UK Election June 08

[broncofan]

The particular phrase radical Islam is one that some over here claim has a talismanic quality where simply uttering the phrase can prevent violence. It is a shame that one can be seen as weak on terrorism simply by not using the right phrase as any condemnation must be strong enough to condemn the acts and the motivating ideology without tarnishing completely innocent people. It's not an easy task and I'm not sure whether I've used radical Islam or Jihadist or religious extremist, but I guess the important thing is that we're mindful of both the aim of condemning the act and care not to attack those who have done nothing wrong. I can see how the phrase could be either innocent or used to imply that extremism is an inherent feature of Islam so I will also be careful about that.

I think you guys are right that anyone who attempts to exploit this tragedy for political attacks should lose voters. I hope that's the case. That's the kind of thing that should have a political price.

[Stavros]

Its how I refer to Muslims who commit terrorist attacks in order to spread their twisted view of their religion. I have also used the term jihadists and savages.

I wasn't criticising you personally, so I hope that is clear. I have become tired of the lexicon of blame and explanation that is being raided to find appropriate words, even when I have been using them myself. For example, in its pure form, Jihad is the struggle against the temptation to sin, and while one of its meanings may also be to struggle with non-believers or those attacking Islam, it may not even mean physically fighting, though sometimes it might (religious texts tend to have such ambiguities), and this is where the phrase 'Holy War' came from. And it was also used as a political weapon, for example when the Ottoman Empire sided with the German Empire in the First World War and attempted to rouse Muslims in India against Britain by declaring 'Holy War', to no real effect.

Radical is useful for some, but I think is too loosely used. For example, was the Civil Rights movement more radical than the Black Panther Party, or less? I would argue that it was more radical, because I see the Black Panthers as reactionary and anti-American, and however one explains it, it reduces the status of that party to a fringe movement, one too isolated from the communities it sought to represent to be effective. The Civil Rights movement was genuinely radical, it went to the root of the Constitution and argued that the rights enshrined there could not be denied to Americans because of the colour of their skin. And it was a radicalism that also rejected the violence endemic in, but not essential to being alive in the USA. Elijah Mohammed's Lost-Found Nation of Islam, and the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan created when the former was dissolved were also too obscure to be radical, let alone popular. Indeed, Farrakhan's movement is middle class and conservative, and is part-funded by the Federal Government.

I think we can agree that when you peel away the ideology, most of these young men are ex-jailbirds who have been in and out of gangs, doing drugs and alcohol and generally becoming petty criminals. They are murderers, there is no other word for it, and it doesn't add meaning to pin so many extra words to emphasize how bad they are -evil, wicked, savage, mindless, and so on. To the extent that these murders are planned in advance, they are also psychopaths. Unfortunately, these attacks are going to happen, because there is enough resentment to cause them, one only hopes they will fail most of the time. And the words will continue to flow, but most people will not share my irritation with them when I think they are not the rights ones.

[fred41]

I suppose the term 'radicalized Muslim' would be apt...or radicalized version of Islam. Nothing is more 'radical' then killing massive amounts of people, so if the defense used in perpetrating the violent act is a form of religion that is commonly practiced and referred to as peaceful, then I guess the two descriptions I gave would suffice.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radicalize

and I agree that black chubby didn't mean anything by it.

I guess we can just use the word murderer, or scum or terrorist...but we like our labels to differentiate them.
I'm fine with 'terrorist', but I suppose that does become a little confusing when ones own local politicians will go out of their way to grandize them at a parade...like they are at the NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade by giving special status to Oscar Lopez Rivera.

[fred41]

I think we can agree that when you peel away the ideology, most of these young men are ex-jailbirds who have been in and out of gangs, doing drugs and alcohol and generally becoming petty criminals. They are murderers, there is no other word for it, and it doesn't add meaning to pin so many extra words to emphasize how bad they are -evil, wicked, savage, mindless, and so on. To the extent that these murders are planned in advance, they are also psychopaths. Unfortunately, these attacks are going to happen, because there is enough resentment to cause them, one only hopes they will fail most of the time. And the words will continue to flow, but most people will not share my irritation with them when I think they are not the rights ones.

but of course...however burning anger (leaving out the craziness for a moment) 'sometimes' comes to naught unless it is channeled and abetted.

