The British cannot believe that they are getting a bloody nose in Afghanistan. Day and night, British politicians and the media prattle on about how under-equipped their troops in Afghanistan are and how, if only they had more helicopters and more heavily armoured vehicles, they would not have lost 15 soldiers in a week.

Years of arrogance and cowardice have led the British to believe that they are invincible and that they can commit aggression and occupy other countries without losing a soul. Like their friends the  Americans and the Israelis, they have got used to shooting from high in the sky or from miles away with long-range artillery, cruise missiles and the like. But now they are coming to terms with the fact that sometimes you have to get out of your airborne, seaborne and armoured citadels and fight other men, face to face, like men. They are having to confront the truth of real warfare, and they don't like it.

I do not believe that any number of helicopters or armoured vehicles will help the British in Afghanistan. They have only to look at the fate of other invaders of that country to draw the right conclusion.

I have no sympathy for the Taleban. However, I truly believe that a country's internal problems can be solved only internally, by its own people, not by foreign invaders or quislings riding on the backs of  invaders' tanks. What exactly are the British fighting for, thousands of miles away from their homeland? Hamed Karzai and his corrupt gang of half-wits?

Sooner or later, the British and their American masters will leave Afghanistan and return home, defeated and humiliated. And the Afghan people will go back to square one and start to clear up the mess.

The British and the Americans, in the meantime, will have learnt - as their friends the Israelis will learn after them - that wars cannot be won by bombing wedding parties, schools, hospitals and ambulances with F-16 fighters and drones remotely operated from thousands of miles away.

Listening to BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme while driving home this evening, I heard that one listener had complained about the BBC giving more airtime to the news of two police dogs killed as a result of being shut in a police car on one of the hottest days of the year than to two British servicemen killed in action in Afghanistan.

The complainant thought that the soldiers' death deserved more attention than the dogs that were roasted alive in a car as a result of a police dog handler's negligence.

Why, I ask? How can the listener justify the argument that the soldiers' death was more deserving of airtime than that of the dogs?

I would argue the opposite. First, the soldiers had voluntarily chosen to join the armed forces. They were trained killers and they were in Afghanistan to kill. They were in a foreign country, not in their own country, not defending their homeland. They were there to kill and they were killed. Those who live by the word shall die by the sword. They must have known that when they joined the army. Or did they enlist to visit exotic places, meet strange people and kill them?

The police dogs, on the other hand, had no choice. Their human handlers had a duty of care towards them. The dogs trusted their handlers but were betrayed. They died painfully, cruelly and needlessly. 

Consequently, of course the news of the dogs' death deserved more airtime. It was not a tragedy or fair game. It was murder.

I have just about had enough of the the British media’s wall-to-wall coverage of the death of the US singer Michael Jackson. Throughout yesterday and today, from flagship radio news programmes to prime-time television news, it’s Michael Jackson who dominates the airwaves.

What’s so special about Mr Jackson? The ridiculous assertion by the BBC and others that he is “the world’s most famous singer” is indicative of nothing but that broadcaster’s – and, to be fair, the rest of the British media’s – ethnocentric view of the world. It’s the same when they refer to Britain and the US as the “international community”.

There is nothing special about Mr Jackson. Some like the man and/or his music, others don’t. Personally, I like neither the man nor his music, and I can’t – and have never been able to – stand the sight of his prancing about on video, crotch in hand.

I will remember Michael Jackson as someone who became increasingly weird as time passed. Although in his trial in the US in 2007 he was found not guilty of child sex abuse, he was never able to cast off the shadow of paedophilia.

I will also remember Mr Jackson as an African-American who was ashamed of his blackness and, consequently, tried to change the colour of his skin. His assertion that he has a skin disease lacks credibility: compare and contrast photographs of him when he was black with ones of him as a white weirdo and you will see that he not only seemed to have tried to change his colour, but also his negroid features, e.g. his lips and nose.

Let’s hope that the British media will very soon turn their attention to something more worthy of airtime and column inches. It’s not that there is a dearth of important news in the UK and the rest of the world.

"The power of social networks in organizing protests is good stuff to highlight, but who exactly is organizing the protests? People in Iran or people elsewhere who think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should have been defeated?" See "Twitter in Iran: genuine or orchestrated?"

What is happening in Iran and what do I think about it?

There is much talk about the presidential election having been rigged in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's favour, but where is the evidence? 

Opponents of Ahmadinejad find it incredible that, according to the official election results, the other candidates did not do well in their home provinces. Others say that the results were too quick to come out, and others still claim that the results of the ballot were too similar across the country to be true. 

All this may constitute reasonable grounds for some suspicion but it does not amount to evidence, neither circumstantial nor hard evidence.

So what is going on in Iran? I think a number of factors are at play there.

