catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Quote of the day

with 80 comments

David Cox pays tribute to Saddam on the Guardian blog:

    Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority.

    As he goes to meet the hangman, the world has cause to rue his demise.

How about:
‘The rapist offered his victim a harsh deal. Yet her life was only at risk if she chose to challenge his authority’.

How does that sound?

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 7, 2006 at 4:57 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

80 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Professor Quiggin offered ME a harsh deal but I’ll only be deleted if I challenge his authority.

    C.L.

    November 7, 2006 at 5:16 pm

  2. What about

    “In the Soviet Union, life took on a character of its own, in which the human spirit managed to flourish in spite of the political constraints. The literature generated in those conditions can still inspire us. Today, many former Soviet citizens feel no more free under the yoke of global capitalism than they did before, and some would like to see the return of Stalinism”

    I wonder if Cox has Solzhenitsyn’s literature in mind…………?

    Geoff Honnor

    November 7, 2006 at 5:57 pm

  3. The quote is semi-accurate – people’s lives were/could be at risk if they were friends of authority-challengers, or family, or neighbours, even sometimes just passers-by.

    But Jason, you seem to be offended by this quote. Why? When a horrible state of affairs is described, do you normally get outraged at the person who formulates a description?

    You ask how your example that echoes the formulation of the original sounds. It sounds accurate. Rape is a horrible vioent crime, and fighting a rapist is dangerous. I am not saying victims should not fight back, of course they should, if they can. It doesn’t mean I am going to deny the inherent risks of fighting back, which may include the risk of death.

    CL, Quiggin is not Soon, and will be quicker to moderate or delete, that is true. But he never said anything about challenging his authority (and it can’t even be extrapolated from what he did say), so your attempt at humour here falls flat, and actually makes it look like you’ve come running to sympathisers for a shoulder to cry on.

    fatfingers

    November 7, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  4. CL
    I don’t know how that twerp does it. He is so transparently stupid it’s getting to be hilarious.

    A little while ago he posted that the RIGHT ( no names there) was now anti science.

    This is the “intelllectual” who some think should be included as one of Australia’s top 40 intellectual giants. Maybe just pygmy.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  5. Come on fatfingers. It’s more than a neutral description. If it were I wouldn’t be offended. It’s an apologia. It has a specific rhetorical purpose.

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 6:42 pm

  6. Fatfingers

    Quiggler doesn’t like people to use the description … the left.

    A little while ago he accused right wingers ( in general) of being anti-science.

    Careful what you try to pick up, it could be soft and smell.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 6:44 pm

  7. If anything the Soviet Union quip Geoff dug out is worse – ‘the economy may have been stuffed, and most of the good writers were locked up in the nuthatch for spurious reasons, but my, what good writers they were!’

    skepticlawyer

    November 7, 2006 at 6:56 pm

  8. It’s always interesting how these cowards make comments like this far, far away from the danger posed.

    Pilger is a great example of this . Of course he wouldn’t llive in these places.

    Bird’s description is right (again), but in this case rather than being a holocaust denier, Cox is a holocaust supporter.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 7:02 pm

  9. Jason, it’s less apologia and more self-serving selfishness – “Iraq’s dissidents would have paid a price, but the rest of us would be a lot better off” – with a smattering of the value judgement that it’s better for one entity to be doing the killing and keeping it smallish and targeted than for it to be an all-out kill-fest with no-one safe at all.

    David Cox’s article is simply the cool-headed amoral geo-political analysis that governments make all the time (and sometimes ignore, and always need to disguise with hot air about imminent threats or human rights). I disagree with Cox – I think it better to have instability and civil war, because any strong man who keeps a lid on those nasty things will have to be very nasty himself, and will only ever delay the inevitable.

