How will Pakistan affect the White House race?
December 27th, 2007
Will McCain and Clinton be the main beneficiaries?
With exactly one week to go before the first test of opinion in the 2008 White House race the big question this afternoon is how will such a global event impact on Iowa and New Hampshire - the first states to decide on the candidates?
As the Politco site observes - “Bloody images of Pakistan in turmoil, which will dominate newspapers and TV news just as Iowa voters are making their final decision and the caucuses are only a week away, will remind voters that this is a dangerous world. And the aftermath — still very unclear in the chaos surrounding Bhutto’s death — will test the agility of the presidential campaigns in dealing with an unexpected and momentous event; a dry run for daily life at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”
There is an argument for saying that American voters, particularly in a places like Iowa, are very parochial and in the end it will be domestic matters which will determine their votes.
On the face of it such a dramatic event is a reminder of the seriousness of the decision voters will be taking. It’s here where some are saying that McCain and Clinton might have the edge and that Huckabee and Obama might just come off second best. In a dangerous world, the argument will go, you need experience.
Team Obama, however, can argue is that it is the established approach to US foreign policy that has made the world much more unstable and that their man can help America to relate to the world community better.
Who knows at this stage? The next few days could be fascinating.
In the betting the Clinton price has tightened to 0.51/1 while McCain is the 4.4/1 third favourite in the GOP contest.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m a huge fan of both of these candidates and I can see it benefiting Hillary but I’m not so sure about McCain. I personally think that if Guiliani can keep the agenda on terrorism etc he could maintain his national frontrunner status.
Of course his strategy of ignoring IO & NH now looks rather perilous so McCain could indeed be the one to benefit, at least in the early states.
Obama, I believe, was the first candidate to focus on Pakistan and argue that it was a National Security issue for the US. Did he not state that he would condone bombing raids in Pakistani territory aimed at Al Qaeda? If he can somehow show that his “intuitive” FP knowledge is ahead of the events far more than Hillary’s experience, he could come out of this well (that sounds such a sick thing to say).
1. I actually see the reverse. Obama is, after all, the only candidate who made serious mention of Pakistan as anything other than a steadfast ally prior to the beginnings of turmoil there. People remember that Clinton ridiculed him for it, but I think the sudden rise in chaos there was a major part of what spurred his campaign back to life; people thought, “Wow, he was right!” I think this will only cement that impression.
McCain has not been campaigning on military credentials at all, so trying to take advantage of them would be making a complete U-turn in his campaign. He could do it, but it’s very late.
From last thread:
“But I still slightly disagree with you. I think that, because of the structure, history and provenance of Islam, it has militant fundamentalism in its DNA. There is no Islamic “church” to reform, so it will always be susceptible to literalist interpretations, which seek to outdo each other in their zeal - Deobandi, Wahhabism, etc etc.”
Isn’t Shia Islam based around the interpretations of respected Ayatollahs, and thus a Church of sorts? But yes, Sunni Islam is more about individual interpretation of scripture. This, however, is precisely the same as Protestantism, which was extremely zealous, literal and militantly intolerant in its first couple of centuries. It was Martin Luther who argued that faith should trample reason underfoot, after all. But I think this quality of a religion actually facilitates the liberalising effect as there is no institution with the financial resources to prevent change.
As for the DNA of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have just as much holy war, divinely endorsed massacres, righteous “othering” of nonbelievers and fatalism in both their scriptures and history as Islam. We just don’t associate those bits with the two Western religions as their modern liberalised versions focus instead on the nice bits of scripture (which Islam also has).
As for the thread, unstable Muslim countries also remind Americans of Iraq. Clinton voted for the war, despite now acting like she didn’t, where Obama opposed the thing from the beginning. This shoudl help Obama.
For the Republicans, it will help both McCain and Giuliani.
I hope and think it will help end the Huckaboom, as foreign policy questions are asked again.
6.
Interesting piece on Bloomberg
Huckabee’s Rise Drives Wedge Between Wall Street, Evangelicals
By Matthew Benjamin
Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Wealthy Republicans have a new political nightmare that may be scarier than Hillary Clinton: Mike Huckabee.
The former Arkansas governor has surged in Republican presidential-preference polls, winning the support of Christian fundamentalists while peppering his campaign rhetoric with jabs at the financial industry. He calls himself the candidate who isn’t a “wholly owned subsidiary” of investment banks, decries large executive-pay packages and says the party needs to shift its focus from Wall Street to Main Street.
In doing so, he threatens the uneasy if effective coalition Republicans have counted on for three decades: abortion opponents and other social-issue activists supplying foot soldiers, proponents of tax cuts and business-friendly regulatory policies putting up the money and getting the biggest economic benefits.
“Huckabee puts this long-simmering feud between the social-conservative wing and the country-club and business crowd into starker contrast,” said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.
