BBC Blog Network

User Profile

rdrake98

Listed below are comments made by rdrake98 between Friday, 13th February 2009 and Thursday, 12th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Sensible caution or more dithering? 06:09am on 12 Nov 2009 Barack Obama certainly takes his time over this kind of decision. And the leaking of the letter from Karl Eikenberry may be his way of undermining General McChrystal, which would not in my view bode well. However, the honest answer is that we don't know how good Obama is at this kind of very difficult judgment, and then at sticking to whatever he does decide, even if it makes him unpopular in some quarters - something President Bush was good at, whatever his other faults. Unlike Bush, Obama's not had much - in fact, make that no - executive experience before being made President of the United States. Quite a step of faith by the American people. Even then, we wouldn't really know. Give the difficulty and the importance of the issue, including for our own troops, who are generally very supportive of General McChrystal and his latest counter-insurgency strategy, I'd still give the President the benefit of the doubt. And pray for him. Decreasing corruption at the centre has to part of the process, to be sure. If he can pull that off and improve the military situation as well, he may even show the Nobel prize committee to be prescient.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 12:35pm on 16 Feb 2009 Same questions to you, NewFazer. Do you agree with the ban on Wilders? If so, would you like to give one example of someone attacking Christianity, but not advocating violence, who you would also wish to see banned? Even a hypothetical example. If that is difficult for you to come up with, why do you think that it is so difficult? How is that fair?

I'm not interested in anything else. That has been true from the start of my contribution in the early hours of Friday. It was not me that first mentioned the Holocaust. But I am, genuinely, incredibly shocked, as someone non-Jewish who has read just a little of the relevant scholarship in my 51 years, that such revisionism and denial is tolerated in a Newsnight forum that had nothing to do with such subjects until they were raised.

I'm not imposing what you can talk about here. What I am trying to highlight are the consequences.

If Newsnight is happy with your and JadedJean's extremely off-topic and extremely offensive contributions, it just means that many with more conventional people - the Saul Friedlander's of this world, who have written with scrupulous scholarship of these horrific events - would not dream of engaging in debate here.

Nor me. After this time, after I give up on this thread, I think it highly unlikely that I will ever contribute to a Newsnight blog again.

Just making that public. Not because I'm the least interested in your reaction to that fact. Because I am very interested in the bosses of Newsnight facing up to the real and deep problem that they have developed in their blogs, through much too lenient and narrow a view of moderation.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 11:54pm on 15 Feb 2009 One wrong assumption I longer make, that I was talking to someone who accepted that Eichmann was a murderer. No, says brave revisionist JadedJean, the man didn't murder anyone. Although he did arrange some transports.

Let's look at it from the point of view of someone on those transports, say one of the early ones, who genuinely believes that she is going to be resettled, albeit forcibly, by some very unsympathetic, violent people, with her infant children.

As she enters the 'showers' and feels the poison gas starting kill her, her screaming children and all around her ... would she in her last cries of despair and terror think of dear old Eichmann sitting at his desk as mere East European equivalent of a functionary for the Great Western Railways?

We've found one place we differ. How dare anyone write such a thing in 2009. How dare anyone on the Newsnight blog allow it to be posted as if it had anything - and I mean anything at all - to do with the case of Geert Wilders.

Make your case that Eichmann didn't harm a fly elsewhere. We don't want to hear it here, nor should we be made to. It's an utter disgrace - but perhaps it shows how low these blogs have sunk since I last tried to contribute here two or three years ago

I don't know much about Wilders' background. I grant you that. Your early reference to Wikipedia reminded me that he was friendly towards Israel, as if that was immensely significant. I already knew it and it wouldn't have surprised me in any case. But it makes no difference at all as to whether Fitna is a reasoned, albeit flawed, contribution to debate in the UK or something so bad that it should cause the first banning of a fellow-EU MP since the beginnings of the EEC in the mid 1950s.

You can judge all of what is important in this case from Fitna itself, the verses of the Koran it uses, the footage of Islamic extremists that apply those verses today, with their translations, and the terrible atrocities committed across the world in line with that teaching.

I don't deny for a moment that there are some in Israel who would like people in Europe to take a more realistic view, as they see it, of the utterly ruthless nature of Islamic extremism. I don't have a problem with them supporting Wilders for precisely that reason. But even if they didn't it would make no difference at all to any point at issue, one way or the other.

