William Rees-Mogg comments on the recent claims by Irwin Stelzer, Rupert Murdoch's go-between with Downing Street and the White House, that Jack Straw was removed as Foreign Secretary after Condoleezza Rice was alarmed at the amount of Muslims in his Blackburn constituency during her touchy feely visit there a month before he got the boot.
This presents the country's Muslims with a great opportunity. Surely it is now a religious duty to move to Sedgefield? In fact, this calls for a mobile tactical team of thousands to be assembled, threatening ministers that unless they toe the line, they will move into their constituency.
The idea of Muslim pressure is of course complete pantomime. Muslim political influence on their MPs is so negligible that Terry Rooney, MP for Bradford, home of 10,000 Muslims, can show-off his Parliamentary Executive status within Labour Friends of Israel.
Straw himself backed the Iraq war and still won his seat again at the 2005 election. The only conclusion we can draw is that Middle East policy (i.e. war) is going to get so bad that even Blackburn's Muslims wouldn't put up with it.
The only conclusion we can draw is that Middle East policy (i.e. war) is going to get so bad that even Blackburn's Muslims wouldn't put up with it.
Or you can draw the conclusion that for Muslims in Blackburn their government's foreign policy was not the only yardstick for which to assess their MP. But let's perish that thought....
Posted by: Sunny | 07 August 2006 at 09:55 PM
Nope your right sunny,
the hunt for Iraqi WMD was probably a yardstick as well - along with PM Tony Blair's inability to string two sentences together without one of them being a lie - as well as all those quarter of a million Iraqi corpses littering Iraq whose deaths Blair is responsible for -
All the best Rolled up Trews!
PS
did you see the results of yesterday's Readers Poll in The Sunday Herald -
http://www.sundayherald.com/
- hilarious!
Posted by: joe90 | 07 August 2006 at 11:46 PM
Slightly OT -
"quarter of a million Iraqi corpses littering Iraq whose deaths Blair is responsible for -"
Yet the New Statesman has '100,000' to which Blair allegedly replies '50,000' (see post 'At a Downing St reception').
Tbh, I'd be surprised if the Allied forces killed even as many as 50,000 people in Iraq. I await to be amazed.
Posted by: Ted | 08 August 2006 at 09:51 AM
Here's an excellent clip of galloway on sky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
Posted by: al | 08 August 2006 at 11:56 AM
Bush and Blair are guilty of the same crime as Hitler - 'unprovoked aggression' against innocent defenceless Iraq -
- so every violent death in Iraq is caused, directly or indirectly, by these two war criminals -
I'd be surprised if the 'Allied Forces' ie lonely and all washed-up Bush and Blair and their brainwashed fanatical fundamentalist supporters, won't lie about their crimes and pretend its not their fault or its not as bad as all that
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
They can't even tell the truth now, about why they attacked innocent defencelees Iraq in first place ie Saddam's WMD 45 minute threat, yet now they're also experts on Iraqi mass-murder -
- they can't find Iraqi WMD or the big pile of Iraqi corpses either - how appropropriate!
Posted by: joe90 | 08 August 2006 at 07:28 PM
You are joking yeah?! Do you really think Condi gives a shit about who lives in Blackburn?!
Posted by: kris | 09 August 2006 at 12:45 AM
It was one thing to be opposed to the invasion of Iraq - as I was - but it's another to believe some of the more excitable claims of sections of the anti-war brigade. I don't believe Bush and Blair are as bad as Hitler - they are not conducting a systematic genocide based on notions of racial purity wherefrom the categorised individual has no chance of official escape or possible exemption upon validation of said racial category. Comparing them to such is unhelpful and demeaning to the legitimate anti-war argument, in my view.
And I don't attribute every death in Iraq to the Allies. The deaths caused by the insurgents, for example, (who, as it happens, I don't believe have the good of Iraq at heart) cannot be legitimately ascribed to 'Blair and Bush' without a serious level of dishonesty being adopted.
In general, I believe Britain 'should not seek monsters abroad' and that Iraq, Afghanistan, or any troubled nation, is not our problem and not worth risking our lives over. Those are the grounds I was/am opposed to the Iraq invasion and there's no need for people to exaggerate the level of culpability for the various woes in these countries.
Posted by: Ted | 09 August 2006 at 10:45 AM
Ted, I think those who make the comparison with the Hitler would cite the Nuremberg trials. There, the Nazis were tried under the catch-all charge of instigating wars of aggression. It's the ultimate war crime, and this is what Bush and Blair did.
Posted by: Osama | 09 August 2006 at 12:27 PM
The comment about the Nuremberg Trials is irrelevant. Wars of aggression have been started by many parties throughout history. One could say the same about Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, also an act of aggression against a smaller country. The particular feature of the Nazis was their organised genocide on an industrial scale. One cannot acuse Bush and Blair of doing the same. Hence the comparison is inappropriate and used to create hysteria and deceive.
