Something you wont see in the mainstream media

#1
The UK blogging community (or rather Scott Burgess of the excellent "Daily Ablution") has unearthed a rather embarrassing faux pas by our friends at The Guardian.

They've taken on a cub reporter by the name of Dilpazier Aslam. He wrote a fellow-travelling excuse for terrorism in The Guardian after the London bombings (the usual "we asked for it" garbage) of the sort you will routinely see in both that paper and The Independent.

Problem is, it also turns out that your Mr. Aslam is also involved in the hardline Islamist group known as Hizb Ut Tahrir. The Guardian refuses to comment, probably realising that even they shouldn't have employed somebody associated with a group that advocates extreme anti-semitic views and justifies suicide bombing.

Should "responsible" newspapers hire such people? Should decent people with liberal left-wing views have to put up with it? Or is The Guardian merely, at last, showing it's true colours?

Weblinks:

Permalink to The Daily Ablution: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/deafening_silen.html

The Daily Ablution Homepage: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/

V!
 
#3
I don't think there is such a thing as a "Decent" person with left wing views. It's the appeasers that ultimately get people killed.
 
#5
Especially embarrasing I would say, as the Guardian actually lost one of their own 'KIA' in one of the London bombs...

This from Mark Steyn in the DT yesterday:

One of the striking features of the post-9/11 world is the minimal degree of separation between the so-called "extremists" and the establishment: Princess Haifa, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, gives $130,000 to accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists; the head of the group that certifies Muslim chaplains for the US military turns out to be a bagman for terrorists; one of the London bombers gets given a tour of the House of Commons by a Labour MP. The Guardian hires as a "trainee journalist" a member of Hizb ut Tahir, "Britain's most radical Islamic group" (as his own newspaper described them) and in his first column post-7/7 he mocks the idea that anyone could be "shocked" at a group of Yorkshiremen blowing up London: "Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks" - or the bus blows, or the Tube vaporises. Fellow Guardian employee David Foulkes, who was killed in the Edgware Road blast, would no doubt be heartened to know he'd died for the cause of Muslim "sassiness".
Link to full article below;
http://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main...2.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/19/ixportal.html

M_C
 
#6
decent people with liberal left-wing views
A contradiction in terms. Such people are either cynical opportunists or dangerously naive - what Lenin referred to as 'useful idiots'.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "Decent" person with left wing views. It's the appeasers that ultimately get people killed.
Well said that man. The 1930s were chock full of such types....such as the Cambridge spy ring.
 
#7
Gallowglass . The appeasers in the 1930s were mainly Tories and their nasty little crypto fascist mates, royal family included. All decent people have left wing views. Left wing views means, at base, all doing a fair share of the work and all taking a fair share of the rewards. Rightwingers advocate injustice. That is what right wing views means - ill treating people for your personal gain. The end.
 
#8
Steamywindow said:
Gallowglass you halfwit. The appeasers in the 1930s were mainly Tories and their nasty little crypto fascist mates, royal family included. All decent people have left wing views. Left wing views means, at base, all doing a fair share of the work and all taking a fair share of the rewards. Rightwingers advocate injustice. That is what right wing views means - ill treating people for your personal gain. The end.


So all those many left-wingers who spied for the USSR were just "decent people" "doing a fair share of the work" and they didn't want the USSR to turn the UK into a Communist hell-hole?

Rightwingers advocate injustice? What, like lower taxation for everyone? Being able to work your way up without government handouts? Not having a huge amount of money confiscated each year to fund more "real nappy coordinators"? I think it's pretty damn injust that a fair whack of my salary is taken away from me to give to workshy lazy chav scum who will never do a day's work in their lives. I see left-wing policies as deeply unjust to those who work hard and want to better themselves.

Almost nobody actually advocates injustice - it's just the view of what's just that's different. If you think that it's just that hard-working people's money should be confiscated so that welfare can be a career option for lazy scum who are too bone idle to work, then that's your right.

