Well, isn’t one problem that such extremist groups might just as easily serve as a stopping point en route towards terrorism as much as away from it?

As well as not being terribly helpful to good relations generally.

Yes of course we hate the filthy Jews / gays / Kuffars / sluts but please don’t blow them up, even though they should of course be legally put to death…

On this kind of topic, this looks like it will be interesting (C4 Monday).

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-80/episode-1

‘Alternatively, Alternatively, if you have the option of funding an organisation that does not subscribe to fluffy liberal values, but is good at tempting angry youths away from extremists, then its likely MI6 would make that judgement call.

‘Fluffy liberal values’ like rights for women and homosexuals, you mean? These are the ideological foundations on which terrorism is based – the actual violence is merely its expression. And MI6 don’t get to make that call – who the hell elected them?

‘In other words, in counter-terrorism you fund what works to keep people safe (within boundaries of the law), not to push a particular set of values. My hope is that MI6 read that speech and chuck it in the bib, along with Tory proposals to ban HuT. If they don’t however, we may all be worse off.’

You hop the secret services will disregard the wishes of the government and continue to support non-violent extremists in the hope they will tempt people presumably helpless people away from violent extremists?

The problem here is extremism. Continuing to engage with those who supply the theological support for violent extremists is ridiculous.

Oh, and you sat with Kenan Malik a while back – did you listen to a word he said?

“If we want secure progress in the Middle East, we should work with Saudi Arabia,” Blair told Jeremy Paxman.

And look what a splendid idea that seems to have been…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

Values or no values, it doesn’t necessarily keep us safe.

Let’s be clear here, the problem is not terrorism or extremism.

These are only symptoms.

The problem is that our decadent Western liberal society is never going to be compatible with, or acceptable to, an authoritarian and distorted mediaeval belief system that is on the rampage world wide.

So conflating terrorism with Islam and integration is very much to the point.

Sunny,

There’s a world of difference between tolerating a group and supporting it, and it is not for government to support any group based on religious expression (other than the Church of England – and I support disestablismentarianism on that front). I think the mistake you are making is assuming that the choice has to be between supporting liberal Muslim or extreme Muslim groups, when bluntly there is an option of not supporting either.

This may increase dangers – but I would argue long-term (short-term is always difficult with sensible policies) it should work the other way – there is no value in groups promoting exclusively Muslim identities because there is no support for it from the state. Admittedly, there may be value in it due to support from Saudi Arabia or the like, or as part of the local mosque, but these are separate issues to state support of specificially cultural groups. But all else being equal (silly but necessary assumption) then there is less pressure to adopt a specifically Muslim identity, because there are less groups pushing this (and bluntly, less reward in displaying that identity).

Of course, giving succour to unpleasant people – really unpleasant, not just people who looked at Israel in a funny way – does endanger citizens, even if its not with terrorism. Anti-semitism, homophobia, domestic abuse…

pagar,

The problem is that our decadent Western liberal society is never going to be compatible with, or acceptable to, an authoritarian and distorted mediaeval belief system that is on the rampage world wide.

What the bloody hell are you on about? Whilst Islam is technically medieval (it was codified and emerged in the middle ages…) it fits to meaningful definition of medieval other than that. In all its current manifestations (and there is possibly almost as many as there are adherents – Islam does not have a clerical culture of right and wrong, but rather a good tradition of argument and redefinition) Islam is clearly a symptom of today – maybe drawing on medieval texts, but so does just about every other religion (other than Sikhism, which is purely modern…).

As to distorted, by what standards? Criticise Islam by all means (although you will have to allow that for every criticism an unknown number of Muslims will be agreeing with you) but don’t apply value judgements without justification. It makes you look bigotted, and doesn’t advance any arguments.

The authoritarian elements of Islam are not actually inherent in the religion – merely in the fact that many Islamic states are currently authoritarian, and as they tend to hold religion closely to the state’s identity, then religion reflects the nature of the state. Note the liberal Islam of the Balkan democracies and to a fair extent Turkey (which do not seek to control religion in the same way) is equally reflective.

There is a lot to say on the issue of identity politics, multiculturalism and terrorism, but could we perhaps say it without resorting to blind and inaccurate condemnations of an incredibly diverse and mutable religion?

This is a silly article, to be honest. It ignores the many crucial points Cameron was making about defending our values in the face of what is, like it or not, a serious threat to the West. Islamist fundamentalism. This is linked to multiculturalism because multiculturalism has worsened the problem, made it harder to tackle, entrenched differences and therefore enabled home grown extremism to take root more easily.

