On Sunday I noticed a report on BBConline which talked about the international aid effort to Pakistan which was then underway. Knowing that such affairs are almost becoming a catwalk for the compassion of the developed world, I approached with caution.
Anyway, a read of the report showed the BBC magnanimously including the US in the lede about international aid swinging into action- generally an upbeat presentation. However, I say maganimously because the US is listed as having pledged just 100,000 dollars- far less than the EU or even the UK (this issue of EU aid versus individual EU countries giving aid is very much an unresolved reporting issue for the Beeb- for instance, having effectively headlined the EU in lede and list, they throw this line in at the end, ‘France, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece have all allocated funds or pledged to assist with immediate needs.’Meanwhile, Ireland had pledged about a third of that, I subsequently learnt.)
Needless to say, the BBC’s assertion that the US had pledged just $100,000 seems to have been flat out wrong: this report (of the same day, timestamp ‘earlier’- but later given transatlantic timezones) says the US had given– not pledged (a v. important distinction oft abused in BBC journalism as elsewhere)- 500,000 dollars to the Pakistan Red Cross via the relevant US agency, and that this took place on Saturday, by way of a beginning.
Although the Beeb follow up the 100,000 assertion- a figure I found was actually repeated from an earlier article– by quoting Bush that ‘”Our initial deployments of assistance are under way, and we stand ready to provide additional assistance as needed,” they fail to point out what that initial deployment had actually meant- all they needed to do was quote Bush… a little more:
‘Speaking in the Oval Office with the Pakistani Embassy’s deputy chief of mission, Mohammad Sadiq, by his side, Bush said that the United States has already sent some financial aid — the U.S. Agency for International Development sent $500,000 to the Red Cross in Pakistan on Saturday.
A second relief package in the form of emergency supplies, military helicopters and emergency management personnel was on its way. Two C-130 and a C-17 U.S. military aircraft containing blankets, winterized tents and other relief supplies were in motion already.
“We’re moving choppers. Secretary Rumsfeld is surveying the assets they may be able to move in the area,” Bush said. “Pakistan’s a friend, and the United States government and the people of the United States will help as best as we possibly can.’
Geddit Beeb?- costly, present actions: the choppers probably no-one else will send, plus aircraft and crewmen. I wonder how much it costs per day to fuel, maintain and man these kinds of items in foreign terrain? Wassa matter, Beeb, Bush’s colloquialism ‘choppers’ too low brow for ya t’report? $100,000- pah!
The Beeb, it seems clear, learnt nothing from their failures over reporting the US contribution to the tsunami. Even if situations move quickly, what would have been wrong in updating the report (the most recent I can find under a ‘Pakistan Aid’ search of the BBC website)?
One last note- I see that in addition to top-billing the EU, the Beeb also co-mentioned the ‘several Islamic nations’. Concerning this latter group: A)Where’s the beef? (statistically, in the article, I mean- no doubt the Beeb would get the facts wrong but still it would be something to go on) and B)Where’s the rest of Allah’s righteous nations in showing love to the Ummah? (a question I am sure they’d rather leave to the relevant heralded Panorama)
Update: Well, I did say ”c’mon’, and lo! they came (on)- the Beeb got to the US aid delivery 24 hours (or more) after their competitor news organisation. They also updated the old story (similarly late). But the explicitness with which they refer to the US role (could actually be more explicit) almost makes me think they took a hint from someone…
‘The US has promised $50m for relief operations and Kuwait pledged $100m.Six helicopters have now arrived in Pakistan from the US airbase in neighbouring Afghanistan.
(that’ll be ‘US helicopters’- ed’s guess)
The US ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, said planes with US relief supplies were forming a “virtual air bridge” into Pakistan.’
Yet I do notice how Kuwait gets a starring role, in grating juxtaposition with the US’ effort. And, if you’re going to talk in those terms, why not Ireland, the ultimate David-like persona to grate with? Didn’t they pledgemuch more than Kuwait? And (cherry on top time) why leave it to an ambassador of the USA to say that the US airforce is forming a ‘virtual air bridge’? Isn’t it near enough a very expensive and yet vital fact?