    JC, I’m not saying that JQ doesn’t stoop to hypocrisy now and then, and I’m not defending that. I just thought CL was being soft (but not smelly). And JQ’s pretty smart – I wouldn’t dare call him stupid, but that’s your prerogative. A tip for you, though – pointing out his hypocrisy does not show his supposed stupidity.

    fatfingers

    November 7, 2006 at 7:05 pm

  10. It’s generally been true of harsh dictatorships that if you keep quiet and do what you’re told, you will not be at risk. It’s not always been true: some dictators have killed people for what they were, not what they did. Hitler killed Jews, Lenin killed kulaks, Pol Pot killed the educated class.

    Of course, the whole population was living on the knife-edge of a promise that the dictator would not see them as a threat, even though they offered none. The safest thing of all was to join the Ba’ath Party and become an enthusiastic and visible supporter of the regime. How foolish of so many Iraqis not to have done that.

    There’s an extraordinary moral inversion here — holding out surrender and capitulation to tyranny as the more desirable outcome, waving aside (figuratively speaking) the deaths of hundreds of thousands at the hands of Saddam’s killing machine. If only they had had the good sense not to resist.

    Dare I say that only today’s left would be capable of this moral reversal. It was left-wing Australian historian David Day who argued, after all, that Britain should have capitulated to Hitler after Dunkirk and saved all those millions of lives that it took to defeat him.

    Rob

    November 7, 2006 at 7:11 pm

  11. Fats
    In fact a hypocrite who tries to conceal it and easily gets is being stupid.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 7:11 pm

  12. lucky he has the freedom to say that…

    what an insensitive moron…and furthermore he’s wrong…

    he brought their lives constantly into risk, via war with the iranians, via kuwait, and putting down kurds and shiites generally…

    i’m sure he would love an iraqi torture chamber…and the thought “wow at least someone rules iraq with an iron fist – i’m well comforted by that”

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 7:12 pm

  13. You can always tell when people like fatty are hurt. They’ll wheel out the feminine language to imply you’re being unmanly. God, what a pathetic gambit. I thought the Quiggin meltdown was unusually relevant to Jason’s essentially open-thread post, that’s all. Again, fatty, may I suggest you don’t advertise how wounded you are. It does you know polemical favours.

    I should also add that so big a meltdown did the Professor have that he supplied links to my AWB portfolio – which portfolio evidenced my belief that the government would not be found to have done anything illegal vis-a-vis the Cole inquiry. I was right, as it happens. Quiggin’s suggestion that I had actually supported the AWB’s bribery of Saddam Hussein is a lie and he knew it was a lie when he wrote it.

    C.L.

    November 7, 2006 at 7:14 pm

  14. CL – I’m not sure what you expected. Surely not honesty? Our lefty friendy friends never admit error, they always brazen it out.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 7, 2006 at 7:28 pm

  15. You can always tell when people like CL are hurt. They retreat into pseudo-intellectual language to cover up their moment of weakness, and project their own inadequacies on to others.

    But seriously, how could I be wounded by your cry-baby tactics, CL?

    And whatever you have going with the Professor, don’t pretend it had anything at all to do with Jason’s post. That’s laughable.

    fatfingers

    November 7, 2006 at 7:28 pm

  16. You’re terribly hurt, fatty, and I can’t fathom why. I can only suggest that you suck it up. Quiggin behaved badly and got stomped on. It isn’t the end of the world. I repeat, Jason’s post was topically relevant to the Quiggin thread where – as it happens – I had earlier posted a link to the very same Guardian apologia. I’ve never sought sympathy or protection from others in the blogosphere – I’ve run a strictly private and self-contained commentary for more than two years. I also know Jason is a regime change sceptic and always has been. Your thesis is a tantrum-generated meltdown of Quigginian proportions.

    C.L.

    November 7, 2006 at 7:37 pm

  17. Yes indeed I am (a regime change sceptic that is). Which is why, fatfingers when I said I wouldn’t have been offended if Cox was merely explaining or describing the situation post-Saddam, I actually meant it. But it’s clear that’s not his purpose here.

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 7:40 pm

  18. “Quiggin behaved badly and got stomped on.”

    Even if you do say so yourself.

    “Your thesis is a tantrum-generated meltdown”

    Your prose gets more purple by the post.

    fatfingers

    November 7, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  19. “But it’s clear that’s not his purpose here.”

