We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Al-Qa’eda’s Trojan horse

It has been known for some time that Britain plays a significant role as a support base for al-Qa’eda. So much so that even the government conceded the fact. Details about the activities of British-based Muslim fanatics were given during a series of appeals by suspected foreign terrorists against their detention without trial.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission, sitting in London, heard how a dozen terrorist attacks and planned attacks around the world could be traced in part to Britain. At the centre of the network was a number of radical clerics, including Abu Hamza, the hook-handed north London imam who faces the loss of his British citizenship.

Today, a report published by Charity Commission, a statutory organisation that regulates charities in the UK, has concluded that Abu Hamza, drove away moderate Muslims from the mosque in Finsbury Park, took over and used it as a base to spread extremist views and shelter his supporters.

The Telegraph reported last week that although now removed from his post at Finsbury Park mosque, Hamza has not been detained and continues to address his followers outside the building every Friday. An attempt to strip him of his British citizenship has been stalled because Hamza has lodged an appeal that will not be heard for several months. The US authorities are delaying their extradition request until they are satisfied they have built a strong enough case to succeed in the British courts.

Why does it take so long to remove such obvious threat to the British society? Abu Hamza is a self-professed enemy of the West, with links to Taliban and Al Qa’eda. The only thing the British authorities managed so far, is to get him banned from the mosque and strip him of his many welfare benefits. I feel so much safer now!

62 comments to Al-Qa’eda’s Trojan horse

  • Kodiak

    Dear Gabriel,

    I’m sure you’re sincere when wondering why such a shouting clown as Hamza was left alone doing his despicable business in full tranquillity.

    The thing is, don’t you know that in the UK political life is privatised too, like trains etc…?

    It would be most meritorious from a spookish State like yours -which isn’t even able to refrain its trains from derailing every 2 days- to attain minimum law & order delivery that normal UK citizens are entitled to be granted.

    I’ve seen some images of the hatred & gross abuse that Hamza has been spitting at the face of you all. I really feel sorry for you. You should be king in your castle… Not servant.

    What’s the meaning of toppling Saddam when more dangerous & hungry sharks are bathing in your own waters???

    What’s the aim of aping the 51st State of the USA with less power & consideration than Rhode Island when your help is needed at the other end of the Channel?

    Kodiak.

  • At least in the UK our own Muslim barking moonbats are relatively rare and work within a relatively small and relatively un-disaffected Muslim wider population… unlike France. Marsailles? No thanks. I’d rather live in Oldham <shudder>

  • Kodiak

    Dear Perry,

    Would you mind attempting to be more convincing or precise as far as addressing your personal utterance is concerned?

    Kodiak.

  • S. Weasel

    Hm. As a citizen of Rhode Island, I’m not sure what to make of that.

    Does this mean we’ll have to forsake our quahogs and coffee milk for mushy peas and warm beer?

    Signed,
    Concerned in Pawtucket

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Here’s a theory – the authorities are actually allowing this nutjob to stay here so they can monitor him and his followers. Better the enemy you know than the one you don’t etc.

    Of course, this may be presuming a level of cunning which our intelligence services don’t actually possess. But it’s worth a thought.

  • Johnathan, I heard that before, many times in fact, but remain unconvinced.

  • Cydonia

    Gabriel:

    I’m not so sure. Shouldn’t we be standing up for him? After all, all the guy actually seems to have done is talk. I don’t see why that justifies him being “removed” by the State.

    Of course the fact that he was claiming welfare at the time is thoroughly objectionable, but that has apparently now been addressed.

    Cydonia

  • Cydonia

    Kodiak:

    What was unclear about Perry’s comment?

    Cydonia

  • Cydonia, the whole point is that evidence is mounting that he has done far more than just ‘talk’…

  • G Cooper

    Cydonia writes:

    “I’m not so sure. Shouldn’t we be standing up for him? After all, all the guy actually seems to have done is talk.”

    Are you sure of this? I was under the impression that this particularly loathsome piece of work had acted as recruiting sergeant for bin Liner’s training camps.

    Given that – and given the fact that he has no business even being in the damn country – I would say we have every right to muzzle him. At the very least.

