Guardian

A decade on, the Guardian Hadith remains…


10 years have passed since the greatest terrorist atrocity in history. A decade is a long time. In a decade our kids look different, they pass from one stage of life to another.

In a decade, we become experienced in whatever we do professionally. We garner credibility and experience which grants us wisdom and we even may reconsider some our our past follies in light of the new experiences. We grow, we enlighten.  The alternative is aging bitterly, succumbing to dogmatic entropy where self reflection is absent and the blame game is ever growing according to the new Democratic Party
 
The Guardian didn’t grow, didn’t evolve. 
 
 The Guardian re-asserted its defense of Islamic grievances, its dislike of any effort made by America to counter the terror and the ideology which produces the terror, Islamism. 
 
As the anniversary approached they rolled out their worse offenders. Seumas Milne was back defending his post 911 essay which blamed the attacks on the West. 
 
They also invited Inayat Bunglawala to contribute to an anniversary piece. This guy called Osama a “good Muslim” not long before the attacks and has been representing an organization which not only defended terrorists but also supplied the ideological indoctrination to British Muslims, the MCB. 
 
Mehdi Hasan was also staged once more, lecturing us about tolerance despite a dozen videos outing him as a hateful fanatic and bigot who calls non Muslims dogs and cattle.

Or George Galloway who is nothing more than the 21 Century version of Oswald Mosley, being the propaganda agent of a hostile regime, one, like the one Mosley promoted, planning another (or as they would say the first and only) final solution to the Jewish problem. 

 

I stumbled upon a post in CIF by  Edward Said which appeared on Sept 16th 2001. Edward Said is the guru of the so called progressive left when it comes to dealing with the affairs of the Middle East, Islam and the supposedly American / Western/ Zionist inspired clash of civilizations. 

Said was a great influence on Barack Obama and he embodies the Guardian World View where Israel, its lobbies and American capitalism are the causes of terrorism emanating from an “oppressed” Muslim street which is a victim of imperialism, Zionism and American capitalism. 

 Obama removed references to terrorism and radical Islam from the 911 ceremonies.  

 Said wrote in 2001: 

You’d think that ‘America’ was a sleeping giant rather than a superpower almost constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic domains. Osama bin Laden’s name and face have become so numbingly familiar to Americans as in effect to obliterate any his tory he and his shadowy followers might have had before they became stock symbols of everything loathsome and hateful to the collective imagination. Inevitably, then, collective passions are being funnelled into a drive for war that uncannily resembles Captain Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick, rather than what is going on, an imperial power injured at home for the first time, pursuing its interests systematically in what has become a suddenly reconfigured geography of conflict, without clear borders, or visible actors. Manichaean symbols and apocalyptic scenarios are bandied about with future consequences and rhetorical restraint thrown to the winds.

Rational understanding of the situation is what is needed now, not more drum-beating. George Bush and his team clearly want the latter, not the former. Yet to most people in the Islamic and Arab worlds the official US is synonymous with arrogant power, known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements and people who have real grievances. Anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy: it is based on a narrative of concrete interventions, specific depredations and, in the cases of the Iraqi people’s suffering under US-imposed sanctions and US support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel is now cynically exploiting the American catastrophe by intensifying its military occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. Political rhetoric in the US has overridden these things by flinging about words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘freedom’ whereas, of course, such large abstractions have mostly hidden sordid material interests, the influence of the oil, defence and Zionist lobbies now consolidating their hold on the entire Middle East, and an age-old religious hostility to (and ignorance of) ‘Islam’ that takes new forms every day.

These paragraphs say it all. As if no other creative writer ever existed at the Guardian. Said is the prophet and the rest of the contributors must only repeat versions of his visions. 

Most writings on this conflict are, in one way or another versions of this narrative. This is the Hadith the Guardinistas quote day after day. Like Pakistani children sitting on the floors of Madrassas, they chant these passages only changing the order by which lines follow each other. 

America, arrogant, Zionism, lobbies, oil, Palestine, children of Iraq, children of Afghanistan (no mention of these children under Saddam and the Taliban), imperialism, colonialism, capitalism. The next day its Israel, America, imperialism, arrogant, Palestine, lobbies, Iraq, Afghanistan….you get the idea…

As if in a trance or in some Pavlovian experiment, these ideas and theories persist despite the world turning over to new chapters of history. 

