Transterrestrial Musings

« The World's Oldest Profession | Main | Non-Mutual »

Anger At Government Grows In Bombings' Wake

September 8, 1940

LONDON (Routers) The new government of Winston Churchill, only in office for a scant few months, came under fire today, after the seemingly senseless destruction of property and lives in the city by German bombers yesterday. Many are blaming the new Prime Minister for the bombings, which they view as a result of his stubborn support of an illegal war against Vichy France, and inappropriately aggressive policies against the misunderstood Germans.

"Under Chamberlain," said one Labour backbencher, "we had peace for our time."

"Now," he went on, "under this new brutal and dictatorial Tory rule, Churchill, along with his poodle Franklin "Delanodamngood" Roosevelt, has brought this wretched war home to Whitehall itself, and ordinary Londoners."

The bombing began around four o'clock yesterday afternoon, with squadrons of German bombers blackening the skies over London, dropping many thousands of pounds of bombs on the city for two hours. A couple hours later, a second wave of bombings commenced, with the bombers' navigators guided by the fires from the first attack, with no cessation until early this morning. The fires still burn, and the total casualties have yet to be properly assessed.

It is widely believed that the lamentable attacks have their root cause in the government's unwillingness to recognize the new Pétain government in Paris, established over two months ago, following the liberation of France by German troops in late June, or to even negotiate respectfully with the German leadership. It is all the more puzzling that the government takes this line despite the past noble and sincere efforts of Lord Halifax to reach a settlement with the German government.

Instead, it has been undermining the fledgling French government, and its German ally, with supplies and moral support for its enemies, despite the "withdrawal" of British forces at Dunkirk three months ago. Churchill has in fact defiantly supported the illegitimate "Free" French government established by "General" Charles de Gaulle, while making blustery and bellicose speeches, filled with obvious disdain and hatred for the Germans and their elected leader and head of the Nazi Party, Mr. Adolf Hitler.

The German's understandable sense of beleaguerment is further reinforced by the British alliance with Roosevelt's America, via the Lend-Lease program among other things, creating a spectre of an Anglo-American conspiracy against them. The aggressive actions of the US warship "Greer" only a few days ago, in which its sailors lobbed depth charges at a German submarine (though fortunately with no casualties), has only fed such concerns.

A former ambassador to Germany, off the record, pointed out that, after all, it is Britain and the former Third French Republic who are the aggressors, having declared war on Germany last September.

Some scholars of Northern European studies think that in fact, ultimately, these acts of violence have a deeper cause--the years of poverty brought on by imperialistic policies against Germany. The tragic Treaty of Versailles after the Great War kept Germany on its economic back for years, and the resulting deprivation has fueled the anger of young bomber crews who were raised in squalor, amidst the depths of the long depression.

Under these circumstances, most think it little wonder that the Germans have been driven to such desperate measures as bombing innocents, in the wake of such unremitting animosity and economic scarcity. It no doubt adds to their fury that many of their bombers were shot down in the raid by British anti-aircraft fire and RAF aircraft (weapons that many think should be outlawed, or at least renounced, in the interest of international stability), at the cost of probably hundreds, perhaps thousands, of brave German lives.

More shockingly, many even believe, with some justification, that the German bombers were deliberately targeted, while the gunners attempted to miss British aircraft, a government policy that some properly view as a particularly cruel form of ethnic profiling.

Given such policies, they say, Britain should prepare for more such attacks in the future, until the government can understand why the Germans hate us, and act on that understanding with more rational and humane policies.

The government, of course, attempts to claim that this is nonsense.

"The Nazis have declared their intention and right to conquer and rule the world--it's right there in Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf," said one outraged assistant in the Defense ministry. "One doesn't have to indulge in sociological analyses to know why they bomb us--they do so because we are now the bulwark for the still-free world against Hitler's totalitarian ambitions. Why not simply take them at their word?"

"They've violated the Munich agreement, and the von Ribbentropp Pact is unlikely to hold up for long. They cannot be trusted or negotiated with. They've invaded our allies Poland, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and other places. The notion that, if we would simply listen to them and hear out their grievances and give them what they want, they'll leave us alone, is infantile."

