Whether "Eurabia" originated with spooks or not I don't know, but it's not frankly reassuring to me that it might have...

I call it a racist slur because, whatever its origins, it has largely been used as such by the far right, and eschewed by anyone from the left or reasonable centre. This is precisely why I object to its use by The Economist, and see considerable importance in the way it is placed on this cover (large black lettering, about ten times the size of the sub-heading) in conjunction with instantly-identifiable symbols of Islam and France. Whatever qualifiers they may put inside the mag, the cover speaks a clear language.

My comment on "Muslim" and "Communist" is based on history as I lived it; when I, as a student in Britain, demonstrated against the Vietnam War, I was told by those who defended the war (that boils down to the American political and military establishment speaking through their punditry/communications/media outlets), that I was being manipulated by the Reds. That's what The Economist is now saying, mutatis mutandis, about those who protest the Iraq War. More broadly, I was pointing to the wish of certain American ultras to develop a new Cold War with a permanent enemy and a Fifth Column.

Otehrwise, I entirely subscribe to the above comments by Colman and Migeru.