Terry Jones: Call that humiliation?
I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
Posted on March 31st, 2007 at 11:20 am
| See also • Downing Street does auto-fellatio • Strangely Browne • The enviable life of Jack Straw |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Chicken Nuggets, Iran, Iraq, T.W.A.T. |
Terry Jones laughs along at the antics of a regime which (to take an example more or less at random) executes teenage girls in public, having first flogged them in private, for the crime of having extra-marital sex- and you laugh with him? A clapped-out comic giggles at the spectacle of British troops paraded on TV : oh, the witty headscarf joke- what larks, to jest at a woman detained by a country which routinely murders political prisoners! It’s not a BNP website chuckling along at this stuff, but a good little liberal named Justin?
The ignorant Jones is horrified by the mere suggestion that the troops might have been coerced into making their ‘confessions’- despite the mountain of Amnesty reports indicating that the Iranian state has no problems with that kind of thing- and you approvingly link to his piece?
Do you need me to say that it is possible to oppose an attack on Iran, and possible to be deeply opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and still see the seizure and coercion of these sailors as a repellent act by one of the worst governments on the planet? Or are you just so bigoted that any little swine joking at British servicemen gets your approval?
Really, you are filth.
Baha Mousa.
Yes, Justin, Baha Musa died in the custody of British soldiers in Iraq- murdered, I believe- and a court martial failed to identify his killers: which I find shameful. Now the fact that you take his mere name to be a refutation of my argument means either that:
a) You have read a piece by me laughing at Baha Musa’s death and/or his bereaved relatives;
b) Baha Musa’s death means that the Iranian government does not murder captives or torture prisoners, as Jones suggests;
c) Baha Musa’s death means that the Iranian government may well murder captives or torture prisoners, but are justified in doing so.
Care to tell me which of these options you’re plumping for?
By the way, you are filth.
Hello?
Ah, so now you don’t have a two-word answer (’Baha Mousa’), you have a one-link answer (’Satire’). You’ll find, I think, that satire, by definition, needs to be funny - and that any satire that’s actually lasted laughed at the powerful on behalf of the powerless.
You, on the other hand, are linking to, and defending, a humourless piece by a gutless scumbag sneering at a clearly terrified captive paraded on the censored TV networks of a totalitarian theocracy. So the relevance of satire is…?
.
Gosh, the witlessness is attaining some sort of perfection here. An HTML link to ‘moral relativism’. What a perfect argument.
Does this mean:
a) There are no moral imperatives, hence the Iranian government is justified in its illegal seizure of British troops and its (far more widespread and long-standing) acts of violence against Iranian prisoners?
b) There are no moral imperatives, so the Iranian government isn’t justified in doing the above but really, who gives a shove about a bunch of Persian wogs and British servicemen (you’d call them ’squaddies’, wouldn’t you, Jus?)
c) There are no moral imperatives, so Terry Jones is a wise commentator on the ethics of kidnapping and coercion rather than a witless sexagenarian who made a few jokes thirty years ago?
d) Actually there are moral imperatives, but otherwise a), b) and c) are true?
…Or: e) Justin McKeating is a morally retarded fool who giggles along with the poor man’s George Galloway, denies that the Iranian regime coerces prisoners, laughs at the sight of a terrified British woman, and is too shamefully weak to apologise when it is made clear how vile this ‘humour’ is.
!
Oh, sorry. Sorry sorry sorreee. I now see that Justin McKeating doesn’t really care if British service personnel have or haven’t been threatened by their Iranian captors.
Nor does he care if the Iranian government does or doesn’t torture captives.
Nor does he actually give a flying fuck about the late Baha Mousa, whose name he rather casually bandied about as if it justified criminal acts by a government which publicly hangs teenage girls.
No, he likes little boys’ toys, because he is a little boy himself. And if anyone can think of some weak jokes about kidnapped women threatened into making ‘confessions’, send ‘em along to Justin, who will give one of his little boy laughs.
I do apologise for calling you filth: that would imply that you, or any other seven year old, should be held to adult standards of behaviour.
.
Thanks for that cogent argument, Justin.
And that’s Godwin’s, everybody. Thanks for playing, Dan.
Oh no, Justin, it’s not Godwin’s Law. It’s ‘McKeating’s Law’: you know, the new one that states ‘Anybody who at laughs at the Iranian state cutting up rough with women is morally disgusting and intellectually null .’
