Lenin’s Tomb
Thank you Lenin for clearing this up. A UK first for you again - well done!
Neil Williams
Respect Blog.
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/
The El Khabar website has changed it to
"They began by insult, then military occupation and now they are offending the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). This incident is more serious than the 9/11 attacks on the US and those of London."
'colin' - no, that was the original phrasing in the extract on the English language part of the website. There is to be a specific correction posted, and I have been told it is already up on the Arabic section of the website where the full interview is to be found. However, as I don't read Arabic, I am hoping someone out there who does, will...
Please can someone give us the full corrected translation - anyone speak arabic?
Neil Wiliams
"anyone speak arabic?"
Galloway does!
french
Ils ont commencé par des insultes, puis l'occupation et, aujourd'hui, il porte atteinte au Prophète Mohamed (QSSSL)... cet incident est encore plus grave que les attentats du 11 septembre aux Etats Unis et ceux de Londres...
Useful mistranslations from the Arabic are a regular occurrence:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/
z...6185107f73990ab
Hardly anyone in the West speaks Arabic. It strikes me that the War on Terror would not be possible if it were being fought against the Spanish-speaking world.
Luckily we have MEMRI. Right guys?
So the "mistranslation" was also mistranslated into french?
Qué?
Colin
No. It seems the inaccurate words were accurately translated into French.
I think the English and French language are inaccurate themselves. As an Arab proverb goes: A new language is a new person. But my translation can be inaccurate too.
No. It seems the inaccurate words were accurately translated into French.
How do you know that Kevin.
How can you blame it on Harry's place if the Arabic newspaper stuffed up? (Apparently)
It's up to you to show the proof - there's no evidence provided in this blog post.
I get the feeling monies have exchanged hands...
Good one, who does he sue this time?
At this rate we'll have a fighting machine entirely funded by enemies. As long as we can print "no copies of the daily telegraph were bought in the production of this billboard" or similar, I'm happy.
It's like a lesson some of these buffoons will never learn, they're hoping for mistakes and ones that will not happen (on this scale anyhow).
'X' - no no no, Harry's Place published this guff without even asking themselves whether it was probable. They were willing to believe it, wholesale, without question, despite the fact that anyone who read and thought about the claim for half a second would be able to tell it was bollocks. They are credulous to the point of absurdity. They weren't to know that Labour were lying to them when they reproduced the Respect smears either, but they could have got together a braincell to figure it out or await confirmation.
Colin
"seems": do try reading.
This is odd. When I fowwow your link to HP, the post is entitled @This is between me and God' and seems to be a modified version of the original (backtracking?), but I can still get the original (entitled "Galloway: MoToons "worse than the 11 September attacks in the US and the 7/7 incidents" if I go straight to HP.
??
"They were willing to believe it, wholesale, without question, despite the fact that anyone who read and thought about the claim for half a second would be able to tell it was bollocks."
After the speech that I heard of Galloway praising the mass murderers (see today, 3 suicide bombings) as people with Sandals and Kalashnikovs, and putting their name among the stars, I am willing to believe that Galloway speaks with one voice there and with another in England. Don't you?
Actually I think he has at least three personalities: the Baathist, the Obnoxious, and the Cat.
Bob - I dunno why it was posted twice. Perhaps the author was over-eager in spanking this one out. Perhaps he felt saying it once just wouldn't be sufficient. Who, frankly, knows or cares?
Fabian - nah, you're talking shit. Galloway has repeatedly made distinctions between legitimate acts of resistance and those that target civilians. It's not too hard to discover if you're actually interested in what is actually being said as opposed to hoovering up cherry-picked quotes, Memri-style.
no no no, Harry's Place published this guff without even asking themselves whether it was probable.
You're kidding, aren't you? When I saw it I didn't even blink. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing he would say abroad to Muslims, given what he has said in the past. You certainly can't blame it on Harry's place, especially as you yourself will throw up any old piece of half sourced propaganda about the US whether it's true or not - you were fingering the CIA for the dome bombing the other day, lets not forget.
But we're yet to see any evidence this was a false translation. Given how matey Galloway was with the journalist, it could well be the case a few phone calls were made, if you know what I mean. Where's your proof?
If your in the know Lenin,what did Galloway actually say?
Lenin: please, can you give a link of Galloway condemning the people responsible for suicide bombings?
I think that there is a problem, anyway, since those that do the bombings are "the resistance". I mean, if not, who is the real resistance and what are they doing?
When I saw it I didn't even blink. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing he would say abroad to Muslims, given what he has said in the past
Nah. It's bollocks. Galloways says exactly the same things to Muslims as he does to non-Muslims. I've been to his speeches. He would never try to say to either Muslims or non-Muslims that racist caricatures were more serious than bombings in London or New York. For one thing, neither Muslims nor non-Muslims would believe such horse-shit. For another, neither would Galloway.
You obviously have weird ideas about Muslims if you suppose they would think in this fashion.
