My fellow-poster on Samizdata, Paul Marks, is a fairly anti-war libertarian who opposes neocon views. (He knows what he is opposing and does not use “neocon” as a catch-all term of abuse.) Despite his own opposition this is some of what he had to say about yesterday’s BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares”:
The program claimed that Soviet support for terrorist groups was another ‘myth’ indeed that the wise CIA rejected this ‘myth’ because they know it was originally based on CIA lies about the the Soviet Union. The trouble is that the Soviet Union DID support terrorist groups. The Marxist ones (including some in the Middle East as well as east Asia, Europe, and Latin America) were natural targets for Soviet support, and support them it did. The basic point of the Soviet Union was to spread Marxism all over the world – oh sorry this is another ‘neocon myth’.On the basis of the above if The Power of Nightmares claims that ‘neocons’ have made up a ‘myth’ about an international network of Islamic terrorist network, I will take it as an indication that such a network does indeed exist. Do not laugh. The program was already laying the ground work for claiming that no such network exists – just a few isolated individuals. And that these individuals are the way they are because of the wicked United States. For example the United States corrupted Egypt – under President Sadat the economy was controlled by a “handful of millionaires”. The basic fact that Egypt was (and is) a state dominated economy and that Sadat only allowed a bit of private enterprise round the edge was utterly ignored.
“But” the defenders of the program will cry “The Power of Nightmares contained lots of interviews with neocons and other people who would defend all of what you say above”. So it did, but it did not allow any of these people to present the evidence for what they said – it allowed them to say something and then (at once) treated what they said as utterly absurd. The program (and I suspect the whole series) has an agenda – and that agenda is to spread lies. Many of them (although not the one about Sadat) may be nice lies for libertarians and traditional American Conservatives to hear, but they remain lies. And the people who were interviewed by the program, in order to be held up to contempt, would have better advised to say “no I will not be interviewed by you, because you are from the BBC and will leave out any facts you do not like”.
Boldface type added by me because I noticed exactly the same pattern. A thirty-second interview would immediately be followed by the commentator saying, often without evidence but with a tone implying that this was undisputed fact, that whatever the interviewee had said was rubbish. Read the whole post, including the comments by John Thacker.
I’m glad you don’t want any further argument as you might throw soup at me if you lose.
Pete_London: Not that I would be one to make aspersions upon a person I’ve never met I doubt you’re a Leighton Orient fan who’s been standing on the terraces for years eating meat pies. Maybe it’s not culturally acceptable in London to use the phrase ‘footy’ but lets not forget that Chelsea fans (who would be my guess of where your loyalties lie) think it’s culturally acceptable to sing songs about ‘Jews and gas’ when they play Spurs. Oh, and the use of the word ‘soccer’ predates ‘football’. And in response to “By whom? The Guardian? And who gives a damn what “Europe” thinks of our past anyway?” I think you seem to think that talking about my opinion when I was in fact making a general observation from based on my own experiences from different Europeans I’ve met/know. I don’t read the Guardian either.
So close, the Arse would have been my second guess.
“I think you seem to think that talking about my opinion” ment to say “that wasn’t my opinion, I was making a general observation…”
Hope that makes sense.
This is all getting to be rather odd. Why would I be claiming to be a gooner if I wasn’t one? There’ll be a photo of my season ticket winging its way across the web if this keeps up.
‘Soccer’ does indeed predate ‘football’ but in the here and now ‘soccer’ is simply not on, ol’ chap. You may be in the habit of going to the ‘soccer’ but in my bit of the world its normal to inform the missus that we’re going to the football or, indeed, are going up the arse.
“Maybe it’s not culturally acceptable in London to use the phrase ‘footy’ but lets not forget that Chelsea fans (who would be my guess of where your loyalties lie) think it’s culturally acceptable to sing songs about ‘Jews and gas’ when they play Spurs.”
I’m not really sure of the relevence of that.
continued …..
