down on the narrow pragmatic ground that there would indeed be a backlash. There would because their Royal Liberalnesses are so ineffective and the law has no teeth.

Pub Philosopher agrees about the ultimate sanction of the state.

But rather than give the law teeth we have to join the multi-culti merry-go-round of white guilt. It won't do.

nb. see my earlier post if you have doubts about my feeling about Anthony Walker's death.

OTOH- this is just a BBC Islamist inspired fantasy, as DumbJon points out, and using phrases like '"People are going to fight back."' reminds me of nothing more than the much descried BNP rhetoric which some would like to be actionable- and some do find actionable. 'Phone the police- help the Jihad' might be a nice slogan; or anyway phone your local special pleading centre.

Meanwhile, I couldn't believe how ridiculous the human rights angle from this article was. 'Ethnic' men, apparently, are to be searched more often by police than those who don't seem 'ethnic'. That makes absolute sense, but I just can barely believe how stupid the racial crusader brigade, in criticising this, think we are. Their rationale is that '"If you search people of a particular race or description while letting others through, it doesn't take long for a terrorist group to learn ways of placing their lethal cargo with those who don't meet the profile."'

Yes, but, it's surely a lot riskier for them to approach people not of their 'tribe' with a view to making them human incendiarists. There are many gullible white people who are susceptible to the old Islamofascist-anti-colonial-Islam-means-peace canard- but how can you be sure the worm won't turn? Or, if you mean to plant the bombs on some carrier- how risky is that for the bomber makers point of view? Very.

This stupendous lack of imagination from the so-called human rights lobby is not accidental- they have so much contempt for the ordinary ethnic majority in this country they feel they have to keep it simple and emotionally appealing.

Answering Terrorism.

There are two sides to every coin. I think that while desiring a crackdown on Islamists, on all who support them, and for pressure to be put on the communities who harbour them- we have to admit that there are people who, like the terrorists against democracy in Iraq, don't want our society to work. There are vicious and destructive people who build their own rationale to the point where they express it violently- if 'express' weren't a horrible euphemism for acts like that against Anthony Walker in Liverpool-, of British origin.

Maybe it's sentimental, but everything I hear about him suggests that the apparent racists who targeted him chose an admirable example of where integration actually works, in order to make their point the more brutal and hard nosed.

Just over ten years ago I was part of a debate where I argued for the reintroduction of the death penalty (I lost the original vote, won the ultimate one). One of the things I argued was that for society to have the respect of all its extremely varied and vigorous members, it had to have an effective ultimate sanction. I still hold that view, and I'd apply it to the likes of Anthony's murderers. Our sclerotic justice system won't wake up until it realises the power it has whether it likes it or not. The fact is that power suppressed is merely manifested in the increasingly ego-centric behaviour of the extremer fringes of society. If somebody out there thinks that Anthony's death was just politics by other means- because they calculated it to be that way- then politics has to be able to give an answer by other means than the purely political ones it currently has.

On comments.

My thanks to Zimbo who offered an interesting comment on my previous post. What the comment demonstrated was that there is middle ground, but also misunderstanding of what things we have in common. It would be beneficial to clear these things up as I think that people often haven't constructed a good debate that helps us address our real interests at this time. Thanks also to anyone who's commented previously, especially those who've done so a lot. I'm thinking of David, Robbco and Max- and apologies if I forgot someone. I like comments, although the idea of long threads and voices raised (metaphorically) does intimidate me- so maybe I've not really aimed to get long threads going, preferring the, er, personal touch. Anyhow, thanks, and please respond whenever you feel like it.

While I'm talking about the last post, I should say well done to the police on catching all the bombers of the second attack. It was taking shape even as I wrote, popping around the internet as one does to glean links, but as it didn't have any bearing on my viewpoint I didn't mention the growing police success. Such successes don't address the much bigger geopolitical picture out of which the bombers are just a speck of paint.

Also relating to my previous post, the radio conversation between Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt is always a delight for me, but Steyn often taps my thinking like no other public thinker, so here's a part that especially reflects my views. It's longish, but all I can do when the Radioblogger format doesn't make the specific link easy. The whole conversation is great, too:

'if you do what they're trying to do in London at the moment, which is try it by the John Kerry means. In other words, take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. Treat them as criminals. That's fine in theory, but British and European law, and American law, all give great advantages to the criminals. And the British public, I think, will not forgive that. You can't go around saying we're going to shoot dead people on the tube, and if it's the wrong guy, that's tough. But on the other hand, if we happen to arrest the right guy, he can drag out the legal process for years, and get a suspended sentence.

