|Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
Let me explain - Can Richard Morgan set the record straight if he supports the Iraqi "insurgency" against the US/British forces and Iraqi police and army units and civilian populace?
I ask this 'cause his "hero" (Morgan's own choice word, not mine) John Pilger, [see this interview with Morgan here http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intrm.htm] who Morgan dedicates a book to - and Morgan recommends more of Pilger's books on his non-fiction recommended reading list at his website than any other non-fiction author - in very certain unambiguous terms, he, Pilger has made it very clear that he gives the Iraqi insurgency his wholesale support against the US/British uh crusaders.
This is Pilger in an exchange with Pip Hinman:
Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?
Pilger: Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the "Bush gang" will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang.
Shouldn't this supposedly endless "war on terror" make us feel rather gloomy about prospects for peace?
Pilger: I don't know about "gloomy". I don't think we have time to be gloomy: too much to do! The US warmongers fear public opinion, because they must pay lip service to a semblance of democracy. We must give them good cause to go on fearing it.
and here he repeats his point, in case you didn't get it the first time
from Tim Blair
TONY JONES: John Pilger, do you still maintain that the world depends on what you call "the Iraqi resistance" to inflict a military defeat on the coalition forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders. And what we have in Iraq now is I suppose the equivalent of a kind of Vichy Government being set up. And a resistance is always atrocious, it's always bloody. It always involves terrorism.
You can imagine if Australia was occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War the kind of resistance there would have been, and so on. We've seen that all over the world. Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we're likely to see an attack on Iran, we're likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.
TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.
TONY JONES: So Australian troops you would regard in Iraq as legitimate targets?
JOHN PILGER: Excuse me but, really, that's an unbecoming question. I've just said that any foreign occupier of a country, military occupier, be they Germans in France, Americans in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, wherever, the Americans in Latin America, I would have thought, from the point of view of the local people - and as I mentioned, be they Australians in Australia - if Australia had been invaded and occupied by the Japanese, then the occupying forces, from the point of view of the people of that country, are legitimate targets.
TONY JONES: Do you acknowledge that huge human rights abuses, not perhaps on the same scale as Pol Pot, but quite close to it, happened under Saddam Hussein's regime ...
JOHN PILGER: Absolutely. [where?????? see below - Roberts]
TONY JONES: But just let me finish that question. Can there not be a moral case made for deposing the dictator who was killing hundreds and thousands of his opponents?
JOHN PILGER: Absolutely. By the Iraqi people.
So Pilger would support the same outcome -- Saddam’s removal -- if only it had been achieved by different means. Means that involved people unable to achieve it, on account of them all being murdered. And Pilger is a hero to the oppressed ... - Tim Blair
as one other commentator put it:
"So to continue the WWII analogy, if Australia had been invaded by the Japanese he would have wanted the US to stay out and let you Aussies handle it alone?"
Yes one "cannot afford to be choosy", of course, the Americans are Nazis (comparisons to Vichy) and probably making plans to attack China!!!! When faced with a choice between the crusader infidels and the "insurgency" and Pilger admits they are terrorists but no problem, terrorism fighting the Americans is good, 'cause the ends are good (Islamic caliphate or Baathist state I guess) and ends justifies means - ask Pilger; those resistance heroes, those liberal freedom loving revolutionaries who blow up UN and Red Cross compounds, hospitals, police stations, residential homes, offices and mosques and intentionally kill children, doctors, teachers, beauracrats, translators, women, trade unionists and homosexuals; who kidnap and behead aid workers, engineers and journalists, force women to cover themselvs up, deny them equality and careers and ban music, and call for the death of apostates, homosexuals and all other "undesirables" who dare to oppose the harshness of Islamic radicalism and Sharia law.
What choice indeed - Such "freedom fighters" are preferable to the (to Pilger) Nazi-like US/British occupiers. It's all for a good cause - Pilger tells us so after all. Ah the peacenik Pilger, but never mind...
So Pilger reveals himself to be pro-war, and pro jihad war, it's the other side you understand? Who cares what their driving ideology is, they're fighting the Great Satan for God's sake! - Pilger ain't anti-war at all. So am I wrong to assume Morgan is likewise pro-war, just for the other side you understand? like his hero who he dedicates a book to? If that is not the case, why does Morgan admire Pilger so much? Pilger had no problems with the non-existent democracy and state brutality of Saddam any more than his admiring followers did, after all he never made a peep of a complaint about Baathist tyranny under Saddam despite his pretence otherwise - after all Saddam's tyranny was not an American tyranny. Even though Pilger had visted Iraq under Saddam before the latest war. In fact Pilger clearly implies Saddam's Iraq would have been just hunky dory, without the US inspired sanctions!! - we have his word on it, right here.
He tells us below of Saddam's Iraq and in case you still don't get it, the Iraqi resistance is a "war of national liberation". here
IRAQ IS A WAR OF NATIONAL LIBERATION
By John Pilger
17 April, 2004
Four years ago, I traveled the length of Iraq, from the hills where St. Matthew is buried in the Kurdish north to the heartland of Mesopotamia, and Baghdad, and the Shia south. I have seldom felt as safe in any country. Once, in the Edwardian colonnade of Baghdad’s book market, a young man shouted something at me about the hardship his family had been forced to endure under the embargo imposed by America and Britain. What happened next was typical of Iraqis; a passerby calmed the man, putting his arm around his shoulder, while another was quickly at my side. "Forgive him," he said reassuringly. "We do not connect the people of the west with the actions of their governments. You are welcome."
He "seldom felt as safe in any country", in Saddam's Iraq that is. the article goes on more in that vein. READ ALL THAT ABOVE AGAIN, and if you can do so without barfing, know this.... you are lost beyond lost. It's a war of "national liberation", Pilger reminds us. Maybe he wants to tell that to Hadi Salih's folks (see below), never mind the mothers and the fathers of children deliberately killed and blown up by the "national liberators", go tell that to the husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, the children of the teachers, engineers, policemen, aid workers, labourers, petty beauracrats,doctors, nurses and random civilian flotsam (those eggs you need to make your omelette) killed by the resistance for "national liberation."
In response to this Pilger whitwashing of the murderous fascism and state looting of Iraqi Baathism, a whitwashing employed so as to put the finger of blame on Iraqi suffering under Saddam onto the West, who in Pilger's eyes is to blame for absolutely everything (Third World dictators are given a free ride naturally), liberal Norm Geras writes "Ah, Peggy, do you remember that trip we made to Weimar in the summer of 1939? Everything so calm, so peaceful. We picnicked one afternoon near that place - what was it called? Yes, Buchenwald. How safe I felt that day."
I guess Pilger ought to visit those mass graves uncovered in Iraq and tell that to the thousands upon thousands of skeletons buried there about how he "seldom felt as safe in any country", but I digress.
But then as Johann Hari, a Leftist, tells us - from uslaboragainstwar
"The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution recently saying the resistance should use "any means necessary" - which prompted Mick Rix, a decent trade unionist, to resign from the STWC on the grounds that this clearly constituted support for the murder of civilians".
read the whole article for the torture and murder of a brave trade union activist Hadi Salih by the " Iraqi resistance" which Pilger supports, (you can't make an omelette unless you break a few eggs remember, even if they are trade union activist eggs, it's all part of the means for the glorious ends - ask Pilger) Salih, who was trying to organise a massive grassroots labour trade union movement in Iraq (which he was not allowed to do under Saddam), and achieving considerable success, well, you would expect the Left to lionise Salih as a new hero in the true liberal labour union tradition, and castigate his killers, but noooooooooo, au contraire, it's the other way around...
as Hanni puts it:
Salih's close friend Abdullah Muhsin, the international representative of the IFTU, told me yesterday, "He was an ordinary but a very decent man. He worked in the print industry in Iraq and in exile, and the passion of his life was Iraqi workers and their desire to live as free people. And now I hear people describe his murderers as 'the resistance'. Resistance to what? To trade unions? To a decent man who loved his family and loved Iraq and wanted his country to be free? They cannot silence Salih. They cannot silence the Iraqi trade unions. Not again."
The IFTU has reported a pattern of attacks on trade union offices and trade union members. The murder of Salih bears all the hallmarks of Saddam's Mukhabarat - the Baathist KGB. Whatever you thought about the justice of the recent war in Iraq - and there were plenty of good reasons to oppose it - the only decent path now is to stand with a majority of Iraqis against the murderers of Salih and dozens of other Iraqi trade unionists.
Yet - I can't believe I'm saying this - a significant portion of the left is not standing with them. John Pilger - who says he has "seldom felt as safe in any country" as when he visited Saddam's Iraq - now openly supports the resistance on the grounds that "we can't afford to be choosy"
and here, Hanni again, one has to read it to believe it but frankly it doesn't surprise me in the least....
A few months ago, Subdhi al-Mashadani, a representative of the IFTU, came to speak at the European Social Forum in London. This is a really important gathering of left-wing campaign groups who fight on issues nobody else in the political spectrum stands up for: defending refugees, opposing the sale of weapons to tyrants, ending the international drug patenting rules that are killing hundreds of thousands of Africans, and much more. So you would expect the international left to welcome him and hear him politely.
But he was an Iraqi who didn't restrict his comments to the need for occupation troops to leave once a democratic election has been held. He also insisted on talking about the nature of the Sunni "resistance" - one of the most reactionary political forces anywhere on earth, consisting of homicidal misogynists, homophobes and supporters of Sharia law. The audience at the Social Forum booed and hissed him so loudly that he had to leave the stage.
I know that right now the international left is a relatively small force, and it might seem odd to dedicate valuable space to the direction of this movement when much more powerful forces are ravaging Iraq. But I believe that, in the long term, a campaigning left is the only force that offers real hope on some of the biggest issues confronting the world: man-made climate change, nuclear weapons, extending worker's rights and meaningful democracy, and reforming the disastrous IMF and World Bank, to name just a few. .
If this force is hijacked by the likes of Galloway and those who vilify trade unionists emerging from the rubble of a tyranny, then there really is no hope at all.
But if I keep up with the loony hypocritcal madness of Pilger and his ilk I would have to write a book.
Enough of Pilger of whom Morgan tell us "Pilger is a bit of a hero for me. This is a man who's led the kind of morally driven, socially constructive life I might have aspired to if I'd got my act together a bit younger. It's good to know there are people like him out there."
That statement of Dick's frightens me more than any horror movie ever could.
"It's good to know there are people like him out there."
Edvard Munch's The Cry comes to the forefront of my mind at this point.
But it comes as no surprise that Morgan is a big fan of Pilger, 'cause like Pilger, he believes the Western powers are responsible for Islamic terrorism, at least if the US is a victim of it, 'cause it's the US see? Here is Morgan, "Suffice it to say that I'm sickened by the moral duplicity of our politicians and their inability (or maybe just unwillingness) to address the genuine causes of terrorism. Bluntly put, Bin Laden is their mess and they should clear it up properly, not try to sell the rest of us fairy tales on the subject."
Well so it is with many on the Left. Bin Laden's Islamic fascism (and I assume everybody else's Islamic fundamentalism, or not? - is it one set of rules for Islamic terrorists who strike the US and another set of rules for Islamic jihadists in Kashmir, France, UK, Sudan, Phillippines, Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Morrocco, Holland, Sweden, Spain and Thailand?) is the creation of the US according to Morgan and his hero Pilger. Or is it only the creation of the US government/CIA and their "cronies" - if the fanatics ONLY ACT OUT on their superstitious delusions to enter heaven as a shaheed (martyr) after having served Allah's jihad? If they DON'T act out on it, just quietly support it, is that no biggie? Morgan does not enlighten us unfortunately. Osama's sister-in-law Carmen bin Laden begs to differ re Osama himself but what does she know about him? Morgan knows better, he and Pilger.
I'm curious though how Western and US politicians and the CIA paved the ground for widespread belief of jihad against the infidel, the desire to make the world into one Islamic caliphate under Sharia with unbelievers either slaughtered or subjected to the yoke of Islamic subjection, and women just reduced to baby factories and suffering no rights and intense scorn and derision? Let us not forget the persecution of homosexuals. Perhaps Morgan can enlighten me. Or maybe it's just Osama and the "magnificent 19's" Islamic radicalism that the CIA are responsible for? Pilger and his acolyte Morgan do not inform us. Or maybe Osama's Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with incinerating thousands of unbelievers for Allah and martyrdom? Maybe Osama's hatred and rage at the American infidel come from being picked on at school or having a small dick and never getting laid, and well he has to find some scapegoat, any scapegoat will do I guess; maybe Gardner Dozois rejected some of Osama's submissions to Asimov's (Osama used to devour SF as a kid, all the Heinlein, Bradbury and Clark translated into Arabic don't you know?]. This so enraged Osama that he swore revenge on American speculative fiction publishing and targeted its headquarters - New York. I mean Morgan does not enlighten us so I have to speculate here.