By the way, you've got some fucking cheek. You throw in an insinuation like this: it could well be the case a few phone calls were made, if you know what I mean and ask *me* for *proof*? Pillock.
Fabian - I'm not your secretary, don't give me work.
Also, Lenin, I would be very interested in reading something of Galloway condemning suicide attacks against civilians in Israel. Do you have a link to that?
I thought that you cared about cleaning Galloway's name, Lenin. The less you can do is provide a back up for your response to me. If you don't care about the man at all, then why are you posting about him?
Also, Lenin...
So, now the burden of proof is on the accused in your imaginary tribunal? I'm sorry you think you're so important that I have to find ways to appease you. Why not try involving yourself in research and serious discussion, instead of scratching away at your favourite little itches.
I thought that you cared about cleaning Galloway's name, Lenin.
This isn't about 'cleaning' Galloway's name. This is about taking the piss out of Harry's Place for repeating yet another bizarre and utterly false claim. I am not obliged to meet your bizarre standards of proof (ie, put the subject of slander under the magnifying glass, inspect his claims, his statements, test him on irrelevancies, see if he has sufficient ideological hygeine, if he has had the foresight to condemn this and that)...
Bear in mind these are people who believed Saddam Hussein was gonna nuke us in 45 minutes. Scepticism and rational argument aren't their strong points.
Fabian - Brilliant! Made me laugh my balls off.
Yeah, let's see this link.
Heh!
Hey Lenin, here's Galloway being nuanced and intelligent on gay rights and the Middle East recently: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/a...s/2005-
539.html
Care to stand this up on the blog?
Harry's Virtual Lynch Mob is out to play.
"This isn't about 'cleaning' Galloway's name. This is about taking the piss out of Harry's Place for repeating yet another bizarre and utterly false claim"
So you devote your time to mock another weblog. But with all this important and necessary work, when will you have time for the Revolution?
After all, he is managing a balancing act between his socialist roots and his Islamic supporters.
As if Muslims with conservative views in Tower Hamlets would be voting Respect: Lib Dem, Tory, or even - heaven forfend - New Labour - but not Respect. We've had too many cack-handed smear attempts labelling us as "pro-gay" for that to work - and to be honest, it's a badge of honour.
So you devote your time to mock another weblog.
Took all of five minutes. As you will have seen, however, I tend to devote more time to the following:
breaking the Official Secrets Act to expose government complicity in torture, casually ignoring a D-Notice to name the MI6 officer alleged to have run a kidnapping and torturing operation from Pakistan to Greece, exposing Innovative Emergency Management's attempt to cover-up its role in Katrina, uncovering Scotland on Sunday's lies about the G8 protest etc etc
Esther - as far as I know, that interview is accurate. It's written up by an illiterate moron, but it is fairer than most.
So you devote your time to mock another weblog.
You devote your time to commenting on it. Persistently, if the above is anything to go by.
so what did Galloway say?
come on Lenin.
'colin' - he said, "tell those reactionary socipaths at Harry's Place to withdraw their snouts from my entrails".
so you don't know.
'colin' - it's a secret.
Galloway is also quoted
as saying there are no mosques in Denmark.
Did he say that?
Colin's doing his Paxman impersonation.
I doubt it, 'colin', but I'm less interested in that than in the patently ludicrous assertions about Galloway's supposed statements on 9/11 and 7/7.
There are no purpose built mosques in Denmark.
Bob - 'colin' is either the vile Scott whatsisname from the Daily Ablution, or one of his bumlicking fans. Or he's the commenter more commonly known as 'tim'. Bit of a weirdo either way.
"You devote your time to commenting on it. Persistently, if the above is anything to go by."
Oh, it is ok. I am in no hurry for a Revolution, like you. But I am still here, waiting for a link to the real interview or the real translation or the real Galloway (the Cat).
All in all, Galloway was lucky that he wasn't asked to impersonate a dog. You know...those filthy animals.
I am in no hurry for a Revolution, like you
Hey, just put your feet up, relax, treat this place like home. Oh, sorry, I got that backward: fuck off out of it, you boring twit!
But I am still here, waiting for a link to the real interview or the real translation or the real Galloway
I'm waiting for you exhibit sense, humour or reason. One of those three will be sufficient.
Galloway was lucky that he wasn't asked to impersonate a dog
At least he had an excuse. You haven't been asked to do shit, and you're still barking. Get out of it, pillock.
Ey, calm down, take a couple of aspirin and lie down in a darkened room for a couple of hours, old boy.
Ok, I promise not to write anymore. But I want the real interview. It is a pity that you didn't have it before you posted. You know, you should back up what you say. This: "despite the fact that anyone who read and thought about the claim for half a second would be able to tell it was bollocks" Is not a proof. By any standard. Not even a revolutionary standard.
To misquote VI Lenin:
Fabiån: a tosser fallen among good men.
You always someone is a total and utter tosspot when they try calling you 'old boy' as if it's supposed to be witheringly condescending.
