The Story of the Weeping Camel.
Keith Hawkins writes of his dissatisfaction with his tournament results this year in his new blog titled
The Camel Ruminates.

After pointing out that luck plays a big part in the short term, he goes on to say that he feels that his play in large tournaments has deteriorated in large part due to playing a lot on Pokerstars. He explains: "I am playing there far too regularly. I do very well in the heads up matches at $1000 and $500 levels. I win nearly 2 from 3 and have made very good money for the last few months."

Winning two out of three heads up comps at those levels implies a per tournament win rate of almost $333 and $166 respectively. But he wants to stop playing them in order to better at big tournaments, where as he always points out, there are many excellent players.

I'm baffled. Is he after money or recognition?

The case of Sion Jenkins.
I've never been happy about the conviction of Sion Jenkins for the 1997 murder of his step-daughter Billie-Jo. I normally reserve judgement on criminal cases because I know that what one gathers from the media may not be an accurate reflection of what was heard in court, but this case bothers me because it seems to have been based on very little.

As I understand it, the main evidence against Jenkins was that there were traces of blood on his jacket and that he had been angry with her earlier that same day. On their own, these two facts don't seem to amount to very much to me. Families often argue and the fact that he had her blood on his clothing is entirely consistent with his explanation that he found her bleeding after someone else had battered her. There is also the report of a mentally disturbed man known to have an obsession for sticking bits of plastic up his nostrils being seen in the vicinity on the same day. Traces of bin-liner were found in Billie-Jo's nose.

I would like to see clear guidelines from the police on what I am supposed to do if I find someone in the sort of condition that Billie-Jo was in. Now that mobile phones are commonplace, my first instinct would be to call the police and get the victim to speak to them while he/she is still alive in order in part to clear me. but that only works if they are still capable of speech. Having seen what Jenkins has gone through, I'm tempted to stay well away lest I come into contact with blood, skin or hair that could later be used to convict me. That's sad really, as my first concern should be to give whatever aid I can rather than establishing my innocence.

See here for the story.

I know I shouldn't have a view on this but I can't help hoping that Jenkins is released. I think he's been the victim of an appalling miscarriage of justice. It's for reasons like this that I'm reluctantly opposed to the death penalty. I have no moral objection to it in principal at all, just a fear that it would one day lead to the execution of an innocent man who might later have proved his innocence.

Sinister.
I think that my right hand is suffering from excess computer use. This is no joke. I've had a bruised feeling in one of the fingers of my right hand for some time now. I also notice a feeling of strain in my right forearm. I mentioned this at the Victoria yesterday and got a variety of responses. Jim (Celtic Tiger) Britton said that I was probably not taking my hand off the mouse while I used the PC. I think that he's right. Others told me that I was getting Carpel Tunnel Syndrome.

One chap even explained his theory that it was caused by Optical Mice. This rings true for me, as I noticed things getting worse after I got an optical mouse. His theory is that users move their hands differently with an optical mouse, in a way that causes more strain on the wrists.

Midway through my afternoon at the Vic, I held my right arm in the air with the elbow high and the hand hanging down to show everyone that my little finger was shaking uncontrollably. Luckily it didn't last long.

So I am experimenting with using the mouse with my left hand now. I've changed the mouse settings so that the index finger does most of the work. Apart from the odd bit of typing, like this, I'm letting the right hand do nothing.

I will let you know how it goes.

Happy 4th July to any American readers.
At least there's one anniversary I can remember. I totally neglected to celebrate the first birthday of this site. On June 11th, Sleepless in Fulham became one year old.

Nicaragua continued.
I have had some feedback about my last post. Ruari Patterson writes:

"I'd like to take issue with your piece on Nicaragua on your blog. You make some good points but the lack of context and ommissions are shocking. You completely neglect to mention that the Sandanistas overthrew an extremly brutal decades-old dictatorship and that their opponents, the Contras, were drawn largely from that dictatorship's murderous National Guard. You make some good points about the Sandanista's own human rights abuses but you present them as if they were on a par with those of the Contras, which no serious human rights group would accept."

