With genuine reluctance, I find myself obliged to ban Larry from St Louis from commenting on this blog.
I am extremely happy for people to comment on this blog who disagree with my views. It makes it much more interesting for everybody. I wish more people who disagree would comment.
But Larry has a different agenda. His technique is continually to accuse me of holding opinions which I do not in fact hold, and which he thinks will call my judgement into doubt.
Take this comment posted by Larry at 9.35 am today:
I’ve re-read your post on the Russian spies, and once again you’ve proven to be a complete dumbass.
I predicted Russia claiming (in some minor way) those idiots. You didn’t. You thought it was a conspiracy.
You’ve once again self-indicted.
In fact my view on the Russian spies was the exact opposite of what Larry claims it was. As I posted:
I don’t have any difficulty in believing that the FBI really have discovered a colony of Russian sleeper spies in the United States.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/those_russian_s.html#comments
This is not Larry being mistaken – remember he claimed he had just re-read my posting. It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.
He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.
I have put up with this now for months, but Larry’s activities have become so frenetic and are so counter-productive to informed debate, I am not prepared to put up with it any more. I am also deeply sucpicious of the fact that he is able to spend more time on this blog than me, and to post right around the clock (often as with this one at 9.35am – think about it – what time is that in the US?).
Anyway, sorry Larry, your derailing days are over.
.
“at the end of the Afghan War.”
Afghan-Soviet War, naturally…
On the Stinger Buy-Back programme:
http://www.stinger.com.au/stinger-articles/1994/3/8/cia-bungles-plan-to-buy-back-missiles-from-afghan-rebel-forces/
Israel can seriously (and I mean seriously) embarrass any British government by divulging top secret information, even, silly things like why were certain communications from Whitehall designated ‘not for South Africa Eyes’ – thus we have to ‘comply’ period.
Liberalism in Brit-speak refers to the belief that, to quote another poster, we have to restrict others’ rights to hold (let alone express) opinions which we, as Liberals, deem harmful.
It’s all to protect society, don’t you know?
Craig is a genuine Liberal.
And a self-important, deluded narcissist who hides his baggy chin in all his photos.
“Israel can seriously (and I mean seriously) embarrass any British government by divulging top secret information, even, silly things like why were certain communications from Whitehall designated ‘not for South Africa Eyes’ – thus we have to ‘comply’ period.”
Eh?
Steve,
regarding your discussion with Mark Golding. From my memory (admittedly fallible), the reports shortly after the 7/7 bombings were of military grade plastic explosives, with discussion of how advanced the detonation system had to be for simultaneous explosions; the announcement of home-made explosives didn’t occur until about six months later.
Does anyone else remember this?
“regarding your discussion with Mark Golding. From my memory (admittedly fallible), the reports shortly after the 7/7 bombings were of military grade plastic explosives,”
Dunno, surely the reports would be easy enough to find. Were they speculative or were they actual lab-tested results that were being reported?
QUOTE With genuine reluctance, I find myself obliged to ban Larry from St Louis from commenting on this blog UNQUOTE
Craig, your power does not extend to banning people from the internet. As long as you have a blog, the only way to ban people is to restrict comments to your own comments – maybe this would suit your purpose better. Get real, and watch out for those damn Zionists!!
Thanks for the link Jones!
QUOTE I find myself obliged UNQUOTE
Do you talk like this in real life?
Smith,
sorry, I don’t remember. I do remember being surprised later when I heard the explosives described as home-made, because it contradicted what I thought I knew.
Does anyone else remember this?
Yes I remember that Clark, but I think the source of the military explosive story was an Israeli analyst rather than the police on the ground.
Lord tosser Ogilvie
Craig dosnt own the internet but he does own this little bit of it and if he chooses to ban someone who is a complete pain in the ass then he can. As for talking in real life comment only an idiot or tosser would not understand the difference between spoken and written english.
Smith (another Zionist troll?) is deluded.
Israel complained strongly and the FCO (legal advisor Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC late advisor to Sharon and Foreign Secretary Hague a Conservative Friend of Israel since the age of 15) caves in.
CNN were put under pressure to sack Octavia Nasr –
“That message spawned an intense fit of protest from Far Right outlets, Thought Crime enforcers, and other neocon precincts, and CNN quickly (and characteristically) capitulated to that pressure by firing her. The network — which has employed a former AIPAC official, Wolf Blitzer, as its primary news anchor for the last 15 years — justified its actions by claiming that Nasr’s “credibility” had been “compromised.”
http://1158munich.blogspot.com/2010/07/octavia-nasrs-firing-and-what-liberal.html
Smith at July 9, 2010 2:06 PM,
it seems that you were incorrect when you referred to Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah as a “terrorist”. Actually, he had survived various terrorist attempts upon his life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Hussein_Fadlallah
Craig dosnt own the internet but he does own this little bit of it and if he chooses to ban someone who is a complete pain in the ass then he can
um, no he doesn’t and no he can’t. Get your tongue out of his anus.