A decade has passed, yet no maturity, no self reflection, no remorse, no rethinking. The text and its dogma are sacred. Like the Koran which cannot be amended, re-interpreted as that would be sacrilege. The Guardian is like the Muslim street. Never would it re-assess its views or its mistakes or see things even in a slightly different light. It merely re-asserts its demands and view which blame everything on the civilization under attack by its co-religionists.  

In this decade we saw more terror attacks. London, Madrid, Bali, Fort Hood, the attacks on Synagogues in Turkey, the attempts at more mayhem in the skies using liquid bombs and plots against the NY subway and the Frankfurt airport. We saw more “militants” in their videos calling for the world wide caliphate, sharia and the re-conquest of Spain and Palestine under the Ummah. Yet at the Guardian the attackers are us. We are the colonizers, we are the zionists and oppressors. No facts, no history will change that.

A religious dogma is defined as an unchangeable set of ideas transcending the tracks of time. They survive despite and not because of the changes in time. At the Guardian we are dealing with a religious dogma. A dogma which infused the Saidian version of history with the sour grapes hatred of capitalism in light of the fall of the communist block. The total rejection of the totalitarian imposed righteousness was the year 1989. The Guardian still didn’t acknowledge that. It still tries to depict the yearning for freedom by Eastern Europeans as a result of imperialist plots drawn up in the back rooms of MI5 or the CIA.  In Islamism they found another righteous totalitarianism. Another totalitarianism which claims to fight for the oppressed. Though just like the USSR in its days, it is the most imperialist of ideologies around today. The Guardian is the place where atheists can become Islamists.

Just like during the Cold War when Anglo Saxons have proudly allied with the nastiest Russian Pan Slavic nationalism (Stalinism as others may know it) at the Guardian today we see Anglo Saxon Islamists. People who are not Muslims but subscribe to the ideological goals and myths of Islamism. Ignorant of the texts upon which their new allies founded their hateful vision, the Guardinistas fight on for their cause like the loyal little Communists under the pay of Moscow during the Cold War, attacking the institutions and ideas of liberty and freedom. 
They merely see it through their own selfish prisms which have been formulated during the Cold War or during their spoiled middle class childhoods where disappointment in a selfish demand resulted in a nihilistic hatred of the one denying the demands. 
“What I cannot have I will destroy” is the real motivation behind the “modern leftist”.
A decade has passed since 911. There are soldiers today in Iraq and Afghanistan who were children on that day. They played with toys, watched cartoons and wondered why their parents were glued to the TV for so many days following that evil morning. Today they are fighting the war which was launched by these attacks. They have grown, they have matured and they are aware of what we are facing.
Yet at the Guardian – 
We saw more hate, more obfuscation and lies. Some blatantly repeated like Simon Jenkinswho claimed Palestinian solidarity with America on 911 despite decades of video evidence showing Palestinians handing out sweets and chanting in euphoria learning of the fall of the WTC.  We see the same dogma not rejected or even questioned, but alive and well, ready to poison the intellectual space for another decade. In that decade kids born in 2001 will be adults. Those who lived through it will be even more wiser.
I fear that the Guardian staff will still be like those Pakistani children chanting on the floors of Madrassas repeating the same passages: America, Arrogant, Zionism, Lobbies, Capitalism, Imperialism, racism and Palestine…

44 replies »

  1. I’m all for skewering the Guardian, but foolish rants like this don’t help Israel’s cause.

    “[Obama’s] administration is among the most dishonest in history.”

    I’d call that among the most ignorant comments in history, but I know there’s a lot more where it came from. If CiF Watch wants to consign support for Israel to a right-wing ghetto, stupid and completely extraneous Obama bashing (and the like) is a good way to achieve that end.

    • No. The Obama administration is very dishonest.

      It has, in its bosom, a number of hard lefties who have the ear of the president. Yet they stay out of the limelight.

      Obama was a mistake.

      The US has cleansed itself to a large extent of racial prejudice by electing Obama but has made a tragic mistake in terms of economic and foreign policy.

      He will be a one term president.

      My problem is that the reaction to The Obama’s failure may be an idiot far right wing President. However, there is still hope that the Republican candidate will be center-right.

      As for The Guardian. Every time I read one of its editorials, I realise that it is ‘too far gone’. It is a propaganda organ more than a newspaper.

      Its editors really have lost touch and believe that they are ‘educating’ the public. But people don’t buy or read a newspaper to be ‘educated’.

    • How precisely is this a “foolish rant”? The Alchemist hits the nail squarely on the head so far as I am concerned.

      Has the Guardian changed its approach from its scurrilous thoughts-as-facts propaganda to reflect the actual facts on the ground at all? If so, please post links here – I for one would like to read the articles.