Posted by: naveen | 09 August 2006 at 02:24 PM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
You might to read this article in the Guardian today:
With extreme prejudice
Posted by: Yusuf Smith | 09 August 2006 at 04:58 PM
I never said Bush and Blair were as bad as Hitler, I said they are guilty of the exact same crime as Hitler is 'unprovoked 'aggression' - which is the crime of crimes and is the root from which all other crimes follow -
- so yes, 'insurgents' commit crimes but only because they have been given the opportunity to do so by Bush and Blair's 'unprovoked aggression' -
- if you follow the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal judgement on Hitler then you should have no problems understanding the culpability of the self-styled Leader of the Free World and his British poodle.
So why you are wittering on about industrial genocide I've no idea, or some laughable rubbish about categories and other hugely entertaining cod philosophiy, I've no idea.
So people might pause for thought before they vote for someone who is guilty of the exact same crime as Hitler which has led to bloodbath in Iraq -
- Saddam is a 45 minute threat to the Free World anyone ?
- Iraqi WMD even ?
- or how about "We attacked invaded and are occupying Iraq and are murdering its people in order to bring then democracy - the same as we did in Vietnam"
Posted by: joe90 | 09 August 2006 at 05:56 PM
Osama, the Nazis were also charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. I cannot, in all conscience, find moral equivalence between the removal of the Taleban in Afghanistan (even if I did not see it as our job to do so and that we should not be there) with, say, the Nazi invasion, subjagation and subsequent genocide of the Soviet Union. One could quibble about technicalities but it is a demeaning currency to believe the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be analogous with the full horrors of Nazi Germany.
Joe90, it's important to mention genocide as this was one of the main crimes of the Hitler regime - and as you are attempting to draw comparison between this regime and the present UK/US governments then it needs to be mentioned in order that a full comparison be made. I'm sure you're fair that way.
Posted by: Ted | 10 August 2006 at 09:39 AM
Ted,
you are obviously having a bit of difficulty coping with reality here, so I'll try again (though I'm not hopeful).
Bush and Blair are guilty of the exact same crime as Hitler is guilty of ie 'unprovoked aggression' - from that crime all others follow.
So, no matter what happens next in the chain of cause and effect, those who started the violence in the first place
ie attacked Poland or attacked Iraq and Afghanistan
have a responibility in all of the other crimes that follow, whether they are an active agent at the scene those crimes or whether they are physically absent when they took place.
As no two historical events are ever the same it follows that not all the crimes that take place are going to be the same -
- if you want to go on 'moral equivalence' wild goose chases, be my guest Ted. I couldn't care less.
The fact you cannot own up to the fact Bush and Blair are guilty of 'unprovoked aggression', the same crime Hitler is guilty of, is your problem and, of course, their current victims in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unless, of course, you want to present evidence on behalf of Bush nd Blair, that none of us are aware of, then again, be my guest Ted. Bush and Blair tried so hard themselves, to invent a case where they could claim they were only defending themselves by attacking Iraq (the US just went ahead and attacked Afganistan with hardly a pretence at a justification), and yet, this is all their supporters have left to defend themselves with now
ie The Nazi Holocaust and some rubbish about equivalnce, whatever that is
Why did the US and UK attack Afghanistan and Iraq then Ted ?
And as long as you don't do exactly as the old Third Reich did to their innocent defenceless victims then you're free to do whatever you want to others - is that right Ted?
Posted by: joe90 | 10 August 2006 at 02:41 PM
For one thing, I did not 'own up' to anything as I have nothing to 'own up' to. I stated that one could debate technicalities but that I, personally, could not describe them as 'wars of aggression' as I don't believe the intent was aggressive - i.e. not analogous to Hitler's - and that the conduct was absent of the subjugation and systematic genocide which was the main characteristic of Nazi wars. Now you can quibble all you like and hop madly from foot to foot, as you appear to be doing, but you've not written anything to convince me that we are dealing with governments equal to, and morally comparable to, Nazi Germany. So if it's alright with you, I'll continue to flag up nonsensical and unhelpful comparisons as and when I see them.
Of course the insurgents in Iraq and sundry Taleban fighters and sympathisers are responsible for whichever violence they choose to carry out. If you sympathise with their actions and their ultimate aims, then you should spit it out and say so and spare us all the bother.
In fact, for someone so clearly obsessed with Nazi Germany, perhaps you could tell us whether you consider the small 'resistance' carried out by Nazi soldiers and sympathisers against the Allies after WWII was also the moral responsibility of the Allies? In fact, do you consider Nazi Germany itself to be subject to your bizarre logic of cause and effect and that the Treaty of Versailles was so ruinous that the Allies were in fact the cause of WWII and Nazi Germany? Please, I'd like you to follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion.
