Don't know why the post I just posted hasn't been posted.

However, what is remarkable is that the BBC's Don't Have Your Say may be becoming Have Your Say (after all). More credit to the Biased BBC blog I'd say.

Coo, isn't he lovely?

That's right, transnationalism has once more given birth- and it's the delightful progeny of the 'international community' (maiden name, UN), and the guilt ridden corpse of masculinity entombed in the Nobel peace prize. They're calling the fresh arrival Mohammed, apparently.

I watched a little bit of Sky and a little bit of the Beeb, and while Aunty Beeb was wreathed in smiles at the way the little chap had emerged from his Iraqi weapons crisis, Uncle Sky was grimacing wryly and saying good humouredly, 'bit ugly, isn't he?' Got to say I absolutely preferred the company of Uncle Sky.

Paul Reynolds, the godfather, was all serious when it came to a formal address. He seemed to think that Mohammed's arrival was a sign that he was a mighty achiever, rather than simply reflecting the fact that Alfie had got cosy amidst the warm embrace of the UN and it's anti-US obstructionism.

This gives an idea what the Nobels think about Iraq.

Cameron's mish-mash

I 've read David Cameron's much-heralded speech- and it doesn't amount to much. I notice how he avoids all the difficult issues, such as Europe, Ireland and Iraq, and goes for all the simple ones, like offering 'choice' and 'setting' and so on, in education (things which Tony Blair can claim for himself, and which the public believes are already happening).

But I found the emptiness summarised by a comment he makes about foreign policy:

'And when we talk about foreign affairs, we don't just stand up for Gibraltar and Zimbabwe, but for the people of Darfur and sub-Saharan Africa who are living on less than a dollar a day and getting poorer while we are getting richer.'

Another difficult and vital issue (aside from the War on Terror- and national security, and the London bombings-, which he doesn't mention) is the UN's role in our diplomatic life. Blair, just today, condemned Iran's violent toying with Soutern Iraq by referring to his 'UN mandate'. Politics it may be (though I think Blair does have a high regard for the UN), but it comes with a price- and the price is inertia ove issues of national interest.

Cameron's statement about Zimbabwe shows that he doesn't recognise historical responsibility or national interest and give it any priority over the UN's shapeless moralising. I don't believe that the Conservatives as a party have really stood up for Zimbabwe as Mugabe tightens his rigor mortis-like grip. The idea of watering down still further is amost unthinkable.

What we need is a leader who has some sense of the difficult issues, and can stand up for conservative policies in them. It's by adopting the right principled positions based on our national interest that would differentiate Conservatives from Labour, and give some substance to his idea of renewal. I found Claudia Rosett's analysis of a dynamic national spirit versus a moribund transnational one interesting- no country could be more clearly politically defined than her subject, Taiwan.

Almost right about Blair- Danny Finkelstein getting closer than most.

+

A solid comment on David Davis . One has to conclude there is no apparent serious candidate for leader. If pushed I would lean towards Fox, rather than stumble towards one of the others.

A little more on the subjects I talked about in the post below- the Miers and Delay situations, which I, perhaps somewhat impetuously (but I think constructively), tied in together.

The Delay 'second indictment' which the press greedily gobbled up, is nicely explained here.

The Miers situation, which I felt had some symbolic connection with the Delay one, is being vigorously pursued by Hugh Hewitt in posts like this and this.

I think that choosing Miers is another sign that Bush has a philosophy something like the following: He doesn't trust establishments. He does trust providence- providence which has brought him into contact with a wide, but not exhaustive, range of the interesting and talented. It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea of providence or not- it's the only summary word we have to express the specific journey a person takes which differentiates them from others (nb- you could make a case for 'fate', but the Greek tragic associations don't really work too well). What this means is that he makes his choices based at least partly on his own personal journey through life. He believes in making selections in a team context, and in the wider one of society and the world.

