First point worth noting: They’re not actually blinded. You can’t be "blind" and still orchestrate a 9/11, or any real orchestrated terrorist activity, under the noses of intelligence and law services, and not be bloody smart.

So yes, it’s perfectly fair for individuals in government to assume that individuals they’re willing to term as "enemies" are fully capable of using those weaknesses - whether through propaganda, indoctrination, or outright motivation to attack and target selection. The guy carrying the bomb belt may not be a tactical genius - but you can bet he’s been instructed and informed by tacticians; American infantrymen aren’t known for their brains - but their job is to follow orders, not think.

That’s what I’m trying to get at with those previoius statements: it’s important to recognize that the enemy we’re all imagining that the government is trying to fight is a bunch of very smart people with some very unusual views - not a bunch of zealots, not a bunch of people who don’t know what they’re doing or don’t spend an awful lot of time planning how best to do it.

Loss of any tactical advantage to an enemy of that nature isn’t wise - and as such, I can see the point of the ‘unified front’.

That’s all I’m saying - that in that light, it makes sense.

"I don’t see how a little bit of public honesty by TB would have that much bearing in Iraq, although it would do the population of this country the power of good to know that their country isn’t a complete suck-up to the lunatic Bush"

But it blatantly would. The sole purpose of it would be to make you feel better - and it’s one of those things that, I have to ask, does it really matter. Because quite frankly, you’re NOT going to feel better. We all say that all we want is for Blair not to look like a pushover, but that’s not actually true - what we want is a complete change in policy and attitude in Iraq; I can see no way of doing that without damaging the ability of forces in the region by providing the ammunition to the ‘enemy’. (And I use that word sarcastically, as you can’t call the citizens of the nation you’re meant to be building an ‘enemy’.)

"I disagree with the first point and the second is irrelevant. There are lots of weaknesses already and there is lots of condemnation of the governments stance by the media and other politicians, including plenty in the Labour party."

And they mean absolutely nothing, because those people have nothing to do with the actual coalition. That’s the beauty of this whole mess - the people complaining loudest are those who have absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on; arguably, if those people had something to do with what’s going on, it would be improper of them to air it in public, because it WOULD be damaging. So they’re in the fine position of being able to complain about Bush without actually having to deal with him or the coalition in general.

As such, they can complain all they like - because their complaints, while being from Britain, are not from the *coalition* - and aren’t actually dissention in the ranks. Just politics.

"As to your first point; I didn’t realise we were at war with Iraq."

I thought the nightly quotes of ‘I see dead people’ made that plain. Do you have another word you’d prefer to use to describe it? We’ve got soldiers on two sides killing each other - sounds like a war to me.

"I thought we were supposedly liberating Iraq."

Don’t ask me. If it was truly free, it would be free to implement a Sharia law-based religious-led government, devolve into three separate nations, and drop the whole region into civil war. After all, unguided, that *is* what the people want to do. Kurdistan separate from both Shia and Sunni regions, left to themselves to argue over who gets to pump money out of the ground.

Arguably, that may come to pass anyways.

"A noble sentiment, but sadly far too late. That’s exactly what the US is doing; yet ANOTHER reason to distance ourselves from them. But again, I suspect, far too late."

See above. Not disagreeing. Merely stating that if they’re *NOT* going to do so, and step out of the coalition, then keeping one’s laundry indoors is definitely the best approach. And it really, honestly, truly is, in those circumstances - one does not GET diplomacy out of the media. You can’t use the media to mediate, and the media is a poor interpreter of intent. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way.

Diplomacy is all too often about uncomfortable compromises with unscrupulous people with unsavoury viewpoints. It always has been; it always will be. The UN is *brimming* with totalitarian and autocratic regimes; democracies are the exception, not the rule.

So unsurprisingly, you don’t whack China over the head with their human rights violations publically, you don’t whack your ‘partners’ over their misdeeds, and you don’t undermine your ability to use diplomacy to solve problems through populist reactions in the media.

I mean, quite frankly, the one thing this HAS proved to everyone is that Blair isn’t a populist knee-jerk poll-watcher. At least not all the time.

"And although I can agree with the actions of Iraqi and Palestinian freedom fighters (I wouldn’t even call them terrorists), I refuse to accept that Al Qaida are of the same ilk."

Every one of us is of the same ilk. We can all imagine a situation where we would become freedom fighters; we can all, every one of us, be convinced to do these things. I guess that’s the real difference between you and I on this - you have a lot more faith in the inherent ability for people to see an external ‘good’ and ‘evil’ - whereas I’m pretty 100% on it being a completely indoctrinable moral position, and that people, given enough time and indoctrination, can be made to believe that black is white.

There can be no ‘beneficial effect’ from a breakdown in diplomacy that results in the airing of dirty laundry. Mistakes that result in that airing are subject to difficult and prolonged correction through the diplomacy process that was put there to prevent that kind of airing in the first place.

The whole POINT about diplomacy is that you’re not supposed to do what you’re expecting from Blair; we can all argue that he should be less willing to agree with Bush, but that’s different than asking him to hurl poo at him like a soft brown ICBM.

Why? Well the first problem is that there isn\x92t any evidence to support their existence or any evidence of their involvement in any acts of terrorism. There are plenty of incidents where we have been told that it was by an organisation \x91linked to Al Qaida\x92 or that \x91security sources suspect it was committed by Al Qaida\x92. We get regular video and tape messages from Osama (apparently) but never once have I heard him claim responsibility for any of these attacks or make any specific threats that have turned into reality \x96 not even for the attacks on the World Trade Centre which everyone now seems quite happy to attribute to him.