Fabian, the real article is not yet available for the excellent reason that the only full English language version has been a translation by BBC Monitoring. The correction has, I am told, been appended to the full interview in Arabic, and I suppose we shall just have to await the arrival of a translator who will bring us the goods on the update.
Now, as I say, you can bugger off. And don't waste your time thinking about me lying down in a darkened room. It simply isn't going to happen, honey.
make up your mind what your name is, fucknut
Lenin - What d'ya make of this then, old boy? Probably the CIA.
QUOTE "Do not take the words of George Galloway out of context. George was speaking in Algeria to a Muslim readership and to them an insult to the Prophet Muhammad is an insult to all Muslims.
Many have died as a result of these cartoons and taken into context with the war in Iraq which has killed over 100,000 people including 1000's of children 9/11 IS small in comparison (this is how Muslims will see it - your view is very Eurocentric.)
See:
Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000 at:
http://www.marchforjustice.com/s...m/shock&
awe.php
10,000's of children in Iraq died after the first Iraq war due to the US and European sauntions - many of us have not forgotten and nor do the Muslim world.
1000's of Palestinains have died fighting for their right to a homeland taken away from them by the UK and others.
These events are linked in the mind of Muslims and Socialists in Europe and the USA. Yes 9/11 was shocking and wrong but in terms of numbers as nothing compared to what the Muslim world has suffered by the Bush and Blair War on Terror (whose terror I ask?).
The issue of the cartoons is not seperate from the issue of Iraq, Palestine,Iran and the US agenda to dominate the world oil and trade markets in the eyes of Muslims - it is only in the UK/USA and Europe that we unlink these issues. In this context George was not out of order with his remarks about 9/11.
Respect
Neil Williams
Respect Blog:
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/
Posted by NeilWilliams at February 27, 2006 05:00 PM"" UNQUOTE
Guys, really, don't bother trying to find this mythical Arabic text that only our erstwhile blogger and the Elders of Zion appear privy to. Lenin is just doing his usual bully act; once backed into a corner with nowhere to go, out come the insults. If I had a penny for every time he's said "I don't have to prove anything to anyway, it's my blog", or words to that affect, well, I could have funded the Revolution on my own. He doesn't seem to have worked out that his charmless arrogance may work at Swimmie meetings, but not online.
P.
Not OT: From a brand-new Zogby poll of US soldiers in Iraq:
"85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”"
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNe...ews.dbm?
ID=1075
In 2006 they still believe this? It is just fucking incredible.
http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006...zens-
balls.html
guyt: you're right - more and more and more and more fucking misery:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4757964.stm
As a method of stopping the War on Terror, swallowing bullshit and nodding has yet to prove its efficacy:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspo...ide-to-
911.html
So it might, finally, be time for a change, don't you think?
http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006...zens-
balls.html
Since when was the truth a smear?
Interesting that Respect representatites don't appreciate the truth, though - they repeat the "100,000" figure for deaths in Iraq, which is an acknowledged falsehood, based on a study badly designed, in a way that massively exagerated the figures.
So why, do you think, Respect tells lies? Could it be because they can't win the argument with the truth?
"Richard", you are a timewasting buffoon. (It is really pathetic, really unbelievably stupid and petty.)
They are now quite openly crowing. CNN reports:
Bush: Bin Laden helped me
http://
www.democraticunderground...ress=364x538215
>These events are linked in the mind of Muslims and Socialists in Europe and the USA. Yes 9/11 was shocking and wrong but in terms of numbers as nothing compared to what the Muslim world has suffered by the Bush and Blair War on Terror (whose terror I ask?).
The issue of the cartoons is not seperate from the issue of Iraq, Palestine,Iran and the US agenda to dominate the world oil and trade markets in the eyes of Muslims - it is only in the UK/USA and Europe that we unlink these issues. In this context George was not out of order with his remarks about 9/11.
Respect
Neil Williams
Respect Blog:
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/
Posted by NeilWilliams at February 27, 2006 05:00 PM"" <
Well, it doesn't appear that Neil Williams is contradicting that Galloway said these things. The strange statement that it is only in the West that the issues are (erroneously) de-linked depends on the presumption that Islamist subjectivity is more 'authentic' than a liberal Western subjectivity. Nowhere is there an appeal to truth, which is amply spelled out by the fact that the Danish pilgrims felt it necessary to supplement the cartoons.
Are the cartoons an abomination? Certainly no more than anything produced by Hanna-Barbera. But then, Galloway's gone far beyond Hanna-Barbera's minimal respect for verisimilitude.
Dan Collins: "The strange statement that it is only in the West that the issues are (erroneously) de-linked depends on the presumption that Islamist subjectivity is more 'authentic' than a liberal Western subjectivity."
Rubbish. Like hell it does. It depends on nothing more than the minimally honest admission that Iraq was invaded by Western powers on a transparently false pretext and has been brutally occupied by them ever since.
"Are the cartoons an abomination? Certainly no more than anything produced by Hanna-Barbera."
Shamelessly stupid timewasting rubbish.
