Sunday, July 10, 2005



New Fisk

The Reality of this Barbaric Bombing

9 comments:

> “They” are not trying to destroy “what we hold dear”.

Fisk interestingly contradicts himself he says they arent trying ot destroy wht we hold dear and yet what we hold dear is a peaceful diverse and tolerant society (as noted by many of the politicians he would wish to complain about). He then goes on to explain this IS what they want to destroy.

I wonder if Fisk can can ever go through a whole article without doing this?

> If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won’t come to us?

No one ever doubted that. And if Fisks argument is that one should never face evil because it might get annoyed at you then fisk should dress up like a penguin and change his first name to neville.

> No one can search three million London commuters every day.

and yet they have been so unsucessful - so many people trying so hard to kill people and yet only causing a handful paper cuts to the bear they are stupidly so intent on waking.

GeniusNZ

Posted by Anonymous : 7/10/2005 10:10:00 PM

GeniusNZ,

I love your "face evil" line. You gloss completely the fact that attacking the secular govt in Iraq had nothing to do with attacking Al Qaeda. They also wanted to topple his regime, and he didn't support them (unlike, say, the CIA who supported Osama Bin Laden when he set up Al Qaeda... oh, are we not supposed to remember back that far?).

Your claim about Fisk's article is just false: he doesn't claim that the terrorists are trying to destroy the peaceful tolerant, diverse society in England. He claims they are narrowly focussed on responding to western acts in the middle-east. You may not _agree_ with him about that: but I think you should respond to his actual claims rather than pretending he holds views that he doesn't.

And re the Neville crack: for god's sake, Chamberlain drew a line in the sand (buying himself some time to rearm by doing so) and then chose to declare war on Hitler when he crossed it. That's refusing to "face evil"??? The Americans never chose to declare war on Hitler: so how come that Neville's the wuss wimp, instead of Roosevelt?

Posted by Icehawk : 7/10/2005 10:43:00 PM

But Fisk is right, it was the invasion of Iraq that pushed the Jihad onto British soil; and he's wrong too, they would like to get rid of "what we hold dear".

Sweden won't get bombed, but nor would its liberalism be tolerated if al Qa'ida's vision of an Islamic controlled world eventuated.

Sweden is just waaay down the line in the priority queue.

Posted by muerk : 7/10/2005 10:55:00 PM

> You gloss completely the fact that attacking the secular govt in Iraq

A) the govt in iraq was bad not because it had muslims in it but because it was bad.
B) I am not arguing attacking iraq was a good idea. it could easily be a mistake while fisk might still be totally wrong about it.

> unlike, say, the CIA who supported Osama Bin Laden when he set up Al Qaeda... oh, are we not supposed to remember back that far?.

Remember as far back as you like but please stop trying to attribute psycic powers to all the players.

> he doesn't claim that the terrorists are trying to destroy the peaceful tolerant, diverse society in England.

Please read the article next time.

"And this is part of the point of yesterday’s bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims."

> And re the Neville crack: for god's sake, Chamberlain drew a line in the sand (buying himself some time to rearm by doing so)

Are you trying to argue that Chamberlain had the IQ of a 4 yr old child ? Germany was rearming faster than britain and anyone with half a brain could see that including Russia and surely Chamberlain too. In such a situation one doesnt "buy time". I think it is more likely he suffered from "fisk"itis.

> The Americans never chose to declare war on Hitler: so how come that Neville's the wuss wimp, instead of Roosevelt?

The americans were isolationists there is a difference - although if you want to accuse rooservelt of being like fisk then whatever.....
And I never said america was all that great in WWII.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/11/2005 06:43:00 AM

Given that bin Laden wanted the continuation of the Taliban regime and wants to instigate a similar fascist theocracy in those parts of the world he considers to be "Muslim" (such as East Timor) then he is definitely attacking "what we hold dear".

He is attacking core liberal values. He and his kind believe in the subjugation of women and stoning homosexuals.