I was not planning to write a full history of Nicaragua. I started the story in 1987 because that was the year that I became aware of the left's strong passion for the Sandanistas during an open day at Hull University. I wasn't trying to omit anything. What Ruari says is quite true however. He continues:

"You also write as if the only election thr Sandanistas presided over was one they were forced to hold as "part of a peace deal" with the contras; in fact the Sandanistas won a 67% majority in an election in the early eighties which though accused of being flawed (the opposition alleged that government domination of the media worked against them) was widely regarded as straight.

I must confess that I was either unaware of the election that they won or had read somewhere that it wasn't free and fair. My own fascination with the subject comes from one of my favourite websites. It's a blog called www.deanesmay.com. Dean Esmay shares many of my views now but was a registered Democrat and quite left-wing in the past. In one of his entries, he explains that it was the election of UNO that triggered his move to the Right. You can read the entry here:

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/001264.html

It is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the subject; just his personal reflections.

Ruari continues:

"The fact that they then peacefully conceded power in the second election in the late 80s, which there is no reason to believe they would not have held regardless of the peace negotiations, is glossed over. Do you think Somoza or the contras would have done the same?"

I'm too young to know whether Somoza would have done the same. From what I've read about the subject, the answer is no. I totally agree that it was to the Sandanistas credit that they did hand over power to UNO.

Ruari concludes:

"The left-wingers you disdain may have been misguided in their total support for the Sandanistas but they were defending a movement that overthrew a corrupt and violent dictarship, held two elections in its tenure of less than a decade and abided by the will of the people when it lost the second, bringing democracy to the country, not to mention saw literacy and life expectancy rates soar during its period in power, against the remnants of a military dictarship that had never shown any appetite for political freedoms or introducing democracy. That the movement has long outlived its usefulness is not particularly contraversial, but from your piece anyone would think it was a left-wing mirror image of Somoza or the contras that achieved nothing, which is absurd."

I won't add much to that. I'm glad that the people of Nicaragua are free of both the Somoza regime and the Sandanistas. There is one thing on which Ruari and I agree - that it is genuinely fascinating that Nicaragua was such a hot topic for several years and is now virtually never mentioned at all. In my last week at University in summer 1990, I rented a Camcorder and interviewed many of my fellow students. One of them, a mature student named Jake, who had been studying South-East Asian studies, was very left-wing (despite being a close friend of mine). One of the questions I asked him in the interview was 'How will history judge Ronald Reagan'? His reply was that he would be regarded as a war criminal for what the Contras did. Last month Reagan died and I read many pages of analysis about his life. Nicaragua barely featured in any of them.

If I could fast forward through history.
I have often argued about the benefits of the American invasion of Iraq, but lately I'm finding it hard to have an original thought on the matter. I'm sure that what is being done is for the best in the long-term, but it annoys me that it will take years, not weeks or months to be proved right.

To illustrate what I mean, I want to go back to February 1987 when I went to Hull University for an open day while in my last year of school. As I entered the Union building I saw a large banner that declared that it was 'Nicaragua Awareness Day'. Hardly anyone ever talks about it now, but back in the mid to late 80s, the fate of Nicaragua was a very sensitive topic. The US, under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, was supporting a group of disparate guerrillas called the 'Contras', who aimed to overthrow the left-wing Sandanista (FSLN) government of Daniel Ortega. There were horrible stories of atrocities committed by the Contras.

I liked Hull a great deal from that visit and ended up going there to do a degree in Economics and Business in the autumn of that year. For most of the three years that I was there, Nicaragua remained a hot topic of the internationalist left-wing undergraduates. They considered Reagan to be a war criminal. They openly supported the Sandanistas. In 1990, as part of a peace agreement with the Contras, the country held free elections. The Sandanistas lost to a coalition named "UNO". The people had spoken. Far from being the wonderful beloved patriarchal figure that many Hull students thought, Ortega was in fact widely hated by Nicaraguans. The Sandanista death squads had terrorized the Indian populations, regularly tortured, terrorized or killed dissidents and shut down newspapers and radio stations critical of the regime. Of course that didn't stop some students from wearing their FSLN T-Shirts. I approached one of them in the library and noting his choice of attire only days after the Sandanista defeat, I mentioned that he was supporting a political party that had been rejected by the Nicaraguan people themselves. He replied "UNO's falling apart".

