201. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #148429 by keith on March 23, 2008 at 4:24 am

Hi Al,

I wasn't trying to insinuate the US policy is the sole, or even major cause.

Really? Why did I get the impression in our previous discussions that this is precisely what you were insinuating? Either I'm a sloppy reader or you're a sloppy writer. Which is it?

It seems to me that your general tactic is to make some very big statements but when taken to task (i.e. presented with some facts), you retreat several steps and rephrase. This backtracking continues until you are left in a position that only vaguely resembles where you were initially. And this is the problem. Often there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. I suspect that you aren't alone in feeling uneasy about some American foreign policy, especially of the Kissinger era and the Kissinger style. However, in trying to out-Chomsky Chomsky, you make some sweeping claims that then push some of us into defending US policy more vehemently than we otherwise might have done, simply as a means of counter-balancing the one-sidedness of your analysis.

That being said, we Americans should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Why? Game theory tells us you are a fool to treat someone well who doesn't reciprocate. This is not to claim that the US has always or even often acted well. It is just to point out that insisting on such high-mindedness in a far from perfect world is a kind of hubris.

202. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145910 by keith on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 am

While the chief atheists write beautifully, their works share a telling defect. They seethe with disapproval of God.

Yes, that really is a defect. Who would have thought that atheists would disapprove of the idea of god?

203. Two More Fleas

Comment #145885 by keith on March 18, 2008 at 9:16 am

Clearmind,

I am an English teacher so am used to listening to people who struggle to express themselves in English. The ones who have something to say can usually get their message across, albeit with hands and feet. Those who have little to say but like the sound of their own voices have bigger problems.

Perhaps this is your trouble. I'm damned if I can even work out if you're for or against the idea of evolution. From the incoherence of what you write and the lack of self-monitoring of you're mistakes, my guess is that you belong to the religious camp, but I could be wrong.

Either way, could you just try to get your message across before becoming creative with the English language? Your vocabulary is very good, but a limited ability to communicate plus scrambled thoughts = difficult job for the reader. Make it easy on us. Just say what you want to say and leave it at that.

Just look at one of your sentences:

"The evolution with HIS MIND AND INTELLIGENT WITH THE HELP OF BLINDWATCMAKER AND A LITTLE CHANCE WILL NOT BE HURT MAKE every snowflake differently"

This is something that I would probably give to a high level group of students with the words, "Okay, now put these words in the correct order to make a meaningful sentence. Two minutes. Go!".

By the way, calling yourself 'Clearmind' is tantamount to walking round with a placard that reads, 'I understand all and I see the world as it is'. Anybody who thinks this way about themselves can generally be summarily dismissed as a crackpot. How about a little more humility?

204. Fleabytes

Comment #143438 by keith on March 14, 2008 at 5:42 am

Al-Rwandi,

Just rewind a couple of days and just to put the record straight:

Keith once described my approach as:

"Terrier like diligence"

This was not intended as a compliment, but I don't doubt its accuracy.

What I actually said was "Terrier-like determination", (in this case, to prove that I don't speak Arabic).

I think diligence is always a good thing but determination not necessarily so.

Can terriers be diligent? I don't know.

205. Fleabytes

Comment #142614 by keith on March 12, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Peacebeuponme,

You do seem to show up a little bit of cabbie mentality in some areas though (I can imagine the audience of "The Big Questions" nodding furiously to some bits armed with their tabloid sensationalist view of the world).

You're right, I have noticed that tendency in myself, too. It almost seems to be a simple consequence of getting older: you begin to get a few wrinkles, you lose some hair and you start to move to the political right. It's as predictable as the seasons and is almost a biological rather than a cultural phenomenon.

In my university days I would have been embarrassed to hold a view that could also have been held by a Daily Mail reader. Now I'm not quite so precious. Being called a Guardian Reader would be much more of an insult to me nowadays.

What's wrong with giving kids any name they so choose?

What's wrong is that giving a child a unique, special name might get the child thinking that it is indeed unique and special and want to be treated as such. Of course, a name is just the most obvious and superficial clue of how the parents would like their child to grow up. The child's specialness will probably be consolidated by a whole raft of other parental strategies to make the child feel unique.

For half the year I live in Japan, and Japanese parents go out of their way to make sure that their children don't get ideas above their station - "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" is a common phrase there - and the children are, in general, lovely. And perhaps not coincidentally, they also have traditional names that go back several generations.

I personally would like to see children given numbers rather than names. Something like ZR1 and ZR2 would be fine. They would then not have names like 'Sapphire' to live up to, and no grounds for feeling more special than KF15.

Picking up clues about people (or their parents) from their names is not a mystical art akin to astrology. At times it almost approaches a hard science. Ask any teacher. In class 'A' you find Tracy, Sharon, Kylie, Sabel, Ermine, Minx, Princess, Jason, Macauley, Brett, Stoat and Tundra. In class 'B' you have Emma, Charlotte, Sarah, Rachel, Daniel, Paul, Stephen, Richard, Sam and Thomas. Now, without giving any further information about the kids, ask the teacher which class he would prefer to teach. Unless she is the kind of teacher who makes her own clothes and calls herself a 'facilitator' rather than a teacher, or he has a ponytail and, despite not being a world-class snooker player, always wears a leather waistcoat in class, chances are they will choose to teach class B.

You're right, it isn't possible to predict with real accuracy what an individual will be like just from knowing their name. However, if they are called Brooklyn or Statten there is a strong statistical likelyhood of them behaving as though someone had directly injected 10mg of pure E-numbers into their veins shortly before arriving in class. This is because they are the direct descendants of people who thought that these were great names to give their children and they have all shared the same household for several years.

Of course, different names mean different things in different countries and at different times. Perhaps in California in 2010 the name 'Sabel' will conjure up the very geometry of dullness, whereas in Salford in 2008 it would be the height of exoticism.

Re your Finnish friends, I'm afraid that neither Jukka-Pekka nor Piia-Tuulia have any associations for me so I couldn't begin to tell you what kind of person they conjure up. However, a Fin might possibly be able to suggest one or two things which come to mind and this may coincide with what other Finnish people think. That is unless names don't follow fashions as they do in the UK (soap opera stars, footballers etc.)

Anyway, I'd have to say that both these Finnish names are incredibly exotic to my English ears and either one could be male or female. However, my money would be on Jukka-Pekka being male and Piia-Tuulia being female, simply because there are some hard consonants in the former and some soft vowels and consonants in the latter.

As to the phenomenon of surnames being used as christian names, I have never really thought about why I dislike it. Perhaps it smacks of wanting to climb the social ladder. It has the faint whisper of the pomposity of the landed gentry, something bad enough in itself, but worse still when adopted by a modern-day urbanite. I, for one, would not call my son Spencer or my daughter Taylor.