First, clearly, the ruling theocratic establishment is deeply divided, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i and President Ahmadinejad on one side, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mir Hussein Mousavi on the other. But there are also others occupying various positions in between, posturing, manoeuvring, politicking and hoping to ease themselves into power, one way or another

Second, there is a lot of pent-up frustration in Iranian society. About half the country's population of 71 million people are under 25, and nearly two-thirds are under 30. Many of these youths yearn for what they don't have or don’t have in abundance: a Western life style, the freedom to wear what they like, to drink alcohol freely, to  go to discotheques, etc. Also, as with many other peoples in the Third World, they believe in what they see in Western, especially Hollywood movies, and they want to be part of it – the big houses, the flash cars, the huge incomes, the cloud cuckoo land.

Third, and related to this, is the fact that, although Iran has one of the strongest-performing economies of the major oil-producing countries in the Middle East, the general economic indicators are not good: unemployment stands at 9.6 per cent, rising to 20.3 per cent among people under 24, and annual inflation is 25.3 per cent.

Fourth, there is the Iranians who have never come to terms with the demise of the shah and have never accepted the Islamic Republic. They see the large crowds in the streets, the fiery speeches of the erstwhile stalwarts of the Islamic Republic talking about reform – or is it revolution disguised as reform? – their expectations are raised and, in turn, they do their bit to raise the expectations of other dissatisfied citizens.

Put these together and you'll get the convulsions Iran has been experiencing for the past week.

How events will unfold from here is difficult to say. But the signs are not good. It would seem that defeated presidential candidate Mousavi and his backers are getting carried away by the huge numbers of “supporters” on the streets, to the point where they appear to be losing touch with reality and edging towards irresponsibility, the irresponsibility of leading thousands of civilians into the abyss.

As a progressive Arab nationalist, my instinct is to side with the people on the street, to stand alongside those opposed to theocracy and for democracy, equality and social justice. 

However, I am also a realist and, as such, my realism overrides my instinct. First, I do not know precisely what the people on the street in Tehran and other Iranian cities want. I do not even know if they really believe that the presidential election was rigged or whether they are using this as a pretext to destabilize the system. They have failed to come up with any convincing evidence of rigging. And it is not enough to be against the system; they must also be in favour of a coherent, attractive alternative. 

Second, is it realistic – or even desirable – to demand a rerun of the election just because it did not yield a particular result? What if the election was rerun and Mousavi lost again? Would they keep on demanding reruns until he won? 

Third, from a geopolitical point of view, I do not believe it is in the interest of the downtrodden peoples of the Middle East to destabilize the Islamic Republic. A strong Iran, with a potential nuclear capability and a courageous, “hard-line” leadership is a vital potential counterweight to US-Israeli hegemony in the region and a challenge to America’s Arab lickspittles.

Finally, as a realist and as an Arab I have a deep aversion to something the Iranians seem to have in common with us Arabs: the inability to accept defeat in a free and fair election. Could it be that, as with Fatah in the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, Mousavi and his supporters simply cannot accept defeat?

For all these reasons, I cannot side with the demonstrators in Iran. I hope their leaders – if that’s what Mousavi and Rafsanjani are – see sense and act with responsibility, for the sake of Iran and the rest of the Middle East.

I came across a story broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV the other day which, although rather disgusting, is quite revealing of the kind of people you will find in the British army.

A group of five British paratroopers are on trial for allegedly indecently assaulting a young soldier – also British – in Afghanistan.

The paratroopers, all believed to be in their 20s, "humiliated" a 19-year-old soldier, stripping him naked, handcuffing him, holding him down and then sexually molesting him while other soldiers looked on. They also filmed and photographed the incident. (Paratroopers 'humiliated' soldier)

The assailants included one paratrooper, Lance Corporal Peter McKinley, who had been awarded  the Military Cross for alleged "bravery" in Afghanistan.

It is interesting that the perpetrators of the alleged assault chose a homosexual act to entertain themselves. According to the Channel 4 TV report, which contained more details of the alleged assault than the report posted on the Channel 4 News website, they took off their trousers and underpants and robbed their genitals against the face of the young handcuffed soldier .

This may seem bewildering to some, because the typical British soldier is often seen – and likes to portray himself  – as the ultimate macho lady killer. However, the reality seems quite the opposite. As lots of former British servicemen will tell you, homosexuality among allegedly heterosexual men in the British army is rife. 

Relating her experience in the British army, a former female soldier once told me that, when her male colleagues got drunk and couldn't find a woman to have sex with, they would often indulge in homosexual acts with one another. This wasn't confined to the public school-educated officers, for whom homosexuality was second nature, but was prevalent among ordinary "squaddies" – the lumpen, poorly-educated, half-brained "macho" soldiers.

So, another myth is debunked. The "squaddy" who commits aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only not a hero, but is also likely to be as queer as a nine bob note.

The British occupation forces (BOF) today formally left Iraq, six years after they joined the Israeli-inspired and US-led invasion of the country. (UK seeks deals amid Iraq pullout)

In those six years, the BOF lost 179 soldiers. They had invaded a country that posed no threat to Britain. They went to Iraq to kill Iraqis and to ensure that Israel remains militarily predominant in the Middle East. They died thousands of miles away from their country, defending no British interest worthy of mention.

