The unmasking of Jihadi John is much in the news. Here is some advice from someone who has experienced capture and the prospect of imminent and completely illogical execution.
Penelope Tremayne was captured in January 1986 and held for five weeks by Tamil 'freedom fighters', hourly expecting to be shot as a spy. She ends her book Nor Bars an Iron Cage with the following advice:
Never trust anyone who kills and imprisons people while saying he is winning their freedom.
Never believe that the man is a victim who takes his neighbour's house by force and says it is self-defence.
Never take a bully at his own valuation as a hero.'
She goes on:
Don't over-estimate the intelligence of your captors. Terrorism is a moron's occupation: if the killers and bombers had good minds they would be doing better things. Almost every major mistake I made came from supposing that my interrogators had put two and two together and made four. Over and over again it came out that they had not even tried to, let alone succeeded.
And it is fatally easy to suppose that they know much more than they do. They say so all the time, and you slip into accepting the idea. Because in physical terms they have complete power over you, you tend (or I tended) to exaggerate their importance. It is necessary to remember all the time that they are driven by one engine only: the desire to dominate.
Intelligent men may succumb to this as well as stupid ones, but they find more intelligent methods than terrorism. And some of these involve making use of terrorists, of their blind vanity and contempt for others.
I cannot generalize about the the minds of the puppeteers. But it is not they whom you and I are likely to come face to face with, it is only their manikins, who jerk and dangle at the strings' ends, and lob a bomb into a crowd of strangers in the belief that they are reshaping society.
Let us not help to build up their illusions about themselves. The greatest of these is that they are fighters in a noble cause, to whom anything is therefore allowed. They see bullying as heroism, and in their eyes it is not they who are terrorists but those who stand against them. They see the murders that they or their superiors commit as the fault of the government which refuses to give them their way; and if they do not torture their prisoners, that proves to them that they are kind and generous.
At all costs I want to say, never accept the hand of friendship from such people. Do not be deluded by any cant about compassion; it is nether godlike nor humanly right to go along with indiscriminate murder, and that is what you are doing if you make friends with hostage-takers.
Are you tempted to say: Yes, but this man who actually stands talking to me in my cell: he is a human being too, he has not shot me so far, and I don't know if he has shot anyone else. Have I not a duty of compassion towards him? And is there not a chance that he might change his approach to life if I let him see I understand that he too has a point of view? Believe me, he is very much likelier to shoot the next victim he gets in your stead, if you have encouraged him to think that his point of view has attracted your sympathy.
I wonder how she would feel today. The actions of people prepared to do the one thing one never expected of a human being - cold-bloodedly to sacrifice one's life for a cause - was surely a game-changer.
Sunday, 1 March 2015
Looking for someone to blame
A great posting on the BBC website. A photographer called Raphael Schutzer-Weissman posted this picture and caption:
I took this photo in response to the anti-immigrant rhetoric increasingly noticeable in the UK and Europe recently.
"At first it seemed to me that Romanians were the target, but the Charlie Hebdo atrocity took things to a new level.
It became a blame game. Blame the immigrants, blame the Muslims, blame the Jews, blame somebody, for something. To my mind inclusiveness and diversity are things to be celebrated, not demonised.
It became a blame game. Blame the immigrants, blame the Muslims, blame the Jews, blame somebody, for something. To my mind inclusiveness and diversity are things to be celebrated, not demonised.
Monday, 23 February 2015
Saying it as one sees it
Despite my best endeavours, it is becoming almost impossible to make wry comments about the nastiness of the election campaign. The politicians are almost beyond parody, promising free daffodils to anyone who will vote for them; promises which will be conveniently lost when they see the reality of what they have inherited; the lack of money for daffodils - due of course to the incompetent daffodil growers; or being an aspiration without a specific time commitment which can then be kicked into the very long grass.
Labour announces an initiative one day. The Tories - and last week it was Grant Shapps - promptly said it was 'rubbish' and that Labour was doing no more than re-announcing something they had already 'announced'; and anyway they (the Tories) had already done it and more. So, yah boo! the playground bullies used to end.
Who to believe? Much better to read the Daily Mash and have done. There is more truth there than in anything supposedly grown up politicians are saying.
A circular came through the letterbox from Labour today. Labour's Tim Dwelly, who chairs Cornwall Council's Economy Committee, commented:
It is now clear that the Government simply doesn't trust Cornwall to spend its own money. I would describe the Government's approach to the EU programme as a total shambles. It is hard to believe they could be this incompetent - our MPs appear to be either devoid of any influence or completely silent.