Polls show Huckabee, 52, leading in the first Republican electoral contest, the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. In national polls, he is within striking distance of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
herbert proper seniot @ 7. That is why he frightens the Republican establishment so much. He’s a hardcore social conservative who is not economically literate and populist and has no idea about foreign policy. He could do well in an election if the economy were boyant and iraq/”war on terror” were not issues. As it stands, he is the candidate to end the Regan coalition.
Is the widespread spelling of Huckabee’s name as “Huckerbee” a joke that I’m not getting, or simply a typo?
Next to no effect other than perhaps a minor bolster to the idea that the parties need someone who can handle foreign affairs..
From Obama’s infamous Pakistan speech:
“The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
“Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.”
“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.”
“We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”
Anyway. Since McCain and Clinton were pretty wholehearted in their support for the invasion of Iraq, something to which the current situation in Pakistan can be at least partially attributed, surely you’d expect today’s news to damage them.
Rullko at 12. How exactly is the war in Iraq linked to the current crisis in Pakistan?
(Response to posts in the previous thread)
seanT, I briefly had this discussion with you many months ago about Islam. I think there’s an important distinction to be made between Muslims’ actions and Islam. You haven’t fully fallen in to the trap that most do, as you are trying to relate actions to the religion. However, you’ve treated Islam as a homogeneous religion whereas this is not the case. Some interpretations have led to a stunted and narrow-minded view, but that is not a fundamental to the religion.
My knowledge of (specifically) Arabian history is not great, so perhaps you could comment with more authority , but it seems clear to me that the cultural and scientific development of the Peninsula was very much accelerated by the emergence of Islam.
4 (in this thread) - you’re absolutely right. Shia Islam is often compared to the Catholic Church in that it is much more structured, while Sunni Islam is more like the Protestant Church in that there is no such authority.
13. Isn’t everything?
Have the Candidates said anything
15. yes in a globalised way and in terms of anti-americanism etc etc Iraq is linked to the current crisis. However, how can the Iraq debacle be directly linked to this crisis? To blame the US and the UK for this crisis because of Iraq is foolish. To apportion some blame because of Afganistan, Zia Ul-Haq, and the Muhajadeen; now that has some basis. So open question: how is the war in Iraq directly linked (the cause of) the current crisis in Pakistan?
17. Had we had 100,000 more troops in Afghanistan for the last four years the Taliban would never have been able to come back the way they have along the Afghani-Pakistan border. Additionally, Iraq inflamed Muslim opinion in Pakistan, increasing support for jihadism. If this assasination was from a militant Islamist group, it is undeniably related.
16. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/27/candidates_react.html
17 I think the argument is as Lincoln said one war at a time. Money, men and materiel were pushed over to Iraq before the Taliban had been finished in Pak/Afgh meaning they had time to recover as most the energy was directed elsewhere. Certainly true that Iraq pushed these countries away from many peoples attention
Punter and Socrates, yes the war inflamed muslim oppinion but that is not what the crisis in Pakistan is about. Militant islamist groups like jamaat-i-islaami hate bhutto regardless of Iraq. It totally doesn’t matter. Her assassination, sadly, could have come from many corners for many reasons. The vast majority of them will have nothing to do with Iraq. As for the rest of the crisis: the judiciary, the tribal areas, waziristan, balouchistan, NWFP, rigged elections, emergency rule etc: how are these caused by the US/UK war in Iraq? It is a fatuous argument to state that if the US and NATO had somehow routed out a lot of pro OBL and pro Taleban support in the border regions that these problems would no longer exist. Peshewar was the muhajadeen capital of the world in the 80s and that has not gone away. Iraq created many problems. This is not one of them.
20. I’m not saying that no Iraq means no problems in Pakistan, but refraining from that war would have certainly improved our prospects of dealing with them. Musharraf used the Islamist resurgence in the border regions (caused by a lack of US troops in the neighbourhood) and increasing Islamist agitation in Pakistan (caused by inflamed opinion from Iraq) to justify his constitutional takeover. With Western forces bogged down in Iraq, we have limited sway over him. Yes, Islamist groups have always hated Bhutto, but the recent increase in financial, moral, and numeric support for them dramatically increased the chances a succesful attack would get through.
13 - Most obviously, the Iraq war has been fuel for the Islamist fire across the world. But more specifically to Pakistan, assuming that nurturing democracy in Afghanistan was among the coalition’s goals there, a crucial Islamist support base on the border could have been prevented if the occupiers hadn’t diverted resources elsewhere.
The “islamist” or pro-taleban style militants in the border regions have numeric and financial support to combat NATO in Afganistan. Infact the war in Iraq may have perversly improved the situation (not an argument for the war at all) as the militants may have decided that fighting the Americans in Anbar is more crucial that fighting secularists or authoritarians at home.
Put simply it will boost incumbency and reluctance to change. Clinton represents that on the democrats side. The effect will depend on how Obama plays it. It’s hard to see who represents incumbency on the republican side, but probably Giuliani. In Britain there may be a slight bonus to Brown, who knows. Any attempt at partisan politics with respect to this will fail, tories need to keep quiet in order to not look immature. They will obviously lose some ground without the media attention but would lose more with negative media.
