Both.

@ Rayyan, exactly. Why is it either/or?

There are lots of “polands” for Iran – assuming Iraq falls first as an “Austria”, there’s Western Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and a whole bunch of gulf states…

…none of which Iran has ever demonstrated the slightest interest in annexing.

Were I slightly more sympathetic to Iran than I am I would point out that the only war Iran has fought recently was the Iran-Iraq war in which it played the Poland to Iraq’s America-funded Germany, except it didn’t lose…

In matters of domestic politics and economics I think the Thick or Nasty test works quite well but in terms of international politics I’m not so sure. How is she being selfish by supporting Israel?

Also, you might want to be wary of the words you use. “Hysterical” is a term that only really gets used by men to describe women they don’t like and makes you look like a bit of a sexist.

“Thick” works fine for me in all matters dealing with MelPhil

Paul. There is a potential nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has claimed Bahrein, territory off Qatar and islands in the Gulf owned by the UAE and Oman. The Jordanians have publicly raised concerns over the issue of Shia influence in the region.

The elected leader of Iran has on several times threatened to wipe out Israel and is developing nuclear power . Israel only has to lose one batle to lose the war for survival. If you doubt he capacity of the Iranian regime for brutality, read up on Ayatollah Khalkhali – Judge Blood.

to underscore the “both” comments, i think it work in two ways – you have to be nasty to be that wilfully uninformed, and you have to lack any emotional intelligence whatsoever to be that nasty.

Jonathan M: How is she being selfish by supporting Israel?

It’s perfectly possible to do that without shouting ‘Nazi!’ as if you’ve never heard of Godwin’s Law.

But, yeah, ‘both’ will do fine.

Given that she supports intelligent design, “thick” definitely applies.

As for “nasty”, well I guess her numerous articles about how the UK is being taken over by Muslims proves that.

Therefore, both apply!

Yeah, I can see ‘nasty’. Comparing anyone in the middle east (whether it’s Israel or its neighbours) to Nazis is clearly emotive language designed to be vitriolic rather than analytical but it’s not really selfish is it?

I suppose if MelPhil was an Israeli citizen you could say it was selfishness : “Screw those miserable Palestinians, I want to build a summer house on a plot of land currently occupied by a crumbling brutalist apartment complex”

She frightens me. I vote “nasty”, partly because when I read her thoughts on Israel, I actually start thinking about Nazi tracts on the greater Germany. (Oops, there goes Godwin!)

But seriously. There’s a similar tone of protecting the volk against the irrational and culturally inferior mass clamouring at the borders; there’s the notion of lebensraum, a need for a well-armed state to defend the land rights of said volk outside the borders (OK, that’s a shaky analogy – but she’s pretty vociferous in her approach to the settlers in the occupied territories); and when I finish reading her pieces on the Middle East, I’m left with the inescapable feeling that her unspoken conclusion is: “sad to say, unless we wipe out the untermensch, the righteous state cannot prevail.” I mean, she pretty openly advocates perpetual conflict against the Palestinians, and the logical conclusion of that is their eventual elimination, no?

Re. Mel’s ‘Conspiracy of Eeeeevil Muslims Hell-Bent on World Domination: Mwahahaha! Division’ – I prefer the ‘Give it to Julia’ argument (cf 1984): Mel is concerned about anti-semitism, but it doesn’t stop her wanting all the bad things she fears being done to people with brown skins/a different religious faith.

I’d better apologise to people who live with real mental health problems first but: It’s neither. The thing about Melanie Phillips is that she is an old fashioned, raving, “I’m a teapot,” (remember the Goodies?) fruitcake type nutter. OK – I admit it, she’s thick and nasty as well.

The phrase “Phillip’s reasoning,” in this blog is a fundamental error. There’s no such thing. The woman is barking. What’s particularly worrying is that supposedly serious newspapers and magazines use her copy without a hint of irony. She gets to appear on a radio programme called “The moral maze.” (OK it’s so bad I’ve never actually got more than 30 seconds into it before turning the radio off). This hysterical loon should not be taken at all seriously.

You know, it’s funny. I adhere to the school of thought that people on the left grossly misunderstand the role of activist govenrment in supporting power and privilige and underestimate the power of the market and even traditional social structures like the family in giving people real power over their daily lives.

By and large I don’t think they are thick or nasty for believing that. They have just misread the situation, something pleasant, intelliegent people do all the time.

As I both understand and respect your views in a way you are incapable of reciprocating towards mine I suggest you phrase a more apposite question about the beam probably somewhere near your retina.

@ 6

“In matters of domestic politics and economics I think the Thick or Nasty test works quite well but in terms of international politics I’m not so sure. How is she being selfish by supporting Israel?2

Oh, I was just having a dig at Phillips. Don’t take the analysis too seriously.