I don't know what to think of Harriet Miers- and I do care, since in many ways we need the USA to be strong for the safety of civilisation- largely because I don't know her. But I like Bush's balanced approach- rarely picking the biggest name, and never taking the genuinely easy option. I like the way he seems to have the attitude that you've got to displease all of the people some of the time. I've never really been pleased by GWB, and never felt betrayed by him- but I find him very reassuring.

The dumb and the less so

No, this is not a plug for honest Jon. Well, not really.

Actually it is to make a point about US politics at the moment.

I notice that the media have managed to avoid mentioning the idiocy of the Texan legal eagles who indicted Rep Congressman Tom Delay on charges which relied on legislation which postdated his alleged offence. Instead the Beeb and others race straight ahead to the 'new indictment'. If that had been US legal authorities versus the Islamofascist I doubt the utter stupidity of the first indictment would have been missed so glaringly.

In the light of this conspiracy of dumb, is it really so stupid of Bush to choose a new member of the Supreme Court from outside the loop- but of course part of Bush's, someone whose abilities he has seen close at hand? Unless you just distrust and hate Bush per se, that is. Furthermore, if Ms Miers had been educated in the real Texan jurisprudence of dumb, it is doubtful if she could ever have headed a successful law firm. I suppose I have the right to be suspicious of people like the aforelinked Sullivan who buy into the idea that the second Delay indictment is actually an additional one, and not a replacement for the abortive initial one (designed of course, for the very media misrepresentation which is ongoing).

I got into this issue via the slightly personal exchanges of sorts between Sullivan (the aforelinked) and Hugh Hewitt, whom Sullivan accuses of basically being a fawning sycophant of the President. I have to say that Sullivan is an idiot. He seems uncontent while anyone else is on the other side of a debate. He whines like a child in personal and emotive language, being totally prone to psycholanalysis of the president. You could almost guess he'd just come from the shrink's couch to his computer. Meanwhile, if Hewitt is guilty of anything, it's of praising his own profession too much, thereby making it look like Bush's choice within that profession was really straighforward, when in the current global situation (which is what America and its legal framework will have to face up to) it was anything but.

When you look into the likes of Sullivan, the dumbness of the media generally, and the dumbness of much of the oft-praised legal eagles- and the way that they'd all like to huddle together in one self-righteous lump screaming at big bad Bush- you have to say that Bush may at least be slightly less dumb than his opponents, and thus well placed to make history happen the way he'd prefer.

Blood and Iron

I think the Bali bombings should have taught us some useful things- things we shouldn't need to be taught, but that we're learning with painful slowness.

One important thing is that Islamists repeat their targets. That means they are not engaged in some geographical lottery of explosive protest, with the names in the hat being those who have offended Islam, but a sustained assault. It might be comforting to think that the safest place to be would be somewhere which has already been targeted, but that's clearly false logic.

Mark Steyn has a great article about the Bali bombings, aimed at the Australian public. It's more and more important for us to think globally (and act locally) to counteract what the Islamists are developing.

We can see the Bali situation as a microcosm of the Islamist strategy and the potential it has. Steyn paints the picture a little:

'When the suicide bombers self-detonated on Saturday, the travel section of Britain's The Sunday Telegraph had already gone to press, its lead story a feature on how Bali's economy had bounced back from the carnage of 2002. We all want to believe that: one terrorist attack is like a tsunami or hurricane, just one of those things, blows in out of the blue, then the familiar contours of the landscape return. But two attacks are a permanent feature, the way things are and will be for some years, as one by one the bars and hotels and clubs and restaurants shut up shop. Many of the Australians injured this weekend had waited to return to Bali, just to make sure it was "safe". But it isn't, and it won't be for a long time, and by the time it is it won't be the Bali that Westerners flocked to before 2002.'

I highlight what is surely the significance of Bali- it won't be the same again. It's been changed, and by Islamofascists. That's their victory, their template, and their credential for the place at the head of history which they seek.

