Unbelievable Leftist Hate of the Day

[Boon Mee]

Over at the Guardian, there's this hack named Neil Clark who is calling for the Iraqi translators who are working for U.K. forces not to be allowed asylum in Britain. Instead, he hopes they will be "slaughtered" by the "true heroes" of Iraq.

Sorta reminds you of folks like ray cary who didn't feel an ounce of grief for Nick Berg and others who were just trying to make a living and had their heads chopped off for their trouble.

Link

[Mr Earl]

The leftist's rush for defeat in Iraq is something remarkable.
Never mind the what would happen in Iraq with a sudden US pullout. They just want America to look bad.
Yet they blithely ignore the core of the hideous corruption which is the very foundation of the US federal government and the associated monetary system.

Trouble with looking too deeply is that the corruption reaches around the world and nearly everyone is implicated somehow.

Except of course our pure Muslim friends!

[Boon Mee]

Except of course our pure Muslim friends!

raycarey's a Muslim?

[Sir Burr]

Whoops! A right-wingers love-fest, I'll leave you two alone.

[Mr Earl]

^Watch you backside around the liberals! "Any port in the storm" ya know!

[shehiredahitman]

This is too deep a subject for my wisdom & you guys, but I'll say this - as much as I hate the bad guys as much as you do, let's between us, bring this nightmare to an end, one way or another. Whatever it takes, let us just put it to an end. Forever.

I'm not a war mongerer.

I'm too dim to put it properly.

[barbaro]

The so-called Left vs. Right idea for Iraq,

is just a myth.

Iraq isn't about Left vs. Right, although many or most left wing organizations (advocacy groups) are against the Iraq War.

They're just a group in a particular tent.

Many right wingers opposed the Iraq invasion.


Neo-cons? Where do they fit on the spectrum.

Neo-cons are "liberals in sheeps clothing" according to Pat Buchanan.

Big spending, big government, expounding U.S. values to foreign countries.

Spending big money at home, on defense, and inside Iraq.

This is called Neo-Liberalism. It's what the Democratic and Republican parties are today.

[AntRobertson]

Over at the Guardian, there's this hack named Neil Clark who is calling for the Iraqi translators who are working for U.K. forces not to be allowed asylum in Britain. Instead, he hopes they will be "slaughtered" by the "true heroes" of Iraq. Sorta reminds you of folks like ray cary who didn't feel an ounce of grief for Nick Berg and others who were just trying to make a living and had their heads chopped off for their trouble.

Link

Boon Mee,

Have you yourself actually read any of this Neil Clark character, let alone the article(s) in question?

Because your link isn't even to Clark or the Guardian. It's to a notoriously partisan blogsite. In other words you've arrived at a conclusion with absolutely no independent research and on the basis of someone else's opinion from the aforementioned partisan website.

In a nutshell then you've simply found something you already agree with and parroted it on here with no independent thought or analysis. Pretty pointless really isn't it.

I'm not even sure how this belongs in "Issues" on that basis. Perhaps there should be another forum: "Things I've Read and Agree With so Will Cut n' Paste on Here"?

Anyways to the 'topic' at hand. Firstly the article in question isn't actually an article. It's a blog. So your statement:

Over at the Guardian, there's this hack named Neil Clark

is misleading by implying that this is an article in the Guardian by a Guardian journalist. Had you bothered to check for yourself for instance you would find that Clark's profile has this to say:

Neil Clark is a UK-based journalist, blogger and writer. A regular contributor to the Guardian, the Times, the New Statesman and the Spectator, his work has also appeared in publications as diverse as The American Conservative, Pravda, the Morning Star and the Racing Post.

Clarks blog then is no different from any other blog out there of any particular political leaning. In fact it differs from LGF itself only in that it is of a different opinion(s).

So essentially all that has been shown here is one partisan blog taking a shot at another partisan blog. And in other breaking news, if you don't breathe you'll die.

[sabang]

It's a Blog, so I won't waste much time on it.
Suffice to say I think the link is spouting nonsense.

[Sir Burr]

Well, Ant, I see you have discovered Boon Mee's usual posting style. Presenting right-wing blogs as fact.
Don't worry, BM's world is very black and white and anybody that doesn't inhabit his particular shade of the political spectrum is a Kool-aid drinker lost in the far left fever swamps (did I get that right Boonie?).

[AntRobertson]

^ It's an unusual 'style' to say the least. I suppose one inherent benefit is that it doesn't require any actual thought, reasoning or analysis from Boon Mee himself - thereby freeing up time for whatever it is he does in his spare time.

Quite brilliant in that respect. A pity then that it makes him also look a tad dim.

[Marmite the Dog]

The leftist's rush for defeat in Iraq is something remarkable.

Kinda reminds me of the US government's stand on the British Empire after WW2. They wanted to dismantle it, despite it's detrimental effect on the millions of people it protected and nurtured.

[Sir Burr]

^
Yet they helped France get back their former colony of Vietnam.