“Also, you might want to be wary of the words you use. “Hysterical” is a term that only really gets used by men to describe women they don’t like and makes you look like a bit of a sexist.”

Good point. Didn’t notice myself doing that, and you are quite right that I shouldn’t.

James – I think there are plenty of people on the right who are well-intentioned and intelligent, and for all I know you’re one of them. Melanie Phillips just isn’t. Not by any measure. And, although I don’t know you, I suspect that if you find her ramblings either well thought-through or written in the spirit of brotherly love, you’re probably not in the “nice and/or clever” sub-set anywhere on the political spectrum…

I don’t think it’s a particularly well-judged analogy on her part. Although if I got excited by ever ridiculously over the top thing a journalist ever wrote I would soon explode.

James @ 15

I was being polemical. Of course there are right wingers out there who are neither nasty nor thick Though I’ll be honest, I do think the dilemma applies to a fair number, and certainly has more than a grain of truth in it.

But obviously many intelligent, considered and compassionate right wingers exist – those are usually the ones (like yourself) willing to engage and discuss. I have lots of time for such people, wherever they sit on the political spectrum.

The point of this piece was more to illustrate that Melanie Phillips is utterly pathetic as a political commentator, and that it is shocking that the spectator lets her print such garbage.

I think it was written by a commenter on here a while back (though it might have been another big left-wing blog, I can’t fully remember) that if the word “appeasement” is used in a piece to describe anything other than the the political situation of the late 1920s and 1930s, then that’s a good guide to the effect that the piece will be dross. I think that holds true.

I imagined this might be the case on pressing – but then was your approach really the best way to start a debate?

I must go or would write more, but Philips is also a polemicist – she writes to get a reaction a lot of the time.

The Melanie Phillips Nazi-O-Meter

Did you know this actually exists when you wrote that?

http://caesious.beasts.org/~chris/tmp/naziometer.txt

I think the point is that the Telegraph, Mail, Spectator and other right wing rags promote such ill thought garbage – they do it all the time. Thiis fact gives the nasty/thick idea some credence.

Duncan – yes – Paul is a great fan of the Nazi-o-Meter, which is installed as the Chris Lightfoot Memorial Nazi-o-Meter over at the Virtual Stoa. The trouble with the Nazi-o-Meter these days, however, is that it now provides a serious undercount of Melanie P’s uses of the word “nazi”, as she now writes these posts where only the first chunk appears on the main blog page, and you have to click to get the full page with the full post. And the Nazi-o-Meter only counts mentions on the main page. So despite the rant that Paul’s discussing here, the Nazi-o-Meter is only recording a count of “one”. And I’m technologically incompetent, and have no idea how or whether this can be easily fixed.

But it increasingly uses its religious supporters, spread around the world, to control the borders and opinions of others nations. The Jewish lobby in America is all powerful which is why Philips claims are so ridiculous.

May I politely inquire as to why the moderators permit such blatantly racist material on this site? ‘Sally’ is rehashing an old anti-Semitic myth about the ‘Jewish conspiracy’, straight from the Nazi playbook. Is she allowed to get away with this because she is left-wing?

Brian’s right, but then if Sally had been more accurate and used the ‘Israel lobby’ there are those who would still accuse her of anti-semitism (cf the Mearsheimer and Walt row) . As it is, this thread will now effectively be derailed.

“The Spectator – a supposedly high-quality publication”

Who the fuck supposes this?

Any remotely sane person would think the organ which publishes Rod Liddle, James Delingpole, & other fuckwitted right-whingers is a pile of shite.

Aye- are you really surprised that this magazine includes Philips’ outspewings, as if it were some deviation from their usual top-notch stuff?

I’d rather read Conservative Home.

redpesto,

Brian’s right, but then if Sally had been more accurate and used the ‘Israel lobby’ there are those who would still accuse her of anti-semitism (cf the Mearsheimer and Walt row) . As it is, this thread will now effectively be derailed.

At the risk of derailing the thread, if the only change to Sally’s had been to replace every instance of ‘Jew’ with ‘Israeli’, her comment still would have been anti-semitic. Just read what she wrote – as Brian says, she comes out with the familiar anti-semitic lines “control the opinions of other nations” etc. It’d only be more blatant if she referenced money lending and big noses.

Yeah Sally, “Jewish Lobby” are you mad? Mearsheimer and Walt do a fantastic job exposing Aipac and the insiduous vile things they do but you do yourself no favours at all. That is a topic for a whole other post.

Anyway, at the moment I would like to vote for nasty. I don’t want to do the injustice to stupid people.

EDIT: Of course, it’s true that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic. I should have added that to the above post (30).

Oh and Paul, I would also like to point out that Czechoslovakia had one of the first mechanised armies and would have given Hitler a proper run for his money had they had the support from the us, the French etc.

There’s a possiblity that czechoslovakia could have won. There’s no chance for Palestine.

