Brit Broadcasting Conservatism

Egypt to host meeting on Iraqi stability: On Nov. 22 - 24 the Egyptian government is hosting a conference on Iraqi stability to include representatives from the G-8, U.N., E.U., Iraq's neighbours, Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League. And the French/U.N. still want representatives of "resistance" groups to attend. They get their answer -

"At the moment, we don't know who are these groups. Are they hostage-takers? Are they the Zarqawi network groups," [Iraqi FM] Zebari asked, referring to militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's movement. "Are they ex-Baathists? ... They are individual groups, gangs or organized criminals really, in different parts of the country."

Zebari argued that the Iraqi electoral and political processes are "wide open for all those groups to come and participate."

Some U.N. diplomats and officials counter that the outside groups should be allowed to attend the conference, and they expressed concern that excluding the opposition and resistance groups could affect support for the election, which must be held by Jan. 31.

And as for the issue of the withdrawal of American troops been on the agenda? Well, as much as some of Iraq's much suspect neighbours would like it to be disucssed, that's a decision just for the Iraqi government to make.

Sudan accuses U.S. of training Darfur rebels - Not only is America only using the G-word about Darfur due to electoral politics and the Zionist lobby (as if it makes much difference anyway), but Bashir has now accused the U.S. of starting to rebellion in Darfur and continuing to support it! "There are many ways to resolve it, and the ways are known internationally, but those who lit the fire don't want to put it out," he said. Quite.

Syria to tighten Iraq border security, likely to get pass from U.N. on Lebanon - The U.S. is reporting that Syria has agreed to try to stop terrorists streaming into Iraq, but Syria hasn't commented yet - probably doesn't want to be seen to be co-operating with the Great Satan. Meanwhile, Powell hopes that the Sec-Gen's report on the occupation of Lebanon will be one "which makes it clear that the international community is expecting more compliance than we have seen so far." The rest of us hope the U.N. will stop moaning about the other "occupations" in the region quite so much and do more about this one.

Al-Jazeera gets Blair right - Interestingly, while many wire services detected an "apology" in Blair's Iraq speech to the Labour Party Conference, al-Jazeera gets it right, even if their suspicion of a Bush-Blair rift is incorrect.

U.S. and Israel: no nukes for Tehran. Both Israel and Bush have pledged that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons, whatever needs to be done. Israel suspects that Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2007, says the Arab News. "The question is what comes first, nuclear ability or regime change," said Israeli DM Mofaz. Meanwhile, Israel has purchased 500 "bunker-busting" bombs from the U.S.

Powell calls for end to intifada: In a telecast to the Arab world, Powell asks: "What has it accomplished for the Palestinian people? Has it produced progress toward a Palestinian state? Has it defeated Israel on the battlefield?" Meanwhile, the pacificiation of the Gaza Strip continues after the murder of two children by a rocket fired from there on Wednesday. IDF forces pushed deep into the Jebaliya and seem set to stay for a while.

Check out Chrenkoff's Iraqi news briefs and, if you haven't seen it yet, the latest installment of good news from Iraq. Winds also have a GWOT brief today.

In Mali and Senegal there's a popular type of tea called "Saddam" - and now, in Guinea, there's a new trend...

"When the beverage has boiled to a certain level, it sparkles and gives explosive-like rumbling sounds when you open the pot.

"This is why some call it B52, American bombardment, Bin Laden and others call it al-Qaeda," he says.

The maker boasts that it's "good for man's organism", and his customers seem to agree -

"I used to have frequent constipation. But since I started taking this beverage, my bowels are now free, I pass urine freely also, and everything's alright with my body," one al-Qaeda drinker said.

I wonder if it's any good for kidney disease?

Commentary in The Daily Star reports -

Leaders of organizations from 12 countries that form the first transnational women's network emerging from Muslim-majority countries, the Women's Learning Partnership (WLP), met this week in Beirut. On their plate were the challenges and opportunities they face as they strive to promote women's rights and decision-making nationally, regionally and internationally, and how to fortify relationships to help build a stronger support structure and an international network of civil society advocates.

The WLP network emerged in response to the challenges women face across the globe, but especially in Muslim-majority countries, in achieving an equitable role in decision-making and political leadership. The network grew out of a gathering held in 2000, where women from 15 countries met to discuss the status of women and possible strategies to bring about their fairer participation in the public sphere, and to redefine concepts of leadership and power.