Very good, Dan. That’s your lot.
Run away now, sick boy.
And although there’s bugger all up there at the moment, I should leave a link to my blog, since it is going to feature at least one link to the stomach-churning documentary about the hanging of Atefah Sahaaleh. You’ll like the film, Justin, it’s about how the Iranian justice system doesn’t take any lip from any damn women.
Crocodile tears in Iranian waters…
Happily, the only things I feel necessary to add to the current Iranian debate have already been said: The Independent - Leading article: Time for a new approach in an effort to end this stand-off with Iran: But there is……
Dan, could you point out where either Terry Jones, or our host Mr. McKeating, have “laughed along” with the execution of a teenage girl?
It seems to me that the point of the article is to highlight the double-standards of the UK and US administrations who are complaining about “the treatment” of the captives while at the same time terrorising and torturing those whom they have captured.
I don’t think anyone is defending Iran’s reprehensible ill-treatment of political dissidents or those accused of transgressing religious laws. Certainly I’ve not read either Terry or Justin doing so.
What they, and myself, are questioning is the way the British and American government treats captives.
You see, because Britain and the US are notionally democratic, it means that the torture of detainees by British or American troops is being ostensibly done in the name of the citizens of those nations. As such, those citizens have a primary obligation to address the crimes being carried out by their own representatives.
I believe that was the point of the article by Terry Jones, and also the point being made by Justin in reposting it. And it’s a valid one.
Pointing out the existence of other heinous crimes being carried out by those not representing the people of Britain or America, while certainly relevant, doesn’t actually invalidate the point being made by Mr. Jones.
Jim, you’re missing the beauty of the “Moral Equivalence” argument. It implies that anything the UK/US/Israeli governments or military do is beyond criticism, as long as you can find an Arab state doing something worse.
I like this.
It implies that anything the UK/US/Israeli governments or military do is beyond criticism, as long as you can find an Arab state doing something worse.
An analogy
Let’s actually read the Terry Jones article shall we? If our stomachs can stand it…
‘And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is “unhappy and stressed”.
‘What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable.’
The Iranian government has no compunction about using beating, burning, electrocution or indeed rape against female Iranian detainees. Jim Bliss may be unaware of this, but we’ll have to attribute that to the condition that prevents him from typing ‘Amnesty International Iran’ into Google. A British servicewoman held hostage by Iran will certainly know what tactics Iranian Revolutionary Guards- who, among other heroic actions, hang girls for ‘offences against chastity- like to get up to with their prisoners.
Jones is not saying ‘It’s wrong for Iran to use torture against Iranian or British prisoners, and it’s wrong for American service personnel to use torture at Guantanamo, and it was wrong for British soldiers to beat Baha Mousa to death: none of these wrongs justify each other.’
He’s *refusing to even mention* the mountain of evidence- compiled largely by that well-known agent of US imperialism, Amnesty International- indicating that the Iranian Government and the Revolutionary use torture and other forms of violence, including murder, against captives. He’s *refusing to even acknowledge* that a British sailor held hostage by such a regime may have legitimate reasons to fear for her life, and he’s *refusing to even contemplate* the idea that she may have been coerced, simply because she doesn’t have *bruises all over her face*.
McKeating’s contribution: ‘Tee hee! Snigger! Satire! Me too, Terry!’
And the Moron Award goes to Larry Teabag, for this stellar contribution:
‘Jim, you’re missing the beauty of the “Moral Equivalence†argument. It implies that anything the UK/US/Israeli governments or military do is beyond criticism, as long as you can find an Arab state doing something worse.’
(The Sycophant Award goes to ejh: ‘me too, Larry! Me too!’)
1) I am, oddly enough, the same ‘Dan Hardie’ (the name is a big clue) who wrote upthread :’is possible to oppose an attack on Iran, and possible to be deeply opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and still see the seizure and coercion of these sailors as a repellent act by one of the worst governments on the planet…Baha Musa died in the custody of British soldiers in Iraq- murdered, I believe- and a court martial failed to identify his killers: which I find shameful.’
So I explicitly criticise both the US and UK governments, and the UK military, and Larry says I think they are ‘beyond criticism’. If Larry can type comments he must be able to read, so why doesn’t he?
