Quote of the Day

Chris Snowdon at James Higham's place:

Let me explain why I say I find it ‘annoying’. Firstly, as someone inclined towards the libertarian viewpoint, it’s annoying and slightly embarrassing to see the OoL site become a home to 9/11 conspiracies, New World Order paranoia and freeman on the land horseshit. The 9/11 thing is essentially a leftwing CT and I’m happy to leave it with Michael Moore and Gore Vidal.

Secondly, I resent the implication that anyone who is not a troofer should be viewed as a hapless dupe of the government. This is why I flagged up your misuse of the word ‘sceptic’. Regardless of whether you believe that you have looked into all this with in the spirit of critical thinking, that is not how you put it in your OoL piece when you said:

“These bloggers are natural-born sceptics and fiskers of hokum. And yet here they are, on this one issue, suddenly and unquestioningly taking the side of the very government who produced those other reports they’ve been so scathing about”

There is no acknowledgement here that the 9/11 CT might itself be hokum. Someone less emotionally involved in the issue might see fact that natural born sceptics don’t endorse the CT as reason to doubt it.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this sort of thing, with two important points emphasised and stressed: Higham can print what he wants at his blog and the OoL (which he co-runs). People should be allowed to write about whatever they like, particularly on sites they own and run. The second point is that others should be allowed to question those writings and theories for things like their flaws when it comes to advancing the cause of liberty without the assumption that they are being, in some way, irrational and/or unquestioning government stooges.

But enough of this. These sort of debates/arguments never end, they just get older and more bitter. And they require more time and patience than I have.

Quote of the Day and Another Rant About Conspiracy Theories

From Longrider on yet another post at OoL expounding dubious and unconvincing conspiracy theories:

I have to say that conspiracy theories really undermines what we are doing here. When we point out genuine, provable malfeasance on the part of those who would steal our liberties, our opponents will point straight back to the conspiracy theories and laugh.

Couldn't agree more. While I absolutely believe that James Higham et al should have a right to publish what they want, especially on a site co-run by Higham, I have to say the conspiracy theory guff does nothing for the cause of liberty and will probably end up harming it. We don't need a conspiracy theory about 9/11 to show that the Patriot Act was wrong, and we don't need a conspiracy theory about 7/7 to show that all the attempts to increase the detention periods in this country were wrong. All those conspiracy theories create straw man arguments that our opponents can easily bat away, making themselves look right in the process. And the worst thing is, in articles like the one linked to above, we create those straw man arguments, not our opponents.

And I don't understand why we have to create these largely unprovable and, in my humble opinion, false ideas that cultural Marxism has taken over the world, or that Obama is closet Marxist, or that Christianity is being undermined by arguably the most incompetent organisations in the world (namely, local governments). We're not dealing with opponents who are generally very subtle about what they do. There's no great attempt to hide the fact that the DNA of innocent people is being kept on the DNA database in what represents a massive u-turn and a real concern to anyone interested in championing civil liberties in this country. They're doing it, right now, down in London. We don't need to fight members of the Frankfurt School who have been dead for decades when Clegg and Cameron are doing tangible things to damage freedom in the here and now, right in front of our noses.

But anyway; enough. Fighting conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and effort. I believe in freedom and that belief encompasses the freedom of conspiracy loons to spout their paranoia on any platform they see fit. But that same freedom allows me to point out that what they are doing doesn't help the cause of freedom and actually hinders it.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Charlie Sheen tells the *truth*

Charlie Sheen, on 9/11:

Sheen, who is the highest-paid actor on American televison, claimed that "the official 9/11 story is a fraud" and said the commission set up to investigate the attacks was a whitewash.

This is a bold claim. A really fucking bold claim. And brave of Sheen to make it, too. Since his father was President back in 2001. What? Martin Sheen wasn't President in 2001? I thought... but I saw it on TV. Oh, it wasn't real. I see. There I go again, confusing fantasy with reality. Rather like Charlie Sheen has done.

Oh, and whatever you might think happened on that day 8 years ago, you'd have thought that there would be a better time to make this sort of a statement. Like on all the days in the year that aren't the fucking anniversary.

Via the Chase Me Ladies blogspot I have come across the John Doe Manifesto. And very silly it is too. But the particular bit that stands out to me goes:

“I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

“I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.”

Oh really? If you are never going to forget them, then name them. Go on, name them. Hell, name just some of them. I’m not claiming I can name any of them myself, but then again, I am not devising a crappy mantra about being vigilant about terrorism.

I rather think that defeating the threat posed by global terrorism may be partly down to the security services and law enforcement organisations as well as individuals keeping their eyes open. And I also rather think that further ostracising members of the Muslim community with this sort of unmitigated bollocks may be a tad counter-productive, not least because - as the long campaign of the IRA shows for example - not all terrorists are Muslims...

Celebrating George W (no, really)

Last week I tried to guess what the legacy of Tony Blair would be. Ok, I was being intentionally negative to make a point, but it got me thinking. There has been a lot in the media recently about the fact that both Bush and Blair are lame ducks, serving out the remainder of their terms with low approval ratings and more speculation over who will replace them than their current agendas. So, I thought, how will Bush be judged?

