Ya Bass

Some political opportunism of the worst sort on the front page of the Daily Express today.

For the Express it's always either Tony Blair's fault or the European Unions fault or asylum seekers fault. Or more often than not a combination of all three.

Personally I blame it all on the decline of standards amongst tabloid editors - It should be sponging not spongeing. Best to at least run words through a spellchecker before sticking them onto the front page in a large font.

Some vintage Blair at the final PM press conference before the summer recess - Not One Inch.

Look, of course people are going to use Iraq and Afghanista...They will use Iraq to try and recruit and motivate people. They will use Afghanistan. Before Iraq and Afghanistan, and 11 September, which happened before those two things, they used other things. But I think most people understand that the roots of this go far deeper. And in any event where does this argument take us in the end. And I want to make one thing very clear to you. Whatever excuse or justification these people use I do not believe we should give one inch to them, not in this country and the way we live our lives here, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in our support for two States, Israel and Palestine, not in our support for the alliances we choose, including with America, not one inch should we give to these people. And I want to say this to you, and I may offend people when I say this, but I am going to say it nonetheless. 11 September for me was a wake-up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again. And we are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods, but their ideas.

Let us just take this issue of Iraq and expose it for a moment. Frankly the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism. If it is concern for Iraq, why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them.

An interesting article on the bbc site about travelling by tube and the discomfort of strangers. It's a bit depressing to read the comments section and other people's experience - for example how one British Asian has taken to carrying a bottle of wine with him as a clear visual symbol that says I'm not a fanatic Islamic bomber or from the other end of the spectrum how people are viewing others with suspicion. As one commentator notes on all this:

That is why it is called terrorism the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends with the aim of sowing fear and confusion.

While generally agreeing with that statement, I wonder how much of this is really a new shift in attitudes post-bombing and not down to people becoming more aware of certain subconcious attitudes they already possessed towards other tube passengers. I've always found the underground to be about the "discomfort of strangers". At rush hour, especially on a hot day, it's never been a particularly nice place to be. The trains are packed full of people looking at each other suspiciously, avoiding eye contact and being apprehensive over others invading their personal space. On a personal level my only real worry on the subway is not one of bombers and exploding rucksacks but whether i should offer to give up my seat for someone when it's crowded. Basically will they think i'm being a selfish dick for not giving my seat up or a patronising dick for giving it up. Add in a large dose of patriarchal guilt and a concern for not looking at the boobs of the woman sitting opposite me or the arse of the woman standing beside me then the average subway journey quickly becomes a ride that is not particularly enjoyed; it's full of the discomfort of strangers.

It's not that I underestimate the Jihadist threat either, I know full well what these people are capable of. But all the same, life goes on and in an incredibly shallow and self obsessed way I worry more about looking like a selfish/patronising dick or a perv (or indeed both) than I do about being blown up. I think this is in effect part of a similiar rationale which helps explain why so many liberals and those of the left are so blind to the dangers of militant Islam and it's theocratic fascism - the fear of being thought of by others as racist or Islamophobic clouds the vision.

Worst Poem. Ever?

If you go into other people’s countries
and bomb them
they will bomb you.
You can call them what you like
You can tell us that our cause is noble
You can tell us that they’re evil and we are good
But the rule remains:
If you go into other people’s countries
and bomb them
they will bomb you.

I didn't think it possible but the three poems Michael Rosen has written for the Socialist Worker are at least on a par with Harold Pinters efforts from a couple of years ago. Remember this?

Democracy

There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back.

On another point - perhaps someone should inform Michael Rosen that the Jihadist murderers who carried out the London massacres on 7/7/2005 did not come from Iraq or Afghanistan, but from Yorkshire.

In recent weeks I've left Amnesty International over their shift of focus over the last couple of years best illustrated with "Gulag-gate"then stopped buying the Guardian because they were employing a fascist and giving him space to spread his hate (although they are to be commended for finally seeing sense on the issue so I'll probably be purchasing it again tomorrow). Now it seems I'll be cancelling my subscription to the New Statesman.

Via Oliver Kamm: Have you Left No Sense of Decency.

A few days after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the New Statesman ran a notorious editorial in which it asked whether the bond traders murdered at the World Trade Center had been "as innocent and as undeserving of terror as Vietnamese or Iraqi peasants". Its answer: "Well, yes and no."

There are many things that could be said of this. Jonathan Freedland wrote some of them in his Guardian column. The timing stank; the tone was gross; the hypothesis the editorialist assumed was itself, in Freedland's delicate understatement, "shaky at best". I would put it slightly differently. A man who can write such a sentiment, and at such a time, merits the question directed to Senator Joseph McCarthy by his nemesis Joseph Welch: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

That editor (Peter Wilby) has gone. His replacement, John Kampfner, has distinguished himself by giving the cover story of this week's edition to John Pilger, illustrated with a picture of a rucksack and the title "Blair's bombs". Not al-Qaeda's bombs, mind: Blair's bombs.

I don't mind reading things I disagree with - after all I still read the Guardian after some awful crap since 2001 from Seamus Milne and Tariq Ali and George Galloway and John Laughland and AL Kennedy and the whole sorry bunch. But there are lines to be crossed and leading articles and tasteless rucksack graphics blaming a democratically elected leader for the murder of innocent people by the Jihadist enemies of democracy - then that is one such line.

Chatham House has published a report saying that the Iraq War and British support for the War on Terror has increased the danger of terrorist attacks within Britain. The timing of the report perhaps seems a bit insensitive and no doubt there will be those who think that it will have been held back until a time like now to gain maximum publicity - but I don't think that would be a fair criticism. As for the report itself: To suggest a view other than that the war in Iraq and support of the War on Terror has played a part in increasing a potential risk would be a bit ridiculous. Similiar to if there was a report in 1940s claiming that declaration of war on Germany greatly increased the chance of Luftwaffe bombing raids on British cities!

The risk was of course already there long before policy choices taken in the post September 11th 2001 world. Following Bin Laden's Fatwa of 1998 "ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military –is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" to attacks of September 11th 2001 there were Jihadist terror atrocities in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Yemen, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel, the US and India with major plots foiled in Jordan, France and the US. All pre-Iraq War and pre-War on Terror.

The usual suspects will no doubt be seizing upon the report for political advantage and this raises the question of whether there is point where one considers standing up to fascism and terror (whether of the 1930s/1940s variety or the modern day Jihadist variety) and the associated increased risk of such a policy to be not worth the extra risk involved? That it's easier to keep one's head down and let them get on with it in the hope that you will not have anymore problems. Perhaps it's easy to type from behind the safety of my keyboard but I really don't believe that such a point exists. If accomodation is made with such people then exactly what principles are there left to fight for and stand up for?

I intended to write about the G8 summit, my experience of the protests and in particular a "discussion" I had with George Galloway yesterday in Auchterarder.

But that particular anecdote (although not the cause of poverty in Africa) which I thought would make for a nice entry has sadly been overshadowed by the news of another murderous terrorist attack against innocent civilians. The Islamofascists have taken their war to the streets of New York, Bali, Moscow, Madrid, Israel, Kenya - and lets not forget on an almost daily basis against fellow Muslims in the middle east itself - and now it appears, they've hit London.

We Are All Londoners Now.