And there are some really cheap shots thrown in here – Avigdor Lieberman is not a particularly pleasant individual, but to label him fascist is just crude and misleading. And the thinly barbed attack on the government for preventing the abuse of universal jurisdiction laws was a bit poor. There are good reasons for tightening the regulations – pro Palestinian groups abuse this power to try and arrest leaders of a country who have gone to exceptional lengths to try and prevent civilian casualties faced with an enemy in Gaza who actively encourage such atrocities, and benefit from the death of Palestinians.

For more discussion of multiculturalism, see my piece on the subject.

http://www.suite101.com/content/multiculturalism-has-failed-and-yes-that-is-a-good-thing-a345766

Wish I could throw this article in the bib

I’ve seen some interesting things justified in the name of “protecting us from terrorism”, such as: Rendition torture flights, jailing people without charge for close to a decade, wars in Iraq and Afganistan, sweeping laws that limit civil liberties. But this has to be the first time I’ve seen funding an extremist group justified for our protection.

Well, isn’t one problem that such extremist groups might just as easily serve as a stopping point en route towards terrorism as much as away from it?

Not necessarily. A report I read said there was no direct evidence of this, and you’ll have to show me concrete evidence (which admittedly is hard) to make the case. Its also just as likely that extremist groups like HuT give voice to frustration some Muslims feel, which stop them from joining more extreme voices.

shatterface, if you actually stopped frothing once in a while and looked at what you write, then you might not write such tripe.

‘Fluffy liberal values’ like rights for women and homosexuals, you mean? These are the ideological foundations on which terrorism is based

No, its more usually based on their sense of injustice on foreign policy, feeling the religion is under attack etc. Anyone can legally not believe in rights for women and homosexuals in a democratic society (even if they’re not allowed to discriminate in practice). Just ask the Daily Mail.

And MI6 don’t get to make that call – who the hell elected them?

haha

Watchman: There’s a world of difference between tolerating a group and supporting it, and it is not for government to support any group based on religious expression

I’m afraid this goes on much more than you think. The Catholic Church is virulently homophobic. and yet the state funds Catholic schools, we fund the Pope coming here and more.

This idea that the state only funds groups that subscribe to fluffy liberal values is misnomer, even if you take those ‘scary Muslims’ out of the equation.

Of course, giving succour to unpleasant people

You give them money for specific purposes, not so they can become popular in general.

David: This is linked to multiculturalism because multiculturalism has worsened the problem, made it harder to tackle, entrenched differences and therefore enabled home grown extremism to take root more easily.

I’m afraid this is really rubbish.

The first generation of immigrants who came to this country really wanted to integrate. What put them into ghettoes was racism (where was the only space they felt safe) and ‘white flight’. The fact that brown people want to wear different clothes and eat Indian food is something you can’t stop anyway, in a democratic society. Nor can you force them to subscribe to a set of values if you believe in free speech.

It’s not spooks I’m worried about – although the fact that counter-terror “research” labelled my “blog” (actually a web page) as #5 among “British pro-Islamic blogs” makes me wonder whether anyone in security services lives in the real world. Nor it is politicians, since this speech in itself is unlikely to translate into useful policy. Blair came out with much the same crap, and wasted piles of dosh on the much loathed and hugely ineffectual Prevent programme. It’s the fact that people like Tommy Robinson and Marine Le Pen thought Dave’s speech was fantastic.Cameron couldn’t have put out a worse cultural message, and it will help stoke hatred against those Muslims who have the audacity to be thrust into inner-city ghettos by white flight and racism, or who dare to do anything as outrageous as have conservative religious views, wear funny clothes, have beards, etc. A sure sign of that impact is the sickening move by The Star to legitimize the EDL.

Sunny,

I’m afraid this goes on much more than you think. The Catholic Church is virulently homophobic. and yet the state funds Catholic schools, we fund the Pope coming here and more.

Leaving aside the issue of whether we should fund faith schools (if only because I have no bloody idea…) the state also funds Muslim (and Jewish) schools, and would fund those set up by any other religion on the same basis. It does so on the condition that certain things are taught (including toleration of homosexuals).

And Britain has funded state visits by leaders of very conservative Muslim countries as well.

What would not be acceptable would be the state funding groups that promoted exclusively Catholic identity, without any ability to inspect and regulate (as in schools) or expectation of recipricoal arrangements (as with diplomatic visits). This is just the state promoting an identity. And if pushed, I’d prefer to stop the Pope (or the King of Saudi Arabia) visiting and end state funding of faith schools rather than allow funding of groups devoted to a separate identity.