Sometimes people list the achievements of the US in its War on Terror. Sometimes even the sceptics, like the BBC, do that. They main reasons are either to say, 'well, it's working', or 'it's worked'. Many who do that are either getting cold feet or trying to egg on those whose feet are cooling.

The reality is that for all the talk of neo-colonialism no-one has the appetite for that anymore. The only would-be colonists out there are Islamofascists. They'd love to colonise the whole world. They know the dynamics include blood and oil, and a commerce in ideas. So, like every good international sales manager, they have a big, big map of the world imprinted on their minds. They have outposts and representatives worldwide- some violent, some not- aping, a little, the way the British Empire began with Raleighs as well as Drakes. I'm not saying Islamofascism has anything so positive to offer, but it has the dynamism of a nascent Empire. It's that grand vision which we have to confront, and most would like to pretend it doesn't exist in any significant form.

Some great stuff on the web.

Had some peace and quiet, and no eye strain- and no major deadline; and the result was I spent a while actually surfing the web and reading some stuff (following up some stories), and checking my links- and it was great.

This post, therefore, could go in a variety of directions, but as I'm just calming down from being greatly tickled by something Barry Beelzebub said, I'll link there first. B.B. is going to be one of the biggest British blogreads, if he sticks around and doesn't greatly prefer venting through his local newspaper columns. He just has a satirist's gift for pith. Thus, talking about the girls who claim they've been assaulted while drunk, he says:

'What these girls are really reporting is not assault but regret.'

And aint that the truth?

Staying with British blogging, I found that this rang true for me, and reflects a considerable malaise in British society. Paul Marks talks about a conversation overheard on a train (trains, in my view, are not so much ways of getting from A to B as they are cultural and civilised leisure facilities- which of course is why they are endangered- acknowledging of course that there are those who rely on them in daily life, with catastrophic effects for their household budgets and blood pressures). The conversation was between two academics from Nottingham University and basically what emerged was what frauds today's academics in the UK are: idle, lacking intellectual curiosity, even dishonest. I say 'in the UK' but actually I think it's a little more universal than that. I've always found myself very comfortable with the atmosphere in any university where I've spent time (including several outside the UK)- and that's how I know they're morally wrong. No place that makes me feel so comfortable can be a real benefit to society (er,- updating hastily-, not that I find myself at home in dishonest company, but intellectual dishonesty is generally quite pleasant for those on the inside; or those temporarily accepted by it).

Another reason for surfing the web is that there's so much going on which, for good or ill, is important.

I came across some fascinating stuff surrounding the Conservative leadership campaign via the EURef blog- stuff with which I actually agree. According to the Daily Telegraph, that makes me a 'right-winger'. Yay- at last I know for sure. The interesting essays from 'Right-wingers' include some I'd almost be happy to sign a petition for- but I suspect I'd want to tease out the details. That's why it's troubling that the Conservatives are so weak just now- there's not room for that debate when things are in the broadbrush phase (still).

Finally (I think), but most important, thanks to A Tangled Web I noticed what John Dugard- special 'rapporteur' from the UN to the so-called occupied territories- said about a single (Palestinian) state solution to the conflicts there. It only backs up other things he's said.

Something else I noticed also interested me though (something I picked up at the Jerusalem Post)- that was Kim Howells' response to Israel's recent actions in retaliation to shelling from Gaza. It's quite different to Dugard's tack. Howells says:

'"I thought the retaliation this week was proportionate," said Howells about the IDF operations. "The [Palestinian] attack was a very serious one, it could have killed a lot of people. It's a miracle really there weren't more casualties."

"I think there is no excuse now," he added. "Gaza is now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, and there are no Israeli troops there. One hopes that where tough decisions have to be made, Abu Mazen [PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and the PA will make them." '

He also followed it up, forcefully:

'"We are waiting with bated breath for a response from the PA," said Howells, "and it has to be a signal that it is capable of good governance. This is not a bottomless pit that this money is coming from."

