UK multi-culturism under spotlight, by Roger Hardy, BBC “Islamic Affairs Analyst”, but didn’t have the energy to get stuck into it at the time. Thankfully, Dumbjon has been on the case, and has done a remarkably good demolition job, Beeb Bandwagon Hits Clue Tree, Reverses, Steers Round It, in his own inimitable style. The post below it is rather funny as well.
I saw this BBC News Online story last week,
Bookmark the permalink.
Joerg, unfortunately Ch*lsea generate the most interesting stories at the moment – would you rather a spree of ‘groundsman mows pitch at Rotherham’ exclusives?
I bet Paul Reynolds does not reply.
Islamic scholars’s Declaration
Full Text
Click to access Signed_Ulama_statement.pdf
Paul Reynolds
Some of us would argue that one major thing influencing disaffected young Muslims is the general tone of BBC coverage. They normally do not watch Al J, at least in the early stages of disaffection. The BBC is a prime source of news and discussion.
The BBC coverage has been very negative. We have had a strong vein of opposition to the war, (think Humphrys) we have had the “quagmire” view of life in Iraq, (think Hawley) we have had gross over-playing of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we have had virtually no reporting of progress in areas outside the trouble zones. Virtually nothing for example on the Kurds, or on southern Iraq. Very little to show the coalition and especially the Brits in a decent light. bove all – very little of the Iraaqis talking for themselves, rather than non-Iraqis giving the commentary.
I therefore hold the BBC as a factor in the build-up of hate. Yes – the BBC coverage, its bias and omissions helped lead to the London terrorism. Terrorism that the BBC could not even call by its proper name.
So today we’re criticising the Beeb for exposing our childrens’ delicate minds to the site of negroes, Asians, women and homosexuals; we’re suggesting that when the British Muslim community unequivocally denounces terrorism they must obviously be lying because, erm, they’re Muslims; and we’re mocking the way Muslims pray. Good effort.
Miam
I don’t think that is the fatwa referred to in the BBC story yesterday. It is a STATEMENT made after the meeting of MCB et al cople of days earlier.
Are the BBC confusing us ?
Oh ye of little faith.
Of course I reply.
I have asked that the full text of the fatwa be added as a link to the BBC story. You can find these links to the right of the text. You can also see the text on the website of the Muslim Council of Britain.
As for the t word..Michael Grade has confirmed what is the practice of the various news programmes. There is no ban on this word and you will hear it many times. It was on the 0800 bulletin on Radio 4 this morning and you won’t get much more traditional BBC than that.
However, particulary on sites seen, heard or read by the whole world, there is some caution.
Dear JohninLondon
AS you say, the BBC is a forum for discussion.
As such it has to reflect as many views as possible.
I think you are blaming the messenger. This has happened in crises before. The BBC was blamed for the troubles in Northern Ireland,as I recall, having been there in the seventies.
I do not think that there can be a seriuous accusation against the BBC that it is the reason why terrorists blow people up. They are motivated by things far deeper and darker.
JiL (“I bet Paul Reynolds does not reply”) and everyone else, please at least give Paul R. a chance to reply before launching off at him again – it is good to know that people at the BBC pay attention to what is said here at Biased BBC – but they’re hardly likely to come back if by doing so a deluge of hostile questioning, as distinct from frank exchanges, ensues.
I disagree with Miam’s assessment of Paul Reynolds article from yesterday. It was interesting, and made some good points (e.g. about apparent anger at bin Laden in Arab media), although it left a number of questions hanging (e.g. the pillock quoted at the end could have done with being asked: what about those who didn’t vote or, like me, who voted for an MP who didn’t support the war in Iraq? Are we still targets? Or are we all ‘guilty’ just by being British?) and didn’t have a conclusion as such (so was perhaps more akin to a daily diary column (a blog post even) than a freestanding article in itself).
Please, all of you, remember that this is a forum for rational and sensible discussion about BBC bias – it is not a free for all – and should not be treated as such, even though we are keen to promote free speech. Under UK law it is conceivable that someone might try to sue us for what you, commenters, say – so please bear that in mind – it has been threatened in the past by at least one BBC staffer (very definitely not Paul R., in case anyone wonders!) who’s not as keen on free speech as we are.
Rabid and off-beam comments will be deleted (though the failure to delete something should not be regarded as an endorsement of it) – but we don’t have time to monitor everything that is said – so if you want to retain the comments facility here please treat it, and other people, with at least a modicum of respect. Thank you.