As to the idea that I think Israeli politicians and soldiers are beyond criticism- you have to believe that, don’t you? If I’m not a pawn of the Zionists, what can I be?
2) Quoth Larry: ‘as long as you can find an Arab state doing something worse…’
An Arab state? But we’re talking about Iran: where they speak Farsi, and certainly consider themselves to be Persian, not Arabs, as you would know if you’d ever spoken to an Iranian or indeed an Arab.
(Footnote: As someone who is actually learning Arabic at the moment, I recommend it to anyone prepared to put in the time: it’s a fascinating language. You do need a reasonable level of intelligence to tackle it, so Larry and Jus should think about other projects.)
Yes, I liked the Iranian article John Band quoted. It was humane, sane and brave.
When I say ‘humane’, I mean that it didn’t laugh at prisoners of a dictatorial regime nor pretend that British soldiers kicking an Iraqi to death justifies the antics of a regime with a fondness for murder and torture. When I say ’sane’, I mean it didn’t take absence of facial brusing on one prisoner to be proof positive that that prisoner or her fellow captive were not coerced, nor that the Iranian government
And when I say ‘brave’, I mean that although the writer probably has the support of part of the less-bonkers, anti-Ahmadinejad, non-Basiji or Revolutionary Guard parts of the Iranian state, still he or she must know that if domestic politics changes and the Ahmadinejad faction comes out on top, he’s in trouble. ‘Brave’ is not an adjective I’d apply to a prematurely senile comic and an unseasonally adolescent blogger chuckling along at a group of terrified captives exhibited on the TV station of a theocratic state.
The article’s conclusion- that a war between Iran and the US, with or without British participation, would be a crime and a disaster- seems to me inarguable.
Who wanted this war? A pampered Islington barrister, shortly off to make his fortune on the US lecture circuit.
Who gave Parliamentary authorisation to this war? A majority of careerist Labour MPs, voting to keep or get on the Ministerial payroll- and the average attitude among them is one of contempt for soldiers: I’ve spoken to some of them. Oh, and an ignorant Tory Party unworthy of the term ‘Opposition’.
Who gave legal authorisation for this war? The Government’s chief legal officer, a spoiled and dishonest crony of our Prime Minister.
And who are you saying should pay for this disastrous war? According to a clapped-out comedian and his sycophantic audience: a terrified twenty-six year-old woman held hostage by a regime which tortures, flogs and hangs its own male and female citizens.
These are your morals, gentleman. How, on reflection, do you like the smell of them?
I don’t think I much like the smell of pomposity, which emanates from your style - nor the smell of dishonesty, which emanates from your persistent attempt to ascribe to other people opinions which they have neither expressed or implied.
Well I like getting awards Dan, thanks, even if they do come from, erm, excitable rogues like you.
I didn’t say that you were “a pawn of the Zionists”, but then neither Terry Jones nor Justin have laughed at the Iranian state raping or hanging women, despite your repeated aggressive insistence that they have.
The point you are spectacularly missing is that Jones’ article isn’t actually about the behaviour of the Iranian government except in this specific instance as a point of comparison. It’s about levelling criticism at the US and UK governments for the way they treat their captives - criticism I think is justified. And if you disagree then you are filth, moron of the century, and an apologist for [enter anything unpleasant of your choosing, maybe cancer].
Still imagine that the Iranians are ‘Arabs’, do you, Moron?
I wrote ‘Terry Jones laughs along at the antics of a regime which (to take an example more or less at random) executes teenage girls in public, having first flogged them in private, for the crime of having extra-marital sex- and you laugh with him?’
Demonstrably true: Jones does laugh along at the Iranian regime’s antics: not the torturing hanging teenage girls antics- as I pointed out, the swine doesn’t even admit that the Iranian state engages in torture- but the antics it’s getting up to with the 15 sailors. For example, Jones writes ‘And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour?’ Ha chuckle ha. The Iranian government does indeed have no concept of civilised behaviour in re the treatment of women captives, as witness the execution of ‘unchaste’ women and the documented cases of Revolutionary Guards raping condemned women, as virgins may not be executed.
Btw, Moron, you told me that I considered the US, UK and Israeli governments beyond reproach, when I had explicitly condemned the first two and not mentioned the second?
