- Tweet
- Share 0
- LinkedIn 0
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
petition stands at 14.446 and rising, an indication as to the importance this issue.
The Sam Adams award will be presented and it will carry on to be presented, whether Craig is harassed or not.
That said, imho Craig is now nudging up the scale of attention by the powers to be and the more people follow his blog the more this attention will be palpable.
This is the time were we all have to be extraordinarily watchful when he speaks and attends functions.
Ideally, I would ask those who organise his events or invite him to talk, to please try and pick him up from the airport or station, make sure you got a camera/phone to record any possible incidents and to keep an eye out for possible interactions that are unnecessary and out of place.
Whistleblowers need looking after….
If I was better looking and a little younger, I would apply to become his body guard, not that this would stop me guarding him on a Norwich/Norfolk engagement, should that be arranged.
“The Sam Adams award will be presented and it will carry on to be presented, whether Craig is harassed or not.”
_________________
Indeed so, Nevermind. I am glad to note that you seem to recognise that the award is more important than the question of Craig’s physical presence. So I suggest you calm down a little.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“ideally, I would ask those who organise his events or invite him to talk, to please try and pick him up from the airport or station, make sure you got a camera/phone to record any possible incidents and to keep an eye out for possible interactions that are unnecessary and out of place.”
_______________________
I wonder if that doesn’t sound a little paranoid, Nevermind. What do others think (no, not you, Trowbridge)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If I was better looking and a little younger, I would apply to become his body guard,”
__________________
For once, you become believable. But do you have enough self-control to do the job (eg, if someone were to lool at Craig in a way you disliked)? After all, I do remember you threatening me with physical violence a few times just for writing something you didn’t like!
Well Said Nevermind
If Craig ever gets Stuck Doon my area i shall jump to action..
I see the Brilliant Global research has Picked up the story..
P.s The Petition has passed 15,000
Well, you’re in very good company, Craig:
The visa denials—or in this case, the refusal to allow Murray to enter with a visa-waiver—all occur for similar reasons. The person is critical of U.S. policy and so they become candidates for denied entry. It is essentially “blacklisting.” Graham Greene, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Dario Fo, Pablo Neruda, Carlos Fuentes, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and former NATO Deputy Supreme Commander Nino Pasti were all at one point excluded for their writing, plays, or outspokenness against U.S. government policies.
Bit of an own goal for the septics, I’d say. The Russians are loving it…
http://www.therussophile.org/us-denies-entry-to-former-british-ambassador-who-was-set-to-present-whistleblower-award.html/
(posted in error in Apology – can be deleted from there)
The word about Craig’s tribulations with US immigration continues to spread with Paul Craig Roberts now taking up the cause in a recent email newsletter and on his blog.
Source: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/washington-escalates-punishent-of-truth-tellers/
If Dr Paul Craig Roberts has taken it up, it’s the kiss of death.
With “friends” like that, what need has Craig of enemies?
You seem, to have a “thing” about Roberts, Habbajobtodo. Most people are content to judge an opinion by examining it in the light of facts and experience.
You, on the other hand, are just bigoted: if “a” says it it must be right; if ‘b’ holds that opinion it must be wrong.
You are wasting everyone’s time.
By all means give us your opinions but spare us these Kindergarten sneers.
Well, Bev, what do you think I judge Dr Paul Craig Roberts on if not his opinions as expressed in Counterpunch and elsewhere?
The man is seriously disturbed. And as I have been keeping track of him on Counterpunch for some years, I can assure you that not one of his prophecies has come about; most, in fact have turned out exactly the opposite.
Hope that helps.
You simply repeat yourself.
You say nothing specific about the libeled man, you simply libel him again, adding only that you “have been keeping track of him on Counterpunch for some years.”
If that is the case it should be easy for you to explain how you have reached the conclusion that he “is seriously disturbed.”
Smear and sneer stops working after a while: the initial shock wears off and people realise that, in place of reasoned argument, they are being told that you don’t like those who disagree with your opinions. But you are not sure why.
Perfect.
Excellent.
Share this on social media.!
“a force for good in the world, we weren’t detrimental to mankind generally”
LOL
An excellent summary of Craig’s current predicament from an excellent website.
Given the fact they they honed in on Craig’s former ambassador status, and that Karimov has just kicked the bucket, it was natural for the item to concentrate on the extent to which Craig’s contrarian (to a neocon) views about Uzbekistan were a factor in his exclusion. However I’m a bit surprised that the item didn’t also mention Craig’s vocal support for Wikileaks & Julian Assange ;conduct which is also beyond the pale to US securicrats, and is thus also likely to have influenced their decision to exclude him- on utterly spurious grounds .
Aaah – a good point about JA. It could well be that association that is more serious in the eyes of the security systems.
Curious paradox there: the US excludes Craig for his support of Assange, but we can assume it already has a US prison cell booked for Assange?
The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch – we remember:
HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.”
https://nacla.org/article/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch
I persist in believing that the relentless flow of anti-US (and indeed anti-West) comments on this blog – including many which, frankly speaking, are just deranged – may have influenced the US authorities.
Guilt by association but also by inaction, in that no attempt is made to dissociate Craig from the more lunatic views expressed on here: the occasional rebuke from Craig would have been helpful.
+++++++++++++++++
Let’s be honest about it. The great majority on here care little for Craig, for his blog or even, I suspect, about the victims of events, deeds and conspiracies they are always going on about. All these cuckoos care about is having a public space run by a person who is far too tolerant for his own good.
Just keep it up, Habby, your learning curve is improving.
Just remember not to mention my name.
“Let’s be honest about it. The great majority on here care little for Craig, for his blog or even, I suspect, about the victims of events, deeds and conspiracies they are always going on about. All these cuckoos care about is having a public space run by a person who is far too tolerant for his own good.”
