The news cycle moves on, and having had their fifteen minutes of Western compassion, whole peoples are left to struggle on with the wreck of their lives. Today the media suddenly recall again the terrible dispossession and oppression of the Palestinian people. In a couple of weeks time, they will be back to claiming that anybody who recalls that is an anti-semite. The fashion for worrying about the Rohingyas has entirely passed; the TV crews have gone and the Hollywood celebrities moved on to their next fad. But the plight of the dispossessed has still worsened.
The British conquest and occupation of what they knew as Burma met with some of the stiffest national resistance – characterised by the British as “fanatic” – the British ever encountered, as the invaders advanced up the rivers in a series of 19th century wars and were resisted from behind multiple fortified bamboo stockades. It is a very little known episode in British history, largely because it was so inglorious. The Burmese never did become docile under Imperial rule, and for that reason a high proportion of the ancestors of the present day Rohingya were employed as Imperial functionaries (not only military and police), in a classic British move of exploiting ethnic and religious tensions, which policy was absolutely conscious and deliberate at the time. The Rohingyas had themselves in large part been driven out of an expansionist Burma in the 1780’s, and the British returned a great many from Bengal, exploiting a pre-existing conflict in classic fashion. This background, which in no way justifies the recent ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas, is essential to understanding the root of recent events; it is a perspective almost entirely absent from media narrative.
Nadira’s next film venture as co-Producer is a documentary on the Rohingya situation which will endeavour to explain what is happening in much more depth than simply the recital of individual atrocity stories, terrible though these are. The Director will be our friend Shahida Tulaganova. They are currently attempting to raise funds towards the production costs, and here is their fundraising appeal. Help would be much appreciated. I should add that I have no input to this at all, other than making cups of tea, and any views expressed will very probably not concur with my own, with which I am very comfortable. As I have always said, the entire purpose of this blog is not to make people think like me, it is just to make people think.
You can make a contribution through kickstarter. That site works on the premise that if the full donation target of £15,000 is not reached, then the money is not given and returns to the donors. To date they have raised £4,526 and have eleven days left.
Rees-Mogg to make his move tomorrow? Meet the next prime minister. “I’m a man of the people. Vox populi, vox dei” is a classic. This guy’s brand has been very carefully managed.
Only wise-arses say a favourite never gets it. No favourite before has ever had a dad who was editor of the Times.
I don’t think so, we’re entering silly season, if you remember JRMs campaign happened last silly season too, the press like winding him up he is so odd that it makes good copy, the fact is that he’s too openly posh to have any lasting appeal, I am far more worried about Boris Johnson who is actively undermining the prime minister, and has Murdoch support, I believe he will make a play for leadership, and I believe the party will allow it, I also think May would call a GE rather than let him in, the same goes for Mogg
May can’t call a GE like that. Before a leadership election there has to be a confidence vote. Mogg’s European Research Group could whip the required 48 letters in to Brady fast, leaving no time for a GE. That wouldn’t be an explicit Mogg bid but a NC motion, all behind closed doors, so even if Mogg says he has NC in May he needn’t at that stage say he wants to succeed her. I’ve been watching him and he’s biding his time, but there may possibly have been a change recently as the message has got close to being that his patience is about to run out. I may be wrong.
I think you may be right that Johnson will make a play for the leadership. Possibly he has more enemies than Mogg, but if it goes to the membership and his opponent can be nobbled, it’s possible, or if he can ensure he gets the right opponent. Javid can stand with his legs wide apart, aping Cameron and Osborne (and May), but Tory members aren’t going to elect someone with his skin colour as their leader. But I still think it’s unlikely with Johnson. Surely some powerful figures both in the party and the state would consider him a liability, but then Trump won so who knows? “Posh” can be polished (Mogg has the accent but he doesn’t bray or show contempt), whereas “C***”, which is how many view Johnson, can only work if the brand follows Trump’s.