      And pro-Obama or not, you seem to be living in an alternative reality if you believe that Obama is acting in America’s best interests by alienating its best and most useful ally in the Middle East.

      There seems to be a collective abandonment of intelligent analysis and honesty on the parts both of the American and UK governments: for an example of Obama’s see above, and for one from the UK we have only to look at Eliza Manningham-Buller’s phobic avoidance in the third 2011 Reith lecture of describing Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, as a “clean skin” Muslim convert – instead she described him as having been “converted to terrorism” ! Since when has terrorism been a recognised religion as opposed to a strand of Islamism and part from the Islamist inclination towards it?

      No, this article is right on the money, whether it makes people feel uncomfortable or not. I particularly like the definition of the aspects of the Guardian world view as regards Israel and in favour of Islamism as “hadith” (strictly speaking it should be “ahadith” which is the plural, but no matter, the message is loud and clear to those with enough sense to recognise it).

      Well done The Alchemist

    • the sad pinko earth,

      You must believe Obama when he said that after spending 20 years in his close spiritual friend, Rev. Wright, that Obama never heard about Rev. Wright hate America rants.

      That Obama heard it personally, or about it from his wife, or from a fellow parishoner, or from the church newsletter.

      Usually when a candidate LIES to the electorate before the election, that would be the end of his campaign, but some people believe that the Emperor is wearing the most beautiful clothes, despite what they see and hear.
      .

  2. “A decade has passed since 911. There are soldiers today in Iraq and Afghanistan who were children on that day. They played with toys, watched cartoons and wondered why their parents were glued to the TV for so many days following that evil morning. Today they are fighting the war which was launched by these attacks. They have grown, they have matured and they are aware of what we are facing.”

    The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or with terrorism. How insightful of Said to point out: “Inevitably, then, collective passions are being funnelled into a drive for war that uncannily resembles Captain Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick,”

    • sencrap, ISLAMOFASCISM IS TERRORISM.

      Your saddam hussein used poison gas, a WMD incidentally, on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq, murdering 5,000 people.

    • sencar when you write, ‘ How insightful of Said to point out: “Inevitably, then, collective passions are being funnelled into a drive for war that uncannily resembles Captain Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick,” ‘
      You do appreciate that Said was using Captain Ahab to represent the USA and Moby Dick to represent Bin Laden?
      You may remember that in the book Captain Ahab was killed, but in real life it was Bin Laden who was recently executed i.e. Moby Dick executed by Captain Ahab.
      Neither insightful nor a very good use of metaphor.

      • The metaphor, as you obviously know, is of the US seeking revenge inappropriately and disproportionately, just as Ahab did. Said, writing in 2001, anticipated the wars of the next decade; pretty insightful in my opinion.

        • sencar so how in your opinion should the USA, NATO et al have sought ‘revenge’ for the numerous terrorist attacks Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for? You remember the attacks that killed many thousands of innocent civilians, including many UK citizens, in USA and in London as well as other parts of Europe, Africa etc.
          What would you have done, invite him around for a cup of tea a sticky bun and a very stern word?

          • To start with, Gerald, they shouldn’t have attacked Iraq; Hussein had nothing to do with 911. There may have been a case for driving Al Qaida out of Afghanistan but beyond that trying to eradicate the Taliban, nasty as they are, was an intervention too far and looks like it may end up something like Vietnam. By all means go for Bin Laden but don’t assume that he represents more than a tiny fraction of Muslim opinion. As for the other terrorist attacks, the correct approach is to deal with them as criminal incidents – catch and punish those responsible, and don’t provoke more incidents by gung ho interventions in Muslim countries. The idea that there is a unified Islamist terrorist conspiracy is just dangerous nonsense. You only have to see how Sunni and Shia are at each others’ throats to understand that.

            • Incidentally, my views are fairly close to those given by Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, in her recent Reith lecture.

              • My own views of Eliza Manningham-Buller (who is, I think, typical of the usual British appeaser of Islamism) are similar to those above. She couldn’t even bring herself to declare that Richard Reid tried to blow up an aeroplane because he’d been converted to Islam! S

                You sound very discriminatory, sencar, against Arabs/Muslims, in that you can’t seem to credit them with the intelligence, self-control or whatever to have enough of a sense of agency to be positively proactive to prevent, rather than negatively reactive to, alleged wrongs. It’s discriminatory on your part not to expect the Arabs/Muslim nations to be to able to deal with these in a peaceable manner rather than by acting out.