Howells dismissed PA claims that it doesn't have the wherewithal to effectively take on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. "Look, they have 60,000 troops in the PA, they have all the equipment they need. What they need is the political will to do it," he said. '

And he topped it off by the following:

'Regarding moves he expected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to take immediately to move the diplomatic process forward, Howells said, "I'm not looking for Sharon to do anything other than – if Israel is attacked in the way it was attacked this week – to act in the measured way I spoke of. '

Well, it could be better, but it's been worse- see how the late Robin Cook faced a similar situation. The divide between the Dugard approach and the British Government's one is heartening; one can only hope it widens and that the former is seen for what it is: anti-Jewish, hopelessly biased, and symptomatic of the UN's condition.

Supporting Israel is made more and more essential by every fresh terrorist attack by Islamists- such as the one that's happened just today in Bali.

Time for 'Institutional Repentance'?

The deep parody of a church that the C of E has become is quite stark this week.

The backdrop was already provided by the way their senior British numpties had decided they ought to issue a report prepared to broach the idea of apologising for the Iraq war. It was reported that:

'While criticizing Western democracy as "deeply flawed," the bishops appeal for greater "understanding" of what motivates terrorists, and say efforts must be made to address their "long-standing grievances'

For me it doesn't matter that, as some pointed out, their eminences weren't gung-ho against the war; the point is that with IslamoNazis you can't afford to give their propagandist nostrils a sniff.

That's even what their own man in Iraq, Canon White, thought:

'"They've got to take seriously the Anglican churches in these [Muslim] nations," the Church of England Newspaper quoted Canon Andrew White as saying in its weekly edition published on Friday.

"The situation is dangerous on the ground and what is said in the U.K. has a profound effect," he added.'

But did their eminences bother to consult with their man on the ground before they pronounced from comfortable blighty? I doubt it. They thought it was enough to turn down an interview with Al Jazeera.

Canon White was primarily concerned about St. George's church, Baghdad's only Anglican church, which had been shut by Saddam and only reopened in 2003- in other words, because of the war their eminences wanted to apologise for.

Today I came, by chance, across a report which said that the lay leadership of St George's Church in Baghdad is missing, believed murdered by criminals on the Ramadi-Fallujah road. Canon White thought the murderers were likely to have been simple criminals. Who knows? What I do know is that it must have been a lonely road they were on, when the Anglican hierarchy itself was passing by on the other media side.

Nevertheless at least the C o E newspaper was on the ball, taking a completely solid line for once on something with its headline story:

'MUSLIM consultants are queuing up to offer their services free of charge to help Anglican clergy following the London bombings. In what can only be seen as pure acts of altruism, a spate of Muslim doctors have been volunteering their expertise to patients since July 7, at St Luke’s Hospital for Clergy in London, after it was put on alert to help victims of 7/7.'

Nice to see they know how to pay tribute to the poor and downtrodden still.

(highlighting mine- and btw, quite how this muslim activity helps is difficult to fathom; and quite why the hospital is so busy with Anglican clergy is also obscure, being as it is nearly three months since the attack. Spiritual mysteries that are beyond me, no doubt).

I hope to be more active blogging soon. The deadline I mentioned has been extended, though I think I kept my end up reasonably, so to speak. Anyhow I have noticed a few things:

Peace has broken out in Northern Ireland- not

I have to comment about this, as few Brits from the mainland probably will. I think that it's despicable to give the people of Northern Ireland up to a bunch of long in the tooth gangsters like the IRA/Sinn Fein. I worry that, admirable though he is (and I've known people who know him), Ian Paisley may not be quite strong enough to see off the men of near violence for the adequate future- he's getting a bit frail. And, save Ian Donaldson, there's no successor (and I don't trust Donaldson all that much, either). People always mocked Paisley's 'Ulster says NO' line, but what's at stake in Nothern Ireland is the democratic integrity of the British Isles, long term. In the short term, there are victims past, present and future to worry about (and when I say victims, I think we need to mention the Mcartney case, and ask ourselves whether the IRA mentality should have any place in any Government anywhere).