"Why did the US and UK attack Afghanistan and Iraq then Ted ?"
In my view, in the case of Afghanistan, the US suspected, not unreasonably, that Osama bin Laden and sundry scumbags were being sheltered by the then Afghan regime. In my view, in the case of Iraq, it was 'unfinished business' for the Bush family. In my view, the UK had no business with either.
"And as long as you don't do exactly as the old Third Reich did to their innocent defenceless victims then you're free to do whatever you want to others"
Is this a tacit admission that your Third Reich comparison obsession is wrong-headed, misplaced and unhelpful? Fair enough.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were, by and large, ill-conceived and badly executed. The UK should have had nothing to do with them and should remove British troops from these arenas.
Why do so many anti-war folk find it hard to accept a legitimate opposition to the wars that isn't based on sophomoric insults about the greatest evil to visit mankind in the 20th century?
Posted by: Ted | 10 August 2006 at 03:18 PM
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
Sounds familiar.
Posted by: Osama | 10 August 2006 at 08:08 PM
What is Ted talking about ?
'Unprovoked aggression' is the crime Hitler is guily of - Bush and Blair carried out the self same crime against Iraq - so Ted, unless you have evidence to prove the US and UK were provoked by Iraq in any way -
ie the 45 minute threat of Iraqi WMD in the hands of Saddam, a madman every bit as bad as Hitler, we were all led to believe at the time
- then the assertion is justified and the claim that Bush and Blair are war criminals and as bad as Hitler stands.
Try reading something about the judgement of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal Ted - do yourself a favour and find out what it is you are trying to talk about, because you haven't a clue.
Unprovoked aggression is the crime of crimes - there is no crime that is worse for a human being to commit because within that crime all other crimes are contained - that is the cause of all other crimes that follow, bar none -
ie 'unprovoked aggression' which Hitler is held guilty of, led to and was responsible for everything that happened later Ted, everything
Ted, you haven't a clue - I don't think you've ever heard of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, its formulation of the crime of 'unprovoked aggression' or its interpretation and wording, never mind its meaning for the rest of humanity - never mind having read anything about it, or the Fourth Geneva Conventions or anything to do with International Humanitarian Law!
You're as pointless as that naveen character -
Posted by: joe90 | 10 August 2006 at 09:38 PM
Joe, you clearly have a lot of unresolved anger and are incapable of conducting even a semi-coherent discussion so rather than hijack Osama's blog, I'll leave you and your Hitler fantasies in peace.
Osama, that's a fair point which, as Goring admits, could apply to a democracy as much as a dictatorship. You'll notice, too, though, from the same link you posted, that Goring authorised on paper "a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution of the Jewish question." In other words, the explicit ordering of a systematic genocide based on notions of racial purity. Does that make him morally analogous to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, in your view?
See, the point I'm trying to make is that for any comparison with Nazi Germany, all criteria have to be met such was the seriousness of that regime. It should not be a frivolous comparison yet I get the impression that many do indeed make it without a full understanding of what they're actually saying.
Posted by: Ted | 11 August 2006 at 11:41 AM
The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal judgement on Hitler was just a bit of frivolity!
Harvard Law School Library
Nuremberg Trials Project
A Digital Document Collection
Especially when compared to high-minded Ted and his inability to differentiate historical particulars from ethical and moral principals as contained in Law!
Sure, no two historical events are the same - that's true but also trivial - it doesn't get anyone very far. No two crimea are exactly carried out in the same way in the real world - again, completely true and completely trivial.
What is non-trivial is the principals used in order to be able to tell crimes apart and judge the scale of their importance and seriousness to the rest of civilsied society at large. The Law is the body of lessons we learn from the particulars of individual unique historical instances. A distillation of human codes of conduct from which to compare and contrast, good from bad, past from present, legal from illegal etc etc
So - just to demonstrate Ted and his wonderful (or woeful) world of surface appearances - devoid of any real lessons that have been learned from previous human experiences as codified in Law, in order to judge latter-day leaders of the world -
1 - unless Bush and Blair were Hitler themselves ( a logical impossibility I would have thought, but then again you have the Christian notion of the Trinity, 3 persons in 1, so who am I to argue) -
2 - unless the actions of Bush and Blair exactly replicated Hitler's (ie they carried out unprovoked aggression against Poland instead of Iraq and Afghanistan) then they can't be compared Hitler-
3 - and who knows - unless Bush and Blair were alive at the exact same time as Hitler then they can't be compared to Hitler-
4 - Then we can't compare the two (or three) because the two (or three) are not exact - but if they were exactly the same they would be the same person and there would be nothing to compare them with etc etc
So,
you'll notice Ted stays firmly on the safe side but not mentioning the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal but instead treats us to opinions and wiffle-waffle about 'moral equivalence', whatever that is, and some non-Nuremberg criteria that has to be met in order for Bush and Blair to be guilty of the ultimate crime of 'unprovoked aggression', the same as Hitler.
