July 18, 2005


Bishops speak out to support Islamic neighbours (July 7, 2005)

The Bishops of the Diocese of Lichfield have this evening spoken out in support of their Islamic neighbours in the wake of the London terror bombs.

The Rt Revd Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield, attended a service of Evensong at Lichfield Cathedral where prayers were said for all those caught up in the bomb attacks.

Before the service he said: "Living near most of us will be families who are quite worried that they may be identified with a terror attack simply because they are from another faith. I want us to do what we can to reassure them that we recognise that just as the IRA has nothing to do with Christianity; so this kind of terror has nothing to do with any of the world faiths."

We here at BrothersJudd know that Islam is not the enemy -- but this is just nuts.

(N.B. July bloody 7, for all love. This isn't obtuse, it's fatuous.)

Posted by David Cohen at July 18, 2005 8:03 AM

I suppose after this little speech, the good Bishop proceeded to endorse the C of E's divestment from Israeli companies and complain that Jews who were upset about this were being over-emotional.

It's like something out of 'Yes, Minister.'

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 8:56 AM

The C of E has allowed the bishops:priests:faithful ratio to approach 1:1:1, it leaves bishops with a lot of time on their hands to address imaginary injuries.

Posted by: pj at July 18, 2005 9:27 AM

C of E clergy must be represented by the NEA.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 9:38 AM

Boy, this is one crazy war. No agreement on who the enemy is, or where he is, or how to fight him. No consensus on what motivates him. No contribution or sacrifice from the homefront. We seem happy to just take short breaks from Entertainment Tonight to affirm that we feel for the victims and will never give into terror before getting back to Paris Hilton.

This kind of nonsense is really squeezing serious thought and debate. You can't say it's not a war on Islam without sounding like you think more "Hug a Muslim" outreach concerts are the answer. You can't point out the most basic sociological realities about Europe's immigration mess without sounding like a doctrinaire root causer that blames the West for everything. And you can't say anything about Islam outside the "religion of peace/death to the infidel" dichotemy.

Twits like these are single-handedly rehabilitating the word nuance.

Posted by: Peter B at July 18, 2005 9:55 AM

What's the beef? Sounds like pure "showing the other cheek" behavior to me.

And surely, by such tried and true methods, they will be thoroughly vanquished. They won't know what hit 'em. They don't stand a chance.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 18, 2005 10:16 AM

Q: What does the Bible, Koran and The US Constitution have in common?

A: Each has its nominal adherents that refuse to believe that what it says it what it means. And each has the true believer that is willing to die to prove them wrong.

"We here at Brother's Judd know that Islam is not the enemy"

Islam is just one of our enemies. The Enemy would like you to think otherwise.

Posted by: NC3 at July 18, 2005 11:14 AM

An Anglican bishop who is an appeaser. How suprising is that?

The N.Y. Times yesterday reported how train bomber recruiters operate discreetly but freely in Leeds. And while not every single Muslim approached signed up for a career in train bombing, not one bothered to tell the infidels what was up.

Islam is the enemy.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 18, 2005 12:18 PM

N: I have to admit that you've left me in the dust. If we're going to start capitalizing, then there is only one enemy and I hear tell that from time to time he works through athiests, Jews and even Christians. Recognizing that evil exists is a necessary, but insufficient, step in distinguishing between evil and good.

I'm not even sure, for that matter, what you mean by "Bible." I suspect that it's not what I mean. I also don't get what you mean by adherent, in this case. I'm not an "adherent" to any of the three, for my best guess of what you mean by Bible and by adherent.

Finally, I object to the inclusion of the Constitution in that list. Leaving to one side the Truth of the Bible or the Koran, the Constitution serves an entirely different purpose and makes no pretense to Truth. The Constitution was flawed from the beginning, and the Framers knew that it was flawed. It was not handed down from on-high. Rather, it is the contract by which the American people have agreed to govern themselves. That is the reason that it should be interpreted exactly as written.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 12:19 PM

Peter: Tough questions.

The enemy are those who take up arms against, those who arm them and those who support them. A lot of the other stuff is our trying to force this into a state-on-state model. The Islamists would have to be stupid to fight us on our terms, and while they're crazy, they're not stupid.