It may be your observation that “Europe” thinks us Brits are obsessed by our imperialist past, but again … who cares? Its none of their business. Its not our business what they are obsessed by. My comment about the French stands.
Rich – my only regret about the soup-throwing incident is that it wasn’t still in the flask.
OT: war ‘have your say’
As anyone who reads the ‘have your say’ (also known as ‘talk about things you know nothing about’) will know, the BBC generaly has multiple topics about Iraq violence.
Today’s one is a corker:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3948793.stm
Trying to once again get people worked up about the war, they’re asking about the missing explosives. “Explosives have vanished from a former military complex in Iraq, the UN says. Could this cause violence to increase further?” they ask. Then saying again: “Could this mean an increase in terrorist activities?”
But they say on their own page, “According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) they were taken from the al-Qaqaa facility near Baghdad during looting after the invasion.”
Please tell me how weapons taken over a year ago would suddenly lead to an increae in violence. The difference is, we know about it. That’s all.
PD “”Military Target” is in bold because its a subheading” –
The page has been amended. It appeared as I posted it, run together, with the 2 words in bold, but in smaller font than a subheading.
It was obviously a mistake by BBC – but it did not seem a relevant sub title.
Anyway, not important.
Pete_Gooner4EVA: Do you live in a five mile radius of Highbury? Are Arsenal even your local team? (I’m talking map, ruler etc). I would guess not. I’m saying you’re not a football fan but it is interesting how many ‘real’ Arsenal fans come from Brentford et al. Being a season ticket holder doesn’t make you a real fan, as most real fans can’t afford £400 to watch a watered down version of the French national team and instead give their loyalty to their local team whom they support through thick and thin. Rain or snow.
You have got to watch the US election debate at the JFK school of government on BBC 4 when it is repeated. One of the panelists was US conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly. His reaction to the BBC moderators socialist propaganda films screened between topics was classic.
This isn’t a soccer/football/footy board.
P.S. Why do those lovers of coercion funded entertainment and the lovers of the second attempt since hitler to inflict socialism across the many peoples of europe allways post as anonymous?
Are they too timid to put a name to “their” ideas?
Hello,
My name is Eunseong Kim, and I am a Ph. D student at the School of Journalism at Indiana University. I am currently working on the Ph.D dissertation, and I am emailing you to invite you to participate in my survey.
The primary purpose of the dissertation is to examine blogging and its impact on people. While blogging rapidly garners popularity among people, empirical examination of blogging and its impact on people have been rare.
Your participation in this survey is crucial to the success of this study and to understanding the effects of this new communication phenomenon. The following link takes you to the survey questionnaire. It will take approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. After the data analysis, the report will be written in aggregate terms, and thus, no participant will be identified in any forms.
The URL of the survey site is http://www.hg4u.com.
Thank you for your help.
Biased Fox News finds ample evidence of an opposite bias by the UK media
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136525,00.html
I’m a bit mystified. You lot complain about the Guardian/ Brooker piece, then the online version is taken down and you whinge about that, then the Guardian apologises and you whinge some more (OK, Fox whinges on your behalf). What do you want them to do? Serious answers only please. So Susan et al don’t bother telling me you want the “al”-Guardian’s (hilarious and REALLY clever, by the way, that “al”) entire staff strung up because I know that already.
Sorry, took a couple of days off. I’m aware that nobody posting here – or certainly none of the people who the post was responding to – hates our soldiers, and I’m sorry my comment read that way.
(if anyone can be bothered, I can describe the complicated in-joke behind it – however, it’s not very funny and really isn’t worthwhile. Note to self: don’t get different, blogs, forums and their in-jokes confused…)
Go read the Link that rob posted. It gives a pretty good roundup of the BBC TV propaganda schedule as well as some others.
rob,
If Fox is so biased, why have I seen Wesley Clark bloviating and Bill Clinton lying (again) on Fox only in the last hour?