  • Liberty Belle

    I’d like to add to G Cooper’s comments. Hamza came by his British “citizenship” fraudulently, through a bigamous marriage to a British woman. This is now known, but so far, although he’s been stripped of his £200+ a week benefits, he hasn’t been stripped of his British “citizenship” – which doesn’t exist in the first place because it was fraudulently obtained.

  • Cydonia

    Gabriel and G Cooper:

    Show me some evidence that he’s committed a “real” offence, rather than some sort of spurious new labour speech crime, and I’ll agree with you. But if he had done such a thing, why no prosecution?

    G Cooper and Liberty Belle:

    If he got his citizenship through fraud, then fine. He can / should be stripped of it and then he can be sent on his merry way. But that’s got nothing to do with his rabble rousing moonbattery.

    Cydonia

  • Paul Coulam

    ‘he has no business even being in the damn country’ G. Cooper.

    What statist stuff is this? Who are you to decide what someone’s business is and where they should live? Can’t you manage to stand up for liberty in the hard cases such as Hamza. He can go where he likes and say what he likes at his own time and expense. If you are encouraging the state to persecute him when he has comitted no unlibertarian crime then you are the enemy of liberty.

  • Paul Coulam

    Cydonia,

    What’s wrong with obtaining citizenship by fraud? Seems perfectly libertarian to me. The villains are those who demand that free people should carry a states documents and submit to checks on their movement.

  • Gabriel

    Cydonia, just follow the links in my post, which was based on the fact that he has been doing far more than talking… Why else would I be interested in him? He can say what he likes in his own time, space and money, however this is has not been the case…

  • Kodiak

    Hi Cydonia,

    I’m French & also allergic to verbose understatements.

    That’s 2 sufficing reasons why I couldn’t make it out with Perry’s tirade…

    Kodiak.

  • G Cooper

    Paul Coulam writes:

    “What statist stuff is this? Who are you to decide what someone’s business is and where they should live? Can’t you manage to stand up for liberty in the hard cases such as Hamza. He can go where he likes and say what he likes at his own time and expense. If you are encouraging the state to persecute him when he has comitted no unlibertarian crime then you are the enemy of liberty.”

    Rot. You might subscribe to some purist notion of libertarianism but I do not. At the very least, the man has incited terrorism. Possibly worse.

    At precisely which point do you climb down from your theoretical tower and get your hands dirty in a real world where people get blown to bits by scum incited by a raving lunatic such as this?

  • Kodiak

    Gabriel is right.

    Hamza is more than just a mere nuisance and at the same time he’s just a puppet instrumentalised to divert intelligence from real business: addressing proven or potential terrorism.

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    Cydonia,

    Le loup est dans la bergerie (the wolf is in the sheephouse).

    Any minute spent about pondering if Hamza is just a clownesque provocator or else an actual terrorist plotter is a minute wasted.

    Never forget your country (your government at least) decided to launch an ILLEGAL war against a LEGAL State. You should take extra care in considering undecent people as Hamza.

    Kodiak.

  • Paul Coulam: I agree that citizenship is nothing sacred and so the more the merrier. I also agree that loathsome nutjobs like Hamza have the right to be loathsome nutjobs. Where I start to think he should be regarded rather differently is when there is evidence he is indeed a member of a terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda… we have more than enough domestic criminal groups in the UK (like Sinn Fein, Labour, LibDem and Tory parties) to be able as a society to tolerate all too many more.

  • Kodiak: There are no legal states, just ones of varying degrees of criminality.

  • Kodiak

    G Cooper

    Your vision is totally decent & also conveys the immense advantage of yielding immediate & definite results.

    I vote for you.

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    Perry,

    You are right & wrong.

    It all depends if you adopt an unquestionable law point of view or a more philosophical approach.

    Kodiak.

  • mark holland

    never forget your country (your government at least) decided to launch an ILLEGAL war against a LEGAL State. You should take extra care in considering undecent people as Hamza.

    I wouldn’t be quit so smug, double standards matey boy.
    France , a pillar of the global community… consensus… international law… yaddadda, has intervened militarily in Africa 3 times this year (Central African Republic, Ivory Coast and Congo) and 48 times since 1960.

    Source

  • Kodiak

    Hi Mark,

    I’m not the spokesman of the French gov.