Good. Bad -

Women comprise 14 percent of national parliaments worldwide, and they head only 12 of 180 governments. In most countries, women's representation in political parties, municipal bodies and local councils remains far below parity. The United States, though a developed industrial nation, ranks 59th in the world for women's political representation. In the Middle East and North Africa women's representation is significantly lower than the world average, comprising only 4.6 percent of the seats in national parliaments. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates still do not have universal suffrage.

This last line makes it sound like free and universal suffrage is commonplace in the Middle East. But, of course, the only countries with it are.. you guessed it, Afghanistan and Iraq. Damn imperialists and their patriarchy.

(Read the whole thing)

The owner of The Daily Kos has begun writing a weekly column in The Guardian. This is one of the reasons we find it hard to get sensible political commentary on the U.S. in British media - an over-reliance on commentary by the looney left.

The Note believes that Kerry will bring up this article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Cheney Changed His Position on Iraq". The beef is this -

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait. [Emphasis added]

This can be nothing more than a sign of desparation from Kerry supporters, and Kerry would be stupid to bring this up tomorrow. This article is essentially critical of Cheney for changing his opinion on foreign affairs after 9/11. Yet this is exactly why people support the Bush administration and why no-one trusts a Kerry administration to defend America. All of Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq have taken place on a much smaller timescale and post-9/11.

The article goes on to describe how Cheney listed multiple possible problems with invading and occupying Iraq, ones which "foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks." Again, this misses the point. Yes, the occupation is difficult and will lead to violence, but the fundamental point is that we now deem it to be worth it, as we didn't over a decade ago. Kerry supporters not only display faulty thinking, they criticise other people for not displaying it as well! These people really are going to crash and burn.

Is it just me, or are Kerry supporters really clutching at straws now? From a Daily Kos diary (via Pacific Views):

It all happened yesterday, when Kerry stopped in the charming town of Mt. Horeb which is about 25 miles west of Madison Wisconsin. First of all, he stopped in the "Main Street Pub," which is located on, you guessed it, Main Street. He bought beers for the entire bar, and ordered a 10-ounce Leinenkugel beer for himself and a cheeseburger with the works.

Which brings up my first point. How many times have the wing-nuts gotten on some 'news' talk show and yammered about "who would Joe 6-pack from Main Street rather have a beer with?" Somehow, these idiots always say the answer is Bush, a man who never leaves his bubble of privilege and who supposedly doesn't drink!

However now that Kerry has had beers with small-town folks (on Main Street no less) we now know the real answer is John Kerry. The cover of our local papers today had photos of Kerry having his beer with locals, while watching part of the Packers game.

When Kerry was ready to leave town there was an interesting exchange that I have only read a full account of in the ABC Note. Here is partial extract from the Note:
"...As the Senator approached the open door of his idling motorcade, the young man above the pub called out from above, "What's the Packers score?...Without missing a beat, Kerry relayed the score as he had last known it in the Main Street Pub. The young man nodded in concurrence, gave a thumbs-up, and confirmed, "You got my vote."

Well, guys, looks like it's all over for us. I for one salute our new liberal overlords.

From AP -

"We should not have gone into Iraq knowing today what we know," Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."

I know this seems a bit petty, but to me this seems irrelevant. No-one is voting for Kerry because of what he'd think about his decisions a year and a half after he's taken them, they're voting for him based on the decisions he'd make about defending America at the time. The problem with a man like Kerry who changes his mind so often is that he can't be trusted to stick by what he does. The reason Bush is a good bet this November is because what you see is what you get, and it stays that way.

This is especially true with the war on terror. Anyone who thinks Iraq was just about whether Saddam had WMD has it wrong. The point was that we had no real way of knowing because he refused to comply with numerous UNSC resolutions, which emboldened other dictators to do the same. This is the main geopolitial fact that justified the invasion of Iraq, and it is as valid today as it was when we thought Iraq was teeming with WMD. The fact Kerry refuses to recognise this bodes ill for his ability to wage the war on terror.

Professor Raj Persaud has a theory on what drives the modern suicide terrorist: 'mind control and not psychosis'. Here's the money quote -

One obvious theory to explain the kind of behaviour committed against the American hostages is that it is the product of a non-rational, disturbed or psychotic mind.

This theory receives some support when you look into the psychology of people like Timothy McVeigh who blew up the Government Building in Oklahoma in 1995 killing almost 200 people.

