A thread for people to post Mark Steel articles
âIn recent years most of humanity has become proudly more tolerant of groups who once seemed to be on the margins of society. But until now itâs still been seen as acceptable to be offensive about one minority, which is the child murdering community.
At last it seems the mood is changing, and finally weâre beginning to hear the child murderersâ point of view.
For example one brave soul, prepared to speak out, is spokesman Uri Drome, who explained on Radio 4 yesterday that although the Israeli government bombed a school that several children died in, the deaths are clearly the fault of the people who live in the areas being bombed.
What a refreshing change from that tired old thinking that always blames murder on the murderer.
Mister Drome, once a spokesman for the Israeli government said the Israelis were âlured into a trap, now Hamas sheds crocodile tears about the dead.â
If only more of us understood bombed schools in this way. We always rush to judge some poor kid in an American town who mows down his classmates, without even pausing to consider the dead kids probably tricked him into it, and now to make it worse their parents are all pretending to cry.
Even more imaginative was Michael Oren, ex-Israeli ambassador In Washington, on Channel 4 News. He explained that Hamas was to blame for all this death, because âThey are booby-trapping toasters and fridges in their houses.â
It goes to show you should never make up your mind too quickly. Many of us see pictures of buildings reduced to rubble with a bomb sticking out, and hastily conclude the bomb had something to do with the explosion. But look carefully and it becomes obvious the cause was the silly sods have blown themselves up with an exploding toaster.
I bet if we went back to Hiroshima and checked what happened more thoroughly, weâd discover the blast was nothing to do with an atom bomb, and was caused by a booby-trapped kettle.
I hope consumer programmes in Gaza cover this issue, to warn people of the dangers. The Gaza edition of Watchdog this week should start âWeâve received several complaints from those of you who bought one of these toasters from Hamas, and were surprised when it caused your entire street to explode.â
Benjamin Netanyahu spoke out for child murderersâ civil rights by informing us the Palestinians deliberately arrange the âtelegenically deadâ to be filmed, to attract sympathy. So it seems Hamas stroll round bomb sites, placing the prettiest corpses on view for film crews, otherwise weâd all think âit doesnât matter that the Israelis killed that kid, he was an ugly little bastard anywayâ.
Other spokesman have repeated this line, and maybe soon theyâll take it to the next stage, claiming the Palestinians we see howling with anguish about their dead children have been trained at a special Hamas acting school. Directors yell âOne more rehearsal everyone, now as soon as weâve blown up our toaster we want all the cast kneeling and sobbing, give it everything loves, everything, then weâll go for a takeâ.
As the bombing continues I expect weâll hear more reasons why the Palestinians are to blame for being bombed. An Israeli minister will say âThese people in Gaza are always complaining that they live in a densely populated area, so weâre trying to help them out by reducing the population as much as we can to give them more space. But theyâre STILL not happy. Some people are never satisfied.â
The Israelis insist they give warnings before bombing somewhere, and in general we all forgive someone bombing a school as long as they let you know theyâre doing it five minutes in advance. Given how crowded the area is, and the scale of the bombing, any warning might seem fairly useless unless it gives you instructions on how to fly or escape into another dimension like Doctor Who, but at least the intention is there.
Now theyâre calling up another 16,000 reservists, but if they donât think theyâre managing to do enough damage already, a better strategy might be to scrap their F16 bombers that clearly arenât up to the job, and replace them with some booby-trapped toasters as apparently theyâre far more effective.
In less enlightened times, those responsible for such murder would be snarled at in the street and their pictures displayed on newspapers under inflammatory headlines. But thankfully weâre growing more liberal, and can only regret that more thought wasnât given to treating murderers kindly in the past.
