The irony – The Untrusteds complain about censorship
sheffpix writes, With agreement from thaumaturge, Anne Tanner (AT42) and James Dixon.
Apparently US army personel are being denied access to the groan website since the snowden revelations.
This from people who are quite content to ban posters whose views they find uncomfortable, from their “moderation free site”.
Following this is a quite interesting exchange about Polly Toynbee’s article on the Labour Party’s position on the austerity measures which in times past I’d have been quite willing to contribute to, but which I’d be accused of attempting to take-over the debate.
And later just to demonstrate how much the site’s host agrees with this, here’s MontanaWildhack:
And this is someone whose job involves educating other people’s children.
The following posts from Rex Grinting on the Untrusted site at around 3am GMT lasted all of an hour before disappearing:
David Paxton addressing Matthew Parriss
If he thinks the campaign is wrong then surely it is a moral imperative for him to use his voice to tell our government the same thing. Nobody on the ‘no’ side has been saying such a thing. If it is wrong we must protest. If it is right then what justification, beyond self-preservation and penny pinching, is there to say that we shouldn’t lend our hand and do what is admitted to be right?
For clarity, these are questions all on the ‘no’ side need to answer:
Are you saying bombing Islamic State should occur but just without us (the UK)?
If yes, how do you justify us abandoning allies?
If no, what should we be doing to prevent the bombing by our ‘allies’ then?
If no, does this apply to Iraq also, or do you support the campaign up to the border?
If yes, how is bombing the same enemy across a border, which they don’t believe
exists, the variable?
If you don’t provide clear answers to these you’re not being serious. I find it
concerning that in almost all cases these points are not made expressly clear, and in some cases, such as Corbyn on Wednesday and Abbott on Question Time on Thursday, such questions are actively dodged.
Their silence is far more telling than any coming from the ‘yes’ side.
Karwan Jamal Tahir, Kurdistan Regional Government High Representtive to the UK :
“In Kurdistan, we have had reason to be grateful for Western intervention. Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq overnight and then attacked us. What saved us was swift Western airstrikes, partly from British forces. Now we ask for your help again.
“We have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We have pushed them back and recently captured Sinjar – the scene of medieval rape, sexual enslavement and genocide against the Yezedis. Once again, Western airstrikes were vital. Our liberation of Sinjar cut the main supply road between Mosul and the Daesh ‘capital’ of Raqqa – but Daesh can use other roads. We cannot defeat them without international help.”
From the Economist:
Marching forth with Stop the War
“DO WE have Syrians?” interjects a woman. A brief silence. The gathering in
Manchester’s Central Library is pondering who might take the microphone at its upcoming protest against plans to bomb Islamic State in Syria. On the list so far:
Labour Party MPs, MEPs, councillors, the Green Party, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, musicians, poets, trade unionists and “definitely a student of some sort”. Phone messages have been left, e-mails fired off and brains racked for names of old-time peaceniks. Only now has the idea of asking a Syrian arisen.
“There’s a big Syrian group,” murmurs one. “But they’re not anti,” continues another, disgusted: “They were lobbying for Britain to bomb Assad.” Those present sigh as one. On to the logistics of the event. It is decided that stewards should guard the mic, poised to fend off any “pro-war Syrians or imperialists”. After all, notes the chairman: “We know what we’re talking about here.” Would that BBC Manchester possessed such discernment. The station is interviewing pro-war Kurds tomorrow, to
the group’s disdain: “They dig ’em up.” “Amazing how they find them!”
” From “Global Jihad” by Patrick Sookhdeo, 2007, pages 15-16.
Sookhdeo is eminently qualified to speak on this subject. Indeed, he was born into a Muslim household in South America (although now he is a Christian residing in London). He has spent his life studying Islam and the jihadists. He is more than familiar with Islamic history, theology, culture and practice.
“Much contemporary Muslim intellectual activity is aimed at masking the real intent of Islamist ideologues and movements behind a facade of fashionable Western leftist discourse. For many in the Western hard left, Westerners are reactionary oppressors while under-developed nations and minority groups in the West are oppressed victims.
Western democracies are castigated as oppressive, racist, and neo-colonial, while Islamist are praised as representing the revolt of the oppressed against their (Western) oppressors. Radical Islamists, driven by a similar hatred of Western culture, especially its Judeo-Christian basis and its liberal tradition, have forged a bizarre alliance with Western postmodern leftists and have appropriated their discourse as a way of gaining sympathy in the West and of camouflaging their real objectives.”
“However this (the distinction between Islamist terrorism and Islamic terrorism). is really a meaningless distinction. Islamism is simply the essence of classical Islam, and violence and terror are found within both of them.”