"Some question whether [the UK’s] emphasis on monitoring [possible terrorists], as opposed to the preemptive disruption often favored by the FBI in the United States, has left the country vulnerable." – WaPo editorial.
Yes. These people are called ‘cunts’. Except when they they suggest it while rescuers are still digging bodies out of the Underground, in which case they’re called ‘sick, sick graverobbing cunts; fuck them’.
Can you imagine a British paper – even the Indy – having the poor taste to write the day after some putative attack on the US something like, "some people think that abolishing the rule of law and sending brown persons to secret prison camps without trial on the basis of no evidence made the USA a country that’s already surrendered to the terrorists’ ideals, and therefore thoroughly deserved its punishment"? If so, you’ve been reading too much Biased BBC…
Liberal media? My arse.
John, talking of the Washington Post, you may be mildly amused by this.
Talking of mild amusement, I thought I’d test Peter Cuthbertson’s theory that this blog isn’t funny (or, more pompously, "It surprises me that some find John B’s swearing etc. amusing. I didn’t realise it was even intended that way") by showing this post to my wife, an SBBS virgin.
She laughed so hard that she nearly dropped the laptop.
And when she’d recovered she showed me this.
Some people find "Derek and Clive get the horn" side splittingly funny even though the only ‘joke’ in it was the word ‘cunt’. That was when the otherwise great Peter Cook stopped being a comic genius: when his swearing became the joke rather than the exclamation point on the punchline. John b’s ‘humour’ is just the same.
I’ve got the horn right now.
Oh, John: you certainly can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
The Washington Post is Liberal Jew rag which supports the very Leftist nutjob policies which encourage the fatal Thirdworldization of the West. Israel’s Jewish ‘purity’ is,however, sacrosanct and this is understandable in the face of neighbors even more disgusting than Jews.
I thought the Washington Post was owned by the Moonies? And they’re Jewish too? How flexible of them.
~FEoV
John, if you want me to Fuck the Post for this, no thanks.
I should know better than try to debate Mr. Band on the facts. After all, it’s his blog and his typical response is simply to brand all who disagree with some disagreeable word and move on to the next target. Don’t know why I keep coming back (sigh). Perhaps he’ll change some day . . ..
Anyway, for what it’s worth, and in defence of the Post — not a perfect paper, but certainly one with a sense of ethics that the keeper of this blog would do well to follow — John is sorely mistaken. First of all, John’s claim to the contrary, this article is clearly not an editorial. It was part of a lengthy front page piece in Sunday’s Post reporting on radical Islam in the U . There is no reason at all for anyone to construe the article as presenting the Post’s editorial opinion (unless you feel like making the Post look bad by attributing something to them that they never said. But who’d ever want to do that?)
Back to the point. The real fly in John’s ointment is that he doesn’t give the context. if you read the entire paragraph containing the line, you’ll see that the "some" who hold the opinion to which John objects are in fact U.S. intelligence officials, or rather more specifically, "a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official". According to the Post, this former senior counterterrorism person believes that the tolerance and openness of British society have made it harder for police to act against possible terrorists.
I know John and I come from very different places (and what I wouldn’t give to have had the opportunities he enjoys, but that’s beside the point). However, it seems to me that openness and tolerance are things to be proud of, and if a foreign newspaper quotes someone who perceives them, it is not grounds to condemn that paper.
I don’t think Steve Coll and Susan Glasser of the Post will be losing sleep waiting for an apology, but in all fairness John should at least read the articles before making a fool of himself.
Look forward to your response, Mr. Band! It’ll be fun!
No. The Washington TIMES is owned by the Moonies I think.
No, FEoV, it’s the Washington Times that’s owned by the Moonies. A very different paper. Trash it all you want!
As for the other poster, go crawl back under yer rock!
John: Until now I somehow missed your hypothetical quote suggesting that victims of "putative" acts of terror in the US deserve their punishment. I know what it’s like to miss someone who died as the random result of a very real act of violence that took place in the USA, and I don’t think she deserved it at all.
Perhaps you’d like to explain this as well?
What a time to decide we don’t like John B swearing…
I’ve got the horn right now.
Everything gives me the horn…
NIB, go and take a cold shower. Anyway what happened to your blog?
I wouldn’t get too concerned about this, remembering the Adequacy.org post. When something like this happens the bodies will still be warm when George Galloway blames the government, people like Gene or SIAW will say it supports the Iraq war, ‘security experts’ will say it proves civil liberties should be curtailed, etc etc. The only lesson to draw is not to listen to them.