Maybe upper-middle and middle-class Muslims from the US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, South Africa and elsewhere in the West who enjoy standards of living, liberties, rights, education and freedoms of expression they and their parents/grandparents did not possess and still do not possess back in the old country (whether Persian Gulf, M-East, North Africa or Asia), who give their money to Islamic terrorist jihadist groups "are being shafted over". I'm just following Morgan and Pilger logic see?
Morgan and Pilger are beyond parody of Leftist madness.
On to Moore..
Morgan also makes it clear that he is a big fan of Mike Moore - we will have to ignore all Moore's lies on practically everything he has ever done, like I will ignore all of Pilger's blatant lying on political affairs (for now) which would be practically inconceiveable to write up here - it would take several weeks and take up about 50 to 100 MB, depends on how much of Pilger's and Moore's lying dross I chose to debunk - and Moore likewise offers his unequivocal support to the insurgency, he compares the holy jihadists to the minutemen of America's revolutionary war!!!
Here is Moore's unforgettable line:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
No they are not terrorists, Mike you dumb fat fuck, and Moore is not an idiot and he is not fat neither.
And this is Morgan on Moore, from here
"I also find Michael Moore’s site informative, and I’m at a loss to understand the sudden reversal of enthusiasm for him in left-liberal quarters. Maybe as leftists, we’re not meant to approve of him now he’s rich and successful? Go figure."
Gee, Dick I don't know, those ungrateful unappreciative lacking in Morganian insight people. Go figure.
So Morgan, do you share Moore's sentiment as stated above? Moore reveals his fine knowledge of the American revolutionary war of course, as we all know the minutemen did kidnap and behead British govt officials, and intentionally killed their fellow American clergy, schoolteachers, doctors, diplomats, common labourers, government officials and children too; and blew up hospitals, churches and missions, forced the women to cover up and banned music and dance in the name of God most high. Excuse my sarcasm.
On the subject of Moore, here is a list of lies from Fahrenheit 9/11. To those of us who do not pour praise on whatever and whoever is telling us what we want to hear, especially if it is manipulative, deceitful, superficial; to those who value facts ahead of ALL IDEOLOGY - Moore is both sloppy and blatantly dishonest. F9/11 reveals Moore to be as much of a stupid white man as the admittedly stupid white men he is criticising. This list is compiled by Dave Kopel who is a life-long Democrat who voted for Nader in 2000. Some of the deceitfulness of Moore is petty and trivial, but many of the lies are big whoppers. To those of us who have a problem with the hypocrisy of the tell-a-lie-to-repudiate-liars school of journalism, the Moore doccie is as much of a disgrace as the palubum spouted out by any pro-Bush media. The inexcusable lies of 9/11 reveal Moore to have no shame, no credibility and no honour. Here is just a partial list of Moore's mendacity.
from Dave Kopel's site .
This webpage is highly recommended for those to whom facts re F9-11 matter - comprehensive, thorough and long.
Moore mentions that Bush’s old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, [that after the bin Ladens invested in James Bath,] "James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family’s money in Bush’s failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn’t mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens’, in Bush’s company.
Matt Labash, "Un-Moored from Reality," Weekly Standard, July 5, 2004. See also: Thomas Frank, "Film offers limited view," Newsday, June 27, 2004; Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, "More Distortions From Michael Moore. Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all," MSNBC.com, June 30, 2004.
Moore makes a big point about the name of James Bath being blacked out from Bush National Guard records which were released by the White House. The blackout might appear less sinister if Moore revealed that federal law (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA) required the National Guard to black out the names any Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the records which the Guard released regarding George Bush's health records. In Bath's case, he had been suspended for failing to take an annual physical exam. So what Moore presents as a sinister effort to conceal the identity of James Bath was in fact the legally-required compliance with federal law.
Moore gloats: "What Bush didn't know was that I already had a copy of his military records--uncensored--obtained in the year 2000." Moore creates the impression that he is an investigative sleuth. Actually, the records had been released in 2000. The privacy regulations for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) went into effect on April 14, 2003, and so did not apply when the National Guard records were released in 2000.
[Moore response: Shows that Bath and Bush were friends, a fact which was never disputed. Does not address the fact that the black-out of Bath's name was required by new federal law. Does not defend the insinuation that Bath used bin Laden money to invest in Bush. Does not address the fact that Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud reports that there is no evidence that Bath used bin Laden money for the Arbusto investment.]
Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.:
Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy….
Officer: That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.
But in fact:
Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division.
Debbie Schlussel, "FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction," June 25, 2004.
According to the Secret Service website:
Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.
So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi embassy in Washington—especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken place against Saudi Arabia. According to Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an international agreement which has been ratified by the United States, every host country (including the United States) is obliged to protect every embassy within its borders.
[Moore response: None.]
Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
This segment is introduced with the question,
"Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, "Moore’s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.
Moore claims that "Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline." To the contrary, Enron was not part of the consortium which expressed interest in working with Unocal on the pipeline.
On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.
Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but the images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.
According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false.
Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004.
The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.
(Deceits: 1. Governor Bush never met the Taliban; 2. The Unocal pipeline idea was abandoned; 3. The new pipeline is different from the Unocal proposal; 4. Construction has not begun. Bonus deceit: Enron.)
Mrs. Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, which Moore calls "my hometown." In fact, Moore grew up in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint. Davison is much wealthier than Flint. According to the Census Bureau, 6 percent of children in the Davison public schools are from families living in poverty, whereas in Flint, 31 percent of children are. Calling Flint your "hometown" when you really grew up in Davison is like calling the Bronx "my hometown" when you really grew up in Westchester County.
Flint is working class, industrial, down-at-heel, where the majority of the population is black or Latino. It's where the factories are.
Davison, where Moore grew up and attended Davison High School, is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white. It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the children of Flint go on to work at the factories...the normal trajectory for the children of Davison is university. Michael Moore went to university (though didn't stick long). Unusually, he also went to Flint and tried his hand on the blue-collar front line with a job on the Buick assembly line for General Motors. He found the conditions under which the working class actually worked so appalling he quit the job after one day.
Much, much more at website above.
There is nothing in Fahrenheit 9-11 that Islamic radicals can really find remotely offensive, there are the usual villains - notably the White House, The Republicans and the media. That's maybe why the film was promoted by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
To Morgan though it does not seem facts are important as long as the lying liars like Moore are telling him what he wants to hear and share his ideology, and blame everything on the Great Satan and "cronies". And likewise apologise for and white-wash its enemies. Heck far worse, Moore throws his considerable weight (all in the belly, the brain is an empty cavern) behind its enemies - Islamic radicalists and Baathists. Whatever. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend, don't matter who you are. That's Mike Moore and Morgan's other hero Pilger. Don't forget Arundhati Roy too (below).
Morgan perhaps may fail to understand that there are liberals to whom truth and balance are what matters, that the ends do not justify the means, and lies in the service of "a good cause", in this case Bush bashing, makes one no better than Bush and his ilk. But Morgan as far as I can tell doesn't seem to bother questioning, never mind checking up on the truth or otherwise of F9-11. Why would he, when what matters is ideology, not facts and truth.
Morgan is unsuprisingly a big fan of Arundhati Roy (see infinityplus interview) who likewise gives her support to the Iraqi insurgency. In an appearance on Andrew Denton's ABC TV Enough Rope program, she argued that we have to "understand that Iraq is engaging on the front lines of empire" and maintained that, consequently, "we have to throw our weight behind the resistance".
So I ask it is a coincidence that Morgan expresses his admiration to all these Islamic extremist jihadi/ Baathist Saddam loyalists/warlord bandit supporting characters - Moore, Pilger, Roy? If not, how to explain it? Does Morgan like his hero John "we can't afford to be choosy" Pilger (and Moore and Roy) likewise support the Islamic jihad (oh I'm sorry was I suppossed to say resistance) in Iraq?, since according to the loony Leftism of Pilger and Moore, the means of Islamic jihad terrorism ultimately must give us the ends of grass-roots democracy, free press, civil liberties, freedom of association, minority and women rights, improvements in worker rights, pay and working conditions, and of course human rights for all. I'm just following the "logic" of Pilger through understand?
Or is it just one of these insurgent factions Morgan supports? If so which one? - the al-Zarqawi faction? Or the Sunni Baathist Saddam loyalist faction who kill among others, trade union activists? Or one of a few dozen other warlords and opportunist killers? If the Islamic jihadist factions, does he just support the local homegrown Iraqi Islamic jihadists or their foreign jihadist allies wherever they come from, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UK etc? If Morgan supports any of the jihadist factions, where else does he support the fundamentalist jihadists? In the UK and France, Spain and Holland, Phillipines, Thailand, Somalia, Indonesia, Persian Gulf, Algeria, Kashmir, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt? Or is it just in Iraq like his hero Pilger (but Pilger doesn't just support them in Iraq, but that is another topic)? Does Morgan therefore condone and support the aid these "resistance" fighters are getting from the regimes in Iran and Syria, or not? If he does not support the war for "national liberation" in Iraq, he then is in violent disagreement with his "hero" (hey this is Morgan's own choice word, not mine) who he wishes he had been more alike, and whose books he recommends most heartily.
In which case does he not owe it to his fans to go public with his "break" from Pilger (assuming a disagreement with his hero of course)? After all Morgan does have some influence (unfortunately), not only with his younger more impressionable set of fans. Should he not set them straight that maybe following Pilger blindly isn't such a wise course of action. If Morgan feels this way (and who knows I can't read his mind?) then should he not issue a statement in this regard on his website, distancing himself from Pilger (and Moore and Roy) re their support for the jihadist minutemen national liberators in Iraq or whatever words you want to use? Or will Morgan continue to ignore this obvious embarrassment and hope nobody notices and points it out - oops darn.
I kindly remind Morgan, convinced as he is of his own "progressive" and "liberal-minded" "thinking" (excuse me while I gag) that if he chooses to respond, straw man arguments eg in this CONTEXT attacking Bush, Cheney, Reagan, Scooter Libby, Blair, evangelists, Abu-Ghraib, Enron, FEMA, US army, WMD, IMF, the World Bank, Fox news and Haliburton have no validity in political or any other kind of rhetoric. Nor does shooting the messenger. Address and answer the above points if you can....DICK
|Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 05:33 pm: |
Looks like he really went all out, spent more than the usual nights down in his mother's basement
wanking working away at this post in his efforts to save the world from evildoers.
I have a feeling I know who this person is -- someone from Asimov's who was threatening to "expose" left-wing/liberal writers "over at Nightshades", etc. etc. I could probably find the thread but I don't really think any of us should bother with the small minded cretins.
|Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 09:41 am: |
Of course the other thing to do if you wanted to get some sort of sense of Richard's views of Jihadists and their ilk would be to actually read his books (a usual form of intellectual engagement with an author I understand)and look at the treatment meted out to religious extremists therein. Not as effort free as scanning the acknowledgements pages and reading a couple of interviews of course but a lot more fun.
|Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 09:49 am: |
And he never has dedicated a book to John Pilger. Acknowledged him yes but the dedications are to his mother and father, to his sister and to the victims of 'the great Neolibral dream and Slash-and-burn Globalisation, and (twice) to his wife. A small point but God is in the details.
Steven Francis Murphy
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 09:37 am: |
Sue, it isn't me.
I've got better things to do with my time.
If I want to haul off after Richard or anyone else, I will sign my name to it.
This is what I get for even checking this site once a week. I'll correct that oversight directly.
S. F. Murphy
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
Paranoid much, Murphy?
No, I wasn't referring to you in my post. Some nutjob from Asimov's started attacking Richard and claimed he could trash some of the liberal and left wing writers over here if he wanted. That's who I meant. I can't find the thread, so it must have fallen off the board or been deleted.
Not everything is about you, Murphy, although from your posts, you seem to think it is.
Steven Francis Murphy
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
Sue, I'm not the one who posts under an assumed ID and worries about people stalking her on the net to her front doorstep. That is paranoia if you ask me.
Why don't you just come out and say it was Lawrence then? Gee Sue, the way you beat about the bush with ambiguity is not a good sign.