/rant over.
 
#9
Replies edited.

Leave the namecalling and sledging out of the discussion, it's not the Naafi bar.
 
#10
Steamywindow said:
Gallowglass you halfwit. The appeasers in the 1930s were mainly Tories and their nasty little crypto fascist mates, royal family included. All decent people have left wing views. Left wing views means, at base, all doing a fair share of the work and all taking a fair share of the rewards. Rightwingers advocate injustice. That is what right wing views means - ill treating people for your personal gain. The end.
Okay, I'll bite. If you are referring to extreme rightwingers such as Mussolini and Hitler (one a former socialist, the other a National Socialist) then I concur, those kind of rightwingers advocate injustice. However, it is simply historically incorrect (and grossly unfair) to baldly state that all rightwingers are intrinsically proponents of injustice. Do you class Churchill as a leftist? Would you care to explain away the tens of millions who were murdered as a direct result of the policies of Lenin, Stalin (the Ukrainian Terror Famine, showtrials, the Gulag), Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il....who initially at least advocated the left wing views you mention above? I fail to see the justice in their actions. Much of the opposition to Hitler within Germany came from what you would regard as rightwing elements - the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Army, the Abwehr, the aristocracy......are they somehow less moral and worthy of recognition for their bravery because they were not left wing? The Communist regimes in the former Eastern Bloc were never done harping on about their 'respect' for the 'Left wing views' you mentioned, yet they oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and killed the very people they claimed to be representing, all in the name of these principles.

The principal appeasers of the 1930s were indeed of the Tory persuasion, but they are remembered primarily for the fact that they were in government. Have you not heard of the many left wing movements which encouraged people towards appeasement at ground level - the various pacifist groups which encouraged the young not to join the Armed Forces; and others which portrayed the USSR as paradise on earth and approved of the betrayal practiced by the Cambridge Five and others?

How is it that so many people from such 'traditional' rightwing (or conservative if you will) groups as the aristocracy and the Armed Forces willingly served and gave their lives during the Second World War? Explain how so many of a left wing persuasion sat on their hands after the Nazi-Soviet Pact until the invasion of the USSR.

The Left does not, nor has it ever had, the patent on morality - it simply assumes it has. To give voice to the assertions you make is either naive or a deliberate attempt to whitewash the blood-soaked legacy of the actual reality of what you advocate. Left wings views sound wonderful in theory, but the reality is far different. The Left lost the argument long ago.
 
#11
Steamywindow said:
The appeasers in the 1930s were mainly Tories and their nasty little crypto fascist mates, royal family included. All decent people have left wing views. Left wing views means, at base, all doing a fair share of the work and all taking a fair share of the rewards. Rightwingers advocate injustice. That is what right wing views means - ill treating people for your personal gain. The end.
It's people like you that would call what Pol Pot did "A brave social experiment"
 
#12
Superb posts guys straight to the point!


Steamy, put the crack pipe down either that or a very good controversial post to get things going.
 
#13
Fox 'news' had a former terrorist on their show recently 8O

And this partisan sniping at each side being 'leftist' or 'rightist' is ridiculous.

There seems to be no such thing as moderatism any more.. (you're either a rich hitler loving poor robbing kleptonazi or a chav leftist lenin bumming welfare leech).
 
#14
The principal appeasers of the 1930s were indeed of the Tory persuasion, but they are remembered primarily for the fact that they were in government
Which of course is why Mosley is remembered , the Mitfords and various others who were not in Government? Sympathy with Hitler, was predominantly a far-right preserve.

Explain how so many of a left wing persuasion sat on their hands after the Nazi-Soviet Pact until the invasion of the USSR.
Except those involved in Spain of course. Were all those soldiers on the mole of Dunkirk of Right wing persuasion? Or are we talking about the left-wing intelligensia and 'upper class' ? The Viscount Stansgate volunteered for service as soon as he was old enough.