The key issue is whether Wilders' arguments have some validity or no merit at all. If they have no merit, is his film is so framed that it is a direct incitement to violence against Muslims and thus the breakdown of the social order in the UK, based on total and vile lies?

Lies, perhaps, like the one that Adolf Eichmann only made the trains run on time.

If Fitna was full of that kind of excrement, and was in addition likely to stir up violence, I would at least have some sympathy with the decision to ban its maker, although I doubt even then I would support such an extreme measure, unless the person concerned directly advocated violence.

None of those conditions hold. But you learn a lot about some measures from their supporters. I strongly advise Jacqui Smith to watch out. JadedJean is already in full agreement. Eichmann himself presumably would deeply appreciate the sympathetic words and resolute actions of the both of you.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 7:35pm on 15 Feb 2009 I believe it's possible to gain something useful from pretty much any criticism. I want to finish then by thanking you for pointing out something that injudiciously worded in my last post, to apologise for the reference to Eichmann in an earlier post that was (I assume for that reason) censored after a complaint to the moderators (#52) and to make a final point.

Last time instead of dealing with the main thrust of my argument you fastened on my use of the word belief in

"... you have been ready to assume lots about my beliefs ..."

This was helpful correction, because beliefs was really shorthand not just for convictions but also current interests and past areas of study. In everything you have written here you have addressed me and in giving me advice on what you read and study you have implied knowledge of my attitudes, including the fact that I have never looked at certain opposing attitudes. You're not even roughly right in your assumptions. For that reason I think you should give up trying to assume anything apart from what you find on the page here. That was what I was trying to say to you in my preamble last time. Thank you for pointing out (albeit obliquely) that my choice of the word beliefs was not adequate.

I'd like to follow up with an apology for likening you to Eichmann. Not of course that I thought for a moment you were, like him, capable of mass murder. What I was saying is that you seemed calm and reasonable and so did he. (He wasn't one for histrionics, as far as I've read.) The other link of course was that I thought that in every word you have written here there was a strong stench of anti-semitism. But when you complained about the use of Eichmann's name to the moderators it went through my mind that you may yourself be Jewish. For I have come across certain strongly anti-zionist Jews who seem to feel that the evil forces behind zionism are capable of vast deception and wrongdoing. The situation here put me in mind of this. Though your apparent calmness and rationality in taking a very anti-semitic point of view of what is to everyone else I'm sure a completely separable area of debate, I sincerely apologise if this one point caused you hurt or offence. Other than that I still think it was a fair point. With apparant reasonableness at all times you point to evil Jewish influence as the explanation for everything you consider wrong. This is not only not strictly irrelevant to the key issue of freedom of expression, it's a horrible thing to encounter and then feel one has to counter, in case one is taken as agreeing with such a foul idea. I still feel all of that. But, again, I'm sorry if the mention of Eichmann was offensive to you because of the barbarities that that that anti-semite proved capable of, that I am in no way implying that I know you to be capable of. For I know nothing of you except what you have written on this page, just as I assume is the same as you read me.

So, after all that even longer preamble ... I note once again you don't address the key question of who else you would ban from the UK. But you still firmly agree with the government ban on Wilders. So, arbitrary decisions it is, with no known basis at all, whether in law or morality. That part, I'm confident will be clear for all to see, is far from rational. And that's where I'm happy to leave it.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 4:26pm on 14 Feb 2009 I didn't say anything was taboo. I said one thing, real or imaginary, was not as fundamental and the question of freedom of speech and equality and fairness within that.

Let me assume (without looking) that you are yourself Jewish, and that you take the view that all terrorism ascribed to Muslims in the last twenty years has in fact been perpetrated by evil people from the West, aided and abetted by certain powerful and very evil Jews.

Let's just say that describes you. (As you have been ready to assume lots about my beliefs that seems very fair for me to do with you.)

I fully support your right to believe all of this. I fully support your right to go on endlessly about it on Newsnight blogs, if that's what you like to do.

I still say it's all totally irrelevant to the point at issue, that was raised so well by Kirsty Wark, Maajid Sawaz and Jay Smith on Thursday evening and handled so badly by Keith Vaz.

I don't think that you (or anyone like the person I describe above) should be censored in the UK or banned from the UK, even if Jewish people wanted that.

