Harry’s Place

Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?

Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?

That’s the thing about Harry’s Place. You can never figure out how they feel about BNP.

Sheesh.

The Guardian ran a more detailed article on the subject last week:

Platform for free speech … or hate?

Though it does not tackle its own, er, questionable choice of bloggers.

Thats the thing if you’re the first post Irie.
Nobody has posted before you.
See how it works?

It is a sad day indeed when a BNP member is given a platform in the Telegraph, a mainstream paper. With the growth of fascist electoral success in Italy we should be very worried.

Your article rightly observes that the Guardian gives regular editorial space to representatives of what many regard as the Islamic far right, such as Azzam Tamimi and Anas al Tikriti.

By giving platforms to Islamic bigots the liberal left have created the political climate in which the BNP has been able to claim a platform in the press and a seat in the London Assembly. But two wrongs don’t make a right. The Telegraph should have not platformed Barnbrook as a matter of principle.

Are you so cerebrally underpowered that you consider this post to be supportive of the odious Barnbrook and the fascist BNP?

That was directed towards The Irie, who still hasn’t posted anything critical of Barnbrooks’ blog.

Fascist!

The hypocrisy occured to me too, but I expect it would never occur to people at the Guardian that the two are remotely comparable.

There is a point, though, that the BNP seem to be using the open policy of the My Telegraph blogs as a way of blogging to a larger and more diverse audience than they would get via the BNP website. Barnbrook is not the only one (his blogs are here). Another BNP activist, Carlos Cortiglia, has a blog here. There is another BNP blogger here. I imagine if you looked further more would pop up.

Obviously the fact that the Guardian has a tighter editorial control over who gets to write on CiF means they have more responsibility for what appears there. For instance, they would not give a CiF slot to Richard Barnbrook (I’m guessing here, but I think I’m on solid ground), whereas Ismail Haniyeh, Azzam Tamimi or Sa’ad al-Faqih, all of whom have had articles published in the Guardian, could start a blog on MyTelegraph if they wanted. However, now that the Telegraph knows that the BNP are using their website, with the Daily Telegraph name at the top, to promote their party, is their responsibility for what appears there any less than if they exercised similar control to CiF over who gets to write?

I take the opposite view Suffolk Booy (as a wet-arsed anti-censorship liberal) - both the Telegraph and The Guardian should continue to let these people put up their views for debate in what is clearly a ‘comment’ section of their online publications. But the journalists in the ‘news’ section of the Guardian need to get off their high horses and accept there’s no difference between fascists with white skin and fascists with brown skin.

I don’t accept that letting someone create a blog on your site is the same kind of ‘giving them a platform’ as, say, letting them address your University’s debating union. And there is a difference between Barnbrook using a facility available to all Telegraph readers with legally-held views, and the Guardian actively going out to solicit, and presumably pay for, the views of right wing nutters.

And yes TheIrie, I’d like to think that the kind of people who mix it in HP circles really DON’T need to spell out their take on the BNP.

Suffolk Booy,

A distinction should be drawn between created a platform for all readers and actively soliciting editorials from the far right. So far as I can see, The Telegraph have yet to solicit a regular column from Nick Griffin.

That said, I’m not sure that The Telegraph can use My Telegraph in the same way that Google use blogspot.com. Brands stand for a certain set of values, and the potential exists that others may use user-generated content to smear The Telegraph.

I’ve just read the longer Guardian piece that Thermaland links to, and it makes the same point about BNP supporters congregating at My Telegraph.

The complacency about Comment Is Free is breathtaking though.

The Guardian’s own Comment Is Free can attract opinion unlikely to be published in the paper. The difference is largely that the article which spawns the debate is always written by a “commissioned” blogger. Here, in new media parlance, the journalists act as “gatekeepers” initiating the story and moderating the discussion. My Telegraph, however, unlocks the gate and hands over the key.

No, most journalists write their article and then disappear, not taking part in the comments thread and leaving it up to the readers to complain - just like at My Telegraph.

Neil - the BNP write an article on the Telegraph website entitled “Blame the immigrants”, and your response is to say look at the Guardian - they publish articles by Muslims - just as bad. Of course, as a good disciple of David you cover yourself by calling them supporters of the Muslims Brotherhood - an organisation I suspect you, like David, are entirely ignorant about.

The way Cif and the torygraph blogs (which do seem to attract rather a lot of…can’t say nutters….”service users”) work is not the same. And I’m not particularly inclined to condemn either of them out of hand.

I note this in the Graun article linked to by thermaland:

My Telegraph is also inhabited by some very unsavoury characters, including a minority of active members of the far right, anti-abortionists, europhobes and members of an anti-feminist “men’s movement”.

Being an anti-abortionist or “europhobe” (presumably meaning anti-EU) or anti-feminist is “unsavoury”? Or morally equivalent to being “an active member of the far right”

In whose world exactly?

Ah, liberal illiberalism and intolerance. Don’t ya love it?

I imagine that, just as the internet (in a web 1.0 sense) has become more regulated over the years than it used to be, so will this kind of interactive user-generated content - - in a sense the conventions are still establishing themselves.

I do think that the visual appearance of the telegraph’s “blogs” does appear to associate the authors’ work with the newspaper to a (far) greater extent than is the case with cif, which is largely semi-autonomous from the Graun, and has always been clearly promoted as such: it is, and always has been clear that cif neither has nor is intended to have the editorial line of the Guardian. However, and despite the prominent Telegraph logo at the top of their blog pages, I also think it’s fairly clear that they aren’t in any sense endorsing the opinions of those who publish articles below it, any more than blogger or wordpress, typepad, etc, would be.

Although I don’t really object to the principal of either Tamimi publishing stuff at CiF, or Barnbrook at “my telegraph” (the very nature of a blog means that such pieces by definition generate a response and discussion), I very much imagine that at some point concern about “brand identity” (or upsetting advertisers) is bound to kick in.

When that comes about, I wouldn’t regret that such authors no longer appeared to have the superficial endorsement of reputable organs of the press (if the Torygraph still is one: it’s gone downhill so much of late), either.

It is almost always better to allow open debate than to suppress it.

TheIrie, surely you know your insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood represents all Muslims makes you an Islamophobe?

When did I say that, fool?

TheIrie,

must you ALWAYS act the arse?

if you took the trouble to even read the threads at HP you’d see that many, many people are opposed to the Far Right, and have openly challenged them on the streets, whilst you on the other hand have done what precisely?

Nothing

so fuck off and stop being a professional arse

Well Neil wrote about “Muslim Brotherhood supporters” and you swapped it for “Muslims”. They aren’t synonymous and those who insist they are tend to have an essentialist view of what Muslims are and think.

btw love the BA Baracas “fool” thing. Nice.

Dave Rich,
Do you realise the Guardian couldn’t pay Saad Al Fagih because his accounts are all frozen following his exposure as an Al Queda funder.
Instead they offered to pay a charity of his choice.

I always assumed as much. Which charity though?

Irie,

I note you continue to imply that this post is some sort of bigoted reaction by myself to give cover for the racist views of Barnbrook and to bash Muslims. You also seem to be making large assumptions about my views of the BNP.

Firstly, I am not criticising The Guardian for noting they publish articles by Muslims, I am criticising The Guardian for publishing articles by Muslim Brotherhood supporters and HAMAS representatives. There is a world of difference, although you seek to elide it in order to impute racist and bigoted opinions where none exist.

As for my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood, I consider myself knowledgeable and fairly widely read about their history, probably more so than yourself (since you seem to think that Muslim Brotherhood is code for Muslim).

In short, fuck off.

He never got back to them after they offered, so they never paid anybody.

Neil - In your post, you assert that Faisal Bodi, Anas Altikriti, Ismail Patel and Soumaya Ghannoushi are equivalent to the BNP. I’d like some evidence for this, other than the meaningless statement (which anyway is not proven) that they support the Muslim Brotherhood (which basically means nothing in the real world). Otherwise, yes, I assume you are a bigot.

Neil - the BNP write an article on the Telegraph website entitled “Blame the immigrants”, and your response is to say look at the Guardian - they publish articles by Muslims - just as bad

To which the only response can be - are you stupid, or disingenuous, or both?

The implication of your comment is that Neil is trying to divert attention away from Barmbrook’s article.

In reality (as any sane reader of this post will realise) he is objecting to the hypocrisy of one newspaper criticising another for hosting far-right opinion, while simultaneously hosting far-right opinion itself.

That is not because he thinks far-right opinion should be defended, but because he thinks it is equally objectionable, whoever is spouting it, and whoever is publishing it.

Understand?

Well, you can assume I’m a bigot all you want Irie, but I know you are intellectually challenged.

If you look at old newspapers its striking that letters editors used to allow anonymous and psuedonymous letters. They don’t do that these, and for good reason. It’s one of the ways that letters editors keep the standard of debate up and keep the green ink brigade away.