What actually started me off on this was wondering why Jennifer Michael Hecht's parents called her Michael. I had to ask myself what would move me to call my newly-born daughter Michael when there were plenty of nice girls' names to choose from. And try as I might, I couldn't dream up a feasible set of circumstances that would make me want to give my girl a boys' name. I'm not sure that you need to be a cabbie to ask yourself such questions.

Keith: Looking round at the teenagers that hang around on the streets of my town, most of them are holding a can of beer.

You're right, this might be something of an exaggeration. However, it is true that they are usually drinking something. I just don't get it. It's as though we were constantly in the middle of a heatwave. A can of something, anything, is almost as ubiquitous as a mobile phone these days. However, yesterday I did see a teenager who was neither drinking nor talking on his phone so I really shouldn't generalize. (Or perhaps he had no money and his phone was broken).

Peacebeuponme: As for teenagers drinking, I did a bit of street drinking when I was younger, but it was not a daily occurrence and caused little harm. I'd be interested to see the proportion of teenagers who actually do this regularly? I think the data would belie the accepted wisdom that all teenagers are drinking, causing trouble, crime is soaring, you can't leave your front door open any more etc etc.

No, not all teenagers do these things. Some are too lazy, physically can't through disability or are called Rebecca. But I'd have to disagree with you on your claim that teenage crime isn't going up. Actually, just to unfairly introduce some anecdotal evidence, five minutes before I turned up at my sister's house tonight she surprised a young lad who was stealing things out of their shed in the back garden (grey hooded top, jeans, about 5' 7", about 15 years old, just in case you see him). There's a couple of hundred pounds worth of tools and machinery gone. But you're right, one case doesn't make a trend. Even so, I don't think that even the government would dispute the fact that teenage crime is growing, and this is not simply a matter of better reporting.

Okay, enough. By the way, great game against Middlesborough last weekend. Cardiff looked like a proper team. No reason they shouldn't go on to win the F.A Cup itself. Anyway, good luck.

206. Fleabytes

Comment #142242 by keith on March 12, 2008 at 7:19 am

Peaceuponme,

Without deeming either the "on drugs/alcohol" experience or the "sober" experience as superior, Surely it is good to experience both? Everything in moderation and all that.

I completely agree. In fact, the book I'm reading at the moment is partly about the place that drugs have historically played in all societies and how we have a very illogical, puritan reaction to some kinds of stimulants while approving of others. (The Happiness Myth by Jennifer Michael Hecht. Incidentally, why would a little girl's parents give her a man's middle name? And why do Americans and some Brits nowadays give their children surnames as christian names? And why can nobody on British TV, especially BBC presenters, say the word 'hospital' properly? Its pronunciation has suddenly morphed into the baby-version 'hos-pit-aw').

The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley fascinated me when I was younger. I thought his experiences with mescalin showed the way to some real world that lay barely hidden, just beneath the surface of our mundane world. However, it was only when I read Bertrand Russell that I had to agree that chemical stimulants probably aren't doorways to a deeper reality but instead ways in which to fool your brain into seeing the world as it isn't. A bit like assuming that the world you experience while in bed with a fever is somehow more real than the world you see when you're in good health. But as you say, there's nothing wrong with lightening up a bit, becoming a little less self-conscious, even if it's just for a while and maybe getting a slightly different, less jaded perspective on things.

I'm not sure why I came over all anti-booze. The truth is that I still spend a lunchtime and an evening a week in the pub and really enjoy it. A pub quiz without a beer wouldn't be the same. It's simply that some people I know live down the pub and some of them become a bit boorish when they've had too much.

Looking round at the teenagers that hang around on the streets of my town, most of them are holding a can of beer. It just looks to me like they'd be bored if they weren't drinking and I don't think drinking should become a substitute for genuine interests and hobbies. It's that kind of drinking that I find depressing, not the occasional few pints down the pub while watching football on Sky with your mates.

By the way, I'm from Leicester so I'm afraid we have to make do with sub-Premiership football.

What did I miss? Well, oddly enough, I didn't really miss any of the discussions about atheism. I think you can only really sustain an interest in something that you're not 100% sure about. For this same reason there didn't seem to be much point in me reading Hitchens' book, 'God Is Not Great'. There is so much that I'm unsure about in the world that reading a book about why I shouldn't believe in god seemed a bit of a waste of time. Like Beckham reading about how to take a free kick. Even so, I did read it in the end, just so I could say that I had.

I think I find the Iraq discussions more stimulating precisely because I'm not sure of my position. All of my friends tell me that I'm wrong and that the best way to incite Islamic hatred was to invade an Islamic country and I have to admit, the logic seems undeniable. Even so, there is always a small voice in my head that says that these same people who claim a monopoly on concern for Iraqis, really didn't give much thought to those actually stuck there. And I disagree with the claim that to leave things as they were was a good solution. However, if I'm really honest, I know that I didn't and don't care enough about complete strangers in a faraway country to put my own life on the line. So, perhaps doing nothing really was the line I should have been advocating all along.

207. Fleabytes

Comment #142194 by keith on March 12, 2008 at 6:22 am

Aileen,

Feelings can never be accepbal as evidance, as feelings are the last resort of the religious mindset dose this mean debate with them is futile?

Yes, I think it pretty much does. Like an interest in anything else, I think a desire to see things as truly as you can must come from within. Trying to interest someone in the attractions of an evidence-based way of looking at things is like me trying to convince my friends that Elvis Costello is the best singer songwriter around. The more I try, the more they hate both me and Costello.

208. Fleabytes

Comment #142185 by keith on March 12, 2008 at 6:06 am

Whatthe..?,

Mr Sands would have us believe that moral values are relative. Yet in his very next line he proceeds to make an appeal to what he regards as a self-evidently objective moral value "you CAN'T just define something as an absolute". If Mr Sands was to be consistent he would have to believe that David CAN define anything the way he wants for, after all, all moral values are relative.

I think you're conflating two things. To say that moral values are relative is not the same as saying that truth and evidence are relative. The sentence, "you CAN'T just define something as an absolute" is not, as you claim, a statement about moral value. It is a statement about the nature of truth and evidence.

The moral values we hold are a result of us having evolved into humans. Had we evolved differently we would probably have evolved different ideas about what is moral. This suggests, at least to me, that values aren't absolute. But however we had evolved, the moon would still be 384,400kms from earth, even if we called kilometres by a different name or were unable, like fish, to measure the distance.