You lag far behind Fred Flintstone's minimal respect for seriousness.
http://www.geocities.com/Televis.../4836/
fred3.gif
Oh this is fantastic!
Lenin tying himself in knots to defend his fallen hero. Soooo sweeeet! And his dwindling band of comrades rallying to the cause. Brings a tear to the eye, I tells ya!
When the rest of the world has seen Feline George for what he is, only the truely demented loyal few remain.
Pick your heroes more carefully next time guys. They may reflect badly on your sense of judgement, a concept most of the blithering halfwits here aren't familiar with.
Keep up the good work. Comedy Gold!!
>Shamelessly stupid timewasting rubbish.<
Oh, yes, Warszawa. Idleness is the devil's workshop. Fortunately, your dialectic is material, so you're justified in yammering. Delusional twit.
Mayor Livingstone's statement today is well worth the read, though I doubt the Israel appeasers and Islamophobes on Paul Moloney's blogroll would agree.
"which is an acknowledged falsehood"
Comedy gold.
DanC, what is your native language? Martian? Your "dialectic" is up your arse, so you are not justified in yammering; therefore: develop a sense of shame and join a Trappist monastery.
"Are the cartoons an abomination? Certainly no more than anything produced by Hanna-Barbera."
This may look to some like delusionary twittery par excellence; but it is in fact deep, deep, deep thought, were we but wise enough to recognise it.
>Your "dialectic" is up your arse, so you are not justified in yammering; therefore: develop a sense of shame and join a Trappist monastery.<
Very intellectual. Kind of like Curiouser George's stint on Big Brother. A regular Matthew Arnold of High Seriousness.
"Very intellectual." Don't patronise me, you pretentious peabrained prat. You don't know the difference between Matthew Arnold and Barney Rubble. ("The kings of modern thought are dumb." - He must have been thinking of you and Christopher Hitchens.)
DanC: "Are the cartoons an abomination? Certainly no more than anything produced by Hanna-Barbera."
shite deleted.
Enter Beria, wearing a cardboard crown. (Some kings of modern thought are all-too-noisy.)
Hahahahaha! And now you've misquoted Barney Rubble. Daft!
Lenin: He would never try to say to either Muslims or non-Muslims that racist caricatures were more serious than bombings in London or New York. For one thing, neither Muslims nor non-Muslims would believe such horse-shit.
Would Muslims believe the horse-shit that the caricatures were more serious than the Holocaust then? Before you answer - I have audio.
'DFH' - I don't care if you've got sattelite images that you intend to present to the UN. Most Muslims, particularly the ones that Galloway aims to get through to, would not believe this.
shut your face, Beria.
Lenin--
I think that his point is that those who will, or who (like the Grand Ayatollah of Iran) deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, are insanely solipsistic. And as I am a guest here, I will be gentle about saying that if your commenters cannot think of a more productive way to respond to those with whom they differ than to insist that they are not entitled to voice their opinions, or if you protect one commenter from ad hominem invective whilst erasing the comments of another, then you are practicing a form of censorship that the right-wingers would associate with, you know, Islamofascism.
Oriana Fallaci, what have you done for me lately?
Dan, I am not here to pass a test for suppleness and tolerance set by you. You are fortunate to enjoy my hospitality, but 'Beria' knows he has been banned for months. If he wants to keep coming back here, he knows to expect deletion.
As for your evocation of the withered old scrote Oriana Fallaci, I can only suggest you pursue some urgent mental and emotional reform before her declension affects you. The use of meaningless portmanteau terms like 'Islamofascism' is a dead giveaway, as are painful non-sequiturs (such as the claim that Holocaust denial is something to do with solipsism, or indeed has anything to do with what is being discussed here whatsoever).
DanC: "I will be gentle about saying that if your commenters cannot think of a more productive way to respond to those with whom they differ than to insist that they are not entitled to voice their opinions"
Who did that? Quote chapter and verse.
"if you protect one commenter from ad hominem invective"
You started it, Mr-best-which-has-been-thought-and-said, and your mealy-mouthed pretentiousness is matched only by your dishonesty:
"Delusional twit".
and your sheer silliness:
"Are the cartoons an abomination? Certainly no more than anything produced by Hanna-Barbera."
If you post offensive rubbish like that, don't be surprised when it's named and shamed - But this whole "discussion" is a shameful waste of time. The reality-creators are hard at work:
http://www.kpho.com/Global/story...564202&
nav=23Ku
Hi Lenin, I know the interview was accurate - it gave a nice anti-imperialist argument about gay rights in the Middle East. I liked it despite the bias of the reporter and think Galloway came off very well in it. :)
Esther, yeah, I agree that aspect of the interview was splendid.
Could someone enlighten us if the bit in the interview about the Brit government not taking action against the irish when the RA were operating on the mainland, was also a mistranslation ?. Do the letters PT & A not ring any bells with GG ?. If the BBC translation was that much of a bollix it really is time the licence fee was reexamined.
lenin does have a habit of getting nasty and banning people when he has run out of his rather pathetic insults and rhetorical evasions, in my view.