Personally, I don't know what Lawrence would "expose" about the left wingers here. They don't exactly hide anything about their sentiments.
I also don't know why he would waste the time (Murph checks his watch) and frankly, this has consumed too much of my time. I figured there was a new bit about an interview or something (those are always fun to read, no matter who the writer is).
As it stands, it appears to be something else.
S. F. Murphy
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 02:58 pm: |
Ah, Barry and SFM,
Ya poor bastarts. You're so full of illusions you're almost like a conjuring trick.
Ya pieces of shite.
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 03:43 pm: |
(apologies to you Richard for carrying on like this on your board)
Gee, Murphy, but you're a self-described person with mental illness, a crack shot with a rifle, and have anger management problems who hates liberals, leftists, feminists, college professors, anti-war protesters, and has in the past mused with relish about my being thrown into Iraq in the line of fire, fragged etc. etc. . . .
Wonder why I want to remain anonymous . . .
I didn't have the proof of who threatened Richard with "discredit" and I couldn't be certain who it was who threatened to "discredit" people over here. So I didn't name names. The fact that you assumed I meant you is interesting to say the least.
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 04:53 pm: |
Seems like these guys get a kick out of actually saying their names, Sue. It's the only kick they'll get in their lives.
Makes them feel (like SFM Murphy with his big? cock blasting all over the place like a nuclear missile) well, it makes them feel . . . BIG (Oooowaaah).
These guys are typical right wing huffers and puffers. They're deparate for something to cling onto to exorcise (or exercise) their hate. They're so desparate, hanging about these notice boards like crows over a piece of carrion, but it just so happens they are pieces of shite.
I doubt they'll have the gumption to respond to me, but let's see. It's a bit like searching for life forms sending transmissions into outer space. So... OK.....let's go...
Respond to me, you motherfuckers, come on. Respond to me. What do you have to say? What the fuck do you have to say that I will not wreck before your very eyes--what do you have do say that I will not destroy with my obvious madness of hate against what you are saying (if, indeed, you are saying anything at all, you pieces of fucking fascist shite)
Like I said, poor bastarts. Come ahead, fuck faces. I'm waiting for ya.
Barry. Get the fuck over here. You want a showdown? Come over here you piece of shite. Come over here and get roasted, ya paunce. Ya utter fucking fanny. What have you got to say about anything? What have you got to say, SFM (with your fucking grandoise fucking I put mmy initials, I sign my name therefore I am god fucking shite).
Get over here and let's hear what you've got to say.
OK, I'll start.
Whoops, that was clumsy of them, stupid towel-head fucks. And what about this:
Well, it was their own bloody fault, wasn't it? Stupid fucking wogs.
And, ehm, eh, oh, another one! How delightful:
Whoops, sorry, is that one not related (where's Jordan? says Barry. Isn't she a page 3 model with big tits? No? Oh, sorry. Well, looks like I'm just as confused as anyone else).
I wish I had the heroic self-assurance of Barray And SFM, waddling through life with such a certainty for the absolute cetainty of all things. I wish I knew, as they do, how everything is right , and how everything else is wrong (when THEY--everyone!--is wrong)... and I just wish...you know? I just wish I was...I WAS Them! Barry and SFM. The surest fucking motherfuckers on earth. And so right about everything that....How Can tThey Possibly Be Wrong!
What a joy life is! Glory Glory Glory!
Ya fucking pieces of shite.
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 06:05 pm: |
Right. Seeing as you seem to like appearing here every fucking when and how, I've went and created your own personal fucking section, you pair of shites.
Let's see what you're made of.
There's a new thread in the General section especially for SF Murphy (who is obviously descended from a thousand and one, what? irish loonies, or so he'd like to believe) and the marvellous Barry Roberts (with his legion of circus freaks following behind him).
Right. You've got your own thread now, boys. So put up or shut up, as the politicians say. Which means, stick around and piss people off, like you're doing now, or stick around and be serious, as if you pieces of shite could ever be serious.
Prove us wrong or fuck off.
And fuck off out of this particular thread, where you had no right to be in the first place, and go say what you have to say on the thread that has been made especially for you.
I personally hope that you will fuck off altogether.
this is too easy
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 08:42 am: |
Sue so shooting the messenger is the best you can do, and not very well neither wanking off in my mom's basement ooooohh so high school. I'm just so completely cut up at your amazing accuracy, you must have remarkable super-psi remote viewing powers to know what you do. I am forced to concede defeat and abjectly surrender before your mighty and forbidding intellectual rhetoric before which the Platos, Francis Bacons, Aldous Huxleys, Ralph Emersons, William Jameses, Carl Jungs, Hermann Hesses, Arthur Millers and Erich Fromms of the world could only gaze with awe and reverance. * Sarcasm now off *
I already pointed out that ad hominem atttacking the bringer of bad tidings has no validity in rhetoric. Don't worry you can't help it, Sue, it's called cognitive dissonance. So how does the typing from my mom's basement charge discredit the fact that Morgan greatly admires those (Pilger most notably) who support the Iraqi "resistance" who in the 24 hour period after I first posted blew up a restaurant in Baghdad packed with breakfasting patrons killing dozens, and blew up 3 hotels in Amman - included in the bloody devastation, a packed wedding party that saw the groom's family blown to pieces and guests too of course, close to 60 killed and how many maimed? (al-Zarqawi faction claiming responsibility), and at least 17 of their brothers in holy arms arrested in Pilger's Australia for plotting terrorist atrocities on a grand scale? Oh it doesn't now, does it? [Dunmore's irrational and staggeringly mega-stupid response which proves my point for god's sake!! is mentioned further down]
Simon I stand corrected. I did not have a copy of a Morgan novel to hand, nor do I ever plan to have one to hand, or even have one of his books within a mile radius of my presence God willing. I was relying on an unreliable memory. Morgan does not dedicate a book to his "hero" Pilger, but merely mentions him approvingly in his acknowledgements, and of course merely recommends more of his hero Pilger's "non-fiction" (haha) books on his website than any other non-fiction writer living or dead. So I guess my error means Morgan is not a devotional admirer of John "Iraq is a war of national liberation/we can't be choosy" Pilger then, even though he is? Wow Simon you just demolished the entire thrust of my rhetoric with that correction. I mean you really did. Everything I wrote just falls apart like a pack of cards with your devastating critique. Not.
And I haven't even bothered to use all my ammo on Morgan. Hardly. Just brought up Iraq is all. I don't have the time frankly. There is much much more I have on Pilger for one, which I did hint at in my first post, but no doubt over everybody's heads (and I can incinerate Morgan over another hero of his who I didn't even bother mentioning) but time is better spent on other things. Man it's just too too easy.
ooooh Sherlock moron Sue yeah I made my intentions very clear on Asimov's (at least twice), even wrt Morgan and even how I was going to hit him, but my hint was over your head there dufus (and most every other Asimov's poster probably). Naturally. You couldn't put two and two together back then (attack Pilger, Moore and Roy and in a subsequent post Morgan but you didn't make the connection 'cause you didn't want to, only now after the fact when I have drawn it all up for you. Idiot.) You are not the only one who put two and two together here re my usual forum identity/moniker I promise you that. I mean if an idiot like Sue can, who can't?
I was just curious who would bother actually mentioning it on this forum. Kind of a psychological experiment I was conducting, (ok a kinda pointless one I admit) but anyhow... I could actually play some real mind games here on this forum (having nothing much to do with Morgan) that would be beyond the comprehension of Sue's 5 neurons but busy busy busy. Dunmore actually is even worse with a neuron count of less than zero.
And Sue you moron I never said I could attack the liberal writers here, I said I could attack the leftwing writers here. There is a big difference, an ocean of difference between the 2 but you would need a brain to get it - you are a leftwinger not a liberal Sue, like Morgan and most 90% of people who think they are liberal but are just Lefties. I know that 95% of you out there (Lefties and conservatives) fail to appreciate the difference even though my first post was an unsubtle hint that there is a fucking difference, even explicating the very difference, but you still won't get it. You have to be outside the circle to see it. I pointed out on Asimovs that leftwing liberalism has become an oxymoron and Sue, Morgan, Pilger, Mike Moore and the Stop the War by supporting the Jihad coallition prove my point. And that's just for starters.
Murphy, - never mind the difference in style between the way you write and I do - everybody knows it wasn't you who initiated this thread, you are incapable of doing what I did even if your life depended on it. Everybody knows that.
By the very fact that you write this: "Personally, I don't know what Lawrence would "expose" about the left wingers here. They don't exactly hide anything about their sentiments."
If you fail to see that I have "exposed" something in a single post that you Murphy, Thomas R and other conservatives at Asimov's could never do and would never be capable of doing in another 20 years of arguing politics here even if the reward offered was 3 weeks with Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron to do with as you wanted, well then you just don't get it and probably never will. As for wasting time well perhaps but that's rich coming from somebody who must have posted 500MB worth of dross up at Asimov's over the years, all of the political stuff you have written alone put together is incapable of making the tiniest dent in the wall of leftwing orthodoxy, and only serves to remind me why I am not a conservative, and so all a waste; whereas I just bulldozed a gaping wall through leftwing orthodoxy and Morgan simultaneously in a single post and despite what you may think I'm not even trying that hard. Or is Murphy just being disingenuous? Yes Murphy they don't hide their sentiments nor who their heros are, but they fail to see anything wrong with these sentiments/heros (obviously duh) and you are not the one to show it up like I can because you likewise fail to see what is wrong with their sentiments and the personalities they admire, for the most part at least. You tend to (albeit not always) object to their politics on knee-jerk conservative grounds no matter the facts, rather than on any ethical and moral standards or any pertinent knowledge of the facts and the lies surrounding the issues.
Never mind Murphy trying to ride on my coat-tails and acting like he's not.
Barry Roberts....... Barry Malzberg and Keith Roberts among my favourite writers.
Sue and Simon you are not doing Morgan any favours by keeping this thread going and forcing me to reply and bury you. Dunmore too. Fine by me though. And all I have thrown are a few rotten eggs, I have barely begun to unleash my arsenal. That is not a bluff. You see what a nice guy I am, I even give sage advice to the enemy who are no doubt too dumb to realise it is sage advice. Don't heed it and only you can lose. Sue herself is so lightweight it's not funny, she can't even begin to know how she plays into my hands. She wears her thoughtless stupidity on her sleeves and doesn't even know it. But then she would now, wouldn't she?
Oh Duncemore, he writes to me "I personally hope that you will fuck off altogether." Of course you do 'cause you can't answer my charge. To students of psychology Duncemore is suffering a meltdown due to what is called Festinger's syndrome aka cognitive dissonance, his fatuous beliefs have run headlong and imploded into a wall of recalcitrant facts - and since people are their beliefs - his very identity is threatened with dissolution, since when somebody's beliefs are imploded so does the personal identity that is inseperable from those beliefs implode too. Hence his violent irrational content-free attack on the messenger. Once again shooting the mesenger has no validity in rhetoric. But this is wasted on Duncemore and others too.
Accusing me of being a right-winger is just a straw-man that does nothing to change the facts re Pilger, Moore and Roy and Morgan's admiration for them. Never mind that I'm not a right-winger as my first post actually proves, but Duncemore naturally cannot fathom that. With so-called liberals like Duncemore one does not wonder so much at Pilger's and Moore's popularity.
The point of Duncemore's links anybody????? THEY PROVE MY POINT. Duncemore is so irrational its incredible, it leaves me speechless. I thought he must have linked the wrong articles initially.
first link is to the old Saddam aide who just died and was thought to be funding elements of the Iraqi resistance. And your point?????
and from this link he put up http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4423836.stm pasted below:
Iraq restaurant bomb kills dozens
More than 30 people have been killed and at least 20 others wounded in a suicide bomb attack on a restaurant in Baghdad, Iraqi officials have said.
Witnesses said the explosion in the city centre could be heard from several miles away.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq said in an internet posting that it was responsible.
Meanwhile police said they had found the bodies of 27 people, who had apparently been tied up and shot, near the border with Iran.
In the Baghdad attack, a man with explosives strapped to his body walked into a restaurant close to the Palestine Hotel in the city centre shortly before 1000 (0700 GMT) and blew himself up.
The BBC's correspondent there, Jim Muir, described the scene as utter carnage.
The bomb was not one of the biggest bombs yet seen in Baghdad, but it was particularly lethal because it exploded in a confined space, he said.
The restaurant is popular with Iraqi police officers and security guards.