    You’re right there. He reckons leaving Saddam in power would have been better. But you didn’t object to that in your post. You specifically extracted two quotes, put them under the headline “Quote of the day”, paraphrased one of them to highlight what your presumably objected to, and then invited comment. I took you and the quotes at face value.

    “You’re terribly hurt, fatty”

    Your mind-reading antennae are malfunctioning again, CL. Readjust and try again. Unless you suppose that anyone who disagrees with your hyperbole is emotionally brutalised by your cutting remarks… aimed at another person (still don’t understand that angle).

    But fair enough, I retract my claim that your line was off topic. I was wrong. A pity that you had to unfairly denigrate an absent opponent in the process. I only replied because I had just come from that thread on JQ’s blog and what you were suggesting was patently false.

    fatfingers

    November 7, 2006 at 7:53 pm

  20. The hole is getting deeper, fatfingers. Time to get out of the backhoe.

    entropy

    November 7, 2006 at 8:47 pm

  21. JQ is just controlling the debate to suit his own purposes, which is quite reasonable if you are from central command. His assertion that CL supported collaboration with Saddam is not supported by the evidence presented.

    rog

    November 7, 2006 at 8:47 pm

  22. I’m not claiming you’re brutalised by me, fatty. You seem hurt by an exchange between two other people. I just find that strange. And there are no “absent opponents” in these debates. The Professor – who knows I like and respect him – is welcome to pop over and say whatever he likes. He won’t be deleted here, just as he wasn’t deleted at my blog when the two of us last got into a debate following a dedicated post by him criticising me (and I didn’t care that his more popular blog generated a more than 200-comment pile-on). We have a lot in common, though, including an opposition to legalised torture (as he has acknowledged). My attitude today was less personalised than his – I referred to and criticised the left. He responded by suggesting I supported the bribing of Saddam Hussein. He bans use of the generic “left” but mocks “RWDBs” and has no compunction about saying that “most of the noisiest have eagerly lined up with Saddam”.

    C.L.

    November 7, 2006 at 8:53 pm

  23. The quote is factually incorrect to begin with. Early on Saddam killed all of the Baath party hierarchy. Later he gassed the Kurds and bombed Sheates, regardless of their political views. I would suspect many of his supporters and even his spies perished there.

    He may not have been as random with his killings as Stalin, but it’s not far off.

    Boris

    November 7, 2006 at 10:43 pm

  24. Boris
    Why do you come on at midnight? Is it some hidden desire to have the last word?

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:03 pm

  25. “Why do you come on at midnight? Is it some hidden desire to have the last word?”

    Simple. I live in WA and work long hours.

    Boris

    November 7, 2006 at 11:30 pm

  26. exactly boris…what i said…

    aside from being a dick…hes not even correct =)

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 12:09 am

  27. this reminds me of those nutters that said “oh we’ll all soon miss the cold war”

    yeah i miss an arms race between two nuclear super-powers that came close at least once to a nuclear exchange…

    not to mention the heightened risk of an accident by having massive arsenals…

    these people just don’t think at all…they just sprout off controversial stuff to sound novel and interesting…

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 12:11 am

  28. “If Saddam were still in power, he would have stopped this happening. Iraq’s dissidents would have paid a price, but the rest of us would be a lot better off. As he goes to meet the hangman, the world has cause to rue his demise.”

    what a moron…nice concluding paragraph loser…

    worst case scenario, iraq goes in to civil war and we are a whole lot less threatened than with an organised fascist dictator commanding armies against our interests in the middle east…

    the only worry now is if the US pussyfoots around the iranians and lets them too much control of the eventual shia power state that emerges out of the iraq fracturing…

    the shias gaining power in iraq is a good thing, as long as iran is destabilised/reformed…

    the shia are already thanking the west so much for handing them saddam, we should make nice with them and show them we are there pals…

    then help them to become the prosperous shia state, which may hopefully cause iran to reform…

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 12:16 am

  29. I have never seen so many commentWhat have happenned.

    Boris

    November 8, 2006 at 12:39 am

  30. This idiot is just fucking lying. Its a disgraceful statement for starters. But its also a hateful lie.

    Saddam killed mountainloads of people. Not just folks who challenged his authority.