Poor Fred West, for example, instead of barely being given a chance to make his case, could have sat in TV studios saying âOf course I regret the deaths of civilians. But you have to understand these people I murdered could be a bloody nuisance. I was lured into killing them, and Iâm not even sure I did kill them until Iâve carried out my own investigation. Some of them kill themselves to get sympathy by booby-trapping their ironing boards you know.â
As times change, maybe Netanyahu and his spokesmen will become even more forthright, and organise âChild Murderer Prideâ in which child murderers can get together for a procession and carnival, where they can at last feel safe, and no longer feel looked down on, for carrying out their basic human right to bomb a school to bits.â
After a week in Scotland it has become clear to me that the debate about independence here is unfathomably confusing. The main argument of the Better Together campaign seems to be that an independent Scotland wonât be allowed to use the pound, as if this means theyâll have no currency so will have to forage for berries and boil their pandas for soup.
Without the pound the Scottish will have to drink North Sea oil and huddle under curling stones for warmth, because an independent country canât possibly come up with its own currency, which is why since the Americans became independent the dollar has been such a disaster and is now worthless compared with the mighty sixpence.
Next theyâll say that an independent Scotland canât use British clouds, so all rain will become the property of the Meteorological Office, turning Scotland into a desert overrun by wolves in 2018. Nor will they be allowed to keep the British religion, so the Holy Ghost will stop at Carlisle and everyone in Scotland will be forced to worship Zeus.
Yesterday Margaret Curran MP announced that another reason to vote No was that âan independent Scotland would lose access to some BBC programmes.â Is this the level of the debate as a nation decides its destiny? When Gandhi was fighting for the liberation of India did he tell his supporters, âNot only will we become a free and self-governing people, proud at last to determine our own future, but weâll still be able to watch Homes Under the Hammer?â
Also yesterday, one anti-independence paper declared that âbusinessman Jack Perry has worked out an independent Scotland will face cuts above the ÂŁ6bn already predictedâ. Because some people might think, âIâm not put off by cuts of six billion, but six billion and a bit, sod that for a lark.â
One common argument among the English who oppose independence is that the rest of us will be consigned to perpetual Conservative government. This doesnât seem fair for Scotland to put up with Tory governments that hardly any of them vote for, just so they can top up the anti-Tory vote in England. You might as well say we should invade Cuba and make it part of Basildon, as that should ensure a key marginal always goes to Labour.
But the campaign for independence doesnât always appear very dynamic either. How did Alex Salmond manage to lose a debate with Alistair Darling? Most of us never manage to stay awake throughout an Alistair Darling sentence, never mind agree with it. Whenever an interviewer responds to one of his comments by challenging his figures, it feels a more suitable response should be, âWhat? Oh Iâm sorry I completely drifted off, I was wondering whether Iâve any fish fingers left in the fridge, I do apologise.â
One problem for the Yes campaign might be that it assures everyone an independent Scotland will keep the pound and stay in the EU and Nato and the slogan seems to be, âTake this opportunity to vote for enormous change because you can be sure nothing much will change. But we will get our own entry in the Eurovision Song Contest.â
Top of the SNP pledges for an independent Scotland is that âwe will be committed to creating jobs and opportunities for Scots old and newâ. What a shame William Wallace didnât think to shout something as inspiring as that as he was being executed by Edward Longshanks, instead of âFreedom!â.
Perhaps this is why, for a country making such a decision, it feels strangely sedate. A few people wear Yes badges, but it hardly feels like the crescendo of a movement for nationhood. I donât suppose leaders of liberation armies in Ireland in 1919, or Algeria in 1959, made speeches that went, âOur mighty nation of brothers and sisters stands in glorious opposition to our oppressors. The colonialist dogs must know their brutal rule is at an end, for this morning I counted no fewer than five window posters, and two people said they hadnât made their mind up yet but theyâd certainly read my leaflet.â
One explanation could be that Scotland hasnât been a subject of Englandâs empire in the same way as Ireland or India. Instead the Scottish helped to run the empire, so the recent growth in nationalism that led to the increase in support for the SNP, and the referendum, must spring from a different sentiment to the sort that fuelled the anti-colonial movements.