HH: Yup. Now in the investigation that's unfolding, and it's going so quickly. We've discovered Pakistanis launched the first attack. A Somali was arrested yesterday. Three Turks last night. They're looking for an Iritrean. All of these people living in London a very long time, Mark Steyn. How bad do you think the jihadist network has been allowed to metastasize in London?

MS: Well, I think that's a very serious situation. If you land at Heathrow tomorrow, Hugh, as a U.S. citizen, as a law-abiding U.S. citizen, they'll put a big stamp in your passport, saying recourse to public funds prohibited, if you do that as a U.S. business traveler staying at the Ritz for 48 hours. This one guy they arrested yesterday, he's a Somali. He's been living in a council flat, which is public subsidized housing in London, for six years, at taxpayer expense, receiving income support. British taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the jihad against them, and that's an absurd situation that the British public can't tolerate for much longer.

HH: Do you sense a general hardening among serious people about this war? I mean, we do have people who do over the top like Tancredo, though I have not yet established whether you disagree with Tancredo's threat, and so let's pause there for a moment. What did you make of Tom Tancredo's nuke Mecca threat.

MS: I think that's a ridiculous suggestion, although I would say that at a certain level, if you want to fight a slow-motion war, in a rather desultory fashion, at some point, people are going to get annoyed and demand extreme measures. But to suggest we're at the stage of nuking Mecca right now, is just idiotic.

HH: Now today, a group of top U.S. Muslim scholars finally issued a fatwa. And I welcome it. It's good news. It's been four years since 9/11. But this fatwa is arrayed against all terrorists and would-be Muslim terrorists, saying it's simply unacceptable. Too little, too late, or is it the right thing that needs to happen?

MS: I think it's too little, too late.

A bad feeling about a more than bad policy.

'On a couple of very fleeting visits to London and Belfast in recent weeks, I had the vague feeling that Britain is on the brink of a tragedy it doesn’t quite comprehend.'

(Mark Steyn)

I have recently expressed my opposition to the idea of the War on Terror as a law enforcement policy- the opposite of a war, really. I believe the citizenry have to be involved. I think they actually need to learn to go completely against their training and put pressure on the communities around them who see themselves as possibly benefitting neutrals in the struggle we face, and make them in turn put pressure on those who might be conduits of terrorism. We need to personalise the War- the opposite of State policy. We need to support all means necessary- not just the last resort- to actually attack the interests of the terrorists. We need them to feel their opponents are real, human, and deeply angry. Such tactics might even save lives, as in the case of Charles Menenez.

I really fear the alternative. I read this article (via USSN) about the fears of a Muslim that his unwise fellows, the jihadists, had roused a tiger in the West, with interest. His thesis was as follows:

'In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed, allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity.'

What I really fear is that the perception of remote, technocratic, remorseless yet destined-to-be-victorious opponents- mere automatons- will ignite something quite horrible. The reason for the war in Iraq was establishing a foothold in our own fate, yet the British people, by appearing to fail to support it, have made that foothold tenuous, especially as far as our own involvement is concerned (British soldiers keeping out of it, letting the locals have their worst habits intact). What this may mean is that by fighting a low key, technological kind of criminal investigation- war to them, legal proceedings to us- we may be unready and helpless when the technological challenge is answered by a more advanced kind of bomb. They have to be saving the chemicals and radioactive materials for something.

What we badly need is to have some Muslims on our side, to prove that we can live together on a higher plain, levelling up rather than demolishing the old order. Hamid Karzai was a good start. Iraq has given us that opportunity but we are blowing it because, in pathological fear of casualties and sacrifice, we are exporting the remote control warfare ethos from civilian to miliary contexts. Wars you win work the other way round, making civilians behave with military discipline and sacrifice.

