This is genuinely the most stupid, hateful article on terror that I’ve ever read. The writer, Michael Ledeen, has even managed to treat Tony Blair unfairly badly (a challenge at the best of times).
To start with, Mr Ledeen lies that London is the centre of a "vast terrorist network". No, it isn’t: we have some silly religous people here who make silly speeches. None are linked to Islamist terrorism. If they were, they’d be in jail. They aren’t in jail, because there isn’t any evidence that they’re terrorists. This is called ‘the rule of law’.
He then goes on to suggest that the British hate the Jews, and that this is evidenced by the fact that the British press has the American Enterprise Institute (which is renowned for its embrace of useless hacks more than its religious values…) and assorted prominent neoconservatives. He then claims we also hate the Iraqis, because they’re a bit like the Jews (yes, this step makes literally no sense).
This man, and those who think like him, are at least as insane and poisonous as Hizb ut-Tahrir. Probably worse, since the latter are a niche bunch of loonies with fuck all chance of ever affecting anything. However, Mr Ledeen, Daniel Pipes and the rest of the Muslim-hating Europe-hating American right actually seem to have some kind of real-world political influence…
I loath the neocons, all this time I thought I disliked a load of, (mainly christian), self serving bastards who like to throw bombs about but it turns out that I’m evily anti-semitic.
I also wonder if Ledeen knows the original meaning of ‘semitic’.
cunt
just to clarify I’m not claiming that the original meaning of semitic was ‘cunt’, you just know there’s some bastard out there who would have claimed that was what I meant.
Heh – probably. On ‘antisemitic’ though – although ‘semitic’ means something like ‘from the Middle East’, ‘antisemitic’ was coined specifically to describe anti-Jewish racism. Sometimes I’m tempted to use a less ambiguous term such as ‘Judenhass’, but I suspect this would make me sound like a right-wing idiot.
The American Enterprise Institute is a Jewish organization? What is it, a yeshiva?
Here I thought all this time that they were just a bunch of Washington hacks who hate paying taxes.
Which is why I didn’t claim that ‘anti-semitic’ had had a different meaning.
Btw, John, did you ever read this article in Frontpage last year by Carol Gould about how everywhere in London she went people would launch abusive (and often anti-Semitic) tirades at her for being American. If not, you’ll find it quite funny.
It is, of course, pretty much 100% horseshit, as someone like myself, who is both American and lived in London for many years, can attest.
I know, just thought it was worth clarifying for readers’ benefits and to stop tedious cunts wading in on Ledeen’s behalf…
(last one was to Al). Yup, read the Frontpage piece, somewhat hilarious and mental…
Bonkers. Completely bonkers. Oh, & someone should point out to him that Iranians aren’t semitic.
If the BBC is guilty of "slanderously misrepresenting" Richard Perle, how come he seemed to have taken up more or less permanent residence on Newsnight for much of the period between September 11 and the Iraq invasion?
Obviously allowing Richard Perle to appear on television and thus allowing his arguments to go directly to the people watching (those who aren’t going ‘It’s Dr Strangelove!’, of course) rather than be interpreted and presented to us by Ledeen et al is misrepresenting him.
In the (probably not exact) words of Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: ‘I have at times been quoted accurately, which is perhaps the worst thing of all.’
"Semitic" means descended from Shem, one of Noah’s sons, I believe.
This is genuinely the most sensible, shrewd and accurate article on terror that I’ve ever read, er, since the last one by Mark Steyn, that is.
Thanks, ‘John B’, I might have missed it but for your good orifices, sorry, offices.
OK, let’s have a look at a passage from this "sensible, shrewd and accurate article":
Ahmed Chalabi is part and parcel of the anti-Semites’ hateful vision. No matter that he is a Shiite, and no matter that he was rudely dismissed by the Israeli government before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in cahoots with the Jewish cabal, and was therefore "one of them." And as Chalabi, so the rest of the lot.
Curiously, Leeden doesn’t mention anywhere in his diatribe some rather more obvious reasons why people outside the neocon circle might be somewhat reluctant to side with Chalabi. You know, allegations of fraud, spying for the Iranians, supplying "intelligence" to the US that was subsequently shown to be faulty, and so on. Shouldn’t Leeden at least have acknowledged these allegations, even in order to denounce them?
One would have thought, given that the entire basis of his article was an extrapolation of the (alleged) reasons behind Tony Blair’s omissions, that Leeden would have been scrupulously careful to cover his own bases – but it seems not.
That’s the sort of stern, clear-eyed objectivity that we have all grown to admire from the Brooke brothers. "Allegations" of this, "allegations" of that, and "allegations" of the other, are all that are required. Proof, do me a favour!
You are one of the useful idiots. Worse still, you revel in it
Proof, do me a favour!