‘No, its more usually based on their sense of injustice on foreign policy, feeling the religion is under attack etc.’

Balls – its fueled by an oppressive, authoritarian ideology supposedly passed down by god and therefore unquestionable: novels, cartoons or an unfortunately named teddy bear can throw millions of adherents into a homicidal rage.

‘Anyone can legally not believe in rights for women and homosexuals in a democratic society (even if they’re not allowed to discriminate in practice). Just ask the Daily Mail.’

Yes, they can legally believe in obnoxious things: however you aren’t suggesting making compromises with the EDL are you? You aren’t claiming we should support them in the hope white kids won’t turn to something worse?

And your whole thrust is that Muslims who turn to terrorism aren’t responsible for their own choices: your version of Muslims are either enticed into terrorism by other extremists or else driven to it by British foreign policy. Its infantilising.

And you didn’t answer my question: did you actually listen to a word Malik said, because you basked in his replected credibility on PP immediately afterwards: now, you are rejecting everything he said and back to promoting communitarianism.

“No, its more usually based on their sense of injustice on foreign policy”

Yes I suppose the thought of killing those “slags dancing around their handbags” is just the icing on the cake for them.

I’m sure we all feel a “sense of injustice” on various issues.
But terrorism is based upon hatred.
And that is what these extremist – oh, so sorry Yakoub, I mean “conservative” – groups do so very well.

Oh, for Christ’s sake, it’s not an either/or question. Terrorism can be motivated by political concerns, ideology, group dynamics or a pungent cocktail of all three and more.

This article tragically misidentifies the true danger in Cameron’s speech: aiding hardline but non-violent groups is just a tactic, and not a very good one at that. It’s perfectly likely that empowering such groups would attract more people to hardline ideas than it diverts from violence. Focusing on it misses the true significance of the speech. It’s not often I find myself agreeing with the likes of cjcjc on these things, although that’s where agreement ends, I suspect.

The real danger presented by Cameron’s speech is the fact that he is condoning the hardline right wing narrative: that terrorism is fundamentally caused by British Muslims generally being given an easy ride by indulgent liberals, rather than having any practical or political cause. It’s a narrative that sees an ‘unassimilated’ Muslim as inherently a terrorist threat. Muslims cannot be allowed to have too much of their “medieval” culture in the UK, or they will start blowing things up, like the Palestinians.

Even worse, when he makes these vague pronouncements about “ending multiculturalism”, on the one hand he’ll claim he’s just saying that the state will no longer fund a Muslim Women’s Swimming Club. No big deal, maybe. Surely no-one except self-interested diversity consultants could get upset by that? But in the vagueness, he must know the hard right will hear that he wants to BAN the Muslim Women’s Swimming Club, but can’t say it because of the PC fascists and the EU.

When he sermonises about “ending multiculturalism” in the context of Muslims, people will take the common sense lesson from that: that this man wants Muslim culture to vanish. When the EDL smash Muslim windows, they can now feel they’ve got that bit more mainstream support. They can tell themselves that all they disagree with our elected Prime Minister on is tactics, not goals. That’s very dangerous.

jungle,

Can you quote where in the speech Mr Cameron said those things? I don’t remember them being there – and think this may be you interpreting the speech to suit your political views. Wrongly, as it happens…

Just because Mr Cameron opposes state-funding of identity-based groups, that does not make him the same as Nick Griffin or Marie Le Pen.

Any more than opposing private investment in the NHS makes you automatically the same as a Socialist Worker or a Communist.

You see, there are more than two positions in every debate, but if you move the government position it will inevitably move towards one group of extremist nutjobs(/misunderstood visionaries if you belong to one of these groups…) or another. Whichever direction you travel in, you will find extremists out there. The trick is to stop before joining them. It takes a very warped brain to assume there is anything racist about opposing state-funding (not the existence) of groups based on exclusive identitities, that is groups that are effectively racist (or faithist (is that a word) by excluding those who are of different ethnicitiy or religion. It is possible to do that, as I do, and still believe that people can be different – just as it is possible to oppose multiculturalism and monoculturalism equally (culture is not a matter for the state at all – the people determine culture and culture shapes the state, not the other way round). Assuming you are not in fact warped, I have to believe this is simply political posturing/misunderstanding.