Steyn has a characteristically brilliant article about the failings of a legalistic approach. He concentrates on the absurdities, or, perhaps, the tragedies, of the asylum system. He's dead right. Relatedly, I have met a number of Somalis on my travels (not in the UK, though). I know they can be absolutely great people- the liveliest minds and the most energy you'll find anywhere. The three I got to know were capable of anything- I mean in a good way, mainly. One of them had been trained in mechanics by the Soviets in the Seventies. What you need though is to engage, to relate, to harness these people. They don't respond to robots and they are looking for someone or something to blame for their situation. Admittedly these three were all apostates from radical Islam, living in fear of their lives from gangs of roaming Islamofascist gunmen, but if they were not totally exceptional then they were part of a larger phenomenon of people waiting passively to be given a positive lead, who were nevertheless capable of tackling the idiots who ruled their cowed people- if they were equipped by positive mentoring. However, they can't be rallied without a cause.

BBC slither, slide, snake towards objectives.

When the BBC report Northern Ireland I have certain expectations. They won't be as soft on the IRA/Sinn Fein as they are, say, on Islamic terrorists. On the other hand they will sneak into their reporting some form of apologia for the IRA, some way of accommodating the Republican mantra as promulgated by terrorists like Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness. These men may be tired of not being able to say 'we've won' openly and with ever increasing clarity as they enter their dotages. They may be a bit miffed that the trappings of high office haven't yet materialised. But despite that any fool with half an eye can see that they're not the future of Ireland, North or South, or the whole thing together. And the main reason is that they don't know the meaning of sorry. Sorry combined with Adams and McGuinness makes sense like mixing water and oil makes sense.

So, I am almost equally angry with the BBC and the fascists of Sinn Fein when it is reported that 'During the NI Troubles, the IRA was blamed for about 1,800 murders.' . This is such a massive passive! Who 'blamed them' we are left to ask? For a Republican these are mostly to be regarded as smears. They didn't see them as murders because they saw themselves as freedom fighters in a war against occupation. They still do. For the BBC to let them sneak along without full admission of guilt is a crime against the people of Northern Ireland.

Mind you, on this issue (as in truth, on many) there's not much to choose between the BBC and the British Government, or their ununionist lackeys who they have coerced into demoralising the Unionist movement generally .

The British Government's Good Friday Agreement has meant the release of bombers like Sean Kelly, responsible for the murder (and nb. not 'blamed for' but 'responsible for') of nine people on the Shankhill road in 1993. 12 years for something approaching mass murder? And Republicans like Adams and McGuinness have championed his cause. If there's one lesson I would hope we'd have learnt from the jihad it's that bombing and claiming both grievances and rights are part of the same phenomenon. How can Blair claim to want to resist dhimmitude when he rankly submits to the terror rationale of McGuinness and Adams. We know he's not serious. He'd just love a slightly conciliatory kind of bin Laden to emerge with whom he could do business.

Ultimately however one has to say that you can't cheat history. Rapprochement with the Adams/McGuinness nationalist front won't bring stability to Northern Ireland or even Ireland in the long run. It will certainly bring criminality in high places, but it might also bring terrorism right to our door. The anti-colonialist path-ideology requires feeding with blood. The Spanish weren't crazy to believe in an ETA-Islam link up. I don't think it's a cloud diffused but actually a storm gathering.

Btw. This BBC opinion article seems to credit M. and A. with something courageous: There have been minor defections along the way, but Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have steered the IRA through a period of dramatic change without a major split - and without being killed.

Hurrah for rhetoric! I don't believe there was ever any danger of that, given the godfather grip those two have between them on people who understand the wind's behind them even if the demography, reason and morality aren't.

I have a theory about the London bombings that runs contrary to Tony Blair's thesis.

Yes, there is no excuse for terror- but maybe we did deserve it (not the people struck, I hasten to add). For things like our appeasement of the IRA, our unwillngness to crack down on threats to other countries emanating from our country, for being so complacent as to regard our Islamic 'militants' as a matter for the leisurely measured stride of the law- even today, after the horse has bolted-, and at the end of all that playing the Churchillian, even when that was a trick even Churchill could barely pull off with a clear conscience.

Surely it's clear that leaving Islamism up to the courts is just an open invitation to develop a more sophisticated jihad, aided and abetted by powerful legal establishment figures. There's a musical, or a tragedy, waiting to be written about our hypocrite Premiere and his crusading wife- the woman who helped write a suicide note for a nation, with a husband who thinks he can save the world. Maybe the reason the Guardian thought it was ok to hire Dilpazier Aslam was that Cherie had no problem doing a big favour for Shabin Begum (the girl in the not-infamous-enough hijab case)'s big brother, a supporter of Aslam's terror-friendly party, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Talk about inbreeding- it makes you wonder about Tony Blair's political parentage; can't blame him for that I suppose, but can't really trust him either.