McVeigh could have been considered mentally illMcVeigh, who bombed the building in revenge for the FBI's Waco raid, thought the army had implanted a computer chip in his buttock to track his movements, according to reports.

There is little doubt McVeigh was suffering from such a severe disturbance of mind he might well be labelled mentally ill.

Yet McVeigh is the exception that proves the rule - such attacks are mostly planned by a group beforehand and McVeigh acted practically alone.

Large scale terror acts, such as that on September 11th, are mostly a group activity and therefore ideas and forms of thinking are shared between group members, which normally precludes the kind of mental illness that McVeigh probably suffered from.

Having dismissed the possibility that modern terrorists are simply psychotic, Professor Persaud then jumps to the conclusion that suicide terrorists are 'programmed' to carry out their acts in a way that soldiers are trained. He compares suicide terrorists to suicide cults, American soldiers, and capos, saying in conclusion -

We know that a cult leader, Jim Jones, reverend of San Francisco's People's Temple, was able to "program" his followers to commit suicide, or to kill one another on his command; more than 900 American citizens did so in the jungles of Guyana.
Research by John Steiner (an Auschwitz survivor) indicates that most Nazi concentration camp guards were "ordinary men" before and following their years of perpetrating evil.

Many more examples could be culled to illustrate reasons why we should not see terrorists as an alien breed.

The sources of frustration and anger which drive people to do this need to be acknowledged.

But we should focus on a better understanding of the mind-control tactics and strategies that might make even good people engage in evil deeds at some time in their lives, and that might recruit new generations of impoverished young people into lives of terrorism.

As well as the inconsistencies (are these people driven by their 'frustration and anger' or 'mind-control tactics'?), Professor Persaud's argument seems to me to be misguided, bordering on apologia. He is right to say that terrorists are not totally 'mad' in the sense that they are incapable of rational thinking - the planning of 9/11 and many other atrocities is testimony to that. Where they are mad is in the soul. By buying into Islamism when they are not compelled to do so, they themselves make a personal choice about their worldview - no-one is employing 'mind-control tactics and strategies' on a wide scale.

Professor Persaud comments that 'to explain terrorism you have to explain why millions of people endorse this extraordinary use of violence against unarmed combatants.' He is of course right, but I doubt even he would argue that 'mind-control tactics' have been employed on millions in the Arab street. By conceding this he undermines the main thrust of his argument, because unless he thinks the Arab street has been brainwashed then he is faced with the uncomfortable reality that it is Arab society itself which is sick, and that suicide terrorism is a symptom of this illness. Wahabbism and suicide terrorism are not some transient suicide cult, but a death cult now hundreds of years old and still growing. 'Root causes' are indeed the problem, but not the ones liberals usually talk about.

From AP -

North Korea said earlier this year that it had reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and was increasing its "nuclear deterrent" but did not provide any details.

[Vice Foreign Minister] Choe was asked at the [UN General Assembly] news conference what was included in the nuclear deterrent.

"We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed 8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms," he said, without elaborating on the kinds or numbers.

When asked if the fuel had been turned into actual weapons, not just weapons-grade material, Choe said, "We declared that we weaponized this."

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said in late April that it was estimated that eight nuclear bombs could be made if all 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were reprocessed. Before the reprocessing, South Korea said it believed the North had enough nuclear material to build one or two nuclear bombs.

With the Presidential election looming, a solution to this problem is becoming more evasive every day. This, of course, is the intention of the DPRK, which sees a likely appeaser in Kerry and is fully aware of the reduced likelihood of any decisive action by Washington before the election. The DPRK has latched onto issues that really have no substantive bearing on the matter to try and divert attention away from their program (remind you of anyone's campaign?): South Korea's admission that it created 0.2g of enriched uranium in 2000 and supposed 'belligerence' by Bush towards the DPRK. Reports the Washington Post -

It remains unclear why Pyongyang is stalling. But the government has escalated its anti-American rhetoric since President Bush referred to North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, as a "tyrant" last month at a campaign rally in Wisconsin. The North Korean foreign ministry responded by calling Bush a "fascist tyrant," a "man killer" and "human trash."

Choe, meanwhile, warned Monday that the "danger of war is snowballing" in the Korean Peninsula as a result of the Bush administration's efforts to "isolate" Pyongyang. "The ever intensifying U.S. hostile policy and the clandestine nuclear-related experiments recently revealed in South Korea are constituting big stumbling blocks to the continuation of the talks," Choe told U.N. delegates. "The serious situation . . . makes us unable to participate in the talks aimed at discussing the nuclear weapon program."