Come the web and the free for all newspapers decided they had to have a piece of that free for all; and in so doing opened their doors to the green ink brigade.

It smacks of a lack of confidence of their own role and ability to produce a quality product. (The Torygraph’s descent into sub Daily Mail trash and the Graun’s into pious hangwringing is another symptom of this).

Not that there aren’t ways to let the readers have more say and interact (sorry) with the writers, but neither has really thought through the implications of what they’re doing.

Oh, and TheIrie, I can’t find any way to interpret your comments about “Muslims” but that you believe all Muslims are an undifferentiated mass who think in the same way. You might want to be more careful before imputing BNP-style views to others.

I doubt he will.

He thinks I’m a bigot because I think HAMAS are right wing sectarians.

I have now read the Barnbrook piece. It is poorly written, populist trash that talks of using the army to get weapons off the streets.

At one point he says - it IS the imigrants, but doesn’t actually explain what IT is that the immigrants have done. I guess he is referring to knife crime.

In a way I think the intellectual paucity of his piece is enough rope for him to hang himself, but I still oppose giving him a platform, and I feel the same way about Azzam Tamimi.

I’m an American who barely know what the BNP is. 99% of what I know about them I’ve read at HP. My impression is that they are very, very bad people. My impression of The Irie — again, formed exclusively by reading HP — is that he is a nincompoop.

“That is not because he thinks far-right opinion should be defended, but because he thinks it is equally objectionable, whoever is spouting it, and whoever is publishing it.” - Yes, I know that, but its nonsense. I’ve seen no evidence at all that the people listed are fascists. There is no equivalence between these people and the BNP, other than the lazy and ignorant slur that they support the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore must be Islamo-fascists presumably.

@ Neil, I agree with your point about the difference between passive publication and actually soliciting a piece. Good point!

@ Simon

We will have to agree to differ. I respect that it is a hard call but I think mainstream media outlets should avoid giving platforms to any group whose founding political animus is one of hatred - and that is the real substance at the heart of the BNP, IMO

“Not one critical comment about Richard Barnbrook’s post then?”

Bit too quick off the mark then weren’t you? Anyway isn’t the point of this post a free speech one, rather than about the content of Barnbrooks blog, or anyone elses?

Still piling the stupid on stupid I see.

Don’t stop. It’s amusing.

Neil - OK, four names is too many. Can you demonstrate by means of a link or otherwise in what respect Soumaya Ghannoushi is in any sense equivalent to the BNP. Is she racist? Does she support terrorism? Or is it just because she is a practising religious Muslim?

I’ve seen no evidence at all that the people listed are fascists.

I pity the fool that clicks on those links with his eyes closed.

dirigible - I assume you read Soumaya’s article then? Care to tell me what is wrong with it?

Can you demonstrate by means of a link or otherwise in what respect Soumaya Ghannoushi is in any sense equivalent to the BNP.

Both are existent entities. Tada!

Failing that, find out about IslamExpo. HP covered it IIRC.

If MyTelegraph is a blog hosting service that’s open to everyone then I see nothing wrong in principle with Richard Barnbrook having a blog there, any more than if he had a blog on Livejournal or Blogspot. But those are both sites with millions of users, where the presence of one racist among all the other users isn’t going to lend itself to accusations of providing a platform for the far right. If the Telegraph is going to host blogs under a name that directly associates the newspaper with the blog content then I think it could do with exercising more discretion about what kind of stuff it allows.

ThIrie - Yes, I read it. Including the author profile.

… and?

I guess it is beneath Neil to actually substantiate his assertions.

The title of the Ghannoushi article is bad enough : “Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”.

What garbage. Why should religion be given special protection from strong dislike than that offered to other ideologies such as Nazism eg. Such talk is the kind of nonsense that tries to protect religious lunacies from criticism. Just as pernicious as the BNP as far as I can see.

Here -

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9424

Here -

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2007/11/fallacy_of_the_palestinian_sta.html

Nasty stuff that gives a good indication of her politics.

Why not ask the Jews from Arab countries what they think about that MMN?

What are you burbling on about exactly TheIrie ? Are you comparing how Muslims are treated in the UK to how Jews are treated in Arab countries ? If so which ones ?

“Nasty stuff that gives a good indication of her politics.” I don’t care about her politics. I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist or terrorist supporter, as in Neil’s assertion. Specifically, on what criteria should she be barred from writing on the Guardian’s website?

“Are you comparing how Muslims are treated in the UK to how Jews are treated in Arab countries?” - no, I’m simply defending the principle that “Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”, which I agree with, and anyway, what has this opinion got to do with whether or not someone is a fascist?

Surely the point about the far right is that they are rather good at hiding their far right tendencies. Let’s take a hypothetical individual - let’s call him Richard Barnbrack for the sake of argument - and let’s say that he belongs to an organisation - let’s call it the Brutish Nasty Party. Now, the the Brutish Nasty Party denies being a far-right organisation and, after years of practice, is getting rather good at disguising the fact that many of its members are violent, thuggish, anti-Semitic, Hitler-worshipping individuals.

One way it disguises its far-right nature is to put individuals like this hypothetical Barnbrack in high-profile positions. They know he’ll be careful not to let anything too unpleasant slip out and will be careful not to do anything too embarrassing in public.

That way, when people challenge the Brutish Nasty Party, its more cunning supporters - and naive and gullible idiots - point to the likes of said Barnbrack and challenge those making the accusations that he’s a fascist. It’s hard to do, of course, which is the whole point of the exercise.

They will then try to argue that because you can’t prove Barnbrack is a fascist, the Brutish Nasty Party can’t be fascists (and if you make that accusation you’re just against the Brutish people). But you’d have to be very naive, very stupid or very dishonest to do that.

“Religious hatred is no more than a variety of racism”,

Only someone who knows (or moreover, cares) very little about religion could make such a statement.

Irie,

Where did I say Ghannoushi was a supporter of terrorists then?

“Of course, as a good disciple of David you cover yourself by calling them supporters of the Muslims Brotherhood - an organisation I suspect you, like David, are entirely ignorant about.” (Al-Irie)

And this is when Al-Irie finally came out of the closet as an Islamist.

It was too strange that he always appeared to defend “Muslims” (Islamists, actually), Palestinians, Finkelstein, etc, etc…

don’t care about her politics. I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist

Err… slight contradiction there…

I’m asking for evidence that she is a fascist or terrorist supporter, as in Neil’s assertion

Neil asserted no such thing. The words he used were ‘far-right sectarians’. But nice attempt to shift the terms of the debate.

Specifically, on what criteria should she be barred from writing on the Guardian’s website?</I.

As far as I am aware, Neil doesn’t think she should be barred.

I inferred that, but I’ll withdraw it if you like, and stick to the charge that you explicitly made that she is a far right sectarian, and equivalent to the BNP, and the Guardian are hypocritical for publishing her writing while condemning the telegraph. Will you deign to provide a shred of evidence for this serious charge?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/05/religion.uk

She’s a fucking Islamist, Irie, I don’t why can’t get this into your thick skull.

BTW lets not forget that for Al-Irie, Jews from Arab countries only went out for a picnic. They were never expelled. And if they were, he blamed that on Israel.

I, for one, am sickened at this blog’s racist attitude towards Richard Barnbrook, who you target for no other reason that he is a white person who is proud of his identity. You are attacking him merely because his party opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that it was a conspiracy by Jews.

Again and again you try to smear Barnbrook. Barnbrook is not in favour of attacking black people - I challenge you to find one article he has written where he advocates violence.

You try to smear Barnbrook by pointing out that he is active in the BNP. Even if some BNP supporters might think that black people ought to be attacked, you should realise that the BNP is a diverse movement, consisting of many different strands of opinon. From what I have read, Barnbrook is at the liberal and progressive end. Isn’t Barnbrook precisely the sort of person who we ought to be reaching out to if we are to build bridges of understanding with the alienated white community?

Obviously, what I have written is complete rubbish.

But if TheIrie can get away with this sort of crap, why not give it a go? TheIrie knows that Ghannoushi is the daughter of the leader of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood. He has read a sufficient number of articles on HP which set out in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s policies, including gender and religious apartheid, and terrorism against civilians. He knows that she is on the committee of the British Muslim Initiative, which is a Muslim Brotherhood franchise, all of whose members are MB.

But yet, he defends these scum. He wouldn’t defend Barnbrook though, even though precisely the same argument can be made about him as the BNP as Neil makes about the MB.

Why does TheIrie do this? Because he is a disgusting racist who conflates Muslims with the MB, in a way he’d never do with white Christians and the BNP.

Will you deign to provide a shred of evidence for this serious charge?

Please see the post at the start of this thread.

Al-Irie is a tipical antisemite. The nerve he has to bring Jews from Arab countries to this thread. He cared bollocks about them in the other. He brought a ridiculous website that asserted that they were never expelled, 800.000 of them just went out of their own accord or scared by the Zionists. Al-Irie is no better than the neonazis.