It has probably been a result of the SNP becoming the party most hostile to the British government, in ways such as opposing the war in Iraq and refusing to introduce tuition fees.
This is why we should be grateful to the group whose tactic is to be furious with anyone English, and with anyone who doesnât despise the English, for their lively thoughts. Youâll hear from these if you make any public comment on the matter, so you could write on Twitter that âEdinburgh is a little colder than London, being some distance to the northâ and youâll get 400 replies along the lines of âTypical ignorant English twatface temperature fascist arseknob balls to latitude why does BBC never mention Drumnadrochit?!!?!â
Great thread mate, Iâd never heard of this chap before. He seems like the opposite of Ian OâDoherty, in that he is left leaning and funny. Would that be a fair summation?
you would have seen him on tv quite a bit id assume, do you recognise him?
[QUOTE=âYoung Ned of the Hill, post: 1004526, member: 80â]you would have seen him on tv quite a bit id assume, do you recognise him?
I do actually.
MARK STEEL
Thursday 23 July 2015
The last thing Labour needs is a leader like Jeremy Corbyn who people want to vote for
Maybe they should change their election rules again, so that anyone who disagrees with Tony Blair is only allowed to stand if they promise to get fewer than eight votes
At last sensible Labour politicians are injecting some maturity into the leadership debate. To start with, Tony Blairâs aide John McTernan called anyone who nominated Jeremy Corbyn a âmoronâ, which is such a refreshing change from the divisive and childish approach of the Left.
His next statement will be that Jeremy Corbyn smells like a poo-poo and anyone who votes for him has a tiny willy, because John McTernan understands the importance of Labour appearing grown up and united.
Now Blair himself has informed us Corbyn would be a disaster. This could cause a problem, because for giving his views in a speech Blair usually charges at least ÂŁ200,000, and Labourâs finances are stretched enough as it is. Normally heâs advising the government of Kazakhstan or a Saudi Arabian oil company, or shaking hands with characters like Colonel Gaddafi so itâs surprising he didnât suggest cancelling the election and putting the army in charge of the party, and sentencing Diane Abbott to 500 lashes. Even so itâs sweet of him to take time out from his busy schedule.
He said that if your heart is telling you to vote for Corbyn, you need a heart transplant. You can see how he thinks this, because the first word anyone thinks of when they see Blair is âheartâ. Tony Heart Blair is what his friends President Assad of Syria and ex-military ruler Mubarak of Egypt call him.
When youâre responsible for all the heartfelt warmth and sunshine that resulted from invading Iraq, itâs understandable if you get angry with heartless types such as Jeremy Corbyn who opposed it all along, but not everyone can live up to Blairâs standards.
Blairâs supporters point out that although his current image is tarnished, we should remember he was hugely popular in 1997.
The Blair viewpoint has clearly affected Margaret Beckett, as sheâs one of the MPs who nominated Corbyn, and her response to being called a moron was to agree. She regrets helping him to stand for the election, she says, as she never guessed he would win as much support as he has. This is a novel attitude towards democracy, that the worst thing you can do in an election is allow someone to stand if they might win.
Maybe Labour should change its rules for elections again, so that anyone who disagrees with Blair is only allowed to stand if they sign a pledge to get fewer than eight votes.
Luckily, Corbynâs opponents are making a persuasive case for their own bids. Andy Burnham is especially clear that heâs opposed to the Toryâs Welfare Bill, as it will âHit working familiesâ and âhit children particularly badlyâ. Indeed heâs so opposed to it that he was determined not to vote against it. The most effective way to oppose it, he insisted, was to abstain rather than vote against it, because that way he can unite the party against it.
Itâs so rare that a politician speaks clearly like that, in a language we can all understand. Presumably heâll be telling all his supporters not to vote for him in the leadership election, but to abstain as that way he can win by even more.
Burnham is known as an Everton fan, so when heâs at their games he must try and persuade the Everton supporters to sing âSpurs and Everton, Spurs and Everton, weâll abstain on this one evermore, weâll abstain on this one ever-moreâ, rather than fall into the trap of supporting the team he supports by supporting them.