Not only is this reporting rather than an editorial, it’s gone through two reporters and a squad of editors and fact-checkers without anybody questioning the description of Moss Side in Manchester as ‘an area of quiet Georgian houses’. I know it’s changed a lot there, but still…
To state the blindingly obvious, thursday’s attacks were horrible and evil. I haven’t been able to follow the goings on very closely, but it sounds like Londoners have shown courage and dignity, so good on them. May the police find the bastards responsible for the bombings.
Looks like someone’s answering your prayers, Chris. Three bombers identified, the fourth under investigation, homes raided and at least one person arrested. And a mere 24 hours after Rush Limbaugh was saying how the UK would be completely in the dark and need American help to find the bombers, because we don’t have a Patriot Act.
By the way, the terrorists have won. The Quentin taratino double-bill of CSI episodes on Five was cancelled.
Greg
Perhaps you have not really realised that this web – site is a real world example of the "Nathan Barley" phebnomena. Nathan Barley is a fictitous character created by Chris Morris, one of our astute observers of social trends:
"Nathan Barley is 26. He is a webmaster, guerrilla filmmaker, screenwriter, DJ and in his own words, a "self-facilitating media node". He is convinced he is the epitome of urban cool and therefore secretly terrified he might not be, which is why he reads Sugar Ape Magazine – his bible of cool."
Unfortunately, Nathan is part of a new generation, with all means possible to express his opinions, a platform to put across his views, but with nothing really to say, hence the "moral indignation" and smugness that can only cpme from youth.
I was a pratt when I was under 25, more acurately, I did not know my arse from my elbow until I was 32.
I think you should perhaps drop back to this website in ten years time. It may have moved on. It will probaly be a neocon website.
Thank you for the perspective, Bob. It’s something I was aware of but unable to articulate.
(I’m the first one to admit that I was a complete pratt until I was long out of my 20s. For me it was parenthood that finally put things into something like a reasonable order. Imagine: there are other peøple in the world with more iimportant needs tham mine!)
Overall, on re-reading what I got all steamed up over yesterday it strikes me: when there is so much pain and random suffering, why take issue with someone’s blog?
Good luck to ya, John B.!
I thought it already was a neocon website? ;-) The WaPo is a supremely disconnected mouthpiece of moonbattery, they said "it" to stick both Blair and Bush with their big tar-brush, and they do what they do because the have little cunt-envy against/with/for(?) the NYT.
The NYT? They employed that useful idiot Walter Duranty who informed their gullible readers that Stalin was a great guy and Communism really worked.Later the NYT’s loony affirmative action policy resulted in the scandal of a nigger called Jayson Blair who sat at home and made up scoops and fraudulent expense claims. Great Jewspaper!
rebbiker, go away.
Who does/did Judith Miller work for? Apart from Chalabi, that is?
You’re getting more deranged by the day, john. I’d suggest thorazine.
Bob, Rebbiker and Timbeaux all together on one post. It’s like flypaper for loons.
It’s like flypaper for loons.
Did someone call?
John S
I do not consider myself the same as Rebbiker, I presume you are trying to suggest thay I am racist, which I am not. Indeed, one definition of a racist is a right winger who is winning the argument, whrereas Rebiker seems a genuine racist to me.
To be fair though John S, I consider you to ba a racist. You are just a "reverse" racist, you see America as the greatest evil on earth, perhaps because they are mainly white. I would guess you are anti- Israeli (white) and pro -palestinian (brown).
You are so predictable. Am I right?
PS: John S
I notice your website, that I am sure you believe is so important and to which you link, does not seem to be getting much traffic. As I understand it, talking to yourself is probably a sign of madness and definitely a sign of misplaced vanity.
To be fair though John S, I consider you to ba a racist. You are just a "reverse" racist, you see America as the greatest evil on earth, perhaps because they are mainly white. I would guess you are anti- Israeli (white) and pro -palestinian (brown).
You are so predictable. Am I right?
What on earth are you talking about? I don’t consider you a racist, merely a loudmouth, a bully, and the sort of loon who offers up canned rants at the slightest provocation.
I do enjoy having gotten so far under your skin, though, as your fantasies make for entertaining reading.
I notice your website, that I am sure you believe is so important
Like most things you claim to be so sure of, you’re mistaken on this count as well. By the same logic, one might assert that you think your email address is incredibly important, as you insist on leaving it with every comment.
John S
Try my e- mail address, I think you will find it is fictitious. There goes your argument……again