Overstatement? Probably not since the arguments on who should take decisions on EU money have been going backward and forward for months. Hey ho for Localism.
He goes on: While £500m of funding for Cornwall is held back, Cameron and Clegg, though adults, could not sort out between them who was going to announce, or re-announce - crumbs from the Whitehall table to provide cycle paths in Redruth.
Having been involved in just such bickering about who should announce what in the past, it all sounds horribly familiar.
But hang on: cycle paths in Redruth? Are they going to make a step-change to the economic performance of Cornwall? Maybe I agree with Whitehall after all and Cameron and Clegg were simply arguing who should not announce the money.
Labour announces an initiative one day. The Tories - and last week it was Grant Shapps - promptly said it was 'rubbish' and that Labour was doing no more than re-announcing something they had already 'announced'; and anyway they (the Tories) had already done it and more. So, yah boo! the playground bullies used to end.
Who to believe? Much better to read the Daily Mash and have done. There is more truth there than in anything supposedly grown up politicians are saying.
A circular came through the letterbox from Labour today. Labour's Tim Dwelly, who chairs Cornwall Council's Economy Committee, commented:
It is now clear that the Government simply doesn't trust Cornwall to spend its own money. I would describe the Government's approach to the EU programme as a total shambles. It is hard to believe they could be this incompetent - our MPs appear to be either devoid of any influence or completely silent.
Overstatement? Probably not since the arguments on who should take decisions on EU money have been going backward and forward for months. Hey ho for Localism.
He goes on: While £500m of funding for Cornwall is held back, Cameron and Clegg, though adults, could not sort out between them who was going to announce, or re-announce - crumbs from the Whitehall table to provide cycle paths in Redruth.
Having been involved in just such bickering about who should announce what in the past, it all sounds horribly familiar.
But hang on: cycle paths in Redruth? Are they going to make a step-change to the economic performance of Cornwall? Maybe I agree with Whitehall after all and Cameron and Clegg were simply arguing who should not announce the money.
Monday, 19 January 2015
A change of pace
We have been quite quiet for the last few months. This has not been because we have not been thinking: we have been far too much of that. It is because our lives have been changing.
The editorship of this blog is now moving on - it will increasingly be coming from my pen - and, as we face the most divisive and unpleasant election of recent years, it will no doubt become more political. One of the first new themes will be They Just Don't Get It as we all struggle to survive the onslaught of pre-election announcement after announcement, boiled down into ridiculous, unbelievable, and certainly undeliverable, promises and sound-bites.
But the essence will remain the same: the desire to point up muddled thinking, to understand the motivations, strategies and tactics of the players, and to poke fun at the illogicalities of modern life.
A key inspiration is provided by a a website entitled 'Now write about it'. This is designed to encourage literacy. I am just seeking to refine and capture ideas in diary form.
The editorship of this blog is now moving on - it will increasingly be coming from my pen - and, as we face the most divisive and unpleasant election of recent years, it will no doubt become more political. One of the first new themes will be They Just Don't Get It as we all struggle to survive the onslaught of pre-election announcement after announcement, boiled down into ridiculous, unbelievable, and certainly undeliverable, promises and sound-bites.
But the essence will remain the same: the desire to point up muddled thinking, to understand the motivations, strategies and tactics of the players, and to poke fun at the illogicalities of modern life.
A key inspiration is provided by a a website entitled 'Now write about it'. This is designed to encourage literacy. I am just seeking to refine and capture ideas in diary form.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Depicting famous people
The events surrounding the shootings at Charlie Hebdo were horrific. It is incomprehensible to liberal Western traditions that the depiction of someone in a cartoon should lead to the killing of the cartoonist. There was enough furore after the 'Danish cartoon' a couple of years ago - which was re-printed in Charlie Hebdo - but nothing like this.
The sin, if sin it was, was to depict the prophet. 'Islamic tradition' - not Islamic law - forbids the portrayal of the prophet or any of his companions. This ban led to a flourishing of calligraphy and other recognisable features of the Islamic art.
Where would Christianity be without its depiction of its prophets? The Renaissance would simply never have happened and our great art galleries would be empty. You could get burned at the stake for suggesting the sun was at the centre of the solar system and the same would have probably awaited you had you produced a satirical cartoon of a religious figure. Thankfully printing was in its infancy and Private Eye and Charlie Hebdo did not exist.
By the time of the Enlightenment, things were rather more relaxed.
North Korea clearly feels as sensitive as the terrorists if the fuss about The Interview is anything to go by. Having initially reeled from the hacking, Sony strengthened their sinews and issued the film having had the best publicity it could have hoped for. Sony 1, North Korea 0.