Paul Reynolds
Thank you for the posting of the text of the “fatwa”. But it is dated 15 July, the date of the MCB et al meeting at the Islamic Cultural Centre. The MCB website homepage states that it is a “statement”. It does NOT describe it as a fatwa.
I believe that after the meeting it was announced that although there had been expectations of a possible fatwa, no fatwa would yet be issued.
So what pray is the provenance of the BBC story yesterday on the “fatwa” ? A story three days after the MCB meeting. Is the BBC saying that the statement has transmuted into a fatwa ? No other media have reported a fatwa per se – they have all reported the 15 July statement.
And except for this one story, the BBC did not report any fatwa on its TV or radio channels, as far as I am aware. Did the MCB describe the atement as a fatwa after the meeting on 15 July ? – they do not do that on their website.
There is serious confusion here, I think. I hope you can help clear it up.
Dear JohninLondon
One could probably argue for hours about when a fatwa is a fatwa.
I think the key thing is that it was a statement of condemnation. We called it a fatwa, though it is true that the Muslim Council did not. But then so did the major world news agencies. This is what Reuters said: “On Monday, Imams from about 500 British mosques issued a
fatwa, or edict, condemning violence.”
And AFP: “The British Muslim Forum issued the fatwa, or formal legal
opinion..”
And AP:”Britain’s largest Sunni Muslim group issued a
binding religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the July 7
suicide bombings.”
Actally JohninLondon, I have to row back! Sorry about this. There is indeed some confusion about this fatwa…The British Muslim Forum is now sending us the text which is different from the statement issued by the Muslim Council.
I will post it when we get it and it will be added to the BBC story.
Paul Reynolds
I agree with Andrew’s comments above as regards your article on the Chatham House report and the other matters you covered.
That report and other people suggest that Iraq is indeed factor in the mix that leads to home-grown terrorism. Not the cause – but a factor eg a factor that can be twisted.
Likewise i hold to my view that the overall pattern of the BBC’s coverage of Iraq has been a factor. We have been portrayed far too often as the bad guys, far too seldom as the good guys. Even after the elctions, after eventual UN validation of our presence there. Far too much criticism, far too little of Iraqis talking for themselves. Far too much platform for people like Galloway and other strident critics.
The BBC was criticised in past times for reporting on the views of IRA – I think wrongly. But there was not a sense given that the British security services and the Army were on the same moral plane as the opposition. Yet that is what we get from the BBC on Iraq. The BBC still will not use the T word even for suicide bombers killing two dozen children.
As for the T-word question generally, the policy guideline is still there. Many argue that it is equivocal and appeasing to terrorism. And while you may want it in terms of what you broadcsast overseas, what you broadcast here should not censor out the T word. Mr Grade’s words were welcome this morning. But this sounds like a groundswell of people inside the BBC voting with their feet (or pens/PCs) and calling a halt to the nonsense that was happening just after 7/7 right through to the reporting of the PM’s statement on the 11th. What the BBC did on some of those instances was terrible, and they are on record. There may also have been a reaction to the justified ridicule that was thrown at the BBC here and overseas.
Thank you.
(D)HYS
What is your message to BBC bosses?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4695959.stm
Good ‘mix’ of views today including those of ‘scrap license fee’, ‘stop left wing/NGO/Guardian style bias on news & current affairs’, and of course the odd French man with ‘god bless the bbc, you roast bif don’t know how lucky you are!’
Seriously though, good to see a wide range of views represented.
The British Muslim Forum, from what I gleaned yesterday, is a new body (founded this year), that has 300 mosques (and 500 imams) signed up to it (out of, IIRC, 1500 mosques in the UK). Their spokesman on Sky News yesterday was quite impressive in his unequivocal condemnation of the bombings, the bombers and those who support them.
What I’m not clear on though is how or why the BMF came about and whether or not it is in addition to or in place of other Muslim umbrella organisations (some of which have been a bit more ambiguous in their statements) – it would be an interesting line for someone with the time, resources and contacts of Paul R. to explore and clarify for those of us in the BBC audience.
Further to Andrew’s point on the standing of the British based Muslim organisations, I would welcome more explanation of how these bodies fit into the wider Muslim world.
Will this fatwa have any clout abroad?
Will it have much influence on would be UK based jihadis? Or are these organisations seen as Uncle Toms?