    Anyway French interventions you mentioned were requested upon UN regular mandate.

    Not exactly the same rogue conduct as your national would-be liar, Anthony Bliar (Weapons of Mass Disappearance).

    Kodiak.

  • Actually, invading (excusing me, “intervening”) with a UN mandate is exactly as bad as invading without one. Unprovoked attacks on other countries don’t suddenly become acceptable just because a bunch of fascist and socialist politicians in New York say so.

  • Kodiak

    Dear word-afficionado Ken,

    I’m delighted to learn you consider the UN siège in NY just a building for “a bunch of fascist and socialist politicians”.

    That alone tells all.

    Actually intervening with a UN mandate is exactly far better that behaving like a Unitedstatish rogue State.

    I can’t do anything to ameliorate your natural inclination towards universal law concepts or to compensate your deep-rooted reluctance to accept anything that’s collectively decided by sovereign States.

    Good luck.

    Kodiak.

  • mark holland

    deep-rooted reluctance to accept anything that’s collectively decided by sovereign States.

    It was also in the context of the forum of fancophonie-extension that President Jacques Chirac insisted on his invitation of Zimbabwean President Mugabe to last February’s summit between him and African leaders in Paris despite the European Union ban on travels to member states by principal Zimbabwean state leaders. Chirac was of course not interested in discussing with his guests how to find lasting solutions to the acute crises besetting Zimbabwe nor indeed those of the wider continent. He had literally “summoned” these leaders of francophonie-extension to Paris to endorse a solely French- prepared, so-called African-French Declaration on Iraq.

    This was nothing but the French position on its turbulent two-cornered diplomatic stand-off on the possibilities of a US-led war in Iraq – against Britain and Spain in the European Union, and against the US, Britain and Spain at the United Nations. France brooked no debate with the visiting Africans on the subject (not to mention the central and east European prospective members of the European Union that it had ordered to “shut up!” for daring to oppose its stance whilst siding with the US”s) even though it exuded enormous pride in debating its opposition openly against both the US and Britain. Most disgracefully, the world did not know of the independent views of the 50 visiting African heads of state who had variously travelled 3000-12000 miles for the summit.

    It was left to Cheikh Tidiane Gadio, the affable Senegalese foreign minister, to put a brave face on an awkward situation when he claimed, albeit unconvincingly, that the African voice had not been heard in Paris because “we Africans, we respect our host, you don’t challenge the host!”

    There was of course nothing “African” in the behaviour of these utterly failed and failing leaders to remain silent during those two days in Paris. Africans know that Africans speak their minds whether they are hosts or guests… It was clearly the choice of leaders who most of the time are at war with their own populations, their own people, to remain silent because they lacked the integrity to state their positions on a subject whose varying facets and strands did in fact expose the state of their ruinous regimes back home.

    Even though Gadio was doing all he could to minimise the glaring character of the disgrace that these leaders had brought on themselves, the implication of his assertion was nonetheless troubling. If these leaders had remained silent and endorsed the French position of opposition to the impending war on Iraq because they were “” Africans [who] respect [their] host”, they would equally have remained silent and endorsed the contrary British pro-war agenda on Iraq (because they were “Africans [who] respect [their] host”) if only Prime Minister Blair had also “summoned” them to a London summit soon after being wined and dined and all expenses paid by the Elysee Palace.

    It is now clear that the tenuousness of francophonie in Africa, despite French propaganda to the contrary, lies right in its foundational premise of operations: the incorporation of a league of nations that exists to serve French interests whilst critically dependent on its day to day operations on usually ruthless anti-African local leaderships. This ruthlessness is a feature of its overarching moral and intellectual bankruptcy which ensures that it does the bidding of such projects as francophonie or francophonie-extension because of the firm grip that it exercises on its home turf.

  • Kodiak

    Mein Gott !!!

    You’re obsessed by Frogs…

    Instead of dreaming of grasping the ultimate designs of French foreign policy, please sweep your own sidewalks or pavements:

    1/ behead the Windsor

    2/ give the British working class attention instead of feeding it with The Sun

    3/ solve the Hamza problem

    4/ quit Iraq before Iraq comes back to you

    5/ stop being the pathetic poodle of the disdainful USA

    6/ win a Football World Championship.