The newspapers were clearly feeling emboldened for the following appeared on a BBC website today, a week after the Charlie Hebdo events:
The Big Kim?
A suggestion that North Korea is keen on opening a restaurant in Scotland gives sub-editors plenty of punning opportunities.
"Kim dine with me," says the Daily Star, playing on the name of the reclusive state's "tubby tyrant", Kim Jong-un, as it suggests that dog meat soup and pine-nut gruel would be on the menu. The paper explains that a Pyongyang-backed restaurant is already open in Amsterdam, channelling 30% of its profits back to the state, and that Kim has "warmed" to Scotland because of its independence campaign.
The Daily Mirror dresses up the "supreme leader" in a tartan hat and ginger wig, renaming him "Kim Jock-un". Its effort at a "McJong's" menu includes Kim sum, Pyong lamb and spotted dictator. It says the North Korean leader has "fallen in love with all things Scottish, particularly whisky".
"See you Kimmy," is the headline in the Sun, which also pictures Kim in a bonnet, declaring: "I'm the Supreme Eater." That paper's idea of North Korean fine dining includes barbecued mollusc and cold noodles, washed down with an aphrodisiac made from bear's bile.
This is indeed fighting talk. It is clear that the three papers are keen to be seen not being cowed.
A tourism leaflet for a park in Budapest shows how we can prick pomposity. No one is currently holding up Socialist Russia as a paragon of virtue or feels strongly enough to respond and the leaflet is therefore free to mock the statues with no risk of causing offence. Offence turns to farce. Refreshing and revolutionary stuff.
The sin, if sin it was, was to depict the prophet. 'Islamic tradition' - not Islamic law - forbids the portrayal of the prophet or any of his companions. This ban led to a flourishing of calligraphy and other recognisable features of the Islamic art.
Where would Christianity be without its depiction of its prophets? The Renaissance would simply never have happened and our great art galleries would be empty. You could get burned at the stake for suggesting the sun was at the centre of the solar system and the same would have probably awaited you had you produced a satirical cartoon of a religious figure. Thankfully printing was in its infancy and Private Eye and Charlie Hebdo did not exist.
By the time of the Enlightenment, things were rather more relaxed.
North Korea clearly feels as sensitive as the terrorists if the fuss about The Interview is anything to go by. Having initially reeled from the hacking, Sony strengthened their sinews and issued the film having had the best publicity it could have hoped for. Sony 1, North Korea 0.
The newspapers were clearly feeling emboldened for the following appeared on a BBC website today, a week after the Charlie Hebdo events:
The Big Kim?
A suggestion that North Korea is keen on opening a restaurant in Scotland gives sub-editors plenty of punning opportunities.
"Kim dine with me," says the Daily Star, playing on the name of the reclusive state's "tubby tyrant", Kim Jong-un, as it suggests that dog meat soup and pine-nut gruel would be on the menu. The paper explains that a Pyongyang-backed restaurant is already open in Amsterdam, channelling 30% of its profits back to the state, and that Kim has "warmed" to Scotland because of its independence campaign.
The Daily Mirror dresses up the "supreme leader" in a tartan hat and ginger wig, renaming him "Kim Jock-un". Its effort at a "McJong's" menu includes Kim sum, Pyong lamb and spotted dictator. It says the North Korean leader has "fallen in love with all things Scottish, particularly whisky".
"See you Kimmy," is the headline in the Sun, which also pictures Kim in a bonnet, declaring: "I'm the Supreme Eater." That paper's idea of North Korean fine dining includes barbecued mollusc and cold noodles, washed down with an aphrodisiac made from bear's bile.
This is indeed fighting talk. It is clear that the three papers are keen to be seen not being cowed.
A tourism leaflet for a park in Budapest shows how we can prick pomposity. No one is currently holding up Socialist Russia as a paragon of virtue or feels strongly enough to respond and the leaflet is therefore free to mock the statues with no risk of causing offence. Offence turns to farce. Refreshing and revolutionary stuff.
 |
 |
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
World War 1 again
The commemoration of World War I became temporarily marred when Michael Gove suggested that there was too much criticism of the leaders of the time.
This encouraged us to go back and look at that excellent book written by military historian and advocate of the tank, Liddell Hart. His History of the First World War (it had a different title at the time) was written in 1930.
In it, he lists endless examples of people who were sacked for being right, only to be replaced by people who seem to have done exactly what their predecessors proposed. Granted, he claims the French were better at this than the British but there were plenty of British examples too, not least the early advocates of the tank.
His epilogue is objective and generous to all participants. It includes this wonderful passage which seems to be just the sort of thing to get up Mr Gove's nose.
