Thursday, April 05, 2007


A vicious little arsehole who can count on total co-operation from the fuckwit Fourth Estate

This blog has had any number of posts outlining the view that political journalists are largely narcissistic shit-for-brains who have a demagogic view of their own role in 'speaking truth unto power'. Because of this, I am, apparently, a Blairite apologist.

So many political journalists seem to get by on the assumption that brainless negativist oppositionism = the promotion of a lively functioning liberal democracy.

Fuck 'em. And double fuck 'em after the way that they allowed every news broadcast over the last couple of days to be hijacked by this vicious little anti-Semitic prick.

I watched last night's BBC News at Ten with growing disbelief. I can't imagine any elected politician ever being given such an uncritical photo-op-laden snow job as this little fucker got.

There's an entire profession that draws a salary because they claim to hold those who abuse their power to account.

What a waste of money.


John Gray said...

rock on!

Gerry said...

Solid, every time I see the viscious little cunt I want to scream. Expect Kenny Boy to have him on his list of mayoral visitors if ever the Mullahs can extricate themselves from the axis of evil.

Cian said...

well if the BBC web page is representative of the news at ten story, my own criticism would be that it demonstrates a fairly poor understanding of Iranian politics/power.

I don't really understand what you're asking for here, Paulie? Heavy handed editorialising? demonic music when Ahmadinejad appears on screen. The constant introduction that Ahmadinejad is a very bad man, who called for Israel to be wiped off the map*. Actually I think they do tend to introduce him that way.

Ahmadinejad is a bufoon, but an irrelivent one. He has no control over foreign policy, and has no control over the Revolutionary Guard (the inverse may well be true). The same holds true on the nuclear issue, btw. He has some domestic power, though its fairly tightly proscribed. The man who negotiated the deal (and who is probably one of the key guy's making the decision on Iran's nuclear position) indirectly criticised Ahmadinejad for holding the holocaust denial, btw. But you probably knew that, right? As I'm sure you remember the fatwa issued against nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah who does wield considerable power in Iran.

As for the story - if one gets away from the jingoistic British coverage and looks at it a bit more dispassionately. The British sailors were in a disputed area (the map produced by the MoD has no legal status whatsoever, even if the coordinates they gave were right. Which I wouldn't take on trust). The best case argument for the British in international law is probably that the British sailors shouldn't have been there and the Iranians shouldn't have captured them.

The rest of the coverage in the UK has been weak (and its been interesting watching the more measured coverage of Al-Jazeera, which gives one an idea as to how the rest of the world saw this story). The sailors were not hostages. They may have been mildly mistreated, but given the actions of the American government in the War Against Abstract Nouns, we hardly hold the moral high ground there. Maybe the Iranians should have shown how civilised they are by waterboarding them, putting tight hoods over their heads, putting them in total isolation and using techniques to drive them insane. That after all seems to be what WE do.

And this against a background where the US has "arrested" Iranian diplomats, who were legally in Kurdistan, in what seems to have been a fit of pique and still haven't released them, while making all kinds of ludicrous claims about them. Where the US appears to be violating Iranian airspace, making ludicrous claims about the Iranians assisting insurgents (ludicrous in the sense of politically nonsensical, or at times seemingly written by a small child), and is channeling money to Sunni extremist terrorist allies of the Taliban to kidnap and murder Iranian government officials.

But guess which story gets the most coverage. Hmm.

And incidentally, on the global stage this was an embarrassment for Britain. Iran didn't get everything they wanted (they wanted their diplomats back), but they humiliated Britain and got an agreement from Britain to stay away from the disputed area (which we appear to be adhering to). That's the story here, not tired denunciations of Ahmadinejad.


(*) Except of course he didn't, but lets not get facts get in the way of the TRUTH.

Cian said...

Incidentally, I assume the label 'Demagogic simplification' applies to your post, no?