I wish more people on the right were saying what Mark Steyn is saying about the death of Menezes. I wish that more people were saying that generally. He describes it as 'the pathetic public execution of an innocent man'.

It was indeed that- and I find it disquietening that so many people have just swallowed the scenario so easily. One could list some reasons why the police action was unacceptable (it's difficult to believe such a final and brutal act could have any real, sensible operational foundation based on such flimsy pretexts as the police have proffered. The operational guidelines are clearly idiot guides to human situations), and Steyn does just that. That's not to say that a shoot to kill policy isn't necessary for some conjunctions of events, and of course we don't know all the facts- Steyn says the police accosting Menezes were plain clothes; I have heard other people say otherwise.

What I don't like is the sense I get that the quietude over Menezes' death is a reflection that people just want to make the suicide bombers a law enforcement issue. Thus they give the law enforcers a free rein, meanwhile hoping that the statistical chances of being a victim of that freedom bear out in their own cases. Of course the authorities have to act, but we need to sharpen up their game and not accept their ineptnesses.

Convenient isn't it, now that the BBC's cherished notion of a fictonal Al Qaeda has been demolished by recent events, that they should have at hand 'The New Al Qaeda'? As the article suggests, the ingredients for this new group are truly simple:

'widespread anger at US-led policies in the Middle East, the proliferation of information about bomb-making on the internet and the ability of Islamist extremists to blend into Western society. This potent cocktail has created the new al-Qaeda, the subject of Peter Taylor's new BBC Two television series.' (i.m.)

If at first you don't succeed in any serious analysis, try, try and try again. Let's see now, which of those ingredients can be seen as avoidable? The internet, the blending in of extremists, or US-led policies in the Middle East?

Laban Tall has a great post up about assimilation issues.

Questions for the mufti. Marc poses them, and what we have to remember is to listen to what the Islamic scholars say (especially the ones whom we have allowed to stay in this country), and how their debate goes, rather than simply to their mouthpieces. These mouthpieces are constructed specifically for our consumption, not to tell us the truth about the intentions and views of the Umma.

I was interested to hear what Hani al-siba had to say to Al Jazeera (and keep in mind that this man is London-based):

“The term civilian does not exist in Islamic religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the western sense. People are either of Dar al Harb [literally, house of hostility, meaning any non-Islamic government] or not.”

(embolding mine)

Imagine then the debate between the mouthpieces and the scholars. One says that killing civilians is wrong; the other that there is no such thing as a civilian.

Compare it for a moment to British social discourse along ideological lines: Margaret Thatcher telling socialists that there is no such thing as society. The difference is that while common sense tells us that there is such a thing as a society, just as common sense dictates that we have a heart and consider there is such a thing as a civilian (the very elderly and young babies, at minimum), the Imam or scholar of Islam has chapter and verse from a book without which the mouthpiece would have no religion to apologise for at all.

Anyway, the headline issue was that the Egyptian British based Islamic scholar said that the London bombings were a great victory, but that's not really the full reality of what he said- what he said was something more reasonable:

' “If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud. The victory is a blow to the economy.” '

This is undeniable, if al Qaeda were a group which one could describe as aiming for victories rather than tragedies. To me there is no such thing as an Al Qaeda victory- only a tragedy for humanity. But I think we should quote them accurately.

But finally I want to refer back to Enoch Powell, just as our Government is intent on erecting legislation in the context of religion-centred speech (I find it hard to summarise this hydra). Powell said, speaking when the original race-relations legislation was in the course of being enacted:

'a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.'

The 'them' he referred to was the non-immigrant, traditional white christian community of Britain. It's difficult not to believe that the current legislation is one more step down the road to allowing the furtherance of the jihadis aims. Who, do you think, will use the new legisation with greater skill and aggression- the jihadis or the Anglican church?

Meanwhile we have this from the BBC, as Marc notes.

To understand the nature of the ideological tussle, this is a helpful article.