‘“No, its more usually based on their sense of injustice on foreign policy”

That would include the invasion of Afghanistan you supported – even before you joined the party which took us there, as well as into Iraq.

And can you tell us where you stand on multi-culturalism this week because in the past you’ve not only said you opposed it but that you were also responsible for its downfall.

shatterface, you’re such a top terrorism expert that I completely agree with everything you say. Alternatively, you’re just ranting to fit pre-conceived prejudices into policy.

You aren’t claiming we should support them in the hope white kids won’t turn to something worse?

Err, actually I am. I do thnk its important to try and understand what fuels that sense of anger and try and deal with questions of how and why people get attracted to the EDL. Not all of them are racists, though I have little doubt many of the leaders are.

So much for that theory then.

now, you are rejecting everything he said and back to promoting communitarianism.

You know what shatterface – I didn’t really put much faith in your ability to understand the points that I make, and your comments above confirm it. I explicitly point out there’s a difference between integration / communitarianism and counter-terrorism but you’re just ranting away asking who elected MI6 officers. Tool.

Watchman:
What would not be acceptable would be the state funding groups that promoted exclusively Catholic identity

But we do. And furthermore, as I keep pointing out, you’re conflating the priorities of counter-terrorism with a separate issue of integration. White flight and white racism is equally, if not more guilty, of why there isn’t more integration in this country.

[pendant] if you’re talking about the UK you mean MI5, not MI6.

With the credibility of the Big Society notion pretty well dead or dying in its tracks, Cameron evidently decided that stronger propaganda medicine is needed to revive his and the coalition’s standing in the polls so he is returning to Blairite prescriptions. Try this BBC2 series of docs by Adam Curtis:

The Power of Nightmares Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0&feature=fvst

The Power of Nightmares Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8

The Power of Nightmares Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1z2g

It’s probably as well that Britain’s military is over-stretched and the government is strapped for cash or we would be invading some country to invoke the national buzz that comes from militarism.

For a government so loud in its frequent claims to be restoring freedom and liberty, this from the independent judiciary must be something of a disappointment:

Judge accuses Gove of ‘abuse of power’ over BSF
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Education/1054461/Judge-accuses-Gove-abuse-power-BSF/

Further to Bob B’s comment,

Judge accuses Gove of ‘abuse of power’ over BSF
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Education/1054461/Judge-accuses-Gove-abuse-power-BSF/

here is the judgement

@13: “makes me wonder whether anyone in security services lives in the real world”

Whatever you do, try to avoid going down the road carrying a table leg – anything could happen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/13/ukguns.hughmuir

The judge ruled that it was impossible to disprove the officer’s contention that he believed he was acting in self defence.

Sunny,

But we do. And furthermore, as I keep pointing out, you’re conflating the priorities of counter-terrorism with a separate issue of integration. White flight and white racism is equally, if not more guilty, of why there isn’t more integration in this country.

When you baldly state that we fund exclusive Catholic groups (other than under the guise of multiculturalism) then perhaps you could give examples? I can’t argue against what I can’t see.

Anyway, if we do, I’d argue we need to stop doing that as well. The Catholic identity as an exclusive identity is as corrosive as the Islamic or the Aryan or anything else which excludes others (my understanding of British is that it means everyone living in Britain who does not explicitly claim not to be British (it can also be an identify claimed by people overseas) – which might be exclusive, but only geographically).

@26: “The Catholic identity as an exclusive identity is as corrosive as the Islamic or the Aryan or anything else which excludes others”

Speaking of exclusivity, personal conversions to the Catholic or Islamic faiths is relatively straight forward compared with the difficulties of converting to Judaism.

@Sunny: “This is a problem in itself because, by conflating counter-terrorism and integration, Cameron weakens internal security and makes all of us more vulnerable to terrorism. ”

Terrorism and a lack of integration are closely related subjects. There is a widespread narrative within some communities where the natural fringe of this narrative results in terrorism. Increasing the level of integration in society reduces the power and popularity of this counter narrative and will in turn reduce the terrorist threat.

This all assumes that increasing integration can be done with the tactics that the govt. adopt. So far, on specific tactics they have not been exactly forthcoming.

I dislike Michael Gove on a number of issues, but he is certainly someone worth listening to in regards to terrorism. Take a look at this interview with him and Philip Bobbitt – imo the most asute comentator on terrorism.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/393/full

“I’m no fan of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but they’re no different to the BNP or EDL and should have the right to free speech.” I’m no fan of banning organizations either and certainly not infringing their right to free speech. I don’t accept your point that they are no different to the EDL, but I would concede that if the EDL influence grows and becomes more militant they potentially could pose a similar terrorist threat… but not yet, nor anytime soon.