He was in denial. Violeta Chamorro, the UNO leader, remained president until 1996. Daniel Ortega has run for president three times since 1990 and has lost every time. The people of Nicaragua continue to chose right of centre parties who favour free trade with the US. In 2003, Nicaragua along with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador agreed on a free trade agreement with the US. In January this year the World Bank decided to erase 80 per cent of the debt that the country owed to it. Nicaragua is still poor, in part because it took a battering from Hurricane Mitch in 1998, but it seems to be on the right track, and this is of course why you have heard absolutely nothing about it for years.

In fact it might surprise you to know that with the exception of Cuba, every country in the American hemisphere is now a democracy and that most are choosing free enterprise and open markets. The left, while correct to have pointed out the atrocities committed by some of the Contras, was completely wrong in its support of the Sandanistas, but never says sorry. Instead it has moved on to attacking the 'Neo-cons' over Iraq.

Iraq, with its oil wealth, has at least as good if not better chances than Central America. I'm sure of this, but right now there are still thugs, many of them foreign, who don't like the prospect of the Iraqi people choosing their own destiny. These insurgents have shown that they have nothing to offer the Iraqi people but death and misery. They never make any claims about how their violent actions will improve the lot of the ordinary people, because there is nothing that they can say. In time, when more and more control moves to the new government, they will lose what support they have. They are losers and the form book shows that losers keep on losing. However, many in the West are sceptical and expect instant results. That I can't offer. I ask only that people cast their minds back to how life was in Central and South America a quarter of a century ago and contrast it to how it is now.

Blink and you'll miss it.
Somebody must have hated writing this:

World's tally of refugees falls.

The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, has reported that "The number of refugees and displaced people around the world has fallen by 18% to just over 17m - the lowest level in a decade". Notably, more than half a million people returned to Afghanistan.

Buried in the middle of the article, we find "Large numbers also returned to Angola, Burundi and Iraq. What? Iraq? But I keep reading that it's a shambles and that it's a country under oppressive US occupation. How can people be going back home there? Don't they read the Independent?

Well done to the BBC on keeping this uncomfortable little fact buried so well. Can't have good news coming out, can we?

Europe.
On the long flight back from Las Vegas last month, I found the time to read Boris Johnson's 'Lend me your ears'; a collection of some of his articles. In an footnote to one piece, he encapsulates in seven words the problem facing those who want further EU integration: 'Europe is not a natural political unit'.

He's right. Elsewhere he points out that we still don't know Europe's borders. Should the Ukraine be able to join? Turkey? Belarus? What about Russia? Much of Russia is certainly European in character, but we can't just choose the bits we want. We have to take the whole thing all the way to Vladivostok, or none at all.

But his seven-word rebuttal is more basic than that. There is no natural sense in which Europeans share common day-to-day political interests. Can you name the prime minister of Austria? Do you know the inflation rate of Belgium? Can you tell me the unemployment rate in Hungary? Do you care?

When European elections come, people vote on almost purely national issues, making a complete mockery of the European Parliament. Can you name your MEP? If you can, do you know what he or she has done for the last two years? If you are drawing a blank to these questions, don't worry. You're normal. What is abnormal is pretending that people are interested in the day to day business of politics in other countries when it's clear that they aren't.

I'm not an advocate of withdrawal from the EU. I won't vote for UKIP. I just want Europe's politicians to recognise that while there is widespread support for free trade across Europe and for visa-free travel, there is no broad base of support for further political integration.

Oil.
The subject of oil has generated a heated debate on the Hendon Mob forum recently. It all started when someone named 'Big Brother' posted a message titled 'Wooohooo The Green Party'. It read:

Just Listening to Sky News where they were talking to a Spokeswoman for the Green Party.