David Vance summarises very well a line of resistance (I highlight what I think are the highlights):

As a pro-republican propaganda blitzkrieg is launched this week, and assiduously sold by our own Government, thinking unionists should stand firm and ask three simple questions to all those appeasers and peace processors now praising the IRA. 1. Has the IRA disbanded? 2. Has the IRA desisted from its multi-million annual criminal racketeering? 3. Has Sinn Fein accepted that the IRA was a gang of murdering thugs?

The political gales that will buffet unionists in coming days will be of Hurricane Katrina-scale proportions, but I trust that our political representatives will recall that "the thing that will destroy us is politics without principle". This is the time to stick to our principles, insisting that terrorist proxies can never be permitted into Government. If we allow that then we decommission democracy.

Meanwhile, I notice the BBC reporting Hain, who could really be Mo Mowlam's little brother when it comes to flippancy and leftist idealism:

'"I wouldn't have expected Ian or the unionists to just bowl over and welcome everything with open arms because they've got a lot of cause to be sceptical and suspicious over the behaviour of the IRA in the past," he told BBC News on Tuesday.

"The IRA have often promised to do things and then reneged on them."

Earlier, before editing, Hain was also quoted saying that no reasonable person could doubt the decomissioning process- which shows you exactly what Hain thinks about the DUP. But what no-one on this side of the water seems to think about, least of all, Hain, is just what it must be like to consider actually having to look up to Gerry Adams as a political authority. Or to have Martin McGuinness in charge of your kids' schooling. I wonder what his line on bullying is? That's really what's at stake in Ireland, but with every act of a nation a kind of mentality is cemented- so there's bigger, British dimension too- unsurprisingly, since you can't duck out from history. If we cave in to the political aspirations of the IRA, I see no discouragement whatsoever in temporary setbacks for Islamic terrorists- and while the Catholics in Ireland have to face the fact that demographics do not favour a Republican, Catholic North, greying-beard Osama (not actually so very old himself), knows how many opportunities are springing up out of his Faith's fertility.

As I notice yet more worrying (and pathetic) Euro weakness (of course I meant EU 'diplomacy' over Iran, not the slightly dodgy currency) I feel I have to mention too that I may be gone for the next few days. I have a piece of work to do for which the deadline was today, but hopefully Monday will do. Of course I'll just mention how blogging takes up a lot of time and I'm sure to be understood...

In other BBC news, this African news doesn't surprise me. Nor does the BBC's slightly unhealthy interest in this. Somehow all three seem to be of a piece, as often happens when the world out there is filtered through the BBC.

Like him or loathe him, I think it ought to be clear by now that GWB has a scheming brain. Thomas Lifson analyses the details of it (with especial reference to this hurricane season they're experiencing in the South). He concludes that Bush 'knows and understands strategy in a way no other president ever has.' Make of that what you will.

Well, there has been a failure in the UK miliary activities in Iraq- they should have taken on Al Sadr, arrested him and tried him for some of his many misdemeanours. Then they should have said to all the waverers around Mucktada, 'who's next?', and then (to the people) 'we want to involve ourselves in most of what goes on here in Basra, getting to know you and what's best for us to do before we go'. They should have done this a long time ago.

The BBC's Paul Reynolds is still bleating about an exit strategy. Yeah, well, ok- but in doing this almost solid for over a year- almost two years I think- he seems to have missed the point that the troops were there for real reasons, and had serious work to do. Perhaps the defensiveness of the whole UK endeavour, which the BBC has done more than most to promote, has contributed to the failure to exit?

The point is that the Brits had it relatively easy there, but naturally where you have hot-blooded Shia and the mullahs next door you have to move smartly to build on that position, rather than preening about being liked more than your colleagues further north. I don't really blame our troops for this as it's mainly media driven, but nevertheless there is a snobbery about, which I don't like, which may just have got our troops singed recently. I also don't think the situation in the South is desperate, unless one considers that this area was a real potential strength and dynamo to achieve our objectives, and now it isn't so clear that it is.

