Sunday, July 10, 2005



New Fisk

The Reality of this Barbaric Bombing

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 7/10/2005 05:09:00 PM

6 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

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

> 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

Post a Comment

(Anonymous comments are enabled).