23. That assumes the number of militants and the amount of their funding is fixed. In reality, plenty more of both now exist because of the folly in Iraq.
Rullko, the argument that a, democracy and liberalism could have been brought to afganistan with a few more troops and that would have placated the deap routed troubles in Pakistan is incredibly assinine b, that islamist support could just ben exterminated by force. This is non-sensicle. I think we all need to take a deep breath about Pakistan and see that the so called “islamist threat” is not the major issue. Then we can start to deal with the real issues at hand.
26. what is the major issue?
27. In other words, what are the underlying causes of the instability?
Socrates, yes you are right to some extent. However, this is not the route of the problem. The taleban-esqu OBL following types have been in Peshawar for at least three decades and are not going away. Iraq did not put them there. Those most exercised about iraq will have gone there. The route cause of these islamist’s strenghts and their role in the ISI goes back at least to Zia Ul-Haq and the Muhajadeen insurgency against the USSR.
26 - I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. You say that Islamism could not have been quelled by force - a plausible enough argument, I guess - but then go on to assert that the Islamism isn’t the “major issue” anyway. I think it’s pretty safe to say that, in the context of today’s assassination, it most certainly was.
29. From the BBC:
“Many analysts say attacks like those on Thursday show the creeping “Talebanisation” of Pakistan.
Radical Muslims calling for Islamic law, and fiercely opposed to the US, have become increasingly active in Pakistani politics in recent years, analysts say.”
This is the fifth attack on Bhutto since her return. It sounds like the shooter had armour-piercing rounds to get through the bulletproof windscreen of her car, and he must have been well trained to shoot accurately through that. The guy was properly equipped and militarily trained. I agree that support for Islamism can’t be wiped out by force. But its military strength can be, and its support would have been reduced by (a) no invasion of Iraq and (b) a huge reduction of violence in Afghanistan.
Gordon Brown looked terrible on the news reports - half asleep and shifty.
He clearly just can’t do ’sincere’ which Blair was a master of in the early days.
20 I never said that. Don’t plead innocent to a charge never made. My point was resource diversion pure and simple. You are answering a question I did not ask. That is separate from the other point. The Americans would surely not be shaking the begging bowl for Troop contributions in Afghanistan, without all those US Troops in Iraq you think
23 You what? It has certainly improved the techniques of the insurgents returning home to Afghanistan and Pakistan with skills honed in Iraq. Tactics learned there are now being applied in Afghanistan. You are very optimistic
30-Islamism has been quelled by force before. It’s just that is it a price we’re willing to pay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre
34 - It might not be a price worth paying if the only danger was the odd atrocity in the New York or Madrid vein. But in Pakistan the greater threat is that suicidal forces might attain the power to launch Armageddon, and though it’s easy for me to say, I think there are utilitarian judgements that can be made in this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/27/candidates.reaction/index.html
CNN has the reactions of the candidates to the assassination of Benazir
There is no other way. This dramatically refocuses attention globally, and brings Islamic terrorism to the forefront of concern in a way that even Sept 11 did not. I am amazed at how often Islamic terrorism is discussed in everyday conversation amongst all people, as it never was even 5 years ago. People are more worried about this then almost any other issue because of how it affects their future, because of how it affects their safety and security and the safety of their children.
People’s attitude’s are changing, and they are beginning to ask if we can continue to have the unconstrained preaching of the Koran which we have today, when the Koran clearly violates the laws of the land, and all civilised principles, in instructing its followers explicitly to ‘kill the non-Muslims that dwell around you’, ’slay the non-Muslims wherever you find them’, etc, etc, etc. How long before the police are overwhelmed, when so many are being brainwashed into these beliefs, to obey these instructions?
The Koran is not the sort of the thing we can tolerate any more. It is no wonder that there are so many terrorists when the Koran is promoted like it is some sort of pacifist manual! Only when we prosecute and imprison those that publish, distribute and preach th Koran, will Islamic terrorism be defeated. There Is No Other Way.
Giuliani and McCain combined have about a 25% chance of winning in Iowa since even Rudy is less than 10% behind Huckabee, who is fading fast. Giuliani at 0.3-0.8 and McCain at 3.7-8.9.
I find these passages particularly disturbing:
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.”
“…do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them… as the Lord your God has commanded you…”
31. That opening line is slack reporting at its worst from whoever at teh beenb came up with that.
I have followed the news this afternoon throughout and I havent heard a soul claim that.
Whilst they are a threat and a growing one in terms of damage potential, mainly due to confidence rather than adding hundreds of new symapthisers every day, to send a few loon bags out with guns and bombs doesn’t show any greater strategic reach.
In addition a 15 year old boy was reportedly seized yesterday near another rally carrying explosives.
39. You should rephrase Lord with ‘Allah’, as the Koran clearly states ‘there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger’. That is, the only correct noun for God is ‘Allah’, not ‘God’ or ‘Lord’.