If you now wish to say that the fact that we value truth and evidence is relative then our own, and all conversations, can stop right here and now, since there is no statement of 'my own relative truth' too ridiculous for me to utter. "The slave trade was a piece of battenberg cake" might be one example of my own personal truth. However, if I wish to talk to people I have to restrict myself to shared assumptions about what is true. Basically, we have to share a respect for evidence. As the saying goes, "You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts".

209. Fleabytes

Comment #142150 by keith on March 12, 2008 at 4:36 am

Jiten,

I'm with you on this. Maybe we're the lucky ones. I also have problems fitting more than a couple of beers in, though looking down now at my stomach it certainly doesn't look like I should have that much of a problem.

I think, when I was younger, I was typical of most Brits. The only way to socialize in Britain is to go to the pub. There are few, if any, alternatives apart from Scottish Country Dancing at the village hall. However, around the age of 30 the novelty of going out once or twice a week, getting drunk, vomitting and feeling terrible the next day began to wear off (I'm a slow learner).

I didn't even really like the taste of beer, so it wasn't gluttony. Unlike most grown-ups, I have maintained a child's taste for food and drink throughout my life: basically, the sweeter the better. Although I didn't exactly shudder on taking my first drink of the evening, I couldn't help feeling the taste of beer would have been improved by adding four heaped tablespoons of Golden Syrup.

I think the pointlessness of drinking too much struck home when watching a documentary about some African (or South American?) tribe. The men were either falling-over drunk or stoned (I can't remember which) and presumably the women had to just put up with this regular state of affairs. Although the men no doubt felt great on the inside, from the outside they just looked a bit...stupid. And after that it was impossible not to see myself in the same light.

Since then I have come to the conclusion that people are generally more interesting when they aren't drunk and that there's a certain lack of imagination in turning to drink to fill your day. Without wanting to out-Dawkins Dawkins, life is usually interesting enough without artificial stimulants. I'm actually perfectly happy just staring zombie-like at the carpet, either watching motes of dust drifting through the sunlight (my flat needs a clean) or just thinking about...things.

My best mate, on the other hand, always has to be doing something and it usually involves drink. I have no idea which one of us is the happier or which one lives an objectively better life, if there is such a thing. He thinks I waste a lot of my time 'doing nothing' and I think he's in a restless race against time to fit in as much as possible before he dies. Time, he feels, is to be used profitably, not wallowed in or reflected upon. And drinking, like smoking and eating too much, is just one more way of doing something with your time, of feeling 'busy'.

210. Fleabytes

Comment #142019 by keith on March 11, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Hi peacebeuponme,

Yes, my posts tend to be like British buses: they either come all at once or not at all. Has anything happened while I was away, something worthy of a soap opera? Has Dr. Benway changed sex again? Has Steve come even closer into focus? Has Mind Rebel returned from self-imposed exile nuttier than ever? Anyway, nice to see you're still here.

211. Fleabytes

Comment #141994 by keith on March 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm

fides_et_ratio,

Whilst there are many in AA who don't believe in God, there are many more who have found freedom from alcoholism as a result of developing a relationship with their Higher Power in prayer.

Should've added that the wisdom of many people of faith is another factor in helping to persuade me of the truth of God's existence.

Let me get this straight. You're putting forward the fact that some mind-befuddled alcoholics turn to God during re-hab as a reason for, rather than against, believing in Him. Have I got that right? This is a bit like saying that the reason you believe in God is because your dotty aunt Jess, whose life unravelled decades ago and now lives with her 14 cats, once saw God boarding a train to Scunthorpe just after the end of WWII. You must agree, it's hardly convincing stuff. Soon you'll be wheeling on the fact that some silly, self-important old men who enjoy growing their beards long and dressing up in long, flowing robes as evidence for God. If this counts as evidence for the existence of God, then so does the fact that my printer is playing up again (infuriatingly).

Incidentally, what does 'developing a relationship with their Higher Power in prayer', actually mean? How can you write such stuff without cringing with embarrassment? Do you have the remotest idea of what you're talking about? Is this 'Higher Power' God, or is it what some of us would call 'will power'? (note, no capitals). In what way is it their Higher Power? Is it then something inside them? If so, what's wrong with the word 'determination'?

212. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #141974 by keith on March 11, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Wow21,

We generally know that an exam-sitter has copied the person next to them by the number of wrong answers they have in common rather than the right ones. For this reason you simply must also be 'country girl'. Why the change of identity?

Anyway, your approach is to presume the girl innocent of lying until proven guilty. This is a fine attitude, though one that, of course, has its limits. Simply because someone claims to be Napoleon reincarnated doesn't make it so. By the same token, simply because a young girl claims to paint like an expert doesn't make it true, though neither does it make it untrue. It's just unlikely.

Either way, whoever painted these pictures certainly had the tritest possible imagination and since 12-year-olds aren't well-known for their sophistication of taste then you could be right and she really might be the author of this 1980's-influenced kitsch. We can only hope that her artistic taste catches up with her technical prowess as she gets older.

Incidentally, will it surprise you if it turns out that this is not all her own work? Will it make you wonder what other things you've accepted as fact 'ain't necessarily so'?

213. Fleabytes

Comment #140823 by keith on March 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Paula,

I came to your article late so this doesn't bear on any of the comments in the thread.

Just very very good. I don't understand how you even managed to begin. Actually reading and reviewing four such books must have been like sitting down to eating a hundred-weight of aspic. I mean, where do you start? One revolting spoonful at a time, I suppose. And how to stop annoyance-levels from rising so high that instead of writing a coherent critique, you end up simply typing out "You smug, dishonest, willfully-misleading ****!!!" over and over again?

I think the sheer immensity of the task, plus the almost certain knowledge that none of the four 'writers' (ha ha) has sufficient honesty to recognise any of the shortcomings pointed out in your review would have been more than enough to defeat me, and most other people, before even making a start.

Anyway, I now feel that I don't have to waste weeks of reading time simply in the cause of being fair-minded since you've done that for me. So, thanks and congratulations on really nicely written piece.

214. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #133497 by keith on February 26, 2008 at 8:42 am

Al Rwandi,

You never mentioned where you learned to speak Arabic?

I ask because you made some potentially (racially) inflammatory remarks about Moroccans, just hoping for a response there.

Firstly, whether or not I speak Arabic has absolutely nothing to do with whether my comments were racist or not. A racist can be either monolingual or a polyglot.

Secondly, my comments about having been nearly robbed by Moroccans in Barcelona was simply a fact. As I have already mentioned, this group of men looked like Arabs, spoke Spanish with Arabic accents and told us they were from Morocco. I can't see where the racism here lies. Also, whether or not they were Arabic or Berber Moroccans is neither here nor there (despite what Hugh might think). Neither is whether or not they were practising Muslims relevant (despite what you might think). Neither of these points had anything to do with what I was saying and, incidentally, supports the point I made in my last post that you seem to have an awful job keeping you eye on precisely what is relevant to an argument and what isn't.