A statement on an Islamist website often used by al-Qaeda in Iraq said: "[One of] our martyrs' brigade embedded himself among the infidel police and security forces in the restaurant."
A statement purporting to be from the same group had earlier said it carried out the bomb attacks which killed at least 57 people in three hotels in Jordan's capital, Amman, on Wednesday
and then a link to the Jordan bombing!!!! I kid you not.
'I walked into complete carnage' The Jordanian capital is still reeling after three bomb attacks targeting the city's hotels left scores dead and hundreds of people injured.'
You would think that the Saddam Hussein aide who died, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was a colonel in the US army and that it was the US marines who bombed the Amman luxury hotels and the Baghadad restaurant going by Duncemore's irrationality.
Yes Duncemore the Iraqi insurgency carried out these terrorist atrocities you link to with such outrage, an Iraqi insurgency that Pilger supports on grounds that "we can't be choosy", on the grounds that it is a war of "national liberation", who Moore compares to the minutemen, and of whom Arundhati Roy tells us, we must throw our weight behind the resistance; all of whom Morgan admires!
Duncemore only proves my point but in his Leftwing Pilgeristic madness he wants to blame these terrorist outrages not on the ones who ACTUALLY carried them out, who are naturally devoid of all responsibility of course in the eyes of Pilgerites, but he wants to blame these acts of terrorism carried out by jihadists and the like on the US!!! Duncemore's intellectual powers truly make Sue seem like a Newtonian giant by comparison and he plays into my hands even more so than Sue does. Quite staggering really.
To any of you out there (with a brain) who think Duncemore is another alias of mine or somebody who has plotted with me as a double agent to deliver more blows to poor Dick Morgan, I swear it's not so. I mean it's really quite incredible, but this is the madness of the Left at close to its worst. Actually they are much worse than that but that is another topic.
Duncemore proves my case. He is a witness for the prosecution (my point of view that is) and he doesn't even know it, just like Pilger and Moore. It's an endless horror movie, the parade of Pilgerite zombies, the night of the living dead.
Duncemore the advice I gave Sue ditto. You are really doing Morgan no favours at all and please god even Morgan has enough brainpower to know it as well. Although maybe not I have my doubts. Dunmore thinking laughably that he adds a weighty defence to Morgan is like an athlete thinking a cheeseburger wolfed down before a 100 meter sprint is going to enhance his performance.
Sue I didn't think it was possible to say this but there are people out there who are your intellectual inferiors. Oh but like you Sue, Dunmore is a Leftwinger not a liberal.
Some people here (perhaps even Morgan himself) must be thinking with Morgan having friends like Dunmore who needs enemies like me? Unsurprising that only cretins like Sue and Dunmore rush to the defence of Morgan after he has been so completely skewered. Well who else would be stupid enough to really?
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
Wow. You, son, are quite the jabbering rhesus monkey. But please, don't 'unleash your arsenal.' The global IQ drops a point and a half every time you implement a thought more profound than 'breathe in, breathe out.' The sun darkens just slightly, the better to cloak the benighted ethos you dangle out the bathroom window of your fine glass house. You remind me of a twelve year old malignant narcissist with a Speak n' Spell vocabulary and the morals of a rabid weasel. But enough with the flattery. Seriously, get help and for God's sake, get back on the meds, m'kay? But you won’t, will you. You’ll spend the rest of your day -- well, what’s left after you butcher a few of the neighborhood cats, that is -- thumbing through your thesaurus and giggling uncontrollably. However do you type such big posts with only one hand I wonder. Ah well. I suspect that more weirdness will follow. Sorry for feeding the troll kids. It's a bad habit I won't ever learn to curb.
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
You can almost see the steam on his computer screen, can't you? I'll bet the local WalMart just ran out of vaseline after that amount of wankage . . .
Leftist schmestist, Lawrence. It's "democratic socialist" to you.
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
Lawrence I knew it was you, BTW, but didn't want to accuse you without having a copy of the thread where you made the accusations. Now that Murphy outed you, and you've owned up to your identity, I can shrug and say, I was waiting for your blowhard pompous performance, and you did not disappoint.
I can't even be bothered to read your post, except to skim the parts with my name, and I do that only for the laugh.
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 04:31 pm: |
Uhm, guys, can we lock this down now please. I'm all for oral combat on issues of note, but debate, however heated, is a fine art and this descent into straight abuse/invective won't cut it here.
I'm quite prepared to have a discussion about Pilger and/or Iraqi insurgency, but the length of Lawrence's contributions suggest that he's not really up for anything approaching a conversational exchange.
thanks for getting my back, Simon - up to my ears in flatpack right now.
|Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
All apologies, Richard. Like I said, I'm a sucker for feeding trolls. It's a character flaw....
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 03:30 am: |
Bob - I know exactly where you're coming from.
But as my brief experiences on Asimov's have shown me, this kind of spiral is pretty self-defeating. Like I said, a heated but reciprocal fight is fine with me, but the ad hominem thing (eternally tempting though it is) is a nasty vice.
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 08:51 am: |
My apologies to Richard and the rest of you for my excessive messages earlier. My temper got the better of me and they weren't very nice. So apologies.
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 01:12 pm: |
Sorry, Richard. I actually didn't read his posts in detail after reading the first few lines, figuring there would be nothing of worth to discover. Upon doing so, I agree with your assessment of the OP's ability to engage in a serious debate. Hurling abuse at said is nothing more than mindless and pointless fun. Mea culpa.
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 01:35 pm: |
Richard - you're correct, of course. It's my kneejerk reaction to aggression, verbal or physical, to crush it in kind. The only cognitive choices I make in such situations is word choice or weapon choice. I'll probably learn better someday....
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 05:18 pm: |
This thread has been awarded "dumbest thread of the day" for November 13th, 2005. Congratulations.
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 05:41 pm: |
Does that come with a tiara and a bouquet of roses? Cuz I likes me some roses, I do.
|Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 08:06 pm: |
So, Bluejack, we're meant to sit back, light up a pipe, put on our slippers, feet on the mantle piece, and what? take all this shit?
No, I agree, you're right (and, by the way, we've already acknowledged it ourselves) that this thread was/is ridiculous.
But, we (above all me) responded with genuine anger against people who are deserving of our anger, people who deserve the fullest extent of our scorn against them.
That's not a bad thing. In fact, that's a good thing. Let's lay these bastards low by whatever means--whether it's intellectual superiority or straight-to-the-point abuse. These people desrve it, one way or another. And we, reacting the way we do here, are only reacting the way that people do when they see this shite too often and cannot take it anymore.
I regret saying what I said earlier, but ONLY inasmuch as it is disproportionate to what we are actually capable of saying against the likes of Barry Roberts. I know that we are capable of saying so much more. I know that there are people more capable than me of dealing with BR and his like, but I just happened to cave in to anger. And that's fine.
You, Bluejack, know what I'm saying. I'm willing to bet that you agree with me.
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 06:32 am: |
Yes the acknowledgement/dedication was the smallest of points and was acknowledged as such - it was hardly intended to discredit your whole post, merely to point up an innacuracy (though a telling one in the end). More worrying is your willingness to mount an attack on a writer's politics based on the most cursory knowledge of his writing. And then to boast about it?
If you're not prepared to assess a writer's politics by reading their books (or just the one book even, WOKEN FURIES for example will give you a clear example of Richard's feelings about the afore mentioned jihadists) then I'm afraid it doesn't speak much for the intellectual rigour of your crusade.
I'm led to wonder, too, just how much of Pilger you might have read. Whether it's occurred to you that someone might be held to be a personal hero on the basis of some or even most of what they might have written? Or on an estimation of whether their work (in Pilger's case as a widely acclaimed investigative journalist of some forty year's standing) might be seen to have done some good in the world.
And yet you have the bloody cheek to accuse Richard of blindly following Pilger and are patronising and insulting enough to imagine that the 'young and impressionable' (a lovely shorthand for those you consider to be more naive and foolish than your intellectually hardened and all-seeing self) amongst Richard's readership might follow him blindly in turn.
This is rich from someone who boasts of just how little they've seen of the work of the person they're attacking.
And why attack Richard Morgan? (Whose work is clearly not important enough to warrant reading in your opinion anyway.) Go and attack Pilger and Moore. They are much more deserving of your clearsighted criticism than just another one of their blind acolytes.
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 08:39 am: |
Yes, Simon. What's with attacking a "fiction" writer? What's with the attack on someone who hardly pulls the levers of power? Lawrence/Barry should expend his efforts on a letter writing campaign to the closest liberal/left wing politician in his vicinity instead.
I can't help but think Lawrence/Barry Roberts is acting out of pure jealousy of Richard's success and is attacking him to make Lawrence/Barry feel "bigger than thou".
But really -- why Richard? Does Lawrence/Barry really imagine that Richard is somehow swaying the public towards some new political position in his novels? Is his anger towards Richard the result of fear Richard is corrupting the morals of the reading public and endangering the war effort?
Richard is a science fiction writer! They are science fiction works! People who read them are already open to the ideas in them, already willing to suspend disbelief, so it's not like Richard is corrupting a whole generation. With all due respect to Richard, I doubt that some 17 or 18 year old reading Altered Carbon or Broken Angels is going to turn them to the dark side of the force. If anything, it will just make them more interested in reading novels, which is a good thing IMO.
So what if Richard likes Pilger or Moore? My maiden aunt likes Moore. Richard's politics won't stop or encourage me to read Woken Furies or Market Forces. His earlier books will do that.
Frankly, I don't get the whole "I must know and approve the politics of the writer before I read his/her work" thing.
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 09:06 am: |
I can't remember if you have admin powers, but if you don't, I can grant them. Or I can myself either delete this thread for you or, I think, lock it so it can't be posted to any more. If you have any preference one way or the other. It's your board.
|Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
yeah Jeff you schmuck (what you think I'd forgotten?) I think that might be a good idea, for Dick's sake that is. Bob Urell, your juvenile ad hominems in no way discredits anything I have to say (but heck I know you can't help it, pathetic attempts at intimidation and name-calling are all you have). It's just pure projection on Bob's part - projecting his stupidity onto me ain't gonna change the fact that he's an idiot. Sue, Dunmore and Simon continue their neverending blathering and pointless rubbish that ain't gonna undo the damage I've done. For the record nothing can. Note Richard that only idiots rush to your defence. But then only idiots would. Oh and Bob since insults from idiots are compliments....thanks. Same goes for the rest of you.
Dick is quite a sly fellow with this comment: "I'm quite prepared to have a discussion about Pilger and/or Iraqi insurgency, but the length of Lawrence's contributions suggest that he's not really up for anything approaching a conversational exchange." In other words Richard is prepared to discuss Pilger but then again he's not. What is there to discuss?, I have buried Pilger for christ's sake, and I have much more ammo. If anybody can do better than name-calling and pointless hair-splitting blather along Simon's lines of "no Morgan didn't dedicate a book to his hero Pilger, he just acknowledged a book to his hero Pilger", well I'm waiting.
Victory To Iraq!
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
Waaah, Whitey don't like it that the Iraqis haven't just rolled over and died! If the US does it, it's collateral damage, if Iraqis do it, it's terrorism? Sounds like the same whining that we hear from all the pissy-panty types who got their asses kicked in 'Nam. "They were everywhere; we didn't know who the enemy was! Waaah! Where's my parade for being a total fucking junkie failure!"
Invade a country, then whine when the Jihadis don't play by Queensbury rules? That's just reaping the whirlwind. America gets its ass KICKED all the fucking time, and only sci-fi nerds think it's a real military superpower because they know NOTHING of strategy.
Plain and simple: you Amerifags had ONE real, solid, strategic victory since 1945 and you just fucking blew it! The first Gulf War was it and then Sr's moron son (Bush 41 was a bright guy; 43 a literal inbred retard -- no wonder he won twice!) reversed it. As far as the rest: Korea was a draw, Vietnam a big fucking loss, plus all those losers came home and shat out another generation of useless Amerifags with chips on their shoulders, the Balkan air war was meaningless, Grenada and Panama tactical victories and strategic failures, Somalia another Amerifag defeat... what a record!
God knows how your wives will get all the piss-stains out of your panties if you losers actually fought a country where the people WEREN'T half-starved and all crazy!
Read 'em and weep, losers:
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 01:30 am: |
hi, er, Lawrence,
I'm really confused about why you're on this thread. You seem to be saying you don't agree with Pilger, and you're criticising Mr Morgan for acknowledging his work, but it's really difficult to tell through all your invective and huge insertions. What is your point?