41. “Allah” is merely Arabic for “God”. Properly translated it should be “There is no god but God, and Muhammed is his messenger.”
39. Socrates, you fail to mention what you are quoting from. Now are those passages taken from the Jewish Torah? Why not ban both?
18 “Had we had 100,000 more troops in Afghanistan for the last four years the Taliban would never have been able to come back”
Quite right. Labour has never won a war and it isnt difficult to see why.
Like Mussolini, Labour committed to war without providing the means or political will to win. That is seen as weakness/red rag to an Islamic Bull and all his buddies.
Instead of blowing the fire out with a great gust, Labour puffs delicately at the embers.
re 32 and he raised the we must be strong to defeat terrorism argument. I can foresee as someone mentioned in the last thread the terrible events in Pakistan being used in aid to ram 42 days through. And to think that new Labour used to taunt the Tories with cries of shameful opportunism.
42. ocrates, you are mistaken. Allah is a noun, and therefore cannot be translated, bu must remain as is. Just as you cannot translate John into anything but ‘John’.
Allah must remain ‘Allah’, otherwise the sentence just becomes meaningless (’there is no God but God’ is obviously a meaningless sentence, as Socrates has wrongly replaced the noun ‘Allah’ with ‘God’, violating the Koranic insruction that there is ‘no GOD but ALLAH’.)
re 43 you’ll also find them in the Old Testament.
completely off topic has anyone come up with the answer to which US president has died out of the country?
43. And ban this one too?
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
47. Chris A, the Old Testament is the Jewish Torah!
46. We frequently translate nouns, and also sometimes translate proper nouns. It was Christopher Columbus who sailed the Atlantic in 1492 wasn’t it? Arabic Christian communities call the father part of the trinity Allah.
re 50 you don’t say!
I am sure if Pakistan gets really bad and looks as if its nuclear arsenal is going to be taken over by militants, thn India will nuke it first, closely followed by the US..
I am sure both countries have contingency plans being reviewed as we write.
Judaism and Islam share instructions to incite and instruct to kill. Both therefore break current UK law.
What is different about the Jewish Torah, is that it then negates the instruction to kill, through the Ten Commandments, starting with ‘thou shalt not kill’. We could remove half a dozen passages from the Jewish Torah and so humanise it. The same cannot be said of the Koran, which nowhere mitigates or contradicts the instruction to kill non-Muslims. Across the world we see Muslims murdering and attacking non-Muslims, but its difficult to find Jews being anything but humane and decent.
In the case of the Koran, humanising it would involve deleting over 386 instructions to kill and rape, inciting murder, stoning, ambushes, suicide attacks, looting (which is the title of an entire chapter!), robbery, and many other serious criminal offences - which is more then half the Koran!!! There would be almost nothing left of the Koran and hadith, as so great is the role of hate and killing in the Koran. The Koran is a rather different document from the Torah!!!
53 “I am sure…I am sure…”
I feel safer already.
Madasafish, your certainty of someone else doing the tough/dirty work is straight out of the revised version of the 3 pigs.
“in the event of a wolf attack, I am sure I can escape to the house of bricks (that someone else built)”
Don’t you know? That story is incorrect.
The pig in the straw house gets eaten by the wolf.
53 - Well, yes, there presumably are “plans” to turn Pakistan into a nuclear necropolis in that event. I’m not as reassured by this prospect as you seem to be. Even assuming India, the US et al don’t botch the whole thing, it’s a bit hard to imagine that the consequences of such an enterprise would be restricted to a few hundred million deaths in the subcontinent.
O/T AP and Yahoo are polling the same 2000 people through to Election day, asking the same questions, tracking how often they change their allegiances to candidates, and the likelihood that they will switch again (and measuring if that is true). It seems an interesting way of guaging the ‘hardness’ or ’softness’ of a given candidates support.
I think it makes interesting reading, and will endeavour to follow it each week or so. Could I get an expert view on usefulness of these polls, or the polling methodology and the organisation running it?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071227/D8TPQDPO0.html
If politicians turned their attentions to the contents of the Koran, and therefore the cause of Islamic terrorism, they would be rather more successful in addressing the symptoms. Until we ban the Koran, Islamic terrorism will be relentless and will grow stronger with each passing year, causing ever more suffering, and invitably nuclear conflagration. Just remember how close we came in 1962!
Its simple. Just prosecute and imprison anyone attempting to publish, distribute and preach the Koran, explain why, and Islamic terrorism will vanish withing a decade. Waging wars that do not have banning or revising the Koran as their goal, are ultimatly destined to fail. They are being fought with a flawed objective. Democracy alone is not a solution, where it does not also involve addressing the criminal nature of the contents of the Koran. Ban it or revise it. Its that simple.
Sorry - hat-tip to Matt Drudge for this link.
http://www.drudgereport.com
54. A few quotes from the Koran:
“If anyone killed a person… it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
“There should be no compulsion in religion.”