Recent programs have included Garrison Keillor “Kerry is forthright and center of the road”, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Hilary Clinton and Jesse Jackson to name a few off the top of my head.
They’re begging John Kerry to do an interview. They’ll go anywhere any time to get him to talk to them. He told TV Guide he would do an interview but he stonewalls.
Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Alan Colmes and Jim Pinkerton are some regular leftist contributors that I can think of.
I believe one of their divisional presidents, if not the network president, is a large contributor to the Kerry campaign and has appeared on various forums promoting Kerry.
If presenting conflicitng views is considered bias, I suppose they are guilty. Much better than the one-sided view that the Beeb presents, I’d say.
Whoa, Betsy! Comes now a truly deep thinker…someone who…you know…insight…plod…plod…knows…idea!…shape …round…”wheel”…earth flat…hmm…must think… implications…plod…plod…intellect and moment…plod,plod…puff! …pipe smoke…ruminant…cud…furrowed…still flat…still round…prove it…ramifications…troll…lotsa stomachs…magnificent me…s-a-r-c-a-s-m…moi?narcissist…not…EUREKA!
YEP, THAT’S IT! OF COOOOURSE… WE’RE ALL DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS!!!
Are you lonely or something? Who cares what you think?
Why do those lovers…of the second attempt since hitler to inflict socialism across the many peoples of europe allways post as anonymous?
The comments section is infested by anonymous Stalinists? Blimey.
“I’m a bit mystified. You lot complain about the Guardian/ Brooker piece, then the online version is taken down and you whinge about that, then the Guardian apologises and you whinge some more (OK, Fox whinges on your behalf). What do you want them to do? Serious answers only please. So Susan et al don’t bother telling me you want the “al”-Guardian’s (hilarious and REALLY clever, by the way, that “al”) entire staff strung up because I know that already.
Someone Who Knows | Email | 10.25.04 – 9:12 pm | #”
You seem to not understand the concept of free speech, Someone Who Doesn’t Know. No one here is calling for the Guardian’s idiotic editorial staff to be strung up. They are free tp publish their moronic effluvia, and we are equally free to point out its moronity. Everybody wins.
Same goes for the BBC, although that is a horse of a different color, as its moronity is subsidized by the public, many of which don’t want it.
PS — Regarding “al-Guardian” — this has been the nickname for that publication on the right side of the Internet debate for donkey’s years. I wonder why you have never heard of it. It is no more silly than “Faux News” or the “Torygraph.” If the Guardian dislikes the nickname, it is certainly free to remove its lips from the backside of the radical Arab/Islamic world every so often and try a more balanced approach.
wally,
It is not just Brits who are deserting Europe. I have plenty of friends in Scandinavia who are interested in bailing out too. Things are not quite as lovely in the Nordic utopias as we are led to believe, the most pressing issue being the huge crime and welfare consumption rates being run up by their non-integrating immigrants.
Check out this charming and ‘balanced’ piece of anti-Americana in the run up to the election:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3698110.stm
‘Ben Anderson continues his Holidays in the Danger Zone series as he travels to Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama – where the US fought for regime change, and where the people are still feeling the effects.’
Susan, once again I don’t get it. Who are these British people rushing to get out of the country? Sure plenty of youngsters go and work in Australia and the States, just as plenty of Americans and Aussies work here. Most of the secretaries at work are Antipodean and my hairdresser (amusingly) is from Texas. It’s about experiencing another culture without grappling with the language barrier. Most eventually go back. The permanent migration is mainly those retiring to France or Spain and I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of that as they don’t have US style economic systems therefore they must be awful places.
Susan — In my lifetime I expect to see the emergence of the Emirates of England in the Caliphate of Eurabia.
If the folks in Foggy Bottom had the right stuff — some may do, actually — they’d introduce a comprehensive immigration plan, modeled on the old Australian assisted-passage program, to bleed all Europe dry of its best and brightest.
Can you say “stampede”?