The Poosh is very clear about this, as on much else. Good stuff. If I understand correctly he's from an Asian background, which is why he sounds so refreshingly patriotic I suppose.

Back of an envelope stuff-

Yes, really- I'm turning it round and round in my hand to read my scrawl, and I'm just glad to have it and my keyboard so close together for once.

BBC World often requires enveloping; I don't want to be mean and have a notepad and pen right at hand, or maybe I just know that pens and paper were made for me to separate them at crucial moments.

After noting down (with a pared down biro squirming in my clenched fist) that Brian Hanrahan was talking about the subsidisation of oil when he meant a reduction in duty, I went on to chronicle a discussion between two eminences from the US and UK (I know them, but their names I failed to note and can't remember) about aid and the UN, hosted by Zanab Abadawi.

First she asked whether the failure of the UN's jamboree to produce reform was a result of John Bolton's 'coming late'. The she said 'the US has made the world resent it; that is the crux of the matter'. When the US former ambassador to the UN (I think that was his role) tried to mention the question of African corruption Ms Abadawi intervened quickly :

'We're not going to talk about corruption in Africa, because I'm sure we all agree we want that sorted out...'

It was then I started scrawling in earnest. I thought, how ridiculous that she thought this point needed no discussion. Until corruption in Africa is controlled and ended, there will be no solution to Africa's problems, and aid is like a sticking plaster on a blown out tyre. Moreover, any approach or mechanism to end corruption will not be simple, hardly a matter of consensus, and deeply controversial there's no doubt.

Then back came the ex-ambassador, talking about how the money was going to be spent (ie, was it all going to be wasted through corruption), and Ms Abadawi was again swift off the mark, 'ok, you've made that point'. Er, no. It was ruled out of court, remember?

All she wanted to talk about was the Millenium Goals and why the US and Mr Bolton were so laggardly. I would write more about this, but my envelope was rather limited in size and my scrawl was rather big. The companion sheet to my envelope remains elusive.

Those wannabe intellectuals.

Is there anyone in the hierarchy of the C of E today who wouldn't rather have been an intellectual if they had had the vigour, discipline or intellect to do so?

I only say because they're forever intellectualising and poking their noses in where they haven't a clue, let alone aren't wanted. They have much to say at the moment about the threat of terrorism and the 'just war tradition' (today's C of E loves tradition as much as the Pope, maybe more) and how the church should apologise to Islam for the war in Iraq.

I'll quote a little and then ventilate:

'By way of conclusion we offer a set of fundamental Christian principles, both theological and ethical, which we believe should guide our thinking and action, not only in relation to policy toward Iraq and Iran, but more generally to the present international order'.

Why thank you very much learned gentlepersons of the cloth. I think you'll find that you can't offer a 'fundamental set of Christian principles' other than the ones you completely ignore which were handed to you for transmission to the society around you, ie. Biblical doctrines. I don't care about your 'principles'; I don't trust your interpretations, which remain as ever grounded in the techno-speak of transnationalism rather than in the plain text which is your only claim to exceptionalism. You never deal with any of the things in your own intray, such as moral decay within and surrounding your church, but feel free to deal in the supposed failings of others. You stand for nothing but genteel and dead-end intellectual dilletantism. By even raising your voice on this issue while your church remains so weakened under your guidance you shame your calling. The best thing you could do for the next ten years is shut up, saying nothing but that which affects your church life directly. By doing so you might just start to plant the seeds of some good- but don't count on it, or the grand effort of saying nothing will all be wasted. (hat tip A Tangled Web)

Continental uplift.

Sort of hoping that Mrs Merkel wins today. I hope she turns out to be more radical that the MSM are saying, just as I hope she puts their 'Schroder closing the gap' theme down properly. Maybe one reason for hoping that she causes a stir is simply that this might distract bored and complacent continentals from their boring complacent lives, where they tolerate sleaze, gross behaviour and the most virulent anti-Americanism- not to mention anti-Britishness (see also above link).