Indeed, but enough about yourself, Anon1, RD, Norton, Kempe, Ben, et al – you don’t quite make up the majority around here.
See that Consortium News has allowed a critical post by me about its coverage as opposed to Craig’s to appear.
Craig tolerance of so-called lunatic views can have its benefits.
Your argument, then is that, unless Craig denounces (or silences) anyone here whose views offend the US Authorities, those authorities are justified in preventing him from visiting the USA.
Or did I miss something?
My argument is that since Craig does not delete or denounce my or similar views, US authorities have used them to deny him entry..
You have certainly missed a rather big something, Bev.
You “did a Theresa” there, Habbabkuk. How about actually answering Bevin’s point – which seems to state exactly what your point actually was, even though you didn’t like to state it directly (a favourite tactic of yours).
To which the obvious response is “What?”
What have I missed or misrepresented?
I persist in believing…
TR(anslation): I have no evidence whatever for stating…
that the relentless flow of anti-US (and indeed anti-West) comments on this blog – including many which, frankly speaking, are just deranged – may have influenced the US authorities.
TR: …that people who disagree with me are de facto terrorists.
Guilt by association but also by inaction, in that no attempt is made to dissociate Craig from the more lunatic views expressed on here: the occasional rebuke from Craig would have been helpful.
TR: Freedom of expression, while theoretically a right in the UK, shouldn’t be.
Let’s be honest about it…
TR: I have always had great difficulty with the definition of ‘honest’
It gets crazier. Perhaps if instead of speaking out against terrorism Craig was a lobbyist for terrorist interests he’d get into the US okay?
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/britain-bankrolling-syrian-oppositions-lobbying-efforts-in-us-report/
Craig, your old pal John Herbst was interviewed at length today on RT by Oksana Boyko about Uzbekistan. In case you missed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNX-BBUbSv8
Being refused entry into the United States is becoming a badge of honour.
Has anyone considered the possibility that US Imm & Natz simply got the wrong Craig Murray? Perhaps they’d had enough of this colossally unfunny comedian and decided to make sure that if he ever left, he couldn’t get back?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPiLEkhWxh0
But what does the US have to fear from Trowbridge, I cannot help wondering? He has his own blog/s, on which his insights are faithfully and extensively published. True, he is very largely ignored, but his guest appearances on CM are too. There is a simple test for his hypothesis; that he is as usual central to a deep plot to silence him (along with multiple botched assassination attempts, allegedly). That is for him to stop posting here and see if Craig’s problem goes away. Not wishing to prejudge the issue, I’d say it won’t, further venturing that this would spark a further post by Trowbridge explaining why not, and claiming the credit for this too.
Just your usual nonsense about CM and me, as I have no site as I have repeatedly said, and I am only going away to France in a while.
And the fucking USA fears me because I lift the lid on its vile truths.
You should just get over me, and shut up.
Better have a word wiyh the guy who writes most of this, then. He’s obviously stolen your identity…
http://codshit.blogspot.co.uk/
I promise to get over you when you get over yourself. How’s that?
That site isn’t mine: It belongs to Edward Chanter of Brighton who persuaded me to stop sending the articles becaise he would be sued for devastating damages.
I then provided what I wrote to Veterans Today and flyingcuttlefish picayune.
I have never received anything for them.
I am only going to stop when I die.
Craig
Such a shock to find you being quoted approvingly in Rod Liddle’s review of the George Galloway documentary, “The Killing$ of Tony Blair” (in The Spectator, 10 Sept 2016, pp 46-7):
“…But it is Iraq for which we will remember Blair; for the million dead, for the chaos that ensued, for the chemical weapons we used (white phosphorus and depleted uranium). As the former UK ambassador Craig Murray puts it in this film: ‘If Tony Blair isn’t a war criminal, then who is?’ “
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/george-galloway-is-terrific-in-this-meticulous-demolition-of-tony-blair/
“My enemy’s enemy is my friend” – seductive false logic that produces weird bedmates.
Be charitable, Iain. If Left and Right can’t agree on the character of Tony Blair, what can they agree on? I view Blair as a unifying force, though not perhaps in the same way as he does.
My mother used to say
“I want Tony Blair taken out” and “I don’t mean to lunch”
O/T and something I have been wanting to ask for a long time.
Almost every time I answer my Verizon served cellphone, I am told that the phone is not backed up, and am told to do so by clicking a message, once I activate it.
What backs up a cellphone?
Is it a message to NSA or some other eavesdropper, telling it that I am back on it, and telling it to get back to work?
Or something else”
Never underestimate the fanaticism of those on a war of some kind. Reportage of Tony Blair’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’ has overshadowed his role in ‘welfare reform’ as a ‘war of idleness’ and ‘benefit fraud’.
It was a Tony Blair-led government that hired investment banker David Freud as its ‘welfare reform’ guru; and a Blair-led government also lavished UK taxpayers’ money into TV ads and ads on buses, etc, bragging about how it was ‘targeting benefit fraud’ while the public was largely kept in the dark about the impact of ‘service delivery’ changes on Department for Work & Pensions benefit claimants. All that was a backdrop to further right-wing ‘welfare reforms’ including Iain Duncan Smith’s ‘Universal Credit’.
An important point about ‘Universal Credit’ is that it shifts the focus from low earnings to low income, and brings in a state of affairs by which people can be sanctioned for ‘not trying hard enough to boost their income’, and a sanction can impact upon housing benefit. (Previously those whose Jobseekers Allowance or Employment & Support Allowance had been sanctioned could re-apply for housing benefit on the basis of a ‘nil income’.)
Now it emerges that even the UK government’s GCHQ spy centre has warned against Universal Credit as posing serious security risks!
“Democracy presupposes knowledge” — Thos Jefferson.