Not wishing to be unpatriotic, unhelpful, or lacking seriousness, but if it's true that the police (as they suggest themselves) shot the wrong guy (I mean an innocent man) the other day then it makes me very angry. They expect the British public to identify the bombers by the photographs they issued, and then they fail to notice that the man they're tailing is not one of the four. It's not really tenable to say 'better safe than sorry'. It's just stupid jittery behaviour tinged with criminal negligence that endangers all the activities they need to succeed in at the moment. I want to hear that this man was in some way connected- that he knew the bombers and was associated with them. Otherwise it was just a guy who found the police intimidating, who happened to make the police feel intimidated, too. What is worse is that just a couple of hours ago I watched a smug looking Sir Ian Blair on TV saying with a smile that he was very pleased with how things were going. 'Very pleased' is not how I would feel if the first time my guys had seen fit to use their most lethal power they had hit a man completely innocent of the activity I was trying to combat. I would call it a classic own goal in all sorts of ways, and to smile through it compounding the folly. As Helen at EurRef describes 'not coping', I would call it a symptom of not coping.

Jihad is real enough to kill any of us.

The BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' sycophancy needn't have waited till July 7th to be exposed, or till the latest round of attempts exposed an ever wider circle of threats to Britain, or till the jihadists proved that jihad has a global intent that doesn't always need to kill 'decadent' westerners- instead targeting Egyptians. They could so easily just have looked at Thailand any time since the tsunami to see a global threat that manifests itself in real murders, as Mark Steyn's letter page's star letter writer points out with direct reference to the Beeb (emboldened by me):

' TERROR IN THAILAND
I have been enjoying your writings for years. I have been living in Thailand for 3 years and Asia for 5 years. As you have recently noted in Thailand over 800 people have been killed this year in the southern provinces next to Malaysia, where Islamic terrorists want to set up an Islamic state under sharia law. The youth who largely commit these murders are trained in ponoh schools where they are taught nothing but Islam. These schools are financed by Saudi Arabia and many of the teachers are from the Middle East. Over 20 teachers have been murdered. Schools have been bombed and torched. Yesterday 7 people were murdered. A few days ago there was a coordinated attack where power lines were blown up, hotels bombed and police stations attacked. There have been 7 recent beheadings including 2 Laotian farm workers who earn a few dollars a day. Everyday there are killings and bombings. Over here there are a few English language radio stations. One broadcasts the BBC news! . I have been listening to the BBC news for a few years now and not a word that I'm aware of has been said about the situation here. Outside of Iraq the fatalities here are probably equal to what is going on in Afghanistan. Yet not a word. But if Israel bombs a suspected arms depot with no fatalities this becomes a featured story. If the item can't denigrate the U.S. or Israel it isn't considered news by the BBC. I also find that the majority of the broadcasters and interviewers are women with a snotty attitude who can't hide their bias. I thought the CBC in Canada was bad but the BBC takes the cake.'

What we need(ed) to hear

Earlier I linked to Enoch Powell's speech, I suppose out of a vague hope that people will cut some slack to one of the most villified men of British politics in recent history. Well, as I mentioned, that inspired me to re-read his speech- which is so well written it's difficult to believe he hadn't intended it to be read rather than heard. Anyway, I defy anyone to say that it isn't with a sublime piece of wisdom that Powell began his speech. How we need such wisdom now, or how we have needed it and now need it more than ever:

'The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. '

Great post at Samizdata by Perry De Havilland on our assimilation issues- I am sure Enoch would have approved (and by the way I went on to re-read Powell's famous speech after I linked to it yesterday. It's a model of statesmanship in many ways, and his name really needs rehabilitating).

What can I say about these comments? Howard for Prime Minister!

The dead bomber: CNN carry the fullest account I've read of the last seconds of what looks to have been an intended suicide bomber. It includes a certain ethnic element of the main witness account that the BBC leave out.

CNN: "He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat. It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket."

BBC: "He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.

The CNN account certainly assists the visualisation process for what it's worth.