Some of the shit on ConservativeHome is fucking scary. They really are loons. They were carrying this advert for an Anti-Anti-Americanism blog that is perhaps the weirdest jingoistic nonsense I’ve ever seen: no wonder people are worried about what will happen if the Tories get into power.

http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/

“May I politely inquire as to why the moderators permit such blatantly racist material on this site? ‘Sally’ is rehashing an old anti-Semitic myth about the ‘Jewish conspiracy’, straight from the Nazi playbook. Is she allowed to get away with this because she is left-wing?”

And as if by magic someone turns up to prove my point.

Are you denying the power of the Pro Israel lobby in America? Because if you are then you are not to be taken seriously. As usual you want to try to distract the truth by trying to claim that I am racist. The usual tactics of the pro Israel lobby.

Your modus operandi is the usual Pro Zionist one, namely to denounce anyone who points out a simple and obvious truth. IE. That The pro Israel lobby in America has huge power over the political process. As usual anyone who points that out is to be censored and have their opinions removed from the debate. As I say , how very fascist. This power has now managed to spread across the Atlantic and as we saw recently the BBC came under its attack.

It used to be the case that it was mostly the Democrats, but now thanks to the Christian right wing and its literal interpretation of the bible it too believes that Israel must be protected at all costs so that Jesus can have his second coming and then Christians can be raptured into heaven.

It was inevitable that someone would post something borderline racist the other way. After all, the unstated fact that Ms Phillips is Jewish has some bearing on her writing pro-Israel nonsense. So let’s say it openly: Ms Phillips is a disgusting anti-Persian racist, and we will not stoop to her level.

Thanks, James D, for your note of levity.

Sally: it’s not just what you say that makes you suspect – it’s the way you say it. If you read out your comments, it’s a bit like listening to some frothing socialist worker drone – it’s not a good look for you, honey. Aside from the lack of coherent narrative and the use of clichéd phrases about Israel (which makes you sound like a paranoid anti-semite, even if you’re not one), you use phrases like “all powerful” to describe the Israeli lobby in the US. All powerful? What, like Superman? As in, “it can do anything it wants”? That’s not *necessarily” nasty – but it is a bit thick.

Sally,

the pro-Israel lobby is exactly that: a pro-Israel LOBBY GROUP, its job is to put across the POV of Israel (and to a lesser extent domestic Jews). It would be a bad lobby group if it didn’t. The degree to which it is listened to is entirely down to the US administration, not any form of “Zionist, or Jewis, conspiracy” (the very mention of which belies your anti-semitism). Do you ask the car industry lobby groups not to put across the POV of car manufactureres in the US, or Trade Unions not to engage in lobbying? It is purely down to an administration to hear what each group has to say and then formulate policy. You cannot attack a group for being good at its job.

The fact that you don’t like the “power” you claim it has is irrelevant, that it has any power at all is largely due to the Christian right in the US (so I have limited agreement with your last point)

Oh btw, Phillips is nasty, thick and racist.

Evil, not nasty. Evil

I always think evil should be saved for somethin a bit more, well, evil

“That The pro Israel lobby in America has huge power over the political process. As usual anyone who points that out is to be censored and have their opinions removed from the debate.”

Sally, you have made a claim, not ‘pointed out’ anything. No doubt there are pro-Israel lobbies that have influnence on US foreign policy, just as there are lobbies that influnece US doemstic policy, but if you want to make a serious claim that their influence is ‘huge’ you need to show how and why. As a starting point, you should make it clear which ‘pro-Israel’ lobby you are talking about. There are a few, you know, and they have different aims.

Thick and nasty, like a shit milkshake.

Oh, and the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington isn’t ‘powerful’ per se, it’s just that their beliefs are shared with the decidedly powerful US government itself. So blaming US Middle East policy on such lobby groups is short-sighted, to say the least.

Very much like her thing against Climate Change.
To ‘Never let facts get in the way of a good rant’ could be her motto.

For her, it’s much more about stirring up anger and moral outrage than any attempts to be balanced or fair.

She has an agenda to push, as most people do, and she will stop at nothing to push it. I would say nasty at the very least

Mel’s piece is from her blog on the Spectator website, I don’t think it is from the magazine itself. AFAIK she can post whatever she likes, there is no editorial control. Although having just seen this supreme piece of wankery from James Delingpole which is in the magazine I doubt that even her most barking contributions would be rejected anyway.

I certainly don’t think Mel is stupid. She does have monumental levels of arrogance and self-belief coupled with an assumption that anyone who does not share her views can only be acting out of ignorance and/or wickedness. I don’t think that neccessarily qualifies her as “nasty”, actually I don’t think “hysterical” is at all unreasonable in this instance (although the general point about the use of the word is valid).

I hadn’t seen the “The Melanie Phillips Nazi-O-Meter” before – excellent stuff. Almost as good as the Daily Mail Headline Generator.