Sorry lenny but I think it's true that your manner and behavior towards others is often unpleasant. Hope that doesn’t get me banned! And you occasionally write something that is intellectual coherent and thought provoking. Well done :)
Site editor's note: shut your face, you greasy pillock. Don't make me come over to Fargo and hit you. Yah.
Beria etc:
Just look at yourselves. The lengths you go to to denigrate one man's pretty unremarkable foibles (OH MY GOD!!!!! HE'S DRESSED UP AS A CAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), whilst ignoring the MULTITUDE OF ATROCIOUS CRIMES - terrorism, mass murder, torture, looting of entire nations, enslavement of subject populations, etc, etc, etc, etc - committed by the Western ruling classes.
As i say, just look at yourselves, and have a think.
Perhaps your argument would have credibility if it were not for the fact that the SWP regularly engages in smear campaigns. Take, for example, this week's front page of Socialist Worker, which is a gross distortion of the truth: http://
www.socialistworker.co.uk...article_id=8411
Notable is the deliberate confusion between the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and the Iraq-based Kurdish Democratic Party. The DPIK did not support the invasion of Iraq as it feared that if KDP gained power in Iraqi Kurdistan its operations in that region would be closed down. The DPIK is not royalist, but actually fought the Shah and supports the creation of a federal republic with an elected presidency. It opposes a US invasion of Iran advocating instead internal social forces. The DPIK is a centre-left party and a member of the Socialist International.
I trust that you SWP cadre will insist that SW issues an apology and a correction in its next edition.
Secondly, SW states that Iran has a "right to fear US and British troops on its borders" due to bombs in Khuzestan. It is the common belief among opponents of the Iranian regime and even some in the reformist camp that the bombs are the work of the Basij. For instance, Mustafa Moin stated that the June 2005 attacks were probably the work of those seeking the election of a military candidate. The SWP has, however, chosen to reprint Iranian propaganda without looking at alternative explanations. Perhaps next week it will print the other side of the story, for the sake of balance, of course.
"The Kurdish people in Iranian Kurdistan and PDKI played an active part in the Iranian people's uprising against the Shah's dictatorship. A group of PDKI leaders, who were living in exile either in neighbouring countries or in Europe, returned to Iran before the collapse of the monarchy, actively participating in the uprising of the Kurdish people and assuming the status of leadership in the movement." http://www.pdki.org/articles.php...id=25&
cat_id=18
The DPIK did not support the invasion of Iraq as it feared that if KDP gained power in Iraqi Kurdistan its operations in that region would be closed down.
The article says it supports the occupation of Iraq, not the invasion. (cf. the miserable Iraqi Communist Party position.)
The DPIK is not royalist...
The article doesn't say that it is.
It opposes a US invasion of Iran advocating instead internal social forces.
The point the article is attempting to make is that (unwittingly or not)the support it provides for "internal social forces" is offering a convenient cover for US invasion. This is the crux of the matter.
The DPIK is a centre-left party and a member of the Socialist International.
So is New Labour.
(Advice: first read what you're attempting to criticise.)
Meaders: Perhaps the author of the SW article needs to revisit the original FT article, on the basis of which s/he has made the claims.
Firstly, the Socialist Worker misquotes the original FT article, which specifically refers to the "Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan" and not the Iraq-based "Kurdish Democratic Party". Both parties were at war with one another at one point, so it is disingenuous to conflate the two and suggest the PDKI supported the occupation of Iraq (are invasion and occupation different things?),
Secondly, the FT article did not claim that separatist groups were being bankrolled by Washington. It quotes Reuel Gerecht, a former CIA specialist on the Middle East, as saying that the State Department was "'nowhere near the point' of trying to use separatist tendencies among minorities as traction against the Tehran regime."
Thirdly, the FT article makes no mention of royalists being interviewed by the Marines. This is an SWP invention. The SW also puts royalists and the PDKI in the same bracket, when in fact they are opposing groups who despise each other. The royalists are known for their racism and Aryan chauvinism and would never collaborate with the PDKI.
The crux of the matter is that the SWP is choosing to adopt the Iranian regime's propaganda campaign against ethnic resistance to Tehran. Not only that, it is embellishing the mullahs' claims with unfounded assumptions.
As of Wednesday morning, the English page on the El Khabar website has not published a correction. It still has Galloway claiming that the cartoons are worse than acts of mass murder, and that thee are no mosques in Denmark.
But that page also contains several grammatical blunders, indicating that the paper's staff do not have a full grasp of English. The most likely explanation must be that Galloway was interviewed in English, translated into Arabic, and then re-translated back into English - losing some of his original meaning along the way.
Although I loathe Galloway's politics, I cannot believe he would be so crazed as to declare publicly that a few cartoons are a more serious crime than flying planes into skyscrpers or blowing up the London underground.
But it is entirely possible to believe the "no mosques in Denmark" claim - someone who is prepared to imitate a cat on prime time television would surely have no scruples about repeating third hand gossip for which he has no evidence at all.