    What else?
    Who cares…

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    To francocentered Mark,

    I forgot >>> learn how to manage a train system without experiencing continuous derailings…

    Kodiak.

  • Kit Taylor

    On the matter of free speech, inciting hatred is not a crime because it is not a crime to hate someone.

    But deliberately inciting violence is a crime, because your behaviour is designed to create criminal acts. I see it as a form of conspiracy.

  • Nancy

    Regarding apparent obsessions, I have no idea how much time Mark Holland spends posting on French websites, but Kodiak certainly has taken to this one.

  • Kodiak

    Nancy: you’re strikingly perspicacious…

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiac: We can forgive the fractured English but if you actually have some arguments, kindly make them in an intelligible fashion.

  • Everyone on this little thread seems to be getting quite excited about Mr Hamza(h?). I especially liked “barking moonbat” from Perry – almost affectionate in tone. There’s still hope for Britain when nasty men can get called such cuddly names!

    So I thought you might all like to find out what his name may mean, if the transliteration was done right.

  • T. Hartin

    Kodiak –

    The US war on Iraq was perfectly legal. It was authorized by the US Congress, as required by the Constitution.

    Not that it matters a whit as to the legality of the war, but it was also authorized by the UN. Several times. UN resolutions are not law, so even if they are violated, there is no “illegality.”

    As the the “legality” of Hussein’s regime, his regime was rendered conditional on his compliance with the terms of the ceasefire that he agreed to. When he violated the ceasefire, his regime lost whatever shreds of legality or legitimacy it once possessed.

  • mark holland

    Koidak’s English is superb. I’d love to be able to converse with a non-English speaker the way he can with a non-Francophone.

    But I’m certainly not francocentered good buddy. In fact France hardly appears on my radar at all. If I wasn’t a cycling fan it probably wouldn’t at all. This is a shame. It’s a great country. Beautiful countryside and full of great people.

    1/ behead the Windsor

    We did behead a king in January 1649. It got us the only tyranny we’ve ever had. What did you get? The terror and Napoleon. And you’re now on your 5th republic. How long before the Islamic one?

    2/ give the British working class attention instead of feeding it with The Sun

    I don’t really understand this. I’m a libertarian. I don’t believe in group politics. I also don’t want to give anybody anything apart from getting the state out of people’s faces and allowing them to do what they will, lassez faire.

    Besides Paris Match, Bild?

    3/ solve the Hamza problem

    Sarcelles, La Haine, ricin on the metro…

    4/ quit Iraq before Iraq comes back to you

    we’ll have to see about that one

    5/ stop being the pathetic poodle of the disdainful USA

    I lived in the great state of Virginia for 2 years as a
    kid. Whether it affected my outlook on the world I can’t say but I love the USA and all it stands for. If we had to become the 51st state or some outlying island of the Union of European Socialist Republics I know what I’d choose.

    6/ win a Football World Championship.

    1966? Where’s your next Bernard Hinault?

  • Sandy P.

    Rantburg’s reporting Yemen wants him.

  • Jacob

    If Abu Hamza preached his hatred against Negroes or gays he would have been arrested and tried long ago. There are some things that progressive governments can’t tolerate.
    Agitating against the US is different – it’s fashionable, it’s PC, it’s in, the progressives like it, they feel it’s somehow right. See Kodiak. He too hasn’t much sympathy for the US, sure he likes more Iraq and Saddam the murderer.

  • Kodiak

    Sehr geherter Admin,

    Es tut mir wirklich Leid daB, mein Englisch so schlecht ist. I verspreche daB, ich alles tun wird, um mein Aussprache zu verbessern.

    Señor Admin,

    Claro que lo siento que mi idioma inglés es muy débil. Te lo juro que hay que hacer todo para offrirte una mejor calidad de expresion.

    Cher Admin,

    Je suis sincèrement désolé de la pauvreté de mon anglais. Je promets de tout faire pour améliorer mon expression.