Of course, it seems common sentiment now that, sadly, such simple-minded analyses are the problem, not the solution--that an entire people should not be judged by selected words from a single book. The German information minister himself, Mr. Goebbels, has said that Nazism is a peaceful belief, and that the Germans seek only justice and lebensraum.

But sadly, few in the government listen, and in the wake of such unyielding, and futile albeit brutal policies, the British people are now settling in for a long, bloody and hopeless reign of carnage, that no one can hope to win.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2005 05:34 AM

Comments

no blood for poland! Churchill's uncle is a duke, he's only in power because of family! Dardenelles!
TonyPandy!

Der fuhrer says he only wants peace and lebensraum.

Posted by joe at July 14, 2005 10:24 AM

Someone has been hanging out with Iowahawk.....

Posted by D F Eyres at July 14, 2005 10:39 AM

Rand,

I used to enjoy your satires, but this one is just too well done to be enjoyable. It captures the moral equivalence and suicidal nature of the enemies in our midst perfectly.

Damn depressing.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at July 14, 2005 10:41 AM

You forgot the illegal and unilateral attack by the British on the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir

Posted by Room 237 at July 14, 2005 10:56 AM

Thanks, Joe, I've done a post update with a quote from Goebbels.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2005 10:58 AM

You could add how Britian has killed many more Germans than Hitler has.

Posted by Tim at July 14, 2005 11:56 AM

Yes, but the question is, who is Allied and who is German this time around?

Who has died more? Who has thrown the most bombs? Who is occupying whom?

At best, it's not clear; at worst...

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 12:04 PM

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at moral equivalence Ian, even for you. Do you have no sense of shame?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2005 12:13 PM

You only missed on one point and that is a comment from US Ambassador Kennedy comenting on how the war is a quagmire and the US should set a timetable to cut off aid to England and get out.

Posted by LarryK at July 14, 2005 12:47 PM

"Yes, but the question is, who is Allied and who is German this time around?

Who has died more? Who has thrown the most bombs? Who is occupying whom?"

That doesn't deserve an answer, but, since I'm feeling tolerant, I'll humor you.

The answer is the same as the last time. The Axis has suffered the most deaths. The Allies have dropped the most bombs, and ultimately it will be the Allies occupying the Axis nations. The allied powers are easy to recognize because they are the ones that are democratic, supporting democracy and advancing the cause of freedom. The fact that Britain and America are at the lead again should be another clue. The Axis powers are the ones denouncing democracy, dreaming of the 1000 year reign of the new empire, and preaching in thier newspeak that freedom is only found under a strong absolutist rule. The fact that Hitler's Mein Kamp translated into Arabic is a top ten best seller throughout much of the Arab world is another good clue.

It's all there to see, if you want to see it.

"At best, it's not clear; at worst..."

No. I don't concede that at all. It's as clear of a fight between good and evil as we are ever likely to have in this grey, murky, and flawed world. The enemy openly identifies itself as being on the side of death, and openly acknowledge not only thier contempt for democracy and human rights but that we thier enemies are on the side of life. Even given the usual failings of men, no more morally clear war is imaginable.

But, I'm giving you far too much credit. You've pretty much already revealed yourself as either insane, despicable, or foolish. You have a right to your stupid opinions, but I have an equal right to exercise my speach to ridicule you for them.

Who is occupying who you say? Well, if we were to use the same definition of occupation that our enemies use to justify thier war, if we were to adopt the standards of the Islamic terrorists, then we would say that it is they are occupying Syria, brutally surpressing its native population, and that the war will not stop until they end the occupation of Syria, return the Basilica of Saint John the Baptist and allow the Byzantine Empire to be restored.

But, that's their standard of what constitutes an occupation and thier standard of justifiable claims and no one ever said thier standards were rational. By thier standards of what constitutes an occupation, its perfectly rational to blow up 3000 innocent civilians for the crime of living in a nation which sent soldiers to defend them from invaders at the request of thier own government. Afterall, it was our 'occupation of Saudi Arabia' to defend it from Saddam Hussein that was Osama Bin Ladin's explicit justification for 9-11. Are we to take such standards seriously?