As someone who has read Mr Morgans books, and is aware of the political debate within his work (and please note I said *debate*, not dogma, or stance, or similar. There is no point at which any of his books have unambiguously presented issues of war, revolution, resistance, occupation, violence, or any of the other issues that seem to float your boat), I honestly don't understand what you're trying to do with your posts on this thread.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 03:57 am: |
Lawrence, Barry, Whatever,
But you haven't 'buried' Pilger. If you've done anything you've highlighted the fact that his opinions on the iraqi insurgency are extreme and perhaps unacceptable. Good for you.
But why here? And why in relation to Richard? Now my point about the dedication may be 'pointless blathering' but my greater point (about the bizarreness of basing your attack on a writer's politics based on perhaps 0.1% of the available objective evidence) remains.
If you haven't addressed what Richard's politics actually are (as represented in his written work), what do you believe you've actually achieved? And try an answer that isn't of the vainglorious macho 'buried' variety. Which doesn't help your case.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 05:10 am: |
Jeff - hi, long time no type. Thanks for dropping by.
No need to do anything about the thread, though thanks for offering. I'm strongly against message board censorship, not least because I, along with a few others, was once the victim of a particularly oily version of it over on TTA a couple of years back. My feeling is - let it stand, let it all stand, and let readers make their own judgements. Lawrence can vituperate all he wants, it only demonstrates his mindset, and those who lost their temper with him have now apologised for the loss of cool and everything seems pretty copacetic.....
Did you ever manage to sort out a suitable climbing venue down there in Florida?
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 05:22 am: |
notice Morgan who runs to your defence, some twit who supports jihadists and has nothing but schadenfreude for the victims of jihadist terrorism in the Iraq war which includes in the main Iraqis, and of course most recently a Jordanian wedding party. Doubtless a big Pilger fan. but you just don't get it do you Richard? Now I swear, just like the case with Dunmore, that jihadist who posted is not me, he is probably for real.
Do you think Richard, that Pilger will have anything to say about the arrest of jihadists in his Australia just this past week for plotting major terrorist attacks, including it seems a plot to blow up a nuclear power plant? Why is this not front-page news throughout the West? Maybe he'll blame Howard if he does so. I can't see him doing otherwise really. In fact should we place a bet on whether Pilger even bothers to mention it? I mean Pilger is Australian and can you imagine if these would-be mass murderers had succeeded in their diabolical plans? But I won't be surprised if there is deafening silence from Pilger here. Or at the most, he'll blame the Aussie govt, anybody but those who actually planned to carry out these insane terrorist plans. Let's see..
fur, the contents of Morgan's fictional books are irrelevant here. This is about Morgan's politics, and Morgan seems to admire John Pilger's political opinions more than any other living journalist or academic. That should be clear from what I draw attention to in my first post. And I make it clear what Pilger's position is re Iraq, and Pilger's fundamental hypocrisy here. Morgan is not flattered by the association. What is so difficult to understand about this, fur? Talking about Morgan's novels is a red herring.
What I'm trying to do on this thread (although I wonder if it's worth it) is to draw attention to otherwise neglected crimes (certainly on this forum where they just have a go at the usual suspects) of Leftist academics, activists, journalists and the like. OK in a very inflammatory way, I admit. Perhaps even uncalled for, although there are reasons I think my provocation more than justified but I won't bring that up here... (I wonder who can guess why I come across like a raging bull, probably no-one. Certainly not Morgan's sycophants). The really sad thing is Morgan won't know neither.
With that said, I do appreciate Morgan not sinking to the same level as his admirers on this thread, even though I intentionally goaded him, went out of my way to embarrass him and make no secret of my dislike for Morgan (and Pilger). I could have presented my case re Pilger and Moore in a far less confrontational and even diplomatic manner. After all this is not a boxing ring. However my contempt for Pilger is so great that my anger at him and therefore anybody who calls him a "hero", just gets my blood boiling. Hence my provocatory post.
Is it possible anything good can come out of my posting? Don't know, I mean if one looks past my rudeness (whether justified or not), maybe if a few people here who have read this (would not include those who posted, and that includes you Jeff) can come to question a few things re Leftwing politics that they had not done previously, then maybe...
Still I could have knocked Pilger and Moore without bringing up Morgan on the general thread, that would have been less provocatory and inflammatory. But I just don't care for the radical Left and so don't care for Morgan one little bit (and plenty other writers and editors here) and so, well there you go...
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 05:28 am: |
Simon, didn't see your latest post. If you fail to see that I have certainly buried Pilger, you are as much of an idiot as Pilger himself. Or else you are living on another planet. Same difference.
Morgan, your sycophants really don't help you, in case you hadn't noticed.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 05:35 am: |
OK Simon I shouldn't call you an idiot, sorry. With that said, do yur really not seee how I have buried Pilger, or rather how Pilger has buried himself? I have just pointed it out on this thread.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 05:48 am: |
and I think it's time to address this head on:
Do I support the Iraqi insurgency? Well, I'm not sending them funds, if that's what you mean. Do I understand the frustration and fury of people who've seen their country invaded and their compatriots murdered in large numbers for the most spurious of stated reasons? Yes. Pilger is correct to the extent that he states the coalition forces are an invading army - there is nothing outside the lunatic ravings of Bush, Blair and their coterie to say that the Iraq war is legitimate. The UN did not approve the action, the WMD are non-existent, the links to Al Qaeda a hysterical self-fulfilling joke......
Do I agree with Pilger's assessment of the insurgents? No, I think he's badly mistaken. This conflict is as much about a struggle for power between sectarian factions as it is about anything (a hornets nest the US and UK apparently gave approximately zero consideration to when they stirred it up) and I think to say we can't be choosy about where we place our support is dangerously irresponsible. But then again, I am not John Pilger and he is not me, something which seems to have escaped Lawrence's powers of observation. My admiration for Pilger is based upon his lifetime of activism against tyranny and truthful reporting in the face of blatant and cynical lies and media manipulation. His opinions are his own, and quite possibly very different to mine in any number of ways.
MY opinion of the insurgency is that it is being carried out largely by intolerant zealots and bigots of one stripe or another, and bears all the hallmarks of that constituency. And by starting an illegal war, we (the UK and the US) have played directly into the hands of said zealots and bigots. Because in the end it is not the insurgency fighters per se who are the problem - the problem is the broad backing that they receive from millions within the Arab and Muslim worlds, and THAT support arises because the West has behaved in the region with such an appalling lack of intelligence or humanity for so long.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 06:20 am: |
Lawrence, your apologies for rudeness would carry a lot more weight if you were able to STOP BEING RUDE for a line or two. You started this thread as a personal attack, and clearly continue to view it as such.
A couple of terminology checks for you:
1) "radical left": I don't belong to the radical left, and nor I suspect do any of the other people posting here. To provide a critique of right wing abuse of power does not automatically label one a leftist, radical or otherwise. Come to that, Pilger himself has written eloquently and furiously about human rights abuses committed in and by the Soviet Union.
2) "Leftist academics, activists, journalists and the like": this sounds to me like whining, and redneck Republican whining at that; a grand conspiracy of loosely defined but recognisably "educated middle class" evil-doers are out to hamstring the simple farming folk of Goodville USA and their impeccable down to earth, common sense approach to life. Yeah, right. Get out from under your conspiracy victimhood, Lawrence. You can't attack an entire imagined mindset of millions by picking on the comments of one journalist and attributing phalanx-like adherence to same on the part of anyone who might ever have voted Democrat
Finally, of your own posts, you said this:
"........in a very inflammatory way, I admit. Perhaps even uncalled for, although there are reasons I think my provocation more than justified but I won't bring that up here... (I wonder who can guess why I come across like a raging bull, probably no-one. Certainly not Morgan's sycophants). The really sad thing is Morgan won't know neither."
You're right, I can't guess what your problem is. And I'm sorry, but this isn't a therapy centre, and we're not here to play guessing games with you. You've got something to say, spit it out for consideration, just like everyone else. But don't storm in here screaming fury and then wind down to sobs of "No-one knows the trouble I've seen" - it's unbecoming, to say the least.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 06:51 am: |
I figured as much. Just wanted to give you the option. I don't like board censorship, either.
Never did find a suitable climbing venue, so I'm just gonna bite the bullet and go to the unsavory one. LOL!
Catch up with you soon. Loving the latest novel, btw.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 07:29 am: |
I'm struck by your need to view individuals as being entirely right or wrong based on only a partial aquaintence with or drawing from their output. You assume Richard to be a blind follower of Pilger and therefore to assume that he agrees with everything that Pilger says. You've asked Richard to justify his admiration of Pilger on the basis of one thing that Pilger has written about and in refuting that one thing imagine you have 'buried Pilger' and shown Richard to be a blind dupe.
What about Pilger's writing on mistreatment of the aborigine population in Australia, his analysis of (the subsequently admitted) media slur campaign against the miners in the 1980s, his camapign to bring to light what was going on east Timor when the western media was ignoring it? His exposure of the illegal arms trade? His willingness to talk to and report on the lives of US Vietnam veterans who had protested against the war (or were they blind dupes of the leftists again?), his work after Bhopal, his tireless criticism of tabloid journalism, his work to expose Robert Maxwell as the criminal fraud he was? You imagine you have buried Pilger. You have called into question his judgement in one area. Even if you are entirely right you have not buried Pilger. Where's the fine critique? Even in that one area, does Pilger's support for the insurgency mean his analysis of the invasion as being illegal is wrong? Not necessarily. These are two seperate judgements.
Neither does your critique of Richard as a blind dupe of anyone stand unless you are willing to read what Richard actually writes. You can't accuse people of blindness if you are unwilling to see what the person you have chosen to attack (whether Morgan or Pilger) has written in its greater part.
And to accuse people here of being sycophants towards Richard because they question the validity of the methods of your attack on him is poor. Just as with your assumption that the young and impressionable need to be protected (by agreeing with you?) rather than judging the work of a third party themselves it speaks of a breathtaking arrogance.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 09:10 am: |
Once more into the breach....
I don't get the screaming heeby-jeebies at the notion that there might be some valid sentiment buried amidst the rubble that is the "Iraqi" insurgency -- though I do find it particularly telling that much of the violence isn't being perpetrated by Iraqi partisans. I can't abide the effects of the violence, of course; many of those grunts are friends and family.
Oh, by the way, before I'm accused of being a lefty or whatever, I'm a generally conservative Persian Gulf veteran who had, many years ago and many miles away from here, a chestful of medals for various actions I was part of in the early 90s. I'm not a pacifist. My dislike for war is far more personal than that.
Victory to Iraq!
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
for the victims of jihadist terrorism in the Iraq war which includes in the main Iraqis
Oh that's rich! Some Amerifag asswipe crying about dead Iraqis! What's the matter, you wanted to kill 'em first? The Amerifags killed a hell of lot of Iraqis since 1991, more than any "terrorists" have.
War ain't clean. Insurgencies ain't clean either. Shitbag chickenhawks who got about as close to war as a game of lord of the rings Risk never like to hear that. There is no such thing as terrorism when tanks start rolling down your street. And you buy that "foreign fighter" bullshit, you must have jism for brains from all the cocksucking you've been doing. The Iraqis want you OUT and all they're doing is turning up the heat till you get OUT. And yes, if some traitors take the American side, they're gonna get wasted too. Tough titties for Iraqi shitties!
If America was invaded, I guess we know what you chickenhawks would be doing -- sucking every invader cock he could. And he'd wonder what he did to deserve an IED under his bed the next day too! I'd slit my fucking grandmother's throat if she sided with invaders over the homeland, and so would any True American, of which there are so few these days!
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 01:14 pm: |
VtI - can you lay off the crass insults as well, please. You've got points to make, fair enough, but there's no need to make them at the same level as Lawrence.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 01:59 pm: |
really Richard? I made such crass moronic insults at this disgustingly crass level?? That's a lie. But then such blatant lying is to be expected from someone who reveres Pilger and Moore.
Look who comes to take your side Richard, a complete moron. And you say to him "you've got points to make, fair enough". Doesn't that tell us something about you? That you think this retarded idiot has "points to make"? And that he's on your side?
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 02:08 pm: |
oh and like Pilger openly on the side of the jihadists, or can't you tell? Is that why you think this moron has a point to make?
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 03:13 pm: |
Simon to respond to you, I do think Pilger once had some credibility (to a degree) and did some fairly good stuff, you have pointed out a lot of it. Also the Pol Pot genocide if memory serves me correctly, and something else on the plight of some island aborigines (Diego Garcia?) as a result of their displacement by a US base for B-52s. I think that was quite a recent documentary. yeah you are right there Simon.