Ben Newsam,
You are wrong in your character assessment because discernibly, publicly, obviously and observably, Craig is exactly as he says on the tin, a former Queens Ambassador, with privileged knowledge, that he has unselfishly shared with others to further the course of human rights.
The British ‘back-office’ dug a hole for itself in maintaining the ‘special relationship’ and agreeing / participating in illegal wars that have killed/maimed our young serviceman in unacceptable numbers, without full protection and in suicidal deployment arrangements/strategies (with the disgust from our top commanders) and murdered/maimed/orphaned/traumatised and malnourished thousands of innocent children.
A huge price to pay and one that will take a century for our own children to admonish.
So Craig tells of our regular deliquents to get lost. and suddenly there is a new batch; it’s like cutting off the Hydra’s head. Anyone remember “Alias Smith and Jones”? Is this going to be a “Good Cop, Bad Cop” scenario? Jones, I’m very sorry if I’ve wrongly accused you; that looks like quite interesting stuff about the stinger missiles. Smith, my suspicions about you are rising already.
And a nice new batch of pond life, calling itself things like Ben Newsam and Lord Ogilvie.
‘struth. We’ll just not hold our breath waiting for that Hamlet script, then ?
Craig is completely justified in banning those who make a nuisance of themselves (just as I have on my blog). For a cogent defense of the right to blogban, Charlie Stross’s reasoning is hard to beat:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/06/moderation-policy.html
It’s a pity Larry did the things Craig identified, ‘cos quite often Larry would pick up a wobbly point that someone gave which really did deserve some scrutiny.
Larry was actually good on 9-11 in his stance as pro-narrative (like Craig) and doggedly pursued the matter, in the process extract good counter arguments from the likes of MJ etc. This goes for other conspiracy issues too.
Sure Larry engaged in the usual Zionist tricks of false and baseless accusations, flicking his modern day yellow stars of ‘anti-Semite’ at all who unlike him vomited at the thought of licking BB’s crack, but really Craig, by banning him and his old hat, paper thin amateurisms, you are letting the ant topple the elephant.
While my oasis of silence is deemed irrelevant to the Zionist scum that be – thereby never being in a situation of pressure to ever ban anyone – I think banning people is a mistake… May I use the term Pandora’s box.?
Don’t be suspicious of weird comment timings Craig. Some of us are insomniacs you know.
Why not give Larry a yellow card (as indicated previously, he’d probably understand the significance of that)
What’s the guessing Eddie pops back up?
Thanks for the Charlie Stross link, mike.
“Your freedom of speech does not compel me to publish your words”. That’s a lot in a nutshell.
Btw are you people no-planers or plane-huggers? Do you believe that a plane crashed at the Pentagon?
It is amazing his comments to 9/11
I know you dont really care for discussion on 9/11 Craig but you should take an oppourtunity to look at the AE911 truth website run by Architects etc…
These are people with scientific backgrounds querying the percieved wisdom of fantasy explanation supported by mainstream media and are far from the crackpots the media uses to judges everyone who questions anything about 9/11.
An just to be plain, this would all be about the people question Conspiracy theory NO1 as defined by the USA government…
digging you head in the sand on this is just like digging your head in the sand on the Oaklahoma city bombing…didnt happen the way they said it did
regards and have a good weekend all
“Oaklahoma”
Ha ha!
The guy is a dolt.
Craig was wrong to support the Lib Dems, though, but that will never be apologised for while he instead laments their terrible propping up of the Tories.
Steve/MJ,
Explosives:
ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/london_attacks/index.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/07/14/story664838892.asp
You might also want to consider a previous post where I detail ‘terrorists’ killed at Canary Wharf on 7\7 – a story that ‘died’ almost immediately and nearly ‘lost’ without trace albeit for the great work of a lone analyst professor and of course ‘Bridget and Ant’ who I am greatly indebted.
I say to you Dov Weisglass the sweet smell of a brand new day is in sight.
a conspiraloon: I don’t think Larry was that good on 9/11, he was rather ill-informed (unlike angrysoba, who could hold an argument).
I think it’s important to remember however that the Larry entity was in fact more than one person (this became abundantly clear on the 9/11 thread where they clashed and cross-posted at one point) and the slightly cogent one from the early days may well not be the more tedious manifestation that was banned yesterday.
anon: yes, the Canary Wharf story is fascinating.
Dealing with trolls.
Registration needed to post.
Registration offers censorship facility.
One post and you need never here from them again. No more slime trails across your consciousness.
Surely there’s blog software that offers this facility.