Interviewer: "What would you do about the taxation on oil?"

Spokeswoman: "We would increase the taxation on oil and introduce a package of measures to get people to make better use of the public transport system"

Perfect! just what we wanted to hear. We're not getting ripped off enough! Has this bitch ever used the "public transport system" on any kind of semi-regular basis?

A poster named 'Brad' replied:

In 20-30 years from now when basic commodities like paints, plastics, medicines and packaging, are priced beyond most peoples means, and we've contributed to catastrophic climate change (assuming by then it hasn't already happened), we may wish that governments had acted sooner to control the crazy burning of oil.

and on another occasion he wrote:

If government including the US started taking a long term view instead of stealing from future generations (with cheap oil and a massive national debt), then we wouldn't now be facing an impending energy crisis and higher interest rates. Personally I feel that oil should be regarded as a global resource, should be taxed at a global level not a national level, and at least some of the proceeds reinvested into finding alternative energy sources.

Personally I'm sceptical about whether anything needs to be done for many years to come. I believe that normal market mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that alternative energy sources are explored. I certainly don't believe that oil should be taxed in order to prevent it being stolen from 'future generations'. Why is it theirs any more than it is ours?

So I wrote back in a post with the intentionally sarcastic title 'What have future generations ever done for us?', in which, among other points, I said:

It's true that the supply of oil is finite. but we don't know how much of it there is and past attempts to quantify how much remains have been laughably off track. I recall being worried when I was a child that it was going to run out a few years after 2000. That seemed to be a common worry. Since then more has been discovered and we are warned that it will run out in 30 years time, just like I was being told as a child! Here are some examples of past false warnings:

In 1914 US Bureau of Mines estimated reserves at 10 years.
In 1939 Department of the Interior gave a 13 year projection.
In 1972 "The Limits to Growth" predicted we'd be out of oil in 20 years.
In 1987 Paul Erlich (best-selling environmentalist) said the oil shock would come in the '90s.

and I ended with saying:

I want to attack the ridiculous idea that we are stealing from our children's future.... Human inventiveness will see us through the challenges of the future and our best policy is to trust the free-market mechanisms that we have to tell us when to reduce consumption, increase production, switch to alternatives or otherwise innovate. There is certainly no point in reducing living standards now out of fear.

Regular readers of the Hendon Mob will know that Brad was unlikely to leave this unanswered. He replied in a long post from which I post the following extracts:

Taxing energy helps counter the massively wasteful trend of more and bigger SUVs. And now the latest fashionable trend is patio heaters each of which are said to consume as much energy as a speeding truck!

Free markets, David, are not a panacea for everything as you seem to think. Free markets serve the "as long as I'm alright Jack" culture very well, and I'm generalling in favour of a non-interventionist approach. But what is in the best interest of the individual is not necessarily always in the best interests of society, the environment or the human race. The wasteful consumption of oil being a perfect example.

Economists have a term for the kind of situation that Brad describes where one person's consumption or production of something affects another person. They call these losses and benefits 'Externalities'. An obvious example of an externality is pollution. Another might be passive smoking. Legislation exists to make the polluter pay for the cost of his pollution, which would not otherwise be factored into his profit and loss statement. Cigarette smoking is being banned in public places, because otherwise the lung damage that cigarettes cause would not be purely confined to the person who chose to smoke.

But oil consumption does not merit such intervention. It's not a case of 'Externalities'. It ridiculous to say that my consumption of something that is finite in supply is harmful to those yet unborn. Why should it be reserved for them, when their use would rob their descendents?

Brad posed the question: Don't you think it would be better for them to use their "human inventiveness" to work out ways to save energy now - rather than when it's forced upon them?

This response assumes that only government intervention could prevent such a catastrophe. This isn't true. If production were to fall as demand stayed stable or rose, people would examine other sources of energy, especially renewable ones. Why panic now however when oil is still affordable? Investing resources and scientific research to this problem comes at the cost of the money invested and the potential benefits to accrue from the same scientists working on another more pressing problem. The end of oil is several decades away and scientific knowledge could change so much between now and then that our investment could be pointless.

