>Which just goes to show that the 'blowback' argument is entirely compatible
>with a >contemptuous attitude to Arabs and Muslims - indeed I think it is
>intrinsically contemptuous, seeing >them as merely reactive, not capable of
>moral choices.)
What *absolute* twaddle. The concept of blowback does not involve the supposition that its agents are merely reactive, incapable of pursuing other choices. The only claim it involves is that if you engage in aggressive policies toward some parts of the world, some people may eventually want to exact revenge - not necessarily in ways that most people would find acceptable.
Obviously - and I really do hate to repeat the obvious - those who carried out these acts are not friends of the oppressed. They are ideologues espousing a particular kind of Islamism, one which involves the degradation of non-Muslim lives (where 'Muslim' is understood least charitably).
However, none of that takes away from the supposition that they would have been less inclined to blow up parts of London had it not been for the decision by the British government to go for war. There is nothing racist or contemptuous about such a notion.
The tactic of implying guilt by association - linking Nick Griffin to such a view - is less effective than it is irritating.
_________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/