I have to admit to a certain scepticism about calls for us to sacrifice. First, the proffered sacrifice tends to be whatever the proponent wanted us to do before 9/11 and it tends to be my sacrifice, rather than our sacrifice. Second, if you can beat your enemy without breaking a sweat, you should. Not only for your own sake, but also to make a point to anyone who's watching. As we've said before, the scariest thing about Iraq for any watchers who were considering taking us on is that we've been spending less than 1% of GDP.

"Hug a Muslim" outreach concerts are not the answer. Neither is bombing Mecca. We've got to kill those who need killing and then do what we can do (we might not be able to do anything) to push Islam through its Reformation.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 12:28 PM

Harry: No more than Sicilians were.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 12:29 PM


Good answers, but are they too subtle to keep a population engaged for years?


What gets me about those who argue like you with all your talk of dhimmi and quotes from the Koran and tales of the Caliphate, etc. is that you never would have made this argument before 1979 (well, maybe you, but no one else). If you had, you would have been dismissed p.d.q. We've had lots of anti-Western Arab violence since the war and even before, and even more Arab civil war, but the perps then were doing it in the name of Arab socialism, Arab nationalism or anti-colonial fights against corrupt oriental despots like Farouk. Most of it was done in the name of a rigorous secularism that rejected religion and tradition firmly, and indeed Islamists were persecuted brutally in places like Egypt and Algeria. It was the spirit of Marx, Nasser and Ataturk, not the Prophet.

The left loves to taunt the U.S. for supporting the mujudaheen in Afghanistan, but at the time no one saw the slightest threat from Islam. Imams may have looked forbidding but they scared us about as much as Greek Orthodox priests. It was as natural and noble as supporting the Church in Poland (yes, I know, you opposed that too). We've all forgotten what a mind-blowing and confusing shock Khomeini was.

That modern Islamicists are far better educated and far more "religious" than the several generations that came before them kind of puts paid to your wonderful theory about how Islam is so backward and hasn't "emerged" from its medieval roots and embraced modernity (cue the orchestra), something I'm sure we can all look forward to once they all acquire a good secular education and exposure to the latest scientific thinking.

We all know they are laughing at the West's naivite, Harry. Don't you think the fact that you and so many others see them all as like Bedouin tribesmen who have never heard of secularism and are just waiting to let freedom ring gives them the most laughs?

Posted by: Peter B at July 18, 2005 12:56 PM


Are you familiar with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arafat's uncle and a frequent guest of Adolf Hitler during WWII? There is a wonderful picture of him blessing the Bosnian SS before they went off to slaughter innocent Serbs and Jews. It's available all over the Internet.

Try again.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 3:16 PM


It is true that few sounded any warnings about Islam for a good long time, but I think the argument that we should widen our historical perspective is unlikely to tell well for the "religion of peace" position. The wider our historical lens, the larger Islam looms as our civilization's greatest and most persistant foe.

As I wrote once, "Rare is the war that occupies the leaders of more than one generation of men; rarer still is the war that occupies leaders of more than one age of men. This one has occupied mediaeval men, modern men, and it will surely implicate postmodern men. It began in what we call the Dark Age and has not yet ended; and we would do well not to sneer at a war that has gazed with patient jaded eyes on the fall of Constantinpole and the Siege of Vienna; the victory of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and her defeat; the break up of Catholic Europe and the decay of Protestantism; and the rise and fall of Feudalism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, each in turn."

Posted by: Paul Cella at July 18, 2005 3:38 PM

That modern Islamicists are far better educated and far more "religious" than the several generations that came before them kind of puts paid to your wonderful theory about how Islam is so backward and hasn't "emerged" from its medieval roots and embraced modernity (cue the orchestra), something I'm sure we can all look forward to once they all acquire a good secular education...

Yes, we can.

Islam hasn't embraced modernity, just learned about it.
Orrin likes to differentiate between Science and technology, and this is a similar distinction. Many Muslims in Islamic nations are well educated about the West and modern technology, and they even trade for firewater and guns. But, like the Native Americans, they don't apply any of what they've learned to their own cultures; the fruits of modern civilization are always imported, not cultivated.

