I suspect that the demonisation of the other satisfies our own insecurities about whether we are demonic or not, by declaring an-other who is more "evil". It also helps focus hostility, in that if we were to actually meet and know real people from the "other" side of things (I hesitate to draw lines but I refer to lines drawn by others), it would be harder to whimsically wish their destruction. A lot of demonisation needs to be done to the "other" to get the general public's attention away from the horrific abuses perpetrated at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Another thought, films like "Osama" and "Kandahar" by or about Afghanis and the conditions suffered particularly by women provide an interesting perspective on when there need be no demonisation. The reality simply speaks for itself.

But a credible distinction must be made between the few and the whole. I for one am glad I am not held accountable for what happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to name but I'm sure only a few places of such things occurring. So too more than most of those considred part of the demonised "other" deserve better than to be held accountable for the acts of a non-representative few.

I could be wrong, there could be more wrongdoing intended than we know of, but is it any different over here?

I'd be interested to read Mr Richardson's analysis of the Islamic habit of referring to those outside their faith as "infidels."

The piece offered to us is just another rewriting of the West's Suicide Note.

I suppose then the challenge is whether we are like the child in the playground who says "everyone else does it". If it's wrong, then we shouldn't do it, period. I have always hoped the West would seek to elevate be virtue rather than stoop to another level.

I wasn't advocating exactly that Norm. But we can't wish away enemies where they actually do exist - Nazi Germany for example. We must either recognise the threat and defeat it, or open wide and accomodate them.

Scott, lots of words mate, but at the end its still a piece of intellectual drivel.

How is Rushdie 'demonising' Islam? His work was that of fiction! Its purpose was ultimately literary entertainment, rather than a public exploration of Islam and its tenets. Is his reward for producing fiction, the imposition of a death penalty on his head which has still yet to be revoked!

The conjecture around the Huntington book is typical of people who have not read it. The supposition drawn from the title creates all types of conspiracy thinking. Since publication the Huntington book has declined in prominence in the West, as the assertion took hold that it was the predominantly Christian-Judeo (and can I add secular) West that was confronting Islamic societies. However, if you look at Al Qaeda they are the ones propagating the 'clash of civilisation' arguments. There response to the Iraqi elections is a case in point.

http://americaisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/

Understood - I think where I'm coming from is that it is often hard to demonise with "clean hands". Clearly, justice rather than parochialism, should be the guiding principle. That wrongdoers, criminals be brought to justice (whether in this life or the next), but that we be careful of "collateral damage" to those who don't deserve it. I suppose it also depends on how we define "evil" and the criteria we measure by. If we ratchet our standards too highly we might all (and rightly) be classified as demons. May he or she who has no sin cast the first stone! But yes I take your point. I do feel that it is harder since the 40s to know whether the "enemy" is oever there in the "enemy territory" or wehter they are living among us...