Was the British Army of the late depression years and early World War 2 a 'Conservative' organisation? I believe the Labour Party won the 1945 General Election. Many Left-wingers volunteered to fight on Sept 3rd . Why wouldn't they , they opposed the Nazi idealogy. The distinctions in class, and politics were far more distinct then they are today.

When my father did basic training , included in his squad were a future Captain of industry and an heriditary peer. They joined to fight Hitler. Political differences of opinion were not the issue. In the 1945 election, my father was too young to vote, but many other commisioned officers voted Labour. Not just because of the proposal to bring them home quicker, but because of the bright new future that beckoned.

There seems to be a slide here , to equating "Left wing" with communism , and "Right wing" with facism.
 
#15
Aah, yes, the "bright new future" which has unfortunately evolved into Chavland, where nobody can find a dentist or make a doctor's appointment more than 48hrs in advance...

I can understand at the time that it looked good - that sort of thing hadn't been tried before. But 60 years on we're suffering from decisions which were made by that post-war Labour government. And even during the reign of that government, they did instigate an unnecessary austerity programme (harsher rationing than during the war), which has been a feature of far-left governments ever since.
 
#16
stoatman said:
Aah, yes, the "bright new future" which has unfortunately evolved into Chavland, where nobody can find a dentist or make a doctor's appointment more than 48hrs in advance...

I can understand at the time that it looked good - that sort of thing hadn't been tried before. But 60 years on we're suffering from decisions which were made by that post-war Labour government.
I remember one older teacher telling me of what it was like pre-war in Argyllshire, if you were an agricultural worker and only got hired by a sh*t employer. Live in a barn, take what you're given, if you leave before your year's up and you get no pay. Push for change and you're marked as a troublemaker and won't get any job, and without any welfare state that means....?

We can argue that the Welfare State went too far, but you can't argue that what went before it needed sorted out.

Also worth mentioning that while the Cambridge spies et al were deluded in thinking that Stalin really offered a bright new Workers' Paradise (tm).....

What they did see were Fascist states growing in Germany and Italy (remind yourself when Kristallnacht took place), and a British government that was willing to sell Spain and Czechoslovakia down the river in appeasement, order to avoid yet another "war to end wars". From their point of view, up until the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, the Communists seemed to be the only people actually willing to fight Fascism rather than appease it.
 
#17
What they did see were Fascist states growing in Germany and Italy (remind yourself when Kristallnacht took place), and a British government that was willing to sell Spain and Czechoslovakia down the river in appeasement

And while we're using the Cambridge and Oxford examples, many "left"-wingers visited Germany in the 30's , and came back firmly of the opinion we were going to be fighting Hitler , and made their preparations accordingly.

That is why it is dangerous to categorise into "Far right" and "Far left"
 
#18
Steamywindow said:
Gallowglass . The appeasers in the 1930s were mainly Tories and their nasty little crypto fascist mates, royal family included. All decent people have left wing views. Left wing views means, at base, all doing a fair share of the work and all taking a fair share of the rewards. Rightwingers advocate injustice. That is what right wing views means - ill treating people for your personal gain. The end.
Mwhahahahaha, you've discovered our secret. Us right wingers want to do everyone else out of a job, steal their money and eat their children.

come back when youv'e read 1984 or karl marx and then let us know

Oh yeah and to finish, i will leave you with a small list of 'famous' left wing individuals.

Lenin (killed millions of his own coutnrymen)
Stalin (killed tens of million of his allies, enemies, and countrymen)
Pol Pot (killed 2 million of his own countrymen)
Fidel Castro (killed hundreds of thousands of his countrymen)

the list continues but you know the rest. :roll:
 
#19
PTP, I could be pedantic and point out that the Nazi-Soviet Pact post-dated the end of the Spanish Civil War by some months - August 1939 as opposed to May 1939. Nonetheless, I take your point. I would also point out that many who volunteered to fight in the International Brigades were betrayed by the machinations of Stalin and his NKVD - look at how disillusioned Orwell was after his sojourn in Spain.