DavidT
I, like you, have no time whatsover for the views of Soumaya Ghannoushi (and more or less agree

However, I fail to see that the identity, or history, or background of her father is of any relevance whatsoever to the debate. Unless we are doing the condemning unto the seventh generation thing. Which I hope we are not.

From Anna Akhmatova’s blessed loins sprung forth Lev Gumilev.
And Vyacheslav Chornovil’s son is Taras Chornovil, unfortunately.

Judge people by their deeds, not those of their relatives or their family backgrounds.

Thank you

David’s joined in - joy. First of all, Richard Barnbrook in the post cited has made an explicitly racist charge. No need to root around for material on him - I don’t question his nastiness. Now, the charge against Ghannoushi: her Dad is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. So? For every article you find by the MB setting out gender and religious apartheid, I’ll find you a progressive, “moderate” MB article. Saying someone has some vague association the the MB tells you NOTHING. Get that into your dense skull David and David’s little followers. You have to judge people by what they themselves write and say. And it’s not hard to read what she has written, and whilst you may disagree with it, there is nothing to suggest she’s a fascist.

In fact, if you alienate people like Ghannoushi, who is in fact far far more moderate and sensible than people like David and Neil, who are basically fanatics, you are helping extremism. Most sane people, including the Guardian staff, realise this.

And, sorry Ven, but “what Ven said”.

In fact, if you alienate people like Ghannoushi, who is in fact far far more moderate and sensible than people like David and Neil

Hahahahahaharrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve given you three links on this thread which show you what a nasty piece of work she is, and this is what you come out with?

Enough.

Enough already.

I think there’s a big difference between the Telegraph hosting a racist blog and blogspot doing so. Blogspot does nothing other than host people’s blogs and when you read one you know it is just one person’s opinion, nothing more. The Telegraph (or Guardian for that matter) is a newspaper that people read for (a) news that is relatively trustworthy and (b) comment that is relatively informed. Carrying a blog by Richard Barnbrook on the Telegraph website means there is a relationship between the two that affects the image of both, however much these media organisations try to convince themselves (and us) otherwise.

Tell me how ANYTHING you’ve said in defence of Ghannoushi could not equally be said of Barnbrook?

@ DavidT

A wonderful satirical post by you, emulating precisely the moral relativist arguments for indulging Islamists.

Excellent. My favourite blogcomment of the week, thank you!

The Guardian has previously given over editorial space to Osama Bin Laden, as well as other unpleasant bearded murderers.

I don’t like, admire or respect the BNP but I find the hysteria they generate to be utterly bizarre. They are a minor group at best, even now at their all time peak of support their national support is well under 2%. Yet despite their triviality they are seen as so dangerous that simply allowing them a platform is seen as uniquely outrageous.

Neil and Mark - no-one has provided anything that suggests Ghannoushi’s ideas are fascist. As I said, you may disagree with them. I’m only interested in what makes them comparable with openly racist bilge from the BNP.

the BBC also give a platform to the ‘islamist far right’ …azzam tamini, abu izzadeen and those of that ilk are given plenty of room to peddle their invective…is the BBC wrong as well? or is it just the guardian?

TheIrie - some of the BNP are not complete racists who want to hang blacks from the nearest tree, some may be.

Some of the Muslim Brotherhood have unbelieveably extreme views, have you ever seen this ?

“In April 2006, after a court case in Egypt recognized the Bahá’í Faith, members of the clergy convinced the government to appeal the court decision. One member of parliament, Gamal Akl of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, said the Bahá’ís were infidels who should be killed on the grounds that they had changed their religion.[39]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

No doubt some in the MB don’t think that, but is there any evidence you can quote that they have changed their official views from the above in Egypt ? I can’t.

In which case I can only say that the Egyptian MB are comparable and probably worse than the BNP. What do you think ?

Irie, you can judge Ghannoushi by what she says (and she has heaps of praise for the Muslim Brotherhood) and still see her as a far right sectarian.

I don’t deny I’m a fanatic.

I’m fanatically in favour of a pluralistic diverse non-racist democratic equitable society which favours freedom of religion and other forms of expression, and secures equal rights for those of difference race, gender and sexuality.

That’s what you consider a bigot.

Neil and Mark - no-one has provided anything that suggests Ghannoushi’s ideas are fascist

Again - the claim was that she (among others) is a far-right sectarian.

The links I provided (have you read them!?) show that she is an Islamist, who rejects a two-state solution. She is an unpleasant religious sectarian.

And somehow you think she is ‘far far more moderate and sensible than David and Neil’.

Frankly you’ve gone down the rabbit hole.

The Muslim Brotherhood rules over one territory in the whole globe: Gaza. Hamas is part of the MB.

Ask the Christians how is to be ruled by the MB. Ask the women too. Not so long ago, there were women without hijab at the University in Gaza. Not anymore. Ask them about acid thrown to their faces. That is the Muslim Brotherhood.

the BBC also give a platform to the ‘islamist far right’ …azzam tamini, abu izzadeen and those of that ilk are given plenty of room to peddle their invective…is the BBC wrong as well?

They are wrong in that they present these as representative of the wider Muslim community, much like Irie does, when they are only representative of a smaller extremist radical element.

I do think the BBC have improved somewhat in recent years in that respect.

MMN - As I’ve been trying to explain, there is no official MB line. They operate in different countries in forms totally unrecognisable from one-another - see the Foreign Affairs piece “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” for some informed background.

David - “Tell me how ANYTHING you’ve said in defence of Ghannoushi could not equally be said of Barnbrook?” Are you joking? Ok - Ghannoushi hasn’t written an article which is blatantly (or otherwise) racist, or in any other manner prejudiced or hateful. In the mean time, why don’t you provide some evidence of Ghannoushi’s hateful nature, that’s not related to the position of her Dad?

if readers hadn’t read TheIrie’s apologies and excuses for the David Irving supporter, Asghar Bukhari then they might be surprised at his current outbursts and lack of basic comprehension

but then again TheIrie, as a would-be academic, has considerable form

TheIrie has been the most articulate and vociferous apologist for Hamas, droning on for two+ years on how some of their leaders are quite moderate and don’t really hate Jews, despite what they say

more recently, TheIrie’s profound stupidity was shown again he remarked that antisemitism wasn’t “terribly complicated”, despite the fact that there are many hundreds of scholars and thousands of researchers trying to understand this complicated subject, when all they had to do was asked TheIrie and he would supply an answer?

So readers shouldn’t expect too much from TheIrie, except a peculiar mixture of childish naivete, a contempt for evidence, an impenetrable quality and a fair dollop of outlandish statements

Should any readers feel tempted to recommend a book or suitable literature to TheIrie, then he will shrink away like a vampire confronted with garlic, TheIrie values his impenetrable ignorance as if it were a cherished prize to be hold

Oh, and TheIrie seems to speed read or skim other’s comments, so don’t expect that he will either 1) read your views 2) accurately represent them 3) be able to respond with a cogent argument

He’s best ignored, like a truculent child

In the mean time, why don’t you provide some evidence of Ghannoushi’s hateful nature, that’s not related to the position of her Dad?

I have.

I have given you three links.

One of which demonstrates that she is a loon, the other that she is an Islamist, and the last that she is implacably opposed to a two-state solution (and by default the existence of the state of Israel).

On the Muslim Brotherhood, last week their Supreme Guide, Mohammed Akef, described Osama bin Laden as a “mujahid” who is “close to Allah”:

In a lengthy interview published today [23/5/08] in the online Arabic news service Elaph, Supreme Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Akef was asked: “Regarding resistance and jihad…do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?”

Akef’s answer:

“In all certainty, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high.”

Should any readers feel tempted to recommend a book or suitable literature to TheIrie, then he will shrink away like a vampire confronted with garlic, TheIrie values his impenetrable ignorance as if it were a cherished prize to be hold

This is the money quote (to use a USAism). Has he actually ever changed his mind about something, when confronted with evidence that his previously-held position is wrong? From his output here, obviously not. TheIrie has a bad case of Morton’s Demon. In his case its the maxim brown people can do no wrong and are not responsible for anything they do that represents his confirmation bias-ad nauseum. The maxim is treated as revealed truth to TheIrie, and no amount of mere evidence can change this. His thought patterns are identicial to creationists. If I were his supervisor, I’d be very wary of any of his scientific output.

You are a total idiot and fraud TheIrie.

I give you chapter and verse of an extreme public opinion from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and you just swat it away as if it doesn’t matter. That MB loon was threatening to murder members of an Egyptian minority and you don’t care ?

What makes you deny this is still the position of the Egyptian MB towards apostates exactly TheIrie ?

If you can’t come up with something and refuse to condemn the MB as despicable then I conclude that you are in favour of the murder of minorities in Egypt.