Will this ruling be reinforced by prominent Muslims at the heart of the religion- i.e. in Mecca, Cairo, Teheran?
This looks like yet another example of the BBC giving prominence to extremist views. It should not give a platform to the BNP, bt neither should it give any sort of platform to a Muslim outfit that IT KNOWS endorses terrorism :
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/19/the_mainstreaming_of_hizbut_tahrir.php
To JohninLondon and others mystified..
We have updated the story to make clear that the so-called fatwa was issued by the British Muslim Forum on Monday. We are still waiting for the full text of this from them.
There was a separate statement from the Muslim Council of Britain on Friday, which some people also called a fatwa though not the MCB itself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm
fatwa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
At end, interesting that:
“Spanish Muslims proclaimed a fatwa against Bin Laden in March of 2005 [1]. They said that he had abandoned his religion and they urged other Muslims to make similar proclamations.”
Hadn’t heard that.
Paul Reynolds
It seems to me there is has been a very serious mixup at the BBC about nomenclature that is hugely important within Islam. In your comment at 1.02 pm you seem to make light of the distinction between a fatwa and a statement. The distinction is far more serious to Muslims. You will recall there was a statement organised by the MCB read in mosques some months back. It did NOT have anything like the authority of a fatwa. Likewise the full text of the statement of 15 July at the MAB site that the BBC posted briefly this morning and then withdrew lacks the religious authority of a fatwa. It appears from what you have said the brief posting of the “full text” was a mistake.
Yet the BBC news story of 18 July purported to give some of the wording of a FATWA – when in fact it appears to be merely was repeating some of the wording of the STATEMENT made on 15 July. This is not a mere semantic difference – it is highly significant. There appears to have been some serious confusion at the BBC that led to the 18 July report. If the BBC did not have the text of a fatwa, that report was false or misleading in quoting words claimed to be from a fatwa. Either the BBC had the text of a fatwa or it did not. AAs it did not, the report of 18 July should surely not have been issued and headlined on the BBC homepage.
The significance of needing the full text of any fatwa is that people want to see whether there are any “but” words, any loopholes to an utter condemnation of terrorism. Here or abroad. The BBC had Irshad Manji on Radio 5 yesterday morning – she and others place crucial importance on the “loophole” in 5.32 of the Koran. The 1 July statement skates over that loophole – elide is the word, I think. Paragraph 7 of the Sunday Times article by Jasper Gerard points to the wriggle-room :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1696968_2,00.html
In conclusion – is there yet a real fatwa ? Does the BBC actually know ? If so – where is the text ? Should the 18 July story not be spiked ? Does the BBC fully understand the importance of 5.32 ? (Usama bin Ladin drives straight through 5.32 and uses 5.33 as his religious justification.)
“It should not give a platform to the BNP, bt neither should it give any sort of platform to a Muslim outfit that IT KNOWS endorses terrorism”
JohnInLondon,
I strongly disagree, all parties making news should be treated the same. How will people know how abhorent their views are if they are not known? I’d just like the journalists to not try to add their views on the interviewee as news!
However I suppose it depends on the definition of platform! Certainly they shouldn’t be left unchallenged.
Rob
I think what I meant was that the BBC does not knowingly let the BNP post its views anywhere, right or wrong. Therefore it should not let HuT post views, It knows what HuT is, what it endorses. Or if it ever does post anything from HuT, it should give us some background on HuT as well.
Just so we know.
Rob Read
Sorry – that previous post was me.
I feel that the BBC should have been doing far more to flush out the extremists. Like Al M, HuT etc (as well as BNP). The BBC’s Royal Charter “duty to inform”.
From the BBC “Up to 40,000 Activists have been settling into a makeshift camp near the farming village of Kfar Maimon, where they spent Monday night in tents and sleeping bags.”
Note “activists” is this the same as
“A suspected Hamas activist was injured when police tried to arrest him, prompting clashes with Hamas members”?
Obviously there are activists and there are activists but do not rely on the BBC to let you know what it is.
We should not be playing this “fatwa” game.
Just because one appears that we like, what happens when the next on is another Rushdie?
Dont endorse the principle of Fatwa, you are playing innto the hands of the enemy.
So the Fatwa “condemns” the killing? surley anyone living in Britain must condemmn this kind of behaior as a matter of principle. This is a Democracy remember, not (yet) an Islamic Sattelite State.