While the West isn't at war with all of Islam, we are at war with Arab culture, and a principal component of that culture is adherence to Islam.

As David Cohen points out, we're more than happy to let them stay Islamic, as long as they practice the Western-approved, neutered style of Islam.

Or they can die.
Their choice.

Paul Cella:

It won't implicate postmodern humans for long.

The current Islamofascist spasm is the death throes of Arab culture, which is itself the filthy dregs of the Muslim world.

By the end of the 21st century, Muslims will either be mainstream and Westernized, irrelevant, or both.

While they were gazing with patient, jaded eyes at the ongoing struggle on the front lines, the West's back-office was feverishly working on doomsday devices and force multipliers, a step which the Islamic world curiously neglected to get around to, until recent decades.

Thus, the situation has evolved into the old joke: "It's just like an Islamofascist to bring a knife to a gunfight".

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 18, 2005 4:48 PM

Peter, I'll take that as a compliment.

Yes, as a matter of fact, before 1979 I would have made all my arguments, to the extent that I had studied Islam then. I have a lot more ammunition now than I had then.

When I say 'studied Islam,' I do NOT mean its supposed spiritual message but only Islam as an international political force, the same way one would study, say, monarchism.

You have not, by the way, seen me write about dhimmi or the Caliphate here, nor quote from the Koran. Have you?

I like to think that my Islamophobia has a different underpinning than the kind you find in AOL chatrooms.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 18, 2005 5:36 PM

Oh no, I'm not getting struck into the "religion of peace" corner. To say Islam is or is not a religion of peace is about as meaningful as saying man is or is not a species of peace.

Yes, Bart I know about the Grand Mufti. I also know about the priests who killed for Franco, Rabbi Kahane, the Hindu extremists that killed Ghandi and their many descendents with bloody hands, the gun-toting Bhuddists of Sri Lanka and let's not forget all those peace-loving Shintoists from pre-war Japan. Want to ban all religions from our shores, just to be sure. Harry's listening.

There is a war on and the enemy is speaking through the voice of Islam. It's happened before, as Paul Cella has pointed out, but there are lots of long times and big places where it didn't happened. I don't believe "the vast majority of Muslims" condemn the terrorists, but I do believe tens, probably hundreds, of millions of faithful Muslims of varying degrees of piety do and for all the right reasons. What I can't get my head around is why so many of you look upon Islam as some kind of infection when it presents itself in so many different ways in so many different times and places and has been a force for good so often. Want to do a little social comparison with Sub-Sahara Africa?

What is worse is this idea that they (even the best of them) can't assimiliate in North America, even though they are doing it and even though we would never say the same thing about other faiths and countries. Did we ban Germans because of the Nazis, the Irish Catholics because of the IRA, Indians because of Hindu terrorists? What would anyone think of the idea that we should ban all proud Arab secularists because so much terrorism has occurred in the cause of Arab nationalism? We can argue up and down about how to fight the war (Hard!) but this infection/incompatibility theory is nonsense.


Whether morality, diet, education, disease or international relations, I'm so glad you are around to assure me everything will be solved and we'll all be just great in the tantalizingly not-too-soon, but not-too-distant, future.

Posted by: Peter B at July 18, 2005 6:16 PM

Peter: Other than blog commenters, I have no sense of a groundswell of public opinion demanding that we nuke Mecca or forceably convert the heathen. As long as we're killing the ones who are trying to kill us, people seem to be satisfied.

Paul: Constantinople, Vienna, Jerusalem, New York and London as one seamless web? I'm unconvinced. The Christendom/Islam wars of the middle ages were your basic wars of territorial hegemony. The two sides were of equal strength and each could reasonably worry that they were in an existential fight. This war is not that war.

Santayana was wrong.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 6:57 PM

By the way, Peter and Paul: you both missed, or ignored, the droll humor that Harry's indulging himself in.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 18, 2005 7:03 PM

"What gets me about those who argue like you with all your talk of dhimmi and quotes from the Koran and tales of the Caliphate, etc. is that you never would have made this argument before 1979 ... . If you had, you would have been dismissed p.d.q. ..."