Not well, in a nutshell. In fact, I would say he will be judged as one of he worst in recent history. If not the worst. Whilst other Presidents have taken their country into illegal wars (Johnson and Vietnam, Nixon and Cambodia), have severally damaged the economy (inflation under Ford/Carter, budget defecits under Reagan), have been utterly incompetent (Carter and the Iranian embassy seige) and have been dogged by scandal (Nixon and Clinton), Bush Junior is the only one to achieve all four. His tax cuts and spending has created crippling budget defecits. His incompetence led to the catastrophe that was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Aides in his White House have been arrested and quizzed by grand juries, whilst his Vice President shot a man. And then there is the horrific quagmire that he created with the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

So saying Bush has not done well as President is easy. Hell, it is too easy. So, as a challenge I thought I would try and name some of the 43rd President's achievements. And here we have it - two (count them) achievements from Dubya.

1. He won. Not in 2000. Gore won the popular vote then, and had the recount continued, he would have won the White House. But Bush did win conclusively in 2004. Yes, Democrats, take a deep breath and say it - Bush won the last US Presidential Election. In fact, with 62,040,610 votes, Bush won more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history (Ok, Kerry, with 59,028,111, has the second most of any presidential candidate but he still had less than Bush). Say what you like about Bush, and his campaign, but whilst he was fighting an unpoular war and whilst he was seen as inferior intellectually to Kerry, he still managed to mobilise his supporters and beat the Senator. Perhaps this is a cynical way to assess achievements, but it is also valid. At the end of the day, Bush won. It is Bush who is sat in the White House, leading the country, whilst Kerry sits in the Senate.

2 The Aftermath of September 11th. Yes, he did very little prior to 9/11. And the links between invading Iraq and finding Bin Laden are non existent. But in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 he did extremely well in uniting the nation. Perhaps the defining, positive moment of his presidency was responding to the statement "we can't hear you" at Ground Zero. His improvised reply, relayed through a megaphone, is justly the stuff of legend. "Well, I hear you. And the world hears you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." In the days after 9/11, Bush united his country and the world. He would later lose all that sympathy, but gaining it in the first place was a superb achievement.

So even from the detritus of the Bush administration, there are some successes to acknowledge, some achievements to celebrate.

The Spoils of Crime

It is not often that I agree with John Reid, and I don't expect I will do much in the future, but his decision to appeal this is absolutely right.

These people hi-jacked a plane in order to gain asylum in the UK. They committed a crime in so they could get to stay in the UK. So what is the very last thing they should be given? Asylum in the UK. What do we give them? Asylum in the UK.

John Reid states the decision may:

"appear inexplicable or bizarre to the general public".

No, really? Do you reckon, Doctor John? It is like saying to Jeremy Bamber "yeah, we know you killed your family to inherit the family fortune but you know what? Don't worry about it. Off you go and enjoy the money. Yes, you got the money through a terrible crime, but, you know, we don't care about that."

Whatever happened to trying to deter crime? We are sending a message to the world that you can commit a terrorist act (which hi-jacking definitely is) and in return, you get asylum in the UK. Had the 9/11 hi-jackers failed and been caught in the UK, would they have got asylum?

This sort of decision is utterly inexplicable to any right minded person and, even worse, it acts as a recruitment drive for the ignorant shaved chimps in the BNP.

The Home of the Brave

I have found this very uplifting - Zacarias Moussaoui is given life in prison rather than a needle in the arm.

Now, I though that Moussaoui was going to get what he wanted - I thought he was going to be made a martyr. True, he may have known about 9/11, but he is not himself a murderer. He allowed others to die, but he did not hi-jack the planes or kill the victims of September 11th, 2001. He should be silenced in prison for the rest of his life, but he was not a killer and therefore should not die what for what he said.

However I had no doubts that he would be given the death penalty. I thought that the ongoing, and to some extent perfectly understandable, rage after 9/11 meant anyone on trial for it, regardless of exactly what part they played, would die as part of the same bloodlust that has given us the War on Iraq and the hostility towards Iran. I thought Moussaoui would be another example of America lashing out with lethal force at anyone possibly connected with Islamic fundamentalism and the attacks of 2001.

Instead, the jury reacted in the way it should do. It reviewed the evidence, and decided that Moussaoui was a fantasist who was probably too erratic to be considered by Al Qaeda for the attacks on New York, Washington and United 93. He deserves to be punished for his part in 9/11, but the actions of the jury that Moussaoui is not as culpable as Atta et al.

The jury showed that they were willing to let emotion - and the desire to avenge 9/11 with an execution - be balanced with the need to defend democracy and justice. So after years of pessimism caused by the Iraq invasion and the talk of the Axis of Evil, perhaps the world can feel more optimistic about what the US will do next. If the US as a whole follows the example of the jury in Moussaoui trial, then we could see the War on Terror becoming less about blindly lashing out at the Middle East, and more about combatting those responsible for 9/11 and, more importantly, those plotting future attacks.