    This is total ignorance. It just shows how loopy a lot of these formally pretty good leftist rags have gone.

    I mean if he wants to make some sort of point about people getting killed why fucking lie to make that point?

    Where on earth did this clown get his information about Saddam from?

    What a complete bastard.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 3:10 am

  31. There was an interesting article in last weeks Speccie about how the upper-middle class iranians are allowed to drink, watch satellite TV and get luxuries from the West as long as they say nothing about the regime. Sounds like just the place to send Cox.

    Rococo Liberal

    November 8, 2006 at 7:23 am

  32. CL

    Why would you even bother talking to intellectual pygmies like Quiggin and Co? One of the moonbats there accused American troops of killing Iraqi civilians, like it was something they did as a matter of course. These berks can’t seem to tell the difference between the essential goodness of the west and the evil of the terrorists, who are the one’s doing the vast majority of the killing. But the left will never blame a murderer, when it can blame George Bush instead.

    Rococo Liberal

    November 8, 2006 at 7:39 am

  33. people who are on the ‘right’ or on the ‘left’ are loathe to admit their mistakes.
    Neither side has a monopoly on this.

    JC, a person can disagree with JQ views but only an idiot would call him an idiot

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 8, 2006 at 7:47 am

  34. “You seem hurt by an exchange between two other people. I just find that strange.”

    No, I really, really don’t (and am not). You just made that up on the spot. What could I have possibly written to lead you to believe I was ‘hurt’?? My statement was a simple correction of your nonsense about authority-challenging, and an opinion on how it made you look to write such nonsense here. Because you didn’t like that opinion, you got snarky (then ironically accuse my of throwing a tantrum).

    “I referred to and criticised the left.”

    Sigh. This is all could have been over yesterday, but hey, if you want to go down this road, I’m going to have to make you face facts.

    You trolled JQ’s thread with a throw-away line.

    “He responded by suggesting I supported the bribing of Saddam Hussein.”

    He didn’t respond until you upped the trolling factor, where he in fact agreed with you, taking your statement at face value, in a classic judo move even though his thing is karate.

    JQ then repeatedly warned you about generic statements about a mythical left, saying that he felt they were thinly disguised attacks on his views, and invited you to be specific. He then got specific about you as an example.

    Then you came to catallaxy and complained about the threat of deletion, lying about the reason to fit it more snugly with the thread topic. There was no need to get offended by me picking you up on this.

    Can we put this to bed now? I won’t even ask for an apology. 🙂

    fatfingers

    November 8, 2006 at 8:49 am

  35. “JC, a person can disagree with JQ views but only an idiot would call him an idiot”

    Only a complete fucking idiot would make a statement like this.

    I wonder who it was?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 9:59 am

  36. I agree with Homer. JQ is a very smart guy. It does you no good to insult his intelligence.

    Jason Soon

    November 8, 2006 at 10:06 am

  37. Birdy,

    It seems there are a couple around here.

    One can disagree with a person whilst acknowledging they are smart.

    On water for instance JQ has been very much the market man well before it became sexy as a topic

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 8, 2006 at 10:24 am

  38. Everybody:
    I’m not sure that the analogy of tyrrany (over several decades) can be made with (a single incident of) rape. Both appalling, of course, but perhaps there is a more apt analogy.

    As I have said elsewhere, when Saddam Hussein is hanged, we will all suffer. Unjust? Outrageous? You bet it is …. but this is the real world, not Heaven where everything is perfect.

    Graham Bell

    November 8, 2006 at 10:58 am

  39. Karate is more block-strike or block-strike-strike with the aim to completely immobilise or kill the opponent, most of the target points on the body are critical to sustained life. Judo is the “gentle way” of self defence where you divert your opponents energies away from you and against them whilst karate is to finish off your opponent with a strike.