Get Real!
This is why it's no time for joking around with fake 'fatwas'. David Vance pointed me to Jonah Goldberg's direct and devastating article at Townhall. What is being experienced in London is as near as dammit to what a certain Mr Powell, a very decent man by all accounts of those who knew him, envisioned. See also Wretchard's brilliant analysis of our problem- a 'must read' so 'must' I've now linked it twice in one day. Two Americans, a British Ulsterman, and one dead Englishman 'getting it' suggest that the current specifically home grown lot should be doing a lot better. And that's no joke.

p.s. Here's what seems to be a good account of Enoch Powell's life from Wikipedia, including his notable military service and trememdous learning, which provides some perspective. Also ps., I suppose it's only sensible at this point to link to the speech Enoch became notorious for- I'm frequently too squeamish about things like this.

It's with a little fear and trembling that I put together a post about this subject- the subject of the recent fatwa issued by the British Muslim Forum, presumably not on its own authority but on the authority of the scholars and clerics that it called to the task.

For one thing it's complicated- and its complication is enhanced by the BBC's presentation of it, invloving the presentation of two declarations from separate groups (BMF and BMC) side by side. Furthermore, as Melanie Phillips points out, the text of the BMF statement is slippery (though I really only want to concentrate on the quotation from the Koran which underpins the 'fatwa'.)

I'm of the view that statements such as these are as important to us as the Koran is to Muslims, since they regulate the status of our relationship to them, so no amount of scrutiny can be too great. There are several reasons for this scrutiny. One is that muslims take the Koran so seriously that every punctuational mark, every word, is vital for their interpretations. Secondly, the Koran, being written in Arabic, is not valid for them in its English form, so that statements in English that link precisely to the Arabic are the best you can hope for, and even these may not really be felt binding held against backdrop of the the Arabic whole.

As The Adventuress reports, there is a serious problem with some of the quotation from the Koran in the BMF 'fatwa', which the BBC in turn appears to be covering up in its presentation of the 'fatwa' (this latter point is my view in particular, which I explain in an evolutionary way in the comments to the post).

As I understand it the Beeb journalist who listened to the statement quoted the Secretary General of the BMF, Mr Gul, in this article, and inserted ellipses where he quoted the Koran saying '"Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind."'. Various English versions all include an extra line thusly, 'unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land', where the Beeb's ellipses are (see T.A. for more English Koran versions).

But the statement that was issued by the Muslim Forum, which Mr Gul read and the BBC quoted, had no ellipses- thus '"Whoever kills a human being, then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Koran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32).' - which is, imho, a lovely line when shorn of context.

What's weird is that to know to include the ellipses would require an impressive level of knowledge of the Koran- kudos to the BBC's Islamic education, or their equal opportunities policy, or their links to British Islamism and penchant for affirmative action.

The problem is that it helps to cover up the BMF's dishonesty, highlighted by Melanie Phillips. It might seem insignificant but it's not- it's deadly serious. That little line, which could never have been overlooked by serious muslims seeking a serious resolution, opens the whole issue up to a breadth of interpretation that plays havoc with the BMF's declared determination. It's just typical of the kind of contempt, not just for British non-Muslims, but of the English language (as opposed to the holy one, Arabic), which means that the Muslims in Britain play their poker with two hands, appearing to lose with their 'British' one, while appearing to win with their 'Arabic' one. (nb. please forgive my frequent sins of capitalisation and non-capitalisation- I really need to think it through, and I may update, but I'm impatient to post now)

Oh yes, I almost forgot, this Belmont Club post inspired me to write about this subject, and so did Mark Steyn.

Loads o' people talking about multiculti matters. Here's three great takes (and I have to say it's ordinary British bloggers who are shining in this regard, as much as any established journalists. Of course there's Steyn, naturally). So here's a terrific trio: George, and Andrew, and yes, Mark (whose wife is English). Of them all I think perhaps the most startlingly well-written is Andrew Mc Cann's contribution- which is saying something when the competition is from Mr Steyn.

However, I did love this comment on the Blair-Heath axis of pseud:

'Sir Edward's successor, Mr Blair, said on the day of the bombing that terrorists would not be allowed to "change our country or our way of life". Of course not. That's his job - from hunting to Europeanisation. Could you reliably say what aspects of "our way of life" Britain's ruling class, whether pseudo-Labour like Mr Blair or pseudo-Conservative like Sir Ted, wish to preserve? The Notting Hill Carnival? Not enough, alas.'

