Saturday 12 March: Stop the War Day of Action
Downing Street Protest: Saturday 12 March 2pm
|
Brit left (and Tory isolationists) to Libyan rebels: good luck, you’re on your own!
.
I don’t have a very high opinion of most of the Brit far-left, especially with regard to their capitulation to Islamo-fascism. But even so, this took my breath away:
Nothing, you note, about solidarity with the working class and the rebels of Libya, Egypt or the rest of the Middle East: just the usual middle-class Brit-Guardianese bleating about “non-intervention”. Sections of the so-called “left” are now so out of touch with traditions of internationalism and solidarity, that they quote Tory isolationists …approvingly.
.
Ex-SWP’er John Rees and his ‘Counterfire’ /‘ex-trots-for-hire’ initiative seem to be the people behind this reactionary, isolationist initative from the past-its-sell-by date Stop The War Coalition. Someone commented on the “Counterfire“ website:
0 #1 “RE: No military intervention in Libya: Downing Street Protest: Saturday 12 March 2pm — colin wiles 2011-03-12 20:28
How depressing that you should try to link Afghanistan and Libya. Brave rebels and civilians, standing up for secular democracy and progressive politics, are being massacred and the Arab League is calling for a no-fly zone. Yet what do the bravehearts of the Stop the War Coalition want us to do? Precisely nothing. This is appeasement and moral cowardice. Orwell would be turning in his grave.”
Meanwhile Socialist Worker says:
.
“The cries for help eminating from some cities and towns under seige by Gadaffi’s murderous forces express the desperation of those involved in an unequal battle.
“It may seem callous to oppose intervention in the face of such harrowing repression…”
.
Yes, indeed, ‘”comrades”! For once we can agree with you: it is, indeed “callous”…by way of finding a euphemism for “despicable“, “scabrous” and “contemptible.”
.
Socialist Worker‘s hysterical objection to intervention is predicated upon the (increasingly discredited) assumption that the Libyan rebels are going to win without “outside” aid. The Stalinist Morning Star – equally shrill in its opposition to any intervention – is at least realistic enough to recognise that Gaddafi is going to crush the rebels. So the Star proposes that the rebels reject “foreign” intervention, except when it takes the form of Gadaffi’s friend Chavez, and then …surrender!
(Morning Star editorial, March 12-13 2011):
“The Libyan opposition rejected negotiations believing itself capable, with or without Western assitance, of overthrowing the regime. That is no longer the case.
“Gadaffi-loyal forces currently have the intiative, although that could change.
“However, the last thing that the Libyan people need mis a drawn-out war of attrition sucking in countless lives and leaving the country devastated, weak and open to Western exploitation.
“The Libyan interim Transitional National Council (ie: the rebels – JD) ought to contact President Chavez to ask him to facilitate negotiations and it should avoid military links with imperialism like the plague.”
When I worked in industry in the 1970′s, we had a name for that sort of proposal:
scabbing.
jim denham said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:40 am
Someone called Carl makes Seymour look the fuckin’ eedjit he is over the question of intervention:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/03/doomed-to-repetition.html
baldric said,
March 13, 2011 at 4:10 am
Without intervention it would appear that the peoples protest is going to be lost,as Gadaffi is slowly but surly taking back full control and then what.Mass executions of attrition, that is what is going to happen.
Still all good stuff for the barricade Henry!s,as they rack up the loyal masses to take on the imperialist oppressors,and replace them with their own form of state capitalist social attrition and justice.
Karl Dallas said,
March 13, 2011 at 8:36 am
Published on Truthout (http://www.truth-out.org)
How the So-Called Guardians of Free Speech Are Silencing the Messenger
John Pilger | Saturday 12 March 2011
As the United States and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. Colonel Gaddafi is “delusional” and “blood-drenched” while the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have kidnapped and tortured in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of “stability.”
But something has changed. Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is. Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. This is not a new idea. In 1792, the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that “people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other.” Paine’s “The Rights of Man” was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with “a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy.” Wisely, he sought refuge in France.
The ordeal and courage of Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia’s human rights gold medal to Julian Assange. Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury, a malicious device long abandoned in England, but not in the United States. If extradited to the US, he is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks’ alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.