However he has long since lost his way, not just his support for the insurgency, but long before then, you speak of East Timor. Yeah true. But his position on East Timor proves my point re Pilger's hypocrisy and outright derangement. That is not his support for an independent East Timor, freed from Indonesian oppression (my own position in agreement with Pilger), but his interpretation for the reasons for the first Bali nightclub bombing in light of what Osama himself said, AND in light of Pilger's support for an independent East Timor. Pilger painted himself into a corner here and contradicted himself completely re the causes for Islamic terrorists striking the West, I have no time to bring all this up now, another time. But it's wrong-headed pseudoliberal thinking that saw him tie himself into knots, and Morgan shares this thinking. Do the research, Simon see if you can figure it out. I will mention it in another post.
Simon I'm not conservative btw, read my first 2 posts carefully and you will see that.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 06:36 pm: |
(I wonder who can guess why I come across like a raging bull, probably no-one. Certainly not Morgan's sycophants). The really sad thing is Morgan won't know neither.
Frankly, Lawrence, your grandoise self-image, scattered ideas and paranoid tone make me suspect that the reason you come across as a raging bull is mental illness on your part. Unless you tell us why you personally are so upset about Richard expressing admiration for Pilger, why there is something special about your personal situation that explains your vitriol, I will have to consider that you are deranged and that explains your rage. Yet, even if you can explain it in some fashion -- such as a family member having been killed in a terrorist attack or in the war itself -- I would still suggest that your anger is getting in the way of your ability to reason for there are far more culpable and logical targets for your rage than the ones you have chosen.
And that is not meant as an ad hominem -- just an honest attempt to explain your attack on Richard, who is, after all, only a science fiction writer.
|Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 09:37 am: |
Lawrence, if we're going to decide that anyone whose cause attracts maniacally loud or hysterically crass supporters is wrong, then everybody's wrong. All the time.
Likewise, arguments that imply even provisional or partial agreement with writers that you don't like is a sign of inherent wrongness won't fly. When you say "[B]latant lying is to be expected from someone who reveres Pilger and Moore," you're implying that there exists Good Thinking and Bad Thinking, and that it is simply wrong to read, consider or agree with even individual details or arguments of those writers who you hold to be circulating Bad Thought. This is close-minded of you.
In the early-middle twentieth century, China used to regulate what folks could read or write as a means of protecting the solidarity of the country's self-identity. They called perilous writings Dangerous Thought, as if thinking these things was itself dangerous.
Is that what you want? That ideas and arguments are automatically and inherently tainted as the alchemical essence of the writers who put them to paper? That's what you're doing. If you want to discuss how Pilger may be wrong, don't try to summon the debate by announcing that all who disagree with you will be summarily tarred and fired. You do that and it's no wonder that nobody wants to show up to your debate.
Do you want to discuss, or do you just want people who disagree with you to feel bad? One is interesting, the other is chaff.
|Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 04:38 pm: |
When will Sue and Stephen Francis finally fuck each other's brains out?
This is the second board I know of where the sexual tension builds up like a tidal wave. Just do it already. Jeez.
|Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 06:14 pm: |
William, I assure you that the only person feeling any sexual tension over Steven and my dislike of each other is you.
So, go fuck yourself.
|Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 02:43 am: |
Nice rebuttal, Will....that just about covers it, I think. Thank you.
Steven Francis Murphy
|Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 09:07 am: |
Never. Sue spoke for me. Even enemies can agree on something once in awhile.
|Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 09:52 am: |
John Pilger is an unusually wonderful person and I'm surprised he has not been assassinated yet.
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 04:24 am: |
Crap. I thought this was going to be something about one of Richard's books.
Was I ever wrong.
But since I'm here, can anyone tell me how I can drum up some sexual tension with that Urell guy? Man, he's HOT!
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 08:28 am: |
You had me at 'crap,' gabe. You had me at crap.
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
hoping I would just go away Morgan? but I so enjoy the chit-chat.
what "rebuttal" by Will H, Morgan?
Likewise, arguments that imply even provisional or partial agreement with writers that you don't like is a sign of inherent wrongness won't fly. When you say "[B]latant lying is to be expected from someone who reveres Pilger and Moore," you're implying that there exists Good Thinking and Bad Thinking, and that it is simply wrong to read, consider or agree with even individual details or arguments of those writers who you hold to be circulating Bad Thought. This is close-minded of you.
This is nonsensical evasive claptrap that has no bearing on anything I wrote. I called Morgan on blatant lying for his comparing the disgusting crassness of that moronic bloodlustful jihadi lover who takes Morgan's side btw, to my level of crassness and rudeness. The 'Victory in Iraq' jihadi lover wrote "you must have jism for brains from all the cocksucking you've been doing. The Iraqis want you OUT and all they're doing is turning up the heat till you get OUT. And yes, if some traitors take the American side, they're gonna get wasted too. Tough titties for Iraqi shitties! " And Morgan wrote to him in response, "but there's no need to make them at the same level as Lawrence." Now where do I sink to that level of such disgusting, stupid mega-crassness? Where? Show me go ahead. I don't, not at all (show me if you can Will) and neither did anybody else here, not Sue, not Bob, not even Dunmore. So yes that makes Morgan a liar. Gettit? So spare me your crap about Good thinking and Bad thinking and me being close-minded. Like Morgan you are full of it.
Since I make mention of a very very few of the lies of Mike Moore's F9-11 on my first post - via Dave Kopel, yes that makes Moore a liar or can you refute what I posted up there Will? Go ahead I'm waiting. As for Pilger, anybody who calls the blowing up of wedding parties, hospitals and mosques by jihadist and fascist killers "a war of national liberation" is not only delusional, but a liar since the tyranny and brutality and oppression the jihadists want to install in Iraq is anything but a national liberation. Or do you disagree Will? More on Pilger's delusions to follow.
Naturally Morgan who regards Pilger as a hero, would think your claptrap a rebuttal, Will.
If you want to discuss how Pilger may be wrong,
MAY be wrong, only MAY be wrong!!!
As if somebody who unambigously supports jihadi terrorism and the tyranny that goes with it may be right
don't try to summon the debate by announcing that all who disagree with you will be summarily tarred and fired.
I never wrote that so don't pretend I did, what a blatant misrepresentation of what I write.
So all who disagree with me that Pilger, Moore and Roy are wrong to support the killers of children, teachers, women, trade union activists, wedding parties etc may have a point then? All who disagree with me that Morgan admires all three of them, but he does it's on record, may have a point then? Or disagree with me that this does not necessarily mean Pilger is an idiot and has no credibility re political affairs? Because these are the points I'm making although nobody would know it going by Will's baloney.
Actually anybody who suggests Pilger et al still have political credibility and should still still be taken seriously is well short of moral and ethical standards and intelligence to boot. And that's being polite. Worse it's sinister, but I expect no less from this crowd I know what I'm dealing with.
Or disagree with me Will, that Morgan does himself no favours by his own admiration for political commentators who are all supporters of fascist killers who I see just blew up a funeral procession? No Will he really comes off well by the association.
Pilger, Moore and Roy are supporters of fascist killers, Morgan admires them (I'm not saying Morgan admires them for supporting fascist killers. I know I have to write this because the rest of you will respond with the straw man that Morgan does not admire them for supporting the Iraqi "resistance". but I still will probably get this response.)
You do that and it's no wonder that nobody wants to show up to your debate
what debate Will? What's there to debate? Nobody can answer me. It's why I'm the only one who quotes people here like yourself and then responds to the quote. The rest of you never quote me in your responses, easier to misrepresent me that way and then respond to your own misrepresentations. Which is what you did Will. This is not a debate, it's an exposé. Don't you know the difference Will?
As if I could debate any of you, all your minds were made up and closed a long time ago. I'm the only one here who is not an ideologue. left-wing, right-wing, chicken wing it's all the same crap. If Pilger and Moore support reactionary fascist homophobic women hating bloodlustful religous fanatics and Baathist thugs oh sorry I mean national liberating minutemen - that alone give the lie to Left vs Right, anarchist, socialists, independent conservatives, libertarians, democratic federalists blablablablalba they are often interchangeable and swop places. Pilger is after all praised to the skies on neo-Nazi white supremacist and Islamic fundamentalist websites. Guess that counts in Pilger's favour. It's called following the trail Morgan.
Will if somebody was to read your post without having read anything of mine, what with all your straw man evasions and predictable claptrap, what Morgan predictably and laughably calls a "rebuttal", there is no way in hell that they could possibly know what this is all about, there is no way they could possibly know what I actually wrote. Only when reading the above paragraphs could they have any idea.
Sue your endless transference of your mental derangement onto me is getting tiresome. Since you are the staunch defender of a writer who admires as astute political commentators, individuals who unambiguously support jihadi fanatic killers and other murderers nostalgic for Saddam's tyranny and I am not the staunch defender of a writer who admires as astute political commentators, individuals who unambiguously support jihadi fanatic killers and other murderers nostalgic for Saddam's tyranny; I think it obvious who the brainless one is. I mean I know it's not obvious to you Sue and the rest of you neither but there you go.. You gotta be outside the circle to see it.
And Morgan don't tell me my APOLOGIES would be easier to accept if I didn't keep up with the insults. I never fucking apologised, I just toned down the rhetoric for 2 sentences for Christ's sake, which I really really really regret. You're really full of so much bullshit Morgan. I would never apologise to you, for what? Exposing your heros and by association you, to ridicule. (What ridicule says Morgan and his sycophants no doubt? But that's just the point, you people just don't get it, you are all so shameless and worse than that actually). ooooh I'm so sorry ........not. I would sooner be beheaded by Morgan's hero's jihadi allies than apologise to you Richard.
What rubbish you write about Pilger, Dick: "My admiration for Pilger is based upon his lifetime of activism against tyranny and truthful reporting in the face of blatant and cynical lies and media manipulation". Pilger's truthful reporting and activism against tyranny? You write this even after my exposé of what a supporter of jihadi tyranny Pilger is. That makes him an activist against tyranny then? How's that? And his white-washing of Saddam's tyranny by telling us that he "seldom felt as safe in any country" is what....... truthful reporting?
Pilger calls Fidel Castro's revolution "a crucial model for challenging power". I guess that would be the crucial model of the trade unions Castro has crushed and banned, the crucial model of an independent media that does not exist, the crucial model of homosexuals who have been ostracised and treated as suffering from a western decadent disease as official government policy, the crucial model of a non-existent political opposition, the crucial model of limitations on freedom of expression, association and assembly which remain codified in Cuban law, the crucial model of the jailing and execution of tens of thousands of political opponents and dissidents without trial during Castro's decades-long rule including poets, teachers, doctors etc, the crucial model of the UMAP labor camps established, according to Castro, for "people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals" etc.
Yeah sounds like Pilger really knows all about truthful reporting and activism against tyranny, as you say Dick.
Pilger calls America "the Third Reich of our times". Now America would have to do a lot worse than invade another country and curtail a few civil liberties in America to be the Third Reich of our times. Not only does this completely exaggerate America's crimes to put it mildly, but it downplays to put it mildly the horrendous crimes and genocide of the Nazis. If only all the Nazis had done was invade one or two countries, made a couple of bombing runs, and served the interests of a wealthy elite. Such comparisons are untenable and an outright disgrace to the vicitms of Nazis. And in fact anybody who makes them is a complete idiot and a liar. Note Pilger who does nothing but whitewash Saddam's Iraq, "he seldom felt as safe in any country" (see my first post), and blames all the suffering there on the West (not Saddam's looting, mass murder and oppression) does not compare Saddam's Iraq to the Third Reich, nor the present Iranian regime to the Third Reich, despite their stated aim of finshing off where the Third Reich left off, nor Syria, nor North Korea, nor Sudan.....no it's America that is the Third Reich.
America would have to deliberately murder thousands of civilian men, women, children and babies every day based solely on ethnicity, religion, or race and abolish all freedom of expression (including this forum), association, political opposition, federal, state, county, city elections, independent media and much much more, and anybody caught making the slightest dissent or criticism, or hint of dissent against Bush would have to be sent to a concentration camp or just shot by state troopers if the US was the "the Third Reich of our times". Which means practically every American writer here would be dead by now. And his/her spouse and siblings and parents and agents, and cousins and on and on. And Leno and Conan and Chris Rock and get the point? In fact easily more than three quarters of America would have to be sent to concentration camps.
