We might as well get both of Monday morning's conceptual gems out of the way without more ado. We've had terrorism as not terrorism even when it is; here, now, is contention as not contention even when it is. This one is a case study in how a man can say something when he knows it not to be true and - more - even while alluding to the evidence that he knows this. Enter Mr Gary Younge:
Globally speaking, opposing the war in Iraq was not even remotely contentious. Significant majorities in almost every country, with the exception of the US, were against it. Before it was inept it was already illegal, and before it was illegal it was already illogical. It was wrong on its own terms, and its own terms were rooted in a lie.
Forget the stuff at the end here about illegal, illogical and a lie. Either you're already convinced by this or you're not (as I'm not). But 'not even remotely contentious' globally? Contentious is 'likely to cause disagreement or argument', or - from my New Shorter Oxford - 'characterized by, involving, or subject to contention; disputed'. Opposing, or supporting, the war in Iraq was one of the most divisive issues of the last two decades, if not the most divisive, radically splitting opinion across the planet. But for Gary it wasn't remotely contentious; this despite the fact that by evoking majorities he shows signs of knowing there were also minorities. He omits to mention how closely split opinion was in this country; but never mind. What's interesting is how the contentiousness has been levelled. Presumably this is because the issue wasn't contentious in the 'right circles', those in which Younge himself moves. But you want some backing for the claim repeatedly made on this blog that for Younge and the rest of that crowd there was only one viable point of view on the war? You got it right here.