I apologize for my insult.

1) “Your theory is that the way to prevent an attack from Britain is to threaten the execution of one of its citizens…”

Didn’t various spokesman in/for the Islamic Republic of Iran threaten the same for the 15 UK sailor/Marine boarding party that got intercepted/taken into custody a short while back? Sudan and Iran are close allies diplomatically.

2) “…Your theory is that Britain’s tired expeditionary force, now policing a single airport, can be plucked up to engage in serious military and humanitarian operations in a landlocked area the size of, what? France, maybe…”

Supplemented by helicopters and especially jet/VSTOL jet airpower, even a single battalion can do a lot. The key is efficiency and effectiveness which is a given for UK military; the only thing that might be “tired” is the UK public’s will to engage in peacekeeping in Darfur.

This Sudanese kabuki theater episode is directed right at what they perceive to be this weakness.

3) “…Your theory is that the leadership of a modern democracy (I don’t even know who Britain’s leader is now - that’s how strong their leadership is these days) could suddenly launch such an operation without taking the time to warm its citizens up to it…”

His name is Gordon Browne, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer under previous PM Blair.

Since you mention it, I agree with you that the current UK administration wouldn’t be able to launch any peacekeeping operation in the Sudan without a “warmup”. But the UK undertook just such a peacekeeping operation just a few years ago in their former colony of Sierra Leone as I recall — and maybe at shorter notice than you are willing to give them credit for.

The Sudanese probably have a better memory than you and I for the exact details, and are making an extrapolation to their own situation. Going by capabilities rather than intentions; UK public perceptions and their willingness to suddenly get more involved in Darfur could change rather swiftly, at least from the Sudanese perception.

I imagine that much of the time they find the West just as mystifying as we find them; for example, I guess Bin Laden thought the US would be cowed and too intimidated to strike back at him in Afghan after 9/11.

Since we (US)had gone out of our way to avoid getting involved there for years, no matter the provocation (African embassies bombing, Cole attack). Cruise missile strikes didn’t count, indeed they were considered by Bin Laden as proof of his views of US weakness.

#28 - You’re right. I’ve met a few Koreans who don’t seem to care too much about illegal drugs. Dokdo, on the other hand…

Telling the truth about “Dokdo” and using illegal drugs are similar? Again, I can see why you admitted you are not the sharpest knife.

I say “religious-political” because in avowedly “Islamic republic” regimes such as Sudan/Iran/Libya/Hezbollahstan/Hamastan/Al Quedastans, there is no attempt to draw a distinction between church and state. They don’t even think in those terms.

It’s certainly possible that within the Sudan popular Islamic religious fervor, once stirred up against this woman, may have gone beyond the level originally foreseen by government ministers; or that one or more Islamic court judge asked to opinionate on this case might have turned out to be more “right-wing” than the govt anticipated.

Don’t know any of this “for sure” of course, since I’m not an expert on the Sudan nor a fly on the wall at their government staff meetings.

[There! Self-deprecation and careful qualification not being noted as a forte of cinemagauche's, that should suffice to distinctly separate the character of my postings from cg's. (wipes beads of sweat from forehead with intense relief...)].