OK, let me get this straight – you object to my own allegations, yet you’re happy to pour unstinting praise an article whose whole premise stems from one? (i.e. that Blair deliberately omitted Iraq and Israel from his list of countries, and had specific reasons for doing so?)
You are one of the useful idiots. Worse still, you revel in it
That’s not very nice. I may not always agree with what David thinks, but I respect the fact that he has an opinion.
I dunno’, all this university ‘edification’, wot’s it for, eh? Take the Broooke brothers, f’r instance, well, one of ’em anyway. Don’t now the difference between an opinion based on totally unproved allegations, and a theory based on observable facts – Blair did *not* include any reference to Israel and Iraq, the two nations whose record of suffering terrorism puts everyone else’s down at ‘pin-prick’ level. They should shut down that Woverhampton Polytechnic, or where-ever it woz they went. Waste of money!
I reckon that ‘JohninLondon’ has been seeing my wife! She says that all the time, except when she says it, I’m a use-LESS idiot.
David, the fact that Chalabi was convicted by a Jordanian court and one of the banking companies in his industrial group was shut down by Swiss regulators is an observable fact. It’s also observable that Chalabi said there were WMDs in Iraq and there weren’t, and that the coalition authorities certainly said that they had found him passing secrets to the Iranians. You act like the suspicions against Chalabi are some wild kind of conspiracy theory utterly unsupported by the official record, whereas in fact the opposite is the case; you need to believe that almost everyone else that Chalabi has met is a liar in order to believe that he is innocent.
‘D2’, I know next to nothing about Chalabi and never pretended to. It was Michael who used the word "allegations", and I merely picked him up on it. If it was a slip of the keyboard that we are all prone to, and there is indeed proof, then obviously I withdraw my somewhat heavy-handed irony.
However, if the *worst* you can come up with is that a middle-eastern ‘businessman’ has a conviction (presumably not serious as he is at liberty) in a Jordanian court; and that the Swiss closed down (but did not institute proceedings) one of his Banking companies; and that his *political enemies* in the Iraqi administration, who were determined to keep him out, made un-proven accusations of treachery; and finally, that he, *like the rest of the world*, thought Saddam had WMD, then I would say he was remarkably clean. By middle-east standards, almost a saint. (And if some idiot comes on and tells me off for racism, I shall get really grumpy!)
Well, at least you’ve spurred me into looking up the full text of Blair’s original Commons statement – you’ll find it here, but the salient bit is:
It seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists of the kind who, over recent years, have been responsible for so many innocent deaths in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and of course New York on 11 September, but in many other countries, too.
True, he left out Israel and Iraq – but he also omitted Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chechnya, Dagestan, India, Indonesia (outside Bali), Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Thailand and Uzbekistan, all of which have suffered terrorism or similarly murderous violence directly inspired by Islamic fundamentalism over the past year alone.
But these are mere pinpricks compared with Israel and Iraq, right? Actually, no – this year, Thailand’s death toll from Islamic extremist violence has reached 72, compared with Israel’s 32 over the same period (figures here).
So why did Blair leave out Thailand – and, more to the point, why didn’t Leeden call him up on it? Could it be because it didn’t fit his conspiracy theory? Perish the thought!
I protest. To compare the anti-Britannic rant of this poltroon Ledeen to the musings of the thought-provoking Mr Steyn is v unfair to the Canadian funster.
It was Michael who used the word "allegations", and I merely picked him up on it.
…but you missed my main point, which is that so many allegations have been flying around about Chalabi, from so many different sources (and such a diverse range that it’s extraordinarily unlikely that it’s down to any kind of co-ordinated smear campaign) that anyone who seeks to co-opt him into a conspiracy theory is going to have to at least acknowledge their existence in order to retain credibility.
Put it like this – if you were on government business, would you touch Chalabi with a ten-foot barge pole? And, assuming the answer is "no", would this reluctance be down to anti-Semitism, or merely good sense?
Worth pointing out that (as Michael’s highlighted sentence shows) Blair was specifically referring to Islamist terrorism, and almost all (I would even say all) of the suicide bombs in Israel were placed by Palestinian nationalist groups who are not Islamists.
Ditto Iraq, where (at least according to The Official Pro-War Narrative) a large proportion of the terrorists are Baathist throwbacks rather than jihadis.
Now then, Michael, you are not seriously comparing Thailand with Israel, surely. The reason the death rate in Israel is so low *this year* is their shrewd policy, which I wish we would follow, of attacking the *leadership* of terrorist groups, all of whom, as *individuals* now know it is their lives that are likely to be lost, not just the poor saps who carry the bombs. Now go back and count how many deaths due to terrorism have occurred in Israel in the last 20 years!
