Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, December 07, 2005

That's what we mean by liberation

Leading conservative blog Powerline reveals something special about US freedom and liberty:

"It's good that Saddam has finally been put on trial, although it may have been better yet if he had simply been shot. The idea that his crimes need to be 'proved' - as though there were some doubt about them that could be resolved through a 'trial' - is ridiculous."

28 Comments:

Blogger Shabadoo said...

What do you disagree with here? Do you think SH is not guilty of first-order crimes against sanity, humanity, and the Iraqi people? Do you think it would have been better to give Mussolini, or Hitler, or Ceaucescu, a trial?

Saddam never gave his people a justice system; to allow SH to hijack a trial and grandstand and then have his inevitable execution become a lefty cause celebre ("Oh, we're no better them, and we're all guilty, etc etc etc") is silly and offensive.

I just saw Ramsay Clark on cable banging on about Saddam's beautiful poetry he reads his defense team, and how he shouldn't be responsible for his security peoples' actions...spare me.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:52:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Everybody deserves a fair trial, even those who committed the worst of crimes. It's called a democracy. A foreign concept to many, clearly...

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:57:00 pm  
Blogger Ian Westmore said...

Isn't it interesting how alike Shabadoo and Saddam are. Neither are too fussed about justice. As soon as they decide someones guilty then its off with their head, no questions need asking, no bothersome legalities need observing! And neither seem to be overly concerned about torture, as long as its the 'bad' guys on the rack.

Did they give Saddam Net access? LOL!

Both Hitler and Mussolini would have been tried at Nuremburg, Shabadoo. All, the surviving Axis political and military 'elite' were.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:56:00 pm  
Blogger RapScallion said...

shabadoo provides an absolutely perfect example of the classic straw man argument, used to attack the 'lefties' (of the 'bleeding heart' variety no doubt).
The same 'reasoning' if you can call it that leads one to this conclusion: 'oh, so and so who murdered his wife for infidelity didn't give her a fair hearing, so why should he be given one'.
Not that so and so could be said to have murdered his wife until the trial is over, but that's probably putting too fine a point on it for some people.
I thought the whole point was to show that the new society is above the behaviour of those whom it places on trial for massive crimes, and that it recognises the separation of powers without which there is no 'democracy'. That point is lost on the Saddams of the world, or ignored by them, and obviously, also, the shabadoos.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:10:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

antony

Your cultural insensitivity is little less than racism. You seem to demonise the values of the Arab. Summary justice via the sword was responsible for the Islamist raping, pillaging, and plundering the previous worlds of Christendom and Africa. He created and maintained his empire with the sword.

The Muslims have lived by the sword ever since.

Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:12:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

i guess the crusades were nothing more than an exercise of "European Enlightenment".

On another note, just wondering how the word 'Islamist' came to be used?

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:16:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

uphillsprinet

Oh dear. Hun, the crusades predate the European Enlightenment by, like, you know 6 centuries?

But you keep chugging along in Muslim-time if it floats your boat.

I hope this helps.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:31:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Never mind "Islamist" , how about "Islamofascist"! Now there's a word guaranteed to cement multicultural relations. Probably "invented" by some neocon racist c*cksucker with a small dick and perpetuated by right wing, racist weenie dick arse licking.........

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:37:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

pseudoleftychick

i think the holocaust and the world wars have given 'European Enlightenment' a century or so to... evolve.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:53:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Ooooh - good one uphill...over to you pseudo.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:13:00 pm  
Blogger RapScallion said...

neoleftychick's comment is strangely incomprehensible. Something taken from a medieval tract ('the Arab...Islamist raping...Christendom...the Muslims')?
It seems to imply that 'the Muslims' en masse endorse the ancient idea 'live by the sword... die by the sword'. That's right, lump them all together, make some glib and ignorant generalisation about history, religion and culture.

So it's neoleftychick who is saying Antony's 'cultural insensitivity is little less than racism'??? Ironic. Astounding.

