Advance notice of HP Sauce tedium
The Guardian has an article attacking the Daily Telegraph for hosting an anti-immigrant blog run by a BNP member. Surely it can only be a matter of hours (or minutes) before a post appears on HP Sauce claiming hypocrisy on the grounds that CiF has published Inayat Bunglawala?
(Or maybe this will feature in the next Nick Cohen column?)
UPDATE: Get in! 5 hours and 54 minutes. For my next trick ....
(Or maybe this will feature in the next Nick Cohen column?)
UPDATE: Get in! 5 hours and 54 minutes. For my next trick ....
posted by Captain Cabernet at 5/28/2008 08:37:00 AM
12 Comments:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/28/the-purveyors-of-far-right-opinion/
Badda-bing!
The Guardian apparently has no moral objections to propagating the views of far right sectarians, as it actively solicits pieces by Muslim Brotherhood supporters such as Faisal Bodi, Anas Altikriti, Ismail Patel and Soumaya Ghannoushi. They even publish, on a regular basis, work by Azzam Tamimi, a Hamas’ “Special Envoy“ and wannabe suicide bomber.
I think Neil D is pretty much right though. And the Telegraph blogging idea is no worse than CiF. It's just handbags at dawn between a broadsheet and a former broadsheet. The Guardian's reportage is bizarre however: The Daily Telegraph's hosting of the blog was first revealed on the-latest.com website. It wasn't you know; it was first revealed on the Telegraph site, as a moment's contemplation would make obvious.
It's an old journalistic trope that: "such-and-such last night spoke for the first time about his anguish" or whatever. No he didn't.
What's that old Orwell quote to the effect that if something's got something in common with fascism (I think he specifically says "democracy", but I'm not sure) then we might as call it fascism? That's the HP crowd all over.
Picture the most stereotypical 'decent' column you can...
Actually, don't bother. Here it is:
Cluster bombs: don't ban them
"Collective security is the foundation of our defence policy. This ostensibly humanitarian campaign strikes at the heart of it, to the future benefit of aggressors everywhere."
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/cluster-bombs-dont-ban-them.html
He's doing it deliberately. I always suspected it, but I think that's the final piece of evidence.
It's all a wind-up.
The treaty's greatest impact will be not in protecting civilians but in hampering the military capability of the states that are most scrupulous in limiting the destructiveness of warfare.
LOL. Tell that to the residents of Falluja, ... It's a classic "our weapons are good, because we are the good guys" drivel.
Imagine what he would say if the Mehdi Army started using cluster bombs. Pace the fuss about the potential use of a "dirty bomb", that's terrorism. They target civilians. We create collateral damage.
I liked this bit from Ollie:
"Last year confirmed casualties throughout the world from cluster munitions amounted to fewer than 400. These are individual tragedies."
I like the use of the word "confirmed" (confirmed by whom? Is there an international agency that collates data on this?). Was last year typical? Would it be higher perhaps after a war where cluster bombs were used widely? Ollie seems strangely uninterested.
Actually, I would consider it highly unlikely that there is any reliable data on casualty rates from cluster bombs in Iraq, given there's no reliable data on anything else.
Much as I hate to admit, he's right up to a point when he says:
These weapons are not indiscriminate, and they do have a place in warfare. They are effective against moving or dispersed targets such as tank formations and airfields.
They can be a useful weapon for disabling airstrips, and against tanks. But of course their use isn't limited to these arenas. They are used fairly indiscriminately in practice. That's the thing about weapons - if they exist, they will be used without humanitarian concerns.
The design of many of them makes you give up faith in humanity (or at least that part attracted by warfare). Many of them are designed specifically to blow a limb off, rather than kill. The idea being that a wounded solider takes up medical resources, needs to be carried off by multiple troops and damages morale through screaming/terror/etc. British designed, British used, etc.
There is data, compiled by Handicap International.
http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_597.php
It suggests a much worse picture than OK does.
Leaving aside the question of sheer numbers, though, the fact that 98% of casualties are civilian has to mean that such munitions have to fail the proportionality test that governs "collateral damage" according to the principle of double effect as used in just war theory.
Ollie doesn't have a leg to stand on, and neither, unfortunately do the victims of the weapons he defends.
Why does Handicap International hate America/Israel/Democracy?
What's slightly sad is that the BNP should be attacked, and the Telegraph's attitude should be questioned. However, to HP, it all appears to be a game against the Guardian and CiF and Muslims (pet gripes of HP) and that rather dilutes the anti-BNP message.
Amazing really: if anyone else had played that moral relativist schtick in reverse, and let Muslims off the hook in the process, HP would be up in arms.
HP is hardly fervently against the BNP; they have criticised demonstrations and protests against it (of course these demos involve socialists of various ilks they don't like). That's not to say they support the BNP; it's just the BNP are Britain's biggest fascist party by a long way, and get many, many more votes on regular basis than the tiny sects that HP obsess about. You really don't need to be raving lefty to be a bit concerned about that.
I think Neil D is pretty much right though. And the Telegraph blogging idea is no worse than CiF.
Well yes, but its just that one wonders what the Telegraph is doing giving space to antisemitic white supremacists. Simply saying the Guardian is just as bad does not answer that question.
[...]resource[...]
Post a Comment
<< Home