And another thing…

WHENEVER the subject of Islamist terrorism is raised, there’s always someone at the back who tentatively sticks his hand up and suggests that we should negotiate with Al-Quaeda in the same way we negotiated with the IRA.

Yes, well…

The thing is, although their methods were murderous and completely unacceptable, the IRA’s political demands were not: civil rights for the Roman Catholic minority of Northern Ireland and unification of Ireland. Those were issues that negotiations could include. Compromises could be made. Deals could be struck.

But Islamism? Yeah, I’d like to see how that would work…

David Miliband (for it is he): Welcome to the negotiating table, Mr Bin Laden. I trust you had a pleasant journey?

OBL: Indeed, yes, Foreign Secretary. CIA flights are most efficient, though uncomfortable.

DM: More comfortable than your cave, though?

OBL: Well, you’d be surprised. Mrs Bin Laden and I just got a new conservatory. There’s not much of a view but it’s very cosy. Ooh, and we’ve got Sky-Plus at last! Amazing!

DM: You watch a lot of Al-Jazeera, I assume?

OBL: Well, mostly “Dave” actually. The wife loves Mock the Week.

DM: Well, we have quite a lot of ground to cover. Would you like any refreshments before we start?

OBL: A little fruit, perhaps?

DM: How about this banana? I’ve been carrying it around for a while. No-one else seems to want it… Anyway, down to business. What is your starting position in these negotiations?

OBL: Ah, yes, I have taken the liberty of writing them down (takes paper from his wallet). First of all, just to clear the decks, you understand, we’d like the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

DM: I see.

OBL: It’s not just me, you understand – it’s my organisation. They’re rather old fashioned about this sort of thing. But they’re sweethearts deep down, really.

DM: Yes, well, that may cause us a bit of a problem, I’m afraid. You know what the Foreign Office is like – quite conservative…

OBL: With a small “c”, I hope, eh, David!

(Both men laugh)

OBL: You don’t mind if I call you David, do you?

DM: Of course not, Osama, of course not. The thing is, the destruction of Israel… well, it’s quite a tall order, isn’t it?

OBL: Really? Oh, how disappointing. I opened with that because it was one of the more moderate of our policies.

DM: Well, not to worry. Tell you what – let’s put a pin in it, as our American chums might say, and we’ll put it up there and come back to it later. Sound fair?

OBL: Of course, David.

DM: So, what next?

OBL: Well, to be honest, I’m not sure how much progress we can make on this next one, given how little we made on the first…

DM: Try me.

OBL: Well, we’d like to see every American killed.

DM: I see. Every American citizen?

OBL: Well, perhaps that could be a matter for negotiations down the line, as you say. Perhaps initially, just those who don’t like Scrubs. But ultimately, yes, all of the evil, Satan-worshipping dogs. What do you think? Could that be a goer, do you think?

DM: Well again, Mr Bin Laden…

OBL: Osama, please.

DM: Of course, Osama… but again, that does present the government – and not just my government, but probably quite a few others – with some major diplomatic problems.

OBL: You know, David, I wouldn’t want to leave here empty-handed. It would look very bad publicly.

DM: I understand the pressure you’re under. You wouldn’t want to lose face among your fellow Islamists.

OBL: Well, not just that – Frankie Boyle and High Dennis might make fun of me again and then the wife has a field day – her and her Scottish accent! I hate it.

DM: (Under his breath) Yeah, I’m with you there.

Anyway, I think that’s another one we might have to put a pin in and come back to later, yes? What’s the third demand?

OBL: Well, it hardly seems worth it now…

DM: Don’t be discouraged, Osama. Come on, try me. You never know, it might be one we can concede.

OBL: Oh, alright. Well, would it be okay to have a one-world Islamic government based on Sharia law?

DM: A one-world… I’m sorry, a what?

OBL: A one-world Islamic government based on Sharia law.

DM: And how would that work, exactly?

OBL: Oh, it basically does what it says on the tin: one world, so, you know, everyone’s included, and inclusiveness always goes down well in the West, yeah? Islamic, obviously. And based on Sharia Law which, in its favour – and I can see that look of scepticism in your face, David, but bear with me – which in its favour is given by God and therefore is perfect, unlike man-made laws. So, you know… everyone wins.

DM: Everyone?

OBL: Well, not women, obviously. Frankly, I don’t see a place in the government for Harriet Harman.

DM: And is there a downside?

OBL: Everyone else would have to convert to my particular form of Islam, obviously. And no gays allowed. To be honest, I don’t anticipate a particularly warm welcome for the Worldwide Caliphate from the LGBTs.

DM: Osama, I wonder if we could-…

OBL: Put a pin in it?

DM: Yes, would you mind?

OBL: Well, if you insist, but I’m not sure where we could go from here.