That is just not true Peter. Those of us who for reasons of our heritage followed the Middle East more closely than the average American, were never under the impression that Islam had gone away or that it was not the emotional root of Arab politics. And there were scholars, such as Professor Lewis who never took their eye off the ball.

Indeed, it was the people who believed the noise of secularism and Marxism who were fooled.

Further, there is no neat way to oppose Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Arab anti-Semitism, Arab Nazism, Islam and all of the other intellectual flotsam and jetsam of the Middle East. Indeed, it could be argued that Marxism was spouted by many of these characters just to stroke their soviet patrons. But more importantly, I will go with Paul Berman in claiming that some large group of Muslims have absorbed the syndicalist critique of liberal society and adapted it well to their political purposes.

I believe that creating the Afganistani mujudaheen was the right thing to do. Allowing them to fester until the 21st century was a mistake. Clearly, the Cold War was a priority, and we could go no farther than we did in the 1980s. But, Papa Bush should have taken Baghdad and Clinton should have cleaned out Somalia. In that they erred greatly.

There are a billion Muslims more are less. I am sure that among them are some saints and a great many ordinary decent people. But, it is also true that Islam and syndicalism make a poisonous brew and that it is far too popular in the Muslim world. It remains to be seen if the ummah can reject the poison. If it can't the consequences will be dire, because we cannot tolerate its existence.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 18, 2005 10:35 PM

The Taliban are not the Mujahideen. The leaders of the Taliban (the name translates, roughly, as schoolboys) were raised in the Pakistani camps and were attending the famous madrassas while the Mujahideen were driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. There were and are warlords who were in power under the Communists, the interregnum, the Taliban and are still in power under Karzai. There survival has little or nothing to do with Islam.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 11:23 PM

Peter B:

Happy to help, although I don't think that I've been cheery on the educational front.

I can tell anyone who cares how to get their children the best education possible, but whether public education will improve at a national level...
I dunno.

We ARE all "just great".
The average middle class North American ALREADY lives better than the nobles of past ages, any past age, including the Gilded Age and that of the Robber Barons.
Except for the power over life and death, they also live better than any monarch or Emperor, up through the nineteenth century.

As for the rest, we just happen to be living in an age of tremendous upheaval and progress, similar to humankind's taming of fire, or the discovery of agriculture, or the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
We are in an age of GREATER importance than discovering the wheel, metallurgy, generating electricity, inventing the phone, or inventing the automobile.

Given that, it's easy enough to predict advances in longevity and human leisure - since that's exactly what ultimately happened after fire, agriculture, and industry.

However, if you'd like to see the Dark Side:

In the year 2525 - no, just kidding.

Biowarfare and bioterror will be to the future as the machine gun was to WW I.
Tens of millions of us will die.

"Smart dust" will moniter all public and much private activity, for both public and private organizations.

There will eventually be a nuclear war - although probably not directly involving the U.S.

"Virtual reality" will cause hundreds of millions of people to drop out of society. They'll retreat to their opium dens and live as much as they can in universes of their own making.
Possibly as many as 75% of all peoples with access to such technology will spend most of their time there.
Consider that the average American already spends more time watching television than sleeping or working. The average American spends ten times more time watching television than reading.

And now, back to happy happy joy joy:

If we examine what happened to the Native Americans once the Europeans moved in, or the Africans once the Europeans moved in, or the Australian aborigines, once...

The Arab Muslims have been able to purchase the trappings of modern societies, because they have had the great good fortune (and simultaneous misfortune) to live above some temporarily valuable carbon...
But they never integrated the means to produce such wonders into their own societies.

Thus, they are paper tigers. RIGHT NOW, no further advances needed, the U.S. alone could destroy all Arab and Persian militaries, and occupy & hold all oil fields in the Middle East, WITHOUT using nukes.

Give us twenty years, and we won't even need to increase the military budget to pay for a mission like that.

Give them twenty years, and...
They'll meet us with thirty year old small arms and IEDs.

