Eine Kleine Nichtmusik

Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance OR Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies OR Something else altogether OR All of the above

Saturday, November 27, 2010

On Saddam, Blair, and being irrelevant

It's no surprise that this quite interesting piece by Jeremy Paxman has Uncle Jimmy foaming at the mouth. After all, we can't have anyone criticising the Great Pretender, can we?

Most amusingly, he reprints and praises a complaint some imbecile sent to the BBC about the piece, because BBC guidelines state that "BBC presenters on BBC news or current affairs programmes must not express a view in any newspaper article on matters of current party political debate or political controversy".

I must have missed the part where the Iraq war was a matter of "current party political debate" or "polotical controversy". Perhaps Geert Wilders' party thinks it was a wonderful thing because it killed so many Muslims. It's only "controversial" to the kind of people who believe President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. Earth to nutjobs: complain all you like, the BBC has plenty of server space for deleted files.

In any case, what's "current" about Tony Blair and George W Bush? Neither of them is still in politics. Are BBC presenters to be banned from expressing opinions about Martin Luther King because some Southern US nutters still think he was a commie who deserved what he got? Just how irrelevant do politicians have to become before they can be written about? Could Paxman have written about the Suez crisis without Jimmy moaning? Of course not. MOOOOSLIMS!

The funniest part of the complaint is where the anonymous complainant claims that the invasion of Iraq was "a noble and successful endeavour to uphold UN resolutions, liberate the Iraqis and remove any possible threat of weapons of mass destruction being used in the region again". What makes that so risible is that the only country in the region possessing weapons of mass destruction, then, now, or in the foreseeable future, is Israel. Did the Iraq war rid the world of Israel's nuclear threat? Of course not. Why risk lives removing real WMDs when you can get better photo-opportunities pretending to remove imaginary ones?

But don't worry, Jimmy: the BBC is in no danger of altering its perpetual slavish pro-Israel and anti-Muslim editorial policy any time soon, no matter what Paxman writes in the Guardian.


At 27 November, 2010 18:25, Anonymous Stan said...

Comepletely out of tune again,Rob.

In case you missed it, the Iraq war IS currently a matter of political controversy (except to the "we all know-ers" that BlairSupporter refers to) not least because the Iraq inquiry is continuing to run its course. Paxman expressing a view in line with the hang Blair brigade therefore clearly breaches the BBC's impartiality rules.

There's a big difference between Israel possibly possessing WMD and others in the region possessing them.

Israel has never used WMD whereas Saddam certainly used them not only against neighbouring countries but also against his own people.

Nor is Israel ruled by a totalitarian fanatic, as Iran is, who has openly called for the annihilation of a neighbouring country and would have no qualms about using WMD for this purpose given his belief that in the event of massive retaliation he and his fellow Muslims would all end up having a wonderful time in the arms of those Paradise virgins.

At 29 November, 2010 01:53, Blogger Rob said...

Welcome back, Stan the troll.

"There's a big difference between Israel possibly possessing WMD and others in the region possessing them."

And you call ME out of tune. Now listen carefully and read my lips:

1) The only country in the Middle East possessing (not "possibly possessing") WMDs is Israel. As a matter of fact if Israel opened its nuclear weapons up to inspection like every other nuclear power, I'd have no problem at all with its having them. At least, not unless they had another go at selling them to a dictatorship, as when they tried to sell them to apartheid-era South Africa.

2) Other than Israel, no country in the region has a programme for the development or deployemnt of WMDs.

3) At the time of the Iraq war, Israel was the only country in the region possessing WMDs.

So the mythical "others in the region possessing them" are just that. Mythical. Made up. Imaginary.

If you go back beyond the Iraq War (I didn't, but perhaps you did - hey, if you can't win an argument, shift the goalposts) then yes, Saddam had WMDs and used them against Iran and against his own people. I never said he was a nice guy, though Iraq under him was better than Iraq now, unless you're a Muslim fundamentalist.

Incidentally, Saddam's most famous chemical attack on his own people was at Halabja. He was never prosecuted for that, because the USA blocked it, wishing instead to blame it on Iran. As Iran had fighters in the area who got gassed it seems unlikely that they wouldn't have pulled them out first (no Iraqi forces were affected). Howver, at the time, the USA was funding and arming Saddam against the wicked Mooslims next door (and may indeed have supplied the VX he used at Halabja - he could make his own mustard gas, but VX is rather trickier). Ironic, is it not, that it should be the USA who shielded Saddam from justice over real WMD use before deposing and murdering him over imaginary ones?

Why am I unsurprised that you still peddle the long-exploded urban myth that Ahmadinejad has called for the "annihilation" of Israel (I assume it's Israel you mean)?

Your comment about "Paradise virgins" shows an enviable insight into the inmost thoughts of the Iranian leader. I believe you may now consider yourself a "we-all-knower" as regards Iranian politics. Of course, it was also a cheap shot at a religion you loathe, but then you qualified as a hate-filled Islamophobe a while back.

By the way, Israel is not a "neignbouring country" of Iran. That is probably the only reason that Iran has been spared the unprovoked Israeli invasions which have been visited on every one of Israel's actual neighbours. Now - can you name be a neighbour of Iran which has been invaded by Iran since World War Two?

Thought not.

Your description of "Paxman expressing a view in line with the hang Blair brigade" shows how desperate you're getting, He also expressed a view in line with the majority of the British public. Do you imagine folk who want to "hang Blair" on every corner, the way you imagine ubiquitous Muslim terrorists? Or just trying good old guilt by association?