About Hugh's question and my answer,

Hugh: You speak Arabic and can identify an Arab from a Berber Moroccan accent or any of the other accents of the Arab world?

Me: Yes. Next question.

It never occurred to me that anyone might take this seriously. I have been posting on this website since it started and it would have been odd if I had never mentioned my mastery of Arabic and my ability to differentiate an Arabic Moroccan from a Berber Moroccan accent. I thought the question was so silly and beside the point that a throwaway answer was the best reply. Clearly you were taken in. For that I'm willing to apologize, because I also dislike it when people move from serious to kidding without making this clear.

However, perhaps you should have known that this was possibly a joke since only one or two days prior to this I had asked you what Al-Rwandi meant. A bit of a giveaway really.

Apart from that, it only really makes sense to lie if you think you might get away with it. Knowing your terrier-like determination on some points, it would have been overly-optimistic of me to assume that I could claim such dominance of Arabic and then never be challenged on it by you. Surely you must have guessed this? No?

Either way, now that everybody knows that I don't speak Arabic perhaps we can drop the subject, otherwise I can see this topic becoming a thread in its own right on this site.

215. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131861 by keith on February 23, 2008 at 1:28 pm

mwd,

I had precisely the same experience with Al a week or two ago. I would point to something he had previously said and Al would either misunderstand it, ignore it, or accuse me of twisting his words. He suffers from a kind of 'selective understanding'.

For a couple of days we argued, not so much with each other as past each other, before we realised that a common language isn't always enough. Trying to have a coherent discussion with Al was like playing soccer with someone who insists on picking up the ball, tucking it under his arm, and running with it as fast as he can towards your goal. You're left standing open-mouthed and lost for words.

216. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131838 by keith on February 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Diacanu,

Tch, the poor bitch is still having to beg?

Aw come on.
It wasn't derogatory.
If it were a guy, I'd say poor bastard.
I 'unno, it's just something ya say...

Well, it might be something you say but to my ears it sounds like a moronic and disrespectful way of expressing yourself.

Perhaps it's not a case of Mejdrich loosening up but of you learning to express yourself more appropriately.

217. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125932 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 9:35 am

So you are advocating exactly what is govt. policy in many countries? So you want to maintain the status quo?

Ever see Children of Men?

Yes, yes, and no. Were these the correct answers?

218. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125931 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 9:30 am

They don't have the mental capacity to "understand", due to neurological imbalance, cycle of abuse, or combination of both.

Would they have the mental capacity to understand if there was a policeman standing next to the child?
Hmm. Funny that. All of a sudden they do understand. Where's the neurological imbalance when there are adults around?

219. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125927 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

?

@Keith

I am just curious...how would you decide whom to send to Morocco

Well Octopus, I was thinking of Moroccans. And in particular, those that can't behave themselves.

I don't know if you're getting at the example of the Moroccans in Barcelona or the Muslims that call for sharia law in England. In the case of the Muslims in England, what I said was more of an argument to persuade than a thought-through government policy to be implemented next week. You know when you're trying to make a point and you say things like, "If you don't like it, you know what you can do"? You're kind of hoping that the other person will see sense and drop their claims. Actually having to physically remove people from the country wouldn't be my idea of a good time. I would hope that before things reached such a point someone amongst them would see reason and drop any ideas of turning Britain into a country with sharia law. And as Steve has pointed out, since many of these people are British anyway, where would you send them? So, it was more of a rhetorical device than anything.

In the case of Barcelona, I'd be more than happy to deport anyone with a Moroccan passport who committed a criminal act back to Morocco.

220. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125917 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 8:59 am

Also there is an assumption that these Moroccans were religious Muslims.

Not from me. Whether or not they were religious never crossed my mind.

How did we know they were Moroccans? Because they told us while we were having our cosy chat with their hands in our pockets.

The fact that they said they were Moroccans, they looked like Moroccans, Moroccans make up the largest immigrant community in Barcelona and spoke Spanish with Arabic accents made me think they might be Moroccans.

Was I being too hasty in thinking so?

By the way, my friend Lucy lives in a poor part of Barcelona and we often hear and see tourists being robbed by Moroccans from her flat. They stand on the corner and wait for either an unsuspecting tourist or someone on their own who looks foreign to walk past.

Lucy knows them quite well because they robbed her when she first moved in. When they found out that she actually lived in the area they left her alone (residents have a habit of going to the police and can hang around to identify culprits whereas tourists can't). Now Lucy knows several of them by name and chats with them.

So, no false accusations on my part.

And yes Al-Rwandi, I also found their Arabic incomprehensible.

221. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125906 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 8:40 am

Tyler Durden,

Reverend, can I just point out that paedophilia is a disease, much like alcoholism.

Is paedophilia different in kind from other sexual orientations like hetero-sexuality and homosexuality? In what sense is paedophilia a disease and the other two aren't?

222. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125894 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

You speak Arabic and can identify an Arab from a Berber Moroccan accent or any of the other accents of the Arab world?

Yes. Next question.

223. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125891 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 8:24 am

I am not sure where you can rent the sheep costume (or what the cleaning charge will be...)

John's Sex Shop
48 Main Street
Worcester
Worcestershire
WO4 8HC

£9.50 (inc. VAT)

(At least, this is what I remember the price being when I was there last August).

224. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125884 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 8:15 am

I am just against telling a significant proportion of the population that if they don't like things, they can leave.

I lived in Barcelona for four years and being robbed by Moroccans was a daily risk. One day, when walking through the streets with three friends, a group of Moroccans approached us and under the guise of being friendly, put their arms around us and started searching our pockets for money. We managed to extracate ourselves from them without losing anything and the Spanish girl who was with us told them, in quite a reasonable tone, that if they couldn't behave, maybe they should go back to Morocco.

My very liberal English friend thought that this was a terrible thing for her to have said and felt bad about it for a while afterwards. (Months before two Moroccans had spat on his jacket and then tried to steal his wallet in a pretence of cleaning off the phlegm. Here he was equally understanding). Would you agree with him? Was it an awful thing to say? At what point does niceness and tolerance become self-satisfied smugness? At what point do you actually invite being abused?

225. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125872 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 7:52 am

Al-Rwandi,

I simply don't believe that people can't control their feelings. I'm attracted to women but I manage not to rape every one I come across. This is because I take other people's feelings into consideration. My desires don't trump other people's rights to be left in peace. I can't see why things are different for paedophiles.

226. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125866 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 7:42 am

Annabanana,

Just yesterday at lunch, one of my superiors made the comment that pedophiles should all just be killed because there isn't any way to cure them. It just amazes me that there are people who hold these opinions.