I notice the death figures for Katrina are such that it's possible that the final figure may be less than a thousand- which makes a stark contrast to what happened in France during a heatwave two years ago. The truth is that America at its worst would be like most continental countries at their best- and to say that would be just to go with the economics, let alone the 'can do' attitude of most American states (an ethos which Lousiana may be unusually low on)./ Some interesting reflection on several Euro fronts here.

The day after's Update: actually not very uplifting, was/is it? Wonderful advert for the Lib Dem proportional representation policy though, as they meet in Blackpool.

We may be four years on but.... this is a fascinating observation from The Captain's Quarters about an largely overlooked article which appeared in the State-owned Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriyah two months prior to 9/11.

There's a killer point of course, which I'll come to, but almost as interesting is the way the writing treats the psychology of Iraqis. One really important realisation is how a state-owned (and controlled) newspaper could be so supportive of Osama Bin Laden, before his full post-9/11 Arab hero status:

'The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper ``If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so.''

Talk about the 'stolen Arab self' reminds me of our own Orla 'Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could' Guerin. But the pseudo-psychology reminds me of the typical western analysis of the self nonsense (link randomly plucked from a morass). One can't forget that Saddam drew for inspiration on the kind of mystical revolutionary Arabist socialism of Euro-educated Michel Aflaq.

One can't also emphasise enough that this article was carried in the Saddam-worshipping and brutally controlled press- yet sang the praises of Bin laden. It was a product of a newspaper in a Shia area, so I'd say we can assume its purpose was partly to intimidate, shackle and, if possible, indocrinate the local population with propaganda.

Given the recent declaration of war against the Shia by Al Qaeda, Iraq branch, this is more interesting still.

But the real crux of interest in the article is that it mentions all three of the targets on 9/11 in connection with Bin Laden. The last apparent reference may actually not be one, but it is certainly curious: 'the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.'. (boldenings mine)

It's so interesting- I'd like to read a better translation, but one can see that there is some clever name-dropping going on, and that someone like Bin Laden is quite philosophically consistent with the Baathist presses' mission. It's old stuff, true, but what strikes me is that on so many occasions in not being willing to believe we have an enemy that is widespread and charged with ideology and hatred towards us we've missed many things (like the clear Al Qaeda links to the London bombings, of which many are stupidly sceptical). It wouldn't surprise me if these really were references to 9/11, or that Al Qaeda reps were boasting in the coffee bars of Baghdad and elsewhere before, as well as after, the attack. (hat-tip to Mark Steyn- again)

Tranzi Frenzi- and a hope

Melanie Phillips adds some info about the Israeli General's escape from the risiblly overextended arm of the law:

'Israel’s Maj.-Gen. Doron Almog who flew to Britain to raise money for a charitable cause, was warned by Israel’s ambassador to London not to disembark from his El Al flight at Heathrow because British detectives were waiting to arrest him. The arrest warrant had been issued on Saturday by the Bow Street Magistrate's Court at the request of a pro-Palestinian group. The warrant alleged that in 2002 Almog had ordered the demolition of 59 Palestinian homes in Rafah. Gen. Almog decided not to alight from the plane, and remained aboard until it turned around and returned to Israel.' (bold lettering mine)

I was incensed by this action of the part of the authorities- and I will be even more upset if the they take some actions aginst the sensible Israeli ambassador. Britain used to be a country which had a rational regard for Israel and its position, which understood the difference between soldiers and mobsters, and distinguished sensitively between types of government. Now we don't, even though the distinctions are ever more relevant and important for our own understanding of the world.

There's a perfect evil twin to this misuse of judicial power in the surrendering of British sovereignty to European law courts- as explained by Peter Glover. Essentially what's likely to happen is the harmonisation of EU criminal law- certainly the EU powers have that power now. As well as an abdication of real power (the opposite of the extension of false power), it's an abdication of thought- and to think is what we need more than ever to do. (hat tip, ATW)

Our law used to be decent, even if imperfect and limited in many ways by the eras in which it worked. Now the limitations are few, the boundaries are eroding away to nothing, but the results is illiberalism and powercrazy behaviour.