@43 that implies that there is some kind of pure/canonical US Government that exists independently from lobby groups, which is clearly false. In practice, US policy is shaped by the interplay between lobbyists, with politicians serving primarily to broker deals, take large cuts, and front for the cameras.

As the pro-Israel lobby is very strong, it’s not surprising that it’s generally been the dominant one in Middle East policy (the only other strong lobby in that area is the pro-Saudi one; weirdly, it shares most of the pro-Israel lobby’s policy goals…)

We don’t have paranoid rants about the ‘Irish lobby’ or the ‘Italian lobby’ when the US intervenes in European affairs so why is it suddenly sinister when Jews are involved?

And while Mad Mel’s a faving fuckwad you’ll see as many ‘left-wing’ commentators denouncing Israel as Nazis as you’ll see right-wingers attacking Iran in the same terms – the difference being that Israel doesn’t hang it’s homosexuals from cranes.

@47 err, you know that the support of the US Irish lobby was one of the major reasons for the resurgent P-IRA campaign in the 1970s, and the withdrawal of its support was one of the major reasons for its ending, right? Apart from that, your theory and the examples used to support it are brilliant.

If anyone’s interested, my take on Mel’s views on Intelligent Design is here.

“There’s a possiblity that czechoslovakia could have won. There’s no chance for Palestine.”

There is no chance, as there is only one history.

Leon – Sally didn’t, as far as I can see, attack the Israel Lobby for existing and functioning as a lobby group ought. She simply pointed out that Mad Mel completely ignores its existence, which is indeed something which she does.

& yes, it is a very strong lobby. Cf. the recent AIPAC overdrive over Obama not being so keen on the new, obviously racist, Israel government.

@ Paul Sagar.
Having fun kids?
Are you being thick or nasty Sagar.
This appears to be selective misrepresentation of Melanie Phillips article.
But dont let an opportunity go to waist.
Melanie Phillips is not drawing a territorial /geographical parallel between Nazi-Germany-Czekoslovakia and Iran-Israel,and I suspect you know it.

Nowhere does Melanie Phillips suggest an Iranian land invasion of Israel.
If a two- state solution is forced upon Israel which makes the security of its borders undefensible–Hamas being a proxy of Iran and no longer having its borders supervised could make the continuing existence of the state of Israel untenable.
As in “Iranistan”meaning “proxy.”

@sally
I thought it was the B.N.P that was Anti-Semtic.
I couldn,t help noticing your “blanket “classification of white Briitish people the other day.Anybody else on the list?
Get a map of the world Sally,pin it on the wall,get some sticky paper labells,and everytime you hear about “a few victimized misundstanders of Isalm fighting for freedom and justice”,stick a label there and watch the map get measles.
“I have seen the enemy–and it is us”.

“47 err, you know that the support of the US Irish lobby was one of the major reasons for the resurgent P-IRA campaign in the 1970s”

Don’t be daft, how did lobbyists influence the rise the IRA?

Hamas being a proxy of Iran

Why would they be an Iran proxy? Most of their money comes from Saudi Arabia…

Shatterface: How many Palestinians did Israel kill this year? Do some basic division, count the gays.

“Shatterface: How many Palestinians did Israel kill this year? Do some basic division, count the gays.”

God that’s desperate.

Whatever you do, please do not censor Sally.

God that’s desperate.

No Sy, that’s outcome. Much like us promoting women’s rights in Afghanistan by bombing them. It may not be what we intend but it is what happens. Israel has killed far more gays than has Iran. That’s bombing of heavily concentrated civilian areas for you.

richard @ 37:

[Sally ] use[s] phrases like “all powerful” to describe the Israeli lobby in the US. All powerful? What, like Superman?

No, like the seven-foot tall mutant lizards who really control the world.

[NB: Satire]

Anyway…back with Mel: Nearly 50 comments in, and no-one’s mentioned MMR yet?

‘There’s a possibility that czechoslovakia could have won. There’s no chance for Palestine.’

Well, there was no possibility of the Sudetenland Germans defeating the Czech army alone either.

Looking at things solely through the analogy with the 1930s makes you as barking as someone who, whenever things are quiet, is convinced they are living in the first 15 minutes of a horror movie.

On the other hand, you can’t completely reject it: It suits both sides to stress the military strength of Israel, but the war geeks disagree, ranking Israel about 5th in the region.

Saudi Arabia alone has:

a military that, properly led, would crush the IDF like a bug.
a population that could easily be persuaded to cheer that on
a leadership that might stay in power for another 30 years, or might be overthrown next week.

The relevance of Iran is not so much that it could directly invade, but that it could, just by keeping the fighting going, prevent a peace that would survive the loss of the ‘Saudi’ part of that country name.