“But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility.”
You still did not comment on my post at 49. Should that passage be banned?
54 It’s “Thou Shalt Not Murder” if correctly translated, killing is OK if carried out as ordained (Burning of fortune tellers, stoning adulterers etc.)
Let’s not feed the millennialist fantasies of fundamentalist religious nuts of any denomination.
59 - I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. A govenment in the Western World cannot reasonably ban the religious text of a world religion with over one billion adherents.
It would alienate Muslims the world over, including in the UK, inflame tensions, lead to (justified) complaints of double-standards, and would not actually restrict the distribution of the text by terrorists who already distribute banned material.
If you removed the Koran, you would not stop Islamic terrorism. You would encourage low-level martyrdom - civil disobedience for a combination of aims: freedom of speech and religious toleration. You would excite a ferocious campaign of civil liberties activists, likely supported by the full weight of European Law (ECHR - which I dislike intensely).
You may find the book a disgrace, and wish to repudiate all it says, but this is a more complex problem than you allow. I appreciate your frustration, but banning books (let alone the Koran) is rarely the solution to any given problem.
63
Would you ban The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
62 - Never really understood that “thou shalt not murder” business. Surely the definition of murder is a purely legal matter. To comply with the commandment, all you need to do is refrain from killing those whom your own government has granted judicial protection. So in imperial Rome, say, the killing of a Christian would be within God’s law.
61. The entire project of the Koran is the killing of non-Muslims. Its that simple. None of your quotes state ‘thou shalt not kill’, that is killing is wrong unconditionaly. They state that if people convert to Islam they will be ‘forgiven’, etc. etc. I’ve read it all many, many times over.
That is, therefore ‘go on killing those that are NON-MUSLIMS’. Which is precisely what Muslims across the world so often do. Ban or revise the Koran. Its that simple. If the Koran where different Bhutto would still be alive right now. Its that simple.
The punishment for what the Koran describes as ‘hypocrasy’ in the practice of Koranic injuctions, is also death. Hence the death penalty currently meted out to so many that renounce Islam. I feel sorry for anyone born a Muslim!
64 ALthough I, ironically, don’t believe in a ‘right’ to free speech (I don’t like rights language generally) - I wouldn’t ban even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I cannot think of a single movement that has genuinely suffered by having its literature banned. Banning writings is the best way of disseminating the banned message. Half the press received by the BNP is on the back of being silenced by ‘no platform’ policies. Lady Chatterley’s Lover became a best-seller because of the censorship involved. I cannot think of a single text in modern times that has been successfully banned. From a purely pragmatic perspective, I think banning literature is politically futile, and shows incredible weakness.
We are never going to get away from the fact that the Koran is causing a serious law and order problem in the UK, and security problem globally, until the Koran is banned or revised.
As we are waging a global and domestic war on terrorism anyway, we just need to make this its goal - banning or revising the Koran greed at a global level between nation states in a civilised manner. Is MI5 and MI6 listening?
Why is it that wherever you find Koranic distribution centres you also find terrorist cells. Its no accident, its the Koran.
News re: Rik W, if anyone is interested
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2019/2019516/tory_aide_to_keep_his_job
Apparently, he is going to keep his job as Rob Wilson’s bagman.
68 - Ok, revising the Koran cannot happen, and if you know it well, you will understand why. It is the received word of Allah, conveyed by his archangel Jibreel to the Prophet. It cannot be ‘revised’ at will. You are talking about banning the Qu’ran.
Nothing is agreed that easily at a global level between nation states, especially when many of the most populus and powerful are Islamic states (Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran). This will never happen.
Your final sentence is a classic example of a ‘post-hoc, ergo propter hoc’ fallacy - the Koran is not the sole cause of terrorism, for if it were, there would be terror wherever there is a the dissemination of the message of the Koran. The Sufi and Ismaili places of worship do not have problems with terror, but are equally involved with the text of the Koran. This is a more complex problem than a book that could be banned, even if that were possible.
“until the Koran is banned or revised.”
Madness. Not even worth joking about, I hope you are ashamed of yourself.
(I hope everyone had a good Christmas. On my family visit, my mother, unprompted, said that she liked David Cameron - the writing for Brown isn’t just on the wall, therefore, it’s been transcribed, published and is topping the best seller lists….)
66. There is plenty else in the Koran, including the regulation of trade, family life, society. It includes the golden rule of treating others like you would treat yourself, and even says you should act kindly towards animals. The bits on external jihad are a minority of the work.
I would agree that it never says that killing is wrong unconditionally, but how many political philosophies do? As others have pointed out above, even the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not murder”, i.e. kill ILLEGALLY. By your logic we should ban all philosophies except some forms of Buddhism and a few other radical pacifist movements. Even in modern morality we accept killing in the form of war.
And you STILL haven’t addressed whether we should ban the passage I quoted in 49. Anyone would think you know it exposes double standards!