That makes you far worse than Richard Barnbrook and the BNP.

Has he actually ever changed his mind about something, when confronted with evidence that his previously-held position is wrong?

Once.

Here - http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/04/19/crossing_the_floor.php

But only because his initial statement was so palpably absurd.

Irie,
You’ll find that the Guardian gave space to an article a Saad Al Fagih, a man who was shown to have part funded the East African Embassy bombings,in which hundreds of black Africans died.

Would you consider this to be better or worse than the Barnbrook piece?

Namely

“The progressive always stands with the weak, against the strong. And that is the difference between left and right, and it matters a lot.”

Barnbrook seems to be on the moderate and progressive wing of the BNP. He has a mixed race stepchild. He has never praised Hitler, or called for attacks on black people. He is in the Arts as is his wife, and indeed appears to be very sympatico to gays.

Sure, he favours a tougher position on immigration, but then so do all sorts of politicians who are in larger parties.

TheIrie - you should be reaching out to him!!

And he’s not the son of Oswald Mosley.

Blah blah blah - nothing to say - boring.

No-one has provided any evidence whatsoever. Ghannoushi’s position on the 2ss is irrelevant to this discussion. She wrote a piece discussing political islam - this doesn’t make her an “Islamist”, whatever that term means anyway. Someone from the MB praised Bin Laden. Well here Ghannoushi explicitly rejects Al Qaeda and their Jihad, perhaps proving my point that its stupid to claim the MB are a single monolithic organisation with one view of everything. I see David and Neil have gone quiet, showing just how weak there case is against these moderate people who just happen to also be religious Muslims.

Here’s Ghannoushi’s quote:

“Al-Qaeda’s mindless acts have turned the aggressor, who colonizes, massacres and pillages, into a victim. For all their material vulnerability, victims have a very powerful asset: their moral case as innocent victims. Perhaps, this is the cruellest dimension to these senseless crimes: That the powerless has been stripped even of his victimhood. Even this has been appropriated by the powerful.

The causes al-Qaeda extremists speak for are certainly just causes. The sanctioning of genocide and occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq through exposure to depleted Uranium and years of barbaric sanctions first, then through bombing and shelling without bothering to count the dead, brutal invasion of the country, destruction of its infrastructure and humiliation of its people undoubtedly rank among modern history’s bloodiest crimes and darkest tragedies.

But the mindless killing of the innocent in Madrid, or New York is the wrong answer to these real grievances. These are illegitimate responses to legitimate causes. Just as occupation is morally and politically deplorable, so, too, is this blind aggression masquerading as Jihad.”

And Al Fagih?

Actually just looking at the BNP manifesto some of it looks quite Old Labour - renationalisation of utilities, import controls, leaving the EU. Also bringing back some housing to council control.

And most of the stuff on workfare and multiculturalism is now mainstream Labour/Tory policy.

So on the printed evidence - why no platform for the BNP ?

As for TheIrie - he has nothing to say about the openly expressed murderous extremism of the MB. From now on we can all see what scum he is.

No platform for the TheHatefilledMBIdiot ! I could perhaps support that.

Well here Ghannoushi explicitly rejects Al Qaeda and their Jihad

No she doesn’t. In that article, she says their causes are just.

Her objection is with their methods - not their goals.

From that article -

The causes al-Qaeda extremists speak for are certainly just causes.

She is not ‘a moderate’.

What exactly do you have against Barnbrook and white people, TheIrie?

David - this shifting of the debate is painfully transparent, you realise. I have exposed your Jihad against Soumaya Ghannoushi as devoid of any evidence against her whatsoever, and all you can do is try to make snide comments.

I’ve just noticed TheIrie actually included this quote

The causes al-Qaeda extremists speak for are certainly just causes

in his extract of Ghannoushi’s article - an extract he used to show how moderate she is.

So, tell me Irie - do you think al-Qaeda’s causes are just?

Or are you a pillock?

Ditto your jihad against Barnbrook.

In fact, the only evidence you have against him is guilt by association.

But actually, that’s quite enough isn’t it?

Pathetic. For one thing, I have a direct quote from him. There is no guilt by association. For another - I had never heard of him before today, so how can I be waging a Jihad against him. On the other hand, you make quite a hobby of attacking the likes of Soumaya, yet you have nothing - NOTHING - by way of evidence against her.

Rational people will have to make there own minds up.

Still standing by the Egyptian MB then TheClericalFascistIdiot ?

You see nothing wrong with expressing the view that Bahai’s should be murdered for apostacy ?

Perhaps that guy didn’t really mean it ?

What do you reckon ?

“if you alienate people like Ghannoushi”

Ah, yes, the “you’re better suck up to the vaguely smiley religious extremists because there’s ones out there who want to kill you” gambit.

P.

you’ll notice how TheIrie conspicuously avoids dealing with the rather incriminating sentence:

“The causes al-Qaida extremists speak for are certainly just causes.”

On the other hand, you make quite a hobby of attacking the likes of Soumaya, yet you have nothing - NOTHING - by way of evidence against her.

I don’t know about you, but someone who thinks that al-Qaeda’s causes are just is a little beyond the pale.

And yet you still persist in defending her.

On the just causes, first of all its irrelevant. I give that quote to demonstrate that she opposes Al Qaeda, which she clearly does. It would be like me saying, the causes Bush proclaims to support are just causes - i.e. the liberation of the people of Iraq. Doesn’t mean I support Bush. Furthermore, and this is totally irrelevant to my argument, but I’ll pursue it anyway, what does Soumaya think these causes are? Well she says so: “he sanctioning of genocide and occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq through exposure to depleted Uranium and years of barbaric sanctions first, then through bombing and shelling without bothering to count the dead, brutal invasion of the country, destruction of its infrastructure and humiliation of its people undoubtedly rank among modern history’s bloodiest crimes and darkest tragedies.” And I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I am at one with her on this. Those causes are just. Al Qaeda’s response is not. It is “illegitimate” and “morally and politically deplorable” to quote her. Now, you may disagree with me and her on this. That doesn’t me I or she supports Al Q, Bin Laden or anything else. The quote proves the opposite.

what does Soumaya think these causes are? Well she says so: “he sanctioning of genocide and occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq through exposure to depleted Uranium and years of barbaric sanctions first, then through bombing and shelling without bothering to count the dead, brutal invasion of the country, destruction of its infrastructure and humiliation of its people undoubtedly rank among modern history’s bloodiest crimes and darkest tragedies.”

Those aren’t ’causes’.

What ’causes’ (that is to say ‘ends’) are al-Qaeda pursuing, regarding Palestine and Iraq, Irie?

So what, let the BNP expose their views, I think that real democracy is where ideas and concepts are freely debated and openned up to ridicule. I know real fascists when I see them and this has all the hallmarks of fascism and is in anyway much more important than a nasty small nationalist party who hav attracted people only because real fascists have obstructed any proper debate on immigration.

Anyway this is where real fascists exist:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html

Disgraceful!!

Irie,
It’s no surprise you agree with the BushnBlairbabykillers part of her speechramble.

sadly of course it all goes a bit deeper than that.

Bloody hell Mark - “causes” and “ends” are not the same word, and “causes” is the word she uses and the listed items are “causes” not ends. Soumaya doesn’t say she supports Al Q’s ends even if that is how you interpret it. If your grasp of English is that bad, learn a little humility before spouting off.

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7:3

Beam?

Radical islamists have a whole goddamned lumber yard in their eye.

If I say to you

‘we’re fighting for a just cause’.

And you ask me

‘what cause?’

A suitable response is not

‘genocide and occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq!’

Those are grievances.

So let’s try again.

What cause are al-Qaeda pursing with regard to Iraq and Palestine?

surely if any evidence was needed of TheIrie’s entrenched and inflexible mindset then this thread is ample proof

when faced with facts which contradict TheIrie’s line of arguing, he follows his usual tactic of saying that his interlocutor’s views or their evidence is “irrelevant”

it is a tactic that he employs time and again

he argues in the worst possible bad faith, and isn’t very good at it either way

Bloody hell Mark - “causes” and “ends” are not the same word

They absolutely are - unless you are intending to dishonestly equivocate about the way Ghannoushi uses the word ’cause’ in that article.

A ‘just cause’ is a ‘just end’.

Mark - get a dictionary and leave me alone.

Mod - blah blah blah - get a clue.

Correct modernity - he is a complete disgrace and incapable of arguing honestly.

Also he seems to approve of Islamic murderers worldwide (Hamas, Egyptian MB) so obviously is a very unpleasant and immoral person.

And people say that Nick Cohen’s depiction of insane and immoral so-called “Leftists” is a strawman !

Mark - get a dictionary and leave me alone.

I just did.

It tells me that ’cause’ - in the sense of goal, ideal, conviction, aim, objective, purpose (clearly the sense used in the article) is a synonym for ‘end’.