One challenge for Obama will be to offer reassurances to the Israelis that their nightmares are just that, that there are no bogeymen under the bed, and if there were, a swift poker to the head would deal with them.

Only one thing could guarantee that: NATO membership.

The preconditions for such membership should go without saying.

There is nothing neccessarily wrong with pointing out that there is a vocal and influential pro-Israel lobby in the US but to say that Israel tries to control the borders and opinions of others nations is, well, a bit over the top.

I don’t want to get into the whole “criticism of Israel is/isn’t antisemitic” argument but there are enough very nasty people out there peddling theories about Jews trying to control the world to warrant being careful with our choice of language when discussing this kind of thing.

For those of you interested in Israel’s military Gary Brecher is always worth a read:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011268415936494307639:gn2j4lagvve&ie=UTF-8&q=gary+brecher+israel&sa=Search

He rates the IDF pretty lowly, as well. But higher than most of its neighbours, minus Hezbollah.

@51 US policy for most of the period was to not clamp down on the IRA’s funding networks in North America, to not pass on IRA intelligence to UK agencies, and to respect Sinn Fein’s leadership as legitimate politicians. This was US policy because of the strength of the Irish-American lobby. It changed after 2001 as international terrorism became a serious priority for the US government, and loss of US support for armed action was one of the main factors that persuaded Sinn Fein and the PIRA to join the ceasefire.

Oh well, if this is going to turn into another i/P shouting match, I’m off to another part of the site.

@57 Saudi Arabia is barely a state, and its leaders have no popular support; any serious external war would collapse the place in weeks. The country *could in theory* be a military threat, but that would require a popular revolution and an Islamist government first. Which the US would never allow to happen (as it’s against the interests of Israel *and* the Saudi elite, and disrupts oil supply)

“Israel has killed far more gays than has Iran. That’s bombing of heavily concentrated civilian areas for you.2

Blimey, James, that is a Mellishly mad approach. If you are going to make the calculation like that, why not include all the ‘gays that Iran killed in its ware with Iraq in the sum.? Because it would be loopy, that’s why.

Mel Philips is to the right what George Galloway is to the left: ie. she doesn’t really represent the right as many of us don’t like her, just like a lot of you chaps don’t like GG. I’m not sure if she’s ignorant but she’s certainly a nasty piece of work. I stopped readin the Spectator website because I couldn’t cope with her ramblings.

‘Which the US would never allow to happen ‘

I think that could be more realistically rephrased as ‘have a preference that it not happen’.

I love the irony of someone calling everyone on the right thick or nasty.

Blimey, James, that is a Mellishly mad approach. If you are going to make the calculation like that, why not include all the ‘gays that Iran killed in its ware with Iraq in the sum.? Because it would be loopy, that’s why.

Wasn’t a war of aggression, idk if you can really blame a country for defending itself.

& my point was that although I’m certain gays in Iran live in fear the same is unquestionably true of the Palestinians. You don’t get a Get Out Of Gaza Free card for liking cock.

“Sally: it’s not just what you say that makes you suspect – it’s the way you say it. If you read out your comments, it’s a bit like listening to some frothing socialist worker drone – it’s not a good look for you, honey.”

Scary coincidence, we have the same name and we’ve both compared Sally to the SWP brigade!

James (55): that’s pretty fucking retarded even for you.

I want aware that homosexuals have ever been involved in rocket attacks on anyone, or that they have ever used each other as human shields.

You seem to be confusing Gaza with Brighton. Maybe it’s the minarets.

Bomb civilian areas and you kill a lot of civilians. Or are there no gay Palestinians?

At the risk of coming back to the point (and sounding like a hippie), don’t we all agree that killing people is a Bad Thing. And the reason Mel is nasty is that she advocates killing people? I mean, if you want to argue the toss – killing people who hold prejudices against [insert group] is less bad than killing people who [insert activity] – that’s fine. But progressive, liberal debate is about finding ways to rub along without anyone having to die, whether that’s in rocket attacks, strikes against civilian centres, raids on power plants or outright wars.

And that, clearly, is not something Mad Mel believes. Worse, she would actually *hate* me for thinking like that.

Richard, I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that the Palestinians aren’t blood-thirsty demons sent by the Great Satan of Tehran to commit Holocaust 2.0?

I sometimes wonder if she actually believes a tenth of what she says; no sane, intelligent person could.

Or maybe her tertiary syphillis is playing up.

“I love the irony of someone calling everyone on the right thick or nasty.”

That’s a pretty good and witty point, well-made.

At least I can laugh at myself, eh?

James (70): and how many homosexuals were killed in the Iran-Iraq war? I suspect a lot of Black have people died in various wars over the years so I guess we shouldn’t criticize the KKK if they lynch a few more then?

The only difference between you and sally is your punctuation.

I thought that the correct phrase was that the Right think that the Left are thick and the Left think that the Right are nasty?