At the same time, over one million Iraqis have been killed. (More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered) 

However, judging by BBC radio and television coverage of the withdrawal, and the repeated mention of the 179 dead, one would think that the British army had saved Britain from an existential threat, that it had fought a mighty enemy and emerged victorious. Nothing is said, of course, about the fact that it had invaded a sovereign country with a demoralized army that was equipped with dilapidated, Soviet-built 1970s- and 1980s-vintage weapons.

There is nothing heroic about what the British armed forces have done in Iraq. They invaded on the basis of a lie, achieved nothing and left the place  in a mess. History will judge them, and those who set them off on the invasion, harshly.

I say to the British armed forces: good riddance! I look forward to their American masters leaving, also in ignominy.

The British government has suffered a shock defeat in the House of Commons, parliament's lower chamber, on its policy of restricting the right of many former Gurkhas to settle in the UK, the BBC reported today. (Brown defeated over Gurkha rules)

Personally, I don't understand what's all the fuss about.

According to the BBC, Gurkhas have been part of the British Army for almost 200 years (Who are the Gurkhas?). 

"Following the partition of India in 1947, an agreement between Nepal, India and Britain meant four Gurkha regiments from the Indian army were transferred to the British Army, eventually becoming the Gurkha Brigade.

"Since then, the Gurkhas have loyally fought for the British all over the world, receiving 13 Victoria Crosses between them.

"More than 200,000 fought in the two world wars and in the past 50 years, they have served in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Borneo, Cyprus, the Falklands, Kosovo and now in Iraq and Afghanistan."

In other words, the Gurkhas are mercenaries. They fight for money. Why else would they risk death and injury fighting for a foreign country?

There is nothing romantic or honourable about someone who fights for money. The fact that the Gurkhas come from a poor country and may see service in the British armed forces as a means of attaining a relatively decent standard of living does not change the fact that they are soldiers of fortune.

In the course of the campaign to make Gurkhas' pay and pension rights comparable to those of regular British soldiers, and to give them the right of residence in Britain, Gurkhas and their supporters often cite the Gurkhas' love of, and devotion to, Britain. 

Rather than endear them to me, I am sorry to say that this makes me contemptuous of them. Why would a Nepalese mercenary love and be devoted to the country that has hired him to kill? 

In a nutshell, unless enhanced pay, pension and residence rights are part of their mercenary contracts, why should the Gurkhas be put on par with the Britons who volunteer to join their country's armed forces. And why should they have residence rights?

I have always held that belief in God, and all activities that follow from this, such as prayer, are private matters. I do not have discussions about God or religion with anyone, and in public I rarely use such phrases as "God willing" or "I'll put my trust in God". There are exceptions, such as when I am talking to my family and friends back home, or Arabs here in Britain, where phrases like "God willing" have become figures of speech.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in God. It is simply because I see no point in making such utterances in public. If I am relying on God’s will or putting my trust in Him, then that is a matter for me. There is no reason why I should share this with my interlocutor(s).

For Muslims, belief in God carries certain obligations, such as praying five times a day and fasting during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan. Personally, I neither pray nor fast, and I think that other aspects of my relationship with religion are entirely my business, and my business alone.

However, there are many Muslims who assiduously observe their religious obligations and would abandon whatever activity in which they were engaged in order to pray. For example, in November 2008, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masri Al-Yawm reported how doctors abandoned their patients to attend prayers during Ramadan. Similarly, over here in Britain I have observed how Muslim colleagues would interrupt their work several times a day, despite tight deadlines, in order to pray. And in Ramadan, they would come to work hungry and tired, performing half as effectively as they would if they had eaten. 

To me, this is unacceptable. Interrupting one’s work to pray five times a day and starving oneself during daylight hours for a whole month every year might have been fine 1,500 years ago but is not compatible with the modern workplace. It is unfair to those who slog themselves to meet deadlines, and it is exploitative of people who have to carry the burden of those who suffer from a moral superiority complex. To use a British colloquialism, it is taking the piss. Besides, Islam is far more flexible than my morally superior co-religionists would like to make out. For instance, it allows you to postpone your prayers to the end of the day, and it permits you to give to charity in lieu of fasting in Ramadan.

I know that many Muslims will be outraged by my views on this subject. However, I would contend that I, Muhammad al-Arabi, who neither fasts not prays and who is not averse to the occasional alcoholic drink, is a far better Muslim than many of them. To be sure, my religious observances are weak-to-non-existent but I believe in justice, I campaign for justice, I risk my livelihood for justice and I have lost an awful lot for the sake of justice. This is the true substance of Islam, not the rituals or being seen to be performing the rituals.

I wonder how many of my observant, morally superior co-religionists can truthfully say before their Creator that their Islam amounts to anything more than rituals?