Chalabi is a rich, international businessman, and more-over, one who was trying to become prime minister of his country. ‘Allegations’ concerning such a man are bound to proliferate, not least because he will have a *host of enemies* to maintain a campaign of villification against him. It would be as great an error to accept their word, as his! No doubt Chalabi has carried out some dubious acts in his day, but where, in the oil-rich maelstrom of the middle-east, are you going to find anyone who hasn’t. At least, as far as I know, he hasn’t murdered or tortured anyone. And, yes, I would do business with him, but very carefully! As I would with, say, Rupert Murdoch.
David, your protestations on behalf of Chalabi are rather undermined by your admission at 7/26/05 5:00:46 AM that you know "next to nothing" about him.
David, if you know the identities and whereabouts of the "*leadership* of terrorist groups" please give them to the police. If you don’t, please shut the hell up.
"Chalabi is a rich, international businessman, and more-over, one who was trying to become prime minister of his country." Tony Blair should be very worried then: Since he left Jordan, Chalabi has resided in London and he is now a British citizen.
"Allegations" against Chalabi include: He was convicted for bank fraud and embezzlement following the collapse of his Petra Bank in 1989. A Jordanian military court sentenced him to 22 years of hard labour.
In other news, Don Corleone is the rich, successful head of an Scicilian-American family. He is known for his willingness to do favours for small businessmen, his devout Catholicism, and his loyalty to his associates.
Here we go again! I was *not* trying to defend Chalabi as an individual which is why I admitted that I knew next to nothing about him. I was merely attempting to point out, in principle, the danger of accepting unsubstantiated allegations as gospel truth. I am happy to concur with the probability that Chalabi, given his occupation (international money-making mixed with international, as well as national, politics) is no angel. If any of the commenters above can find *any* figure in the middle-east with an unstained reputation, I would love to know of them. In the meantime, I remain unaware of any proof that Chalabi murdered or tortured his opponents, a habit frequently indulged by many of his ilk.
‘Backword Dave’ continues to ignore the fact that I am the founder, life-time president and, so far, the sole member of S.A.D., the Society Against Diminutives – and, yes, my social life is not all it might be! But if he insists that ‘Dave’ it is, then ‘Dave’ it must be. Anyway, he sticks to form by missing my point that we, meaning us Brits, lack the will-power to kill terrorist leaders, as was demonstrated during the days of the IRA campaign. A ‘shoot to kill’ policy against the foot-soldiers is action taken at the tactical level. Shooting dead their leaders is strategic and has real effect. We knew who constituted the leadership of the IRA. We know some of the leaders of the militant Muslims in various countries, and we should take steps to kill them.
"To start with, Mr Ledeen lies that London is the centre of a "vast terrorist network". No, it isn’t: we have some silly religous people here who make silly speeches."
That’s right, because The Power of Nightmares told us so!
No, I’m right because my belief is supported by all the available evidence, while yours is supported by a few mouth-breathing right-wing maniacs like Mr Ledeen.
If London is the centre of the Network, why would they bomb it? That’d be like the US armed forces bombing Washington…
Re: dsquared "Worth pointing out that (as Michael’s highlighted sentence shows) Blair was specifically referring to Islamist terrorism, and almost all (I would even say all) of the suicide bombs in Israel were placed by Palestinian nationalist groups who are not Islamists."
Maybe Hamas (an acronym that stands for Islamic Resistance Movement) is a bit too confusing for you to point out, but Islamic Jihad should give you a clue though I wouldn’t bet on it.
BTW congrats on being mentioned in the grauniad as an apologist for HuT.
Yes NIB, the question is who would benefit from it, for which we already know the answer.
Well, the entire basis for Leeden’s article appears to have been comprehensively undermined by Blair’s latest press conference, during which Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan were mentioned repeatedly. However, he’s still ignoring Thailand, if conspiracy theorists want another bone to worry away at.
Maybe he read Ledeen’s article.
Blair’s latest press conference, during which Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan were mentioned repeatedly.
Not quite. Israel is mentioned once and that’s while talking to Israeli radio.
Otherwise he uses the word Palestine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4716505.stm
Or is it the BBC’s editors work. Nowadays you can never know.
Israel is mentioned once and that’s while talking to Israeli radio.
I didn’t know Adam Boulton represented Israeli radio – do his bosses at Sky know about this moonlighting?
[Adam Boulton] says more Iraqi civilians have been killed by US and British armed forces than terrorists in Iraq. Mr Blair says: "I don’t accept that."
"It’s complete nonsense to build some equivalence between what we’re doing to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and what these people are doing.
"And there’s no justification for sucide bombing in Israel either – let’s just get that out of the way".
"Fox News" also appears to be a front for Israeli radio:
Fox News wants to know how Muslims who grew up in Britain "could have turned on their own people".
"People have got to be prepared to go into the [Muslim] community and say ‘what you say about America is rubbish’", continues Mr Blair. America is not supressing Muslims, even if you disagree with their foreign policy, he adds.
People musn’t accept the idea that America is evil or Israel should not exist, as then it is a smaller step to extremism and terrorism, Mr Blair says.