The DPRK has also used the General Assembly as a platform to talk war (while simultaneously blaming U.S. belligerence for the stand-off). And they've also announced their attention not to resume the six-party talks until the two 'stumbling blocks' Choe refers to above are overcome. Neither can be, because neither are substantive problems, and the DPRK knows it. At least maybe without the chimera of the multiparty talks we can recognise fully that no compromise is possible with this regime.

Ralph Cossa has an idea on how Seoul might call the North's bluff as well as a refutation of the North's silly focus on the South's nuclear activities -

Is all hope lost for another round of talks? I think not, especially if Seoul and Beijing are prepared to directly refute Pyongyang's foolish assertion and instead challenge the North to follow Seoul's example of (admittedly after-the-fact) transparency. Unfortunately, while South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and Russian President Vladimir Putin have publicly called on Pyongyang to resume the talks at their recent Moscow summit - a call echoed by senior officials from Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul at their latest Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) dialogue - none seems willing to press Pyongyang on the issue.

The big differences between South Korea's admitted transgressions and Pyongyang's indirectly acknowledged violations of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regulations is that it was Seoul itself that revealed its most recent illegal actions - taken by a small group of scientists without government sanction, some four years ago - and then it welcomed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to investigate not only the 2,000 uranium-enrichment experiments but its long-canceled 1982 government-sponsored plutonium-based weapons program as well - a clandestine effort halted under US pressure, one should add.

Seoul has been disappointingly quiet in the face of the North's allegations - as it regrettably normally is - merely dismissing the charges and calling on the North to resume negotiations. A more appropriate approach would be to challenge Pyongyang to follow Seoul's example and invite the IAEA to investigate both sides' alleged transgressions, perhaps with representatives from both North and South accompanying each inspection effort.

From Voice of America, Syria Blames Israel for US War With Iraq -

Syria's foreign minister has delivered a blistering attack on Israel at the U.N. General Assembly debate. Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara accused Israel of inciting the United States to go to war in Iraq.

In a harshly-worded speech, the Syrian foreign minister said Israel has contributed to "extremist and intolerant policies" that have been advanced in an attempt to find a new enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Minister Farouq al-Shara accused Israel of inciting the United States and the West to wage endless wars in the Middle East to promote the idea that the Arab/Israeli conflict is not the core of the region's problems.

"Israel bears an important share of the responsibility for intensifying and worsening the American predicament in Iraq by avoiding the resumption of the peace process despite the hand extended by the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese," he said. "Israel's course of action may come back to haunt it because its occupation of Arab lands is a major cause of the rejection of the American policies in the broader Middle East."

The Syrian foreign minister said Israel is building a 'racist separation wall' while at the same time refusing to comply with 40 Security Council resolutions and hundreds of General Assembly resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories.

More unrest in Saudi Arabia - and not even the French are safe! -

The "terrorist" murder of a French citizen in Jeddah and another shoot-out on Monday between suspected Islamist militants and security forces in the Saudi capital have again spotlighted the terrorism battle being waged in the kingdom, diplomats said.

The latest gunbattle ended early Monday with the Interior Ministry reporting the arrest of a suspected militant.

It followed a police patrol intercepting a suspect car as it "sped out of a site in Riyadh's Al-Shifa district," the official told the SPA news agency.

He said "no citizens or security men were injured," but security sources and witnesses said that an Asian taxi-driver was hit during the exchange.

Less than 24 hours earlier, a gunman shot dead Laurent Barbot, a 45-year-old employee of French defense electronics firm Thales, in the commercial capital of Jeddah.

That attack was the second on a Westerner in Saudi Arabia in 10 days, and the first targeting a French national since a deadly wave of violence erupted here in May 2003 blamed on Al-Qaeda.

It's begun. Jimmy Carter has fired the first highly visible shot in the campaign to question the credibility of the Presidential election. Now that Democrats have got hold of the "Bush stole the election" meme, they're bound to employ it again. From the Washington Post -

After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.

The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

Democrats are going to need therapy if they lose this election. And if it's close, they're going to have an excuse to foist all that angst on the rest of us...