In fact since most Republicans routinely and openly bash Bush (look at the Miers nomination), so they would also have to be sent to camps and shot and gassed. So Canada would have a lager population than America by this point if Pilger was right about the US being the "Third Reich of our times". Even Murphy and Thomas R would be in camps by now. In fact Pilger was acclaimed and honoured on a recent tour of some American universities (but of course!).
If the US was the Third Reich, Pilger would not have been allowed in the country and if he was discovered after smuggling himself in, he would have been shot by the FBI, probably on sight. Yet Pilger has no problem giving his wholesale support to reactionary fanatical fascist bigoted jihadists and Baathists who like the Nazis deliberately kill children, women, never mind the aid workers, engineers, journalists, nurses, doctors, funeral mourners, wedding celebrants, teachers and trade union organisers; delusional jihadists who only want to succeed in establishing a harsh authoritarian, oppressive and brutal regime that will tolerate no dissent and give no quarter whatsoever - and in Pilger-speak all this is ................"national liberation".
Pilger is beyond Orwellian satire.
Yeah Morgan, Pilger would know all about the truth and activism against tyranny then I guess. Thanks for clearing that up.
Pilger would know all about the truth and who the fascist tyrants are, after all he supports fascist jihadists, whose terrorism and insanities will according to Pilger "logic" lead Iraqis to "national liberation". No wonder Morgan is such a fan of this Pilger idiot.
Somebody who doesn't realise what an idiot and liar Mike Moore is (or can you rebutt even one of the very few lies I put up from Koppel's list on F9-11 Dick?), talking about truth. You are comical Morgan. You wouldn't know the truth about anything if it landed on your lap, and asked you for a light. Pilger spouts out such delusional hate-filled crap, he ought to be committed. It's why you revere him as a hero. Oh and you call his crap truth. You would. The fact that Pilger has given his support to those who deliberately self-detonate among children getting sweets and blow up wedding parties, funeral processions, mosques, hospitals and restaurants, means he has no credibility whatsoever re political affairs and doesn't have an inkling about any important truth anymore than you do, Morgan.
"Yeah, right. Get out from under your conspiracy victimhood, Lawrence. "
What conspiracy? Think you are confusing me with Pilger. Why do you think his articles are pasted IN FULL, heartily endorsed and glowingly commended on neo-Nazi white supremacist and Islamic extremist websites? Oh didn't I mention that before? I guess neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists admire him so much because of all the love in his heart.
Well Pilger is the one supporting jihadists in Iraq remember, so I guess that comes as no surprise.
"You can't attack an entire imagined mindset of millions by picking on the comments of one journalist "
As for the comments of one journalist, he's a hero to you Richard or have you forgotten that? I never attacked the imagined mindsest of millions by picking on Pilger, I attacked Pilger's mindset by attacking Pilger you dunderhead, and yours by association since he is your hero. What strawman crap you come up with Dick.
"and attributing phalanx-like adherence to same on the part of anyone who might ever have voted Democrat"
Where do I say or imply as much? What crap you write Morgan. Go ahead show me I'm waiting. And I'll wait and I'll wait 'cause you can't show me where I say or imply as much 'cause I never did.
I was addressing you and only you Richard when I asked if you supported the insurgency in Iraq, not Democrat voters. Come Dick pay attention. It's in the very title of this thread. Oh and I'm not a conservative Richard and opposed the war in Iraq and Bush's election, both times you silly putz. Guess that alone implodes your bullshit I quoted above, doesn't it now?
And this crud of yours quoted below too for that matter:
'"Leftist academics, activists, journalists and the like": this sounds to me like whining, and redneck Republican whining at that'
And your slimy toady Jeff vandermeer knows all this, namely that I'm not remotely conservative, but naturally doesn't want to upset the dumbass black and white assumptions of any of his buddy fellow writers. Can't rock the boat don't you know and piss off any of his colleagues. All's well with the nightshades writers/editors community going by Jeff's endless toadying with all his fellow writers (it's gag inducing), they all just get on so gloriously, so chummy with one another, gag gag gag. Ah but I digress.
My comments in fact on this very forum in response to the re-election of fratboy were "I think we should end this with Conrad, the horror the horror".
It's actually obvious to anybody who even bothers to read PROPERLY what I have written, that I'm not conservative.
See my comments to Murphy in my second post, namely this:
You tend to (albeit not always) object to their politics on knee-jerk conservative grounds no matter the facts, rather than on any ethical and moral standards or any pertinent knowledge of the facts and the lies surrounding the issues.
and this also to Murphy:
"and only serves to remind me why I am not a conservative"
and in my first post re Mike Moore:
"F9/11 reveals Moore to be as much of a stupid white man as the admittedly stupid white men he is criticising."
Does that sound pro-Republican Dick?
So your screw-up Morgan, is inexcusable. Pay attention Dick. It's not that hard. Really it isn't.
But I know what I'm dealing with in your case Richard, and all your sycophants. If I'm not with you and your Islamic jihadist supporting hero so I must be for the neo-con dream, how simple-minded. No wonder know-nothings like Sue, Bob and Dunmore come to your defence, goes with the territory.
Wonder when Simon will get back to me on the Pilger and East Timor thing? Probably in 2010 if ever and he'll still get it wrong no doubt. OK Morgan here's a challenge which you will want to shirk but I won't let you: the John Pilger, East Timor, first Bali bombing, Osama's "explanation" for it black comedy show. How did Pilger, who thinks just like Morgan and the rest of you, so very telling - after all just read this deranged Leftist nonsense of Morgan's quoted below - screw up as he only Pilger could do, and show himself up to be an idiot?
Here is the relevant Pilgerite quote of Morgan's that is such utter baloney:
"Because in the end it is not the insurgency fighters per se who are the problem - the problem is the broad backing that they receive from millions within the Arab and Muslim worlds, and THAT support arises because the West has behaved in the region with such an appalling lack of intelligence or humanity for so long."
yeah Morgan the support for Saddam and the Ayatollahs and the Syrian Baathists and the Wahabbis, the Muslim Brotherhood etc and all their predecessors, numerous kings, dictators and murderous caliphs and sultans, imans and mullahs and warlords going back hundreds and hundreds of years, in times present and past respectively, arises from Western policies that are lacking in intelligence and humanity. Not. (Or is it one set of rules for support for Islamist radicalist jihad and murder in the present and another set of rules for support for Islamic jihad, murder and tyranny, and the massacres of millions that went with it, in the distant past? If so why? and what are these different set of rules exactly? Explain your answer)
As the Arabs have been so concerned with intelligence and humanity as is evidenced by the bloody history of the region for hundreds and hundreds of years, being so concerned with intelligence and humanity they support those who advocate the abandonment of both!!! that makes zero sense Dick. I guess you mean the West needs more of that intelligence and humanity Pilger displays by supporting jihadists. I swear you give me a headache Dick.
yeah I guess the inhumanity and oppression of women by the millions of men in the region for centuries was motivated by a reaction to Western policies. Or is it one set of rules for the intense misogyny (and homophobia) of Islamic society and another set of rules for their hatred of the infidel? If so what are these rules? Even though the hatred of women is a fundamental aspect of Islamic radicalism and all Islamic radicals support Sharia which among other things oppresses women, and all Islamists hate the Western infidel. Misogyny is integral to the Islamic fundamentalism that hates all infidel unbelievers and homosexuals too. Or is the hatred of women the fault of the women and the hatred of homosexuals the fault of the homosexuals? I mean following Pilgerite and Morgan "logic" it is.
Spoken like a true Pilgerite Richard re your gibberish I quoted above. No wonder you are such a fan of his. I mean I know what I'm dealing with with the likes of you. I wish people like you would emigrate to Iran. After all you are just the useful idiots of mad ayatollahs and their ilk. In Pilger's and Moore's case their cheerleaders.
Have the actions of the West driven Pilger, Moore and Roy to support the Iraqi jihadists too Richard? So Bush and Blair's lack of intelligence and humanity is responsible for the lack of intelligence of Pilger and Moore then re Iraq? Pilger is not responsible for his "mistake" then, the White House is I guess? Just like it's responsible for every other Arab and Muslim person's support for jihad. Why should they have any personal responsibility, when really only us Westerners do. The White House's stupidity and inhumanity floats like a cloud and penetrates the fog of Pilger's little mind and every other innocent doe-eyed Middle-Eastern and Third Worlder. Body-snatchers. I'm just following your so-called logic through Dick.
Or is it Pilger's and Moore's "humanity" and "intelligence", their quest for truth and their desire to expose tyranny that has driven them to support uh the "resistance" to trade union activists, wedding celebrations and children growing up? Which is it Morgan?
The above Morgan quotation is actually worse than complete rubbish, it's very sinister (but who sees that?) and reflective of an ignorance deeper than the Pacific and wider than Mike Moore's girth. Pilger just tied himself into knots and contradicted himself completely re East Timor/Bali bombing precisely because he shares Morgan's delusions quoted above. When your mindset and worldview resembles this Morgan blather that I just quoted and indicative of a widespread mental plague; blatant contradictions, hypocrisies, and painting yourself into a corner - in this case Pilger re East Timor/Bali boming - are inevitable. reductio ad absurdum.
Perhaps the fact that Pilger and Moore and Roy (and Ted Rall for that matter) think just like Morgan (and the rest of you) here helps to explain just why they ALL support the jihad in Iraq (actually the Guardian which Richard reads so "religiously", and the rest of you too of course, has also published several articles giving unqualified support for the Iraqi jihad. But of course). I mean it's just one small step from excusing and justifying Islamic radicalism by blaming the West for it, to supporting the jihad against the West. Nothing perhaps about it, that's it really. Very telling that Morgan's political worldview is the same as ones who call fascist jihadists.... national liberators and minutemen. But most all of you will miss the implications of all this - namely maybe Pilger's and Morgan's political worldview is just a lot of dog shit. Just like the rest of you.
Come Morgan see if you can figure it out re Pilger's screw-up on East Timor/2002 Bali bombing. I betcha you and your sycophants can't or won't even bother doing the research to find out. Duh. You wouldn't want to. (hoping I would just let it fly Dick? I'm not sorry to disappoint you). Here I'll help you out. See what a nice guy I am.
Pilger supported an East Timor independent of Muslim Indonesia and the oppression that goes with Indonesian domination. There was a terrorist bomb blast in Bali killing mainly Australians in 2002. Pilger has always blamed Islamic terrorism on western actions as the "root cause" of it all. Like you Dick. Osama made a speech after the Bali bombing "explaining" the reasons for it. So how did Pilger respond, how did he "explain" the root causes of the first Bali bombing in light of the above? Well he could only respond like an idiot and so he did, 'cause he painted himself into a corner. Now do the research and think long and hard and just maybe there is a chance 1 in a million that you will get it (I'm certainly not getting my hopes up for anybody doing either and figuring it out).
Get how Pilger painted himself into a corner and looked the royal idiot? Nooooo you don't do you? I've spelt it out but I want to see if anybody can get it. I'm definitely not getting my hopes up. I expect only the most silly evasions and nonsensical crap along the lines of "it doesn't matter if Pilger made an idiot of himself re Bali bombing, just because he contradicts himself on the reasons for Islamic terrorism regarding the 2002 bombing, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about." Or you will all ignore the above paragraph like I never wrote it which you all have done before since this is the second time I am bringing this up.
But I will keep on bringing it up. Running for the hills won't help you Dick, neither will ad hominems and silly straw-man evasions. I'm not letting up Morgan. And your howler monkey fanclub ain't gonna distract me.
Oh and Morgan trying to downplay and euphemise Pilger's unequivocal support for jihadists as "I think he's badly mistaken", when it is much worse than "mistaken". It is immoral, stupid and criminal to give unequivocal support to a bunch of opportunist zealots and radicals and obviously insane killers as king Abdullah of Jordan just called them. It is also very revealing of your own mindset Morgan.
There is the US/British invasion in Iraq (which I didn't support btw), and anybody who supported the invasion is not merely "badly mistaken", but deranged, ignorant, zombified, brainwashed, ruthless and even fascist, evil and murderous - at least that is the standard shrill Leftist line. But if somebody supports murderous jihadists who have no problem blowing up hotels, children, women, labourers, hospitals, mosques, teachers, etc and support Sharia law, it's just "badly mistaken". Doesn't discredit them in Morgan's eyes. What's a jihad or two between friends after all. Doesn't mean Pilger wouldn't know about the truth and about exposing (a very selective) tyranny as Morgan still insists, even though Pilger supports jihadis who among other targets intentionally kill children and who want to install their own tyranny (what rank hypocrisy here). So therefore how would Pilger, by the very fact that he supports a murderous fascist jihad, know anything about truth? But Morgan won't get it. Neither will his like-minded sycophants, precisely because like Pilger, Morgan wouldn't know the truth from the lies.