What I want to know is why you think Geert Wilders should be banned. What would be even better would be to have an other example, someone with a different belief system, preferably an anti-Christian one, but who does not advocate violence, who you also think should be banned from the UK on precisely the same basis as Geert Wilders.

Thanks for your understanding. I will read your answer but not your other writings. Sorry about that. You've not convinced me that I will learn anything of value because of what you've written here so far. But if you are willing to address the point I consider central, then that would be extremely interesting. If not, I sincerely hope you don't influence too many of your fellow subjects/citizens but I wish you well in all other areas.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 3:11pm on 14 Feb 2009 JadedJean, I suggest you take a far more critical view of why you refuse to answer a question that affects everyone in the UK, that Thursday's show raised extremely well and that has nothing whatever to do with Jewish conspiracy, real or imagined, because it far more fundamental than that.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 00:54am on 14 Feb 2009 Jaded, the reason I say the Jewish issue is beside the point is that it was not raised by anyone, positive or negative. What was raised, initially by Kirsty, leading to an extremely fruitful discussion, was the difference between someone like Wilders who criticises the Koran and the many in this country who are happy each year to criticise the Bible and/or the Jesus revealed there. Jay Smith, on behalf of Christians like myself (and surely almost all of us these days), said that nobody wants to see such material censored. This was in stark contrast to Keith Vaz's position on Fitna. Indeed Vaz tried to say in response to Wark's questioning that similar works against the Bible would also (or should also?) be banned. But the words were hollow because we all known this never happens and indeed we as Christians don't want that to happen, any more than the Secular Society does. It was this difference between the Muslim situation and the Christian one that was so striking. It has to be the same standard for all. Jews included, of course, as and when that becomes relevant.

It's fine to look beneath the surface once you have shown that you've listened to the extremely important matter on the surface. You apparent inability to face up to this truly revelatory matter is why I responded as I did. That plus in these days of a so-called 'next great depression', like the 30s - and in Europe - I find the ability of some to blame the Jews for every perceived and even imaginary ill far from healthy.

But to the point. Did you agree that works attacking the Bible should not be censored? Do you even have a view on this? How do you square that with your agreement with the banning of Wilders, allowing open debate of his film criticising the Islamist interpretation of the Koran that has clearly led to horrific murder all across the world?
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 5:44pm on 13 Feb 2009 #30-40, sorry, no time to read the links, the debate here seems way out of step with the majority UK view of the ban on Geert Wilders. I strongly defend your right to express your view, of course. But I find veering off onto Jewish issues very distasteful, a deliberate and cynical missing of the point.

Incitement to violence is illegal, whatever ethnic or religious group the person might hail from. Crucially, Wilders does not come under that category. Last night's discussion really got to grips with that for the first time that I've seen on the mainstream media. Very well done to the makers and presenter for that, once again.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 10:52am on 13 Feb 2009 Jaded, your ridiculous Jewish conspiracy theories have nothing whatever to do with it. Are Kirsty and the very articulate Muslim on the panel, who both quite rightly gave Keith Vaz a hard time for supporting the banning of a film he hadn't even seen, also in the pay of the Zionists? I know for sure Jay Smith isn't.

This for me is the worst possible reaction to your side losing the argument - going into race hate and global conspiracy ideas infected by race hate to show that YOU are the real victims. As the life story of Hitler shows, from his time of disappointment in Vienna onwards, we should watch people extremely carefully who take this easy way out of some genuinely difficult areas. Such denial doesn't just end in tears - it can end in mass murder of whole peoples.

Let's stick to the very important issues raised yesterday for this country, thanks.
Thursday, 12 February, 2009 03:08am on 13 Feb 2009 Got in late and decided to see what had been shown vis-a-vis Geert Wilders.

Total respect, Newsnight and Kirsty. I have worked with Jay Smith at Speakers Corner and have felt for years that his is a voice that needs to be much more widely heard. Jay debates with radical Muslims most days of the week and he really knows what he is talking about. But he always does so with respect and love in his heart. He would never dream or resorting to violence or threatening this, because the Jesus that he follows expressly forbids this.

But also well done Kirsty for showing astonishment that Keith Vaz hadn't even seen the film Fitna. That was a priceless moment. The whole of the debate was easily the most informed, positive and healthy that I've seen, read or heard in the UK media.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

rdrake98