[mad_dog]

The article in full rather than a short quote from a bizarre blog:

Keep these quislings out

Calls from pro-war bloggers for Britain to grant asylum to Iraqi interpreters are truly nauseating.

Neil Clark


Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile


All Neil Clark articles
About Webfeeds

August 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Printable version
I love the Yiddish word chutzpah. I first came across it while working at the Jewish Theological Seminary in Budapest in the mid-1990s. My favourite chutzpah joke - and there are some very funny ones - concerns a man who goes to a lawyer and asks for advice.

Man: How much do you charge for legal advice?
Lawyer: A thousand dollars for three questions.
Man: Wow! Isn't that kind of expensive?
Lawyer: Yes, it is. What's your third question?

But, audacious as the lawyer in the joke was, some people are doing all they can to outdo him in the chutzpah stakes. A group of pro-war bloggers is playing a prominent role in a campaign to grant asylum to Iraqis who have been working as translators for the British forces in Iraq. Not all who back the campaign were in favour of the war, but some of its most strident supporters are.
Harry's Place, the favourite watering hole of the pro-war "left", urges its readers to write to their MPs over the issue. "If government policy has not changed by the time parliament returns from the summer recess, we will need to think about a face-to-face lobbying effort," the site warns.
Other pro-war bloggers are backing the campaign, too, including the arch-hawk Stephen Pollard, who once labelled opponents of the Iraq war as "mindless, deluded or malevolent". And yesterday, the Harry's Place contributor Adam Lebor, via an opinion piece in The Times, offered "advice" to Gordon Brown, exhorting him to overrule the bureaucratic "desk murderers" who would deny the Iraqis rights of entry.

It seems the Iraqis in question live in real fear of their lives in their newly "liberated" country. Surely, this can't be right. Weren't we told five years ago by the same pro-war bloggers that the Iraqi people were simply baying for a US/UK invasion, and that the "liberators" would be greeted with bouquets of flowers and cucumber sandwiches? Now the cakewalk brigade is telling us those who collaborate with - oops, sorry, work for - the liberators may not actually be the most popular guys and gals in town.
The whole thing would be comical if it weren't so tragic. But the chutzpah of those now exhorting people to write to their MPs to grant asylum to Iraqis who have been put in danger by the very interventionist policies they still enthusiastically support is truly astounding.
The most nauseating aspect of the campaign is the way we are repeatedly told that the Iraqi interpreters worked for "us".
Who exactly is meant by "us"? In common with millions of other Britons, I did not want the Iraq war, an illegal invasion of a sovereign state engineered and egged on by a tiny minority of fanatical neoconservatives whose first loyalty was not to Britain but to the cause of Pax Americana. NHS doctors and nurses, firemen and the police force work for "us", but in no stretch of the imagination do Iraqi interpreters, who are employed by British forces that have no right or cause to be in Iraq.
Analogies with the 44 Gurkha veterans who fought for Britain in the Falklands war and who are yet to receive citizenship rights are absurd. In that conflict, Britain was responding to an illegal act of aggression by Argentina; those who took part in the war cannot be said to have participated in a criminal enterprise. But in Iraq, it was Britain that was the aggressor, and all those who aided the occupation are
complicit in what the Nuremburg judgment laid down as "the supreme international crime": the launching of an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign state.
The interpreters did not work for "us", the British people, but for themselves - they are paid around £16 a day, an excellent wage in Iraq - and for an illegal occupying force. Let's not cast them as heroes. The true heroes in Iraq are those who have resisted the invasion of their country.
As Seumas Milne wrote in yesterday's Guardian: "More than any other single factor, it has been the war of attrition waged by Iraq's armed resistance that has successfully challenged the world's most powerful army and driven the demand for withdrawal to the top of the political agenda in Washington."
If more Iraqis had followed the example of the interpreters and collaborated with British and American forces, it is likely that the cities of Iran and Syria would now be lying in rubble.
Before you rush to condemn Iraqis who feel ill disposed towards the interpreters, ask yourself a simple question: how would you view fellow Britons who worked for the forces of a foreign occupier, if Britain were ever invaded? History tells us that down through history, Quislings have - surprise, surprise - not been well received, and the Iraqi people's animosity towards those who collaborated with US and British forces is only to be expected.
Those who cheered on a brutal, murderous assault on a third-world country that was always going to result in mass loss of life would now like us to believe they are concerned over the fate of 91 people. But what I suspect worries the pro-war brigade most is not the future of the interpreters but that future military "interventions" may be jeopardised unless Britain promises citizenship rights to locals who collaborate.
"Let's not overlook a practical military issue here: who will ever work for the British army in a war zone if they know that later they will be tossed aside like a spent cartridge?" asks Adam Lebor.
There is a simple answer to that "practical military issue": let's do all we can to keep the British army out of war zones. And in the meantime, let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain.
If that means some of them may lose their lives, then the responsibility lies with those who planned and supported this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, and not those of us who tried all we could to stop it

Comment is free: Keep these quislings out

[sabang]

I fail to see how interpreters can be automatically vilified as traitors to their country.
Does it not occur to the author that they may have been instrumental in preventing some wrongful arrests, defusing some potentially explosive situations and saving some lives?
On the other hand, I fail to see why their lives should be under threat in Iraq, for the same reasons. Maybe they are exaggerating their case slightly in the hope of British residency?

