Europhobia

Thursday, August 04, 2005

I knew there was a reason I didn't sign that "Unite against Terror" thing...

And just to keep those who continually read the worst into everything I write happy - George Galloway is a dangerous idiot for spouting this kind of abject shite.

7 Comments:

Devil's Kitchen said...: Jesus fucking Christ, Galloway really is something quite special, isn't he?

It's the utter ignorance of world politics that I really object to.

DK; 8/04/2005 03:28:00 pm
Anonymous said...: Can you explain on what grounds you don't consider that 'fisking' of the unite against terror stuff to be a load of pedantic wankery?

I mean, can you find one sentence in it that actually shows any signs of having made any attempt to read the stuff it claims to be disagreeing with?

soru; 8/04/2005 03:42:00 pm
Eric S said...: Here's the complete transcript of Galloway's comments:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD94805

Unbelievable stuff.; 8/04/2005 03:48:00 pm
Nosemonkey said...: Soru - I thought the bits where the statement was quoted at length were a bit of a clue that it might have been read.

I wouldn't call it a fisking anyway (although I'll confess to being usure of the precise definition of that term). It's certainly pedantic. But sometimes that's necessary. The main point of all the criticism of that whole campaign is the fact that the denouncement of terror itself is too long and gets too specific, and so allows itself to be interpreted in different ways. All it needs to say is "We denounce the politically-motivated killing of innocent civilians". Hell, you could even leave out the "politically-motivated" bit.

My signature on the thing wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference (the terrorists are hardly likely to go "Ooooh! People on the INTERNET don't like terrorism - let's stop"), but when I sign anything I like to make sure that I know precisely what it is I'm letting myself in for. If it can be interpreted in ways other than how I'd interpret it, I won't sign. That Talk Politics piece is a rather good indication of how it can be interpreted in different ways to how (I hope) its authors intended it.

Eric - ta, didn't have time to track down a transcript. The guy really is a fucking loon.; 8/04/2005 03:55:00 pm
Anonymous said...: _I thought the bits where the statement was quoted at length were a bit of a clue that it might have been read._

If you read it closely, you can see that is not the case. In some cases, you can see exactly which individual words were scanned and reacted to, but in no case can I see evidence of the contents of whole sentences being taken acount of.

Just look at this nonsense:
'Here the narrow concept of responsibility is being used to deny the existence of any relationship between Western actions in the Middle East and terrorist attacks on the West by Al Qaeda – this is fundamentally a false premise and pure sophistry.'

How does that relate in any meaningful way to the sentence quoted?; 8/04/2005 04:21:00 pm
Anonymous said...: This is what you said:

'deny the existence of any relationship between Western actions in the Middle East and terrorist attacks'

But there is no such denial, you are (still) reading one where none exists.

I agree with you that the meaning is clearer if you add the word 'valid' before 'response', but a serious reading can't take every possible ambiguity as a license to insert made up stuff.

Incidentally, the only actual evidence I know of that there is a direct Iraq link comes from the same guy who claimed he only planted a 'flour bomb', which may for all I know be true (loads of disinformation, from both sides, out there). Have to wait for the trial, I suppose.

Nevertheless, it's overwhelmingly likely there is such a link. If you can find someone actually denying the possibility of such a thing, then congratulations, you've found an idiot.; 8/04/2005 05:59:00 pm
sean said...: Unity, it would help if your writing style was not as boring as buggery, with added piffle. The eyes just glaze over. I'm sorry. God knows how Nosemonkey can wade through your torpid and stagnant prose without lapsing into a coma.
Actually I'm not sure he does. He seems to have a fondness for dull, trite, effortlessly tedious screeds; perhaps he hopes that the rest of us will be so bored we won't read them, then we can't challenge his egregious remarks.
I fear he may be right.
Anyway, get some style and pzazz, quick. Or shut the F up.; 8/05/2005 10:20:00 am