The matter can, however, only be settled by a full transcript of the original tape of the interview.
Paul: There is no "grand" mosque in Denmark, ie none with minarets and a dome. This is a grievance of many Danish Muslims. However, there are mosques in Denmark, the oldest being an Ahmadiyya mosque in Hvidovre. Muslim cultural buildings exist, including the Ahwaz Centre in Copenhagen.
El Khabar states "George Galloway affirms adding that Denmark is the only country in Europe, and in the world, where there is still racism." I find it hard to believe that Galloway would make such a claim.
http://www.elkhabar.com/FrEn/lir...da=20313&
idc=52
The statements also appear in the site's French version: "Le Musulman a bien donc le droit d'exprimer sa colère, et de défendre ses droits et sa religion, affirme-t-il avant d'ajouter que le Danemark est le seule pays en Europe, voire dans le monde, à pratiquer encore le racisme, et le système de l'émigration dans ce pays et le pire qui peut exister dans le monde. D'ailleurs, il n'y a pas une seule mosquée sur le territoire danois, confirme-t-il." Obviously, the French translation was not so hot either.
The French translation merely repeats the errors (if that is indeed what they are) in the original article. It's very bizarre: there are claims in there that no one but an ostrich could believe Galloway would make (like the one you isolate) and yet some people hoover it up like sick puppies.
Lenin: Agreed on the issue of errors in the El Khabar article, but what is the reason for the errors in the SW article on Iran? How likely is it that SW will print a correction next week?
Warszawa--
Chapter and verse?
>Your "dialectic" is up your arse, so you are not justified in yammering; therefore: develop a sense of shame and join a Trappist monastery.<
Strangely, that was something that you typed.
As for the portmanteau word, "Islamofascism," it unfortunately does accurately denote a real movement in the real world. Along with the Protocols OTEOZ, "Mein Kampf" (translated into Arabic, let us hope, with fewer errors than the various reports of what Galloway said)remains continuously in print and very popular throughout the Arab world, and there is in some quarters a desire to restore the Caliphate and to bring outside Muslim communities under shari'a law.
How to explain the popularity of "Mein Kampf"? I expect that it has something to do with the Jews.
D - I haven't had the chance to fully check what you're saying, but I suspect on the first point, the author has unintentionally created confusion by referring to the Kurdish Democratic Party. The PDKI is often also known as the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, so I expect that's where this mix-up comes from. As to whether they supported the occupation, my assumption is that the author of the piece gathers this from the article in which the PDKI representative avers that Kurds supported the occupation of Iraq (although they wouldn't do the same over Iran). This could be a mistaken interpretation, I don't know enough about the PDKI to say. The fact that it's a member of the SI doesn't tell us much: so is the PUK, and it supported the invasion and occupation (it is possible to distinguish between the two, of course: the ICP opposed the invasion, but now support the occupation). I think you also said that the FT article didn't mention funding for the sects, but in fact it did say Bush was going to devote millions of dollars to the promotion of democracy in Iran, and in the context of the article it certainly looks like that money would go to separatist groups. You suggest that the comment from an AEI associate militates against that, but it's only his view. We aren't obliged to lick his boots and take what he says at face value. There is plenty of other internal evidence in the FT article which suggests that the US will be trying to use separatist groups (along, I suppose, with other opposition forces). The fact that it is Marine Intelligence that is procuring this info, and that such a procedure is usually allied to a desire to mount a ground invasion is surely deeply deeply worrying and obviously suggestive of Washington's intentions.
I know you raised a couple of other matters, but I'll have to get back to you on those as I've got to pretend to be working in a minute.
As for the portmanteau word, "Islamofascism," it unfortunately does accurately denote a real movement in the real world
No, not in any sensible understanding of either fascism or Islam. There are certainly very reactionary strains of Political Islam, but the 'Islamofascism' mytheme operates within a decidedly useless discursive field known as 'totalitarianism':
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...fining-f-
t.html
http://leninology.blogspot.com/
2...alidocious.html
Regarding the State Department funding issue, there is no provision for funding minority parties. See Rooz On-Line's take on this: http://roozonline.com/11english/...sh/
014270.shtml (Rooz is run by ultra-reformists in Iran).
The overwhelming majority of the funding will go into Voice of America, which broadcasts only in Farsi and is indeed run by royalists. The Kurds and others have serious misgivings about this as Radio Farda takes much the same position as the regime on ethnic minorities, sometimes far worse. The US is in thrall to the monarchists and as such as a Tehran-centric viewpoint. My understanding is that many minority activists are eager to speak to anyone who will listen in order to change attitudes towards Iran to gain greater acknowledgement of the country's non-Persian minorities. Perhaps naively, they spoke to Hill and Associates who were contracted to conduct research for the Pentagon without understanding the full implications. I don't think these groups have any information of tactical value that is not already in the public domain.
The FT quoted Mauri Esfandiari, US representative of the PDKI, as saying: "Iran will become democratic only if it is built by the Iranians. The democracy movement is strong enough to find its way without military struggle."