NORMAN,
Do you know why the Hamas member arrested? Normally when information is ommited (censored) by the BBC it’s to help show a BBC friend in a more favourable light.
Back to Grade’s comments this morning.
Bombers are terrorists, says Grade
“BBC Chairman Michael Grade has said the London bombers were terrorists and should be described as such by BBC News. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm
The BBC is only allowed to breach it’s own Editorial Guidelines in the UK though. No sign of ‘terrorists’ here:
Iraqi gunmen target airbase staff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4695543.stm
not here:
Iraq insurgents kill at least 11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4694599.stm
and not here:
Iraq bombers one step ahead of US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4691181.stm
I suppose what the issue here is why is it important to call those who commit horrific acts against innocent people terrorists?. Wht are we bothered? What difference does it make.
My view is that it gives some moral authority from the broadcaster that there are some acts that there can be no justification. never. Period
Calling the people who commit these acts by any other name confers some element of understanding or possible justification or reasoning behind the act. It downplays the savagery of some acts.
Children die in Baghdad car bomb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm
“A car drove up to a US army vehicle and blew up as troops gave sweets to the children, a witness said.”
“At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed.”
Naughtie could have brought up this example. The story is so sickening and so sad that one could cry. But the fact that the BBC choses to use language that is so detatched, so ‘soft’ should be put to the Govenors. Why do they allow innocent life to have more or less ‘value’ in different countries?
For those who have broadband and not doing anything else at 7pm tonight, you can watch the BBC Govenenors being questioned at the AGM tonight at 7pm
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/whatsnew/agmwebcast.html
in addition you can suggest a question:
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/whatsnew/suggestquestion.html
Paul Reynolds
It’s nice to have feedback from someone at the BBC. This kind of direct interaction is surely what accountability is all about – bravo!
I notice that your contributions were posted throughout the day, during office hours: 11:25am, 12:31pm, 12:41pm, 1:02pm, 1:13pm, 2:37pm. Does this mean that monitoring blogs is BBC policy? Whether it is or is not, I’d be very interested to know which other blogs you and other BBC staff monitor.
Thanks for listening.
Miam
Michael Grades words are clearly at odds with those now famous editorial guidelines. Either he’s lying or someone shouldn’t have drawn up and issued them.
In any case, he’s been clear. He didn’t draw a distinction between the UK and abroad, Jewish and other victims. He stated clearly that the BBC must call terrorists, terrorists.
Miam
Exactly. As the BBC’s Helen Boaden said last week “Dancing on the head of a pin”.
Grade seems to flatly contradict what Helen Boaden of the BBC was saying last week. “Move along, nothing to see here”.
And NIL mention of the egregious censoring of Blair’s statement of 11 July.
And NIL mention of continuing avoidance of use of the T word in Iraq. Still the weaselly euuphemisms such aas you have linked to.
And maybe even more unpatriotic –
“insurgents” here killed a British soldier, even though the BBC story itself suggests an Al Quada link :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4592725.stm
When and where are Al Q terrorists ? Its kind of NIMBY policy in reverse. They are terrrorists if they are In My Back Yard but not overseas even when attacking our own soldiers.
This cannot stop here. Grade was fudging the issue, and Naughtie was going along with it. If someone took the other line, the Today programme would attack them, not stroke them.
Pete
I think you are wrong. There WAS a distinction drwn. And articles at the BBC website prove it. They have altered policy for only the UK.
Anon
Grade doesn’t make any distinction, but reading again I see that James Norcktee makes a distinction:
James Naughtie: Do you think that the people who carried out the London bombing are terrorists and should be described as such on the BBC?
In this sense Grade’s reply doesn’t have to. Hurrah, Jewish civilians can still be blown up by activists.
Pete
quote:
In any case, he’s been clear. He didn’t draw a distinction between the UK and abroad, Jewish and other victims.
Hmm, I’m not sure I agree with you Pete.
There is no country specific distinction in the Headline given to the article that summarises the discussion between Grade & Naughtie:
Bombers are terrorists, says Grade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4696100/4696175.stm
however, Grade specifically didn’t say all bombers are terrorists.
The title is therefore misleading as it omits the fact that Grade was specifically asked bout the London bombings, twice.