The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, “If you’re not Liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not Conservative when you’re 35, you have no brain.”

On Churchill’s score I’m both brainless and heartless. Sigh. How about, “If you’re not a Conservative when you’re 25 you have no ambition. If you’re not a Liberal when you’re 35, you have no empathy.”

James (70): and how many homosexuals were killed in the Iran-Iraq war? I suspect a lot of Black have people died in various wars over the years so I guess we shouldn’t criticize the KKK if they lynch a few more then?

Of course you should, but a sense of proportion is required.

The only difference between you and sally is your punctuation.

I have to say, all of this hostility is awfully one-sided…

This thread is a classic example of how any critism of Israel is automatically shut down, by denouncing anyone who points out the Elephant in the room. Namely, the total unconditional support for Israel by the US.

Unless you are prepared to accept that premise you can have no hope of understanding the dynamic of the current conflict in the middle East. America is Israel’s permant veto at the the UN. While America uses United nations resolutions that they claim have been broken to start war after war they never aply the same standard to Israel.

As for the right wing trolls, I could not give a shit what you think of me, if you don’t like it why don’t you go back to Guido and all the other frothing at the mouth Conservative supporting sites.

Shatterface: I suppose an apt analogy is that the KKK haven’t killed many people recently, but the War on Drugs has. The KKK set out to kill black people, the War on Drugs set out to end popular drugs usage. But which has had a worse impact upon black people so far this century? I’d say WoD, not KKK.

Intention is nothing next to outcome.

Sally – have a quick re-read: there are plenty of people here who think Mel’s brand of Zionism is pretty distasteful and that Israel’s right-wingers and militarists have a lot to answer for. Far from being shutting down criticism of Israel, this thread is giving it a good airing. And as several other commenters have pointed out: there is a strong Jewish lobby in the US, and it is a factor in the politics of the region. They just managed to do it without sounding like a deranged conspiracy theorist who could easily be mistaken for an anti-semite.

As a rule of thumb, I try not to take positions that could be adopted by people I find utterly reprehensible. And if, by some unfortunate quirk of fate, I turn out to be in agreement with horrible people on a localised topic, I make damned sure I don’t sound like them when I’m supporting it.

(There are fine lines, admittedly. There’s nothing to be gained from frothing about some imagined global Zionist order; but having a pop at Melanie Phillips is fine. Use diplomacy and reconciliation to bring the masses on board – but exterminate the outliers!)

That guy was right, this thread did get derailed.

*sighs*

Anyways, I find it very hard to take any religious person seriously. I mean, you actually believe in a space alien you’ve never seen?

Also, intelligent design… bullshit. If god’s so brilliant, why do we have bed bugs and head lice?

If there is a god, all evidence suggests he’s a moron.

“If there is a god, all evidence suggests he’s a moron.”

Wiki ‘Maltheism’.

‘Intention is nothing next to outcome’

And that, basically, is where we differ. For me the intention matters.

One day, eventually, there’ll be peace in Iraq and the supporters of the invasion – if they live that long – will claim they were justified. For me it will still have been an imperialistic war whatever the outcome.

My assessment is that they thought that because they wanted liberty and decency and cuddles, the fact that the people organising the affair wanted oil and glory and investment opportunities was somehow an academic point.

Of course, a genuine foray into liberal internationalism would probably have looked like the celestial strike of C. Hitchen’s fantasies: a display of overwhelming force felling the tyrant, then fading as swiftly as it had struck. Instead the troops stuck around, not only acting as targets & committing atrocities but also tarring the democrats as the associates of the butchers of Fallujah (et al) .

Not that the American’s vanishing immediately after felling Saddam would have been a whole lot prettier, mind. Insta-civil war would have been the likeliest result, there. But the point is that the left hawks endorsed something which was a pure fantasy: a selfless piece of foreign policy.

As for those that backed it on grounds of national greatness…Well…I think we can safely say that it failed there irredeemably.

But yes, I suppose that this: “And that, basically, is where we differ” is the definitive truth.

“I adhere to a rather offensive school of thought. Its basic premise is a simple dilemma: that those on the political right are either thick or nasty.”

Hello Morton, lovely fork you have there. There are many on the right, myself included, that do care about people but recognise that state imposed solutions seldom work and can even be counterproductive.

The typical kernel of a left wing solution is to throw other people’s money at the problem. The basis of a right wing solution is to help people get into a position where they can solve their own problems. In a modern state you probably need a mixture of both but we have had a great deal of the former and precious little of the latter for too long.

Simply because others dissagree with your way of doing things, particularly when your methods tend to have adverse effects, does not make them “thick or nasty”, suggesting that it does will put you firmly in the “nasty” catagory.

All that said, Melanie Phillips is dreadful.