I wrote back: What good would it have done people in the 1930s to try and guess the future direction of the telephone business? Would they have guessed that they should be installing fibre optics instead of copper? Never! It's completely pointess. Oil producers are prepared to sell at current prices. Either buyers pay those prices or they don't. Introducing artificial incentives is completely pointless. In short, let's wait until the problem is forced on us because that is the first time we need to worry about it.

I began to feel that it might be pointless to reason Brad out of something that he wasn't reasoned into. Everyone has their own degree of natural optimism or pessimism. For some the glass is half-full. For others it's half-empty. So I said:

Many debates end up being a split between Roundheads (puritans) and Cavaliers. You are a puritan. Deep down you fear that happiness in the present leads to misery later.

I was getting irritated because he mentioned SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles). They are the bete noire of environmentalists and other puritans. They are said to guzzle gas and worse still, they are pleasurable to own and drive - something guaranteed to annoy the 'There'll be hell to pay for this later' crowd.

Brad was in fine form with his next reply:

... maybe people should think twice about making lots of long distance leisure trips. Maybe it's not a bad idea for them to consider videoconferencing or other alternatives sometimes instead. Maybe it's a good idea for people to be encouraged to live closer to family, and closer to work? Maybe that would help conserve the planet's resources.

Why stop there? Maybe we should all quit what we are doing and invent a pill for all known diseases. I love Brad's idea about videoconferencing as a replacement for long-distance leisure trips. Why bother taking the kids to Alton Towers or Disneyland when you can videoconference the rollercoasters in their bedrooms? A hologram of Mickey Mouse is sure to please them just as much as a visit to the real thing.

He nails his colours to the mast with:

...bingeing today likely will lead to discomfort in the future. I believe that discomfort will be felt by a sudden and damaging shock increase in oil prices to high levels. Governments have the power to graduate that shock and prepare the world for it gradually, and at the same time invest in high-tech enterprise, and alternative energies.

And here's where it gets interesting, because if he believes that oil will be much dearer in the future and that governments are not doing enough about it now then there is a profit opportunity. At the time at which this debate was taking place, oil was trading at roughly $40 per barrel. If you think that it will be $100 in 10 years time then don't just sit there reading this, do something! Buy all the barrels you can get your hands on. How else will you get a return of 150 per cent over 10 years? It's not an option at the building society and none of the Post Office's National Savings products can deliver this. Get cracking!

To be fair to Brad, he is doing this in a manner of speaking. He tells us I'm long Jul Nymex Light Crude at #2 a point, but sadly neglects to mention the price at which he went long. This is a short term position but he can roll this over when the contract expires and keep doing this for years if he wants. It's easier and cheaper than buying the oil itself and paying for its storage for a decade. I have no idea how long he intends to hold this position. At present all he's really doing is betting on Al-Qaeda, as without the fear of terrorist attacking Saudi refineries, the price would be $4 to $8 per barrel cheaper (source: The Economist, May 22nd, Page 11).

And if he's long at $40 or higher, he's also doing his nuts at the time of writing this, as this graph will demonstrate:

Click here

Pokerstars takes action in under a day!
Got another email from Lee Jones today:

Hi David -

I can't promise you we'll always be as quick to respond to your suggestions in the future, but you and a couple of other folks mentioned the $15-30 thing in the last 2-3 days, and somehow that pushed the team over the edge. You'll see a $15-30 hold'em game available right now.

Thank you for the suggestions and keep them coming.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager

Correspondence with Pokerstars.
I wrote to PokerStars yesterday, prompted by a visit to my table by Lee Jones, the site's Poker Manager.

I attach the correspondence:

From me to Lee

Hi Lee, great to be able to chat with you during a game

I think that PS is making some very serious mistakes:

1) It hasn't got any limit hold'em between $10\20 and $30\60.

This is a huge chasm. Also, $10\20 is always a horrible game. I recommend getting rid of it and replacing it with $8\16, then introducing $15\30 (with the critical $10 small blind, which generates so much action). The limit games on PS are the tightest anywhere and I refuse ever to play them. I think that my suggestions might loosen things up.


