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

Friday, March 25, 2011

Advice to those who wish to lie openly about the content of documents they link: first ensure that ALL your readers are sub-literate racist morons

Always sad when someone begins to show signs of his mind falling apart, though it might be argued in Jimmy's case that the signs began when he hitched his wagon to the white supremacist conspiracy theorists over at BNI while claiming not to be a racist. Or when he started calling for the return of no-longer-even-a-Member-of-Parliament Tony Blair as PM in some kind of ... what? Presidential election? (He is an American after all.) Military coup? (I call him Uncle Jimmy because he used to bleat about how things will be different when right-thinking folk rise up.) Whatever.

This post begins pretty incoherently, though it seems that he disapproves of the military action agaionst Colonel Gaddafi. I think he's saying that nobody who opposed military action against Saddam can be in favour of action against Gaddafi. (Well, you know, these brown-skinned chappies are all alike and you either want then all dead or you don't. And over at BareNakedIslam they think Gaddafi's wonderful because the rebels are all members of al-Qaeda. Gaddafi says so! So does "top Muslim cleric" Anjem Choudary.....)

Jimmy's mind is still up to working in a few deceitful asides though:

That phraseology and their meanings aside, there is an even more intriguing coincidence that the mainstream press have missed. Purposely, of course. They’re not quite as dull as they often seem to be.

With reference to re-affirming one of the earlier dozen or so resolutions regarding Saddam, the Iraq Resolution (1441) also mentioned “all necessary means”.

Well, yes it did. The phrase "all necessary means" is used in Resolution 1441 in one place - here:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Resolution 660 (the one to be upheld by "all necessary means") is the one condemning Saddam for invading Kuwait. Not for being beastly to the Kurds, or for impeding UN weapons inspectors. Invading Kuwait. Resolution 1441 does NOT say that "all necessary means" can be used for any other purpose than getting Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, howver horrible Tony Blair or indeed other Iraqis thought Saddam was. It sets out various things Saddam needs to do, and a time frame in which he has to do them, in order to comply with earlier demands by the Security Council. And it ends with:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Para. 12 makes it very clear that Resolution 1441 expects that there will be a further meeting to determine whether Saddam has in fact complied, and a further resolution before (as per para 13) "serious consequences" ensue. (We'll never know what those might have been because the USA and UK had invaded Iraq before we ever had another resolution.) And para 14 makes it crystal clear that the UNSC is still on the case and has not at this time signed off on any action whatsoever.

Resolution 1973 on the other hand explicitly permits "all necessary measures" (short of an invasion) for the protection of civilians in specific parts of Libya.

Hypocrisy? No. Deliberate deceit by Jimmy? Yes.(He has clearly been schooled by his BNI buddies in their technique of "link to a site and lie about its contents on the assumption that your readers won't bother following the link".)

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1441 c/w 1973?

On innumerable occasions those of us who support Tony Blair’s Iraq decision asked the same question about the term “serious consequences” used in Resolution 1441 – what did people think it meant? And on innumerable occasions people like Ming Campbell replied that “serious consequences” didn’t mean military action.

But “all necessary measures” clearly DOES mean military action, as we can all see. However, it can hardly be argued that its meaning was spelt out clearly. The phrase leaves plenty of room for argument and worse, for error. For instance as to whether civilians dressed in army kit on one side (Gaddafi’s) ARE legitimate targets, while the same on the other side (the rebels, whoever they are) are NOT targets. (Protecting “civilians”?)

Er, civilians are civilians and those undertaking military action are not. And since when was Gaddafi's army a bunch of "civilians dressed in army kit"? The "army kit" includes tanks FFS! What the fuck is he on about? Gibbering, simply gibbering.

That “illegality” conclusion is for the simple reason that the Lib Dems insist (in their infallible knowledge) that Resolution 1441 was one resolution short of sufficient.

Well, Jimmy, that "infallible knowledge" comes, as we have seen, with the ability to read. If you can't or won't read Resolution 1441, at least you might stop quoting from it as though in itself it authorised any kind of action whatsoever (other than the actions it demands from Saddam).

I resolve that on interpreting resolutions, Ming, his party and their conclusions are one penny short of a nine pound note.

As opposed to Jimmy who simply "knows" what the content of resolutions is without troubling to read them and is thus the full nine pound note..

But legalities matter to the high-horsed and mighty.

They certainly don't matter to Jimmy and his insurrectionist BNI cronies. Here's Menzies Campbell again:

Systematic persecution and worse against those whose only crime is to seek democratic government, regional support for action, and the express authority of the UN, are all distinguishing elements in any comparison between Saddam and Gaddafi.

Not for Jimmy, they're not.

Saddam had killed thousands of his own people and others with WMD and by assassinations for decades. The UN had expressly issued resolutions GALORE towards Saddam. He had blithely ignored them for over a decade.

You really need to read that again:

Saddam had killed thousands of his own people and others with WMD and by assassinations for decades.

Is that the same as "Systematic persecution and worse against those whose only crime is to seek democratic government ?" Maybe it is, though no doubt some like to think Saddam was attacking violent separatists and Islamic terrorists. (Well, he said so.) So one point to Jimmy.

The UN had expressly issued resolutions GALORE towards Saddam. He had blithely ignored them for over a decade.

And I'm sure this must be relevant to something or other, but it's certainly not to Campbell's statement. None of the UN resolutions since the invasion of Kuwait had authorised any kind of military activity. One might as well say that the hundreds of UN resolutions "blithely ignored" by Israel for over quarter of a century provide express authority for, say, Iran to launch an invasion. They do not. Jimmy has no comprehension whatsoever of the meaning of "the express authority of the UN", has he? Just as well he isn't advising President Ahmedinajad.

As for "regional support for action", where was that at the time of the invasion of Iraq?


For some reason best understood by his High Ming Mindedness, the sufferings of the Iraqi people under Iraq for 30 years – which we all knew about – are not to be compared with the sufferings of the Libyan people under Gaddafi.

Against one of those we are right to act, against the other we weren’t.

WE ALL KNEW... funny how Jimmy loves to use that phrase to characterise his opponents' attitudes but is happy to use it himself. (Well, he KNOWS the content of Resolution 1441 better than those who have actually read it.) In any case, the comparison is not between the sufferings of the Iraqi and Libyan people, but between the legality or otherwise of military action. But hey, when you've lost an argument, pretend it was about something else. Even Jimmy's hate-ravaged brain is still capable of that. That and cheap ad hominem jibes against opponents.

Utterly disgraceful hypocrisy.

If by "disgraceful" he means "imaginary" I couldn't agree more. As for his own performance, he should really stick to his tried and tested racist rhetoric of Obama-is-a-Muslim and God-gave-the-whole-of-Palestine-to-the-Jews-thousands-of-years-before-Israel-was-invented. When he moves away from Fantasyland and attempts to connect with facts in the real world, he comes unglued: and it's not an edifying sight.


Post a Comment

<< Home