[Mr Earl]

The so-called Left vs. Right idea for Iraq,

is just a myth.

Iraq isn't about Left vs. Right, although many or most left wing organizations (advocacy groups) are against the Iraq War.

They're just a group in a particular tent.

Many right wingers opposed the Iraq invasion.


Neo-cons? Where do they fit on the spectrum.

Neo-cons are "liberals in sheeps clothing" according to Pat Buchanan.

Big spending, big government, expounding U.S. values to foreign countries.

Spending big money at home, on defense, and inside Iraq.

This is called Neo-Liberalism. It's what the Democratic and Republican parties are today.

It sure seems to me like the war in Iraq is being used as a political pawn by many democrats. It is definitely a sore spot for the current administration on a couple of levels: Fiscally and foreign policy wise.
I've also noted how the democrats position is a moving target. They don't want to be pinned down on this issue. This lack seeming of backbone will bite them in 2008.
These ME issues are going to be the pivotal issues. Everyone wants to see some resolution take place. Allowing Islamic fanatics to have their way isn't going to play well.
So I agree whether right or left more blood sweat and tears will be the likely result in foreseeable future.

[barbaro]

Mr Earle:

It sure seems to me like the war in Iraq is being used as a political pawn by many democrats. It is definitely a sore spot for the current administration on a couple of levels: Fiscally and foreign policy wise.
I've also noted how the democrats position is a moving target. They don't want to be pinned down on this issue. This lack seeming of backbone will bite them in 2008.

I agree, Earle.

Good point on both. The Demos definitely don't seem to want to get pinned down on the Iraq issue, with this big election coming.

These ME issues are going to be the pivotal issues. Everyone wants to see some resolution take place.

Yes. And We've been hearing that for decades. Not only in Pal-Israel, but in the Middle East in Genera: Labanon's civil war, Iran-Iraq war, Assassination of Anwar Sadat.

More decades to come. And...higher population rates.

[AntRobertson]

It sure seems to me like the war in Iraq is being used as a political pawn by many democrats...

This lack seeming of backbone will bite them in 2008

That's an odd statement. Bush's Republican campaign for re-election in 2004 was based in large part on the war. Or, more specificially, the notion that the Democrats didn't have the nous to deal with it (all irony over the fact it was the Republicans that created the mess of an illegal war in the first place notwithstanding). Prime examples of this were the allegations and slurs cast against Kerry and his service record (again, all irony notwithstanding given the service records - mostly lack thereof - of most Republican higher-ups).

Bush has referred to himself as "a war President" and the Republicans are forever telling us that only they can win this so-called 'War on Terror', the implication being that the Democrats are too 'soft'.

So quite how this translates to the Democrats using the war as a political pawn I'm not sure - and if they are they certainly aren't sitting alone at the chess board.

[raycarey]

more blood sweat and tears will be the likely result in foreseeable future.

not by you though, eh earl?

[raycarey]

Sorta reminds you of folks like ray cary who didn't feel an ounce of grief for Nick Berg

he got what he deserved....and all war profiteers deserve.

[barbaro]

^ Nik Berg [sic] was a idiot.

And, idiots that go such a country under certain circumstances often get cleansed out.

Like that Japanese backpacker that just decided to travel through Iraq.

He got his head lopped off, as his nation's soldier and government were supporting the coalition.

Same as the prosyletizers in Afghanistan, and the American knucklehead who was working for NDI in Iraq that get offed last year.

Advice: when you're consider relocating for employment or travel or business opportunity, choose a place with less strife.

[mad_dog]

^ Nik Berg [sic] was a idiot.

.

Harsh but fair. An American Jew with Israeli citizenship (as i recall) freelancing his way around Iraq on public buses etc was a sitting duck for the Jihadists. Sure I was disgusted by what happened to him but if the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise then it was a tactical move.

I disagree with all forms of poltical violence but "terrorists" are far more effective and kill far less people when they engage in their form of violence than an American or British "soldier".

[Boon Mee]

Nick Berg was simply trying to make an honest living.
Not so much different than being a TELFer in Thailand, eh?
Nick's trade was telecommunications I believe and he went to Iraq to help rebuild their phones etc and had his head chopped for his effort.
Pathetic are the raycarey's of this world who equate folks like Nick Berg as so-called "War Profiteers"...

[Sir Burr]

^
I agree with you Boon Mee.

[raycarey]

Nick's trade was telecommunications I believe and he went to Iraq to help rebuild their phones etc and had his head chopped for his effort.

nick, huh? sounds like you guys were close.

that's really touching.....so here's something to remember him by...



he got what he deserved....and all war profiteers deserve the same fate.