This quotation was left out of the SWP article and instead the author implied that the PDKI was in some way in favour of US military action in the Middle East. The article is highly selective about the facts and also adds its own fictions.
I would like to see SW back up the following statements with evidence:
- "Marines produce road map to ethnic strife": the FT never said this, who is saying this?
- "Washington bankrolls separatist groups": the Ahwaz Human Rights Organisation states in the article that it does not receive funding from the US government (nor is it a separatist organisation)
- "As with the planning for the war in Iraq, the Pentagon has recruited exiles to help with its survey.": There is no suggestion in the FT article that the exiles it quotes have been recruited by the Pentagon. On what basis is the SW making this claim?
- "A similar group of Iraqi exiles told the Bush administration that US soldiers would be welcome when they invaded, and fed them false information about weapons of mass destruction.": Yes, the Iranian double agent Ahmad Chilabi sought out US officials to construct a case for war and invasion. The groups interviewed by the FT are against US military action in Iran.
- "Many groups representing Iran’s minorities refused to cooperate with the study because they fear the US is planning to break up the country." But the FT aricle actually states "The Financial Times interviewed several Iranians in the US who were invited to help. Some refused, seeing it as part of an effort to break up Iran. However several exiled politicians representing minority groups opposed to the Islamic regime did agree to take part, although they said they wanted a peaceful transition to a democratic, federal Iran and were opposed to any US military action." So where is the evidence to support the author's claims that minority groups refused to take part in the survey because they were afraid it would lead to a break-up of Iran? In fact, the FT is quite clear. Those who participated are against military action and separatism.
"Marines produce road map to ethnic strife": the FT never said this, who is saying this
I'm sorry, but that is exactly what is entailed by gathering evidence in order to use separatist movements and identities to cause disruption in Iran.
"Washington bankrolls separatist groups"
Again, the article discusses how Washington is going to be dishing out millions of dollars as part of its 'pro-democracy' campaign in Iran. The context of the article makes it clear that this money would be used to solicit separatist groups.
"As with the planning for the war in Iraq, the Pentagon has recruited exiles to help with its survey.": There is no suggestion in the FT article that the exiles it quotes have been recruited by the Pentagon.
But that is exactly what has happened - they have been 'recruited' to help with a survey. That is what the sense of the SW statement is, and that is what has happened.
Yes, the Iranian double agent Ahmad Chilabi sought out US officials to construct a case for war and invasion. The groups interviewed by the FT are against US military action in Iran
The FT only spoke to a handful of them, for Christ's sake. Do you doubt that there are Iranian exiles who favour US invasion? And that the US is soliciting these people?
"Many groups representing Iran’s minorities refused to cooperate with the study because they fear the US is planning to break up the country." But the FT aricle actually states "The Financial Times interviewed several Iranians in the US who were invited to help. Some refused, seeing it as part of an effort to break up Iran"
In other words, the SW article actually quoted directly from the FT article and did so accurately.
In fact, the FT is quite clear. Those who participated are against military action and separatism.
There's the clue right there: "Those who participated". Since SW's statement is about those who did not participate, your counter-assertion doesn't really work as answer to what's written in it.
"The context of the article makes it clear that this money would be used to solicit separatist groups." On what basis? The State Department has not said that it intends to support separatist groups. Most of the money requested is going towards Farsi-language media projects, which are neither separatist nor particularly aligned to any one particular party, although Radio Farda is evidently run by royalists. I suggest you study the State Department's funding proposal in greater depth. Certainly, the reformists in Iran who are opposed to US interference are not saying that the money will be used to fund separatist groups: http://roozonline.com/11english/...sh/
014270.shtml
"Do you doubt that there are Iranian exiles who favour US invasion? And that the US is soliciting these people?"
I know that none of the groups mentioned in the article are in favour of a US invasion, so how did SW come up with that claim? Where is the proof?
"In other words, the SW article actually quoted directly from the FT article and did so accurately."
I am sorry you are unable to distinguish the subtle differences between the SW and the FT. The SW is saying that minority parties refused to participate due to their fear that it would assist in the break-up of Iran. This is not what the FT said. The original article made no mention of minorities refusing to participate, only Iranian exiles. That could be anyone. Most likely it was the royalists, who have tried to silence any attempt to create a critique based on minority rights.
Do you accept that the minority groups interviewed by the organisation contracted to research ethnicity in Iran are not the same as the (unnamed) separatist groups the SW is alleging the US is bankrolling as part of an invasion plan? If so, do you agree that the SW should clarify its statements and that it should back up its assertions with some hard facts?
still no correction
Lenin doesn't seem to know any Arabic speakers.
Strange for a man who give the impression that those who attack him are scared of "brown people"
still no correction
no correction needed
Do you think the SW will correct the serious mistakes in its front page article? Somehow I don't think so. The SWP is a lackey of the Iranian regime.
The two most important dead frogs you have to swallow to join the Decent Left are:
1) to treat small-time demagogues in underdeveloped nations as if they were A THREAT TO THE WEST OMG (which you can only do if you believe that ideas in people's heads are more important than material reality);
2) to make a conscious decision to line up with THE WEST against this imaginary threat.