Anything to say about that demonstrable untruth? I loved the way you accused me of calling the Israelis beyond criticism, when I hadn’t even mentioned them: it’s a reflex with people like you, like Strangelove’s arm jerking upwards…
Come on, ejh, if you’re going to be a sycophant, couldn’t you find a more impressive object of your attentions?
Btw, it’s pretty obvious that Justin McKeating has abandoned all attempt to justify the vile Terry Jones article he linked to. He’s now linking to perfectly reasonable Iranian articles which contain not a hint of the sadism and lying which so distinguished Jones’s piece.
Jus, as I remarked to a Yorkshire-born mutual friend of ours, being thoroughly thumped is actually a necessary part of growing up: it teaches us that we’re not as big or as hard as we thought we were. You linked to a foul piece by a really filthy and ignorant man. Decent human beings don’t say ‘British troops kicked an Iraqi to death so let’s laughingly pretend that a terrified British woman is actually not being coerced by a government notorious for torture and judicial murder’. The only people defending you are a sicko who headlines his hilarious piece on the sailors ‘no, not the soft cushions!’ and two nutters making reflexive, and demonstrably untrue, accusations that I support the US and UK governments, when I’d explicitly condemned them, and dragging their anti-Israel obsession along for the ride too.
You could be better than this.Why not have the guts to actually disavow this nasty piece of work? Link to more stuff like that excellent Iranian piece, and leave the filth to worn-out comedians.
You know what Dan, I’m sorry. You’re right on all counts.
Justin is a holocaust-denier who cackles with laughter at state-sponsored rape and the hanging of children. Jim Bliss is a sadist sicko who fantasise about torture. I’m a moron who believes that any given person is as likely as not a member of the world-wide Zionist conspiracy.
Thanks Dan for opening my eyes - it’s great to have a real intellectual heavyweight show up and set us all straight. It makes such a refreshing change to the usual furious trolls who’ll toss out any wank accusation at people they know nothing about, just to try and provoke a similarly rabid response.
No, Larry, Justin’s not a Holocaust denier, though anyone who tries to defend an article which pretends that the Iranian government does not torture female prisoners deserves all the David Irving comparisons they get. Besides, as is obvious to anyone saner than yourself, Justin is rather clearly rowing back from his attempted defence of the disgusting Jones: he’d much rather discuss a good, decent piece of Iranian journalism, as would I.
You, on the other hand, literally could not restrain yourself from accusing me of unconditional support from Israel- when I hadn’t even mentioned the Zionist Entity? It’s just funny: you cannot, literally cannot keep from mentioning Israel, can you? You are Peter Sellers in a wheelchair and dark glasses: ‘Jawohl, Mein…Missster Presssident!’
That’s right Dan, I accused you of unconditional support of Israel - anyone can see that. Obviously I wasn’t making a remark to Jim about general usage of the “Moral Equivalence” argument. No, I am obssessed with Israel - you know this because you have exchanged a few ill-tempered comments with me over the last 12 hours, during which I’ve mentioned Israel once, and not to you.
And the reason that I am obssessed with Israel is that my violent hatred of Jews is second only to that of women and children. I am a Nazi. You know this, because you are not a moron, whereas I am one.
Similarly it’s obvious to all and sundry that Justin is back-tracking from his original post. This is clear because he hasn’t posted anything on this thread for a while. There can be only one conclusion to be drawn, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he is on holiday, nor that he may have realised that saying anything at all to you (other than perhaps telling you to fuck off) would be a colossal waste of his time. No, he has been won over by your compelling and clever arguments.
You have won Dan, enjoy your victory.
No, Moron, I take it that Justin is rowing back from his original comments from the fact that the one thing that he has posted on this page was not a defence of the contemptible Mr Jones but a link to an article written by a normal human being…Is Iran still an Arab country?
You know, Justin, you really don’t want these three sickos defending you, do you? You must have felt pretty queasy when Larry and ejh went into their ‘It’s all about Israel’ routine…And what kind of adult calls his blog ‘Tampon Teabag’?
Be a man and admit that the Jones piece is foul, as at least one person that you respect has told you in private (although he used rather blunter terminology).
Dan, in these days of ‘cut and paste’ and ‘display word count’, it’s very easy to discover that on this subject — based upon the comments on this thread alone — you have written almost four times as much as Terry Jones.