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    Dear T. Hartin,

    “The US war on Iraq was perfectly legal. It was authorized by the US Congress, as required by the Constitution”.
    Are you challenging Comical Ali or are you just another FoxTV salesman or do you act as a not-so-cryptic neocons?
    Didn’t you know that the US chambers have absolutely no status outside the borders of the USA?
    Did you come across the fact that, outside from the United States, the US constitution is merely an object of study & curiosity for specialised lawyers & library rats?
    Your assertion want serious substantiating…
    Elle me laisse pantois…

    “Not that it matters a whit as to the legality of the war” >>> thanx for showing your true colours.

    “but it was also authorized by the UN” >>> Was it? When?

    “Several times” >>> not even once. Please switch off FoxTV & have a look at the minutes of the only valid world authority: the UN.

    “UN resolutions are not law” >>> interesting.
    How do you want me to swallow your stultifying craze about US chambers validity when you seem to deny a superior authority -UN, that is- the right even to exist & act…

    The legal being of the collective body that’s called the State of Iraq is not equating with Saddam’s regime. Hopefully so. Otherwise, by sheer extrapolation, the US should be nuked at once for gross misconduct & antisocial behaviour…
    A parallel can be drawn between nepotism prevailing in the US (Bush dynasty) & Iraqi family-consficated State management (Hussein dynasty). Even if Ben Laden has no State to manage, his country is terror, & he’s running it in a tribal way, just like the Bush clique.

    Once again: attacking a LEGAL State when it’s been LEGALLY forbidden is a VIOLATION of WORLD LAW.

    Working alternatives were on their way to get rid of Saddam or the WMD (Weapons of Mass Disappearance…) as Bush & the like decided to steal the oil.

    The US perpetrated a CRIME in Iraq. It seems they get punished every day…

    Kodiak.

  • Guy Herbert

    Touché!

    I don’t have a problem with your language, Kodiak. And marh holland’s dealt with the shopping list.

    But there’s something deeper that I find a bit disturbing. It’s the implicit idea that the collective action of states is validated by the number of states participating. Collective millitary action by the UN against a sovereign state isn’t any different from collective military action by the US, Britain, and a handful of others, against a sovereign state. One needs at least to look to the justification (or lack of justification) of such action in each particular case–who’s doing it is not a criterion.

    (For myself, I accept that states act in their rulers’ political interest, so I’m inclined not to look at their justification at all, but to be pleased or not depending on whether I think the world is likely to be on average a better place for individuals as a result. One can approve a policy without agreeing with either motivation or rationale.

    Since the interests of states and individuals are more often opposed than not, I’d be more suspicious of any agreement the more states join in. Though I wouldn’t dismiss it on that ground alone.)

  • Kodiak

    Mark,

    1/ behead the Windsor

    We did behead a king in January 1649. It got us the only tyranny we’ve ever had. What did you get? The terror and Napoleon. And you’re now on your 5th republic. How long before the Islamic one?

    Was it the unfamous Charles I or someone like that? So Elizabeth I was a philanthrope. That’s a scoop…

    Yeah the Terror & Napoleon >>> you’re absolutely right. Too bad there haven’t been a kind of XWIIIth-century UN at the time… Or have there been any? The 1815 Vienna Congress may be reputed the first embryo of World Law. Thanx for that the Frogs…

    So you belong to that sad category indulging in gross amalgamism >>> French citizens of Arab descent = 5th column to destroy France with 25 % of the population by 2050 & patati & patata… Sad for you.

    ————————————————————
    2/ give the British working class attention instead of feeding it with The Sun

    I don’t really understand this. I’m a libertarian. I don’t believe in group politics. I also don’t want to give anybody anything apart from getting the state out of people’s faces and allowing them to do what they will, lassez faire.

    Fair enough. Neither do I believe in too many things. But the UK working class condition appeals more consideration.

    ————————————————————

    3/ solve the Hamza problem

    Sarcelles, La Haine, ricin on the metro…

    You’re right. Except the ricin was in Gare de Lyon (Paris main train station for south-east of France).

    I don’t think one can find any guy daring to call for an Islamic French Republic on the soil of France. France is inhabited by quick-to-be-angry French people (you know that).