I'm sorry but mentioning paedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality is odd. One of them is fine, the other isn't. I have every sympathy for men who are sexually attracted to kids but my sympathy stops once they start acting on this attraction. Most of us manage to keep our sexual desires within reasonable limits and don't force ourselves upon unwilling parties, especially someone as defenseless as a child. I can't help thinking that anyone that callous doesn't really deserve much sympathy. To brutally trample over the wishes of another person, especially a defenseless child, takes a certain kind of person. I'm sure you feel the same.

In the end it just comes down to the degree of punishment that we think is appropriate. For you perhaps a few months or years in prison is reasonable. For your superior, capital punishment seems about right since there is such a high reoffending rate among paedophiles. Neither view seems to me beyond comprehension.

227. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125854 by keith on February 12, 2008 at 7:13 am

Steve,

babrock: For me, it was the impression that Muslims were somehow not part of my country. The particular language that concerted me was the attempt to differentiate between "indigenous" and "Muslim" cultures. I feel terms like this are not only unhelpful, but wildly inaccurate. Not only has there has been a significant Muslim population in the UK for centuries but, as Hari points out, there are a range of cultures that are labelled "Muslim".

Like MaxD, I'd like to see some figures on this 'significant Muslim population in the UK for centuries'. The reason I'm interested is that, as you probably know, I live most of my life in Japan. Now, imagine that one day I get married and have a child (with an English woman) and my child grows up in Japan. At home, we eat pretty much the same things we do in England. My child would be neither Shinto nor Buddhist but probably atheist. Would you then baulk at the distinction between an indigenous child of Japanese parents who eats rice all day and sleeps on tatami floors and futons, and my own child who eats shepherd’s pie, supports Arsenal and wears M&S clothes? And if my family stayed in Japan for several generations and in the meantime were joined by other families from England, all of whom clung to the 'British' ways of doing things, would your hackles raise at anyone who dared suggest that our Anglophone enclave was any less 'Japanese' than the indigenous Japanese population? Even worse, if I tried to get laws changed in Japan to suit my way of life, would it be wrong for a Japanese person to say, 'If our laws don't suit you, you can always go to England where they do suit you'?

Don't misunderstand me. I don't want to suggest that Britishness is either monolithic or unchangeable. However, I think that my German, Spanish and Japanese friends would think it odd if I claimed that halal meat, praying to Allah and wearing veils were just as typically British as roast beef, cricket and beer. It might sound very unjingoistic, inclusive and 'helpful' to do so, but would it be true? Does the term 'indigenous population' mean anything to you and if so, why would either everyone or no one in Britain qualify for this term? Is it nonsensical to say that Kenji Tanaka is indigenous to Japan while I'm not?

228. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125565 by keith on February 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

That's great. Say something really stupid (without meaning to) and then call it 'starting a necessary debate' when it all goes pear-shaped. The logic is the same as that behind the Intelligent Designers' call for 'Teaching the Controversy'. There is no ID controversy to teach and there is no debate to be had about the role of Sharia law in Britain. Punto.

I have to say that Rowan Williams sunk even lower in my estimation today when he blamed not himself for saying something daft but everyone else for misunderstanding him. But even he realised this was a bit rich. So, instead of accepting responsibility for his unthought-out statement on the one hand or denying all blame on the other, he chose the middle way of accepting the negligible misdemeanour of expressing himself unclearly, which, as he rightly knows, is really no crime at all.

This is the strategy exposed in 'The Winslow Boy'. When accused of a serious crime the best thing to do is admit to a lesser one and you will appear honest and people might not notice what you've done (the boy in the movie proves his innocence by not resorting to such slippery tactics). I'm sure some people will actually call Williams 'brave' for admitting to an imperfect grasp of English. The truth is that the man is a dishonest, sneaky rat.

229. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #125542 by keith on February 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Also if you look back at my suggestions on how to deal with the situation you can see my position clearly. Stern talking was not the last resort. An invasion was. I wasn't against invasion itself, I was against lies and profiteering.

You seem unable to tell the grammatical difference between.

"Invasion"

&

"This invasion"

Thanks for the grammar lesson. My own view is that you can't say 'this invasion' because it would suggest that an invasion is still going on, rather than an occupation. 'That invasion' might be better. Even so, to have made it clear that you meant 'all invasions' then you should have used the present tense i.e. 'I'm not against invasion itself'. 'I wasn't against invasion' suggests either that you have since changed your mind, or that you were, in fact, referring to the invasion of Iraq. I believe you meant the latter but if you want to claim otherwise, that's fine with me.

230. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #124317 by keith on February 9, 2008 at 5:04 am

Smith,

keith (C#63): Anyway, my reason for changing the activities and times was that I thought an analogy would make things plain.
keith (C#66): Therefore I can't understand why you think this is a change of activity.

Yes, very clever. I think you must be aware that the first quote refers to changing the activity to make an analogy and the second quote refers to your misunderstanding that there was a change of activities within the analogy.

Either you're having a job keeping up or you're intentionally cutting and pasting to suit your needs. Either way it makes the exchange pointless.

So I won't persue this any more.

Good luck,

Keith

231. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124176 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Also if you look back at my suggestions on how to deal with the situation you can see my position clearly. Stern talking was not the last resort. An invasion was. I wasn't against invasion itself, I was against lies and profiteering.

I didn't say that giving Saddam a stern talking to was your last resort but I might have insinuated that it was your only resort, since you were against both sanctions and the invasion. However, from your last post it appears that I have been labouring under a misapprehension. You now say you weren't against the invasion at all. I have no idea how I arrived at the conclusion that you were. So, I must apologize for believing that you were against the invasion. Happy now?

But your avoidance of historical data isn't really helping the discussion along.

What do you think might help the discusson along? Perhaps if I agreed with you more? And precisely what historical data am I avoiding? The following, perhaps? (It's the second paragraph I'm most interested in. The first was just to give it context)

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was played in the media quite well. A young Kuwaiti girl was coerced into giving a false statement about Iraqi soldiers ravaging a hospital and its patients. It turned out she was the daughter of some official and had made the whole thing up.

The majority of Iraqi violations of human rights were done under the supervision of the United States, and more specifically these agents held prominent roles in the US govt. during the 2nd Iraq war. So the US bears some culpability in the Iraqi crimes to begin with.

When you say I am 'ignorant' of these facts, I think you simply mean that I don't see things in the same way you do.

I would rather continue discussing with MaxD, who has the courage to follow his convictions and join the military.