Should Assange’s current British appeal fail against his extradition to Sweden, he will probably, once charged, be denied bail and held incommunicado until his trial in secret. The case against him has already been dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm and given new life only when a right-wing politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened and made public statements about Assange’s “guilt.” Borgstrom, a lawyer, now represents the two women involved. His law partner is Thomas Bodstrom, who, as Sweden’s minister for justice in 2001, was implicated in the handover of two innocent Egyptian refugees to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport. Sweden later awarded them damages for their torture.
These facts were documented in an Australian parliamentary briefing in Canberra on 2 March. Outlining an epic miscarriage of justice threatening Assange, the enquiry heard expert evidence that, under international standards of justice, the behavior of certain officials in Sweden would be considered “highly improper and reprehensible [and] preclude a fair trial.” A former senior Australian diplomat, Tony Kevin, described the close ties between the Swedish Prime Minister Frederic Reinfeldt and the Republican right in the US. “Reinfeldt and [George W] Bush are friends,” he said. Reinfeldt has attacked Assange publicly and hired Karl Rove, the former Bush crony, to advise him. The implications for Assange’s extradition to the US from Sweden are dire.
The Australian enquiry was ignored in the UK, where black farce is currently preferred. On 3 March, The Guardian UK announced that Stephen Spielberg’s Dream Works was to make “an investigative thriller in the mould of All the President’s Men” out of the book “WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy.” I asked David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, how much Spielberg had paid The Guardian UK for the screen rights and what he expected to make personally. “No idea,” was the puzzling reply of The Guardian UK’s “investigations editor.” The Guardian UK paid WikiLeaks nothing for its treasure trove of leaks. Assange and WikiLeaks – not Leigh or Harding – are responsible for what The Guardian UK’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, calls “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years.”
The Guardian UK has made clear it has no further use for Assange. He is a loose cannon who does not fit Guardian-world, who proved a tough, unclubbable negotiator. And brave. In The Guardian UK’s self-regarding book, Assange’s extraordinary bravery is excised. He becomes a figure of petty bemusement, an “unusual Australian” with a “frizzy-haired” mother, gratuitously abused as “callous” and a “damaged personality” that was “on the autistic spectrum.” How will Spielberg deal with this childish character assassination?
On the BBC’s “Panorama,” Leigh indulged hearsay about Assange not caring about the lives of those named in the leaks. As for the claim that Assange had complained of a “Jewish conspiracy,” which follows a torrent of Internet nonsense that he is an evil agent of Mossad, Assange rejected this as “completely false, in spirit and word.”
It is difficult to describe, let alone imagine, the sense of isolation and state of siege of Assange, who, in one form or another, is paying for tearing aside the façade of rapacious power. The canker here is not the far right, but the paper-thin liberalism of those who guard the limits of free speech. The New York Times has distinguished itself by spinning and censoring the WikiLeaks material. “We are taking all [the] cables to the administration,” said Bill Keller, the editor, “They’ve convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.” In an article by Keller, Assange is personally abused. At the Columbia School of Journalism on 3 February, Keller said, in effect, that the public could not be trusted with the release of further cables. This might cause a “cacophony.” The gatekeeper has spoken.
The heroic Manning is kept naked under lights and cameras 24 hours a day. Greg Barns, director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says the fears that Assange will “end up being tortured in a high security American prison” are justified. Who will share responsibility for such a crime?
Source URL: http://www.truth-out.org/how-so-called-guardians-free-speech-are-silencing-messenger68353
SteveH said,
March 13, 2011 at 9:29 am
Yes it is disgusting what is happening to Manning.
Why does this site always link the left with the Tories when it is this site that is in step with official Tory policy. Why have you no picture of William Hague above the caption, this man is our hero and the liberator of Libya. It was the same with Afghanistan, the Policy of the Tories and this site is the same but you attempt to link the left with Tories.
Your problem is that you cannmot handle the truth. Now admit that you are fully backing David Cameron and William Hague and the Tory party.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 9:30 am
Jim Denham and Dave Cameron to Libyan Masses: ` Don’t worry we’re coming to help you.’