    So it doesnt matter about right or wrong, last man standing wins.

    rog

    November 8, 2006 at 11:28 am

  40. Let your sense of hurt go, fatty, for goodness sake. I have already pointed out above that Quiggin lied about the AWB angle and that he is renowned for attacks on mythical “RWDBs”. When he feels like it, he posts hit-pieces against detractors but whines like a baby when somebody challenges his dubious intellectual authority. His attempt to suppress use of the “left” is hilarious and pathetic.

    C.L.

    November 8, 2006 at 11:39 am

  41. CL,

    If you wish for ‘lefties ‘ to apologise then name those who should apologise and why.

    Otherwise you do start to look like a goose merely reiterating meaningless phrases.

    My observation is that JQ probably has the best comments policy around the place

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 8, 2006 at 11:43 am

  42. Quiggin supported the continuation of Saddam Hussein’s regime despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who would have stayed in office for years and years. He and others like him should apologise. He also deliberately lied about my view of the AWB and he lied in saying “RWDBs” supported Saddam-like torture. His latest weird argument is that Cole’s findings about AWB have been fixed – in other words, he believes a conspiracy theory has been hatched involving an eminent retired judge. This is the person regarded by many as some kind of serious intellectual figure.

    C.L.

    November 8, 2006 at 11:59 am

  43. “This is the person regarded by many as some kind of serious intellectual figure. ”

    Name names. I want to see names attached to this horrendous accusation.

    I see most a buying one tickets out of here in case they’re found out.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:00 pm

  44. The CL is being too polite. Going by this post

    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/25/which-saddam/

    at least the good Professor and Jack were wrong about, at least, the Cole Inquiry. Also, from memory, CL didn’t support the Iraq war – so it’s a bit silly to say he did.

    From my perspective, I don’t understand how anyone can claim to want Saddam out of office and on trial for crimes against humanity, but not support the war.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 12:02 pm

  45. CL,

    I am afraid you are being dishonest.

    JQ like myself did not support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

    Your logic is silly.
    Should I say you should apologise given more Iraqis have died since the invasions than before it!

    Wake up and go and write on your blog

    Bring Back EP at LP

    November 8, 2006 at 12:16 pm

  46. “Should I say you should apologise given more Iraqis have died since the invasions than before it!”

    Jeepers?

    How do you figure that. No of course you shouldn’t say that. This would be idiotic.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:41 pm

  47. Homer

    What am I being dihonest about? Point it out.

    I see you on blogs more often than me, so why do go write yours.

    The Quiggler would have made an excellent professor at Saddam university. And I am sure Saddam’s boys would have thrived.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:44 pm

  48. “JQ like myself did not support the illegal invasion of Iraq.”

    Right so you fucking asshole shithead.

    After all this time you are going to repeat that lie again.

    OK lets go you prick.

    Back up your lie that the invasion was illegal.

    What a fucking asshole you are.

    Why can’t people just show up and not lie all the time?

    I don’t think thats too much to ask.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:44 pm

  49. Come on EP.

    If you are willing to just casually drop these little lies everywhere you are going to have to be willing to come back and retract them.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  50. According to the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State, half a million died because of sanctions before the Iraq War – that’s just counting children. Saddam Hussein is still on trial for killing 180,000 Kurds. So there’s 680,000 people, Homer. Add another 100,000 (approximately) for the casualties of the First Gulf War. 780,000. Remember, the left’s argument is that Saddam’s rule should have continued indefinitely and sanctions should have continued as well. So even more people would have died at the tyrant’s hands over the last few years, were he still in office.

    Will you now withdraw your argument that “more Iraqis have died since the invasion than before it”?

    C.L.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  51. GB does have a point, Homer. Having you and Quiggles calling it illegal doesn’t make it so.

    Last time Quiggler had a brain wave he thought the UK should disarm to show the Iranians good intentions.

