Something you wont see in the mainstream media

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Vegetius, Jul 20, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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?


    Permalink to The Daily Ablution:

    The Daily Ablution Homepage:

  2. Pale and male. Right on, soon be a protected specis, NOT.
  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.

    Not really
  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;;jsessionid=M53PQYZPPPXNVQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/07/19/do1902.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/19/ixportal.html

  6. A contradiction in terms. Such people are either cynical opportunists or dangerously naive - what Lenin referred to as 'useful idiots'.

    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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    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.