Yet you failed to mention Abu Ghraib even once, or the Iranians currently being tortured in Guantanamo Bay. What should we read into that omission? Perhaps that you tacitly support the torture of Iranians in Cuba? Or that you find the treatment meted out to the inmates of Abu Ghraib to be entirely acceptable?
So, to use your phraseology, by *refusing to even mention* Abu Ghraib, you must have been a supporter of what went on there. And yet you call other people “filth”?
See, Terry Jones wasn’t writing about the Iranian regime. He was using the treatment of 15 specific UK military personnel to highlight the human rights abuses carried out by those who — while wearing the same uniforms — represent Britain and America.
To repeat… he wasn’t writing about Iran. So I just don’t understand why on earth should he should be expected to address Iran’s human rights violations, in an essay about US/UK human rights violations?
Come on, ejh, if you’re going to be a sycophant
As the only person on whose writing I’ve commented is yourself and as that commentary has been entirely critical, it’s hard to see how you could have chosen a less applicable noun. Even random selection would have produced a more accurate attempt.
ejh: ‘As the only person on whose writing I’ve commented is yourself (ie me: DH)…it’s hard to see how you could have chosen a less applicable noun (than sycophant).’
Erm, no. If you manage to read your own posts, which I grant you is not merely a hard task but a cruel one, you will see that your first comment consisted entirely of snipping something from Larry Teabag’s post and agreeing with it. So ’sycophant’ fits, alas.
Jim Bliss on Terry Jones’s article: ‘To repeat… he wasn’t writing about Iran.’
Terry Jones, in his own article: ‘ I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace… have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? …If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths…It’s time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!…What’s more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise.What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”…Perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer…
Dan, your simplicity is charming. I guess you also believe the fable about the tortoise and the hare is literally about a tortoise and a hare.
C’mon Dan, give ejh a break here.
Justin gets to be a neo-nazi rape-apologist, I’m a moron and a nazi, Jim’s a sadistic torture-fetishist - surely you can come up with something a bit more exciting for ejh than “sycophant”? That’s pretty lame.
I’d agree with that.
But then again I’d have to, wouldn’t I?
Just since there’s a bit of confusion: my piece on the Sharpener is an imaginary article written by me, not a quote from an Iranian. The conceit was that it could be published either in a British or and Iranian paper without changing any of the wording - I’m glad that appears to have worked, at least.
I’m sure there are also sane Iranian writers saying sensible things about this conflict (and that they’re a hell of a lot braver than me - the British government is thankfully less keen than the Iranian one to throw people into jail), but I haven’t actually found one - mostly through lack of looking and lack of Farsi-speaking.
“the British government is thankfully less keen than the Iranian one to throw people into jail” - err, for blogging I mean. Wouldn’t like to comment in general without more data…
No, Jim, the story about the tortoise and the hare was a fable because the tortoise and the hare weren’t actually real. Clue: tortoises and hares can’t actually speak to each other When your nerves are stronger, I’ll break the news about the Easter Bunny.
In the meantime, you know that terrified woman in the oh-so-funny headscarf? She’s real, Terry Jones is denying that she can have been threatened or tortured because she doesn’t have bruises on her face, and he’s not even mentioning that the equally real people holding her are proven to be serial torturers and murderers of women. But you’re not going to concede this, because you’re having too much misogynistic fun treating her as the butt of some filthy cretin’s satirical masterpiece…
John B: good piece of writing. I actually was filling out a visa application to visit Tehran, as I’ve heard it’s a fascinating place, but I guess in the light of current circs it’s going to be Bognor this summer again.
“the British government is thankfully less keen than the Iranian one to throw people into jail†- err, for blogging I mean. Wouldn’t like to comment in general without more data…’
Come on, John, the data’s available to anyone who can type ‘amnesty international iran reports’ into a search engine. Terry Jones is clearly determined to deny that the Iranian government threatens anyone unless they do so on live TV at the precise moment when he happens to be awake and not suffering too badly from the onset of Alzheimer’s. There’s no reason, however, for a bright chap like yourself to be in any doubt about the nature of the Iranian regime.
Alternatively he may be aware that there are differences:
(a) between what people say must have happened and what the evidence shows has happened ;
(b) between how the British media view the treatment of people who are captured by the Americans and how the view the treatment of captured British people.