Here’s some big numbers, US involvement with countries on the other side of the table to Israel: (thinking to myself, what would happen if the US told all the countries it ad run out of money…)

Barack Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and passed by the full committee:

• $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces

• $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces

• Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request

• West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza

• Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance

• Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance

• Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request

• Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request

• Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq

• Israel: $555 million of the $2.8 billion 2010 request for security assistance, $555 million above the supplemental request. (Note: that means Obama’s original request did not include any money for Israel in 2009)

• Lebanon: $74 million [...]

• Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas) [...]

• Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system…

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary05-07-09.pdf

“(thinking to myself, what would happen if the US told all the countries it ad run out of money…)”

This might not be speculation for long…

Yes, the Right has more than its fair share of “thick and nasties” (John Stuart Mill’s famous refrain about stupidity and conservatism is perhaps the most robust truism in politics).

But what gets my beef about the Right, and is the single largest reason why I’d never vote for any Rightist party, is its almost complete reliance on hysteria and the politics of the backlash in order to progress its – frankly warped – goals.

I can’t remember any well argued rightwing positions on any subject. Its economic philosophy is now bullet-ridden; its tendency towards reactionary social conservatism busted beyond all recognition. Around the world, rightwingers heap scorn upon themselves as more of their number deny man-made climate change.

In Britain, about the clearest policy stand the Right seems to have is Euroscepticism, another creed completely out-of-tune with reality. British conservatism stands way out of kilter with fellow mainstream European conservatives on the issue of the EU. And before any of their number complain that this is just, it is the British Conservative Party that is in the wrong.

The decline of the rIght will be noisier than the collapse of the left, given the stake many wealthy and powerful individuals have in rightwing political philosophy (including too many of our daily newspapers). But a decline in conservative influence is certainly happening, and not a moment too soon.

“As for the right wing trolls, I could not give a shit what you think of me, if you don’t like it why don’t you go back to Guido and all the other frothing at the mouth Conservative supporting sites.”

Sally, you’re half the reason I come here.

She has a lot in common with hamas.
They both believe in non secular religious states
They despise secular progressive education
Both are creationists
Both have commented favourably on terrorists, Irgun or palestinian.

Wow. I could go on a lot. But I must be brief. I am a 23 year old graduate, politically torn between the left and right. When pushed off my fence, i lean right. Am I thick or nasty? No, it’s simpler. Lefties are idealists, righties realists. Both are admirable, but realism works, idealism does not. Btw, the greatest politician in my view, was JFK. His philosophy was a perfect mix of realism and idealism. Perhaps you guys could learn from him, and focus ‘on what unites us, not what divides’. After all, why do you think I read a leftist blog? To understand you and debate, not to argue. Too few here have that attitude.

I just clicked straight to David G’s last post, and to be honest I thought he was a spoof. He reminds of those people who regurgitate ‘communism works in theory but not in practice.’

Communism doesn’t work in theory or practise. Marxism on the other hand, works in theory, and has yet to be practically tested anywhere apart from the kibbutizm in guess where? Yes, Israel.

I just stumbled across this board and really am most amused by the conversations.
It’s like ‘Comment Is For Free’ for slow learners.

The writer of the article’s explanation of events concerning the plight of pre-war Czechoslavakia is worth C+ for Wiki-effort but somewhat less for relevance to the content of Melanie Phillips’s article. None of the points she made were answered, indeed they were deliberately avoided.

I have seen Melanie Phillips on TV, heard her on the radio and read some of her articles and none of it is either ‘thick’ or ‘nasty’. Quite the opposite. To call it ‘nasty’ or ‘thick’ reveals the working of an unquestioning conformist mindset.

Now, if you really want a challenge: listen online to Rush Limbaugh ………. he really will get your goat.

Well done, Kojak, for trolling by. I can almost taste the smug – it must have oozed through the internet pipes after you hit “submit” on that brilliant and witty put-down. Did you get a little frisson of delight when you came up with “‘Comment Is Free’ for slow learners”?

But I can only give you a C+ for lazy use of a mock academic grade. And while your punctuation is above average, the bizarrely extended ellipsis after you confess to being stupid enough to spend any time at all listening to Rush Limbaugh means I have to mark you down. Overall, a B-, I think.

Actually, maybe C+ after all – you lose another mark for assuming you’re the only person to have heard of Rush Limbaugh.

Richard,

Your goat appears to be most definately gotten by the very mention of El-Rushbo.
I take it that you are a ‘dittohead’ of the other kind.
Whilst he is well known in the USA media, as he towers over the wreck of the Republican party, I thought worth mentioning him here to contrast his provocative manner with the polite tone of Melanie Phillips.

As far as my having had a “little frisson of delight” whilst posting my message – I sense you rather liked my remark but couldn’t resist belittling someone who might express an opinion different to yours.

Off now to savour my Chianti and alfafa beans.

@97 Kojak: I have seen Melanie Phillips on TV, heard her on the radio and read some of her articles and none of it is either ‘thick’ or ‘nasty’.