[broncofan]

Nothing is more 'radical' then killing massive amounts of people,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radicalize

and I agree that black chubby didn't mean anything by it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical?s=t
I know a lot has been exhausted on this topic, but when you look at M&W's definition of radical, I think one issue is the difference between definitions one and two. I believe Stavros is using the first listed definition (more of a technical definition), which raises the question of what is a root or origin of a belief system. Maybe the term becomes a little looser when definitions one and two are used interchangeably, because they don't always lead to the same conclusion. A reactionary can be radical (def. 2) etc.

[Stavros]

I suppose the term 'radicalized Muslim' would be apt...or radicalized version of Islam. Nothing is more 'radical' then killing massive amounts of people, so if the defense used in perpetrating the violent act is a form of religion that is commonly practiced and referred to as peaceful, then I guess the two descriptions I gave would suffice.
and I agree that black chubby didn't mean anything by it.
I guess we can just use the word murderer, or scum or terrorist...but we like our labels to differentiate them.
I'm fine with 'terrorist', but I suppose that does become a little confusing when ones own local politicians will go out of their way to grandize them at a parade...like they are at the NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade by giving special status to Oscar Lopez Rivera.

'Terrorist' is a problem word as it has been ever since someone said 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. To the British in the 1930s and 1940s, there were 'Jewish terrorists' who today are celebrated as 'freedom fighters' by those who inherited the state of Israel, they even hold their ceremony at the King David Hotel that was bombed in 1946 by the Irgun, killing 91 people, including 17 Jews. To the British government in the 1970s and 1980s, there were IRA 'terrorists' described by their comrades (and Sinn Fein) as 'Volunteers'. The USA refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon as a 'terrorist' organization even though it is a social movement with 12 seats in Parliament.

Or you could bring it all back home. In today's parlance, would Robert E. Lee be described as a terrorist?

[Stavros]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical?s=t
I know a lot has been exhausted on this topic, but when you look at M&W's definition of radical, I think one issue is the difference between definitions one and two. I believe Stavros is using the first listed definition (more of a technical definition), which raises the question of what is a root or origin of a belief system. Maybe the term becomes a little looser when definitions one and two are used interchangeably, because they don't always lead to the same conclusion. A reactionary can be radical (def. 2) etc.

The definitions show why it is a problem when they move away from the original 'technical' meaning as you put it, not least when you claim 'a reactionary can be radical' in which case both words lose their meaning. In fact the 'technical' meaning offers more in this context, because these so-called 'Islamic radicals' are convinced that they are restoring the original purpose and daily practice of Islam as it was in the 7th century, a prospect as daft as any Christian replacing their clothes for a white robe and being dunked in the River Jordan (the one in Palestine not the one in Utah, but hey...) to be baptized in the way it was done by 'John'. We cannot step back into the 7th century or the days of Jesus with any accuracy or authenticity any more than a Druid can wander around Stonehenge with some candles chanting some made-up gibberish and claim any link to that ancient world.

Consider the marginal becoming mainstream -this may be where the real issue assumes greater importance, because as long as a political group isolates itself from most of society because of its violent rhetoric or actual violence, because it appeals to only a narrowly defined segment of society, it can be tolerated in an open democracy but also monitored, much as MI5 always had -and has- informers in the IRA (and its successor groups), a wide assortment of neo-Nazi/fascist groups, the Marxist/Trotskyist left and some anarchist groups.