There’s an argument which goes like this: “what, you’re saying you don’t think these people haven’t been tortured? What, you’re saying the Iranian regime doesn’t torture people? You’re a disgrace etc etc etc etc.”
It’s a specious and dishonest argument, but coming across arguments like that is, alas, the daily fare of those who use the Internet.
ejh, could you possibly make any more dishonest excuses for the Revolutionary Guards? I’m hoping you’ve hit some kind of nadir, but I’m pretty sure you can surprise me.
‘there are differences… between what people say must have happened and what the evidence shows has happened’.
‘What the evidence shows has happened?’ You really are sick, aren’t you? Five sailors from a group of fifteen are exhibited, illegally, on TV. They are clearly under duress. We cannot see the condition of the other ten sailors; we cannot see the condition of the bodies of the five exhibited sailors; we do not know, cannot know, if threats were made against the sailors: and you take this to be proof positive that no threats were made!
You don’t have the basic honesty to mention the history of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and say that in their hands it is likely if not definite that captors would be threatened. You can’t have the decency to say that even if there was coercion, or worse, a war on Iran would still be unjustified. No, you have to go along with the insane position of Jones: we can see five unbruised faces ergo there was no torture and no threats of torture.
Is it hatred of British servicemen that is driving you, or a gutless inability to admit you were wrong, or just some general nihilistic desire to worship a militia whose duties include torture, flogging and murder? You are certainly sick, but what’s the precise nature of your sickness?
The phrase I used:
what the evidence shows has happened
The phrase you use:
and you take this to be proof positive that no threats were made!
Another phrase I used:
There’s an argument which goes like this: “what, you’re saying you don’t think these people haven’t been tortured? What, you’re saying the Iranian regime doesn’t torture people? You’re a disgrace etc etc etc etc.”
One of several phrases you use:
just some general nihilistic desire to worship a militia whose duties include torture, flogging and murder? You are certainly sick, but what’s the precise nature of your sickness?
I don’t think you’re sick, by the way: just stupid.
Terry Jones writes, among other noxious things, a paragraph saying that violence has not been used against Faye Turney or any of her fellow-captives, since he has stared at a TV screen and not seen any bruises on her face.
I note that this is not evidence that threats or violence were not used against the captives. I note a number of circumstantial reasons why we cannot say that the absence of facial bruising on the faces of five out of fifteen captives amounts to evidence that there was no torture- or, still less, no threats of torture- against the captives.
You say that Jones is right. Your evidence for this is to cut and paste your own post, adding the word ’stupid’ at the end. You cannot reason, you cannot examine evidence, you cannot admit error, you can barely write a coherent sentence. You can only insist on the rightness of filthy and semi-literate article mocking the victims of a murderous theocratic regime. Ejh, you have the morals of a wife-beater and the intellectual standards of a boss’s nark.
There you are - I knew you could do it Dan.
So ejh has been promoted from mere sycophant to a militia-worshipping wife-beater. Congratulations are in order, I think.
The only question is, since this hell-hole of a blog is entirely populated by the bastard children of Heironymus Bosch and Harold Shipman, what a mature intelligent grown-up like Dan is doing hanging out here?
He must be some sort of secret sicko, I think.
Nope, I needed somewhere to draft my next blogpost- snappy working title:’Terry Jones is and his defenders are grotesquely stupid and morally decrepit’- and this place has worked out fine.
Have you told the Iranians they’re Arabs yet? They need the benefit of your superior knowledge, Moron.
“When we say we have no evidence for it, we are saying it has not happened.”
“We can say that something has happened even though we have seen no evidence for it.”
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with these propositions in logic?
This would be comical if we weren’t talking about the captives of a bunch of known sadists. Oh, I forgot: for you it is comical.
“We can say that something has happened even though we have seen no evidence for it.â€Â
I’ve said, more than once, that on the basis of the past actions of the Revolutionary Guards, any of their captives must have reasonable grounds to fear for their life and safety. Yes, evidence of the past actions of Group A does indeed constitute relevant evidence for the current actions of Group A. Clear, little boy?
“When we say we have no evidence for it, we are saying it has not happened.â€Â
Mmmm, true: that would be a fallacy. But the repellent Jones is not confining himself to making statements about evidence. He’s saying that British captives of the Revolutionary Guards are not being ill-treated- beyond (snigger! hee-hee!) being given (snort! chuckle!) cigarettes to smoke! Hahaha!