Yes, but, heartening -and necessary- though it is to do a bit of inward looking analysis of the country we're becoming, I think it's important to see what others are doing. The BBC, realising that they can't immediately make a link between the Iraq war and the London bombing, are attempting to ratchet up the quagmire factor, adding whatever tasty new morsels they can find. It's merely turning the other end of the 'it wasn't worth it' screw, preparatory to a renewed spate of 'Iraq made the bombs' reportage.(incidentally, I've been following the quagmire bandwagon for a long time- I think a history of the BBC's Iraq coverage could be written with their use of this word- occasional, but political, meaningful and totally insistent- as the fulcrum).

David Kaspar, on a slightly different tack, has a good anti-quagmire analysis- at least, taking on the puff-chested idiots who claim vindication with every media opportunity. (via Instapundit)

As Steyn says of a different group of dhimmis, 'Cherie Booth and Dave Brown and the Bishop of Lichfield will get you killed.'. I'd like to add Jenny Tonge to that trio, were it not snappier to leave things triplicate.

What angers me so much about the quagmire BBC is that they basically offer the coverage the terrorists need to achieve their objectives- just to prove themselves right about the whole business. They'd be absolutely welcome to that victory if it were not also a defeat for everything decent that currently exists. I think I'll finish with another little link which I found very telling. I don't always judge people by the language they use, but I found this little exchange reported by Stephen Pollard very telling. The BBC are really something like low-life these days.

Why they hate us. Melanie Phillips does the sensible thing and looks at what Yorkshire Muslims have been taught to think. To use the BBC to understand the thoughts of Muslims in the UK would have left her sadly misinformed, as Laban Tall points out, contrasting this BBC article with this News of the World one. Same guy, different character.

What's interesting about the sermon Melanie quotes is how it grounds the jihadic behaviour not just in ideas of retaliation for violence against Muslims, but the Islamic notion of 'corruption'. What this means in practise is anything which is seen to damage the historic Islamic faith. That means anything which gets up the nose of the faithful- meaning just about anything in Britain these days.

So, I return from a little absence (I had a long weekend somewhere nice- Vienna actually) to find at least one thing unchanged- the BBC's agendarising of the news. I find them trumpetting each denial of links to the London bombers, especially each potential link to Al Qaeda- at the same time highlighting each bombing in Iraq. Like some endlessly morphing virus, their fervent anti-Iraq war feeling merely grows resistant to every event and fact that challenges its right to dominate the handling of the news. Then I read this.

Others have linked it; so will I. The Weekly Standard's newshound Stephen Hayes has a simply devastating extended article about the Saddam Al Qaeda connection that we know didn't exist. Especially devastating is the fact that it was so in your face- including Jihadi conferences in Bagdhad that appeared on Iraq state television. All that was needed was to widen the eyes far enough. I read it over an extended dinner and couple of beers in the sunshine- it really needs digesting.

Vengance is mine, saith the BBC. At least, that's the implication. As the BBC say they are pursuing some kind of policy vis a vis the 'terror' word, they let slip the absurdly judgemental word 'vengeance' to describe Ariel Sharon's actions in Israel- as Melanie Phillips reports.

Interestingly, they say that they had had'complaints from audience members who argued that since the BBC does not use the word to describe many other acts of violence around the world - such as the Middle East, Spain and Northern Ireland - why had it used it in this instance?'

I wonder how many were really complaining that the BBC failed to call terror terror when they should have, rather than that they were using the term at all? It would be a cunning use of complaints if so, but I've no doubt it's possible- at the BBC. The 'terrorism' double standard's one that shames this Briton, for one. Stephen Pollard has some more.

Questions arise following analysis of these profiles of the London bombers. First thing to note is that although one of them was 19 years old (everybody has heard that I suppose, who has read about them at all), another was 30. What could have bound together man with boy in the same endeavour? Second, although three came from W. Yorkshire (Leeds, Dewsbury), one came from Luton. How could they have met? Who introduced them? How did they communicate? Just a few questions I know the authorities will be asking. Then there are the explosives, and the ideas behind the attacks. Who made them, how were the ideas evolved? I do indeed suspect a level of organisation here that must involve an organisation we know as Al-Qaeda.

meanwhile the BBC report this: that one of the men 'went to Pakistan for two months earlier this year to study religion.'

Some things you just have to add: I love Beagles. Possibly the most beautiful and clever Beagle ever was my childhood treasure ('Treasure' was her name). Of course it's a silly BBC 'feel good' story, but it made me feel good.