In the UK we have a very clear statement of principle stated by John Stuart Mill, in his seminal ‘On Liberty’ strongly influencing our laws on freedom of speech.
We have total freedom of speech, belief, etc. unless we are instructing others carry out acts that bring physical harm. This is why the Koran braks the law, but the BNP, etc. do not.
For example ‘conspiracy to murder’ is a crime of instructing another to kill, and/or making the necessary plans. It is words that intruct t kill. This is precisely what the Koran does. The BNP however do no such thing in their lawful political campaigning, as two separate juries decided 2 years ago. This is why the Koran breaks the law, and others you quote do not.
On the BNP is is interesting to note that they were warning about the contents of the Koran, long before anyone else took notice. How many lives would have been saved, if we’d had that international agreement to ban the Koran sooner.
69. Idiot. No reason why he shouldnt keep his job.
A breath of fresh air compared to NuLab liars and self appointed Political Correctness Nazis.
Britain needs honest politicians.
73 - I decided many years ago not to engage with BNP apologists - I’m not impingeing on your freedom of speech, or your extraordinarily pedestrian understanding of the issues involved, I’m just not prepared to discuss this with you, as believe you to be intellectually and morally beneath me. Good night.
73 - I think we know which party you are coming from now thank you very much.
(…and for the record, I’ve been a consistent supporter of free speech re the BNP and so on on here and elsewhere, I think you’ve just proved why that’s a good idea).
74. If his employer, a political representative, felt Rik W’s views were contrary to his campaign, then Rob Wilson is perfectly entitled to sack him.
If Rob Wilson, on the other hand, feels such views can be accomodated with his own, then he should be perfectly entitled to keep him on (as he has).
The electorate are also entirely entitled to make their voting decisions in that knowledge.
73. So we should also ban the Torah and the Bible? You STILL haven’t addressed post 49!
74 moderate you language please. No need for ‘idiot’.
67 Marcus
What about this DIY manual to murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors
and the case of RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES which followed.
ukpaul, why do you feel that ‘kill the non-Muslims wherever you find them’, and ’slay the non-Muslims that dwell around you’ are acceptable? I’m rather surprised.
If we did a straw poll of readers informed of the contents of the Koran, I suspect that 90% or more would want its contents banned or revised. Its that simple.
Yes there are a few Islamic terrorists that might vote, and whose votes you might want. But there are far more non-Muslims whose votes you would lose, as your desire to appease Islamic terrorism becomes apparent. Even most Muslims privately have their doubts about the contents of Koran.
Appeasement is never the answer as it leads to progessively greater demands that inevitably leads to war. War we now have. Nuclear it will become, unless we act in the only way that will bring peace. What is the alternative? To go on pretending that the Koran is an innocent document about peace and doves. There are no longer such fools to be found.
Acceptable and wanting to ban are two different things, I don’t find your views particularly acceptable but I don’t want to ban them.
79. Or indeed, a manual on how to produce a nuclear bomb?
58. Interesting. Useless for the hard numbers, of course, but the changes will be fun to watch.
McCain has just won the Republican nomination. Giuliani was my personal favourite but he is too liberal a Republican to get through the primaries. I’m gonna say a McCain-Huckabee ticket for 2008 but I still think they’ll lose to a Clinton-Richardson ticket come November.
74 It is almost certain that I am an idiot, O Man Named Bolted Horse, but I can assure you that the only reason I posted the link was because Rik W is known to many of us here, and we are interested in his predicament. If you re-read my post, you will see that I made no reference to the wisdom or otherwise of the decision made.
84. On what basis has he won the nomination, Bhutto’s death?
84, 86. If Giuliani loses the nomination it will be on his personal life, not on his abortion or gun control views. He’s the one that has been running on “tough on terror”, not McCain.
No disrespect to Mrs Bhutto - and her assassination is deplorable and a tragedy - but it will make no difference to the White House 08
GETTING BACK TO US PRESIDENTIAL:
Personally doubtful that Pakistani crisis will have significant impact upon US presidential caucuses & primaries UNLESS and UNTIL there’s more than death and guns and rioting in the streets: for example, the overthrow of Musharaff and/or takeover by avowed Islamicists. For one thing, Americans are MUCh less attuned to the Subcontinent than are Brits.
IF there is impact, on Democratic side think 2 & 3 are on to something, that OBAMA may benefit because media will credit him with foresight. Actually gives him some foreign policy cred. Also fact that Hilary had years of contact with Benazir has been rendered meanless, along with fact that the change message just got underlined in tragic but unmistakable manner.
On the GOP side, picture is less clear. Huckabee may suffer simply because his foreign policy credentials are so weak ALTHOUGH he might have an opportunity IF he comes out with a reasonably well-thought-out statement on Pakistan that points out the some of the more glaring holes in the conventional wisdom as touted by the rest of the field. McCain may also get a wee boost because he is insurgent with security cred. And Giuliani has another shot to beat his drum, though no doubt will step on his own message by going on about the times he met BB as Mayor of NYC, because THAT is the only subject Rudy ever wants to talk about to anybody willing to listen. Which no longer includes the national political press . . . but the assassination may help him . . . for about 15 minutes.
