Football and Geography

"I'd like to play for an Italian club, like Barcelona"
Mark Draper, formerly of Aston Villa

I found myself like most of the country in the strange position of being a supporter of Israel on Saturday night and they did not let us down (unlike certain national football teams a little closer to home). Did anyone else notice the irony that the result of a football match between Israel and Russia had the potential to decide whether England would qualify for the European Championships? This crime against geography is presumably because UEFA and FIFA allow countries to join continental federations based on history and politics rather than actual physical locations.

Of course, Israel is also in UEFA because a few countries in the Asian federation do not recognise its right to exist. Which got me thinking: if the People's Republic actually got independence from the old country and was recognised by the United Nations, but not Westminster could we then apply for membership of CONCACAF and play World Cup Qualifiers against the might of Mexico, USA and Canada? It is one benefit of independence that we could sell to the people of Birmingham

But let's not give Alex Salmond any ideas.

The Perfect Role

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair took up his role as Middle-East envoy today. Many people have criticised his appointment due to his perceived bias towards Israel during the war on Lebanon, but I believe he has exactly the right experience for the job.

In the Middle-East, talk is cheap and no-one delivers on their promises.

The War on Terror and Shoot to Kill

The "war on terror" is clearly being lost (of course this is not surprising, as it seems to be more about motivations rather than about actually ending terrorism). After the crazy events of Thursday where we were mercifully spared the misery of the 7th of July, Egypt also suffered a terrorist attack this weekend where as I write over 80 people have died. This takes place against the backdrop of the daily murders and suicide bombings taking place in the country that used to be Iraq (perhaps we should explain to the Islamic world that this isn't really democracy - after all, if their experience of democracy comes from Iraq since 2003 and Israel (and in particular the occupation of Palestine), it's not a surprise that they are not that enthusiastic about it).

What is just as concerning about the recent events is that the police shot dead an innocent man because he was acting suspiciously and was wearing strange clothing for the weather. Obviously we will need to wait for the full inquiry into the shooting before criticising those involved, as I'm not sure the media reports are giving a fully accurate version of what happened. The shoot-to-kill policy is undoubtedly necessary when suicide bombings are the weapon of choice of the state's enemy, but it raises real questions of how and when they can be justified in a specific instance. What constitutes suspicious activity? If a person's first language isn't English, how can this be taken into account when the police give a command, particularly if they are in plain clothes and one of them has a gun?

After all, would you like to be at the wrong end of a mistaken decision?

Injustice for All

As the dust settles from the terrorist attacks in London, we reach a period where the Government pontificates about how we were always a target of a terrorist threat, that they are trying to destroy our way of life and it was absolutely, positively nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or that matter any other Western action in the Middle East.

There is a problem with this analysis. It is wrong. The Islamic world did not wake up one day and say, "I know, just for a laugh we'll start bombing and maiming innocent people for no particular reason. Civilization and democracy is not for us, let's kill, kill, kill!"

On the other hand the western world did wake up one day start bombing defenceless third world countries so that they could rob the economic wealth. Alternatively they may just have wanted a military presence in the area. Often, they installed brutal dictators in these oil rich states to ensure democracy didn't flourish and the wealth stayed under their control, leaving only extremists who resorted to religion as the only ones who could fight back.

Ok, these are oversimplifications of the history of the Middle East, but the fact remains that the problems of 9/11 and the subsequent events are the direct results of Western foreign policy in the Middle East. In the same way that the IRA terrorised Britain due to the perceived injustices in Ireland under British rule, Islamic extremists are murdering innocent people to avenge (in their eyes) the injustices happening in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and other Muslim areas.

Of course this is a biased view. NATO for example helped liberate the Kosovan Muslims from Serb rule. If it wasn't for American intervention in the 70's, Kashmir would probably be completely under Indian rule. By perpetuating myths of anti-Islamic bias in Western foreign policy, Al Qaida and its fellow Islamist groups convince a seemingly unending stream of young men to give their lives for their perverted cause.

And while they continue to see the atrocities happening in Palestine and Iraq, it will be difficult to convince these young men otherwise.

As democratic as the rest of US

The People's Republic was a bit concerned when it heard an ultra-conservative had been the unexpected winner of a dodgy election, thus threatening the stability of the world.

We thought George Walker Bush had won a historic third term.

Luckily it became apparent that it was only the election of the new leader of Iran, where the religious clerics who run the country had barred progressive candidates from standing in an attempt to get a conservative victory. This differs slightly from democracy in the US, where the partisan election officials simply bar progressive voters from voting in swing states, thus achieving the same goal.

No need for any regime change there then. They're as democratic as the rest of us.