Maybe his plan is to make Labour electable again by supporting all the different policies. If he becomes leader, Labour will support the cuts and oppose them, and oppose fox-hunting but support it as well, and that way the party can win votes from everyone.
It could be that the reason three of the candidates are struggling to make an impact is they donât seem capable of expressing what they stand for.
Whenever theyâre asked what they believe in they make grand replies such as âI want a Britain not of down but of up, for the always and not the never, that reaches out to all of us, not only people on the 133 bus, a Britain not just of the liver but also the kidney, a Britain that can care, can share, be debonair, fair, abstain on the austere, and say a prayer like Tony Blair.â
Liz Kendall makes some effort to stand for something definite, which is to be like Blair but more so, and next week sheâll probably criticise Blair for only invading Iraq once when he should have done it twice.
There are reports that Kendall has asked Yvette Cooper to drop out, as Liz stands the best chance of beating Corbyn. As every survey shows Kendall is by some distance last, thatâs impressive and I might try this myself. Iâll suggest to Mo Farah that he drops out of the 5,000m in next yearâs Olympics, as my time of two hours is the only one that stands a chance of beating the Kenyans.
All three are now squabbling, not about ideas or policies or even their favourite type of biscuit, but over which one has the best chance to beat Corbyn. And they must beat him, because by being capable of expressing his ideas clearly and simply, for example by voting against welfare cuts, he makes himself unelectable.
If you look at Corbynâs record itâs clear he just canât win elections. In his constituency of Islington North he inherited a majority of 4,456, which is now 21,194. Heâs one of the few Labour MPs whose vote increased between 2005 and 2010, when he added 5,685 to his majority. This is typical of the man, defying the official Labour policy of losing votes and getting more of them instead, just to be a rebel.
So letâs hope one of the others triumphs, and at least wins back the votes Labour lost in Scotland, where so many people at the last election said âI canna vote Labour, they donât abstain enough for me, the wee morons.â
MARK STEEL
Friday 14 August 2015
With hundreds of thousands of new supporters, Labour is on the verge of something big â what a complete disaster!
Having loads of young voters engage with your party must be terrifying
Itâs easy to see why those in charge of the Labour Party are so depressed. They must sit in their office crying: âHundreds of thousands of people want to join us. Itâs a disaster. And loads of them are young, and full of energy, and theyâre really enthusiastic. Oh my God, why has it all gone so miserably wrong?â
Every organisation would be the same. If a local brass band is down to its last five members, unsure whether it can ever put on another performance, the last thing it needs is young excited people arriving with trombones to boost numbers and raise money and attract large audiences. The sensible response is to tell them theyâre idiots, and announce to the press that they are infiltrators from the Workersâ Revolutionary Party.
The Labour Party in recent years has insisted that itâs a party that understands business. But if it were running Apple, it would employ a novel approach. A report could come in that a new product was so successful that customers were queuing up to see it, and the sales staff were having to stand on fire engines to address the crowds eager to buy it. So Labour would say: âWeâll scrap that for a start. Letâs promote our other models that have initiated no interest from anyone whatsoever, such as a digital table mat. Thatâs how to make money.â
The fervour around Jeremy Corbyn is extraordinary, but it wouldnât be fair to suggest heâs the only Labour politician who can bring large crowds on to the streets to greet him. Tony Blair is just as capable. In his case the crowds are there to scream that he should be arrested for war crimes and to throw things at him, but thatâs being pernickety; he can certainly draw an audience.