It is when the marginals come closer to the centre that we should be concerned, and in Europe the creeping influence of Saudi Arabia has offered to some Muslims an explanation for their confusion -not the natural cacophony of social and religious diversity that comes with living in a late modern state, but the simple argument -'they' are all wrong, including most Muslims. But the 'radical' ideas of Wahab that have been globalized by Saudi money were themselves the product of Wahab's ignorance. Denounced by his father, described as 'mad' by his brother, Wahab rejected everything that had happened in Islam since the 7th century, mostly because he didn't understand it. In its time the Saudi family used violence to grab land in the Arabian peninsula, and seized Mecca by force in 1925 destroying ancient monuments and shrines at the time. In fact this old adage, if you want something go out and get it, helps explain the growth of the Saudi state, but so too does the willingness of others to let them get away with it, most recently when the President of the US handed Saudi Arabia a free pass to slaughter as many people as it chooses to, in exchange for money. It is this correct to say that Islam 'in general' does not condone bomb attacks, let alone suicide as a means of expression, but does that mean 'all Muslims'? Evidently not, as Patrick Cockburn puts it in this article in today's Independent:

The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7754301.html

[Stavros]

Interesting though it is to hear views on the ideas in the recent posts above, can I suggest we move back to the General Election?

Most parties will resume the campaign tomorrow, Friday 26th 2017, the one exception being UKIP which unveiled its manifesto this morning while declaring that Theresa May must share the blame for the attack in Manchester. Among their policy proposals are a reduction of net migration to zero in five years using a 'one in, one out' policy; a ban on the flying of the EU flag on public buildings after Brexit, and making June 23rd a public holiday as 'Independence Day'. They propose to 'pump' £11 billion into health and social care funded by cuts in foreign aid, and the abolition of the House of Lords, to be replaced by an English Parliament with the electoral system subject to proportional representation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7754996.html

It is hard to say right now if UKIP will benefit from the Manchester attacks, although one member of the public on the BBC's lunchtime news today argued 'something must be done' about Muslims in the UK, and once people are over their grief anger could play a role. However, the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall has been described as an 'idiot' by members of his own party -hardly a departure from the norm for this party of 'low grade' people as Farage described them- and net migration has already fallen in one year more than any since 2009 with substantial numbers of EU migrants returning home, and universities recording a decline in the number of students applying for a place in the UK declining by 32,000. If examined closely what proportion of the £11 billion will be spent on health, and what proportion on social care? It doesn't look good for UKIP right now, but the next two weeks will reveal if there is any new support for it, or whether or not we are finally seeing the end of this incoherent mess of a party.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7754796.html

[Stavros]

The former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson is famous for having said 'A week is a long time in politics', and never was that more evident than in the interval that has passed since Monday when Theresa May was desperately trying to present her reversal of policy on social care as anything but a reversal, followed by the horrific attack in Manchester that night, and today, Friday when the Conservatives cancelled their re-launch of their election campaign. A YouGov poll taken before the atrocity in Manchester showed the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing to five points with the even more astonishing leadership poll-
the Prime Minister’s lead over Jeremy Corbyn in personal approval ratings has shrunk from an astonishing 52 per cent at the start of the election campaign to just 17 per cent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756976.html

Signs of panic in the Tory party, while Strong and Stable Theresa is away at the NATO/G7 summits have been evident all day as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson lay into Jeremy Corbyn for making a speech in which he stated what has been obvious for the last 16 years, namely that the 'war on terror' has not succeeded in making the UK safe from the very kind of attack that took place last Monday night.

It seems almost impossible, but with less than two weeks to go before the election, the Tories look like they have lost the plot, and a lot now rests on how Theresa May and her advisers organize their response, not least because Corbyn, the centre of attention will be interviewed by Andrew Neil at 7pm on the BBC. Yes, the figures do not suggest the Tories are going to lose, not yet, but the assumption that fuelled the election itself, that Labour is hopeless and the SNP past their best, that this would give Mrs May a huge majority to negotiate her version of Brexit -is proving to be less than stable. The final irony might be that the next Parliament may look like the last one, with the Tories barely able to scrape in with a 10-15 seats majority. Or it could be that the Tories have had their mid-campaign crisis, and Labour will have their in the last days of the campaign to set everything back to where it was 10 days ago. But like the man said, a week is a long time in politics. And don't underestimate Labour's ability to screw it up.

[flabbybody]

On a side note, Defense Secretary Tillerson met up with Bojo today to discuss immigration. Good hair versus Bad hair
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/re...rticle/2624244