                What’s your explanation for your lowered expectations from Arabs/Muslims?

  3. It’s useful to cover yourself with an asterisk, then you can feel right no matter the stupid things you say.

    The rant is foolish for precisely the reason I stated. Read, and think if it isn’t too much effort.

    I’ve posted at CiF Watch, and when I wrote what you liked, I wasn’t attacked personally. Now you you don’t like, and I’m an “arrogant, sniffy gentile.” (No doubt, “gentile” is also part of the insult.)

    Pathetic.

    • “No doubt, “gentile” is also part of the insult.”

      In that you were adopting the typical pose and manner of the same, it was a simple statement of fact. Your “right-wing ghetto” remark served to confirm this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      “Pathetic.”

      This from a man who without providing one single reason dismissed the article as a “foolish rant” and then in a risible piece of quite mad hyperbole suggested that a comment was “among the most ignorant…in history”.

    • I hear you. There are by now probably 10 articles on this website directly stemming from my input. Plus I regularly criticise the G. But say one word wrong here, and you get accused of being some anti-Semitic devil. Hoi Polloi has twice (!) called my parents “monsters” and twice (!) expressed his regret that Jewish children have to breathe the same air as me.

      Pathetic indeed.

      • “Hoi Polloi has twice (!) called my parents “monsters” and twice (!)”

        In typically dishonest fashion what Herr pretzelberg neglects to tell you is that these followed grossly defamatory outbursts by him in which he suggested that Melanie Phillips, inter alia, was “mad”. I merely said that given the apple never falls far from the tree his parents must be monsters, and that they must be. And, aside from anything else, what breathtaking hypocrisy on his part.

        “expressed his regret that Jewish children have to breathe the same air as me.”

        Yes, that is quite true and for very good reasons. To get the true measure of the man observe in the next thread (“When anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism”) how pretzelberg on one hand displays absolutely no concern for anti-Semitism and on the other berates the style of the presenter.

        But, of course, to get pretzelberg’s dander up one doesn’t even have to actually respond to this delicate poster. In countless posts he has exploded in the most childish fashion merely because he objected to his low star rating.

  4. Stop attacking sad red earth personally. He makes a reasoned critique of the piece which while you don’t have to agree with him does not mean he has to be attacked personally. The same goes for the attacks on pretzelberg.

    • 1) There is no reasoning and no critique. There is simply unsubstantiated prejudice.

      2) One should really not be surprised about this absurd defence of a president who worshipped at the feet of a most profound Jew-hater for years and has done more than any man on earth in recent years to deligitimise Israel and make that nation’s future incredibly precarious. After all, FDR is still adored by many Americans, including a very large percentage of Jews, when the reality is that that anti-Semitic president made sure that virtually no help was given as millions of Jews were murdered (yes, America fought a war, but like Britain it was very much despite the Jews and not because of them). Of course, he had the assistance of anti-Semitic immigration laws, laws that were enforced by barbarians and a virulently anti-Semitic populace. This was the same America that Adam Levick was praising to the skies the other day.

      From FDR to Obama nothing much ever changes.

      3) I see absolutely nothing wrong in the post that was deleted. Every single word was most assuredly true.

  5. I approve personal attacks on disingenuous morons like pretzels and sad pinko earth – unless they claim their actual names are pretzels or sad pinko..

    • And your real name is “Thank God I’m An Infidel”? In what sense am I “disingenuous”?

      Or indeed a “moron”?

  6. Sencrap

    What utter meaningless tripe is this?

    “The idea that there is a unified Islamist terrorist conspiracy is just dangerous nonsense. You only have to see how Sunni and Shia are at each others’ throats to understand that.”

    How is it any consolation to the victims of 9/11 that muslims are at each others’ throats in their spare time?

    • How is it any consolation to the victims of 9/11 that muslims are at each others’ throats in their spare time?

      What a cheap response to a perfectly valid argument.

      • How is it valid to argue that disunity amongst muslims means they are unable to unite against their common (perceived) enemies?

    • That Sunni and Shias hate and kill each other just proves the point that Israel isn’t the problem.

      Islamofascism is the problem.

      And every terrorist atrocity committed all over the world drives that point home – but not to people with “anti-Zionist” OCD.