Posted by celebrim at July 14, 2005 01:22 PM

Bravo, Rand.

A home run again.

Have you considered collecting these and publishing them for a wider audience?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at July 14, 2005 02:33 PM

"The fact that Hitler's Mein Kamp translated into Arabic is a top ten best seller throughout much of the Arab world is another good clue."

I was intrigued by this, so I investigated. Looks at the moment like bullshit to me Rand.

Um... it's selling well in Turkey apparently, probably because the publisher recently cut the price. And Palestine (no big surprise there). But it sells moderately even in America (50,000 copies a year).

Are you claiming top ten best sellers in any other Arabic countries? Do you have a reference to that?

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 04:20 PM

I was intrigued by this, so I investigated. Looks at the moment like bullshit to me Rand.

Are you not even capable of reading the names of comment authors?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2005 05:33 PM

"That's a pretty pathetic attempt at moral equivalence Ian, even for you."

"Of course, it seems common sentiment now that, sadly, such simple-minded analyses are the problem, not the solution--that an entire people should not be judged by selected words from a single book. The German information minister himself, Mr. Goebbels, has said that Nazism is a peaceful belief, and that the Germans seek only justice and lebensraum."

So far as I am aware Al Queda haven't said anything like that.

Gee, I don't know Rand, it sure sounds to me you are clearly refering to Islam not Al Queda; and implying that London has just been attacked by Islam, not Al Queda. This 'Mr. Goebbels' would be an Islamic person in a government who has just ordered an attack, and the book would be the Koran.

Are we not to assume here that you are being very racist indeed?

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 07:51 PM

You missed the bit when Churchill declares war on Russia.

Anyhow, I look forward to your Dunkirk installment.

Posted by Duncan Young at July 14, 2005 07:51 PM

What a profoundly stupid question, Ian. What does race have to do with any of this?

Do you even know what the word means?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2005 07:54 PM

So that's a yes then? That is exactly what you meant? I was kind of hoping it was just an inaccurate analogy.

:-(

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 08:06 PM

Islam is a race?

Posted by Noah D at July 14, 2005 08:48 PM

Yeah, same as Germans are. It's any group of people connected by a common heritage.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 08:55 PM

Ian, you obviously never learned the First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Posted by Stewart at July 14, 2005 09:21 PM

Same as Jews are for that matter.

So, Stewart, either you don't know what racism means either, or that's some kind of lame, empty, threat. Either way: LOL.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 10:11 PM

> Who has died more? Who has thrown the most bombs? Who is occupying whom?"

> The answer is the same as the last time. The Axis has suffered the most deaths. The Allies have
> dropped the most bombs, and ultimately it will be the Allies occupying the Axis nations.

Only because the allies won.

It seems the United States only has to do one thing to satisfy Ian's complaints about America -- lose to Al Queda!

Posted by at July 14, 2005 10:20 PM

To be honest, I'm not sure how America could lose to Al Queda. But going around invading Islamic countries is certainly on the right road for that, if that's what America wants to do.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 14, 2005 10:30 PM

Speaking to Ian, and also celebrim.

It seems to me that the americans and their allies have killed
remarkably few people, and even fewer noncombatants, in Iraq.
In World War II, we and our allies -- and of course our enemies did
it first -- targeted civilians via area bombings from the sky.

In this war we try hard to kill only those in violent opposition,
usually literally in the act of trying to kill us, because
otherwise we cannot identify them. Of course we don't always succeed
but there's an incredible difference between trying not to, and
deliberately targeting a general population.

There are plenty of bombs going off in Iraq aimed at civilians but
they are all being set off by our opposition.

Celebrim, you seem to think we are killing more of them than of
us. Unfortunately I don't think that's true. If you count as
our casualties all the people killed by our enemies in Iraq -- which
is the way it should be counted -- then we have suffered vastly
greater casualties than they have.

Now Ian Woollard, I find your accusation of racism a bit ironic,
when you start off with lines like this:

"Who has died more?"