Even if I did want to go I very much doubt that the forces would want me at my age, so it's not really an issue. However, does this mean that in order to hold the opinion that a war is the correct option you have to be ready and willing to go there yourself? This way no one over the age of 40, no mothers with young children, nobody in the essential services and many more could even be of the opinion (or at least never state it aloud) that they agree with an invasion. Is this what you really think?

Anyway, I entirely understand that you would prefer to debate with MaxD. Even I have to admit that he is much kinder than me and he probably won't draw attention to your inanities as much as I did. Anyway, lucky old MaxD for being selected by you, that's what I say.

232. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123975 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 4:03 am

feeble...unjust collective punishment...criminal aggression...hundreds of thousands of deaths...misery beyond counting...morally unfit to be in the same room as George Galloway...inept analogy...pernicious...ludicrous...Galloway's courageous opposition...the destruction of Iraq...preposterous...slippery...feeble attempt...prissy...serpentine...despicable...despicable...despicable...

Yes. So, what you're saying is you like Galloway and you don't like the others, right? Would you say there comes a time in a discussion when actually making a point is replaced by vehemence of expression? Do you think that the sheer weight and venom of your prose could win you the argument and the person with the most unbridled outrage takes the day?

Hmm. Not sure that that was a great tactic.

233. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123955 by keith on February 8, 2008 at 2:58 am

Al-Rwandi,

By the way, what does Al-Rwandi mean? Are you of Arabic descent?

I would like to hear why you think this war is so great... Maybe you could handle that without side stepping.

Yes, well, I think claiming that I thought the invasion was 'great' might be overstating the case. I would describe it as the best of some bad options but I'm used to your emotive language by now.

Anyway, you will find my answers as to why 'the war was so great' at '330. Comment #122444'. I'm not going to repeat them. To those reasons I would add that the invasion also stopped the need for sanctions. So, if you want to call me a war-monger that's fine, but you can't throw baby food at me in the same breath. (Nice image!) By the way, I think your obsession with baby food has outdone your mania for telling us what history will say about the invasion.

I know that you believe that neither the invasion nor sanctions were necessary and that simply talking firmly to Saddam would have done the trick. However, that's where we part company and, I feel, where wishful thinking overtakes realism.

So now I have addressed the Galloway issue, which makes the substance (if I could call it that) of all of your posts of no consequence.

Really? Truth be told, I've barely mentioned him. So, the fact that you feel that some comment you made about Galloway negates all my previous posts is odd. Either you're getting me mixed up with MaxD (again), or you simply make things up as you go along.

Incidentally, when you said you went to Berkeley, did you mean you went there to study?

234. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123805 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Noodly,

Williams must feel as sick as a parrot, but then Christianity is really a game of two halves: the first half lasted 2,000 years and the whistle has now blown for the commencement of the second half. Of course, Williams hadn't noticed the change of ends and thus scored an own goal. However, the Archbishop of York, playing in the role of sweeper, will soon put him right. I understand that Jesus, playing upfront, is good in the air.

235. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123789 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Perhaps sharia law becomes 'inevitable' once the Islamists really start to believe that Rowan Williams is typical of the weak-willed, cowardly British, a people not prepared to stick up for their own way of life. Williams' prophecy thus becomes self-fulfilling. I bet the Islamists can't believe their luck: they have a fifth-columnist doing their work for them.

236. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123774 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm

How frighfully prissy of you. Nevertheless, I am unable to overlook Galloways's opposition to the horrors of sanctions and war and the despicable support of others for it, including the House which suspended him, laughably, for 'bringing it into disrepute'. I have got the impression that you are in the despicable camp. I hope I'm wrong.

Well, that told you, Steve. That's what you get for arguing in a restrained fashion. You now have the unhappy choice of admitting to being in the 'despicable camp' of the anti-Galloways or taking back every single word you've written. Tough choice, huh?

However, you do have one consolation, namely, the satisfaction of seeing your prediction of the side-stepping of the issue come true.

237. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123770 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I usually dislike 'slippery slope' arguments but I suspect this might be a case where it could be quite reasonably applied. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that this could be the thin end of the wedge of the slippery slope. That's how it will go: one day they will introduce sharia law for the Muslims, the next (once we have got used to that idea and the demographics have changed in their favour) there will be sharia law for everyone! Oh, happy day!

238. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123760 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm

In that case, I apologise.

I assume you're joking, and I assume you know I was.

239. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123746 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Blockquote Which is it to be? (And a straight answer, please. No diverting off to matters of law, or saying how nasty Mr Blair and the Americans are)

Steve,

I feel you're being a bit harsh here. I don't believe Hugh, or Al-Rwandi for that matter, would do anything like that.

240. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123693 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Your Reverence, these Islamists are just soooo scary. What should we do, stand up to them or give in to their demands?

Er, well, if it's all the same to you I think I'd quite like to just give in. That way there will be no confrontation, or at least, only with the non-violent, civilised bunch we are betraying. Anyway, I'm sure there is some way of dressing all this up as something else. How about portraying me as a champion of tolerance and diversity? Could you manage that Nathaniel?

But...Your Reverence, what about all those British men who fought and died in the last war to keep totalitarian doctines from the door? What about history's arrow that seems to be flying in one direction, that of democracy? What about the Muslim women, homosexuals and apostates who might need the support of secular law?

Don't make things unnecessarily complicated, there's a good chap. We must put our trust in God, Nathaniel. He knows best and He has intimated to me that we should try and curry favour with the scariest groups. He actually put it in those words as I prayed by my bed last night.

Ah, why didn't you say so earlier, Your Reverence! Well, if that is what He wants, then that is what we must do.

Good chap, Nathaniel. Now, off you go and tell the press. I'll put on my best purple robes, stroke my beard and try to look wise. Now, where did I put that book? Ah, here it is: 100 Ways to Appease Scary People, by N. Chamberlain. What a book!

241. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123621 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Al-Rwandi,

I am done with Keith, he likened my moral concern for life to that of Saddam. I take a lot of flak around here, but that one was way out of line.

Al, please stop making things up. Your imagination is running wild again.

I tell you what, we can actually settle this. If you can find a quote where I say anything remotely like a comparison between 'your moral concern for life to that of Saddam' then I promise to call myself a 'lying git' on this site. And if you are unable to find such a quote, you must do the same. How's that?

I await your next post...

242. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123368 by keith on February 7, 2008 at 3:44 am

I am happy to discuss which laws are just and unjust. But we can't assume a certain point of view and then say "but this international law, just or not, was broken.. this is a simple matter" if we are going to hand-wave away Galloways breaches as acceptable because it was "just".

Believe me, they can and will. Watch them. Or else hear the deafening roar of silence. Either way, I would be willing to bet that this point won't be dealt with (at least not in a way a thinking adult would recognise).

243. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #123038 by keith on February 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

Smith,

1) If I told you I was going to Wembley, you would assume that watching a football match was my main activity, right?

And if I told you it was going to Wembley and the match was going to be a long one so I was taking a flask of coffee with me, would you then assume that my main activity there was to drink coffee? No.

Equally, if I told you I was going to a gallery, you'd assume that I was going to look at paintings, right?

And if I told you I was going to the gallery for four days and so was going to eat and sleep there, would you then assume that eating and sleeping were the main activities? No. Therefore I can't understand why you think this is a change of activity.

2) Show me the 'tone' that you feel made MaxD's post desrespectful towards Sam Harris and I'll agree with you. How's that?

244. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122562 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Sorry to follow you around but I couldn't help but notice your rubbish analogy. Eliminating theology is not like eliminating criminology at all. Criminology tries to explain why people commit crimes. Theology doesn't try to explain why people are religious. Or do you think that Dan Dennett was engaging in theology in Breaking The Spell?

245. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122558 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Al-Rwandi,

Since there comes a time when the degree of evil is just a question of nit-picking, I actually wouldn't baulk at the comparison of Saddam to Hitler though it is one that I never made or even considered.

I really don't care if you are convinced that that's what I wrote but I would like you to read the whole exchange below through again and still claim, with your hand on your heart, that you are a reliable observer and analyst of what you have read.

So, this is what I wrote:

[The] numbers of dead alone cannot tell you whether an action was right or wrong. For example, it's more than possible that if no country had resisted the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, fewer people would have died in WW2. Okay, all Jews who couldn't escape to other countries would have been killed, plus all gypsies, homosexuals and a few more unfortunates, but it's more than possible that the final death-toll wouldn't have reached the 50 million figure if no one had stood up to Hitler. By your reckoning then, no one should have resisted. Is this right?

Now, from that you managed to arrive at the following:

Keith,

Hitler = Saddam

Nice analogy. Please take that particular form of nonsense elsewhere.

and then later, when I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion:

You asserted that standing up to Hitler was important. The mere fact that it occurs in a thread on Iraq suggests you are making the comparison. You suggested standing up to Hitler was important in the way that standing up to Saddam is important. I reject that analogy for a number of reasons, all of which I have made explicit here before.

You have completely misunderstood the reason for the analogy. It was not to show that standing up to Hitler was important but to show that numbers of deaths alone cannot tell you whether an action is good or bad. Standing up to Hitler was a good thing. Even so, maybe more people died because of this than would have died had no one resisted. Therefore, simply by counting the dead can't tell you if an action was good or bad. That was my point. Can you understand now? (The third time).

Also, the fact that I mentioned Hitler (and gypsies and homosexuals for that matter) does not automatically mean that I am making a comparison.

Please Al, try and get a grip on your imagination. (I really don't know why I've had to go over this again).

p.s. That isn't really you on your avatar, is it? I'm beginning to wonder.

246. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122472 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 10:01 am

Al-Rwandi,

You seem to think I said we should have left Saddam in power and the problem would have gone away. Please jog my memory with a citation to one of my posts (if I said it, I will need to see the context).

I suggested a number of other potential options. One of which was dealing with Saddam.

(Stifles laugh) Aha! So dealing with Saddam was the way to topple Saddam! Brilliant. Are there any more details to this devious plan?

Anyway, here's the requested quote:

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

So...Had Saddam not been put under pressure by the world communtity before? Do you think he would have stepped down if enough countries had called him 'naughty'? Would the people have risen up if things had started to get bad? Sorry Al, but this isn't a plan. It's nonsense. It's a plan to do precisely nothing.

Keith,


Hitler = Saddam


Nice analogy. Please take that particular form of nonsense elsewhere.

Al, please tell me where you think I say that Hitler = Saddam...

Have to go for my pancakes. It's shrove Tuesday...Back later for more nonsense...

247. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122444 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 9:15 am

I think concentrating too much on the US government's reasons for invading Iraq is something of a red herring. Maybe it was just for oil, maybe it was so that Bush's cronies could get rich. I really don't know for sure (though Al-Rwandi does, of course). Many Iraqis in exile (we couldn't ask most of those within Iraq) were under no illusions regarding the benificent nature of the Bush administration yet they still wanted military intervention anyway. The logic was that sometimes good results can be attained for bad reasons. My guess is that the people who benefited from the regime i.e the Baathists, wanted Saddam to stay while the majority of people wanted him gone. This, however is just a guess. However, I suspect that either Hugh or Al know what Iraqis thought? Gentlemen, please oblige.

I know it's a very complicated idea for some people to grasp, but it has been suggested that Iraq - as opposed to Sweden which also isn't a perfect state - was singled out for invasion, not just for a single reason or cynically because it was an oil-rich state, but because of attempted genocide, the harboring of terrorists, a track-record of invading neighbour states, the torture and murder of dissenting citizens, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and the suspicion of the possession of WMD. The latter turned out not to be the case. The other things were all true.

In no other country did all these factors come together. If they had, my hope is that the UN would have made the same threat that it did to Iraq, namely, that there would be 'serious consequences' if it continued not to cooperate. And I hope the same threat would have been made to a non-oil rich country. The fact that the UN threatened Saddam with serious action but had no intention of following through with it - something Saddam guessed at - was a shame.

Now, it was very bad of Blair and Bush to lie about the WMD. They clearly wanted to justify the invasion of a foreign country to citizens who might be against the idea of such an adventure by which they personally had nothing to gain and much to lose: a debacle a la Vietnam would mean higher taxes and in this case the danger of reprisal attacks. However, the fact that some of us could see these dangers, not only for the Iraqi people but also for ourselves, yet still thought a case might be made for invasion is surely testament less to our callousness and more to our spirit of solidarity with Iraqis.

This might be something of a surprise to Hugh Caldwell who seems to think that doubters of the 'Leave Saddam in Power' strategy - I won't call them 'the anti-war faction' because all of us are that - are all really little boys who want to play tin soldiers but this time with real bombs and using other people. I, and I suspect all of the 'pro-war' faction, hate war just as much as he claims to do.

Those who were against the invasion may well have foreseen the problems better than we did and weighed up the probable death-toll more accurately, but they were also prepared to keep Saddam in place, something that horrified those of us who had read reports from Amnesty International and other organisations. This trade-off is something often pointed out but very seldom addressed by Hugh, Al et al. The fact that there was any decision to make doesn't seem to have entered their heads.

When Al-Rwandi claims that soon the problem of Saddam would have gone away by itself without military intervention or sanctions is...well, I really can't think of a polite word to describe it. Not even the impolite words that come to mind would do justice to such inanity. Tell me Al, how would this miracle have come about? By standing in a circle and praying very hard?