You have to realise that there are two ways to deal with terrorism – from the supply side, or the demand side. You are right to point out that Western foreign policy is a contributory factor – but it is not the only factor and can only factor. There are in turn two ways to attack the demand side – you can remove the root causes of the narrative that at its fringes results in terrorism, or you can attempt to change the narrative and influence of the narrative itself. It is this final approach that Cameron’s suggestions are addressing.

Counter terrorism must be a multifaceted action. Attack the supply side, make it more difficult for terrorists to carry out their actions and make societies infrastructure more resilient to terrorist attack. Also attack the demand side, do what can be done to tackle root causes AND do what you can to reduce the more moderate narrative that terrorism springs from.

“Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable to say that you won’t fund organisations that don’t “fit into our values” – but that isn’t a viable counter-terrorism strategy.”
It is viable as part of a counter terrorism strategy. The exact form this takes and the way it is presented is a tactical rather than strategic question.

I’m afraid there was very little in this post that I agreed with. For a good overview of counter terrorist options, see:
http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Terrorism-Elements-Grand-Strategy/dp/0878403477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297446975&sr=8-1

We can probably all agree that “terrorism” is surely bad but I doubt that we all agree on what precisely constitutes terrorism or about the (flexible) boundaries between terrorism and (? legitimate) asymmetric warfare by liberation movements. Were the Irgun atrocities in Palestine “legimate” tactics in a justified liberation struggle?

Try: “Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

William Lind on Fourth Generation Warfare was an early and illuminating essayist on this:
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702

Britain’s campaign against the Malayan insurgency lasted from 1948 to 1960, twleve years. This was one of the few historic examples of the successful suppression of insurgency since WW2 by the superior military power in a fourth generation war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

The French failed in Indochina and Algeria and America failed in Vietnam.

What conclusions should we draw from post-WW2 history?

@29 – Good to see more mention of 4gw on here. I’m sure you’ve probably read them, but for others – some of Lind’s more recent writings re War on Terror are well worth reading as is Thomas X Hammes, Rondfeld & Arquilla and this post by Gorka that I’ve mentioned here once before:
http://ndu.edu/press/irregular-warfare.html
http://dde.carlisle.army.mil/documents/courses_09/readings/2200_hammes.pdf (see this for a discussion of the evolution of 4th Generation War from Mao onwards)

I’m afraid without an understanding of the changing nature of conflict in a globalised world, it’s tough to take people’s views too seriously.

Malaya is an interesting example, but not true 4gw imo, and the Malayan strategy relies on being able to seperate civillians from the insurgents. The techniques used to achieve this were pretty harsh and certainly could not be tolerated today – similarly the geography of Malaya made this comparativly easy. Needless to say that in the true-4gw type war with al-qaeda the warfare is as much informational and narrative based – and with the globalised nature of the planet means that it is impossible to seperate civillians from the ‘insurgents’ using the Malaya theory.

Incidentally, the reason why the fight against al-qaeda (and associates) is the first proper 4gw is because it operates without any form or leadership or organisation – whereas all the other examples of 4gw that Hammes gives in that article I linked have some from of hierarcy. They are essentially regular insurgencies but employing 4gw techiques like information warfare, leveraging the likes of Choamsky etc.

What lessons can be drawn? Tough question since I think there are fundamental differences even between Malaya and Vietnam – nevermind with today. I’d say the key aspect is the protection of civillians under a liberal democratic rule of law and applying a game-theory approach to your operations.

@30

Thanks for that about 4GW and the links. I accept the comments about the distinctive characteristics of the Malayan insurgency and about the challenges of protecting civil populations in liberal democracies in 4GW contexts.

What is clear it that it’s rather superficial and pointless to go on about deploring “terrorism” – about which most would readily agree – without considering the vulnerabilities in a 4GW context. We need also to take on board the increasing potential for cyberwarfare waged from distant places:

“Feb 10 (Reuters) – The cyber warfare threat facing the United States is increasing in scope and scale and its impact is difficult to overstate, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a congressional hearing on Thursday.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/usa-intelligence-cyberspace-idUSN1010609120110210

By this worrying account, younger Muslims seem to be less adapted to the social values of liberal democracies than older generation Muslims, who are more likely to have been first generation immigrants in host communities:

If a Muslim converts to another religion, 36 per cent of 16-to-24-year-olds thought this should be punished by death, compared with 19 per cent of 55s and over.