2) Get rid of the $3\6 PLO game.

Poker players are macho and hate to admit that they can't play in the biggest game. A lot of people will rather risk going broke than be seen not playing in the biggest game. I think that the $3\6 has done a lot of damage.

And most important from my point of view:

3) You have far too many levels for the Sit N Gos.

The result is that instead of getting a game started quickly, you end up with players scattered across lots of tables and nothing starting for ages. Some of the levels should be eliminated. In order to retain choice, I would avoid duplication between the one-table and two-table games. Therefore, for example, keep the $30 one table SNG but eliminate the two table $30 and stagger the limits across the 1 and 2 tables, in the same way that the Mirage and the Bellagio stagger limits. This would get things started much quicker. Most people are 'hitters'. They want to see "8 out of 9" and click for the last seat. It is impossible to do that now and the result is that people have drifted over to Party.

David Young

P.S. Also, the tournament menu is far too cluttered. Too many options.

Lee wrote back to say:

Hi David -

Your suggestions make a lot of sense. I don't know exactly what we'll do, but I really appreciate the input. In fact, we're seriously looking at some kind of mid-limit game (15-30 or 20-40). We're hesitant to remove a game that we've already started spreading (and obviously people want to play).

That's not to say I disagree with you about poker players being macho and not willing to admit they can't compete in the biggest game. I think you might be right, but we have to walk a careful balance between protecting the players and giving them what (they think) they want.

But you've obviously given this some careful thought, and we will give it the review and consideration it deserves.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write me.

Best regards,

Lee Jones

Greetings from Las Vegas
As many of you will know, I'm in Las Vegas for the World Series of Poker. I'm writing about my experiences on Gutshot and you can see my diary at www.gutshot.co.uk by clicking on the text next to the photo of me in the left hand panel.

Wish you were here!

Prisoner abuse in focus.
Over at Armchair Angst, brought back by popular (?) demand after a brief flirtation with 'The Good Life', James Butler writes with his usual lack of perspective:

'A dark day for the west. Looking at pictures of UK and US troops maltreating Iraqi people does nothing for my pessimism. When Rome's enemies looked at their comrades crucified by the roadside it spurred them on to finally sack Rome. Thousands more disaffected Muslims will pour into Iraq to take their revenge.'

I am of course disappointed by the behaviour of some US troops and baffled by their decision to photograph their actions, but I don't share James' pessimistic conclusions.

The pictures that I saw on the BBC included:

1) A man wearing a hood and standing on a box connected to wires. He was falsely told that if he stepped off the box he would be electrocuted. He was in no danger, but since he believed he was, this does constitute an assault, as he was in fear of his life.

2) A pile of naked and half-naked Iraqi males with a grinning US female soldier on top of them and a male soldier standing behind her.

Both are repellent, but they are not as revolting as the footage of victims of the Hussein regime being fed to wild animals and other tortures, tapes of which were circulating in Iraq soon after the fall of Saddam. Iraqi people might well think 'Is that it?' when given the chance to see the pictures of the maltreatment. I also don't see how the pictures of American abuse can make a lot of difference to the number of jihadi coming to Iraq either. Al-Jazeera and some of the other Arab TV networks have been pumping out ludicrous anti-US propaganda for over a year now. Ironically, it's only because of the US-backed invasion that Iraqis are free to erect the satellites dishes that beam the channel to their homes!

I don't believe that Americans are incapable of cruelty or perversion. What I do know is that America has a free press that is able to broadcast pictures of their excesses and that soldiers who do such things can and will be held to account.

That is what the US must bring to the middle-east: accountability of those in power to the governed. In pre-war Iraq, those who committed atrocites had no fear of exposure or punishment.

But you're still alive.
I had a parallel universe moment last week when I caught the headlines on ITV news. It was on the day when Bush expressed approval of Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw Jewish settlers from the Gaza strip. Despite the fact that Israel is actually promising to withdraw from some of the occupied territories, the news of course was bad for Palestinians, as the US had supported the idea that some Jewish settlements, which have been in place for decades by the way, could be allowed to stay.