Arab cultures are stagnant, and Arab cultures are Muslim.
There is a link.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 18, 2005 11:54 PM


I'll buy much of that, although I do note we have a tendency here (and everywhere in the West) to be careless in using Arab and Muslim as synonyms. That the Middle East has been a turbulent and incoherent, threatening mess for a long time can't be gainsayed and I don't know exactly what the root is or whether there is one. But I suggest we are grounding a confusing chronic xenophobia and pervasive sense of victimhood a little too quickly in their faith in order to find some psychologically comforting order in the chaos. Historically, much the same can be said about China, but no one blames Buddhism or Confucious for that. Ali has been trying to tell us that faith is not that all-encompassing for many Muslims, but we continue to believe (want to believe?) none of them can decide between orange and grapefruit juice without checking the Koran.

There are two aspects to much of current debate. The First is what do we do in the Middle East itself. I don't have a magic solution, but I imagine it has something to do with the sixth fleet being well-armed with cruise missles, backing moderates (something we have a very hard time doing because we tend to be Carter-like suckers for dreams of grand reconciliations with dangerous enemies that terrify us) and being ruthless with the enemy. I dearly hope the Iraq project works and Iran finds its democratic solution, but we should probably keep our powder dry and not be too scornful of realism writ large. Like in the Balkans, drawing firm lines in the sand may be the only solution for as long as I can foresee (although we could just use Michael to tell us how it will all pan out).

The second is the issue of Muslims in our midst, and here is where I part company with the Pauls and Harrys rather firmly. There seems to me to be a great effort underway, especially in Europe, to analogize Islam with Nazism or communisn--i.e. to see it as a political ideology that demands ultimate conquest in the here and now and that is incompatible with accommodation, tolerance or church/state distinctions. Much as we can't imagine "Nazis for Jews" or the "Marxist-Landlord Cooperative Society", we are assuming a doctrinal unity, absolutist emotional grip and incompatibility with our ways that stems directly from the bare profession of the Muslim faith. That is simply wrong, unhistorical and corrupting for us.

Some here like to analogize Islam or indeed all faiths with "secular" religions and see them all as monarchical or whatever other adjective makes them sound like peas in a pod. It won't work. A religion, especially a major one, is much more than a political doctrine or agenda. It is also the basis of social, family and community life, the source of art and culture, the basis of all morality, etc, etc. There are many different sects, interpretations, lines of thought and views on dealing with outsiders. Surely North American Christians and Jews should have no trouble in being very wary of the idea that ancient scripture or even the rantings of religious leaders is a good guide for determining what kind of a citizen a religious man will be.

You may have noted that almost no one (including no women) in the Muslim world besides marxists will disown Islam itself, a rather stark comparison with Nazi or communist dissidents or even general populations. Half the
Muslim world lives in India and Indonesia and, despite the radicals in their midst, no one really believes they are all closet Islamicists sworn to destroy the West.

Many, many times in our history we have accepted immigrants of faiths and national cultures which many thought were inherently subversive or incompatible with our values. Every time they were proven wrong because they failed to understand that most of the immigrants were not coming to change or conquer or convert us, but to flee oppressions of some kind and seek opportunities, and they were all too happy to embrace our society loyally, especially starting with the second generation, even though they maintained their national, cultural and religious pride and emotional affinities. Yet somehow too many of us are buying into the idea that, as with Nazis and communists and Swedish academics (:-)), Muslims can't be good Americans without disowning Islam. Europe is now coming to hold this view without looking at how they have treated their immigrants and what sciological predictabilities could have been forseen. We should know better.

But I trust this isn't taken as denying we should be investing heavily in security, keeping a close watch and booting out the subversive imams and agitators with dispatch. There is a war on, it's just not against Islam.


Wow. Smart dust, nuclear war, bioterror and virtual reality laced with opium. Isn't the modern world just great? Bet ya' can hardly wait.

Posted by: Peter B at July 19, 2005 6:52 AM

Peter: Excellent.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 8:06 AM

Good post, Peter, but you're still missing Harry's little joke.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 19, 2005 1:10 PM

Michael, don't forget the platinum jumpsuits.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 19, 2005 3:16 PM

I don't give a hoot whether they renounce Islam as long as they denounce the bombers.