According to the quoted poll, 74 per cent of those aged 16 to 24 prefer Muslim women to wear the veil, compared with only 28 per cent of over 55s.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383409-multiculturalism-drives-young-muslims-to-shun-british-values.do

@Bob B – I only hope our spooks are better than the USA’s, if Mo Begg’s book is anything to go by. One bunch of gophers suspected he was a computer expert because he used the word “pixilation” in a meaningful way. Lucky he didn’t say “insouciant” or they might have been accused of being Stephen Fry.

If a culture of violence in childhood can lead (for some) to more violence and terrorism in later life – just read the comments by Muslims for the Channel 4 show mentioned above: many saying they were hit as children by adults in Muslim madrasa

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-80/episode-1

What would stop terrorism is if we debated the issues much more widely. Whether it be foriegn policy, religious intolerance or general bigotry.

!For reasons of national security, geo-political considerations or economic interests, we maintain good relations with countries we shouldn’t be allying with. China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt easily come to mind.”

Maintaining relations is not the same as being allied with. By no means are we in any way allies with China. By why shouldn’t we maintain relations with one quarter of the world’s population? Are no British people ever to visit China? No trade ever? No student exchanges? If we do any of these things we need to have consular access for visas and the like. Which require relations.

What is more Britain is no longer the world power it was. Even when it was, we could not shape the world to suit our desires. Foreign policy is not about going in and making the world as we would like it, but about subtle influences to make the world more suited to our ends. We cannot influence China in any way unless we have diplomatic relations. We cannot pursue ends that are worthy and sensible in the Middle East unless we have friends – and in particular not unless Egypt is on board. So either you want to condemn Britain to fruitless impotency on the sidelines, or we need to have friendly relations with some of the regimes in the region. Which?

“The UK and USA also overlook human rights abuses in Pakistan and India, while selling weapons to countries across Africa which then use that to kill others.”

Last I checked Britain and the US did no such thing. And can you please name one single country in Africa where British and American weapons are being used to kill others? It is true that it is possible that some trainers Britain sold to Mugabe, at the time a hero to the Left and a friend of democracy, have been illegally modified and used in Congo. But that was a decade ago.

“I’m not saying any of this is right, its just done.”

Actually you have that exactly backwards, you are saying it is wrong even though it is not done.

“Ronald Reagan, who famously wanted Eastern Europeans to “tear down this wall” was best buddies with Hosni Mubarak.”

Any evidence Reagan was in any way friendly with Mubarak?

“Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable to say that you won’t fund organisations that don’t “fit into our values” – but that isn’t a viable counter-terrorism strategy.”

And this comes to the root of the problem – how does any of this flow? What is this except whatabouttery? You have bemoaned Britain’s immoral foreign policy but in what way does that relate to domestic security?

I do not even see how any of this applies to Cameron’s speech.

21. Sunny Hundal – “White flight and white racism is equally, if not more guilty, of why there isn’t more integration in this country.”

Sorry? White racism almost certainly does not exist in this country. We can see that with something as simple as how Black children do in school. British pupils of African origin do not do badly. British pupils of Afro-Caribbean origin do. That is not racism from the teachers. It is something else. But White flight? How is that to blame for anything? The experience of America is that Whites leave places where the elected government makes them unwelcome – Detroit for instance. They leave places where they are singled out as victims of crime because of their race. How is any of that the fault of White people?

We also know none of this applies to the communities that are most likely to produce terrorism because Irish Catholics are invisible in the second generation at worst (and yet that second generation community has produced terrorists) and people from East Asia or South Asia who are not Muslim are not a terrorist threat. Nor do they have much of a problem with integration. The victims are not to blame here.

29. Bob B 0 “We can probably all agree that “terrorism” is surely bad but I doubt that we all agree on what precisely constitutes terrorism or about the (flexible) boundaries between terrorism and (? legitimate) asymmetric warfare by liberation movements.”

I agree. And we are unlikely to win as long as a significant community makes excuses for murderers. So far it seems most apologists for Islamist terrorists have slunk off into the undergrowth. The Guardian no longer is so free in giving them air time. But they are still around.

“Britain’s campaign against the Malayan insurgency lasted from 1948 to 1960, twleve years. This was one of the few historic examples of the successful suppression of insurgency since WW2 by the superior military power in a fourth generation war”

Successful? All Britain managed to do was lose, but in losing throw power to a slightly more acceptable group of people. The war was not lost big, but it was lost. Britain had no intention of leaving but was forced out. How is that a win?