Where is this fabled NATO no fly zone then Denham? Where are your boys? Seems to me the only beneficiary of Cameron’s posturing so far has been Gadaffi. At least Obama is trying to do this legally and through the right body, the UN. He might have succeeded by now if Cameron hadn’t put the wind up the Russians and Chinese with his unilateral saber rattling. Scum like you talk a good fight but you are a disgustingly dishonest individual who is fully aware that a unilateral intervention on the side of the rebels by US and UK imperialism was never going to happen. Gadaffi has benefited from Cameron’s loose talk which makes one wonder just which side Cameron and the UK establishment think their bread is buttered. I predict partition with the `liberated’ half under yet another Western satrap regime and Tripoli facing ten years of sanctions and Gadaffi brutality while he sells oil to BP on the black market.
I see the Arab League, that club of pro-Western dictators, is now on board which is better and may even make it impossible for Israel to resist a no-fly zone over Gaza which would be nice.
jim denham said,
March 13, 2011 at 9:51 am
Livingstone: “Seems to me the only beneficiary of Cameron’s posturing so far has been Gadaffi”: what exactly is that supposed to mean? That it was a purely tactical mistake? Would you be in favour of an intervention if those friends of human rights, Russia and China, could be persuaded to agree at the Security Council? Or is your true viewpoint (like that of the SWP, ‘Counterfire’ and the ‘Morning Star’) that allowing Gadaffi to crush the rebellion is preferable to *any* form of intervention?
David K said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:04 am
At the Anti-Lib Dem conference demo in Sheffield there were a small group of Libyan exiles demonstrating against Qaddafi. It was good but heart breaking to see. Without help, supplies of heavy duty military equipment and a no fly Zone the revolution may well be crushed in a sea of civilian blood.
Yet when the left should be orientating towards these people and joining in their demands we get the loudest voices calling for a effective free hand for Qaddafi or peddling desperate fantasies to avoid facing up to the truth.
Obviously the worst offenders are the Healyite dregs and Chavezista inspired Stalinists who have cheered on the butcher of Tripoli for decades and now play apologist for him whilst crushing his own people.
Then you get the mechanical isolationism / pacifism of STW. There’s is a cookie cutter response – “No war for Oil”, “Not in my name” etc. No recognition that the situation in Afghanistan is any different from Libya. The repeat of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” and support for democrat revolutions only when its against western backed regimes. Rather then principled proletarian internationalism and anti-militarism Stop The War prefers appealing to little England isolationism and the pacifism of idiots.
The better elements of the SWP have distanced themselves from this and support the rebels but have been left peddling a fantasy to square the circle of its own politics. The three fantasies they have been peddling-
For them this isn’t a wave of democratic revolutions rocking North Africa and the Middle East this is the much hoped for “Arab Revolution” whose purpose is to build a anti-zionist alliance and give western imperialism a bloody nose. It doesn’t matter that the revolutionaries do not fit this bill and unlike the SWP understand the key Marxist point that the main enemy is at home.
The Socialist Worker also seem to believe revolutionary fervor is enough to defeat the heavily armed armies of a dictatorial regime. Hence an inability to see the obstacles facing the revolutionaries in Libya or elsewhere.
The final desperate fantasy is that there movement of international volunteers that can be counter posed to no fly zones and foreign support. The irony is of course that the model mentioned, the International Brigade did not save the Spanish republic from Fascist victory. If the SWP and others where serious about this rather then just using it as empty rhetoric, they would call for volunteers and organise to send people to Libya as the CPGB and the ILP did.
What we should be arguing for is the aid the rebels ask for to be given. At the moment the rebels request a lifting of the arms embargo on them and a no fly zone. The left should echo and not reject these calls. If there is international intervention it must be under the aegis of the transitional rebel government.
charliethechulo said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:09 am
Carl’s reply to the isolationist, objectively pro-Gadaffi scumbag Seymour (Carl’s only mistake is to agree to contribute to Seymour’s begging bowl!):
********************************************************************************************
I’ll take your 900 word reply point by point I think (since it’ll be easier for me):
- “What a surprise to find you supporting ‘humanitarian intervention’, Carl.”
The reason, I gather, you put humanitarian intervention in marks is because the word has often been used to mask the West’s real intentions; oil, regional dominance perhaps. But in principle I am not against real humanitarian intervention to avert crises, such as that occurring in Libya at this moment.