Meanwhile, time to enjoy the new US passport restrictions on Euroweenies — and the purple-faced contortions ahead on the BBC when Bush is re-elected next week.
Sidney Blumenthal, now unemployable in the US and shilling at the Guardian, is hired to do the “expert color” commentary.
Can you say “projectile vomit”?
‘Emirates of England’?? ‘Caliphate of Eurabia’??
Sheer, unadulterated barminess!
Once again, where is this bizarre place that you live, apparantly sealed off from the rest of the country, infested by Islamofacists, battered by Eurocrats and ravaged by mass emigration? North? South? give us a clue?
Poor baby! You don’t have a clue and plainly don’t get out enough. Fact is, there’s a whiff of Essex about you. Oh well.
Wally, I’m genuinely interested – where is this terrible place of yours? Surely informing us will confirm that your apocalyptic prose genuinely represents somewhere in modern Britain. You can insult me all you like but until you let on people will suspect it’s all in your head.
I watched some of that America: The Debate last night and it was pretty dissapointing I’ve got to say. You lot would have had a field day with the comments sent in that scrolled across the bottom of the screen. I didn’t count but there wasn’t much pro-american stuff there.
I would say the reports were slanted, but as the moderator noted they were designed to spark off a debate and the panel was well balanced so everyone got their say. Bill O’Reilly got a bit heated at times. I think he lets himself down with his attitude, he made some good points but he winds other people up with his delivery and he knows it.
Rich
The demographics are certain and Eurabia is simply a matter of time. For example, at present the growth in population of Muslims is on or around 3% greater than non-Muslims in France and Holland. This gives Islamic majorities in both countries in about a century. If the growth rate becomes 3.4% that would result in majorities within half a century. A similar story persists in many Western European nations. Its only a matter of time.
By the way, I have no idea where you live but in my part of London I know many who are leaving, planning on leaving or simply want to leave.
Pete,
I appreciate the demographic trends, but it’s ridiculous to sit here now speculating on what horrors might await in half a century. There are too many unknown factors. If you’re a fan of extrapolation then in 30 years time China will be by far the most powerful nation in the world and, being evil Commie scumsuckers, may have enslaved us all. Alternatively Bush’s successors will have won the ‘war on terror’ and all Muslims will skip around their democratic utopias handing out flowers. If all else fails, within the evil beaurocratic EU superstate comes if there’s Arabs lurking about we can always bugger off to Latvia anyway.
I live in London and work in the City. Some of the people I know have chased the weather in Australia or the big money in the States, however I’m also mates with a fair few ex-pat Aussies and Americans who have left whatever was annoying them about Oz/the US. I don’t know anyone who has fled because British culture is collapsing all around t
Pete_London me too! I and most of my friends have escape plans, and I think that when enough of the competant wealth creating people have abandoned the parasitic welfare state countries, things will collapse very very quickly.
Since I and all my friends are young higher rate tax payers with useful degrees/qualifications I would say this was a net loss to the country.
P.S. What part of London r u in? I’m in SW17
Rob – keep it quiet but I’m over in E17. That’s for the time being anyway. A nice, quiet village in Essex awaits. Close enough to work (Cambridge) and the footy (joke!) in London N5. Give it a few more years and I’ll be emigrating too 😉
From where I’ve sitting things have improved slightly over the past few years as they tend to do. There’s been a bit of renovation going on, a large number of specialist premium shops have sprung up selling nice things. On the downside there’s a few more chavs about. If you live on an estate in Peckham life’s probably not too hot but that’s as its always been.
Jonathon Millers 3 hours of “The Brief History of Disbelief” came to an end last night. Final words?
Fear & loathe US fundamentalists in the White House & their support for Israel.
The BBC Four debate was interesting.
What intrigued me most were some Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the US political system.
He feels that there is a need for a major third political party, and that it is sad that the 2 Presidential candidates are both rich men.