I agree that it’s a cruel thing to do, but let’s quote this disgusting old man going through his lying routine. Take it away, Terry:
‘We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills….What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable.’
Ha, ha, and furthermore ha. It’s the Revolutionary Guards fan who is committing thelogical fallacy- in fact perpetrating an error in reasoning that a decently developed primary school child would have no trouble in detecting.
Foul, dishonest and muddled beyond belief. But at least Jones had the originality to type this mess. You can do no better than sit there like a chimp going ‘me too! Me too Terry!’
A fool, a liar, and above all a crawler- you’re a bit of a sad case, ejh. Now behave, or I shall be obliged to quote that tragic piece of Adrian Mole poetry which you used to sign off your blog. Did you copy it from inside a Hallmark card?
(And no, I don’t mean the Eliot ‘Four Quartets’ lift- I mean the really unreadably dreadful stuff that you thought was good enough to stand alongside it:
‘I think I still have something that I want to say, or something that I am grasping towards saying. I think that I am disposed to say it, if I can find out what it is. I can start now or I can never start. I can write now or I can never know whether or not I would have written.’
Indeed, ejh, indeed.
Well, it’s been fun, but I have to go and make some lunch and then it’s off on holiday. I’m off to the Costa Brava - meeting Larry, Justin and Terry Jones for a few laughs. Hopefully there’ll be a few more captives paraded on telly and we can all chuckle at that.
Cheerio!
I’m not invited, ejh? Well screw you then. I hope your pleasure-boat gets boarded by Iranians!
I see - so you’re calling everyone you meet a lying child-hanging wife-beating nazi moron in the name of research. Got it.
BTW have you told John Band he’s an Iranian yet, Moron?
So you have just made a joke about fifteen men and women held hostage by a militia which, according to Amnesty International, rapes, tortures, threatens and murders people.
Fair enough: as long as you don’t indulge your rather strange tastes on real live women, I can’t see that your perversions are anyone’s business but your own. And yes, I wouldn’t be too surprised to see ‘Tampon Teabag’ (how old is this guy?) and Jim Bliss giggle with you.
But Justin McKeating, I think, whenever he reads your last comment, is going to be feeling dismayed. I think Justin linked to this rubbish without really thinking about what it said, and I strongly suspect that being defended by the likes of you has been far more than he wanted.
‘Tampon Teabag’ says:(this, btw, is a quotation from his entirely normal site):
‘Tampon Teabag only got as far as the word “paedophiles” before being yanked off-stage by an extended umbrella-handle. However, I have other things on my mind: later tonight in aid of Comic Relief, I shall be having nasal sex with one hundred menstruating women..’-continues in style calculated to make a 14-year-old cringe…
Ejh says: ‘Hopefully there’ll be a few more captives paraded on telly and we can all chuckle at that.’
And Jim says er, yuh, I agree…
…Somewhere in the North of England, as you wallow in your sewer, Justin McKeating is staring at his computer screen with fascinated horror: ‘If I only managed to get these perverts defending me, did I call this one right? Maybe I should post something about the Iranian government… Is what’s happening to those sailors really funny?’
You got me Dan. Until you posted that, I had no idea my blog was full of such stuff. How appalling.
And I now understand that it follows that whatever you’re banging on about here simply must be true. What was it again?
er, yuh, I agree…
Ha ha ha!
According to my in-depth research, this comment thread conclusively proves that the internet breeds self-righteous cunts, and so should be burned to the ground for the good of humanity.
A hasty conclusion, Clive. Is it a coincidence that Ahmadinejad announced the release of the British sailors only a matter of hours after Dan’s last comment? I think not.
Justin McK, let us know when you’ve had time to read these sick little effusions from Jim, Larry and the Boyz…
Admit it, mate, whatever I say about you, you’re feeling a little icky at having these liars line up behind you, no? I think there’s some hope for you, unlike the little playground snivellers on this thread, of whom ‘Rochenko’ is merely the feeblest. I think in future you will be writing about British service personnel with a little more caution and a little less contempt.
Well that’s me told. I suppose I should have known better than to join a comment thread that’s little more than a chip shop queue with Biffa Bacon in the middle of it.
[...] who cut you up or improvidently describing a blogger about whose views you patently know nothing as ‘filth’ are two variations on the same [...]