In an interview with the Observer, Blair does a good job of the case for staying the course in Iraq -

'Obviously there will be people who have never been convinced about the original decision. But the fundamentals of the situation in Iraq are absolutely clear. You have a government supported by the United Nations. You have got massive reconstruction. You've got an attempt to bring democracy to the country and you've got these people trying to stop it. I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but what ever that disagreement, surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequences of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost. By contrast, if we succeed and defeat these people and help the Iraqis to get what the Iraqis want, then global terrorism will suffer a defeat.'

He goes on: 'If the violence and terror stopped, Iraq would very swiftly - because it's rich in resources, it's people are intelligent - would make progress. So my point to people is: which side should we be on now? You might have disagreed about the conflict, but there is only one side to be on now, and that's the side of people who are trying to bring democracy and hope to the country, not trying to plunge it into terror and chaos.'

Don't you wish, just sometimes, that Bush could be as eloquent as Blair in interviews? He's getting better though. It's going to be very interesting to see how he handles the debates, although Kerry is likely to have been briefed to try to cut down on the nuance and hit Bush with uncomfortable one-liners. But Bush would do well to look at these few passages of Blair's above to have a list of positive developments to reel off. So overwhelming is the evidence when objectively described without the influence of Small Political Man Syndrome. Talking of which, from the Observer interview -

What about stroking his own base a bit more warmly- or at least not so offending it? Does he appreciate how infuriated natural Labour supporters can become when they see him holidaying with Silvio Berlusconi?

'I shouldn't see the Italian Prime Minister?' Blair can't see the problem. 'All of this nonsense. We spent the evening with the Italian Prime Minister. He is an ally of ours.'

The sort of "natural Labour supporter" who would get annoyed about Blair meeting Berlusconi no longer exists unless "natural Labour supporter" is defined as a middle-class liberal. Papers like the Observer need to recognise this if they want to understand the political realignment that took place under Thatcher. Sadly, it's probably going to take more visible political defeats for Old Labourites at the ballot box for them to even realise they're on the defensive.

The LAT has a huge piece on Bush's guard service -

Over the [last] 18 months of his tour, the man who is now America's commander in chief paid little attention to his military duties, lost his flying status and was granted an early exit from the assignment that shielded him from combat in Vietnam.

A reexamination of Texas Air National Guard documents, Air Force regulations and accounts from former Guard officials and military experts depicts a capable young pilot who initially excelled, then barely scraped together enough credits in his final two years to meet the Guard's minimum requirements.

Give it up, guys. No-one really cares anymore, and besides - Bush volunteered for Vietnam.

It might seem that an article about media bias coming from the BBC is a bit rich, but it's actually fairly good - although like most of these BBC analysis sections it lacks anything like insight. But here are a few interesting facts -

About 29% of Republicans trusted Fox, while about 26% of Democrats did. Those figures make it the most trusted news source for Republicans - but among the least trusted by Democrats.

Overall, CNN remains the most trusted cable network - but only 32% of Pew respondents found it "highly credible", down from nearly 40% in 2000.

CNN has lost eight credibility points in four years, whereas

In 2000, 18% of Republicans and Democrats told the Pew Research Center for People and the Press that they tuned in to Fox regularly.

By this year, that number had risen to 35% among Republicans - but only 21% among Democrats.

Let's hope the rest of the networks are paying attention. Not only are they undermining partiality and good journalism, they're undermining their businesses as well. If they'd quit exercising the typical liberal assumption that the public are stupid and can be duped into believing anything, then they'd do everyone, including their shareholders, a favour.

Following the death of Izz El-Deen Khalil in Damascus, the BBC has an article referring to him as an "activist" and describe him as a "senior figure in [Hamas'] military wing". It's also interesting to note that they don't once mention terrorist activities in their profile of him. Meanwhile, the AP sees him as an "operative", whereas Reuters goes for "leader", and the New York Times favours "official". Meanwhile, one news corporation is getting it right, and pissing off Reuters in the process -

According to Mr. Schlesinger, members of Reuters' sales staff in Canada have asked CanWest to remove writers' names to conform to its guidelines for the use of "terrorist." Reuters has also asked that CanWest add its name to that of Reuters as the source of revised articles and to display that information only at the end of the articles. Alternatively, Reuters suggests that its name not be used at all.

By changing occurences of the word "fugitive", "militant" or "operative" to "terrorist" - in line with the sensible reasoning that a "terrorist" is someone who kills civilians - the Associated Press believes CanWest is being "unbalanced, unfair [and] inaccurate." Right.