DM: I was hoping we could agree something on a slightly more modest scale.

OBN: For instance?

DM: Well, how about humous?

OBL: Humous?

DM: Some bright spark in the FCO thought of it, and I think it’s splendid. We ditch any idea of destroying Israel, killing Americans or abolishing all non-Sharia governments in the world, and instead we offer free humous to you, your organisation and all their dependents.

OBL: Hmmm… Okay, it’s a deal!

UPDATE at 12.25 pm on Wednesday: On a more serious note, those interested in the subject of Islamism in the UK should read this Comment is Free article by Ed Husain.

JOHN Maples, the Tory MP, asked Harriert Harman today at PMQs to remind the House why British troops were in Afghanistan. It was an appropriate question, given that the names of seven servicemen had been added to the list of the fallen at the start of the session.

The controversy that will always surround the subject of Iraq is often extended to Afghanistan. You often hear anti-war types condemning British involvement in "Iraq and Afghanistan", as if the circumstances of our involvement were identical. 

(Remember Paul Marsden? He was the Labour MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham who defected to the LibDems shortly after troop deployment in Afghanistan. He did so because of his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Problem was, the LibDems had supported the military intervention there as well. Poor Paul…)

There is no question over the legality of action in Afghanistan, or its legitimacy in terms of UN authorisation. Given the offensive action taken against America by a certain honoured guest of the Taleban at the time, the US had no choice but to demand bin Laden be handed over. The Taleban’s refusal to do so was in effect an invitation to the international community to invade. Which the international community rightly accepted.

So the legal basis for invasion and occupation was firmly established, as was the UN’s moral justification. But beyond the immediate necessity of bringing bin Laden to justice, there was an added reason to support the Afghan campaign: the fight against fascism.

If you persecute gays, treat women as second class citizens, rule by intimidation and violence, deny citizens the basic tenets of democracy and consider those of a different ethnicity, race or religion to be worthy of death and imprisonment, then you are a fascist. And the Taleban, being able to tick all of these boxes, were and remain fascists.

Some on the Left in Britain try to give the impression that they’re opposed to fascism while marching in support of the Taleban and Saddam’s former regime, a regime modelled deliberately on Nazism in many respects. They are liars and hypocrites. Their voices have not been listened to in this debate, and neither should they be. British soldiers are fighting and dying in the campaign to build a democratic and free Afghanistan. We should be hoping and praying for their safety and for their success against the remnants of a vile and disgusting fascist regime.

A PICTURE in this morning’s Times caught my eye. This is it.

Where do you start?

These people are trying to win the election for their candidate (Palin) by suggesting that Barack Obama should somehow be associated with Osama bin Laden… because their names sound a bit similar!

If that weren’t moronic and offensive enough, check out these intellectual musings (as reported in The Times) from the redneck tendency of the Republican Party:

“Obama and Biden will take this country far too far to the left. They’ll take away the freedoms I’ve spent 40 years defending,” said Dwayne Schnakenberg, 40, a Navy veteran.

Okay, I put that in just to expose the stupidity of someone who belives he’s been fighting for his country since the moment he was born. But there are others. Here’s my personal favourite:

“What turned me off was the way he wouldn’t put his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance or wear a flag pin. I don’t know how you can call yourself an American if you don’t do that,” Heather Zimerman, 39, a substitute teacher, said.

Uh-huh. Okay. Next!

“I don’t know what he was doing in Indonesia all those years — hanging around with Muslim terrorists?” Madeleine Willis, 60, a retired factory worker, asked.

And, depressingly, there’s more…

Mr Taylor complained about the trip to Europe that Mr Obama took in July: “I don’t think the president of the US should go around saying, ‘I’m a citizen of the world’.”

The report adds that “One beefy man wore a T-shirt proclaiming: ‘The difference between Obama and Osama is just a little B.S.’”

I’m not an anti-American. I genuinely love America and I think it’s been a great force for good in the world throughout its history. And I have a lot of respect for the US political process. Too many Brits sneer at the spectacle of primaries and conventions.

But this kind of mugwump, redneck ignorance is truly disturbing.

I almost expected one of the Republicans quoted to pick up his banjo and say: “You’ve got a purty mouth, boy…”

Dozens of angry demonstrators converged on Parliament Square yesterday to protest against the visit by the leader of Britain’s most important ally and biggest inward investor. Fortunately, US networks didn’t carry reports of the demonstrations and the peculiar and often bizarre slogans on the placards. Bush, one proclaimed, is the world’s greatest terrorist, a term used by some as a description for someone whose foreign policy they disagree with. Oddly, I didn’t see any placards criticising (or even mentioning) that great philanthropist, Osama bin Laden, but I’m sure there must have been plenty there; the Stop the War Coalition would never open themselves up to accusations of bias.