An accurate title, given the actual transcript would be:
London Bombers are terrorists, says Grade
Actual questions asked by Naughtie:
“James Naughtie: Do you think that the people who carried out the London bombing are terrorists and should be described as such on the BBC?” (my emphasis)
and
“JN: And it is your view that the perpetrators of this bombing were terrorists and should be described as such?” (my emphasis again)
Grade was only asked to comment on the London bombings. I don’t want to accuse Grade of anything but if he meant that the word “terrorist” should apply to similar events worldwide, this would be at complete odds with the actual reports from BBC News worldwide.
This is an interesting issue to expolore that Naughtie completely missed the opportunity to do so. naughtie could have followed up with the question “…and the same applies to BBC News output worldwide does it?” and we could have listened to the ensuing “dancing on a pin”.
Paul Reynolds
Do you hve any answers to my post at 3.19pm ? Was there not a serious mixup at the BBC, referring in the 18 July story to a mere statement as a fatwa ? The BBC had no text of a fatwa. Why ws the story not spiked until it finally had the text ?
I see the full text of the real fatwa has finally been posted at 16.48 :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4697365.stm
You will note that the quotation of the Koran 5.32 is incomplete. Did the BBC question why it was incomplete ? Do you not find it odd that people predicted that the crucial exception subclause would be omitted ?
And did the BBC ask about 5.33 of the Koran which allows certain killings?
Did the BBC probe whether the fatwa applies overseas ? For instance did the BBC ask whether it applies to terrorist attacks on British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan ? If not – why not ? Highly relevant in a global war on terror, surely, where BRITISH forces are at risk. It is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, after all, and WE are required to pay for it.
And finally, in the main story, why does the BBC not state that there are significant and dangerous groupings of Muslims in Britain that do not subscribe to the fatwa ? On your own Today programme and on Sky TV this afternoon we have had Al Majahiroun stating baldly that they refuse to condemn the London terrorism. If you fail to mention in your story the schisms in Islam that have led to terrorism and are here amongst us, you are surely inducing complacency. The fatwa itself is dubious, some feel, and its writ is far from complete.
Quick comment – Grade was asked twice specifically about the London bombings.
The headline is somewhat misleading as it should read
London Bombers are terrorists, says Grade
…because that is what he said. Had naughtie followed up either of his two questions about London with “does the same apply to BBC News worldwide output?”, we could have enjoyed the sound of Grade ‘dancing on a pin’, because worldwide policy is to use soft language to describe the horrific killing of innocent civilians and children.
Sorry the 6.24 pm posting was me.
And can we have a BBC statement informing readers that a fatwa is NOT recognised legal opinion, carries NO legal weight and has NO legal basis whatsoever in the UK?
Following this we can have a statement to the effect that for a bunch of muslims to consider such a stunt is arrogance writ large and an extreme impertinence.
Such an article could be rounded off nicely by reminding them that if morality alone and the law is not sufficient reason to refrain from killing civilians then they can get on a no doubt rapidly emptying tube train to the airport and sod off.
Meanwhile here is CBS also dancing on the head of a pin over the T word.
Weasels nd eqivoctors, the lot of them. BBC, CBS, Reuters, AP….
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1178
More dancing on the head of pin – at CBS. They have a clear definition of the word terrorism, but refuse to use it.
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1178
Andrew and others – there are now HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of google references to BBC and the T word.
The BBC has only partly buckled on this. Under what appears to be a huge wave of criticism and ridicule.
Hi all,
On the BBC radio news today the headline was the ‘fatwa’ referenced above, shortly followed by a report of the findings of the ‘Iraq Body Count’ project, led by John Sloboda. At least the radio news can’t be accused of bias: it caters for both moderate and extremist muslims alike.
John Sloboda is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Keele. Judging from his recent publications, his academic interest is exclusively the psychology of music: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jasbiog.htm
Predictably, Sloboda’s left-wing bias is obvious not only in his politics, but in his academic ‘research’ too. He is strongly on the ‘nurture’ side of the debate when discussing innate musical talent, for example: http://www.hughalderseywilliams.com/journalism/psychologists_and_geneticists.htm
He is a founder member of the Network for Activist Scholars in Politics and International Relations (NASPIR – http://www.naspir.org ), and Scholars and Artists for International Democracy (SAID – http://www.lecafeamericain.net/said/index.htm ). He’s also active in the ‘Stop the War Coalition’. Not biased at all then.