It was Blumenthal who disagreed with this; he seems quite happy with the two-party system, so he is a Democrat but not a Democrat.
How ironic, O’Reilly arguing for a more inclusive political culture, Blumenthal arguing against it!
Also, O’Reilly was not the only panelist to chastise the BBC.
Vartan Gregorian, a philanphropist whose interest is in education and helping the disadvantaged, criticised the BBC for focusing so much on Florida in it’s opening piece, and of blatantly ignoring “rural America”.
The wealthy middle classes have replaced the working classes in the affections of the Left.
The BBC, like most European media, thinks New York, Washington, Florida, Hollywood and California are “America”, and that those other places where the people talk funny are just an irritant.
Rich: “Who are these British people rushing to get out of the country?”
People who are scared of Islamofascism and the loss of their civil freedoms because of the growing, fascist alliance of Islamists and the liberal/left. And also people who, in addition to the above, realize that the European welfare statist economic system is failing.
Not just Brits — Scandinavians and Dutch head the list. The latter two groups because they come from much smaller countries and are much more vulnerable to demographic takeover.
wally: I agree with you that the US should orient its immigration policies toward skimming the cream off of dying Old Europe, but our current racial politics would never allow it. More’s the pity.
“Jonathon Millers 3 hours of “The Brief History of Disbelief” came to an end last night. Final words?
Fear & loathe US fundamentalists in the White House & their support for Israel.”
And meanwhile, fundamentlists of quite a different stripe, who want to enact medieval Islamic sharia law in Britain and throw homosexuals off of cliffs, are invited to tea with the Mayor of London.
And Europe thinks WE’RE crazy!
Don’t worry Susan,
I’m going to be joining the crazy ones ASAP, unless the self declared war criminal wins (the one the left supports, not the one the left falsely accuses)
Rob.
Zevilyn,
Re: the America debate
I too thought it was dissapointing that they went to all the obvious places for their little segments. To be fair though in the BBC’s news coverage I’ve seen quite a few items from small towns and the like with people’s personal stories and how they will determine their vote.
More of that would have been interesting and it would have left the reporters and the moderator less open to attack as its the words of actual americans rather than some british bbc reporter telling americans what their country is like. You could sense the audience were pissed off by this approach and rightly so.
I’ve been saying what O’Reilly said about a third party for ages, it would give the others a kick up the arse. At present you can pick up votes by just making the other look worse than you, much harder to fight a war on two fronts… you have to rely on your policies more to make you stand out.
The history of 3rd parties in the US tends to be short. If they are successful, they eventually just cannibalize the old party they most resemble. See Republicans and Whigs. If they are not successful, they wither away. See the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.
‘Ben Anderson continues his Holidays in the Danger Zone series as he travels to Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama – where the US fought for regime change, and where the people are still feeling the effects.’
That guy has such an annoying voice!!!
Also, seeing as the BBC send him halfway around the world (at our expense) you’d blooming well expect him to have some good questions to ask the folks when he gets there!
As opposed to the “What do you think of George Bush?” type pitch up he always serves up to the vile brainwashed commies.
Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z z z z z z
Susan – Slag off the Guardian all you want, I just thought sentences like “al-Guardian cravenly deleted that article joking about Bush’s assassination” suggested criticism of that deletion rather than welcome, but obviously I was wrong. As for the “al”: My I am sorry I haven’t been hanging out on the “right” side of the internet. I didn’t realise that was a prerequisite for posting here. But it doesn’t make “al”-Guardian any less “hilarious” or “clever” (as for “Tory”graph).
OT:
Check out the Beeb’s idea of a balanced panel of experts on the US election:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/mediabulletin/news_story.cfm?articleID=225935&Origin=MB25102004
Truly, they have moved beyond parody.
Someone Who Doesn’t Know:
I actually prefer my own term Al-‘Tardian but that’s a bit too Amero-centric for this blog (‘tard being American slang for retard, which is in itself slang for mental retardation.) Toodles.