Now, after that little temper tantrum -

can you tell me what causes al-Qaeda are pursing with regard to Iraq and Palestine?

MMN - nowhere have I said I approve of the Egyptian MB. Honestly, fending off the ignorant rubbish spouted on this blog is a full time job.

I see nutbar TheIrie has massacred yet another thread. Oh joy.

In reality, of course, the methods of political infiltration into the mainstream employed by the BNP and Islamists are rather similar. As is the totalitarian meta-narrative. Both hate democracy and trades unions; both want to reshape British society entirely in a manner which could not but engender violence and suffering. Both believe political influence should be restricted to the minority who are the “right” people. They feed off each other. They are both sides of the same coin, despite the apparent miles of clear blue water between them.

I don’t think CIF should give a platform to Islamists, and not should MyTelegraph to the BNP. (The sins of the Telegraph are much less manifest here, of course.) But then I’m just a horrid authoritarian!

“My Telegraph is also inhabited by some very unsavoury characters, including a minority of active members of the far right, anti-abortionists, europhobes and members of an anti-feminist “men’s movement”.”

I cringed at this too, Ven. The “men’s movement” is actually distinctly unsavoury in my view, but none of the above could be equated with membership of the far right - I mean, since when was being a Euro-sceptic tantamount to being a fascist? Bloody hell.

Mark - An “end” is what you aim to finally bring about. The “means” are the way you bring that end about. A “cause” is the problem that you are addressing. One can agree with a “cause” without agreeing on the “end” or the “means”, or any combination of those three very distinct and clear concepts.

Capice?

At the risk of turning into Paxman -

What cause are al-Qaeda pursuing with regard to Iraq and Palestine?

TheIrie - So you agree with me that the Muslim Brotherhodd is a vile extremist organisation easily on a par with the UK BNP ?

List of Al Qaeda’s causes for Al-Irie:

Liberation of Al-Andaluz from the Christians.
Liberation of Arab Lands from the Jews.
Global conversion to Islam by the sword.

I have not made them up, Osama Bin Laden did.

Of course, he knows them. Al-Irie is just another islamist.

Only a wilfully dishonest obfuscator of the highest order could interpret the use of the word ’causes’ in the sentence

The causes al-Qaeda extremists speak for are certainly just causes

as meaning cause in the sense of ’starting point, origin or root’. The sentence is unintelligible with that interpretation of the word.

It clearly means cause in the sense of ‘object, end or purpose’, and it is plainly ludicrous to maintain otherwise.

So I ask again -

What causes are al-Qaeda pursuing with regard to Iraq and Palestine?

MoreMediaNonsense,

I beg to differ

TheIrie is not a Leftist, his views seem to come from his privileged education, an Orientalist outlook, a touch of that ever so English guilt trip, ignorance and an almost obsessive belief that he and he alone is correct, despite all evidence to the contrary

and TheIrie is not even a member of a trade union, so he hardly qualifies as a “Leftist”

MMN - You said the Egyptian MB before, now your saying the MB in general. My position on the MB in general is that they are too diverse to sensibly categorise as x, y or z, and if you want to know what someone who is “affliated” with them (or accused of this, anyway) actually thinks, you should consult their own writing, rather than lazily smear them by spurious association. In the case here I’ve shown that contrary to some MB statements, Soumaya explicitly rejects Al Qaeda, which alone proves my point.

Now, I’ve hijacked this thread and taken up too much space, so I’m no longer going to respond to anything other than someone who has proof that Soumaya is a far right sectarian on a par with the BNP. I don’t want to read any more about people who disagree with her - that is not the point. The point is, are her ideas somehow outside the realm of legitimate discourse, like the racist ideas of the BNP for example. I will now let you lot continue to bang your own heads together, unless someone wants to provide some actual evidence in support of this unsubstantiated assertion.

I’m no longer going to respond to anything other than someone who has proof that Soumaya is a far right sectarian on a par with the BNP

I have demonstrated to you, with a quote that you supplied, that she believes al-Qaeda’s causes are just.

Your response to this has been to equivocate, pathetically, about the use of the word ’cause’.

Are al-Qaeda’s causes in Palestine and Iraq just, Irie?

modernity - he probably claims to be a “Leftist”. And as he is anti-semitic, anti-American and laughably accepting of fascist Islamists he probably qualifies as one in the SWP/Milneite definition of “Left”

lazily smear them by spurious association.

“In April 2006, after a court case in Egypt recognized the Bahá’í Faith, members of the clergy convinced the government to appeal the court decision. One member of parliament, Gamal Akl of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, said the Bahá’ís were infidels who should be killed on the grounds that they had changed their religion.[39]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The quote is from an Egyptian MB MP !! And you call that a smear by spurious association.

Words fail me. You are beyond a joke.

“modernity - he probably claims to be a “Leftist”.”

No, he doesn’t. That is a misunderstanding. I remember when he wrote that he doesn’t consider him a man of the left.

Just because he read Chomsky, that doesn’t make Al-Irie a leftist against his will.

*himself*

theIrie is an islamist.

Just like neonazis don’t always say what they are explicitly, they use emails like smite88@ etc, al-Irie doesn’t like to say very often that he doesn’t consider himself from the left, he only repeats that he is opposed to American “imperialism”.

Fabian - If I was a carpenter, and you were a lady, would you marry me anyway, would you have my baby?

MoreMediaNonsense,

not sure what TheIrie claims to be, he talks so much idiocy it is hard to know when he is making a political point, or just apologising for right-wing Islamists

TheIrie strikes me as fairly apolitical, by that I mean that he does not look at political issues in the world and even remotely try to analyse them, it is more an extreme form of angst that he exhibits, and of course, trying to take the opposite position whatever posters at HP say, overall he’s crude and not worth the effort

for the record, I don’t think that he is a racist, I don’t detect any of that lingering hidden racial resentment, certainly TheIrie is an Orientalist, if a bit inverted, so they might seem similar, but they’re not.

TheIrie has a profound problem understanding the thoughts of others, his literalistic view of the world blocks that

TheIrie has a nice line in avoiding any acknowledgement of what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for by presenting it as some sort of variant cross between the Oxford Union and HP–where nothing written by any of its most passionate adherents and spokespeople can be ascribed to MB beliefs and politics.

Apart from Ghannoushi and Tamimi, let’s look more closely at my favourite article by Faisal Bodi, who, just two weeks before 9/11 published in the Guardian an article “Bombing for God”, celebrating suicide bombing, including this scintillating passage:

Such is the value of martyrdom that Islamic history is replete with romanticised accounts of the juvenile, elderly and infirm feigning battle-readiness to avoid missing out on the chance to die in God’s way. This is the mental and spiritual state of the human-bomber. Faith has driven him to seek salvation in an act of supreme selflessness.

In the Muslim world, then, we celebrate what we call the martyr-bombers. To us they are heroes defending the things we hold sacred. Polls in the Middle East show 75% of people in favour of martyr-bombings.

They also carry the weight of religious authority. The world’s most quoted independent Islamic jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, calls the bombs “commendable” and “among the greatest form of holy struggle against oppression”.

What this does not answer, of course, is the ethical problem of bombing civilian centres. Can there ever be any moral justification in harming non-combatants? When I interviewed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, last year, he answered this objection by reference to the cold, brutal logic of armed conflict.

When you are at war with an enemy that does not respect the distinction between combatant and civilian, you cannot let it attack your people with impunity. To do so would be tantamount to collective suicide. Striking back with equivalent terror is a military necessity.

.

And in case you want to suggest that this is “just” about Israel, Bodi begins his article by celebrating the first ever Islamist suicide bombing–against the US base in Beirut.

Have we woken TheIrie’s Dragon yet?

Overlooked in the debate about causes, is the one about a “just cause” being “condoning genocide in Palestine”. I know its easy to overlook in the welter of illogic and untenable contentions by TheIrie, but this should not be allowed to slip past.

Another blood libel by Al-Irie.

ami,

well done, I hadn’t see it

TheIrie:

“The sanctioning of genocide and occupation in Palestine…And I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I am at one with her on this. Those causes are just. ”

but ami, frankly we all know that TheIrie talks absolute bollocks and is given to incredible flights of hyperbole.

One example was how TheIrie compared antisemitism to mild Irish Anglophobia, based solely on his observation of a Ken Loach film

I wouldn’t take any of TheIrie’s comment as 1) rational 2) based on evidence 3) worthy of investigation or further discussion

TheIrie is merely an adolescent savant, and should be treated as such.

“TheIrie is not a Leftist, his views seem to come from his privileged education”

I want a refund.

Ghannoushi believes al-Qaeda’s causes are just.

Yet according to theIrie, she is

in fact far far more moderate and sensible than people like David and Neil, who are basically fanatics

A more warped perspective is hard to imagine.