Of course the only way that makes sense is if the "enemy" is
the iraqis and the sides are defined by race.

Or how about "Who is occupying whom?"

Yes indeed who is occupying whom. Is it the United States
occupying Iraq? Or is it radical muslims? Or is it Baathists?

Ian seems to take it for granted (note that "At best, it's not clear,
at worst..." rhetoric) that the Baathists or Al-Quaeda are not occupying
Iraq. Despite the fact that in survey after survey the overwhelming
majority of Iraqis manifest great hostility towards these groups.
Despite the fact the these groups are targeting the general population
of Iraq. And despite the fact that they have just suffered a massive
electoral defeat in the first real election that Iraq has ever had.

But Ian just takes it for granted, just assumes that these groups
represent Iraq and all its people -- or if he doesn't assume this
how do we explain his words?

On what basis does Ian think this? Is it a racially driven thinking?
Or is it something else?

Posted by Mark Amerman at July 14, 2005 11:10 PM

Ian, you've become a parody of the exact sentiments of this post.

America is beating Al Queda's ass. America invaded countries that sponsored terrorism against America. They are Islamic countries. Do you think these facts are unrelated?

Do you know the difference between statistics and probability?

Statistics tell us that only 1 in 5,000,000 Muslims is a terrorist.

Probability tells us that 9 out of 10 terrorists are Muslim.

Posted by Larry at July 14, 2005 11:21 PM

Well, anyone who fires on anyone is definitely an enemy. So yeah, some Iraqis were an enemy, and some still are.

"Yes indeed who is occupying whom. Is it the United States occupying Iraq?"

Um. I've got some news for you, you don't appear to have heard. Yes, strangely enough. Critically, as I understand it that's how a lot of Moslems see it; and they believe the "democracy" is a puppet regime.

It's kinda similar to what happened when USSR cosied up with Fidel during the Missile Crisis, only the other way around. Moslems feel the same way about Iraq right now.

"But Ian just takes it for granted, just assumes that these groups represent Iraq and all its people"

AFAIK I haven't said anything that would permit you to assume that I assume that. And no, I don't.

"Is it a racially driven thinking?"

LOL. Let's just say I think you would have difficulty getting that argument to apply to me. :-)

"America invaded countries that sponsored terrorism against America."

Yes, and they also invaded Iraq. They could invade Iran next, on the same grounds. Heck, you can invade anywhere on those grounds: "They could have weapons, and they might have paid one of our enemies some money once, maybe."

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 15, 2005 12:32 AM

Larry,
America invaded countries that sponsored terrorism against America.
Hmmm... plural. What was the other country?

Probability tells us that 9 out of 10 terrorists are Muslim.

Probabilities should also include the IRA, Shining Path, the Tamil Tigers (the current leaders in suicide bombing), the Burmese hill tribes insugency, the FARC, North Korea state sponsored terrorism, occasional Cuban exile terrorism, Zimbabwean state sponsored terroism, etc, etc...

Posted by Duncan Young at July 15, 2005 12:33 AM

Huh. So now a Somali, an Indonesian, a Bedouin and a white guy from Marin Co., CA are all members of the same race. Who knew?

Posted by Noah D at July 15, 2005 12:51 AM

Damn the new fangled conservative churchill with his notions of regime change in germany and removing the legitimate head of state, chosen by the german people. Did he wait for the League of Nations?

P.S. Could someone translate and repost Ians' "contributions" in German, so we could make it seem more legit?

Posted by Rob Read at July 15, 2005 04:03 AM

Ian, I have some difficulty believing that you were opposed to
the Soviet Union.

Here's a quote that's definitely not satire:

Even in January 1942, when German armies were at the gates of Moscow,
George Orwell wrote in Partisan Review that "the greater part of the
very young intelligentsia are anti-war -- don't believe in any
'defense of democracy,' are inclined to prefer Germany to Britain, and
don't feel the horror of Fascism that we who are somewhat older feel."

As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage
wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill
for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference
between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both
were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Soci alism. We
call it democracy. The result is the same."