In this mood of reflection we are more ready to recognise both the achievements and the point of view of our late enemies, and perhaps all the more because we realise that both the causes and the course of war are determined by the folly and frailty rather than the deliberate evil of human nature.
The war has become history, and can be viewed in the perspective of history. For good it has deepened our sense of fellowship and community of interest, whether inside the nation or between nations. But, for good or bad, it has shattered our faith in idols, our hero-worshipping belief that great men are different clay from common men. Leaders are still necessary, perhaps more necessary, but our awakened realisation of the common humanity is a safe guard against either expecting from them or trusting in them too much.
Have we really learned that great men are not different clay from common men? Have we really learned not to expect too much of them, or not to trust them too much? I am sure it felt that way when he was writing in 1930.
And what of the idea that the causes and course of war are determined by folly and frailty rather than the deliberate evil of human nature? Would he have agreed with this when he wrote his other great book: the History of the Second World War?
This encouraged us to go back and look at that excellent book written by military historian and advocate of the tank, Liddell Hart. His History of the First World War (it had a different title at the time) was written in 1930.
In it, he lists endless examples of people who were sacked for being right, only to be replaced by people who seem to have done exactly what their predecessors proposed. Granted, he claims the French were better at this than the British but there were plenty of British examples too, not least the early advocates of the tank.
His epilogue is objective and generous to all participants. It includes this wonderful passage which seems to be just the sort of thing to get up Mr Gove's nose.
In this mood of reflection we are more ready to recognise both the achievements and the point of view of our late enemies, and perhaps all the more because we realise that both the causes and the course of war are determined by the folly and frailty rather than the deliberate evil of human nature.
The war has become history, and can be viewed in the perspective of history. For good it has deepened our sense of fellowship and community of interest, whether inside the nation or between nations. But, for good or bad, it has shattered our faith in idols, our hero-worshipping belief that great men are different clay from common men. Leaders are still necessary, perhaps more necessary, but our awakened realisation of the common humanity is a safe guard against either expecting from them or trusting in them too much.
Have we really learned that great men are not different clay from common men? Have we really learned not to expect too much of them, or not to trust them too much? I am sure it felt that way when he was writing in 1930.
And what of the idea that the causes and course of war are determined by folly and frailty rather than the deliberate evil of human nature? Would he have agreed with this when he wrote his other great book: the History of the Second World War?
The neutron
One of us was once a physicist and came across this poem in New Scientist some time back in the dark ages. The metre of the opening lines has stuck in the memory (and was probably a help in some exam or other).
When a pion an innocent proton seduces
with neither excuses
abuses
nor scorn
for its shameful condition
without intermission
the proton produces:
a neutron is born.
What love have you known,
O neutron full grown,
as you bombinate into the vacuum alone?
Its spin is a half and its mass is quite large
- about one AMU - but it hasn't a charge;
though it finds satisfaction
in strong interaction, it doesn't experience coulombic attraction
But what can it borrow
of love, joy or sorrow
O neutron, when life has so short a tomorrow?
Within its
twelve minutes
comes disintegration
Which leaves an electron in mute desolation
and also another ingenuous proton
for other unscrupulous pions to dote on
and last, a neutrino:
alas, one can see no
fulfilment for such a leptonic bambino -
no loving, no sinning -
just spinning and spinning -
eight times through the globe without a beginning ...
a cycle mechanic -
no anguish or panic -
for such is the pattern of life inorganic.
O better
the fret a
poor human endures
than the neutron's dichotic
robotic
amours.
Gina Berkeley
When a pion an innocent proton seduces
with neither excuses
abuses
nor scorn
for its shameful condition
without intermission
the proton produces:
a neutron is born.
What love have you known,
O neutron full grown,
as you bombinate into the vacuum alone?
Its spin is a half and its mass is quite large
- about one AMU - but it hasn't a charge;
though it finds satisfaction
in strong interaction, it doesn't experience coulombic attraction
But what can it borrow
of love, joy or sorrow
O neutron, when life has so short a tomorrow?
Within its
twelve minutes
comes disintegration
Which leaves an electron in mute desolation
and also another ingenuous proton
for other unscrupulous pions to dote on
and last, a neutrino:
alas, one can see no
fulfilment for such a leptonic bambino -
no loving, no sinning -
just spinning and spinning -
eight times through the globe without a beginning ...
a cycle mechanic -
no anguish or panic -
for such is the pattern of life inorganic.
O better
the fret a
poor human endures
than the neutron's dichotic
robotic
amours.
Gina Berkeley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)