Blair made another contribution to the leadership debate this week, and his prose is worth quoting. It goes: âThe party is walking eyes shut, arms outstretched, over the cliffâs edge to the jagged rocks below. This is not a moment to refrain from disturbing the serenity of the walk on the basis it causes âdisunityâ. It is a moment for a rugby tackle if that were possible.â
Itâs fitting this was published on the day that A-level results were announced, as itâs hard to imagine how any examiner would have marked this. Itâs possible he didnât even write it himself, and heâs stolen it from the lyrics of an obscure prog rock band from 1975. Maybe thereâs another verse: âAs we float across Narnia in a bubble of tadpoles, an iguana with a beard threatens to make us anti-business by renationalising the railways, and we cry in a golden canoe that no one will vote for us in Nuneaton.â
Or he was simply trying to convey the scale of apocalypse that will result from Labour electing a leader who stands for something. Tomorrow heâll add: âOur great party is literally climbing into the mouth of a lion, as it stands unaware of an American dentist poised behind, dozing as it climbs into a ride at Alton Towers that hasnât been checked since 2008, placing our economy in a shopping mall in America just before a teenager goes berserk with a machine gun. Is THAT what you WANT?â
His accomplice of old, Alastair Campbell, has been just as coherent, insisting Jeremy Corbyn would lead the party to disaster beyond imagination. Maybe thereâs still time for Alastair to prove his point by compiling a dossier explaining in detail exactly how Jeremy Corbyn would cause this disaster, showing beyond doubt that the disaster would be caused within 45 minutes, so that the only rational response is to invade Jeremy Corbyn.
This week, I was lucky enough to enjoy at first hand this calm approach of Labourâs leaders, when my application to register as a supporter was turned down on the grounds that: âWe have reason to believe that you do not support the aims and values of the Labour Party.â I suppose itâs encouraging that theyâre being so thorough, although it could be argued that leading your country into a disastrous invasion, having justified it with a set of premises it turns out you made up, is also slightly at odds with the aims and values of the Labour Party. So, presumably, Blair and Campbell and their supporters will have received the same email as me?
Or thereâs Simon Danczuk, the MP who has pledged to do all he can to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn from day one of his leadership. I wonder if publicly committing yourself to bringing down the democratically elected leader of the Labour Party could give someone a reason to believe you didnât support the aims and values of the Labour Party?
If not, this could lead to a whole new way of running organisations. When someone joins the Scouts they should have to pledge to bring down the Scouts from day one, otherwise theyâre not allowed to join. If a new member applies to join a bowls club, they should be asked if theyâre prepared to abide by the rules of the elected committee, and if they are, they should be told to sod off and never come back.
Then thereâs John McTernan, the former adviser to Jim Murphy, who insists that Corbyn will be a catastrophe, and that the party should continue with the strategy he devised in Scotland, which took the partyâs MPs from 41 to a much more manageable one, making it far easier to deal with admin.
These are the types you want to make a party successful, not crowds of young enthusiastic people eager to change society. Isnât it obvious?
The newsreaders this week have been a disgrace. Why are they only wearing one poppy, when itâs only one year and a week away from Remembrance Day 2016? They should be wearing one for next year as well as for this year, but it seems to be too much trouble, which makes you wonder why we bothered with D-Day in the first place.
The lack of respect is so distressing, itâs no wonder there are letters in The Times such as âDear Sir, May I express my incandescent displeasure at the alarming trend for presenters on the Red Hot Asian Babes XXX Channel to dishonour our fallen servicemen, by failing to adorn a poppy upon their person as may be deemed appropriate at this time of year. Their lack of apparel offers no excuse, as a poppy could easily be attached to a bare breast with Velcro, so I can only assume this is a deliberate snub to my grandfather who fought at El Alamein. It certainly thwarted my efforts to pleasure myself on an autumnal evening, and I urge viewers to fulfil their patriotic duty by cancelling their subscription forthwith.â
One area the television networks should address immediately is the appalling lack of poppies worn in repeated programmes. Before episodes of Heartbeat and Teletubbies are shown on UK Gold in the approach to Remembrance Day, they should be filmed again, with all the characters wearing poppies, and the same should apply for films such as The Sound of Music and ET.