“What conclusions should we draw from post-WW2 history?”

That the West always loses against guerrilla and/or terrorist groups. Third World countries do not. The likely difference is the degree of brutality they bring to the struggle. They torture. We, mostly, do not. They ethnically cleanse. We do not. They win. We do not. We will see how the struggle with the Islamists works out. We may win for a change. But the odds are not in our favour.

Any evidence Reagan was in any way friendly with Mubarak?

Yes.

“White flight and white racism is equally, if not more guilty, of why there isn’t more integration in this country”.

As I understand it, black and brown flight isn’t prohibited. What’s stopping them?

37. BenSix – “Yes.”

If the best you can do is some banal comments made at a formal even to mark Reagan’s visit to the region, the sort of formal function where platitudes are butchered and polite lies are made to dance the fandango, then you mean, no, there is no evidence.

SMSF -

The guy (or, at least, his administration) upped their military aid to him and praised his courage, counsel, beauty et cetera. Yeah, perhaps they weren’t in the habit of exchanging birthday presents but it’s fairly clear that Sunny meant “best buddies” more in the sense of international, rather than intimate, relationships. Much, indeed, as I’m sure Reagan did when he described Mubarak as a friend.

@36: “The [Malayan insurgency] war was not lost big, but it was lost. Britain had no intention of leaving but was forced out.”

As with other parts of Britain’s empire post-WW2, Malaysia was lined up by British governments to become a sovereign country with its own elected government in the Commonwealth.

Had the insurgency succeeded, Malaysia would most likely have come under the authoritarian governance of a Communist regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia

It’s probably as well that Britain’s military is over-stretched and the government is strapped for cash or we would be invading some country to invoke the national buzz that comes from militarism.

But we did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

40. BenSix – “The guy (or, at least, his administration) upped their military aid to him and praised his courage, counsel, beauty et cetera. Yeah, perhaps they weren’t in the habit of exchanging birthday presents but it’s fairly clear that Sunny meant “best buddies” more in the sense of international, rather than intimate, relationships. Much, indeed, as I’m sure Reagan did when he described Mubarak as a friend.”

I am not sure what Sunny meant but it is common on the Left to condemn the West in moral terms for make-believe transgressions. As a moral condemnation claiming that Reagan liked Mubarak is much greater than simply pointing out Reagan had a grown up foreign policy. Reagan made some perfectly normal, routine, diplomatic comments at a dinner function. The only person I can recall praising anyone else’s courage in the region was Gorgeous George.

So I would not leap to conclude anything about Sunny’s Whataboutery but would wait until he has spoken for himself.

41. Bob B – “As with other parts of Britain’s empire post-WW2, Malaysia was lined up by British governments to become a sovereign country with its own elected government in the Commonwealth.”

The Emergency started in 1948. Britain announced plans for independence the next year. In reality the British showed almost no signs whatsoever of leaving Malaya until the Communists took to the jungle.

“Had the insurgency succeeded, Malaysia would most likely have come under the authoritarian governance of a Communist regime.”

Well a totalitarian one rather than an authoritarian one. But yes. The Malaysian people won big time. But the British lost.

” We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow. ”

Britain has no friends, only interests. True for centuries and still true. Out there in the world are vicious dictators, despots of every shade and societies with endemic corruption. We can’t change them and only their own populations can. Imagining that we should only deal with regimes of which we approve is naive idealism. As a globalised trading nation our companies and government are going to be dealing with some pretty unsavoury regimes. The correct thing to do is to sup with a long spoon but definitely not be propping them up. A rather longer spoon than this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1NfnbJr-qg

SMFS -

While “grown up foreign policy” is wonderfully question-begging – to say nothing of “make-believe transgressions” – it’s plausible you’re right and, yeah, there is a moral difference. (And, by God, I won’t be the first to claim that Ronald Reagan was a sincere man.)

But that’s how I read it, anyway.

In counter insurgency that happened in Malaya was a success by any sensible measure. Providing a measure legitimate government (independence) was an element of the British counter insurgency strategy. The British were fighting the MLNA not the Malaysian people as a whole – independence was on the cards for them either way.

45. BenSix – “While “grown up foreign policy” is wonderfully question-begging – to say nothing of “make-believe transgressions””

I don’t think it is question begging. Certain make-believe transgressions is not. Either we and the Americans are selling weapons to Africa which are being used to kill people or we are not. That is a simple matter of observable fact.