(Good spot on the ’sanctioning of genocide’ btw. I missed that while he was obfuscating about what Ghannoushi actually meant.)

actually, TheIrie is indirectly arguing that genocide is occurring in Palestine, which is utterly ridiculous, but you’d expect such flights of fantasy from him

No - I don’t think genocide is happening, or has happened in Palestine. That is hyperbole, and exaggeration, but the point underneath - that there is real suffering in Palestine is correct and I agree with it. We all tend to overplay our hand - I can forgive that.

Mod - “adolescent savant”? I’m not adolescent. Can we perhaps agree I am simply an idiot savant? That would suit me.

By the way “Ghannoushi believes al-Qaeda’s causes are just” is just a classic distortion of someone’s position. That is not the message of the piece I quoted, although it is an accurate quote. Anyone can play this game. Grown ups, however, give people a fair reading. I’ve seen nothing to suggest Ghannoushi is a fascist or whatever nasty term you want to use. Since this assertion is not based on evidence (there is none) then it must be based on prejudice. Ergo, Neil and David are bigots.

I

Thank

You.

Goodnight.

I have to post Sunny Hundal’s response to this blog post:

The difference is this you see. The BNP don’t have any problems getting their voices heard. The Guardian gives Hamas a platform because it feels that its political voice is being marginalised at a time that it should be heard. If you want to make peace with the enemy, you have to hear what it has to say. The BNP work in a different paradigm.

Yep, the BNP do work in a different paradigm. Although they are a racist and essentially fascist party, they actually have to work within a democratic process or they get arrested. Whereas, last time I looked, HAMAS were throwing members of Fatah off buildings in Gaza and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians.

We all tend to overplay our hand - I can forgive that.

Ghannoushi claims that the state of Israel is sanctioning genocide - it’s all just a bit of hyperbole according to Irie. Oh, silly old Soumaya!

By the way “Ghannoushi believes al-Qaeda’s causes are just” is just a classic distortion of someone’s position.

No. There is no distortion.

The relevant section is entitled Just Causes, Unjust Means

I really shouldn’t have to be spelling this out, but that is clearly ’causes and means’ in the sense of ‘ends and means’.

What ’causes’ can she possibly be referring to, if not those of al-Qaeda?

The fact you are trying to nuance away this objectionable crap speaks volumes.

Look it is pointless trying to debate with the Irie who would not recognise a logical argument if it was wearing day-glo braces and hit him over the head. Please stop indulging him (or her?)

Can someone post a thread on something directly relevant to us here and now in the UK, like the reason for escalating food prices or the price of oil.

readers would never imagine that TheIrie is at one of the most prestigious educational institutes in Britain, but can’t manage elementary comprehension and reading skilling

so let’s look at what he wrote:

“”Well she says so: “he sanctioning of genocide and occupation in Palestine, slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq through exposure to depleted Uranium and years of barbaric sanctions first, then through bombing and shelling without bothering to count the dead, brutal invasion of the country, destruction of its infrastructure and humiliation of its people undoubtedly rank among modern history’s bloodiest crimes and darkest tragedies.” And I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I am at one with her on this. Those causes are just. Al Qaeda’s response is not.

notice his agreement with the preceding paragraph:

“And I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I am at one with her on this. Those causes are just. Al Qaeda’s response is not.

yet then we are treated to his retreat:

“We all tend to overplay our hand - I can forgive that. “

so it’s safe to conclude that he doesn’t even read his own posts, otherwise he would have qualified his view concerning Palestine, long before it was pointed out

as I said adolescent behaviour, but destined for a career in academia

I only hope that TheIrie learns the power of words and how to use them in the future, it’s something that academics use everyday in their jobs and it would be helpful if he could show the slightest degree of competency in that area, not that he will

Yep, the BNP do work in a different paradigm. Although they are a racist and essentially fascist party, they actually have to work within a democratic process or they get arrested. Whereas, last time I looked, HAMAS were throwing members of Fatah off buildings in Gaza and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians.

Hmm….. you’re rather simplifying my argument here Neil. If you see this article in today’s Guardian about how the BNP has grown, it doesn’t exactly show the BNP as legitimately using the democratic process for building votes:

“They campaign in a way that none of us recognise. People arrive in pubs, lean at the bar, buy a few drinks, say they are doing some contract work in town, become very matey and then tell people these rumours.” Typical tall stories include a Kosovan cashing a £5,000 cheque from the council so he can buy a car and one of Stoke’s historic buildings being renovated by the council to become a mosque.

My question is - how do you deal with that? When you’re the Asian woman or the Muslim guy who has to deal with growing BNP presence in your area thanks to the lies they spread, what would you do to deal with it?

This is a rather different question to the one you want to answer because the point I’m making is that the BNP don’t work necessarily according to how you want them to. They come on Newsnight and declare that immigrants and Muslims are to blame for all drug dealing, and no one challenges them. That then becomes a widespread talking point, and everyone keeps repeating it until it becomes acceptable talk. How do you deal with that?

On the point about giving Hamas a platform. I said this on my blog too. We give a platform to other democratically elected orgs that commit a huge range of human rights abuses. Do you propose not dealing with them entirely?

The Guardian’s editorial policy is that in discussing Middle Eastern politics - it wants to give both sides the opportunity to get their voice heard. This, to me, is a legitimate action to take if you want to go down that road. After all, the Guardian isn’t saying it is agreeing with what Hamas says.

Where I have a problem is when it only gives Hamas a viewpoint, compared to other Palestinian factions, and/or only gives them excessive platforms over the other side. I think there has to be balance.

What do you gain by giving the BNP a platform to push more lies? Its better to cover them through these articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/28/labour.thefarright

Its depressing but those people’s views have to be heard.

What do you gain by giving the BNP a platform to push more lies?

I am not in favour of giving the BNP a platform. Where did you get that impression?

Your point about the The Guardian’s overemphasis on HAMAS is well made.

I believe the same approach you advocate for the BNP, should also be extended towards terrorist organisations like HAMAS by alleged progressive publications like the The Guardian.

@TheIrie

I recall a comment piece that Soumaya wrote in the Guardian a while back which was fairly dismissive of European civilisation in the Middle Ages - I recall something like “while people in London were living in mud huts…” - she was drawing some comparison with Islamic civilisation to show that Islamic civilisation was (is) superior. I guess she could be considered a bigot.

So Sunny.

You point is that gossip and rumour run rife in democratic politics. I think you are right.

I do not wish to offer a defence for the BNP, but what you comment upon is hardly a symptom of totalitarianism.

I can give you any number of similar gossip-worthy instances from the Labour Party. I am sure those who support other parties could do the same.

In the nicest possible way, this is *precisely* what democratic parties do. If you had any knowledge of democratic parties, then you would know that this was an unfortunate fact.

Get over it.

When rumours are factually inaccurate, they are shown to be so.

What I am suggesting is that what you think is “shocking” is absolutely par for the course.

I mean, you’re right on this issue. Maybe you and me should have a go at the fact that their councillors shit on working class living standards and are entirely worthless, rather than accusing them of the same pretty much legitimate things that all parties do?

Just a suggestion, like.

So, what do you say:

“the BNP don’t work necessarily according to how you want them to”

The BNP are fascist scum, but they build their party in the same way (but very ineffectually so) that the rest of us do.

“no one challenges them”

You know that this is bollocks, like? You stupid, *stupid* twat.

“On the point about giving Hamas a platform. I said this on my blog too. We give a platform to other democratically elected orgs that commit a huge range of human rights abuses. Do you propose not dealing with them entirely?”

I don’t read your shitty little blog, because I have better things to do with my time. I suggest that the *appropriate* response is to distance oneself from organisations which detract from, or aim to destroy, the values which we in our society hold dear. Just a fucking thought. Is this controversial? Are you about to accuse me of being a racist or an “Islamophobe”? I wish you good fucking luck. My favourite girlfriend was a delightful Iranian. Charming girl. Get over your fucking high horse.

“he Guardian’s editorial policy is that in discussing Middle Eastern politics - it wants to give both sides the opportunity to get their voice heard. This, to me, is a legitimate action to take if you want to go down that road. After all, the Guardian isn’t saying it is agreeing with what Hamas says.”

So do you think the Guardian allowing space for theocratic totalitarian types (this is an oxymoron, I grant you) is a good thing? Maybe you want to get over your ethnicity, you silly bastard?

Look.

Either you are a silly cunt. Or you are a vicious and politically-motivated cunt.

If I ran a newspaper, I would not ask Islamist twats to write for my corporate identity. I would want to encourage a broad range of views, but I would not want to encourage views which could be found in the sewer of my society. :)

It really is your choice. You seem to be unable to decide. I suggest you sort it out and tell us what it is.

Because otherwise I’m going to come to my own conclusions.

You pathetic, stupid, bastard.