    • zeitgoose spot on. Sunni and Shia are united in at least one thing, their hatred of Jews and of the Jewish state. Unfortunately for them, but thankfully for Israel, even that overriding hatred is not enough to unite them actually to do anything other than rant about it. Long may that continue.

      sencar, fragmentation between Islamist terrorist camps is their own residual muck. As I have said, I hope that it continues forever. That doesn’t mean however that Islamist terrorists cease to be dangerous if they loathe some of their co-religionists as much as they loathe kufar

  7. @sencrap part 2.

    The guardian’s anti-western polemic speaks to cowards and traitors. It’s anti-israeli polemic speaks to Eurabian antisemites and neo-nazis. You have consistently been an apologist for every word of it.

    The US established a bridgehead in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties on its soil. Sadam had it coming.

    The Alchemist makes some very good points. If you blighters would only grow up the world would be a more peaceful place.

    • The US established a bridgehead in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties on its soil.

      Good God. You actually believe that bullshit?

      • Actually, no more than I believe that a virulently anti-Semitic Britain fought World War II to save the Jews.

        However, we are sure that you shed many tears for Saddam Hussein’s innumerable victims.

      • It seems to have worked. Iraq became a magnet for jihadists worldwide who wanted to kill Americans. and no major terrorist attacks have occurred on american soil since 9/11.

  8. I want to address two things:

    The dishonesty I talk about re Obama is the way he conducts the “war on terror”.
    Obama is more actively killing Jihadis in Afghanistan and more importantly Pakistan than Bush ever was.
    The drone strikes are up many fold in comparison. Yet in America, the admin is renaming the conflict, removes the references in memorials etc..
    To what end?
    I suppose they think that this way they are disturbing less wasps then if they called out the enemy by its name. Islamism, Islamo-fascism, Jihadism …take a pick… and fight this war like we fought the Nazis and or even the communists. Communism was challenged in the arena of ideas as was Nazism. Germany is now a prosperous country and Russia is surely better off then under communism. Yet with this Obama, the supposedly most intellectual president in recent memory, refuses to take on the enemy.

    In my view this feeds much more anger among young Muslims and college kids because they see the victims without a proper context.
    I also think that Muslims are owed and explanation as to why some of them are being killed by governments.

    As for the Guardian view this passage sums it up best:

    “The 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers who died on the ground and in those four planes were only the first of hundreds of thousands of victims of the war on terror that was to unfold as a direct consequence of the 9/11 attacks.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/9-11-fire-smoulders-comment?INTCMP=SRCH

    The 911 hijackers were victims of the war on terror.

    Seriously…

  9. The Alchemist, your critique of the Guardian was not the object of my criticism. I have written, and cross-posted at Cif Watch, making clear what the Guardian manifestly is. In fact, I don’t think Cif Watch goes far enough in its language – the Guardian is a neo-Stalinist publication that deserves to be called what it blatantly is, anti-Semitic.

    I took issue with your superfluous, counterproductive, and unfortunately foolish criticism of Obama. That it is superfluous should be obvious – what does Obama have to do with an assessment of the Guardian, outside of a mindset that does not separate any modest liberal here from any masked anarchist there? That it is counterproductive should be clear to anyone thoughtful about the crisis of support for Israel in the liberal ranks. It may be sufficient and satisfactory for certain kinds of troglodytes to accept that situation and rave and insult in their knuckle-swinging way, but thoughtful supporters of Israel should want to relieve that crisis if for no other reason than that it can only benefit Israel. My understanding is that the mission of Cif Watch is to expose the Guardian for what it is and to be of service to Israel. Needlessly alienating liberals may feel good to some who are not liberals, but a wiser course would be to provide those liberals in need of it with a basis for finding their values reflected in Israel – which as Adam often points out, they are.

    That the criticism is foolish is the consequence of its broadness and extremity. “Among the most dishonest presidents in history.” Really? How much do you know about the history of presidential administrations? A statement like that is not supposed to be an expression of your political displeasure – it is supposed to have factual meaning. Even here, in seeking to justify it, you do so on the basis of no more than a discrepancy you do not like between Obama’s execution of the war on terror – which you acknowledge as even more aggressive than Bush’s – and his rhetoric. That’s a fine debate to have, about tactics in engaging an enemy in a complex conflict of might, values, and cultures that will last a very long time, but it is not remotely a basis for your charge – unless every husband or wife who answers “nothing” to a spouse wondering what he’s thinking is now going to be called among the most dishonest husbands in history.

  10. Obama is also an Edward Said influenced scholar and that is relevant to this discussion.

    I am not creating the crisis between liberals and Jews, Obama did as evidenced by the recent loss of a NY Dem seat held by them since 1924.