Here's an interesting one from the LAT -

Three times during the final months of World War II, Japanese officers sent Hamazono off to die, ordering him to crash-dive a single-engine plane stuffed with bombs into an American warship.

Bad weather aborted the first mission, an oil leak the second. On his final attempt in April 1945, he encountered three American pilots over the sea off Okinawa. In the ensuing dogfight, Hamazono was burned and took shrapnel in his shoulder, but his plane limped home.

You could call him the luckiest man in Japan, though Hamazono didn't see it that way at the time.

"I was, of course, ready to die," says Hamazono, who instead has aged into a bent but dignified 81-year-old. Fate allowed him to see his hair turn wispy and gray. And fate made him part of one of history's strangest and most exclusive brotherhoods: "kamikaze survivors."

Most were still waiting for orders to fly when Japan surrendered to the Allies in September 1945. A few others were spared because they did not reach their intended targets — a failure Hamazono found intolerable at the time. He was on standby to fly a fourth mission when Japan capitulated. Denied the opportunity to redeem his honor, he felt disgraced.

"I wished I had died," he says.

In the postwar years, a traumatized nation treated the kamikaze survivors like pariahs. But in the last decade, their reputation has recovered. Publishers clamor for memoirs. Scholars pick over their backgrounds in search of an explanation for their willingness to die for a lost cause. Japanese nationalists buff and shine their memory like medals.

"Kamikaze" has ceased to be a slur in Japan. If the Japanese still can't agree on whether the pilots were victims or heroes, brainwashed conscripts or volunteers, they are at least prepared to honor their spirit of sacrifice.

Only the modern menace of the suicide bomber has emerged to spoil this sentiment.

Apparently, the exclusive group of kamikaze survivors resent being compared to suicide bombers -

The kamikazes attacked military targets. In contrast, "the main purpose of a suicide bomber is to kill as many innocent civilians as they can," Hamazono says. That, he says, "is just murder."

Read the whole thing. It raises interesting questions in that seemingly grey area in the laws of war. Despite the evil and fanatical nature of the Japanese regime during the war, I think these people have a point when they reject the comparison to Islamist suicide bombers. The sacrifice of life for your country is something we can at least vaguely identify with, when it is done against military targets. Counterforce attacks which lead to the death of the attackers are a staple of our heroic stories. The means of doing it makes little sense to us, but at least it is based on concepts we can understand: sacrifice, bravery, patriotism. Absolutely none of these things animate the minds of the cold-blooded child-killers of Hizbollah who pioneered the suicide-bombing technique.

British hostage Kenneth Bigley's plight continues in Iraq, and the media reaction has been marked by spin. The Independent thinks -

That neither [Tony Blair], nor anyone else, can exert the slightest influence on the desperate situation he did much to precipitate is a measure of the impotence of all authority almost anywhere in Iraq. [Emphasis added]

Their evidence for this? The confusion over the prisoner release last Wednesday, which they choose to ascribe to a lack of sovereignty on the part of the Iraqi government. It takes some imagination to extrapolate genuine confusion in a government out to that government's impotency. Of course there will be dispute between some civil servants in the Iraqi government and the Americans over particular prisoners, but this whole thing would have passed unnoticed where it not for Zarqawi's demand for all female prisoners to be released - a demand which, of course, didn't specifically refer to Saddam's former scientists.

Kevin Toolis of the Daily Express has something rather bizzare to say -

No. Not. Never. Cannot. They are the favourite words of foreign secretaries, prime ministers and presidents when it comes to their public policy on negotiating with terrorists, even the bloodthirsty Iraqi fanatics who kidnapped the British hostage Mr Bigley. They are great sounding words - but often that is all they are.

If a terrorist group is ruthless enough and powerful enough to keep on bombing and kidnapping, then sooner or later every western government will start to negotiate with them. Beheading hostages is an appalling act, but, in a sexually repressed society like Iraq, now inured to sudden death and destruction, Zarqawi's demands do have some emotional appeal.

The daring daylight operation to seize the hostages, probably with some support from rogue Iraqi police, proves Zarqawi has more support in Iraqi society than we would like to think. If the Americans don't find him and kill him first, and he grows powerful enough, then, one day, George Bush, or whoever happens to be in the White House, will have to do what every democratic leader has done before and sit down and speak with the terrorist. [Emphasis added]

Apart from his bizzare Freudianism, Toolis is incorrect when he repeats the opinion that has been distressingly creeping into some opinion columns: that leaders "inevitably" have to bargain with people like Zarqawi. There is no inevitability behind it and there are certainly not "negotiations" going on behind closed doors. I of course don't have to repeat to you the total futility of negotiating with Zarqawi's ilk, but it seems the media doesn't quite get it. John Prescott made this point admirably when he juxtaposed the British reaction to hostage-taking to the American one -

Mr Preston urged British newspapers to take a "more muted" approach to the crisis.