BUT again most Republicans will tend to associate the Pakistan mess with the Afghan mess with the Iraq mess SO naturally they want to take about illegal immigration or cutting taxes or anything but the WAR . . .
Think you should starting making book on the next PAKISTAN ELECTION. Anyway you slice it, THAT will be one to watch.
88 “No disrespect to Mrs Bhutto - and her assassination is deplorable and a tragedy - but it will make no difference to the White House 08”
If Pakistan troubles spill over onto the streets of Britain, it will impact No 10, 2010.
Handsome woman Benazir Bhutto. My favourite Pakistani.
Foreboding, Islam doesn’t need banning it needs a reformation. Fundamentalists in any religion who believe their particular holy book is the unerring word of God incapable of being interpreted or contextualized are in my opinion mentally unhinged and in need of treatment. Most Christians do not believe the Bible to be the work of God now, if they did, then they would be just as much trouble as the Muslims, e.g. the pretty wacky evangelicals in the US.
91 “Most Christians do not believe the Bible to be the work of God now”
Can you provide a link to the poll?
Christian fundamentalists believe in the Garden of Eden, 5000yr old Earth and no sex before marriage.
Islamic Fundamentalist slash women face for not wearing a veil, throw gays off mountains and behead Christian Schoolgirls
The newspapers are filled with stories of muslim daughters being murdered for dating the wrong race/religion, 7/7 bombers, shoe bombers, 911 bombers, madrid bombers.
Meanwhile Christian monks have fisticuffs in Bethlehem. Not really the same.
Do you see the difference? Or are you as whacky as a US TV evangelist?
Despite much of the ill-directed speculation, it is clear that Bhutto’s assassination will increase the risk of terrorist elements in Pakistan getting control of one or more fission devices. Several questions are prompted:
(1) What are the chances of (say) the Taliban getting hold of a device? (I would guess somewhere between 0% and 20%.)
(2) Assuming that they get hold of a device, what are the chances of it being viable? (I would guess between 50% and 90%.)
(3) Assuming the device is viable, what is its likely yield? (I would guess between 500 tons of TNT and 5 kilotons of TNT - Pakistan’s test explosions have not been very successful.)
(4) Realpolitik: Assuming a terrorist group has control of a viable device, what is the chance of them being able to detonate it at location that the West cares about? (I would guess between 5% and 50%.)
Putting that lot together, I reckon that overall chance of a terrorist group getting hold of a viable fission device and detonating it has a best case of 0%, and a worst case of around 9%.
Now all this figures are purely speculative, but the question at the top of the thread could be re-phrased: “Would the US government be concerned enough about a 9% chance of a Western target getting nuked to do something about it?”
Personally, I find it a bit more scarey than the (likely) prospect of my medical records being lost by the government over the next year or two.
91. What about Christian Identity? The NLFT? The Klu Klux Klan?
The main difference between Christian extremists and Muslim extremists is their numbers.
re 94 what about them?
94. What total bollox. C’mon Socrates, you don’t really believe that.
Do you?
94
Barking.
Guardian is, perhaps unsurprisingly, scathing about the Bush administration. Some choice exerpts:
“Although the US administration’s policy now lies in tatters, Bhutto’s death is unlikely to lead to widescale change.”
“I think the Bush Administration is too strongly tied to Musharraf…I don’t think they are likely to pull back now despite the fact that it is abundantly clear…that the Musharraf dictatorship was bringing neither stability or democracy to Pakistan”
94 & etc.
Apparently some have forgotten TIMOTHY McVEIGH and the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995 that destroyed the Alfred Murrah Federal Building, killed 168 people (including children in daycare center) and injured over 800 more.
This is ridiculous most movements have had their share of violent extremists,
Catholicism - guy fawkes, Northern Ireland
Animal rights- PETA
Marxism - guerrilas in southern america
Racism - obvious
Pro-Life - bombing abortion clinics
Humans will always find a cause to kill people for. We didn’t ban any of the others.
Latest Iowa poll numbers FWIW. Looking very close….
http://politicalwire.com/
For Democrats, it’s Obama at 30%, Clinton at 29% and Edwards at 28%.
For Republicans, it’s Huckabee at 29%, Romney at 27%, Thompson at 15%; and McCain at 14%.
99 etc.
None of those wanted to take over the world - by force of arms.
I thought McVeigh was for Ruby Ridge etc?
101. Romney in Iowa…ummmm
I’m not prepared to pitch into teh Deonmcrat race there at all.
One final thing, if youve been on McCain my advice is to lay ogff if you can and close up for the moment, take profit. The last few days I’ve been worrying that he just doesnt have the momentum needed early on, though if he stuck it out it might get interesting later on. I’ve got a no lose on McCain but havent fully laid off for profit yet as I’m leaving a bit uncovered in a shot for glory bet. If Romney goes west in Iows then NH is very possibel for McCain to take but a Ronmey win in Iowa may have him hold on in NH too.