For most of us, this would seem to be a mere acknowledgement of reality, but of course, reality has few friends in the mixed-up world of middle-east politics. Just as the bad news was explained, Trevor McDonald gravely intoned that there were fears that it would derail the peace process. As he said that, my screen showed a scene of Palestinian men wearing balaclavas marching down a street carrying guns and rocket launchers.

I had to laugh my lungs out but was eerily aware that ITV had not intended that this be ironic. Because in MediaNewsLand, anything that Israel does other than roll over and slit its own throat is a provocation that could push the Palestinian terrorist organisations to a greater level of violence.

Where does this idea come from that they are ever holding back? There is no evidence for it. The media likes to talk about the 'Cycle of Violence' but it's not a cycle because that expression implies that if either side were to stop its attacks, the other would stop also. It isn't true. Israel could decide to do nothing in retaliation to bombings and that wouldn't make Hamas cool off. They are committed to attacking as often as they can, regardless of how much or how little the Israelis do in return.

After the latest assassination of the new Hamas leader, there were scenes of Palestinians expressing their outrage at the loss of their beloved leader, a man whose message was that they should be prepared to blow themselves up as martyrs to attack Israel. You shouldn't have to be Alanis Morissette* to spot the flaw in this scene: If they loved him and his message so much, how come they're still alive?

Several days have passed since then and despite the promises of immediate retaliation, nothing has happened. It's all nonsense. Only the USA saw sense and declined to condemn this targeted killing. Hamas is going to find it harder to arrange killings if item one on the agenda at every weekly meeting is the appointment of a new leader. Item two (How to kill more Jews) may have to get held over. And that's as good as we can hope for.

* "Does she know how you told me you'd hold me until you died, 'til you died, But you're still alive." You oughta know, Jagged Little Pill.

Understanding Al-Qaeda and the War on Terror.
Recently Mo Mowlem has suggested that talks should be held with Al-Qaeda to diffuse tension. She also said that the US action in Iraq was making matters worse and would lead to more support for terrorism in the Middle East.

I believe that she is completely wrong. In fact, so incredibly wrong that it's hard to believe that this is the same woman who championed Winston Churchill as the `Greatest Briton'. I don't ever recall Churchill seeking talks with Hitler and I don't think he suggested that the RAF should restrain itself from attacking the Luftwaffe on the grounds that it would only encourage more disaffected young Germans to become pilots.

Her remarks betray a complete ignorance of what is at stake. Nothing that George W. Bush does can make matters worse, for one simple reason: Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in August 1996, long before Bush came into office. You can read the declaration of war at:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

It's rather long and takes up 17 pages of A4, but is worth reading in the original nonetheless. It was published in the London based Arabic newspaper Al Quds al Arabi.

The first three paragraphs just contain a general introduction and passages from the Koran but in paragraph four the real business begins:

"The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon, are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Eritria, Chechnya and in Bosnia and Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers through the body and shake the conscience. All of this the world watched and heard, yet not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also, with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

A few things should stand out from this. The first is that many of these injustices have nothing to do with the United States at all. The US does not control what happens in Kashmir, Burma, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Chechnya, Tajikistan and several others on the list. In addition, it's clear that he hates the United Nations also because it did nothing to help the oppressed people of these places to fight back. Those who argue that Iraq should be turned over to the UN have to realise that it's no panacea at all. This is especially true as since this declaration was written, Al-Qaeda's hate for the UN has grown due to the latter's creation of East Timor; a Christian nation taken from the mostly Muslim Indonesia.

In the next paragraph we learn why he singles out the US for his venom:

'The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, the greatest incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places, the foundation of the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Kaa'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims, by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. We bemoan this and can only say: "No strength and no power acquired except through Allah".'

The arrival of US troops into Saudi Arabia, which he calls `the land of the two Holy Places' after Mecca and Medina, was to protect the country from aggression from Iraq and not as a colonisation. That distinction is lost however on those who see American soldiers as second-rate citizens. He goes on to blame the US for the arrest of some Islamic scholars and for his own forced exile. Helpfully he gives his address in Afghanistan `But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan, where - by the Grace of Allah - the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greatest).'