I actually prefer the Sparts to the Decent Left. Abusive, kiddy-bothering loonies they may be, but at least they understand that the main enemy is always at home.
Do you think the SW will correct the serious mistakes in its front page article?
No mistakes to correct.
Anonymous: The SWP never makes mistakes. The SWP is perfect. The SWP is the vanguard of the workers. The people saying this 70 years ago were called Nazis.
Dan,
If I didn't know any better I could swear that your main interest is in destroying and breaking up Iran as a nation and you're using "minority rights" as a front.
I mean, it's most curious that you've latched on to this as your pet issue and are riding it for all it's worth, right at a time when USrael clearly has Iran in its sights.
Just asking, but are the interests of Khuzistani Arabs really what you're concerned about? Really? Because I do occasionally read your posts here and you have a habit of getting really testy when certain topics are posted or commented on.
I'll state my opinion on this once again. Persian chauvinism and racism is something that has always repelled me and made me sick to my stomach. Whether it's coming from my friends or relatives, or "respected democratic intellectuals" (some of whom are also quite favored by the U.S. gov't, for whom their vicious anti-Arab racism and their visceral hatred for Muslims and Islamic culture are positives)
But I'll be damned if "minority rights" is going to be wielded as a weapon in the coming war against Iran without me saying anything about it.
In any war, Khuzestan will be the ultimate prize because of its natural resources, and quite clearly fostering ethnic separatism and discontent at this point in time serves the interest of those who wish to give Iran the Iraq treatment.
And Azerbaijani separatists are just... scum. I can never understand the motivations of people like this. Once again, for the record, THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION OF ANY SORT AGAINST AZERBAIJANIS IN IRAN. Other than "Turkish jokes" that is. Azeris make up a third of Iran's population and are represented in all social classes. They are as far removed from a persecuted and disenfranchised minority group as one can get. Ulama, government officials, doctors, teachers, business owners, farmers, whatever. The very idea is ridiculous.
As for the Kurds? Well, clearly they've decided that USrael is going to be their sugar daddy and will finally help them to realize their revanchist dreams of a Greater Kurdistan. Good luck with that guys. You'll need it once your beloved liberators are no longer around.
Dan,
Just so there's no confusion.
I'm questioning your sincerity, your honesty and your intentions.
Darius: Why not deal with the questions raised rather than making baseless accusations? And who is wielding a minority rights as a justification for war? The Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan states quite clearly in the original FT article that it believe Iran's democracy movement is a matter for Iranians alone and did not need military intervention. And I certainly have never made the case for separatism for any group. I have never, ever made the case for Azeri separatism and neither the FT nor the SW articles even mention it, so why bring it up? Bizarre! You are creating a strawman to hide the inadequacies of the SWP's argument. I question your sincerity. You would far rather have talk of minority rights quashed in an effort to bolster the argument that the mullahs are "not that bad". Clearly, there is a problem in Khuzestan and you don't deny this. The Ahwazi Arabs don't have rich mummies and daddies who fled to the West as soon as the proles got stroppy. What do you think should be done about it? Pick your nose and dream of revolution?
"But I'll be damned if "minority rights" is going to be wielded as a weapon in the coming war against Iran without me saying anything about it."
And who are you and why are you more important that anyone else?
Mauri Esfandiari, US representative of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan which ended its armed struggle in 1997 and is based mostly in northern Iraq, ... told the FT ... The US could not look to the Kurds to support an invasion as they did in Iraq, he said. "Iran will become democratic only if it is built by the Iranians. The democracy movement is strong enough to find its way without military struggle," he said.
several exiled politicians representing minority groups opposed to the Islamic regime ... said they wanted a peaceful transition to a democratic, federal Iran and were opposed to any US military action.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/
ed43693...00779e2340.html
"Ahwazi activists have called on the international community to seek ways of preventing further state violence and human rights abuses. However, they stress that the Ahwazi cause should not be used to justify military intervention in Iran. Ahwazis say they need a voice at an international level and do not want a return to the dark days of the Iran-Iraq War when their homeland attacked with chemical and biological weapons by the warring Iraqi and Iranian forces."
http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/03/...-
following.html
It's funny how the SWP chooses which facts to ignore and misrepresent. The truth is that no minority group wants a war. Do you think they are so stupid that they want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq? Do you really think they wish to be seen as conspiring with the US and go the way of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq? Of course not, but the SWP doesn't want to broach the issue of ethnic oppression or the role of ethnic minorities in the struggle against the Islamic Republic. And why is that? Is it some kind of sympathy for the regime? Is it a case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend"? Or is it just to appease the Islamists they have chosen to ally with?
I wrote a letter to your Socialist Worker in response to the misreporting of the FT article. They did not respond, failed to correct their mistakes and did not publish my letter. What a bunch of arrogant obnoxious compulsive liars you people are.
Commenting by HaloScan