    ————————————————————
    4/ quit Iraq before Iraq comes back to you

    we’ll have to see about that one

    I’m afraid it’s already seen…

    ————————————————————
    5/ stop being the pathetic poodle of the disdainful USA

    I lived in the great state of Virginia for 2 years as a
    kid. Whether it affected my outlook on the world I can’t say but I love the USA and all it stands for. If we had to become the 51st state or some outlying island of the Union of European Socialist Republics I know what I’d choose.

    That’s typical of you. Dogs don’t give birth to cats…

    ————————————————————

    6/ win a Football World Championship.

    1966? Where’s your next Bernard Hinault?

    1966??? At least I was born at that time…

    I don’t know where is our next Bernard Hinault, but I very much like Lance Armstrong.

    Kodiak.

  • Mark,

    Kodiak is just a French chauvanist complaining about what he sees as American chauvanism.

  • Kodiak

    Hi Guy,

    1/ ” the implicit idea that the collective action of states is validated by the number of states participating”

    It can be even worse according to your own personal Weltanschauung >>> sometimes you just need one single State to unvalidate the collective motives of a bunch of Sates >>> veto right.

    2/ “Collective millitary action by the UN against a sovereign state isn’t any different from collective military action by the US, Britain, and a handful of others, against a sovereign state”

    Collective millitary action by the UN against a sovereign State (member of the UN) IS BY VERY DEFINTION different from collective military action privately undertaken by State A & State B.

    There is a founding treaty signed in 1945 in San Francisco or New York that ENABLES (not OBLIGES) any so far existing State to attain LEGAL RECOGNITION & MUTUAL, UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE.

    The US was not forced to sign in, nor was Iraq. The 2 parties are therefore totally constrainted by the body of legal texts applying to both of them, including the UN decision NOT TO ATTACK THE LEGAL UN-MEMBER STATE OF IRAQ.

    Dealing with justifications is important, but totally accessory with regards to the principle above-mentioned.

    3/ “Since the interests of States and individuals are more often opposed than not, I’d be more suspicious of any agreement the more states join in. Though I wouldn’t dismiss it on that ground alone”

    OK. But that’s a judgement over values. Not a legal fact.

    First design laws, then enforce them, with LEGALLY AUTHORISED FORCE if necessary. Then you reach civilisation & probably get good chances to avoid multipolar WWIII…

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    Dear David,

    I think that both French & English languages require an “i”, not an “a”, for “chauvinist”…

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak,

    You are quite right. My spelling mistake. My bad.

    So you are a French chauvinist and I note that you have not even attempted to deny it. Thank you.

  • Guy Herbert

    We seem to have crossed in the post.

    States vary. That’s why international law recognises sovereignty, and why it did recognise sovereign immunity.

    I don’t think you can say that Iraq as a state, rather than a place, had a separate existence from Saddam’s regime. Or that Saudi Arabia has a separate existence from the Saud family. Personal rule means one can’t permit a “collectivity” to rival it. Similarly the former Soviet Union’s sovereignty was identified with the Communist Party, not the territory and people it controlled.

    But the US (or France) has permanent institutions and internal political process that gives it separate identity from its temporary government.

    If you accept state sovereignty as a principal of international law you aren’t entitled to enquire beyond it, you must simply deal with those who control the territory. States are recognised in those who are in practice in charge.

    But if you claim the UN has superior authority to declare a state “legal”, then you deny state sovereignty. You are making UN recognition the criterion for a state’s existence. Whereas, in fact, a state’s existence is a criterion for UN recognition.

    Where do you think the UN’s “superior authority” comes from? I realise there’s a constitutional rule in some places that treaties are superior to international law, but the UN is not founded on that presumption, but on the recognition of the sovereignty of the member states. It is open to them both to order their internal affairs as they wish (regardless of UN resolutions), and to abrogate membership (though there are reasons of state that they don’t).

    You make my point yourself, Kodiak, when you point out that the UN Treaty enables, it doesn’t oblige, recognition. Like all other treaties it is made and kept for the convenience of the participants. It isn’t practically binding on them because there is no effective enforcement mechanism.

  • Kodiak

    Dear David,

    I’m just a bit like the Pavlov dog.

    When I’m in France hearing nonsense about the USA, I get involved & react.

    When I’m abroad (even on-line) & watch tons of arrogant idiocy, I’m not afraid at being called chauvinist or Frog or whatever you want, nor am I cautious to deny those facts: I assume it & reply.