The second problem I have is that Al Qaida is now being blamed for every terrorist attack. Saying something was done or threatened by Al Qaida is now being used as an excuse for not discussing the reasons behind attacks or having to justify unnecessary security measures. It just seems that by mentioning Al Qaida people stop asking questions \x96 which is always a bad thing.

I\x92m not suggesting that there is any great conspiracy or cover up (if you look round the internet you will find plenty of these to choose from) but it does seem that saying the words Al Qaida has become the easy option for the media and politicians \x96 allowing them to get away without investigating or explaining the reasons behind what is going on.

A noble sentiment, but sadly far too late. That’s exactly what the US is doing; yet ANOTHER reason to distance ourselves from them. But again, I suspect, far too late.

Incidentally, the terrorist loonies I was referring to were the likes of Al Qaida, the same terrorists the government was supposedly so afraid would gain a foothold in war-torn Iraq. And although I can agree with the actions of Iraqi and Palestinian freedom fighters (I wouldn’t even call them terrorists), I refuse to accept that Al Qaida are of the same ilk. They are people who kill, maim and torture because they like to; and they are hardly worthy of being classed as human beings at all. What is their noble cause? To kill anyone and everyone who isn’t a Muslim? Or just anyone who doesn’t agree with their view of the world? Hardly noble, is it? And you can bet your bottom dollar that soft-lad Osama, if he is ever cornered, will go the same way as Saddam instead of fighting and dying for the cause he exhorts others to die for.

I disagree with the first point and the second is irrelevant. There are lots of weaknesses already and there is lots of condemnation of the governments stance by the media and other politicians, including plenty in the Labour party. So again, I fail to see how distancing himself from Bush over Iraq could have anything other than a beneficial effect.

As to your first point; I didn’t realise we were at war with Iraq. I thought we were supposedly liberating Iraq. Maybe that’s why the Coalition of the Damned is in so much trouble and is only ever going to get in deeper - because so many people erroneously believe we are at war. Sure, there is conflict with terrorists - or probably more accurate, Iraqi patriots. But that is OUR fault, not theirs; kick a beaten dog hard enough and it will bite your foot. But whatever is going on, I disagree that the media has had an impact. If it had, we wouldn’t be there now.

"With your argument firmly in place, the government needs only worry about pleasing its populace and voters, and can happily ignore any possibility that apparent weakness within the coalition will be seized on by any enemy - but the reality is, the "enemy" isn’t so blinded by zealotry, on either side of any war, conflict, or battle I can think of, where that is ever actually the case"

So the weaknesses that are now evident (I say weaknesses and not apparent weaknesses deliberately, as they are actual weaknesses, not apparent ones!) have not already been seized on by our "enemies"?

Even if people like Al Qaida were not blinded by zealotry, they are hardly in a position to take much advantage of any perceived chinks in the Coalition apart from in Iraq itself - and there are plenty of chinks already in the Coalition; I don’t see how a little bit of public honesty by TB would have that much bearing in Iraq, although it would do the population of this country the power of good to know that their country isn’t a complete suck-up to the lunatic Bush.

However, I have struggled for a while to compose the rest of my reply but I keep getting disturbed (work is a pain!) so it’ll have to keep for now…

2) With your argument firmly in place, the government needs only worry about pleasing its populace and voters, and can happily ignore any possibility that apparent weakness within the coalition will be seized on by any enemy - but the reality is, the "enemy" isn’t so blinded by zealotry, on either side of any war, conflict, or battle I can think of, where that is ever actually the case. It matters. You can’t argue that the media’s coverage has had an impact on the war itself; you also can’t argue that the media wouldn’t be the first to exploit that weakness.

By definition, that means that it can’t be allowed to take place; the resulting control placed over the media and their outward political stance is a direct response to that requirement; the embedding of journalists, which successfully locked down journalists to the area of coverage deemed acceptable by the military, was a direct response to a presumed requirement for that level of control - one which, looking at the quality of coverage by individuals *not* bound to those missions, did its job admirably; the most impressive reporting to come out of the war weren’t from the people embedded with the troops, but the freelancers who braved going it alone in the rest of the country and risked their lives; one might even argue that this is the single most important reason why Al-Jazeera’s coverage was so much better than anything the West had - it wasn’t limited by that control.

3) Don’t dehumanize them. We all have something that, sooner or later, we would die to protect; hell, governments’ militaries are bound to the idea that there are principles that are worth defending, that one’s country is worth giving one’s life for. We all have a line in the sand that we won’t allow crossed; we all have the capability within us to become something that someone will class as a ‘nutcase’. Like everything else in human experience, that line can be moved - either through direct experience with hardships and injustice, or through propaganda, or through indoctrination. They are us. Forget that, and we become the oppresor we are accused of being - individuals incapable of seeing others as living, breathing, feeling human beings willing to undergo suffering and death for their beliefs different than our own.

Continuing to separate "them" from "us" is the first step that allows things like war to take place in the first place; dehumanization is an important step in any act of cruelty.

Having said all that, any terrorist, Muslim or otherwise, who is willing to die for a non-existent cause (ie; God!) is obviously a nutcase of the highest order in the first place.