The US is acting, promptly and decisively (surprise!), and this is doubtless costly too. Knowing the US stance on aid, it probably isn’t even counting the gift of the choppers etc as part of any sum of money it’s pledging to give. After all, you can’t pledge what you’ve already given. One thing that’s certain is that while all the other aid may line the pockets of various bureaucratic layers, trickling on down to the bereaved and the homeless, this is one donationgoing where it’s really needed. It’s just difficult to get the BBC to admit it.
Lurker
Or do we have some form of cultural imperialism in place that says such barbaric comments hsould only be condemned when from the mouths of one’s percieved enemies.
I wouldn’t condemn such words from my enemy, I’d kill him before he killed me. Strewth, you’d condemn Churchill because his speeches were hurtful to the Hun! Look at Coulter’s words again. She’s saying this is war, in war you kill your enemy in such numbers that they are defeated and can’t come back. She’s right. You’ve either missed her point or you’re a pacifist and therefore have nothing useful to add. I think you’re a pacifist.
Lurker – if you’re not already a Muslim – become one. It really suits you. 😆
Bryan – I accept your comments that you did not acknowledge that you were wrong in your statement.
Well, thanks , Lurker, but what took you so long? That was like extracting teeth! Just kidding. Your acceptance accepted.
I’d just ask you if you were a Muslim living in Palestine and read Ann Coulther’s comments how would you feel about them.
Really, Lurker, the fate you wish on people. Well, if I were, I’d probably have a grudging respect for her. Palestinians respect strength.
On the other hand, if I were the aforementioned Palestinian and read your comments on this thread, I’d probably be rolling in the dusty streets of Gaza in helpless mirth at the evidence of yet another liberal Westerner who’s fallen for Islamic deceit hook, line and sinker.
To return to Coulter, she’s right in some respects. The West didn’t declare this war, it was declared on it by an act of war against Western civilians. The difficulty, of course, is how to fight a cowardly enemy who encourages and sponsors terror against Israel and the West and then protests innocence when confronted. I have to admit that I’m no military strategists and quite frankly I don’t have a clue. But I can see there’s potential for the conflict to spread. Take Syria, for example. Too cowardly to go to Iraq’s aid when the US attacked, that chinless and spineless wonder who heads the place has been facilitating the crossing of terrorists into Iraq, just as he, like his father before him, does everything possible to aid and abet terrorists acting against Israeli civilians, because he’s too scared to take Israel on again on the battlefield.
Another problem, quite apart from the obvious external threat, is how to tackle a barbaric enemy who has infiltrated into your own society by means of the very structures that have ensured that your society has become part of the civilized world, and is working tirelessly to undermine it from within.
I have some ideas, but I’d like to hear from you. What would you do to prevent the society into which you were born, and which nourished and sustained you, from falling prey to an internal enemy whose aim, in the name of ‘religion’, is to deny you your freedom and turn your society into a replica of the nightmarish hellhole he came from?
Well, despite Bryan and I getting off to a bad start we both appear to be engaging a reasoned debate. I will return to his points later.
Unlike Teddy Bear who makes a literally senseless comment – I’m an athiest. How would being a Muslim suit me, eh?
Pete_London – you’vbe made some interseting commetns and I’ve re-read her comments. I understand what you are saying and see your point – to an extent. But the “we should convert them to Christianity” part of her quote is troubling is it not? Firstly this directly implies evangelicism, which Muslims are always castigated for by the right. It implies that Christianity is morally superior to Islam (I relaise that many of you would agree with that.), all which harks back to the crusades. But more importantly for you on the right it takes away the freedom of someone to worship (or not worship) their own god. Even if you you take the line that Islam is morally bad (which of ocurse I don’t) the conversion to Christianity part is an impostion which denies the people to choose an alternative religion. Surely the right would seek to encourage freedom – not limit it. Unless of course the whole PURPOSE of the US/Western response is to convert folk to Christianity.
BTW – I’m not a pacifist, tho I’m am cautious about the use of force.
Bryan. I think your post was a thought provoking one that raises some interesting and measured questions. That is the sort of debate I’m trying to engage in. I don’t doubt we live in troubling times and “the enemy” as you put is does act in a cowardly way. For me the answers are not clear cut. While the west clearly has to respond to what is going on we should also consider how our response affects the situation. Statements that all or most Muslims are or support terrorists and that Muslims should be converted to Christianity inflame an already tense situation.