I would not attempt to argue that appeasement of Hitler & Co. was other than a primarily right wing preserve - Mosley, Mitford et al were, or had been part of the political establishment, or were associated with it. I was responding in kind to the broadly sweeping generalistions that Steamywindow was making, which boiled down to left=good, right=bad.

The 1945 Election demonstrated that the officers and men of the Armed Forces were not exclusively 'of the right', but then I would not want to apply the present day understanding of right and left to political and social conditions of 60 and 70 years ago - as you say, such distinctions were far more defined then than now. It would be fair to say that the culture and ethos of the Army 'back then' was intrinsically conservative (small c), but it was also politically neutral, unlike other armies. However, I believe that it would not be outlandish of me to say that British people then (Tory or Labour supporting) were more conservative (small c) by nature and personal inclination than is the case now, and that they would look askance at much of Britain today. I also accept that many British people who would have classified themselves as left-wing would equally not have been in sympathy with Communism, placing patriotism before 'the cause', which goes a good deal of the way towards explaining why it never gained a real foothold in Britain.

Many 'left-wingers' did indeed travel to Germany and further afield during the 1930s, and saw the warning signs about Nazism. However, others like them also had a path worn to Moscow and came back singing the praises of the 'Workers and Peasants Soviet', ignoring the ugly reality of forced collectivisation and state-sponsored terror, notably the left-wing Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Walter Duranty, who deliberately failed to report on the Ukrainian Terror Famine in 1932-33.

I agree that there is a risk here of conveniently slotting people into 'left' and 'right' wing pigeon holes, but I reiterate that I was responding to what I regarded as an outlandishly biased and dishonest posting (intellectually stimulating though, what! My horse Jenkins, I must ride forth and oppress the proletariat! Yoiks and Tally-ho!)
 
#20
I remember the welfare state in its infancy (late 1940s early to mid 1950s) it was a brilliant idea. Families who, before WW2, could not afford medical and dental treatment suddenly found it available. Infants from underprivileged backgrounds who previously ran the risk of ricketts, TB, etc and were generally malnourished had access to free orange juice, milk and formula. School children from that same socially deprived strata who often went to school inadequately clad and shod were suddenly eligible for programmes where clothes and boots were freely available, school lunch subsidies ensured they had at least one good meal per day and of course there was free school milk. The local Grammar Schools expanded and gave bright young people access to previously unobtainable higher education and hitherto undreamed of better jobs and opportunities.

The housing program (I think over a million new council houses were built) gave millions of people, most of whom had never experienced indoor plumbing, a dignified place to live in reasonably pleasant surroundings. All that gave a generation who had experienced a depression and a debilitating war, hope, and it worked. At least until the late 1960s until it all started to implode.

Many of the architects of that grand socialist plan were former public schoolboys, Oxbridge graduates and army officers (Atlee springs to mind) non of whom were communists though were labled Left Wing. Many of the beneficiaries of the plan became dyed in the wool conservatives (Maggie Thatcher, John Major to name but two) none of whom were fascists and were labled Right Wing. Sure there were traitors from society's upper echelons of that pre war generation on either end of the political spectrum, Philby, McLean, Blunt, et al on the left, the Mitfords, Mosely and, dare I say, the Duke of Windsor, to name a few, who harboured nazi sympathies, on the right. The appeasers (moderates?) headed by Neville Chamberlain, still reeling from the horrors of WW1 and massive national debt were reluctant to plunge the nation into a repeat performance, to the relief of a substantial sector of the British public.

So sad that the plan to make Britain a land fit for the returning heroes of WW2 fell victim to greed, sloth, political correctness and an open door policy that gave the world's and Britain's ne'r do wells the opportunity to live free. Opportunities perpetuated by successive conservative and labour governments.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top