I don’t share the SWP’s position on the Iraqi resistance (or on most other things), but I think it’s important to deal fairly with political enemies - more so, if anything, than dealing fairly with friends. So you call Ahmed Hussain a jihadist on the grounds that - let’s go through it again - he’s a member of a group which opposes the occupation of Iraq and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and supports the Iraqi and Lebanese resistance movements without dissociating itself from the jihadist elements of those movements. You’ve got no evidence that the SWP actually holds jihadist positions, not least because it doesn’t; all you’ve got is guilt by association. And guilt by association means nothing: anyone - you, me, Alex, Vincent Cable - is vulnerable to guilt by association.

The reason I call this an error, incidentally - rather than a scummy debating tactic, which it certainly is in some cases - is that I think a lot of people arguing like this don’t realise they’re doing it. It seems like a perfectly straightforward observation: Fred is associated with George, George has expressed support for Mildred and Mildred is a self-confessed Zoroastrian (or whatever), so if Fred wants to be taken seriously, why can’t he condemn Mildred and dissociate himself from George? It’s only if you put yourself in Fred’s shoes that you realise that the demands are potentially endless. Do you condemn X? Will you dissociate yourself from Y, who failed to condemn X? You may have dissociated yourself from Y, but why haven’t you condemned Z? And so on. Most of us, most of the time, are in the happy position of not being on the receiving end of this treatment, but politically active Muslims and vocal opponents of the war aren’t so lucky.

Hussain is clearly an opportunistic Tory scumbag who wouldn’t know political principle if it ran out and bit him; the only good thing about this whole debacle is that it’s likely to damage both the Tories and the rump SWP RESPECT in Tower Hamlets. But even that shower don’t deserve to be smeared as jihadists.

Frankly, the SWP’s support for the Iraq insurgency would be appalling whether it contained jihadists or not (”it’s okay, they’re only Ba’athists!”). Since it does, and since this in the context of is a single, throwaway line aimed at slagging off the Tories you are singling out here, I have to question why you insist on returning to a fortnight old debate. You aren’t quibbling with the fact that I’m right, just that it’s a little disproportionate and is mean to the SWP to point it out. Well boo-fucking-hoo.

I think you’re on very thin ice here. Were you aware that the Croatian forces which defended Vukovar included quite genuine neo-fascists, or that the Bosnian resistance to Serbian invasion included, well, jihadists?

Just read the fucking blog post. Second paragraph to be precise.

What you are implying would also mean that, for example, it would be “disgusting” to describe a member of the BNP as a racist fascist, not because the BNP aren’t both, but because it is unreasonable to assume that that individual member was.

On the subject of the BNP, they are also anti-war. Are you proposing we should not criticise them either on the basis that they are part of this cuddly broad anti-war movement that you seem so keen on?

In the spirit of comradeship, I feel it is incumbent on me to point out you are being utterly ridiculous. Stop digging.

Unlike, well, a liberal party, the SWP demand much more stringent party loyalty than we do. You either buy the whole damn thing, or you’re out. It’s operations are paid for by people tithing themselves.

Does Hussain believe all that? That would probably be too generous to a man who appears to lack any fundamental principles at all. But these are the policies he put his name to for years as an SWP member and Respect councillor.