I would accept that the postion of some (tho not all) of the left allying themselves with organisationas such as the MCB si not helpful. Indeed as a liberal leftie I find it deeply troubling that liberal ally themselves with oranisations that have bigotted and prejudiced views on women, anti Semitism and homosexuality to name but three strong liberal causes. I don’t run with my enemy’s enemy is my friend. That is exactly what the West did with Saddam – and look where that ended up.
So, Bryan, I’ve not answered your questions cos I think they are not that easy to answer. But I will dwell upon it and attempt to engage in a reasoned discourse with you (and others) on this blog. But I would say those that post ill thought out or thinly veiled bigoted views do their cause no good – they are just seen by many (even those that may share some of their ideas) as extremists.
Unlike Teddy Bear who makes a literally senseless comment – I’m an athiest. How would being a Muslim suit me, eh?
The answer lies in the mentality you have ‘engaged’ in the discussion above. However, your last post is showing more ‘reason’ which is promising.
Surely the right would seek to encourage freedom – not limit it.
Only a fool would encourage freedom to those that would enslave.
Even if you you take the line that Islam is morally bad (which of ocurse I don’t) I’m curious to hear what you find morally good about Islam. Which society that upholds it would you point as fine examples of the morality you claim is there?
Lurker,
Indeed as a liberal leftie I find it deeply troubling that liberal ally themselves with oranisations that have bigotted and prejudiced views on women, anti Semitism and homosexuality to name but three strong liberal causes.
Interesting. Just as you rightly claim that the right has moved on, so has the left, but I fear mostly in the wrong direction. It’s been quite some time since I’ve heard any condemnation of anti-Semitism from the left. In fact, many on the left appear to be allied to radical Islam in its hatred of anything American or Jewish. The anti-Iraq war campaigner Cindy Sheehan is a case in point. So are those on the left who join the International Solidarity Movement – which purports to be simply pro-Palestinian but is actually rabidly anti-Semitic. So are numerous left-wing bloggers. There are still plenty right-wing anti-Semites, but the swing appears to be towards the left.
Re your last point, I’m afraid you’re going to have to accept some extreme language here and there, and if Muslims are offended by it, tough. They are not nearly as sensitive as they would like you to believe.
People are angry. They are angry about 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Beslan, etc, etc. And many are also angry about the killing of innocents in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem because they have come to realise that Israel has been fighting Islamic terror for a long, long time, and that the same Islamic terror has now reached their own doorsteps.
Teddy Bear – I’ve got be honest and say that I found your last post smug and patronising. You said “However, your last post is showing more ‘reason’ which is promising.” implying that I hadn’t been reasoned before. Whilst you may not have agreed with my previous posts I think they were reasoned ans certainly didn’t stoop the “Are you a Muslim jibe” follwed later on by “Lurker – if you’re not already a Muslim – become one. It really suits you.”
Your previous posts were pretty senseless and you might have the good grace to acknowledge it rather than try to imply I’ve only just started being “reasonable.”
I would sya that I found Bryan’s earlier posts “unreasonable” in his assertions and I tried to be reasoned in my arguments. To be fair Bryan pointed out areas where I’d misunderstood him and to me this is what a resoned debate is – you don’t have to agree withe your interlocuter to have a resoned debate and explore the issues. You Teddy Bear, seem to think “reasoned” is only when someone’s views, in your opinion, move towards your own.
Bryan – gald you picked up on my comments about the right and left moving on. Which I hope illustrates my point that the left can sometimes have “good ideas” that can become mainstream – and so by the same token can the right. That is why I’m interested in reading this blog and forum. I know what the left says. Much of its thinking is in a straightjacketed orthodoxy – as is a lot of right wing thinking.
My attempt to engage, as I’ve alluded to in previous posts is to have dialetical debate out of which may come some new ways of thinking for us all – a lofty, pious ideal I know.
As to your comment “I’m afraid you’re going to have to accept some extreme language here and there, and if Muslims are offended by it, tough.”
I think all I would say is that if you use extreme language you get close to preaching hate. And preaching hate is not a good thing, for many reasons. Two reasons are
It provides fuel for the Muslim extrmists.