    Take it or leave it.

    Kodiak.

  • Kodiak

    Guy,

    1/ “I don’t think you can say that Iraq as a state (…) had a separate existence from Saddam’s regime. Or that Saudi Arabia has a separate existence from the Saud family”

    I disagree with you on that matter. I think there’s a distinction between the legal identity of a non-physical body (eg: mental & historical construction) like a State & the actual power managing the physical body (people, goods, etc) pertaining to the State.

    The USSR was assimilated to the Politbureau just because the real power (the Communist Party) had violently absorbed & confiscated the physical body of former Soviet Union (undemocratic government). But the State of USSR was more than the Politbureau: there was life in it (see samizdats for instance), hope too (dissidents) & happiness (traditional Turkmenes inhabiting the seashore of the Caspian sea may have had no clear idea of what being a USSR citizen was entailing) >>> I’m not saying that USSR was a paradise & I’m not communist.

    2/ Middle-ages France was like Saudi Arabia as it was slowly & surely emerging as a Nation-State.

    No, there mightn’t be a difference in nature between France & Saudi Arabia. Perhaps a maturation difference. And maybe not even…

    As for now, since THERE IS international law (including not only France & Saudi Arabia, but also Iraq & the USA), the world has reached a new step with decent challenges to take up. Primitive XIXth-century-like wars have no place in that scheme.

    3/ “But if you claim the UN has superior authority to declare a state “legal”, then you deny state sovereignty. You are making UN recognition the criterion for a state’s existence. Whereas, in fact, a state’s existence is a criterion for UN recognition”

    That’s a very interesting point.
    I reckon what you say is perfectly legitimate & validated by reality.
    Would it be whatsoever comforting to admit that -given the XXth-century horse -running historical process- Nation or State building was concomittant or congenital to World Authority building?
    Why not turn to an empiric approach?

    4/ “You make my point yourself, Kodiak, when you point out that the UN Treaty enables, it doesn’t oblige, recognition. Like all other treaties it is made and kept for the convenience of the participants. It isn’t practically binding on them because there is no effective enforcement mechanism”.

    What you say is 100% right.

    And that’s the weakest point of the implications of the peace camp’s rationale & all stuff.
    Just, if we look at how European construction was managed or just happened to be, it’s not impossible to think that current UN law development (now it’s established although denied, bullied, ridiculed, trampled under foot by some States which ought instead to display examplatory conduct etc) is consubstantial (sorry for the word: I couldn’t find a better one) to the course of world politics?

    Kodiak.

  • Johnathan

    As so often, comments veer off the subject. To the original point, which is that this Hamza guy is being allowed to reside in the UK. If he came here on false pretences, and therefore his passport is a dud, he should be removed, instantly.

    I still think there are grounds for wondering whether our intelligence services have got some kind of operation going which means they’d rather he stayed here a bit longer than otherwise. I honestly don’t know.

    Kodiak – the U.S. actions against Iraq were not crimes, unless one assumes the crazy notion that one needs UN authorisation for all actions these days.

    And we don’t need lectures from France when it comes to international law. France has – possibly with justice – acted unilaterally in dozens of cases, especially in Africa, since WW2. What a particular segment of French folk cannot stand is that when the U.S. does so, it openly admits it. France has been a unilateralist power for years, now it tries to play the goodie-goodie.

  • Kodiak

    Johnathan,

    IRAQ
    You’re fully right.
    I’d be glad too to see Mr Bush changing his mind & try to serve world stability even if he’s been doing most reprehensible things.

    HAMZA
    There also I’m with you 100%.

    Kodiak.

  • veryretired

    Kodiak = troll

    comments = waste of space

    France = appendix (vestigial, useless, occasionally inflamed)

  • A_t

    … & making comments like that, casually dissing a whole country, isn’t trolling?

    not denying Kodiak’s been a bit tiresome of late, even though i do agree with some of his reasoning, but dude… don’t sink so low!

  • Kodiak

    To the remark above (Jacob at July 1, 2003 11:10 PM) by Jacob I forgot to address in due time

    Jacob,

    I know it’ll sound presomptuous, but I think your sentence shows you’re ridiculing yourself.