Itâs encouraging to see the growth of websites such as WearAPoppyYouArsehole.com, which campaigns for CCTV cameras to be set up in town centres to check for anyone who doesnât look proud enough about their poppy, or goes 10 minutes without stroking it and purring. Itâs best to stop them now before they get a bus to Syria. And there are touching stories such as the poignant tale of a family which pinned a poppy to the back of its Yorkshire Terrier, but it shook it off so they had it put down as a mark of respect to Uncle Gilbert, who was in the Home Guard.
We can also be grateful the Prime Minister knows how to remember war heroes, because his PR team Photoshopped a poppy on to his jacket to make it look like he was wearing one when he wasnât. If Iâd fought in the mustard gas of the Somme, Iâd certainly appreciate a heartfelt gesture like that. Tomorrow, his team should show the same photo, but with Cameron wearing a Victoria Cross for fighting behind enemy lines in occupied France. Then they can subtly amend film of him talking to Michael Gove, to make it look like heâs rescuing a wounded infantryman by crawling across Belgium during the Battle of Ypres.
Finally, he can begin next weekâs Prime Ministerâs Questions by emerging from a giant poppy carried by Boris Johnson and Iain Duncan Smith, to make this Remembrance Day a special occasion our servicemen and women will never forget.
At this weekâs PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn asked a question from a serviceman in which he expressed his worry that the change in tax credits would lose him ÂŁ2,000. The Prime Minister answered by explaining that Jeremy Corbyn would abolish the army.
Heâs established a pattern of avoiding questions about whether the cut in tax credits will make people worse off next April. Heâll say âIâve already explained, what will happen next April is Easter and the start of the domestic cricket seasonâ, or âIâve made it as clear as possible, the quickest way from Leicester to Derby is up the M1 and along the A50.â
Cameron seemed confident the serviceman would be happy with this answer, and would now be able to explain to his kids that ââalthough you wonât be getting any presents this Christmas, and youâll have to take it in turns to wear shoes, at least our Prime Minister sings the National Anthem at memorials and that must be worth at least ÂŁ2,000ââ. Because any government can respect people who served in the forces by paying them enough to live on, or not sending them to fight in battles that no one has a clue how to win, but what they really crave is a leader prepared to sing and wear a Photoshopped poppy.
Some may argue the whole idea of funding the welfare of ex-servicemen and women by selling poppies seems a bit peculiar: if we can afford tanks and Tornados to take them to warzones, surely we can afford a wheelchair for those who get blown up when they get there? Others may suggest itâs fitting that we still revere the poppy as a symbol of war, given that one of the reasons given for the war in Afghanistan was to destroy their opium trade, and itâs now double the size it was when we went out there. Itâs turned out quite handy; we can ask our Afghan warlord allies to sling us over some spare poppies every October, and thereâs enough for us all to wear a couple of hundred each.
But those who doubt the poppy mania are traitors, such as 91-year-old writer Harry Leslie Smith, who says he wonât wear a poppy to remember the war dead, but I âwill lament their passing in privateâ. He said: âI will no longer allow my obligation as a veteran to remember those who died in the great wars to be co-opted by politicians to justify our folly in Iraq, or our morally dubious war on terror.â
Yes, well, he may have been in the RAF throughout the Second World War, but heâs a coward. Not like the brave politicians and people on Twitter who insist everyone wears a poppy. Theyâre the true heroes.
2 Likes
This looks simple enough then. Weâll bomb the same people as Putin is bombing, in the same places, co-ordinated with Putin. But we wonât actually be on the same side as Putin, and maybe weâll make that clear by painting gay rainbow flags on our bombs.