I've heard and read that many Iraqis no longer care about Saddam one way or the other (having other pressing tribulations to contend with?). Should they? It's not for us to say, but they're probably not the ones giving harrowing evidence in the 'trial' (which might well turn out to be a US-backed sham, but we'll see).
Is there a tumultuous clamour for a lynching or decapitation? Hard to know, if one relies on the mainstream media, but I doubt it.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:19:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Yes I too find it untterly bizarre to be accusing anyone of cultural insensitivity, when by and large, lefty openly and repeteadly takes every oppornuinity to bash the Arabs.

And then she saves the best for last "Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?"

I don't suppose Lefty happened to be a big fan of the Iraq war by any chance?

Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:25:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Of course, by 'fair trial', a lot of people here seem mean 'an opportunity to get off'...

I still don't get why the left is so offended by the Crusades, which were in response to Islamic aggression, unless you think our medieval ancestors should have laid back and let Europe go Muslim like a bunch of proto-Fisks.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:16:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

The Crusades took place in Islamic territory Shab. Thus it was not Islamic agression but defense of their territory. You are so enamoured with teh myth of Westerm exceptionalism, that you have no concept what it means to not be white.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:16:00 am  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Wonder why that could be? Must be all those friends from non-white backgrounds in his life...

Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:18:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Ummm...addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe. In fact, no place was Islamic until Mohammed and his boys went on their killing spree across Arabia and beyond. Go to Istanbul sometime, and you'll see that the Aya Sophia mosque was originally...wait for it!...a church, which was converted into a Saracen house of worship. The Crusades took place after repeated attempts by Easten Christians to get some help against the invaders - these were, again, NOT Islamic lands.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:45:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

History is defined by when you decide to measure it.

The Christian lands were originally bastions of the Roman Empire, which is turn was taken from the indigenous tribes of the regions. Christianity simply rode on the back of the Romans. Isalm was adopted by the indigenous tribes, so in effect, they were merely taking back their land, even if it was under teh pretext of Islam.

What then makes Christianity any more credible than Islam? Oh I forgot, white people right?

Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:18:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

"Adopted"...jeez, Addamo, you're an even bigger dhimmi-wit than I thought. Do you also fall for the "reversion" canard?

Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:07:00 pm  
Blogger Ian Westmore said...

Shabadoo said...

I still don't get why the left is so offended by the Crusades,

I'm surprised you're not Shabadoo seeing as how on route to the Holy Land the Crusaders practiced their fighting skill by murdering any Jew they came across. They probably killed more Jews than Saracens! When the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem in 1099 they burnt down it's synagogue killing the 6,000 Jews sheltering inside.

which were in response to Islamic aggression, unless you think our medieval ancestors should have laid back and let Europe go Muslim like a bunch of proto-Fisks.

The Crusades were about conquering the 'Holy Land' for Christendom, not repelling Muslims from Europe. Apart from the Moors in Spain - whom the Crusaders ignored, any Muslim "aggression" against Europe didn't occur until about 400 years after the 1st Crusade.

Ummm...addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe.

The 1st Crusade was ordered by Pope Urban II in 1095, the Byzantine Empire ended with the fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:14:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Shabadoo said...

"Ummm...addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe." and " .....Go to Istanbul sometime, and you'll see that the Aya Sophia mosque was originally...wait for it!...a church"

And the Byzantines were themselves treated to the "liberating" excesses of the Crusaders. Being fellow christians didn't save them from being looted, plundered, and I suppose you could say in today's parlance, being democratized.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:19:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

OMG. I can't believe I am having to endure this nonsense. If anybody wants to know why the muslim Arabs are perceived as they, there is no need for the phoney Edward said. These people are OBSSESSED life in the late middle ages.

How are we supposed to co-exist with them in the 21st century?

Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:12:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

"How are we supposed to co-exist with them in the 21st century?"

Seriously, what are you trying to say? Just spit it out, you are almost there.

Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:16:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Lefty, baby, breath in and count to ten.

You're fellow traveller Shab brought up the Crusades and then went on to show us how ignorant of he was of that period.

I know hos much you hate to be educated. You have admitted to being ignriant of Arabs culture and history and appear to determined to remain as such.