But, despite this gloom, there is an answer. The answer is not to be too negative, but to look for positive judgements and actions to outweigh the negative ones that have such high profile. From somewhere we have to find within the law some wise decision-making. I believe it might be possible since I've been proved wrong once before. I never believed that Lord Hutton would be as immune from the popular gossip as to blame the BBC for their behaviour surrounding the Kelly affair. From almost nowhere (well, Northern Ireland ;-)), came this decent, rational man to seemingly bunker-down and deliver a rational account of affairs.

Of course I am aware that legal decisions which give the EU such powers as have been given are difficult to cope with from my perspective, but the legal position and what happens in reality can be two different things. Thus Israel might find it has some British champions and the EU might find it gets its fingers well and truly burnt at some time in the future. I wish I could say I was active in this matter, but I'm open to suggestions. For now I'll retain a little hope that our legal system can find some fibre from somewhere.

Talking About Rotten- this graph and map shows the way the UN views the world, describing the frequency of UN human rights complaints against different countries. If you look closely at the middle of the global map you can see a little sliver of red that highlights Israel. It's part of a great site, Eye on the UN.

I'm going to file it in my blogroll some time soon, but under which category I wonder?

Sometimes I feel I get this categorisation business a bit wrong, and maybe it's the fault of my slightly poetic filing system. However, in Natalie Solent's case I'm sure I was right to file her under 'pastoral talk', as is amply proved by this posting recalling Sept 11th. It's great sermon material for anyone who does that kind of thing. Or maybe it already was sermon material and Natalie was a beneficiary? In any case it ought to be in sermons somewhere.

And btw the way I must thank that fine 'surfing dude' Mark Steyn for his excellent links.

Rotten inside

A number of things have made me realise that the problem with the War on Terrorism is that most Western politicians share the analyses of the terrorists.

The clearest example is the one staring us in the face, the one that people from outside the UK most remark on, the savagery on our doorstep that's found in Northern Ireland. Peter Hain is a classic example of a politician who has agreed with every so-called colonial grievance that's ever been aired. When you read his CV, you know that in founding the anti-Nazi league he intended to create a pressure group that would identify what he would call the 'nazi within' ie. the colonial legacy, and enshrine political correctness. Through this prism we have to see his dramatic concessions to the IRA following their latest P.R. stunt.

Moving on, look at how the British Government are dealing with Israel nowadays: trying to arrest retired Israeli Generals. Now of course it was only the idiot judiciary who were trying this on, but the British Government are not far behind. It also shows how the judiciary are becoming ever more activist. Again the establishment are agreeing with the terrorists, accepting their lines- even repeating them.

And finally, what are we to make of the War on Terror when most politicians would be horrified at any mention of a further military step- even a step- against such terrorist regimes as Iran and Syria?

Even Bin Laden, I suspect, only needs to hang around for his anti-imperialist needs to be met.

I think the current generation of politicians, especially our British ones, are unblushing hypocrites. They can't stand the bombs exploding anywhere near their political eardrums, so they act tough, but they agree with the terrorists' analyses: poverty is our fault; colonialist fascism is to blame etc etc. They won't tell us they agree, because that's not their style. I don't think the public in any western country agrees with them (and I would except a number of US politicians and thinkers from this charge, though their will is weak).

Why then are people fighting and dying in Iraq? Simply because politicians like Blair are realistic enough to know what kind of concessions are required, and that these can't be offered overnight. If you're going to allow for reverse colonisation you can't do it just like that. He is therefore at war with the unrealism of the terrorists, not their causes. People like Ken Clarke, meanwhile, are too short-sighted to understand that the terrorists have a meaningful mindset that requires appeasing or destroying.