Savage naively wondered, "Who is to say that a British victory will be
less disastrous than a German one?" Savage thought the real problem was
that Britain had lost "her meaning, her soul," but "the unloading of
a billion tons of bombs on Germany won't help this forward an inch."
"Personally," he added, with hilarious understatement, "I do not care
for Hitler." But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting
him: "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down
obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires,
not condemnation, but understanding."

Found (via Instapundit) at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot14jul14,0,1334846.column?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by Mark Amerman at July 15, 2005 04:07 AM

It's any group of people connected by a common heritage.

Thank you, Ian, for confirming that you are indeed blindingly ignorant of the meaning of the words "race" and "racism."

My general experience is that when someone calls me a racist, it's just lefty code words, like "hate speech," or "fascist," that convey a strong disagreement with something I've said, but that they have no actual articulate and coherent argument against.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2005 04:59 AM

If I was mistaken with my analysis of what you wrote, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate my logical error. If that is what you wrote, but it was an accidental inference, no problem, errors are common in writing. On the other hand if you deliberately wrote that, then your writing makes racist accusations.

The fact that you fail to agree that you didn't mean that interpretation leads me to conclude that you are indeed a racist.

You're obviously of Jewish descent; tragic things have happened, it wouldn't be so surprising. I don't like any form of racism; but stuff happens, and people can't always control how they feel afterwards. Otherwise good people are racist.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 15, 2005 07:09 AM

Ian, if you persist in the stupidity that anything I wrote could possibly be interpreted as racist by any sane person, you're far too dim or nuts to discuss anything else usefully with you. I'd be happy to talk about whether or not Islam is intrinsically a peaceful or otherwise belief, but it's pointless to do so with the likes of you or your ilk.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2005 07:25 AM

You're obviously of Jewish descent; tragic things have happened, it wouldn't be so surprising.

Did you get out the head calipers for that one, Ian?

Posted by Noah D at July 15, 2005 10:54 AM

Did you get out the head calipers for that one, Ian?

After that one, the irony of him calling me a racist bends the needle on the meter. But then, leftists are famous for projection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2005 11:28 AM

Waitaminute, by Ian's definition, my fellow D&D players and I are a race. Sweet!

Posted by Noah D at July 15, 2005 08:17 PM

"Waitaminute, by Ian's definition, my fellow D&D players and I are a race. Sweet!"

Nerds of the world, unite!

I think we should demand a homeland.

Posted by celebrim at July 15, 2005 08:40 PM

Um, I never said it was my definition (see www.dictionary.com):

race

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Waitaminute, by Ian's definition, my fellow D&D players and I are a race. Sweet!
Posted by Noah D at July 15, 2005 08:17 PM

Yeah a race of trolls that live in Rands fantasy land where insulting a few billion people by likening their holy book to Mein Kampf and accusing them en mass of blowing up London isn't racist at all. Ultimately that kind of thing gets decided by a judge or cleric.

So it's a legal point; I'm quite sure that in the UK Rands stuff is *not* protected speech, and neither is it in the middle of lots of Islamic countries.

Talking of clerics, it doesn't look like you've finished insulting me, so I've mailed this URL to an Islamic cleric (isn't google wonderful!) and asked for *his* opinion of it. His decision should make interesting reading. Can you say Fatwa? I knew you could.

Islam may or may not be a mostly peaceful religion, but there sure are a lot of intemperate people in any large group of people. Don't say I didn't warn you.

"Have a nice day" as they say in your country.

Posted by at July 15, 2005 09:15 PM

So, Ian, you approve of and encourage fatwas against the infidels? I guess Mr. Rushdie had better watch his back when you're in the neighborhood.

I hadn't realized until now just how vile a person you are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2005 06:01 AM

A good thought experiment!

Still more historical parallels arise if we extend our chronoscope's field of
vision to 1944 or 1945:

(1) Pearl Harbor was not attacked from *Normandy*! Landing there only squanders our resources. It is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time!

(2) The allied invasion of Europe has only *increased* Nazi recruitment: there's now total mobilization in Germany. This wrong-headed war creates more and more enemies for the USA and Britain!