He compared UK coverage of Mr Bigley's ordeal with coverage in the US of the fates of two American co-hostages, both of whom were executed.

He said: "They have not actually not reported it, but I think the Washington Post put it on page 27.

"That's the kind of mid-way I think we ought to be thinking about."

He added that the terrorists were using spin tactics and accused the British media of being "too easily manipulated".

It's good that a debate is emerging over just how this ought to be covered, because we're certainly not doing anyone in Iraq any favours by carrying on as we are. If the media instated a policy of not even reporting on hostage-taking then one of the main rationales for doing it would be obliterated.

No foreigner is safe in Iraq any more, which is ironic given that Zarqawi clearly doesn't give two hoots for the Iraqi cause. In fact, quite the reverse - his plan is to halt the reconstruction of Iraq and to create the terrible security and economic conditions that we are daily warned are emerging. His group targets people of all faiths and nationalities without discrimination, with the simple goal of driving anyone who wants to help the Iraqi people out of Iraq.

The IHT carries an article today entitled "When Even the French are Targets". This utterly misses the point. Wouldn't an article entitled "When Even the Egyptians are Targets", or "When Even the Turkish are Targets" be more appropriate? The fact Zarqawi is willing to kill anyone, including scores of Muslims, in his psychopathic quest to destroy Iraq should not come as a surprise to anyone. Kenneth Bigley will not be the first or the last to die at his hands. The appropriate response is sadness and a reaffirmation of our determination to get the bastard.

There really is no going back for John Kerry now. He's made The Last Flip-Flop, and he'd better hope it was the right one. In Philadelphia today, he said -

"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida," Kerry said in a speech at Temple University. "There's just no question about it. The president's misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win."

Kerry said Iraq has become a haven for terrorists since the war, and he offered a detailed strategy to contain terrorism while drawing a sharp distinction between his and the president's views on national security.

"George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority," Kerry said. "I will finish the job in Iraq and I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror."

The battlelines are finally being drawn. Now Kerry has relaunched his campaign and appears to be sticking fairly consistently to his point of view. Our gut reaction might be to be fearful of this, because it would have been so much easier to win the election when nothing even remotely interesting was issuing from the Kerry campaign. However, I propose that we're actually better off having Kerry speaking his mind and showing his true colours. If he continues like this he's going to get defeated anyway, with the added bonus that it will not just be a defeat for John Kerry but for the ideas he is espousing. Glenn Reynolds might well have a point when he says that Kerry or his aides now expect to lose, which is why his campaign is starting to look more and more consistently demented.

Kerry is making this election essentially a referendum on the Bush Doctrine. That's what he and his Party wanted from the start, and at least now they're being honest about it. I suggest that as well as getting rightfully indignant and being dissapointed when Kerry disparages our allies and denigrates the Iraq mission, we also allow ourself a little smile. Because it's going to make him lose, and those ideas are going to lose with him. Then in the next four years, the unfolding reality of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will put the nail in the coffin. With the bankruptcy of the Left's ideas on foreign policy and terrorism exposed, it'll be time for them to do some reconstruction of their own.

Meanwhile, Arthur Chrenkoff sums up brilliantly what's wrong with the Left at the moment and their inability to do anything but criticise -

I really despise the condescension of spoiled, comfortable, middle class Western brats who have no idea of life and realities outside their comfy liberal cocoon. If blogs were around some fifteen years ago, somebody like "sipples" would have been writing the oh-so-hilarious commentary on the struggle of post-communist countries to build a better, normal life for themselves: "Have you read about this collective farm outside Grodno? The peasants decided to privatise it and divided all the land and property among themselves. The only problem is... there aren't any cows left. HA HA HA!"

Face it, you and your merry company are just a pimple on the ass of an asterisk in a footnote of the history of progress from tyranny to freedom.

But read the whole thing (as if you couldn't after that last line).

P.S Has anyone noticed how frequently the Kerry campaign has been calling their opponents "un-American" recently? I thought the Left considered that phrase to be, well, "un-American"?