She’s a creationist. Therefore she is stupid.

Cabalamat,

Regarding your message @100:
Just because you think a person is wrong it doesn’t necessarily mean they are stupid.

However, you might wish to ponder whether a person is more likely to be deemed to be stupid if they are being offensive?

@101: Just because you think a person is wrong it doesn’t necessarily mean they are stupid.

It’s not just me who thinks Philips is wrong regarding creationism, it’s essentially all competent scientists, including many thousands of people who’re more intelligent than Philips.

The weight of scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Anyone who disputes this either believes that (1) they are cleverer than all the world’s top scientists put together, or (2) that the entire scientific establishment, hundred of thousands of people worldwide, is part of secret conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Either of these beliefs is literally incredible. Creationism has therefore about as much intellectual credibility as loony nonsense such as: holocaust denial, the theory that 9/11 was caused by Mossad (and thousands of Jewish workers were secretly tipped off not to go to work at the WTC on 9/11), AIDS was a plot by the US government to kill black people, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, flat earthism, or homeopathy.

All creationists, by definition, are incapable of understanding complex issues or of weighing competing evidence. Their judgement on all other complex issues is therefore suspect; they can simply not be relied upon to get it right. Or to compress it into one word, they are “stupid”.

However, you might wish to ponder whether a person is more likely to be deemed to be stupid if they are being offensive?

I suspect few intelligent people think I’m stupid (I’ve never been called it by anyone whose intellect I respect). If I come across as offensive, it’s often because I try to tell the truth as I see it, in as direct and obvious way as possible, without pulling any punches; this means that some people think I’m blunt or even rude.

Intelligent dreationists are as rare as pregnant virgins.

And no, I don’t believe in THAT one either. Did Joseph never notice his son’s Roman nose?

Cabalamat,

Regarding your message @102:
I don’t think my point came across clearly enough last time, so here goes again:

People hold many differing views, some of which have considerably more substance than others. Views based entirely on facts can be proven / disproven whereas views based upon faith or religion, do not fall into this category and should not lead to a person being considered stupid. Religion is rather peculiar but, for example, I wouldn’t suggest that a Hindu who worships an elephant god is stupid for doing so. It might seem a bit strange to me but there again so might the monoatheistic faiths or even creationism.

However I conceed a person must be stupid if they believe themself to be a Jedi Knight – even when filling out a census.

How about if they think that they were part of a people “Chosen” by God?

James,

Regarding your comment @106:

Did you have a “little frisson of delight” when posting?
It sounded like Frankie Howard’s comment that cream cakes were “naughty but nice”.

I think you’ll find it was Salman Rushdie who described cream cake cakes ‘Naughty but nice’

Did you have a “little frisson of delight” when posting?
It sounded like Frankie Howard’s comment that cream cakes were “naughty but nice”.

I just find the view that Calvinists are any less mad than the “Jedi” quite peculiar.

@104 Kojak: People hold many differing views, some of which have considerably more substance than others.

Agreed.

Views based entirely on facts can be proven / disproven whereas views based upon faith or religion, do not fall into this category and should not lead to a person being considered stupid.

If a belief isn’t testable, then there is no way, not even in principle, to know whether it is true or false. Not only that, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true, because all observable phenomena behave the same regardless of whether it is true.

This means that while I can’t prove god doesn’t exist, nor can a religious believer prove god does exist. Therefore any religious believer — if they say their beliefs aren’t testable — must, if they are to be rational, acknowledge they don’t know if god exists.

But some religious beliefs are testable. For example, some people eschew modern scientific evidence-based medicine in favour of faith healing, often with tragic and predictable results. I consider it entirely reasonable to call such people stupid.

Or take young-earth creationism. This rejects modern geology and the fossil record, which is very useful in deciding where to prospect for oil and other raw materials. If young earth creationists were honest, they’d set up oil prospecting firms that drilled where the oil ought to be according to their beliefs, and tyhey’d score a bettter hit-rate than science-based drilling does. Of course the creationists don’t do that; it’s as if sub-consciously they know they are full of shit.

Religion is rather peculiar but, for example, I wouldn’t suggest that a Hindu who worships an elephant god is stupid for doing so. It might seem a bit strange to me but there again so might the monoatheistic faiths or even creationism.

If religion were merely harmless, I wouldn’t be that bothered by it. But it isn’t harmless. For example, relious people often try to ban medical research that will eventually save millions of lives every year. That’s right — they want millions to die every year from horrible diseases — so they can carry on believing that humans are fundamentally different from other animals. This they call “morality”.

Well if that’s morality, I want none of it. These shits don’t know the meaning of the word.

Good to see the OLDEST HATRED is still alive and well. But hey we are liberals. ANTI SEMITE ANTI ZIONIST both Jew haters, no difference.