The BBC online report is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm
It stresses, *twice*, that ‘Iraq Body Count’ is run by ‘academics and peace activists’, and builds it up to be an authoritative source, “one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq”. Of course, ‘widely-quoted’ does not mean ‘accurate and free from bias’, and ‘academics and peace activists’ should read ‘academic peace activists’. The Iraq Body Count figures are, in fact, widely MISquoted by Islamists for use in their propaganda. They have even contaminated wikipedia:
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=czEYkx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project
Note in both cases (and many others – do a search) that the casualties are entirely attributed to the Coalition forces, a gross distortion of the facts. I have crudely edited the wikipedia page, but I doubt my edits will stay there for long. Hopefully it will draw the attention of someone on the wikipedia staff, but I seriously doubt it.
The ‘Iraq Body Count’ propaganda page is: http://www.iraqbodycount.net
Note the implication that the casualties have been caused by the Coalition, even though it is admitted later on that the majority have been caused by Islamic terrorists and other criminals. Of course, the Islamic terrorists are described as ‘anti-occupation forces/insurgents’. The phrase ‘war on terror’ and even the word ‘terrorist’ appear in scorn quotes throughout. Take a look at this disgusting propaganda on the same site: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm
The BBC page actually links to iraqbodycount.net.
Also, a puzzle. The site reports (and the BBC parrots) that ‘up to 20%’ of the casualties are women and children. It must be a grave disappointment to them that this figure is not higher. If these are random civilian casualties, how come over 80% of them are men? Shouldn’t they be more uniformly distributed?
There is far more to be said, and there are plenty of analyses pointing out other serious flaws in the data, and especially in the *interpretation* of the data, for example: http://ambit.typepad.com/ambit/2003/09/how_come_the_ir.html
Of course, the thing that *really* kills people is propaganda like ‘Iraq Body Count’. I wonder how many people have been incited to violence by this bile? I wonder how many more sympathise with, and therefore encourage that violence because of it?
Another bleeding heart mugged by reality tonight, Jon Snow on C4 news met an intransigent muslim who refused to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
On the one hand, its a shame that we are going to have to talk about muslims for the next thirty years (just when the Left were beginning to believe that religious belief had been extinguished in these isles), on the other hand its pure joy observing Lefties struggling with thier mouths full of ash.
“If these are random civilian casualties, how come over 80% of them are men?”
Try looking at the murder statistics by gender for pretty much anywhere: in general, men are more comfortable murdering other men than they are women or children, irrespective of whether the other chap is a soldier, a terrorist or a civilian.
(BTW, the “Ambit” piece linked above is utter nonsense: by 2003, the Oil for Food programme had substantially reduced infant mortality and malnutrition from the horrible rates seen in the early 1990s that Mead misleadingly cites. Detailed post-war studies by independent, respected epidemologists make clear that the war has worsened mortality from sources other than violence, not lessened it.)
John B
“Detailed post-war studies by independent, respected epidemologists make clear that the war has worsened mortality from sources other than violence, not lessened it.”
Perhaps you are right. Then again, perhaps you are not. How am I to decide? For this reason I usually ignore on principle anything stated as fact without some form of corroboration, for which in the age of the hyperlink there is no excuse. Please post links to a sample of the studies you refer to above, so I can assess their detail, independence and respectability for myself.
As an aside, I note that you are the owner of “stalinism.com”, at which you host your blog. Do you really admire Stalin, or is your site intended simply to be ironic and controversial? On the front page appears the phrase, “dekulakise the nation and eliminate the bourgeoisie”. Is this intended as a joke? If so, don’t you think it is in rather poor taste?
JohnB has advocated assasination of actual living persons on his site.
JohnofCoventry – yes, it’s tasteless, as is my sense of humour in general. Riverblindness: well, assassinating dead people would be a waste of a bullet.
The UN’s Iraq Conditions Living Survey is a good start (it covers 22,000 households across all governorates, which counts as easily statistically significant). The rise on infant and maternal mortality is here.
(the survey above broadly confirms the results of the rather smaller Lancet study).
Joerg Appreciation Society??? Deary me!
Anyway, I consider that a compliment. Maybe I should run for Chancellor here in Germany or Governor of Ohio. 😉
LOL
WOW! I thought I was pretty unshockable but this REALLY is taking the p155!
The BBC seems to like this idea so much it couldn’t be bothered to even interview anyone for a contrary viewpoint (Why does the name Philips pop in my head instantly)!
“Teachers say no-one should ‘fail'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4697461.stm
All must have prizes!
________________________________
The BBC and the left are obviously just wishing and willing for “Deferred success” in Iraq…