And it also stokes up unrest in communities. Even if you are right (and I don’t believe you are) that most Muslims support the terroists, what about the ones that don’t – they shouldn’t be able to live in peace without being tarred with the “all muslims are or support terrorists” line.
http://www.freemuslims.org/
I don’t doubt that Muslim extremism is a very real threat and needs to be tackled. But using extreme language is not the way to do it.
I’ve got be honest and say that I found your last post smug and patronising.
You found it irritating, which is how many of yours come across to me. I’ve no problem with anybody disagreeing if they’re being genuine. Using logical reasoning based on real or assumed facts. The argument then is won, lost, or agreed to differ by whoever shows greater logic, or knowledge of facts that were not previously known or considered.
However when somebody like yourself, using absurd and puerile equivalences just to create an argument but have nothing really to contribute you can expect scorn. You want attention – you get a tension.
For some examples of the above, consider
This:
But there sometimes is rank hypocrisy from some of the contributers who seek to condemn Muslims and the fact they have a belief. Yes some Muslims are extremeist and use their religion to justify their actions – the same applies to Christians and other religions too but many here choose to ignore that. It simply doesn’t stack up. Just because people remain silent on soemthing it does not mean that they condone it.
This:
I think if a black person who had sufffered a racist attack said “I expect all white people to condemn this and unless they do I’ll regard their silence as acquiescence and remain deeply suspicious of every last one of them” you would most likely say this was unreasonable.
This:
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there are extremeoists in every religion – not just Islam.
And this:
Even if you you take the line that Islam is morally bad (which of ocurse I don’t) the conversion to Christianity part is an impostion which denies the people to choose an alternative religion. Surely the right would seek to encourage freedom – not limit it.
Finally, you use your pained emotions to avoid confronting points that were put to you. Put up or shut up.
I don’t doubt that Muslim extremism is a very real threat and needs to be tackled. But using extreme language is not the way to do it.
Instead of criticising, why don’t you enlighten us as to how you would tackle it.
Lurker,
Interesting that you should home in on Kamal Nawash of the ‘Free Muslims Against Terrorism’. I remember that rally of his, which attracted about 30 people – most of them press or non-Muslims. But more to the point is the fact that the man is not only a fake, but quite possibly a dangerous one:
[Arab Comic]Ray Hanania is an advisory board on Free Muslims Against Terrorism. Although non Muslim, Hanania has worked with the PLO and was president of the Palestine National Congress. He calls “terrorism a legitimate form of resistance”, justifies suicide bombings, and stated that: “The Likud party in Israel is the first terrorist organisation in the Middle East”…Ray Hanania’s 1996 book is entitled: “I’m glad I look like a terrorist”.
Hanania calls his humor “Comedy for Peace”.
And:
….not long ago I received a critical analysis of certain premises of the March and FMAT from a writer named Erich von Abele.
Von Abele sent this analysis to FMAT’s Kamal Nawash and received this response: “Dear Erich, Paranoid schtsophrinia [sic] is a treatable disease now. Please see some one about your problems. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are nuts. 21st century medicine has cures for just about anything. This is our official response. I hope you keep your word and have it published.” FreeMuslims.org
For obvious reasons, I found it highly disturbing. I am used to getting abuse from Islamic apologists, but I thought von Abele’s questions were entirely reasonable, and warranted a serious answer….
There’s more info on the site on Nawash’s connections to radical Islam.
Lurker, you fall too easily into the liberal trap of assuming there must be some outside agency causing and exacerbating Islamic terror. If only it were possible, so liberal thinking goes, to identify and neutralise this agency, then terror would likewise be brought under control.
But the odd commenter on the odd blog “preaching hate” is not what fuels what you so quaintly call “Muslim extremism.” It’s the indoctrination of ‘religious’ hatred, justified by the Koran, that Muslims feed their children practically from the time they can talk that does the trick. That, along with the belief that their problems are the fault of anyone but themselves.
The US, take note bbc, is a low tax, low price, high wage economy. Result = prosperity. Britain, and much of the EU is a high tax, high price, low wage economy. Result = they’re OK, but they don’t do so well. Now class, turn to page 1 in your Economics textbooks.
Oh yeah, one other thing beeboids, unlike some European countries, like this one, the US didn’t seize vast tracts of the rest of the world and exploit people for three hundred years. So how come the US is so rich? (see above)