    It’s not the 1st time you take a light pretext (but, strikingly, always related with Arabs, Muslims, terrorists etc) to vociferate your superbly illuminating contributions into the debate.

    I don’t know if expressing disagreement with the US is fashionable. Well, as amazing as you may find, it’s not fashionable to fight Bush in France. Those who do that are quite a few in numbers but absolutely convinced they’re right.

    I quite appreciate your last remark as I can see where it comes from: very low. I am not a murderer, I don’t like murderers, I don’t like murders. If you think & shout the contrary, then I’d be driven to think that combining your atavic aversion to Arabs & your lightly dissimulated hatred for French makes you a perfectly despicable bitter person I wouldn’t care for meeting, even for a kingdom.

    Kodiak.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I recall that for years, the U.S. figure, Louis Farrakan, was not allowed by the Home Office into this country on the gounds that he was deemed an undesirable. Now, I don’t want to get into the ins and outs of his case, but why the fug was the same approach not applied to extremist religious preachers with track records of being involved, or suspected of being involved, in violence?

    Why the hell have the authorities been so dozy on this? Again, it makes me wonder whether the authorities have some sort of agenda.

  • Bocsanat Kodiak, hogy nem tudok irni olyan folyekonyon franciaul, se nemetul, se spanyolul. De probalom most megtanulni a nehez, erdekes arab nyelvet!

    I just want to check Kodiak – do you think the EU is the cause of 50 years of peace and prosperity in Western Europe, or one result of it?

    I’m afraid I see the EU, and the UN, as a faint shadow of American-funded security in Western Europe. We Europeans were quite lucky to receive the Marshall Plan. As I see it Eastern Europe got half a century of non-prosperous stability imposed by Russian occupation, while Western Europe got half a century of prosperous stability imposed/enabled (delete as preferred) by American occupation/protection (delete as preferred).

    You feel my view is pretty much false, I imagine?

  • Kodiak

    Hi Mark,

    I’m not gonna spit in my own soup… I reckon that we, Europeans, are highly indebted to the US for: 1/ the help during WWII, 2/ the help during the Cold War, 3/ a very fruitful intermigling between 2 different economic, cultural & human spaces that share so many things in common.
    That can hardly be dismissed.

    Is EU a cause or a consequence of long-lasting prosperity? Well, I’d say: maybe both, Sir!

    True it is that when you’re left in peace you can solve your problems & start to think about new things etc, hence the prosperity. That’s what Fr & Germany decided to do, very early, from 1945-46 on (1957: Rome – 1963: Elysée).

    Yes the US involvement was a necessary, yet unsufficing, condition for (western) Europe to thrive in a stimulating environment. The political ambition of Fr & Germany was a no less decisive incentive to go far beyond than mere good-neighbourhood relationship. It didn’t happen, but I recall that as early as late 70s, Schmidt & Giscard d’Estaing vere seriously contemplating States fusion & single citizenship for the 2 nations.

    Not too bad for two hereditary enemies…

    So, to sum up: thanx very much the USA for your help because everyone was a winner >>> Europe of course, and the USA also as it benefits from a kind of lookalike partner/rival/twin (to be chosen from) in a world of unaparalled complexity.

    Kodiak.

  • Paul P

    Sehr Geherte Kodiak,

    Ja, sie sollen ihre English auswichelen.
    Sie haben zu viele obskurische wõrte in ihre sprache. Es ist immer besser in English zu einfache wõrte benutzen.

    Muy bien, puede usted hablar en otros idiomas.
    Un precio de 2 puntos a tigo.

    J m’excuse si mon franèais est pauvre… Je suis anglophone. Mais vous, vous ĕtes trés intelligent et polyglot.

    Unskyld hvis norsken min er litt begrenset men f¸rste spraage mit er enkelig engelsk.

    Paul P

  • Kodiak

    Your Fr is just all right Paul…

    Was the last sentence in Norwegian?

    GrüB Dir, Paul.

    Kodiak.

  • Paul P

    Kodiak,

    Riktig.
    You get 2 extra points for not confusing it with Danish.

  • Kodiak

    Grazie mille, Paolo.

    I feel like competing at the Eurovision Song Contest…

    Kodiak.