Rumour has it that Finkelstein teamed up with Ian Pappe, Jimmy Carter, Mel Gibson and Gilad Atzmon to produce some truly vile video clips exposing Roland Rance as a Zionist vandaliser of Wikipedia biographies. The full story is here…

http://azvas.blogspot.com/2008/05/trance-pleads-with-left-for-political.html

Rumour has it that Finkelstein teamed up with Ian Pappe, Jimmy Carter, Mel Gibson and Gilad Atzmon to produce some truly vile video clips exposing Roland Rance as a Zionist vandaliser of Wikipedia biographies. The full story is here…

http://azvas.blogspot.com/2008/05/trance-pleads-with-left-for-political.html

Sunny - “If you see this article in today’s Guardian about how the BNP has grown, it doesn’t exactly show the BNP as legitimately using the democratic process for building votes”

Sorry but what is not-legitimate or undemocratic about that? How is that different from any other party? You mean they actually go and meet their constituents face-to-face and talk to them? You mean they actually canvas the electorate? Or do you mean they lie? Because we know Labour, the LimDems and the Tories never do that don’t we?

Sunny - “My question is - how do you deal with that?”

By talking to people in return? You know, democratic politics?

Sunny - “They come on Newsnight and declare that immigrants and Muslims are to blame for all drug dealing, and no one challenges them.”

I am sorry but WTF? When have the BNP ever said anything without everyone challenging them? Can you name an episode of Newsnight when they got away with this?

Sunny - “We give a platform to other democratically elected orgs that commit a huge range of human rights abuses. Do you propose not dealing with them entirely?”

I am sorry but who? Which other “democratically elected” group of murderers gets a platform in a major British newspaper on a regular basis? The BNP?

Sunny - “The Guardian’s editorial policy is that in discussing Middle Eastern politics - it wants to give both sides the opportunity to get their voice heard. This, to me, is a legitimate action to take if you want to go down that road. After all, the Guardian isn’t saying it is agreeing with what Hamas says.”

Except of course the Guardian *does* agree with what Hamas says. Which is why it gives them and not the Ku Klux Klan or in the old days the Apartheid government of South Africa a platform. Just as it does not give the BNP a platform. It is bizarre that you can accuse a democratic if vile party like the BNP of unacceptable behaviour but you don’t think Hamas’ practices put it beyond the pale. Why?

Sunny - “I think there has to be balance.”

But not, it seems, when it comes to the BNP and Asian immigration? Why? So much easier to play with Jewish lives I guess.

Sunny - “What do you gain by giving the BNP a platform to push more lies?”

Exactly what you stand to gain by giving Hamas a platform to push their lies. I don’t have a problem with both or neither, but it is bizarre you are defending the less democratic, the more violent, the more terrorist of those two groups.

Sunny - “Its depressing but those people’s views have to be heard.”

Sorry? Those people being Hamas but not the BNP?

Neil - Hamas, like the BNP, is also a political party is it not? It was also elected, right? Do you see peace taking place in I/P without involving Hamas?

“Neil - Hamas, like the BNP, is also a political party is it not? It was also elected, right? Do you see peace taking place in I/P without involving Hamas?”

Involving them with fire, you mean?
Since when a bunch of suicide bombings, pizza parlor destroyers, teenagers killing, throwing from the roof murderers are a “side that must be heard”?

Sunny you are despicable.

Do you see peace taking place in I/P without involving Hamas?

Peace in I/P will involve the sidelining of HAMAS by the Palestinian people.

Remember their spiritual leader, Ahmed Yassin, foresaw Israel’s destruction in 2027, and also said:

We will continue to communicate with Israel using the same weapon it has been using against us, the rifle… We shall continue to communicate with it using the same method until the entire land of Palestine, and not only a part of it, is liberated…

I suspect their views on this matter have changed little.

I note that you seem willing to sideline the BNP, so why not HAMAS?

Neil is, of course, using the standard operative definition of Palestinian democracy, that is the Palestinians must choose who we want them to choose and sideline who we want them to sideline. That’s called democracy, see.

Its quite obvious Neil - the BNP are white and nasty and Hamas are brown and nasty.

A good “Leftie” like Sunny automatically knows which lot are worse !

“Hegemony” blah blah…. “Power relations” blah blah…. you get the picture.

The Palestinians can choose who they want Irie, but like all electorates they have to pay the consequences of electing the parties they choose. Choosing a party that is a terrorist organisation is an unwise decision, which the majority of Palestinians probably now regret.

If the UK chose the BNP I would hope that progressive governments in Europe would sideline the UK. Just because a party is democratically elected does not mean that other states automatically have to bow to its demands.

Did you notice when the US withdrew its ambassador from Austria following a far right victory?

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, Mrs Albright said: “We have decided to limit our contacts with the new government and we will see whether further actions are necessary to advance our support for democratic values.”

Presumably at this time, you were calling for greater involvement of the US in Austria and respect for the will of the Austria people? Afterall, we wouldn’t want to sideline a far right sectarian political party, like HAMAS or the Freedom Party, would we?

Withdrawing ambassadors is rather different from arming the opposition, imposing an economic blockage, assassinating politicians (as Israel has done) and refusing to even talk to the government, all of which predictably precipitated a civil war in which both Hamas and Fatah committed atrocities (it was not one sided as you continually imply), and all this after the US basically facilitated the election in the first place, as part of its global mission to bring democracy to the world.

The history of Palestine is the history of people, mainly Israel, trying to impose a political structure on the people. You don’t understand that this has always failed and will always fail. The only way forward there is to allow the people to express themselves through a sovereign, democratic leadership, with whom we are willing to negotiate.

Negotiate the terms of our anihilation, Al-Irie?

is TheIrie still droning on about “talking with moderate Hamas”?

I thought he’d given that up when it was perfectly clear, from Hamas leaders statement’s that they will never accept anything more than a temporary truce or Israeli’s right to exist whilst they build up their armaments?

so it is just the same old bollocks from him, when caught out ignore it and move on, that’s his motto

Sensible people disagree on that Modernity. SO Muffin for one basically agrees with me, though he would wince at reading that. Better to say, I agree with him, perhaps. Anyway, didn’t I misplace a comma somewhere - stick to what you’re good at - ignoring substantive arguments and criticising “language”.

Anyway, didn’t I misplace a comma somewhere - stick to what you’re good at - ignoring substantive arguments and criticising “language”.

That’s a bit rich coming from someone who has spent much of this thread attempting to excuse away Ghannoushi’s description of Al-Qaeda as Just causes, unjust means on the baffling grounds that ’causes’ mean ‘problems you are addressing.’

The US (temporarily) withdrawing its ambassador from Austria to protest at the inclusion of the (indeed, obnoxious) FPOe in its government was pathetic self-righteous and self-important posturing of the worst kind - that served no useful purpose whatsoever.

Sometimes one has to deal with governments (or parties, or organizations) of which one, quite rightly, disapproves.

Get over it, basically.

“Sometimes one has to deal with governments (or parties, or organizations) of which one, quite rightly, disapproves.

Get over it, basically.”

Does the Austrian Freedom Party predicate the anihilation of the US, Venichka? Right…

Sometimes one has to deal with governments (or parties, or organizations) of which one, quite rightly, disapproves.

And sometimes one does not.

I find it very offensive from you Venichka, that you think that the life of Jews are so cheap, that we should negotiate with people who believe that we will hide behind rocks and trees in the end of the days.
Get over that snobby colonial attitude.

as I have suggested TheIrie is mentally inflexible, once he gets an idea into his head he repeats it ad nauseam

firstly, we’re told that some of the Hamas leaders are really moderate and when the genocidal racist nature of Hamas is pointed out, from their own documents and statements, we are told that’s “irrelevant” by TheIrie

secondly, when the Hamas leadership clearly state, in unequivocal language, that they will never recognise Israel, we get a momentary break from TheIrie, because of the weight of evidence

finally, once a reasonable period has passed TheIrie resumes his PR exercise on behalf of Hamas

all rather predictable

as for negotiating with Hamas, that does not seem to be a bright idea until they, at least, recognise Israel’s right to exist?

I can quite appreciate why some Israelis are desperate to stop the violent attacks on Sderot, it is a genuine and understandable desire, after all they have no illusions as to the nature of Hamas but are concerned to stop the rocket attacks, I think that ultimately it would be counterproductive, but it is a sincere sentiment.

I have outlined the political reasons and arguments against that here, http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/14/we-will-keep-hounding-you/

sadly, few of the advocates have engaged with those points.

of course, should Hamas drop its racist ideology and become a non-violent grouping with the aim of living peaceful next toIsraelis then I’d argue for negotiations but until that day….

Fabian,

Where did I say that Israel should negotiate with HAMAS?

I didn’t, and I think that, while their charter remains unchanged, it perfectly correct that they don’t do so (backroom low-key contacts - or for that matter international contacts - are another thing) for the reasons that you outline.

