Anarchists, like most people, are criminals. Like most people, we choose which laws to obey, which are just and unjust, we choose for ourselves and afterwards we lie about it like everyone else when it is to our advantage to do so. We are 95 % of the population although only a few percent of us admit this. The only difference is we don't recognise the concept of any 'just law' enforced by violence, only of understandable rules consensually applied. We are loathed to judge others harsher than ourselves.

Anarchists are ultra-democrats, liberators, negotiatiors and organisers, we just do it on a non-coercive basis where we can. Still we defend ourselves - and more importantly others - in other ways.

For the most part, we are not revolutionaries. Some worthy anarchists have burned down embassies, others have assasinated monsters. It's a broad church so to speak. There are unarguable arguments to kill killers, to use violence in defence. Unfortunately, apart from anarchy, our military hardware outsrips our political reason - in the language of psychobabble our IQ is dangerously higher than our EQ. Chimps with nukes.

While preferring the company of free people, anarchists can survive intact and uncorrupted in any political system full of underlings, informers and wannabe-leaders. If any society survives, the idea of freedom survives, despite the elites best attempt at full-spectrum control of your day. Its not our responsibility to free anyone but ourselves and those we truly love. Most anarchists don't call themselves anarchist and would recoil at being labelled but they deserve it as much as we do. Some Blacks think they are Green or Red, like some cats think they are dogs. Those cats will soon be surprised, the first mad dog charges them personally will awake their desire for liberty.

The authors abuse of anarchy is not particulary insulting, it is the most common usage of the word and an attempt by the author to appeal to the mainstream by insulting an insulted cause. Exactly like 'democracy' used to be so smeared. If the ruling class win yet again then in 100 years time anarchy will mean the exact opposite of what it means to us - the police/torturer squad will probably be renamed 'anarchists'. As long as our understanding of anarchy holds meaning, it holds meaning through our actions not our words.

The author of article wasn't smearing anarchy by association, they were deliberately using the other more common tabloid definition of anarchy - a state of violent chaos brought about by too little state-terrorism. Exactly the same as the word terrorism used to refer only to state-terror but now refers to anyone who effectively opposes state-terror.

So Nukes-R-Us you think this is a good thing? another newsrag smearing anarchists ?

cos then we only have to discredit the rags to win the argument - and they are discreditable.

David Hume -

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of EGYPT, or the emperor of ROME, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion.

Opinion is of two kinds, to wit, opinion of INTEREST, and opinion of RIGHT. By opinion of interest, I chiefly understand the sense of the general advantage which is reaped from government; together with the persuasion, that the particular government, which is established, is equally advantageous with any other that could easily be settled. When this opinion prevails among the generality of a state, or among those who have the force in their hands, it gives great security to any government.

Right is of two kinds, right to POWER and right to PROPERTY. What prevalence opinion of the first kind has over mankind, may easily be understood, by observing the attachment which all nations have to their ancient government, and even to those names, which have had the sanction of antiquity. Antiquity always begets the opinion of right; and whatever disadvantageous sentiments we may entertain of mankind, they are always found to be prodigal both of blood and treasure in the maintenance of public justice. There is, indeed, no particular, in which, at first sight, there may appear a greater contradiction in the frame of the human mind than the present. When men act in a faction, they are apt, without shame or remorse, to neglect all the ties of honour and morality, in order to serve their party; and yet, when a faction is formed upon a point of right or principle, there is no occasion, where men discover a greater obstinacy, and a more determined sense of justice and equity. The same social disposition of mankind is the cause of these contradictory appearances.

typical slurs - equate terrorists with anarchists. when the state is on the attack, the truth is the first to fail. and the observer fits nicely in to make liberal england feel they are 'against' the government, when actually they are colluding totally with it by having their opinions and understandings warped to that of the state. the observer is a nasty pile of pro-capitalist, tony blair loving crap. if you don't like it, don't buy it.

She is a smug middle class asshole who has often been wheeled out masquerading as the face of 'moderate' Islam whilst selling out all those women in the middle east who have been raped and murdered fighting the feminist cause against use of religous text as a pretext for oppression and who have not had her priviliged choices.

It'samazing how the Koran keeps getting reinterpreted/re-edited to make out that oirt is good for women. Read it. You see these pompous people are lying. Thi is not aabpout Ismlamophibia or any other keyword-du-jour - this is about threligion as control. Rascism is not just white on black on brown etc. or nation state on nartion state. This is about power relations - It's about land, class war, misogny, and rascism. - in short Fascism.

This country has been oppressed by the Christian puritans and know you want to support muslim puritans as well. Fuck off and die!

Frankly im amazed by the headline as Fareena Alam has written a piece for Schnews just after sept 11  http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/a-time-to-question.htm she wrote "Despite audience and panel members being equally, if not more critical of American foreign policies than myself, I had been made the target. Naturally, I was the only one with the audacity to mention the words terrorist state and Israel in the same breath in front of Question Time’s 5.6 million viewers. I am a "brownie" like most immigrants to this country. I wear a scarf on my head, which for many translates as an oppressed Muslim woman covering her mind as well as her head. Coat all of the above with the accusation that I am supposedly anti-American and I was suddenly the alien spokesperson for those suspected as responsible for Tuesday’s attack."
so she should really know better.
mail her to see if you get a reply aas yet I havent!

'its bondage isn't it' must be an intolerant bigot masquerading as somthing else and obviously has no idea of any religion. So i guess s/he is a right wing troll trying to stir up more islamiphobia.
As 2 outrages dont make anything more than people being more outraged like 2 wrongs dont make a right in Fareena Alam's article the extream nature of the first protests has probably done more harm than good to the Prophet Mohammed name than the stupid cartoons.

"'its bondage isn't it' must be an intolerant bigot masquerading as somthing else and obviously has no idea of any religion. So i guess s/he is a right wing troll trying to stir up more islamiphobia. "

Well '+A+', not neccesarily, perhaps s/he actually knows a bit more about religion than you - most people who criticise religions know more about them than those who defend them, witness Tom Paine, or the ex-evangelical preacher who devoted his life to combating religion.

"[They must be] a right wing troll" is hardly a compelling argument, especially since many anarchist are against religion precicely because it represses people and destroys the mind (in that it encourages conformity and ingrained obedience). THAT is religion my freind, even so called 'moderate' religion, which is what Alam was protecting in denouncing extremists. 'Tea and buiscuits' protestantism is just as repressive as Torquemada's Inquisition, it's just more subtle. In the same vein, moderate Islam is still repressive of its followers, just as fundamentalist Islam is, just as Christianity is. Only the methods differ. Not I've used many 'western', or Christian references; proof enough that I, at least, am not "Islamophobic".

Hey y'all:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/mohammad-hobbes_b_15590.html

Now, whilst not being overly sensitive, it still raises some decent points. Afterall, when i first saw the protests my first reaction was "fucking hell, its a cartoon you pussies!". My second reaction was "did I just say that about a group of angry rioting Muslims?"