    Techncally this comment isn’t dishonest, but it sure is dumb.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  52. Sooning impending …

    Jason Soon

    November 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  53. When did the left become mythical FF? – anyone who claims they are social democrats are lefties as are greens, progressives, socialists, humanists, secularists and a whole raft of ists.

    Someone said to me yesterday “are you a greenie” to which i responded being a greenie is a political description and has little if nothing to do with gardening or nature or other redneck stuff.

    rog

    November 8, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  54. Monsoon..?

    rog

    November 8, 2006 at 12:50 pm

  55. He has to ask Quiggler’s permission, CL. The prof doesn’t take dissent to well these days.

    The quiggiles deletions are the modern day equivalent of beheadings. Lot less bloody but effective nevertheless.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:52 pm

  56. Just warning Bird about his fowl language, rog.

    Jason Soon

    November 8, 2006 at 12:52 pm

  57. CL,

    You have misunderstood my sentence.

    I am not calling to to go away I am asking you to write something, anything at your blog.

    Before the war does not usually mean going back 25-30 years however I am happy to compare post Gulf war to post Invasion.

    JC wake up. THe US, UK and we invaded Iraq. We had no legal foundation to do it.
    It wasn’t a UN mission at all.

    This may come as a shock to you but one cannot just march into a country and take it over.
    funny about that.

    If one was so humane then one mayhave invaded North Korea or Zimbwawe where more people have died in relative and absolute terms.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm

  58. ‘We had no legal foundation to do it.’

    Oh, Homer. Sovereign states may invade each other for any reason they see fit.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 1:40 pm

  59. yes Sinkers and they are almost in all cases illegal

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 8, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  60. I don’t understand what you mean by the term ‘illegal’. There is no international parliament that has legislated against war.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 2:29 pm

  61. To be fair, Homer, I’ve been opposed to the noton of international law ever since I studied the subject under this,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dugard
    anti-semite.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 2:32 pm

  62. “JC wake up. THe US, UK and we invaded Iraq. We had no legal foundation to do it.
    It wasn’t a UN mission at all.”

    What do you mean we had no legal foudation for it?

    Why do you keep lying about this.

    They had legal foundation to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. Then they signed a magnanimous ceasefire. Which Saddam broke in spirit and by the letter and in all provisions.

    Ergo the war was still on.

    They had 17 resolutions backing this.’

    How many do you need?

    30? 50?

    Because you bullshit artists claimed at the time that you would settle for 18.

    The war never ended. How can you have sanctions, inspectors, assasination attempts running both ways, no-fly-zones, terrorist acts and continuous ceasefire violations and non-compliance and say that there is

    NO LEGAL FOUNDATION TO DO IT.

    You are lying. And in fact you are saying the exact opposite of the truth.

    Ask the question…. Which war was resumed in terms of major combat operations WITH THE MOST LEGAL COVER IN ALL HISTORY.

    Its this one.

    Now why are you lying and claiming that we had NO LEGAL BASIS for doing it?

    If a ceasefire is broken the war is ongoing.

    The failure to acknowledge that cannot change the basic reality of this.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 2:56 pm

  63. “I don’t understand what you mean by the term ‘illegal’. There is no international parliament that has legislated against war.”

    Well the thing is Sinclair. He’s just lying.

    Where’s the list of legal and illegal wars?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  64. I don’t think it’s fair to say Homer is lying. Homer belives in the a fiction called international law and an organisation calld the UFN – that’s United Nations, the F is my insertion.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 3:02 pm

  65. “When did the left become mythical FF?”

    Ascribing one view to all those ‘ists’ is pretty silly, wouldn’t you think? It is a myth that there is a ‘left’ or ‘right’ except in such broad terms that they are almost meaningless, and there is no way on earth you can say “the left believe x” or “the right believe y” without all sorts of qualifications and exceptions and caveats.