The FPOe are unpleasant (and certainly have a xenophobic, racist, hardcore), and I would dearly like them (and their successor organizations) to be far less popular than they are in Austria. But they don’t have a militia, or theoretical documents anything like those of HAMAS. They are a poisonous element within democracy, for sure (i could make the some observation about some parties within, say, the israeli, never mind the Italian, governments), but, unlike HAMAS, they are not, fundamentally, anti-democratic.

Not everything in the world is about Israel.

(You are quite welcome to apologise to me for your 10.37 comment. If you think that expecting an apology for being falsely accused of something is “snobby and colonial” - that is not my problem)

Venichka: we were talking about Hamas. In your response of 10:25 it was not clear that in the last paragraph you were talking only about Austria.
I apologize for my words caused by a misunderstanding.

Well Ok, then…apology accepted.

(I wasn’t talking ONLY about Austria - but the comment was in response to the reference to Austria in 1999 - where the response of the US and EU struck me as a rather futile attempt to strike a holier-than-thou pose that would not serve any purpose other than massaging the egos taking the post. And the thread has been fairly broad-ranging, and not solely focused on Hamas - Neil’s post about Austria also referenced the BNP in the UK. )

(I take the view, seemingly not alone around here, that attempting to have an intelligent discussion with TheIrie on anything pertaining to Islamism or your country is a complete and utter waste of time… Every time he always returns to the same irritating mock-naive starting point, and never absorbs or learns anything in any discussion..it is like talking to a brick wall)

“Every time he always returns to the same irritating mock-naive starting point, and never absorbs or learns anything in any discussion.” Well, I haven’t learnt anything here, other than the fact that Neil and David (and their useful idiots) are quite happy to characterise someone like Soumaya Ghannoushi as being equivalent to the BNP on the basis solely of the evidence of her fathers job. And even if she is totally in agreement with her father, that still means nothing. It would be fine to say she is wrong, stupid and you disagree. But to say that the Guardian publishing her comments is like publishing the BNP is total nonsense.

Surely, Ven, you who are an intelligent and generally reasonable person can see that I’ve made perfectly calm and level charges in this thread, and been met with nothing but abuse and obfuscation.

other than the fact that Neil and David (and their useful idiots) are quite happy to characterise someone like Soumaya Ghannoushi as being equivalent to the BNP on the basis solely of the evidence of her fathers job

I don’t think it was fair or relevant or honourable or decent to mention her father - - - but surely you can see that her own words (in various pieces linked to above) are sufficiently incriminating in their own right. I’m not entirely convinced that the label “far right” is particularly meaningful in any sense other than as a term of disapproval, in pretty much any context, european or middle eastern - - but a quick scan through those pieces should be sufficient to prove that, whatever she is, she ain’t no moderate.

And there I will conclude.

Yeah, but Ghannoushi comes from what is basically the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood Royal Family. Her dad is one of the major figures in Islamist politics. In fact, the ONLY reason that this woman - a student at SOAS with a pretty poor writing style - gets Guardian columns is because she is one of the Muslim Brotherhood clique at BMI that Milne brought into the paper. And she is ONLY part of that clique because of her father.

I mean, have you never heard of political dynasties? The Kennedies? The Bush family?

Neil and David (and their useful idiots) are quite happy to characterise someone like Soumaya Ghannoushi as being equivalent to the BNP on the basis solely of the evidence of her fathers job. And even if she is totally in agreement with her father, that still means nothing. It would be fine to say she is wrong, stupid and you disagree. But to say that the Guardian publishing her comments is like publishing the BNP is total nonsense.

Even if she is in total agreement with her father, you would still not compare the Guardian publishing her comments to the Telegraph publishing the BNP?

Her father has issued a fatwa which permits killing all civilians in Israel, because “these are no civilians in Israel. The population — males, females, and children — is the army reserve soldiers, thus could be killed.”

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP81204

You still think that there would be no grounds for equivalence, if Soumaya Ghannoushi was arguing that it is acceptable to kill any Israeli civilian?

And we’re supposed to be the useful idiots?

I mean, have you never heard of political dynasties? The Kennedies? The Bush family?

Never heard of either of them. They’re not in this country are they?

But seriously, so what? Attacking someone because of their family background is about as legitimate as attacking someone on the grounds of their ethnic or religious heritage or where they were educated.

(Which - - - to clarify - as we do have some bigoted posters here - - - is utterly illegitimate)

And she is ONLY part of that clique because of her father.
Obviously free will or the acting of her own conscience has thus paid no part in her beliefs and the opinions that she expresses - which are what are objectionable, not her lineage.

You are quite right, Ven.

But notice how theIrie maintains that

And even if she is totally in agreement with her father, that still means nothing. It would be fine to say she is wrong, stupid and you disagree. But to say that the Guardian publishing her comments is like publishing the BNP is total nonsense.

Her father issues fatwas that sanction the killing of Israeli children.

It seems to me that there is nothing theIrie won’t excuse.

MarkT - well, so long as it supports his “argument”, or, more to the point, what he takes to be “his side”, I fear you are correct. (He is however always willing to point out to his opponents that they are “sick murderous bastards”)

Hiliary Benn is proof against the idea that that Soumaya Ghannoushi’s father is evidence against her. Still, she does enough propagandising for the Muslim Brotherhood on her own behalf to be called a supporter of right wing sectarians.

I don’t believe I brought up her lineage, although Irie suggests I did. I wonder why? Could it be Irie is a liar, as well as a useless idiot?

Well, I haven’t learnt anything here, other than the fact that Neil and David (and their useful idiots) are quite happy to characterise someone like Soumaya Ghannoushi as being equivalent to the BNP on the basis solely of the evidence of her fathers job

In fact it was only David that raised it.

Some other choice nuggets from her father -

In a wide-ranging conversation with the New York Times, he [Ghannoushi] repeatedly placed primary blame for excesses committed by Islamic regimes on Western “rejectionist attitudes,” and justified the murder of Arab and Muslim intellectuals who had embraced secularism, referring to several as “the devil’s advocate…Pharoah’s witches. The educated who put their brains and their talent in the service of an oppressive regime have made their own decisions. They must bear the responsibility for their choice.”

Ghannushi has also repeatedly emphasized that Western hostility to Islam is due to the activities of Zionism, which, in order to retain aid and support, is striving to convince the West that following the collapse of communism and the failure of Arab nationalism, Islam is the new evil force in the world. Speaking in closed sessions at radical Islamic conferences, his rhetoric was even more fiery: “Zionism does not only target Arabs and Muslims. It targets goodness…the entirety of values that have crystallized in humanity. Every evil in the world, the Zionists are behind it. This is no exaggeration. There are so many evils in the world, and behind which are the Children of Israel.”

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1997/issue2/jv1n2a7.html

But remember people - even if Soumaya is ‘totally in agreement with her father’, it still means nothing.

The above is simply not comparable with the rhetoric of the BNP.

Her dad really is worse than Tony Benn!

whilst we’re at it, readers should note TheIrie’s transparent desire to sanitize recent history and make equivalents which let Hamas off the hook:

“Withdrawing ambassadors is rather different from arming the opposition, imposing an economic blockage, assassinating politicians (as Israel has done) and refusing to even talk to the government, all of which predictably precipitated a civil war in which both Hamas and Fatah committed atrocities (it was not one sided as you continually imply), and all this after the US basically facilitated the election in the first place, as part of its global mission to bring democracy to the world.”

readers will remember that there has always been splits in Palestinian groupings between is hard line Islamists and secular nationalists, such as Fatah

and anyone following the conflict between the two will remember how neighbouring Arab states were constantly twisting arms to bring the two groupings together, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6334981.stm

and let’s not forget how Hamas executed a cook, by handcuffing his hands and throwing him off the top of a building

so the truth is slightly different than how TheIrie would represent it

The Palestinians can choose who they want Irie, but like all electorates they have to pay the consequences of electing the parties they choose. Choosing a party that is a terrorist organisation is an unwise decision, which the majority of Palestinians probably now regret.

So let me get this straight. If people from an area elected BNP councillors or a mayor, you would be against acknowledging that person?

You would basically say that its the people’s fault for electing someone from a far-right party and because of their stupidity, the media and other politicians should not acknowledge that BNP candidate.

Right?

“So let me get this straight. If people from an area elected BNP councillors or a mayor, you would be against acknowledging that person? ”

Israel is under no obligation to recognize the Hamas. The Hamas is not an Israeli political party. Stupid commentary, Sunny.

Nice Site!
http://google.com

The Guardian is a cesspool of vicious, genocidal anti-Semitism.

The paper has been beating the drums for years for a second Holocaust in the Mideast.

It also censors pro-Israelis politically while protecting Islamophilic and anti-Semitic speech.

In sum, The Grauniad-CiF are compleat hypocrites advancing institutionalised, genocidal anti-Semitism, with no moral right whatsoever to criticise other papers.

Nice Site!
http://excellent-credit-card.blogspot.com