Fisk and his ilk are arguing that if we just stop annoying bin Laden he will leave us alone.

Maybe if we tolerated regimes such as the Taliban, did not support Israel's right to exist, did not support women’s right to vote, did not support equal rights for homosexuals, did not support liberals in Muslim countries fighting for liberal values, maybe then the extremists will leave us alone. Somehow I doubt it but if we did then we will have lost our souls.

Fisk also opposed military intervention against Milosevic. The only comfort is that such views have absolutely no influence on international affairs.

Posted by Sock Thief : 7/11/2005 10:00:00 AM

GeniusNZ,

Okay, I see why you think it's an attack on "what we hold dear". But I think you read to much into that quote. Fisk is arguing that it's an attempt to divide muslims from non-muslims because it's an attempt to create more conflict vs the (so called) 'western imperialists'.

He's arguing that it's not intended as an attack on British democracy per se, but rather a part of a middle-eastern conflict.

You're pointing out that in doing so they are (incidentally) damaging the tolerance of the British society, which Britains do hold dear. Fair point, but I don't think this really opposes Fisk's argument.

And onto the off-topic debate:

Your view of the history of europe in the late 30s is rather odd. Germany _had_been_ rearming much faster than England, Chamberlain wanted to change that and started a crash rebuild of the British armed forces. For example, look at the RAF in '36 (when they were flying lots of biplanes in Afghanistan) and '40 (when the new Spitfire and Hurricane designs started to really pay off). Oh, I don't claim he was perfect - far from it. But the caricature of craven appeasement that he's used for is unfair, since he did take his nation into war that he knew they might not win, and he did it without waiting until he was directly threatened. It's also not certain that he could have got enough support to take Britain to war with Germany earlier than '39 anyway (especially since many saw the Nazis as a lesser evil that was a useful bulwark against the Russian communists). I know I'm off-topic, it just bugs me that those with the benefit hindsight use a caricature of Chamberlain to criticise any attempt at avoiding war anywhere. His failure was that he did not predict the secret German-Russian peace pact - but then, no-one else did either.

Posted by Icehawk : 7/11/2005 12:45:00 PM

> Maybe if we tolerated regimes such as the Taliban

Maybe, but I expect that that would only true as long as someone else acts as the lightning rod to their anger by being ever so slightly more western and decadent.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/11/2005 07:29:00 PM

"many saw the Nazis as a lesser evil that was a useful bulwark against the Russian communists"

Just remind me again - how did the Taliban and bin laden get started?

Posted by Rich : 7/11/2005 09:50:00 PM

Rich -
The soviet / US conflict was a serious threat to life on earth that the weaker side (whoever that might be) was contained was a pretty damn important thing. The taliban vs (whoever) conflict was a serious threat to female afganis - as bad as they might be the former was indeed a much bigger issue. When you get involved in international politics you almost always have choices between suporting the evil or the very evil
and OK and the OK.
or even supporting the bad man because anarchy seems even worse.

--------

>Fair point, but I don't think this really opposes Fisk's argument.

My point I guess is that fisk has a point but his actual words don't say it.

His point is somthing fairly general about the US being bad and being stupid to do somthing and the suffering it causes etc. He may be right - but only by coincidence, since he is so fixed on this message (regardless of the details).

And onto the off-topic debate:

> Chamberlain wanted to change that and started a crash rebuild of the British armed forces.

But I think we can all see that this jsut results in a bigger war every day you both spend rearming. Also germany was rearming much faster than britain could.

One might ask the question if both britain and russia hoped the axis would attack hte otherside first and get in a stalemate (like WWI) and then be defeated by the entry o hte other side.

> he did take his nation into war that he knew they might not win

He should never have had to face that choice. he should have started a war that he DID know he could win. If he had waited much longer his rational strategy would have been to surender ship off all the jews and beg for mercy.

Posted by Anonymous : 7/12/2005 07:33:00 AM