As for me needing therapy, anybody like Morgan who calls Pilger "a bit of a hero for me. This is a man who's led the kind of morally driven, socially constructive life I might have aspired to if I'd got my act together a bit younger. It's good to know there are people like him out there", is the one in need of therapy. There's nobody I admire who is praised by Islamic extremists and neo-Nazis, unlike you Dick.
Don't forget to mention George Galloway in the acknowledgements of your next book, Richard. He's a Pilger fan too, just like you. Naturally. Just following the trail Dick. For all I know Galloway may be a friend of yours. Sip tea together at a Nero's on Buchanan street with him do you?
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 03:15 pm: |
Lawrence, if you had come to this board willing to engage in an honest and open discussion, we would have been willing to do so. But instead of asking a polite question requesting that Richard clarify his views on Pilger, you posted a very long winded attack, in which you attempt to trash Pilger, Moore, Richard and any number of other people in a message that was 5,728 words and (according to my word processor word count) -- 23 pages long!
Considering the length and tone of your first post, I have to conclude that you didn't really want Richard to explain himself. You appear to have wanted only to attack him, expound your own views ad nauseum, and have no interest in considering Richard's reasons for admiring Pilger and Moore. You appear unwilling to consider that others might have legitimate views that are opposite to yours and have dismissed anyone who supports Pilger and Moore out of hand. How can anyone discuss this issue with you as a result?
Did you really expect that a post like your first one would draw Richard out, encourage him to explain his support of Pilger and Moore, show how he is able to justify it considering the positions they have both taken in the past?
Frankly, I am interested in dissenting views on the Iraq war and would be glad to hear them and the reasons for holding them, and discuss the merits of / criticisms of, but when you initiate discussion with an all-out attack and personal assault, there is no point continuing and no possibility of seriously debating the issue.
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 03:52 pm: |
I hate to add to this thread in anyway, but I had to say I found parts of it very amusing, and parts of it (notably those measured and articulate responses from RM) to be a nice reminder of what civility, and reasonable debate and disagreement can be like.
On a related topic... is there a group of SF message board junkies (Asimov’s and Analog, et al) who view the "nightshades" message boards as some kind of opposing football team, or fans of a different team? Do they really sit around talking about "Those Bastards at Nightshades"?! (Jesus.. you'd think our "team" had better t-shirts or something...)
It seems like they operate like football hooligans... talking loud, making outrageous accusations, and engaging in threats and verbal bravado... I can just see Lawrence growling "Fuck Manchester United…" as he begins his long-winded incomprehensible diatribes.
It's a sad, but accurate reflection of what political debate in the US has been reduced to.
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 05:06 pm: |
oh piss off Lawrence, really. Go take your medication or something.
If you thought you were going to get a rise out of me, you've failed. We've come full circle, you're repeating yourself at nauseous, gibbering length and I'm really not going to go through all of this again. Wank off alone in the dark here as much as you like - I'm signing off this thread. I'd advise anyone else who wants intelligent conversation to do likewise.
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 05:13 pm: |
oops, Jeremy - sorry to undercut that nicely framed piece of praise you just handed me . But really...........
For those who weighed in on my side, and the side of reasonable discourse, thanks very much - see y'all on another thread.
interested in topic
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 05:46 pm: |
What is being discussed here?
The previous posts?
Like "Entertainment Tonight".
Read about what you could be reading instead. . .
How very self-interested is that?
|Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 09:55 pm: |
Richard, did you know that when you became a Famous Author, you'd get such a coterie of obsessive stalker fans as part of the package? Or did Simon neglect to tell you that part? And are you allowed to ask them for sexual favors, like Thai rentboys, or do you have a "hands-off" clause in your contract?
Inquiring newbie writers want to know!
(PS: I support cortical stacks. Just so you know. I'm planning to use them as the basis of my campaign for presidency.)
|Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
Lawrence: The rest of you never quote me in your responses, easier to misrepresent me that way and then respond to your own misrepresentations.
Inaccurate on two counts. Firstly you do get quoted:
Richard (quoting Lawrence): "........in a very inflammatory way, I admit. Perhaps even uncalled for, although there are reasons I think my provocation more than justified but I won't bring that up here... (I wonder who can guess why I come across like a raging bull, probably no-one. Certainly not Morgan's sycophants). The really sad thing is Morgan won't know neither."
Sue (also quoting Lawrence): "(I wonder who can guess why I come across like a raging bull, probably no-one. Certainly not Morgan's sycophants). The really sad thing is Morgan won't know neither."
Secondly, both those quotes show that there's no misrepresentation here. You characterise yourself as aggressive past the point of reason. As driven by fury and hostility, not interested in debate, simply in demolition. Your justification for this?
Lawrence: I could have knocked Pilger and Moore without bringing up Morgan on the general thread, that would have been less provocatory and inflammatory. But I just don't care for the radical Left and so don't care for Morgan one little bit (and plenty other writers and editors here) and so, well there you go...
So your stated aim on this thread is to throw shit at Richard or, as you put it, "incinerate Morgan". Your stated motive is animosity. For all your "expose" of Pilger, your vitriolic rhetoric boils down to a simple question and a simple answer:
Lawrence: Can Richard Morgan set the record straight if he supports the Iraqi "insurgency" against the US/British forces and Iraqi police and army units and civilian populace?
Richard: MY opinion of the insurgency is that it is being carried out largely by intolerant zealots and bigots of one stripe or another, and bears all the hallmarks of that constituency.
The question's been asked. The answer's been given. But you continue your attempts to "goad". Is there a shred of rational reason for this or is it all just sound and fury? Well, your main beef seems to be that Richard describes Pilger as a hero:
Lawrence: I never attacked the imagined mindsest of millions by picking on Pilger, I attacked Pilger's mindset by attacking Pilger you dunderhead, and yours by association since he is your hero.
As Richard says though:
Richard: His [Pilger's] opinions are his own, and quite possibly very different to mine in any number of ways.
You actually demonstrate a similar attitude yourself. You clearly don't agree with Pilger:
Lawrence: Pilger's truthful reporting and activism against tyranny? You write this even after my exposé of what a supporter of jihadi tyranny Pilger is. That makes him an activist against tyranny then? How's that?
But wait. You answer this yourself:
Lawrence: Simon to respond to you, I do think Pilger once had some credibility (to a degree) and did some fairly good stuff, you have pointed out a lot of it. Also the Pol Pot genocide if memory serves me correctly, and something else on the plight of some island aborigines (Diego Garcia?) as a result of their displacement by a US base for B-52s. I think that was quite a recent documentary. yeah you are right there Simon.
So you offer a nod to Pilger's past achievements but someone else doffing their cap to those same achievements, using the word "hero", well, they must be a loony Leftist. I mean, despite your own (heavily qualified) acceptance that Pilger did "good stuff" in the past, your stance is absolutist. You think Pilger's present stance absolutely destroys any credibility he once had. You refuse to accept that others may retain respect for him despite that stance. It's all or nothing. The problem is, this absolutism means you're the one misrepresenting others. So despite Richard's description of a pro-insurgency stance as "dangerously irresponsible", you characterise his attitude to Pilger as that of a worshipful devotee. Despite little or no knowledge of Richard's personal politics, and of how and why these diverge from Pilger's, you project Pilger's "Radical Leftist" views onto Richard, damning him for the use of the word "hero". Despite Richard's explicit qualification of his respect for Pilger, his explicit disassociation of his own views from those of Pilger, you construct a "Dick" who whole-heartedly condones the Iraqui insurgency in order to "demolish" that projection. "Dick" is your own Straw Man, Lawrence.
So a quick summary: You're here by your own admission to tear lumps out of people you revile. You revile them because you associate them with people like Pilger and Moore whom you despise. You despise Pilger for his pro-insurgency views. You despise Moore as a propagandist. However, Richard isn't pro-insurgency, so there's nothing to call him on over that. He doesn't agree with every single word that comes out of Pilger's mouth, so your characterisation of him as Pilger's acolyte is a misrepresentation. You insist that this is valid because Pilger's wrongness over the insurgency categorically renders him, his work, and everything and everyone associated with him, ideologues and idiots.
Will: Is that what you want? That ideas and arguments are automatically and inherently tainted as the alchemical essence of the writers who put them to paper?
This is the essence of Will's rebuttal, that you're damning Richard "by association" with Pilger. You're not really addressing his views as expressed in his books or on this thread -- views which, it's clear, depart from Pilger's in no small measure. You're simply heaping vitriol on Richard for calling Pilger a hero. To do so is, apparently, in your book a "crime".
Lawrence: What I'm trying to do on this thread (although I wonder if it's worth it) is to draw attention to otherwise neglected crimes (certainly on this forum where they just have a go at the usual suspects) of Leftist academics, activists, journalists and the like.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. In the same way that you misrepresent Richard as an acolyte of Pilger you misrepresent the rest of the writers, editors and readers who hang out on this board as "sycophants" and "ideologues". You see polite behaviour as sycophancy and toadying and a general left-wing tendency amongst the posters here as some all-consuming group-think. Unfortunately, the very fact that you bring up Gorgeous George Galloway discredits that notion, since, as I told you elsewhere on this forum, I have no time for the man and never have done. He's an opportunist and a charlatan. You, however, continue to raise this Straw Man under the mistaken assumption that everybody here is labouring under the zombie-like "mindset" you project on Pilger, Moore, Morgan, myself and anyone who as much as calls you on your blind and blundering hate-filled rhetoric. I'm not a big fan of Tommy Sheridan either. Paul Robeson is one of my heroes but I think his support for the Soviet Union was dead wrong, tragic even, in so far as his eventual realisation of what Stalin had actually been up to destroyed him. But to you, I suppose, Robeson's error is unforgiveable and renders him utterly worthless. You revile Stalin, I assume, so Robeson must be unconscionable by association.
Note, Lawrence, that I am not leaping to Richard's defence here. I'm certainly not defending Pilger's views on the insurgency. All I'm doing is saying where I think you're being wrong-headed and foolish. You say you're being misrepresented and slurred with ad hominem attacks. No, your attack on all and sundry here, with all your "ammo", this whole "raging bull" act is just being called what it is: puerile bluster. You think that you're hitting home with all that vitriol, scoring points, taking people down a few pegs. No, you're just slinging shit at a few "icons" of the Left, assuming that everyone here reveres them without question when, in fact, they don't. You accuse everyone here of being dogma-driven ideologues, incapable of seeing alternative viewpoints. No, you're the one making with the sweeping generalisations and dogmatic "You're either with me or against me" absolutism.
You're being misrepresented? Christ, Lawrence, you simply don't come across as rational. Here's an example:
Lawrence: OK Simon I shouldn't call you an idiot, sorry.
Richard: Lawrence, your apologies for rudeness would carry a lot more weight if you were able to STOP BEING RUDE for a line or two.
Lawrence: I never fucking apologised, I just toned down the rhetoric for 2 sentences for Christ's sake, which I really really really regret. You're really full of so much bullshit Morgan.
You're so caught up in your bilious attack on Richard and his "sycophants" you completely failed to see that Richard was referring to your apology to Simon and in no way, shape or form mentions an apology to himself; or indeed you're so high on your own fury that you lost track of what you yourself had said. And I especially like the juxtaposition of "STOP BEING RUDE for a line or two" with a response, the second line of which is simple insult.
Do you really think you're not as bad as that Victory For Iraq idiot?
Lawrence: Now where do I sink to that level of such disgusting, stupid mega-crassness? Where? Show me go ahead.
Here you go then:
Lawrence: Address and answer the above points if you can....DICK
Lawrence: ...the fact that Pilger and Moore and Roy (and Ted Rall for that matter) think just like Morgan (and the rest of you)...
Lawrence: ... a lot of dog shit. Just like the rest of you.
Lawrence: ... your slimy toady Jeff vandermeer...
Lawrence: ... your howler monkey fanclub...
Lawrence: I'm the only one here who is not an ideologue. left-wing, right-wing, chicken wing it's all the same crap.
And so on. It's all the same crap?
Yeah, Lawrence, and most of it's yours.