History has already passed its verdict on the Iraq War, which is that it was a disaster with no redeeming benefits whatsoever. Any Iraq enquiries will only be trying to find somewhere to pin the blame. There are people who still argue about who shot JFK (or indeed who was behind 9/11). Because some folk find these things fascinating does not make the facts "controversial". Just because you and Jimmy love desperately combing through the piles of bodies and the wreckage of a once-great nation to find something positive in the Iraq invasion (or failing that, a Muslim fundamentalist to blame it on), that doesn't make it a matter of current political controversy.

At 29 November, 2010 15:44, Anonymous Stan said...

Off the point again, Rob.

My reference to the difference between Israel and others in the region regarding WMD was not about who might actually possess WMD but about what use they have been put to or might be put to in the future.

And talking about "enviable insights into innermost thoughts" you obviously don't come off too well in this department with your insight into my thoughts about Islam. As I have posted here before I do not loath Islam (which has many good points about it) but I do loath those who commit despicable crimes in its name, just as I loath those who commit despicable crimes in the name of any religion or cause.

But I suppose people like you do not see or want to see any such distinction, particularly as you no doubt consider that no crime can be despicable if it's committed against those who YOU loath.

And if you think that Israel's attacks against its neighbouring countries were unprovoked you really must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Likewise your remarks about the Iraq war not being controversial. Let's see whether the BBC use that line in defending Paxman against the complaint.

At least try to keep to the rules of rational debate, even if it is obviously so difficult for you to do.

At 30 November, 2010 02:03, Blogger Rob said...

I might have known that when I pointed out that you'd criticised me for something I hadn't said, you'd try moving the goalposts again and start wittering irrelvantly that actually having WMDs is unimportant. breaking news, Stan: the only country in the region with WMDs is the only one that will be able to use them now or in the future. The only Middle Eastern country posing a potential nuclear threat to Britain is Israel. I doubt even Netanyahu's gangsters are stupid enough to use them: I can't see how Israel could possibly be allowed to survive if it did. But who knows?

On your thoughts abou Islam, you have a point, though in fairness your earlier comments were so incoherent it was hard to tell exactly what your views were. I've read some more of your comments over on KTBFPM, though, so tentatively withdraw the accusation of blanket Islamophobia. I agree with you about those who commit crimes - despicable or lesser - in the name of Islam, regardless of its target. If however you genuinely loathe those who commit such crimes "in the name of any religion or cause", why the blind spot where Israel's crimes in the name of Judaism are concerned? Why the exaggeration of Islamic terrorism and the convenient overlooking of the rest, even though most terrorism has no connection at all to Islam? I rather think that in your eagerness to find Muslim fanatics to hate you sweep up rather a lot of innocent bystanders, even if that is not your intention.

I don't think Israel's attacks against its neighbours were unprovoked because I live in cloud-cuckoo-land: I know they were because I can read history. (And yes, before you say it, Syria started the 1974 war. The rest were all begun by acts of Israeli aggression, breaches of ceasefires and treaties. You know that as well as anyone else: you simply choose to lie about it because of your, er, even-handed approach to "crimes in the name of religion" when the religion happens to be your own. (I'm going by your comments on KTBFPM - I suppose you could be the Stan Rosenthal who translates Taoist classics from the Chinese, but you did decsribe yourself as a Jew.)

I don't deny that to some folk - you for one - the Iraq war is still controversial. Strangely enough, most folk disagree wuith you, but I'm all for diversity, and you're not quite as nutty as the Grassy Knoll brigade nor as poisonous as the Holocaust deniers.

As for your last remark: Stan, the day I need instruction in the "rules of rational debate" from someone whose rationality is questionable at best, and who appears to believe that a debate requires everyone to agree with him, will be the day Satan takes delivery of a snowplough.

At 12 October, 2015 11:08, Blogger mao qiuyun said...

dansko outlet, http://www.dansko-shoes.us/
cyber monday 2015, http://www.blackfriday2015.in.net/
canada goose coats, http://www.canadagoose-coats.us.com/
tiffany outlet, http://www.tiffany-outlet.us.com/
tiffany jewellery, http://www.tiffanyjewelleryoutlets.co.uk/
cheap jordans, http://www.cheapjordanshoes.in.net/
wedding dresses, http://www.weddingdressesoutlet.co.uk/
soccer jerseys, http://www.soccerjerseys.us.com/
ray ban, http://www.occhiali-rayban.it/
hermes belt, http://www.hermesbelts.us/
chanel handbags, http://www.chanelhandbags-outlet.co.uk/
oakley sunglasses, http://www.oakleysunglassescanada.com/
hermes bags, http://www.hermesbags.co.uk/
cheap nfl jerseys, http://www.cheapnfljerseys.org/
nobis outlet, http://www.wellensteyn.com.co/
adidas wings, http://www.adidaswings.net/
coach outlet canada, http://www.coachoutletcanada.com.co/
louis vuitton outlet, http://www.louisvuittonoutletstore.name/
ugg boots, http://www.uggbootsclearance.in.net/
canada goose jackets, http://www.uggbootscheap.eu.com/
tory burch outlet, http://www.toryburch.in.net/
designer handbags, http://www.designerhandbags.us.com/
nike huarache, http://www.nikeairhuarache.org.uk/
timberland boots, http://www.timberlandboots.name/
louis vuitton handbags, http://www.louisvuittonhandbags.org.uk/
nike outlet store, http://www.nikeoutletstore.us/
ed hardy clothing, http://www.edhardy.us.com/
ralph lauren, http://www.poloralphlaurenoutlet.it/
ugg boots, http://www.uggboot.com.co/


Post a Comment

<< Home