And weâre backing Turkey â although weâre not backing Turkey when they sneakily align with Isis against the Kurds, but thatâs easy to get round. Weâll arrange a job share. Isis can have them on Mondays to Wednesdays, then weâll get them from Thursday until Saturday, and on Sundays they can have the day off or back someone else such as the Cornish nationalists.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond explained it clearly, when he answered Dennis Skinnerâs question âIs Turkey a reliable ally, given that it shot down a Russian jet, and has assisted Isis against the Kurds?â Hammond replied âI see that old habits die hard, and the Honourable Gentleman remains an apologist for Russian actions.â
This must mean we are supporting Turkey, against Russia as well as on the days theyâre opposing Isis, though weâre on Russiaâs side when theyâre against Isis so we could end up supporting and opposing Russia and Turkey against each other at the same time, causing us to fall through a break in space and weâll have to be rescued by Doctor Who.
To simplify matters even more, Hammond seems to suggest itâs a disgrace to defend Russiaâs shameful action of its plane being shot down. Look at the litter theyâve caused, they could have crashed more tidily. Is it any wonder weâre never on their side except for when weâre on their side?
Defence Minister Michael Fallon explained how our bombing wonât be in support of either Assad or Isis, when he said: âA moderate Syrian government can take over to provide boots on the ground.â Oh, of course, when itâs explained that simply it makes you wonder why no one thought of getting a moderate Syrian government before â especially as theyâre so easy to get from the Moderate Syrian Government store in a retail park just outside Coventry.
Maybe, as the economy has more money than we thought, we can get a really pretty moderate Syrian government with buttercups and kittens on. Then we can solve the problem of malaria by getting moderate mosquitos to take over from dirty extremist ones that spread disease because they hate our values.
David Cameron suggests our bombing will be in support of the moderate Free Syrian Army, but many of them are also jihadists. The American journalist Theo Padnos was kidnapped by them, working in an alliance with al-Qaeda. And when youâre looking to al-Qaeda as a moderate influence, you can be satisfied things are turning out extremely well. Who amongst us, when times look tricky, hasnât thought: âI wish al-Qaeda would turn up and take over from the nutcases in charge at the moment?â
Still, Cameronâs had a lot to deal with. Heâs probably mixed up a jihadist kidnapping group linked to al-Qaeda with an Aleppo and District Branch of the Liberal Democrats. Itâs a mistake anyone could make.
Another question some people ask about the proposed bombing is whether itâs likely to kill civilians. Apparently it wonât; these are precision bombs. Hopefully theyâre even more precise than the American precision bomb that, it was admitted yesterday, was aimed at a Taliban-controlled area of Afghanistan but blew up a hospital in the city of Kunduz instead. Even if you were making a film called Carry on Jihad, you would question the plausibility of a storyline in which an idiotic but lovable commander said: âOh blimey, Iâve gone and blown up a blooming hospital by mistakeâ, before being asked âcan I see your infidels?â and replying, âI beg your pardon.â
But the latest bombing proposals suggest the Government hasnât quite grasped the extent to which Western governments and armies are so discredited out in the Middle East. Cameron says we mustnât make the same mistakes as in the Iraq war, but the Iraq war isnât seen as a one-off. Itâs viewed as one more episode in a story thatâs lasted 100 years.
Still, we seem to appreciate these difficulties: when minister Anna Soubry appeared on last weekâs Question Time, she was asked by journalist Mehdi Hasan why, if weâre against extremists, we arm and support Saudi Arabia? She replied âOh thatâs just a cheap pointâ, and made a waving gesture as if shooing away Downton Abbeyâs servants. Then when Conservative military historian Max Hastings said there appeared to be no long-term plan, she made a sort of âharrumphâ noise.
That sort of attitude should reassure moderate Muslims.
But it looks like weâre going ahead. And presumably, although the US, France and Russia have already been bombing, our bombs will make the crucial difference. Next I expect Hertfordshire County Council will say theyâre sending the Hemel Hempstead Air Force as a vital addition to the coalition, and Guernsey will send its traffic wardens to clamp Isis surface-to-air missiles. Then Isis will be driven out of Raqqa, and there will be huge celebrations. But theyâll be replaced by a group called The Irrational Quarâanic Cult of Universal Evil and Destruction, and weâll all think: âit makes you wish we had Isis back, this lot are even worse.â