Which they do not do.

The 'message of Leeds,' of course, is that no outsider can separate the good Muslim sheep from the bad Muslim goats.

Hardly mattered when their reach was limited to the 36 inches of a sword. Matters more now.

And I deny that we did not, in the past, demand professions of loyalty and renunciation of the Old Country heritage. You might want to ask some of the older Japanese-Americans about that.

In Hawaii in late 1941, they burned family heirlooms to demonstrate that they had decoupled from their heritage.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 19, 2005 3:21 PM

Ditto Peter. The one thing that doesn't change about faiths like Islam and Christianity is their sacred text. They are not re-written through time. But the cultures that draw their meaning from those texts do change through time. Arab culture today has much in common with feudal Chrisitan Europe, more so than feudal Christian Europe has with modern Christian America.

And modern American Muslims have more in common wiht modern American Christians or modern American Jews, or modern American athiests than they have with Muslims living in their country of origin, in many cases. Obviously a religious text is not determinative of the shape of the culture that it serves.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 19, 2005 3:28 PM


Here, here, and here.

Posted by: Peter B at July 19, 2005 4:14 PM


I'm trying, but I still can't see it yet. I'll keep at it, but if it turns out the answer is the word "our", I'm leaving!

Posted by: Peter B at July 19, 2005 4:22 PM

This time it turns out that the word is "they."

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 19, 2005 5:02 PM

Peter B:

A religion, especially a major one, is much more than a political doctrine or agenda. It is also the basis of social, family and community life, the source of art and culture, the basis of all morality, etc, etc.


Which is why the fact that Arab cultures have an oppressive, elitist morality, similar to slave-owning societies; that they refuse to see women as humans; that they have twisted and stagnant cultures that are based on citizens receiving welfare, while all labor necessary to support the societies is done by imported workers held in contempt (again, like slave-owning societies); and the fact that they could not be self-sufficient should it be necessary, because they don't have any native industries or research scientists, to say nothing of agriculturalists; all of these aspects ALLOW US TO REACH CONCLUSIONS about their interpretations of Islam.

In short, regardless of how deeply or truly they believe, their religion is having a decidedly negative effect on their societies, and their tight grasp of it is as useful as grasping an anvil is for a drowning person, and will have the same ultimate result.

It is inspiring, however, to see entire societies commit suicide, rather than betray their version of God. That's fidelity, and honor.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 20, 2005 4:24 AM

Gee, Michael, you don't suppose that kind of talk has anything to do with their xenophobia and the popular appeal of the Islamicists, do you? Nah, of course not. Your just making a dispassionate, scientific analysis.

Posted by: Peter B at July 20, 2005 6:20 AM

yes, by all means ensure that you talk nice so that no one does anything bad. smugness in a grown man is never an attractive quality.

Posted by: cjm at July 20, 2005 9:40 AM

Peter B:

So, your argument would be that because the West looks down on Arabs, it fosters xenophobia, and makes Islamicists appealing ?

And, because of xenophobia, Arabs have rejected science, technology, and industry, preferring to remain, in essence, hunter-gatherers ?

How does that help Arabs attain achievements that could make them proud ?

It sounds like a recipe for failure, to me.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 20, 2005 9:33 PM

Michael: Perhaps Peter feels that "Come on and assimilate, you subhuman, twisted fanatics" lacks a certain earnest quality.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 20, 2005 9:52 PM

I don't believe that Arabs are subhuman.

Otherwise, spot on.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 21, 2005 1:42 AM


You have to give them this though. For a bunch of declining, decrepit societies that never emerged from the Middle Ages and are collapsing as history leaves them behind, they sure do manage to cause a lot of trouble.

Posted by: Peter B at July 21, 2005 5:39 AM

Well, that's exactly backward, Peter.

The trouble they cause is with their borrowed weapons. Left to their own devices, they would be no more a concern today than they were in 1898, when sword-swinging nutjobs attacked a British army with modern weapons.

Your links are feeble. They denounce a concept. What needs denouncing are actors.

The bombs in London today, if again the work of Muslims, put paid to all that, don't they?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 21, 2005 4:26 PM