    CL links to what he claims is JQ’s hypocrisy in deriding RWDBs, but if you actually read JQ’s post, he is very specific about the point – pro-war bloggers who are anti-torture were hard to find. JQ lists those he did manage to find (CL among them), and of those who are pro-war and pro-torture he says “I won’t bother linking to them – visit the obvious sites and you’ll find them.” It’s not like he said “the right condone torture”, which would have been outright hypocrisy when objecting to “time for the left to apologise [for supporting Saddam]” from CL.

    fatfingers

    November 8, 2006 at 3:17 pm

  66. CL wasn’t pro-war.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 3:19 pm

  67. But if the UN has any legal standing whatsoever then all its legal force weighed in on the coalitions side.

    He is lying as were all the others at the time.

    Since they were predjudicing UN RESOLUTIONS over MEDIA INTERPRETATION OF UN SENTIMENT.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 3:20 pm

  68. C’mon GMB. You’re giving the UFN too much credit. Even the UFN itself can’t work out where it weighed in. We all know where it should have weighed, but where it actually weighed, who knows?

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 3:25 pm

  69. Homer
    You wanna show where I was being dishonest otherwise please retract that comment.

    You pride yourself on being a gentleman. If you can’t prove it, it would be nice to get a retraction from you, as there isn’t anything I have said here that is dishhonest.
    You may disagree with it. but it is not dishonest.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 3:38 pm

  70. I’m not giving the United Nazis any credit at all.

    But Homer seems to be. If they are a legal body then, and if Homer takes that side of it seriously, he ought to have been backing the war as the resolutions implied.

    They were resolutions. Not suggestions. And if the UN is a legal body, finishing that war was almost a legal necessity.

    You don’t want to fall for these clowns Sinclair. When they bullshit us they usually have a few blocks of lies all compounded on one another.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  71. where have I said that JC?

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  72. Take it back, homer. The comment was to CL. My big mistake.

    Sorry

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  73. Keep spinning, fatty. Quiggin – who apparently now bans use of the term “left” – happily targeted a collective which he calls “RWDBs” without any of those “qualifications and exceptions and caveats” you were just talking about. In the most casual and lazy manner, he argued most of them were Saddamite pro-torturers. He stumbled across my opposition in a comment thread and then mentioned it in an update. “Very specific”, my royal Irish arse. Bear in mind that this citique of unnamed “RWDBs” was from someone who believes Saddam Hussein should have been left in office – you know, to go on torturing people ad infinitum.

    JC: I’ve accused you of being dishonest? Huh.

    C.L.

    November 8, 2006 at 4:14 pm

  74. Hey I just found this neat blog. Some guy in Brisbane getting the shits with climate alarmists as well.

    Does anyone know this fellow?

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 4:27 pm

  75. NO No No, CL

    I misread one of Homer’s missives and thought it was for me. Homer was calling you names this time and not me.

    He needs a thorough clip over the head and sent home early for calling you that , by the way.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  76. John Ray maintains like 100 sites. He spreads himself too thin. Some of his stuff can be hit and miss.

    Jason Soon

    November 8, 2006 at 4:33 pm

  77. Oh yeah – that exchange was a bit confusing.

    Homer is a hothead sometimes.

    C.L.

    November 8, 2006 at 4:35 pm

  78. Don’t forget, CL that Sgt. Quiggler thinks right wingers are also anti-sience these days.

    No wonder he never ventures out of his burrow, the dick would get a pasting if he did. He really has become a pathetic caricature of himself.

    This is the “intellctual” who thinks giving away 1% of GDP to UN/AGW over the next 100 years is not that much.

    In the Federal state of Quiggler a real friggin lot is not much.

    Over 100 years assuming a growth rate of 4.5% for global GDP 1% would mean $US2,200 trillion dollars. Sgt. Quiggler thinks this is only a little.

    That’s the difference between growing at 4.5% or 3.5%.

    Not Much , hey?

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 4:38 pm

  79. Sinc, was Dugard the one who compared Israel to apartheid South Africa WRT the Palestinians?

    skepticlawyer

    November 8, 2006 at 6:04 pm

  80. Yes. Although that is a common comparison (perhaps not here in Australia, but certainly in South Africa).

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 8, 2006 at 6:11 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: