When I took him to task in this piece, I assumed he was just a bit cross. However, after some to-ing and fro-ing, it is clear from his final comment that he genuinely believes that there is some equivalence to be had between Bush and OBL.
... but I believe you misunderstood me (largely due to me not making myself clear). I wasn't comparing Bush/Blair to the bombers - the bombers are just the footsoldiers, not the commanders in chief, after all. I said "those they are supposed to be fighting", meaning the A-Q leadership.
Don't know if that clears it up at all. Probably not. This is why I generally try and avoid writing about terrorism - frightfully high emotions around the thing.
No Nosemonkey, it does not clear it up. You were offered the chance to retract and to measure your statements (4 or 5 times) and you have failed. High emotions cannot excuse this continued failure to see the difference.
Ask yourself the pertinent question one more time: in a presidential election between Bush and the AQ leadership and/or the loons who masterminded/planned/supplied the materials/brainwashed the footsoldiers, for whom would you vote?
This is not a tricky decision.
To make myself absolutely clear: the people who masterminded the attack deliberately set out to corrupt the minds of the footsoldiers. They specifically targetted innocent civilians. The murder of non-combatants in the tube was not "collateral damage" or even "unfortunate" - not only was it the only conceivable outcome, it was its entire purpose.
The same goes in spades for the AQ leadership: OBL et al provide "spiritual" leadership for these lunatics. They rejoiced in the 9/11 slaughter. They endorse the policy of the murder of innocent civilians.
On the other side of the coin, when a president or PM or whoever issues orders for an military operation, they do so in the knowledge and expectation that every single officer and NCO right down the chain of command will inspect it as to its legality or otherwise [an officer is NOT required to obey an illegal order. If the superior officer persists, one has a duty to tender one's resignation. To do so would take enormous amounts of moral courage, but then that is practically the only yardstick by which the worth of an officer is measured.], square it with their own conscience and then carry it out to the best of their ability whilst striving to minimise any collateral damage.
Now we get this. Browne's substantive point - that apologists and "root-causers" serve as "useful idiots" to the fundamentalist nutcases - is entirely ignored by the articles Nosemonkey quotes. That is as maybe.
But Nosemonkey's casual assertion in the comments thread that, although he has been increbibly slack throughout his article, Browne carefully and specifically used the term "Islamist" so that the uninitiated might think he meant "Islamic" is just so vile that it beggars belief.
I, like "Devil's Kitchen" in the comments to my first piece, was holding off commenting on this until I had simmered down, but I am spurred into action by the this piece by Scott Burgess of the Daily ablution, who seems to agree with Browne's substantive point. Scott Burgess is hardly a raving neo-con and it is good to see some sense coming through from the "left".
So let's ask the question again Nosemonkey: if you had to choose between Anthony Browne's world view and that of Dilpazier Aslam, which would it be?
To be honest, I really don't know which he would prefer. And that is really scary.