The phrase 'No strength and no power acquired except through Allah' is repeated many times. How does a secular or non-Muslim democratic society, where power is given to those who win elections, conform to this? It can't, so those who cherish the freedom to think outside the strictures of the Koran should realise that Al-Qaeda has them in the crosshairs too, whether they support the US in Iraq or not.

Bin Laden next goes on to discuss the economic conditions of life in Saudi Arabia. He writes:

'People are fully concerned about their everyday living; everybody talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever-increasing debts, and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten of thousands and hundred of thousands of Saudi Riyals. They complain that the value of the Riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies.

Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of millions of Riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billion Riyals is owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder, are we the largest oil exporting country? They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars.'

This is crucial. The Saudi royal family (over 6,000 princes at the latest count) has bled the country dry with its extravagance. The standard of living for those without royal connections has been in decline for decades. The combination of this with a high birth rate makes for an explosive combination. Bin Laden seeks to attract Saudis to his cause by appealing to their sense of being exploited.

Much later in the declaration, bin Laden shows his conviction that the US is weak. He relates how the Clinton administration's Defence Secretary, William Perry, said after the bombing of the Khobar Towers that it has taught him the lesson that he should not withdraw when attacked by cowadly terrorists. Bin Laden writes mockingly:

'We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk could induce a grieving mother to laughter! And it shows the fears that have enveloped you all. Where was this courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were transformed into scattered bits and pieces; 241 soldiers were killed, most of them Marines. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty-four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where, after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post-cold war leadership of the new world order, you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American solders, into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you.

Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu.'

It's abundantly clear from this that it is US weakness and not strength that inspires Al-Qaeda. He descibes how young muslims will fight the US and explains: `To liberate the sanctuaries is the greatest of issues concerning all Muslims; it is the duty of every Muslim in this world. I say to you, William (Defence Secretary), that: These youths love death as you love life.'

Just in case you don't get the message the first time, he goes on to say: `Those youths will not ask you (William Perry) for explanations. They will tell you, singing, there is nothing between us that needs to be explained, there is only killing and neck-smiting.'

How does Mo Mowlam plan to talk to them then?

So far, you may have noticed that he has said nothing about Iraq, but it does get a small mention towards the end: `More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people.'

The figure of 600,000 is an overstatement, but is widely accepted due to Madelaine Albright's disastrous non-denial when asked to comment on claims of over half a million deaths of Iraqi children. However there were many deaths caused after the imposition of UN sanctions. Remarkably, bin Laden doesn't seem to think of blaming Saddam Hussein for any of this, despite the latter being worth between $4bn and $7bn at the time of his downfall.

So what of Iraq and the `War on Terror', then? I hope that I have shown the futility of seeking talks with bin Laden, who in any case I suspect, has been dead for some time now. There is nothing to discuss with someone who says that his followers love death as much as we love life. What is the middle ground?

What the US has done is to try to address some of the causes of the hostility. US troops are out of Saudi Arabia and the US is getting less and less friendly with its former friends in the Saudi government whose lack of accountability has radicalised the Saudi people.

By toppling Saddam, the sanctions against Iraq can be ended and the economy will grow very fast. The introduction of democracy to a region that has never had it will show the Arab people how to diffuse tensions before they reach the crisis point.

Supporters of terrorism have been put on warning that the US is prepared to take action. The US has shown strength, which is crucial in dealing with religious fanatics who believe that US weakness is an indication that their god is on their side.

In a few years time, there is the very real possibility that Iraq will be peaceful and prosperous, with its people enjoying more freedom than exists anywhere else in the Arab world. The lesson will not be lost on the people of the neighbouring countries who will see that there is an alternative to despotism and religious fanaticism.

Those who wish that the Arab people remain oppressed and discontented are fighting against the US now. Those who would like to see freedom and peace flourish should support the US endeavour.