(3) Nazism is not an enemy, it's an idea. You cannot defeat an idea by force. Violence has never resolved anything.

(4) Occupation will only make us the enemies of the German people, and of the Italian people. They will all be united against us; sooner or later, they'll drive us out. It will be a quagmire. Another Vietnam!!! (Well, that's anachronistic... so what.)

(5) Democratic Germany? and Italy? and Japan??
A pipedream. Their traditions make it impossible. And one cannot export democracy at the end of a bayonet! And we have no right to impose our way of life on them!

Posted by jjustwwondering at July 16, 2005 06:44 AM

I should add that it will be amusing to see how this can be construed as an offense against Islam when there is no mention or even hint of that religious faith, or practitioners of it, anywhere in the post.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2005 07:31 AM

"I've mailed this URL to an Islamic cleric (isn't google wonderful!) and asked for *his* opinion of it. His decision should make interesting reading. Can you say Fatwa? I knew you could."

Google is indeed useful - so if that cleric wants to find material for such fatwas, all he has
to do is to search for such locutions as "Allah sucks" or "Mohammed is a pig". He'll find many,
I am sure. But not in Rand's article.

With threats such as the one by Ian W. menacing our religious freedom, perhaps it is time to stand up and be counted. But how? I thought of kicking my copy of the Koran and reporting how Allah took it, but what's the use? - it's a translation, and only the Arab original is sacred...
So I just humbly affirm that the Koran is largely a collection of poetic lies, that Mohammed was a false prophet and a very imperfect human being, that Islam is a false faith. "If this be treason, make the most of it..."

Posted by jjustwwondering at July 16, 2005 05:17 PM

"I've mailed this URL to an Islamic cleric (isn't google wonderful!) and asked for *his* opinion of it. His decision should make interesting reading. Can you say Fatwa? I knew you could."

Actually, yes. Not being any of the things that Rand accuses me of, I didn't actually mail any cleric at all.

But as you point out, that doesn't stop a cleric from finding this page. I imagine that searching for Mein Kampf and Koran presumably would find this discussion after google nexts spiders here.

Incidentally, in Islam a fatwa is merely a legal decision on some usually very minor technical point of Islamic law, it's incredibly rare to be anything encouraging violence.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 17, 2005 02:25 AM

If anyone found my page with that search, it wouldn't be because of my post, since it doesn't mention the Koran, or indeed Islam at all. You're the one who brought the Koran into it.

And if you didn't send the link to a cleric, why did you say you did? Which statement should we believe? What else are you lying, or deluded about?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2005 05:01 AM

"a legal point; I'm quite sure that in the UK Rands stuff is *not* protected speech"

I doubt that; if such abstract satire is not protected, they'd have to ban much of classical literature.

But *some* speech is not protected in the USA, too.

This is from today's Washington Post:
"ALI AL-TIMIMI was sentenced last week in a federal court in Alexandria to spend the rest of his life in prison. [...] His crime was not any act of terrorism or violence but making a series of speeches that prosecutors contended -- and a jury found -- incited his followers to train for war against the United States. Some took up paintball."

That was *preaching* *generalized* violence. A fatwa *prescribing* specific acts of criminal violence against a specific person would seem to be, legally, even worse. I do not know what the legal status would be of helping procure such a fatwa. Or (as it now seems) of threatening to help procure such a fatwa... Perhaps, if
it is not repeated, it can be dismissed as a practical joke in bad taste.

Posted by jjustwwondering at July 17, 2005 11:13 AM

And if you didn't send the link to a cleric, why did you say you did?

Because I was trying to make a point that needlessly insulting a significant fraction of the worlds population is potentially physically dangerous to you. Point taken?

Which statement should we believe?

If something did happen, then I could well be a suspect, but I know that the authoritaries would be unable to show any connection- IP logs, telephone records are all available under court order. 'Truth is the perfect defence'.

Realistically, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if nothing happens, and it probably won't, and if it did I'm still in the clear, because I didn't send any mail or even google on it.

But I don't care, believe whatever you want :-)

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 19, 2005 12:43 PM

Post a comment