46. Geoffff – “In counter insurgency that happened in Malaya was a success by any sensible measure. Providing a measure legitimate government (independence) was an element of the British counter insurgency strategy. The British were fighting the MLNA not the Malaysian people as a whole – independence was on the cards for them either way.”

On the cards perhaps. When? Who knows? The British had been talking about it but in 1945 there was not the remotest sign they planned to hand over power any time soon. Once the Communists took to the jungle and we got stuck in an expensive war, then independence was proposed. If it was a success, it was only a success by an odd definition. We saved people who did not like us and did not want us there from an even worse form of government. But we made Britain worse off by doing so. A win for the Malaysians (especially the Malays), less so for Britain.

The BNP unconditionally condmened stephen Lawrence murder adn said they’d do everything they could to help his killer be caught, even if Griffin said a black person did it, EDL have Balck gay asian and jewish members ,even if they have the stereotype of skinhead football supporting beer drinking sportswear wearing white wroking class men,
but tosay there’s no different from Hizb ut-Tahrir.is appaling

Avigdor Lieberman is a fascist is he, Ken livingstone is inviting a meber of Sinn Fein I,R.A to his progressive talks next week, call him a fscist too Sunny,

#47 – SMFS: True, independence might not have been for a while – but I’d venture that the Britain was bound to give up it’s empire after the Atlantic Charter was signed with the USA. My point really is that Malaya was a success in counter insurgency terms. They might not have achieved what they might have hoped the day the first shot was fired, but when the doctrine that came out of Malaya was successful.

Oman was also a success in COIN terms.

@43: “The Emergency started in 1948. Britain announced plans for independence the next year. In reality the British showed almost no signs whatsoever of leaving Malaya until the Communists took to the jungle.”

Apart from domestic concerns, Britain’s government in 1948 was rather preoccupied with the partition and independence of India and with trying to avoid the replication of what happened with the independence of Burma, the reverberations of which have continued into the present.

In Saturday’s press, Cameron is reported to be relaunching the Big Society on Monday:

David Cameron will relaunch his big idea, the Big Society, in a keynote speech on Monday amid growing fears in the Conservative Party that it has started to backfire on the Government.

As local authorities and voluntary groups feel the impact of the spending cuts, some ministers are worried that the Big Society will be seen by the public as an attempt to mask the cuts and hand state-financed services to private firms. .

Mr Cameron will explain how 5,000 trained community organisers will help his big idea take off in less well-off areas. The Government plans to invest £470m over the next four years and its Big Society Bank will have an initial budget of £200m.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-to-declare-the-big-society-udoesu-exist-2212494.html

Doubtless, Cameron will shortly be relaunching his reflections on Multiculturalism as well so as to clarify “misundertstandings”.

Statements and debates about multiculturalism have occurred after the Brixton riots with the Lord Scarman report, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Bradford Riots so why not in response to the presence of a home-grown jihadist threat? Perhaps it is because, for the first two cases, it ended in a positive result for ethnic minorities, the third at best a score-draw but the last is equivalent to 9-0 hammering. Liberal Conspiracy tore up the liberal recommendations about what constitutes a racist crime in addressing grooming gangs so the Tories aren’t the only ones to, in speech anyway, reverse some of the gains multiculturalists made over the years.

Bored in Kavanagasau

brilliant

“It takes a very warped brain to assume there is anything racist about opposing state-funding (not the existence) of groups based on exclusive identitities”

I don’t think that type of restriction would be racist, and I never said I did.

I merely think that in coming out fiercely but vaguely against “multiculturalism” he’s quite deliberately sending out multiple messages to different groups. When he says “I want to end state multiculturalism” in the context of talking about Islam, to the liberals he’s saying: I want to end state funding of things based on an exclusive Muslim identity. Meanwhile, to the right wing hardliners he’s saying: I want to end the state tolerance of things based on an exclusive Muslim identity.

I’m sure he’s aware of that. Hostility to Muslims sells papers in stacks right now, if you hadn’t noticed.

If you want it demonstrated that the extremists took his speech as an endorsement of their objections to Muslim culture, just check out the glowing response from the far right!

Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the racism and intolernace being taught in Muslim schools in the UK – shocking violence to the kids, on camera,

“Lessons in Hate and Violence”

Youtube has it in parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OW3TxxN2fk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhYw1wu_n8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7hQpk1cqHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQmZfm_hXuo

forgot to say – that programme aired yesterday.