Nov 262015
 

To bomb or not to bomb. That is the overly simplistic question.

Daesh or ISIS or ISIL, or just that gang of murderous thugs are an odious bunch who deserve to be bombed into oblivion, but will bombing them actually accomplish anything? If I were convinced that bombing would either destroy ISIS (I'll stick with that name) without causing an unacceptable level of innocent victims, or it was part of a well planned and coherant set of policies to defeat ISIS then I would support bombing.

But I'm not convinced. And I don't support bombing.

Bombing has rarely if ever managed to defeat an enemy – bombs didn't stop Britain fighting in WWII, bombs didn't stop Germany fighting in WWII, etc. The example bombing fans always point to is the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan at the end of WWII; I would argue that those bombs didn't by themselves stop Japan from fighting on. 

Bombing has been tried against ISIS before – just look above – does it look like a place that hasn't been bombed? And does ISIS seem like an organisation teetering on the edge of collapse? I'm inclined to agree with those who argue that ISIS is made stronger by bombs because of the propoganda they can make of it. They certainly make a better case than those who just shout "Bomb 'em".

Come up with a reasonable strategy to defeat ISIS with a beginning, middle, and an end, and I'll support it – whether it includes bombing or not. 

We have seen before that the West does not always plan these things very carefully – the second Iraq war was militarily well organised (as far as I'm qualifed to judge), but the aftermath wasn't planned for at all. We need a proper strategy.

Nov 252015
 

There's a lot that can be said about today's spending review, and I dare say people are saying some things about it.

But my chosen topic is that "U-turn" that the media keep banging on about. What's so bad about listening and changing a bad policy?

At the moment, we have a political environment where changing your mind is seen as somehow irresponsible and indecisive; yet what we have hear is a chancellor who has decided that the opposition to his tax credit cuts (which will disproportionally hit the poor) were opposed for genuinely good reasons.

Is re-assessing a bad policy in the light of heavy opposition really a bad thing?

Of course Osborne has sneakily got the cuts in anyway; all his welfare savings that he planned to get by punishing the poor for their feckless ways are still going to come about because he has still cut "Universal Credit" which new claiments get. It's existing claiments of "tax credits" who get their reprieve.

Nov 222015
 

There are approximately 1.6 billion muslims in the world today, so there are 1.6 billion different versions of islam; in most cases the differences are trivial (at least to "unbelievers").  In other cases the differences are rather more obvious.

Each muslim supposedly reads the Qur'an differently and consciously or unconsciously gives different conflicting verses a different emphasis: The obvious being :-

…slay the pagans wherever ye find them

And :-

whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

Any normal person is going to emphasise the second verse whereas murderous psychopaths will emphasise the first.

For those who think that only the qur'an is like this, take a closer look at the bible – in particular deuteronomy 17.

As a wooly minded liberal, I have a problem with certain aspects of certain flavours of islam :-

  • Apostasy. A number of those versions of islam have no place for god in them; if you become an atheist in certain islamic countries it is safest to go through the motions. Because being stoned to death for apostasy would ruin your entire day. And atheists are the lucky ones – it is possible for us to go through the motions and pretend.
  • Women's rights. I'm not happy with anything that believes in second class citizens.
  • Criticism. I'm human and I've got a right to criticise anything which I see has issues. Calling it "blasphemy" and threatening me with stoning isn't a sensible way of facing criticism.

But the main problem is of course that a tiny number (in comparison to the total) of versions of islam support terrorism. Interestingly there are suggestions that many terrorists have an extremely limited understanding of islam.

Mainstream muslims protest that the terrorists aren't real muslims and that islam is a religion of peace. Fair enough.

But perhaps they should go a step further and declare that supporters of terrorism and terrorists are apostates, and need to talk with a qualified iman about rejoining the faith.

For those who think that this is a uniquely islamic problem, you should read up on christian terrorism