Only in the Guardian

That's fair enough to an extent, Clive, but who is it that has been consistently attempting to undermine the diplomatic effort? It's not the Western countries or Saudi Arabia.

Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but I don't think anybody else would be seriously contemplating a (pointless - unless we are content to do the same thing every five years or so) military strike to stop them in the absence of Israeli pressure.

I think it's rubbish to suggest (going back to an earlier post I forgot to reply to...) that Iran or Hezbollah or anybody else for that matter could launch a nuclear device - however limited - against Israel without incurring massive retaliation. And they know that.
 
Last edited:
We dont really know about whos doing what out there. for all we know saudi could be complicit.

iran wouldnt launch but i wouldnt trust hezbollah for one minute frankly. you dont have to look too closely at some of the beliefs held there. But whos to say anyone could be held responsible? Once this stuff gets into certain hands it could quickly be out of control.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, Clive. I certainly wouldn't trust Hezbollah either; I just can't see the incentive for Iran handing a nuclear device over. At the very least it would create a very substantial risk of starting a war they haven't a hope in hell of winning. No one can predict with any confidence that that won't happen though, of course. It will be very interesting to see how the whole situation plays out.

Ironically enough, the smallest nuclear devices (the famous 'Davy Crockett' etc) are actually amongst the most sophisticated to produce; whether Iran has the capabilities to do so I don't know.
 
The article is food for thought in terms of how he addresses what he views as a hypocritical western media, though clearly the notions and ideas he espouses are not a dish most people would entertain on this occasion.

There are probably a million other examples in current and world affairs where the author could have gone left-field with his suggestions in an attempt to be intellectually creative. This one does seem hard to fathom it has to be said.
 
Last edited:
Feed for thought my hoop. We all know western media can be hypocritical. This is possibly the worst example one could think of to make the point.

It is basically a Junior Cert standard (O-Level in the UK I think) argument.

An attempt to be thought provoking by deliberately going against perceived wisdom.

Assuming this made it onto the print edition, it is staggering that such a feeble attempt at journalism was published.
 
Bar the Bull said:
We all know western media can be hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that "we all know", Bar. The majority of us are fickle humans beings who know, and more importantly are too immasculine to challenge anything in terms of media structure and conduct.

E.G., when a recession hits us in our pocket, we might go out and demonstrate with X amount of millions of people to make our point, but other than that piece of showboating most of us do not really 'know' a thing apart from who to blame at any given time...

We all know our media outlets have political ideologies and vested interests, sure we do, and they mirror us as citizens of the state in that sense as we all have too.

But do we really all know, and are we really able to question, the structure of our media, and the strength of it as a social change agent, if thats the desired impact we want it to have?
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
Feed for thought my hoop. We all know western media can be hypocritical. This is possibly the worst example one could think of to make the point.

It is basically a Junior Cert standard (O-Level in the UK I think) argument.

An attempt to be thought provoking by deliberately going against perceived wisdom.

Assuming this made it onto the print edition, it is staggering that such a feeble attempt at journalism was published.
Click to expand...

I heartily endorse all of the above.
 
Morrissey is a geebag. He justs wants people to talk about him.

And it wasn't so long ago that he was parading around with a Union Jack and other fasicst imagery, and sang strange songs about immigration. And indeed lamented the effects of immigration on British culture.
 
I've watched a fair amount of the Olympics on the BBC and, since the opening ceremony, have not seen nor heard a single thing about the Queen. I saw William and Harry on the BBC but the focus was very much on the sport.

Bar is right; he's talking nonsense to stir the pot.
 
She truly is one misguided bint, isn't she.
It would seem that in her universe all jihadists are "nice people" really.

Not one reference in her Guardian article about Qatada issuing a fatwa calling for the killing of Jews; not a word about him sermonizing that if a Muslim killed a "non-believer" in the name of Islam, then, Allah would be pleased.
 
Not so much misguided as a complete bigot

But agree...would any mainstream paper anywhere dare print an article supportive of someone callig for the killing of blacks, muslims, asians purely on the basis of their colour/religion ? Quite incredible really.

but frankly its disgusting.
 
Last edited:
The mantra of the home secretary, Theresa May, that "this is a dangerous man, a suspected terrorist", has been repeated so often that the facts have been forgotten. No one suggests Othman is physically dangerous himself. No one has charged him with anything, except the Jordanians with the torture-tainted evidence. No one has pointed to anything controversial that he is alleged to have said since the mid-1990s.
Click to expand...

I agree that the article omits important points and glosses over others. But are there any misstatements of fact in it? Is the paragraph quoted above correct?
 
Physically dangerous is the most ridiculous of argumenst. Nor was hitler.

Has he renounced his views ? Has he fck.

Would this or any other paper write such a fawning piece on nick griffin? Not that the odious griffin calls for the genocide of other races. Far from it
 
Its pretty obvious why his views have been kept underground in recent years. The writer knows this well and is well aware of his views on jews christians women and gays and so on

She doesnt exactly have anythging from her friend to counter his extreme right wing bigotry does she.
 
Is it true that he has not said anything "controversial" since the 1990s?

Regarding the comparison with Nick Griffin, it's probably true that the secret services have infiltrated and tried to disrupt his party, and he gets plenty of vitriolic treatment in the media, but he has not been put behind bars without trial for the last twelve years.
 
You either take the security services view on him or you dont. They consider him to bé aqs man in europe. Whilst many on the left would high five another 7 7 (including the writer for sure) i would not.

The point also is why is this paper supporting sopmeon with extreme bigoted views. I know the answer but many would still ask why
 
Why don't you tell us why?

I don't understand why you read the Guardian? You hate the paper, those who write for it, probably does who read it - why not spare yourself the hatred and do something positive with all the time you spend reading the Guardian and the comments on its website?
 
I dont read it. The article is everywhere and gone viral as they say.

And it is a disgusting piece. By any civilised standards
 
Back
Top