You're George Bush's wet dream.

Friday, December 09, 2005 12:31:00 am  
Blogger RapScallion said...

This discussion's probably dead by now, but just had another peek at it.

neolefty, you certainly leave the reader with a nice little literary puzzle each time: insert the missing words and capital letters (I presume you mean Edward Said, for instance), attempt to comprehend the utterance on a literal level, then try to decode the dog-whistling sub-text which, as uphillsprinter said, gets you 'almost there'. Hard to believe it was you who started your contributions to this discussion by accusing others of racism.

That aside, the stuff on the crusades is pretty irrelevant to the original question: I thought it was about Saddam, not Saladin.

Friday, December 09, 2005 10:34:00 am  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

rapscallion

Too, too , TOO funny. Hun, you clearly aren't too up on the Arab mind. Saddam's reign is inextricably linked to Salladin. The muslim Arab male has been in a civil war since the 1920s for the right to be the new Saladin.

We've had various pretenders mincing about the sand dunes, sword in one hand, bomb in the other, and a teenage boy slyly in tow.

First there was al-Husseini (our very first Nazi on camel), followed by Nasser, who was stalked by Abdullah, Arafat, Assad, Hussein. Then we had Saddam who the Crusaders have tied up.

Now we have the Persian loon, who is not really an Arab, but that doesn't really matter to these loony-tunes anymore.

Time to grab some popcorn and put the pause button on for the all-in-sword fight at the end!

Friday, December 09, 2005 4:56:00 pm  
Blogger RapScallion said...

Twaddle typed on bumf, chick. 'The Arab mind'. This is all reminiscent of that anti Jewish 'elders of zion' rubbish that the Arabs themselves and a whole lot of nazis and the League of Rights put about: exactly the same thought (I use the term loosely) process. You're merely confirming what I said earlier. I think you might, MIGHT, be referring to the 'the mind' of about 0.01% of Arab males, who like scimitars and ak47s. But why 'Arab'? You could be talking just as easily about Rummy, Cheney and W. Not to forget Condy.

Anyway, it's nice to know that someone (who is 'up on the Arab mind') believes that not one colonial power should bear one tiny jot of responsibility for the generally depressing sabre-rattling situation that has prevailed since the 1920s or even earlier in the Arab world. That the Iraq of the last 80 years is in no way the product of 'the English mind', or the Iraq of today and tomorrow the product of 'the Republican mind'

Friday, December 09, 2005 5:37:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Ladies and Gentleman

And here we have it: the Arab mind par excellence. They think they are Allah's gift; they think they are superior to the infidels; all non-muslims must pay taxes and admit their inferiority. They rape, pillage, plunder, and oppress for 1,000 years.

In the 17th century, another, older power, whose science, philosophy, art, and government, the muslim Arab was able to build an empire out of the sand. However, this new Old power was now passing it by.

3 and even 4 centuries later the long vanquished Islamic world of the Arab male is STILL whingeing and moaning that OTHERS have caused his demise.

Oooohh, it was the Persians, oooohh it was the Crusaders, oooohh it was the Mongols, oooohh it was the Turks, oooohh it was the Ottomans, oooohhh it was the French, the British, ooohhhh it was "The Jews", oooohh it was the Americans. And did we say oooohh it was "The Jews?"

PUHLEEZ! Enough is enough already Enough excuses. Time to grow up and become men instead of whingeing boys. It is time for the Arab muslim male to look into his own culture and decide what he has done wrong.

He could start by transferring power to women. And no, the power to detonate a bomb is not REAL power.

I hope this helps.

Friday, December 09, 2005 7:42:00 pm  
Blogger RapScallion said...

Well,PUHLEEZ! to you too.

How DID you get from

'Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?'

to

'It is time for the Arab muslim male to look into his own culture and decide what he has done wrong.' ???

Time for you to look into your own mind and decide where your thinking process went wrong.

Apart from that, yes, perhaps a general transference of power to women would be a good thing. With some exceptions.

Saturday, December 10, 2005 3:24:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home