My opinion is very simple: every measure should be taken by willing nations to rectify the fact that rebels in Libya are at a disadvantage against their autocratic leader. No one is more concerned than I that weapons used by Gaddafi have been bought from the UK and other nations now up in arms (my point, incidentally, about Russia is that most of Libya’s weapon exports are from there, and nobody on the left is voicing this; those against a NFZ on the left may well even forgive Russia since it plans to veto moves by the UNSC to enforce a NFZ as quickly as possible), but that in itself is not a reason to shirk away from giving assistance to rebel forces, either through a NFZ or arming them (though the two are not exclusive measures).
So I’m not sure what you mean when you say you’re not surprised, but I don’t see this move as neo-imperialist or racist paternalism, it’s too easy to say this. Further, the fact that the name intervention has been used as a cover for blood-letting in the past should not deter us from using the phrase in a way which chimes with the concept of having a responsibility beyond our own borders.
Such shying away, in principle, is fit only for the petit-bourgeois moralists that we both detest so much.
- “those supporting ‘humanitarian intervention’ are relying on conjecture in a far more dangerous way”
I don’t accept the reasoning here Richard. Those demonstrable examples you give, though correct, pertain previous missions that I’ve opposed. If vested interests outweigh humanitarian reasons to intervene, then that is obviously a perversion of humanitarian intervention, and we can therefore be dubious as to why these words have been used to describe such missions. However, I am not in principle against humanitarian intervention. The real crisis for me is asking whether I’d be against intervention in Libya even if those nations willing to uphold a NFZ did have vested interests, or in other words, if the UK felt they could make a pretty penny on the oil market, but were sounding off about a NFZ to even out the disproportionality issue, I wonder whether I’d oppose it still. I would certainly say that the government’s consciences weren’t clean (indeed this is my opinion already), but if they inadvertently curbed the death toll in the mean time, it’d be tough not to be slightly relieved. I know the rebels would be.
Good that results of evil is, I suppose, still good.
Moreover, on the subject of vested interests, some onus has to be put upon the National Transition Council here; the more they demand (in terms of substantial post-Gaddafi governance), and expect intervening nations to do (since ultimately they are/should be at the beck and call of the rebels), the less opportunity the US will have in setting up their interests in Libya – should that be the case.
- “[even if] a no-fly zone [was] unproblematic on other grounds, it would do relatively little to shift the balance of power to the revolutionaries.”
The beauty of the no-fly zone: it’s acts as a serious warning to Gaddafi, where at the moment he could, and almost certainly will, ignore President Obama’s call to go immediately; also since both the rebels and the Libyan army are comparatively under-trained, the most significant upper hand that Gaddafi has is in the air. Now one of the best articles I’ve read on averting the NFZ and using alternatives is this one about how the US handled themselves with regards to Chad (in brief, the US have not always had to engage in warfare to passify Gaddafi, Chad is one case in point). However, even the author of the piece expressed concern that the rebellion, today, cannot be compared to the Chad army (who had only one pilot; how many does the rebellion have if, say, the US gave them a helicopter instead of calling for a NFZ?).
It’s not certain how effective a NFZ will be (what is certain in advance?) but it will be effective in some measure, even if just to help rectify the disproportionality of air presence (which the Syrians have also been providing). But certainly intervention should not be limited to a NFZ; since I’m opposed to the US using ground troops (as are the rebels) willing nations, with UN backing, should source ex-Soviet weapons from Poland to arm the rebels on the ground (this would save the US military time to train the Libyan rebels up on their military equipment, and ensure the US know their place). Furthermore, nobody supportive of the NFZ is backing jawbreaker tactics, so in the event of escalation most, including rebels, will withdraw their support for the US. Further, this is not what the UN resolution would’ve proposed so it would be illegal. Sure, when has illegality ever stopped the US, but then that’s the reality anyway, whether we support something or sit on our hands and do nothing, so that risk is present at any time, anywhere. The US, theoretically, could blow the Middle East sky high right now, the point is not to oppose intervention on this possibility.
- “you’re prepared to take enormous risks with the lives and well-being of others, whom you never contact, know little about and will very shortly care as little”
I support working with whoever possible in the best interest, and would hope, for simplicity, that the hub of this transnational chat would be located in the National Transition Council. I don’t see my position as risible, I think you’re at pains to imagine my position synonymous with those you find risible.
- “All that said, would you care to donate to Lenin’s Tomb?”
As much as I think you’re an arse, I’ll dig around my pockets next week when I’m paid. You are after all a “keeper” on the blogosphere, but you scare me to shit (and by the end of it, this is now well over a 1000 words, I can’t keep this up…).
skidmarx said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm
There seems to be no reply to this part:
You’re behaving every bit as thoughtlessly, hysterically and self-indulgently as those who spent the 1990s calling for ‘the West’ (‘the world’, ‘the international community’, the US, Europe, whoever) to demonstrate its moral probity in various conflicts – with horrendous results. You have learned nothing, so have forgotten nothing.
sackcloth and ashes said,
March 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Genocide denier preaches sermon. Those in the know feel more than a little nauseous.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:29 am
#6 I don’t think it was a tactical mistake I think it was a deliberate `mistake’. Obama was never going to agree to it and Cameron knew it. Politically it would have undone all his multilateralist efforts at bridge mending with the Russians and Chinese. Let’s not get into the logistics. So why did Cameron do it knowing it couldn’t happen? To strengthen Gadaffi and ensure partition of Libya perhaps? Or perhaps he wanted to look like Blair who’s `humanitarian’ interventions were quite popular until he killed a million in Iraq.
Hopefully the Arab League and the UN can now get it together with the approval of China and Russia to get a legal intervention approved. Something that might have happened a lot quicker if Cameron had kept quiet. In fact it may well have been something that wasn’t needed at all if Cameron had shut up as Gadaffi was on the verge of collapsing with his navy and air force pissing off to Malta when he made his foolish hyperbolic intervention.
jim denham said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:46 am
Livingstone: your conspiracy theory about Cameron’s motives is, frankly, a bit crazy. As is the idea that it in any way contributed to Gadaffi’s resurgence. There is not one single shred of evidence for such a ludicrous assertion. But socialists do not concern ourselves with that kind of speculation, which we’re in no position to make an informed judgement about anyway. It’s the *principles* of these issues that concern us.But never mind: at least we’ve established the fact that, *in principle* you support an intervention. Good. Now we’re getting somewwhere.
SteveH said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:54 am
Most socialists oppose ‘intervention’ on principle. Most Tories support it.
Face up to the truth instead of spreading lies, and then, and only then, can we begin to take you seriously.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:55 am
No conspiracy theory. Cameron is the PM of a major NATO contributor. He must surely have known that unilateral NATO action would not be acceptable to Obama. If not, he is not fit to be PM of a paper bag let alone a nation. But obviously you and he are singing from the same hymn sheet. Personally I believe Cameron’s bluff instantly strengthened Gadaffi’s hand in Tripoli by providing him with a narrative around which to gather his rapidly defecting and disintegrating military and security apparatus. One minute he was on the verge of defeat but a few words from Cameron and he was back in business.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am
Denham: I actually support intervention in principle. However there are no forces in the West that can make a principled intervention. There is only self-serving, self-interested, murdering imperialists.
SteveH said,
March 13, 2011 at 11:02 am
Dr Livingstone, the fact that there are “no forces in the West that can make a principled intervention. There is only self-serving, self-interested, murdering imperialists.” is the same as saying I reject an ‘intervention’ on principle. At least in the real world. In the imaginary world we can believe in anything on priniciple.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 11:26 am
Indeed Steve but I’m not against intervention in principle but I would never as you say, calling myself a socialist, create the illusion in the working classes that their own bosses are the key to their or anybody else’s liberation or can in any way act out of true generalised humanitarian principles as opposed to a self-interested profit seeking /power maximising particularistic interest. Denham’s trick is to give Cameron’s call the credibility that it never had both in his ability to deliver and in its claimed humanitarian motive.
If the working class was in a position to intervene say from a socialist base in Europe then I would demand it . I think I would even support legal UN intervention with Arab League blessing though I doubt the US right will want to see the fortunes of the UN revived and will fight that tooth and nail as will the Israeli lobby.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 11:44 am
Another paralysing problem for the West is if they backed the revolution but leadership of it fell into the `wrong’ hands and having rendered Tripoli defenceless had to cheer lead as a bunch of outsiders went around the city slaughtering black people and anybody with a hint of connection to the West or Gadaffi in their thousands for the TV cameras. Hope you are prepared to do the cheer leading in that event Denham. It was Cameron who turned this from a revolt to a civil war. Tripoli was ready to kick him out. Now they are stuck with him.
SteveH said,
March 13, 2011 at 11:57 am
“If the working class was in a position to intervene say from a socialist base in Europe then I would demand it .”
What, a sort of Stalinist state? Well there is one of those in China………………
Andrew Coates said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:04 pm
And the StWc CND Counterfire and the rest wonder why fewer and fewer people join their marches of ghouls…
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm
`What, a sort of Stalinist state? Well there is one of those in China………………’
No a socialist base in Europe. Can you read?
`And the StWc CND Counterfire and the rest wonder why fewer and fewer people join their marches of ghouls…’
Elaborate. That is too ambiguous. Do you mean they should have fallen for Cameron’s Con?
SteveH said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm
But a base that is capable of launching military adventures will have to have certain characteristics, not only will it need a strong state machinery behind it but will also need to defend itself from an hostile world. I would therefore guess it will need to build alliances and feature authoritarian elements.
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm
kill gadaFFFI and his cohorts. By whatever means. (Plus some crap)
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Some crap
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Some crap
blerehg co0mmenter said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm
i aGree with oscha lomamx.
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Some crap
blerehg co0mmenter said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Some crap
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:09 pm
blerehg co0mmenter said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm
i aGree with oscha lomamx.
i agree with blerehg co0mmenter
skidmarx said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm
How is it that Socialist Worker manages to spell “siege” correctly, but you manage to swap the i and e when you copy it?
sackcloth and ashes said,
March 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm
How is it that you can’t answer a simple question about whether or not you endorse genocide denial over Rwanda?
Oscar Lomax's Undercrackers said,
March 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm
eine Meditation auf Religion — Heinrich Heine
“Eyes we got from God, a pair,
So we’d see things straight and clear;
To believe the things we read,
Just one eye were all we’d need.
Two of them thus God supplies,
Thus to ogle, as He bade us,
At the pretty world He made us,
On which we may feast our eyes;
Yet, whilst ogling in the allies,
Just these eyes we ought to use,
For it pains the man who dallies
In those boots that so abuse
Corns, or “hen’s eyes” as we call them,
Such affliction must befall them.”
“Zur Teleologie” (On teleology)
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Oscar Lomax’s Undercrackers: Are you alright mate? You seem a little bit fucked in the head.
Carl Packman said,
March 13, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Jim @1
“someone called Carl”
I’ll have you know I’m a world famous blogger
“We should be arguing for the aid the rebels ask for” « Shiraz Socialist said,
March 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm
[...] K (from the “comments” box on this site); an unaswerable [...]
jim denham said,
March 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Just noticed this nasty, dishonest little comment from Livingstone:
…”a bunch of outsiders went around the city slaughtering black people “…
That is an entirely seperate issue, Livingstone. OF COURSE, if people are being attacked and killed because they’re black, that is someting we would all condemn. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights or wrongs of the Libyan rebellion, or the arguments about outside intervention.
jim denham said,
March 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Livingstone: “as will the Israeli lobby.”
Here we go again…
Them Joos are the root of all evil, eh?
sackcloth and ashes said,
March 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm
This is a fantastic post and thread. It exposes the position of the STWC, CND, SWP, the ‘British Muslim Initiative’ and other like-minded turds nicely.
Their position towards those Libyans who have the courage to fight for freedom is quite simple, and is summarised in the following sentence – ‘Just hurry up and fucking well die’.
Filth.
Dr Livingstone I Presume said,
March 13, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Quite simple? `Just hurry up and fucking well die’? What are you nine?
SteveH said,
March 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm
“Their position towards those Libyans who have the courage to fight for freedom is quite simple, and is summarised in the following sentence – ‘Just hurry up and fucking well die’.”
The position of Sackcloth et al is to say to protestors in Bahrain and Yemen and Saudi Arabia “Fuck off and die, I hate you, fuck off and die”!!
Quality debate!
Libya and the no-fly zone: An exchange with Richard Seymour « Though Cowards Flinch said,
March 17, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] Jim Denham had this to say about me: Someone called Carl makes Seymour look the fuckin’ eedjit he is over the question of [...]