I did ask Ted to present any evidence he had that would clear both Bush and Blair of the same crime Hitler was ultimately guilty of, 'unprovoked aggression', but he has failed to do so - electing instead to do an Oprah Winfrey impersonation and talk about 'unresolved anger' issues and such-like - leaving me alone with my 'Hitler fanatsies' and then proceeding to launch into some of his own!
Posted by: joe90 | 11 August 2006 at 01:35 PM
I'll let you have the last word, Joe, as I freely admit your arguments are no longer making any sense to me.
Posted by: Ted | 11 August 2006 at 01:48 PM
Doesn't surpise me Ted -
If you are unable to connect up experience with lessons to be learned and common principles to be agreed upon based on those shared experiences, then that is the price you have pay mate -
- that is the shallow world of mere surface appearance where everything is new and unique and nothing is ever the same as anything else - much like a goldfish with its 2 second memory, going around and around in its little bowl, everything is always new to it, always
If you don't understand the basics of historical facts and particulars with judgements based on them, but also born of them as well, then there is no hope for you Ted - you'll just have to suffer living in your ever present present
Posted by: joe90 | 11 August 2006 at 02:16 PM
Joe, I'm not your 'mate'. And I understand historical facts all too well. In fact, it's because I understand them so well that I find erroneous comparisons unhelpful and, frankly, ignorant.
Feel free to take the last word without resorting to personal abuse. I'm certain you can manage it.
Posted by: Ted | 11 August 2006 at 03:03 PM
Suit yourself Ted old boy -
- it's because you are caught up in the surface detail Ted that you are unable to see the woods for the trees -
- and feel free to accuse me of any crime you like Ted old boy - doesn't bother me at all, especially as it comes from someone who doesn't even know what Hitler has actually been found guilty of - what his ultimate crime is - but instead seems transfixed by transient individual actions and historical particularities -
- much like your continual profession that you don't want that last word but seem unable to summon up the self-control to stop your cycle of abuse - much like my goldfish analogy -
- but feel free to take the opportunity to again invite me to have the last word Ted - I am sure you can manage to abuse yourself just one more time, for old time's sake
Posted by: joe90 | 11 August 2006 at 03:19 PM
I find any accusation of myopia from yourself quite amusing. You seem to believe that the entire story of Nazi Germany is told by the trial of, er, 22 defendants. If only it were that simple.
As for being obsessed with detail - well, yes, I stand guilty on that charge. It means you don't make childish errors like comparing Tony Blair to Adolf Hitler, for example. What next? John Prescott is morally analogous to Pol Pot?
Oh, and point of fact, Hitler wasn't found guilty of anything at Nuremberg. He was dead. Perhaps you mean you found him guilty 'in absentia', as it were, but that would involve researching the entire history of National Socialists under Hitler. But then that's what I've been saying all along. So long, chum.
Posted by: Ted | 11 August 2006 at 04:10 PM
Those who don't learn from history, Ted old boy, are bound to repeat it!
I have said it again and again (the goldfish principle Ted, remember?) and I keep repeating the exact same accusation
ie Bush and Blair are guilty of the exact same crime Hitler is guilty of - 'unprovoked aggression'!
Forget all the detail Ted old boy - forget the 22 defendents or whatever; Prescott et al; or that Hitler was dead and found guilty in absentia (altho I could have sworn Hitler was at Nuremberg - must be just me); and all the rest of your obfuscating silly little propaganda tricks - try to focus on what I have said Ted and specifically what my argument is.
For somebody that enjoys luxuriating in historical detail you certainly don't seem to appreciate any of its lessons - especially when you seem so au fait with Nuremberg itself Ted (or was that the result of some help from an internet search engine).
So once again, goldfish boy in your little goldfish bowl, goodbye and farewell!..
..Or is it just..Au Revoir?
Posted by: joe90 | 11 August 2006 at 05:03 PM
I well understand your argument. It is that the President of the USA and the UK Prime Minister are 'like Hitler', were your words I believe? Now you seem to be suggesting that you weren't making a full and proper comparison. Ah, I see. So when you say a politician is 'like Hitler' what does it actually mean? Do, in fact, faux comparisons (General Galtieri was 'like Hitler', for example) make the notion of 'being Hitler' utterly meaningless and redundant, as I feared, and in fact saying someone is 'like Hitler' tells us nothing about that person or your ideological position on them? Phew. What a muddle you've got yourself into.
Posted by: Ted | 14 August 2006 at 10:41 AM