The oddest thing about this whole thread, and I think it is precisely this that Steve has problems with, is the absolute certainty of the anti-war faction. My standpoint was always that I was torn between letting the Iraqi people get blown up by American missiles or letting Saddam go on torturing his people. However, I really don't see the tortured doubt on this matter from Al-Rwandi and Hugh Caldwell. This is because for them it wasn't necessary. All they needed to know was that American Foreign policy is always venal and that's that. End of conversation. And the Iraqis rotting in Saddam's torture cells? A case of 'out of sight, out of mind', I'm afraid. "Please don't remind me of the people I campaigned to keep in the torture cells. Instead show me pictures of civilians being blown up in sectarian fighting and I'll stick my fingers in my ears and say, "IT'S THE AMERICANS, IT'S THE AMERICANS LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU..."

So, blame the Americans for all of it, even when a Shi'ite straps a bomb to his stomach, catches a bus and travels to the other side of Baghdad, enters a Mosque and blows everyone up. It's the Americans. The Iraqis are as lacking in free will as the weather. They are just reacting to the Americans who have a monopoly on free will and who can be praised or blamed while the Iraqis are like so many mindless billiard balls. Wow, what condescension! How patronising!

Al-Rwandi, I don't know if you have a crystal ball with you but you seem determined to tell us what history will think of the invasion of Iraq. By the way, why do you repeat yourself so much? I counted the same prediction four times. However, your prediction is not really a prediction but more of a projection. You assume that since no wars in history were ever embarked upon for the good of the people being invaded, it must follow that the same will be true of the present and the future. Thus, by your reckoning, the American intervention in Bosnia will also not be viewed kindly by history. The British intervention in Sierra Leone won't be viewed kindly by history (yawn). I could go on but I get bored with repetition. How about you? And please don't say that the invasion of Iraq was 'a war against the people of Iraq'.

By the way, many of your arguments simply revolve around the sheer numbers of people killed in Iraq. You make the strange assertion that because more people have died due to the American invasion than would have died under Saddam, humanitarian motives can't have figured in the Americans' calculations. I'll leave it to you to reflect on the logic of this. Suffice it to say that gaining more Lebesraum can't have been Hitler's intention because Germany ended up smaller. Q.E.D.

Even if the above made any sense, numbers of dead alone cannot tell you whether an action was right or wrong. For example, it's more than possible that if no country had resisted the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, fewer people would have died in WW2. Okay, all Jews who couldn't escape to other countries would have been killed, plus all gypsies, homosexuals and a few more unfortunates, but it's more than possible that the final death-toll wouldn't have reached the 50 million figure if no one had stood up to Hitler. By your reckoning then, no one should have resisted. Is this right?

Although I don't share Broshiesq's style, I can understand his frustration. Your posts are just so riddled with half-truths, urban myths and unsubstantiated claims that it's difficult to know where to start to answer them. Your tendentiousness makes it clear that you have no interest in understanding why someone might have had qualms about leaving Saddam in place, even if most of us would fall short of being outright 100% advocates of the invasion. For you it was simply a matter of choosing war or peace, right?

248. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121552 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Hugh,

What, in your view, was the allied's intention when they invaded Iraq? To plunder the country? To steal all the oil? To show them who's boss. To cause havoc in the region so that they could..er..do something evil?

I have to say that I find your view that George Galloway is a paragon of virtue, as well as your conviction that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the allied invasion of Iraq are 'the same crime' just a bit silly. Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you never realise you sound like a mouthpiece for a certain ideology rather than a thinking human being? rather like a propaganda tapeloop that churns out the same stuff when the word 'Iraq' is mentioned. Do you never feel that your lumping together of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the allied invasion of Iraq, or the fascism of Hitler and the so-called 'fascism' of Christopher Hitchens has less to do with similarities between the actual events or people and more to do with your idee fixe of the evil west, your inability to see shades of either good or bad? More to the point, do you have any friends that you could talk to about this?

249. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121367 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:58 am

Hugh,

Lifting sanctions would not have been 'doing nothing'.

I actually asked what you would do apart from sanctions and war. Do please try to keep up.

A humanitarian policy which would have allowed children to thrive, may not excite you as much as bombs, bullets and devastation, but it's not 'doing nothing'. As to the 'necessary measures', it would have been for the UN to decide on that, on the basis of the final report of the weapons inspectors.

No Hugh, you misunderstood. Since you were against sanctions and war, I asked what you would do. I'm afraid simply imagining that there was some miracle solution unseen by all political commentators and then saying 'it would have been for the UN to decide on that' doesn't answer my question.

The US pre-empted a peaceful solution...

Pardon me while I stop choking. I don't think even the most virulently anti-war campaigner would suggest that there was any peaceful solution available. However, if you mean you were prepared to let the Iraqi people go on being tortured with no end in sight and for Saddam to continue to try to get his hands on nuclear weapons, that's fine. That's a fair trade off. However, referring to this as a 'peaceful solution' is a trifle disingenuous, wouldn't you say.

Incidentally, your keen to bring in the weapons inspectors, but please remember that Hans Blix, just weeks before, had said that Saddam wasn't co-operating with his inspectors and that it was impossible to find out anything if he wasn't allowed to interview scientists without them being guarded. The only reason Saddam then started to co-operate more was that allied soldiers started ammassing on his borders. He would have continued to play this game of cat-and-mouse for as long as he wanted once the soldiers had gone home.

Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state and the welter of propaganda surrounding it, does recall the bloodbath mentality of Herr Hitler. On this occasion, it was referred to as 'Shock and Awe'. You do seem to have a very frail memory. Couldn't you just re-acquaint yourself with a quite recent period of history and stop making irritating demands to be educated in the facts?

I am suitably chastened, Hugh. So, from what I can tell, you're saying that anyone who supports the invasion of a sovereign state, even a failing one, is a fascist. Is that right? And that if my memory were better and if I studied a little recent history this interpretation would be clearer to me and I wouldn't have to ask you. Is that it? I shall do my best.

250. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121340 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:13 am

Hugh,

...and the whole, evil point of the invasion was the sadistic wish of Bush and Blair to inflict pointless misery on the Iraqi people and to bring Iraq to its knees, no matter how much it cost both America and Britain in terms of money and soldiers' lives and how low this would bring Blair in the opinion polls...

Of course.

The obvious humanitarian act was to lift sanctions, leaving the option of any necessary measure which did not involve devastating collective punishment of the Iraqis simply in the furtherance of US foreign policy in the region.

Since you neither agree with war nor sanctions, what is this 'necessary measure' you have in mind? Doing nothing, perhaps?

Please Hugh, you owe me an explanation of your use of 'fascist' when referring to Hitchens. I'm still waiting...