102. I’m not sure that muslims want to take over the world, neither am i sure that they all agree on one overall aim as a religion.
3. I think Mike from New Jersey’s post could prove insightful. This may improve Obama’s electoral prospects, for two reasons.
Firstly, for the reason he argues. Obama may well come to be regarded as prescient in his comments about the risks that currently arise from Pakistan.
Secondly, today’s tragedy further raises the increasing global perception and fear of the threat posed by extremist Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. How to respond?
If, in this extraordinarily changed and dangerously perceived climate, the most powerful nation in the world can find the audacity to elect it’s first black President, who also happens to be bright, articulate and hugely charismatic, then what an opportunity for all our futures!
More US Polls…
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll28dec28,0,5452139.story?page=1&coll=la-politics-campaign
summarised as follows
Obama drew backing from 32% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters to Clinton’s 30%
In Iowa, Clinton is backed by 29% of Democratic voters, compared with 26% for Obama and 25% for Edwards
The Iowa race is essentially a two-man race between Huckabee (37%) and Romney (23%); the other candidates are far behind. McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson drew 11%
The Republican pecking order is completely different in New Hampshire…Huckabee barely registers, backed by only 9%, while Romney leads with 34%. McCain has jumped into second place with 21% of the vote, Giuliani dropped nine points to 15%.
but in the wake of today’s sad news, it also flagged up
“But other poll findings suggest Clinton might gain stature in both states if Democrats’ concern about world affairs increases in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The poll shows that Democrats in both Iowa and New Hampshire — as they do elsewhere around the country — consider Clinton far-better equipped than her rivals to safeguard national security.
The poll found that Republicans in New Hampshire and Iowa consider McCain best qualified to handle foreign affairs.”
105. I also think it does McCain’s chances no harm. I know his support of the Iraq war has not been an electoral asset for him. But he has never dissembled or flip-flopped. The Iraq surge seems to have gone well which may gain him some credit for his resolution?
In the current circumstances his personification of courage, strength and solidity will do him no harm.
No one has commented on how Romney may be affected by the event of Bhutto’s assassination? Nor do I know how he performs on foreign policy issues?
I’ve been out (at the mosque!) and only just had a chance to read the rest of this thread. The verses quoted instructing Muslims to kill non-Muslims require being put in context. As the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (saw) over a period of 23 years, different verses related to different events in his lifetime. When the Muslims were being attacked, the Prophet (saw) was eventually given permission to go to battle and fight, hence the verses being sent down.
However, in war there are nonetheless laws to be followed, such as not being able to attack an enemy on the battlefield if he is fleeing.
I shall finish with the words of Imam Ali (as), “He who is not your brother in Islam is your equal in humanity.”
Good night.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, GQ.
Very good nite to you too.
This contemptible crime will have little effect on Pakistan (let alone the USA) other than to accelerate what was already going to happen. Bhutto was part of the past, not the future; she was ineffective as PM, and was sacked twice for corruption. If she had become PM again (which I doubt) then she would only have been a short-term prop to provide legitimacy for the wretched Musharraf government, and would have been sacked fairly soon anyway. The future for Pakistan lies with the military and/or the people and possibly the PML(N), but not the PPP.
My 94 was actually meant in response to 92.
96 etc. I admit I was being a bit polemical. I generally agree with post 100. Pretty much any movement can evolve peacefully or violently, religions especially so. As it happens, Christianity is now mainly a benign source of comfort for millions round the globe, and its violently minded elements have been almost entirely marginalised. But I think that marginalisation has occurred because of the political evolution of the West, from causes external to religion. While I’m not expecting it to happen any time soon, there is no reason why the same can’t happen to the Muslim world. I don’t doubt that had the Mongol conquests never occurred, Christendom might be second rate to a progressive Islamic society, with its own terrorism.
107. Most Republicans seem to be under the impression we are now going to win the Iraq war, and McCain’s recovery began with the improvements from the surge there. McCain actually criticised Bush for starting the war with too few troops, and argued for the surge all along. Thus its perceived successes have helped him come back from a huge lag.
As for Romney, FP events neither hinder him nor help him. Neither does any other issue. He’s not really associated with having conviction about anything. He is just ticking boxes and looking Presidential. This is why I think he won’t survive.
100. Catholicism has nothing to do with the Northern Ireland problem, or the Irish problem in general…
112. Thanks for that Socrates.
I don’t think this tragedy will affect the White House race at all. Americans, like everyone else in the world, vote on domestic issues.
Might benefit Clinton & McCain as they’re seen as their parties’ ’solid and strong’ candidates - will be interesting to see how everyone plays Pakistan. Would actually like to see a McCain/Clinton or Clinton/McCain ticket…
hello..
thanks