Craig,
Sorry for the off-topic post, but you may wish to respond here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Talk_page,_24_archive_pages_and_related_links
This is news to me.
As an intro to the issue, read https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/
This should get wider exposure, it’s an important matter.
Jimmy Wales (always asking for money) should deliver on what is Wikipedia’s core business.
If Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales doesn’t adequately respond, maybe it’s time to reflect his disinterest on his own Wiki-page.
I do not trust Wikipedia as a neutral source.
They have their own definition of “neutral” which includes:
“Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion’s sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion
That’s why Wikipedia history articles are just like what they teach in Sunday School.
Hold on a second. The number of edits is probably irrelevant. Doesn’t everything depend on whether they are malicious or not? After all, they might indeed consist of lies and distortions, in which case Wikipedia should take action; on the other hand, they might be attempts to establish the truth about the complainants and to bring to the attention of the reading public facts about the complainants which the complainants would prefer not to see aired. In other words, the complainants might be attempting to censor information. It seems to me that we (ie, the readers of CM) only have – at this stage at least – the complainants word for it that the edits are malicious. A little more chapter and verse (going beyond observations about frequency or anonymity) might help us establish the truth here.
One of the people complaining about edits by Wikipedia contributor Philip Cross is Professor Piers Robinson of Sheffield University.
Here is his article page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Robinson
Up on the right-hand side of it you will see “Read” (selected); “View source”; “View history”.
If you select “View history” and scroll down by selecting “older 50” at the bottom, once, you come to this page, which shows page 2 of all the edits that have been made to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&offset=20180501151801&action=history
Around the middle of this page, you come to the last edit line of “Philafrenzy”, the person who presumably set up the page. Looks like this:
(cur | prev) 08:53, 16 April 2018 Philafrenzy (talk | contribs)
Just above it is the first edit line of “Philip Cross”. Looks like this:
(cur | prev) 11:05, 19 April 2018 Philip Cross (talk | contribs)
In between (cur | prev) and 08:53 is a little circle. Click on it.
You will now see that in between (cur | prev) and 11:05 are now two circles. Click on the right hand one.
You are now in a position to view Philip Cross’s first edit. Click on the “Compare selected revisions” button at the bottom of the page.
On the left hand side of the page brought up is Philafrenzy’s original footnote sourcing Professor Robinson’s directorship of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies to Companies House.
On the right hand of the page is Philip Cross’s change of source, to an article in the Huffington Post called ‘”Whitewashing War Crimes’: How UK Academics Promote Pro-Assad Conspiracy Theories About Syria”.
Now tell me that Philip Cross is an unbiased contributor. The evidence is there, right in front of everyone’s eyes.
The excuse that Philip Cross proffers for this deplorable change is “+admissible source”. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy can I find any suggestion that the Huffington Post is a preferable source to Companies House.
This is the sort of thing for which people are complaining about Philip Cross, and quite rightly, in my opinion. The trouble is, to find this kind of evidence requires quite a bit of knowledge of how Wikipedia works and a painstaking tracking of changes made by Cross.
I hope everyone followed that!
Best, J
I must admit I didn’t. Could someone – perhaps even one of the complainants (how about it, George Galloway?) – give a couple of simple examples of what they’re exercised about? For example : the original text of a couple of sentences before edting and the text of those sentences after the offending edits? So we coud get an idea of the merits of the edits?
The whole idea of “unbiased editors” and “neutral point of view” is totalitarian capitalist bullshit. That’s something that it is necessary to be absolutely clear about. Don’t get sucked in.
The same is true about how “reputation” and “numbers of followers” works on other big websites.
The larger point is that what has happened to the sphere of publication (of which the internet is part) is similar to what has happened to many people’s minds.
We live in terrible times and they are not going to end well.
With that kind of defeatism you shouldn’t even be here at all anymore.
In fact, you should carefully, during the day –any day– avoid taking in any kind of information that wants to enter your mind, because, hey — it’s probably biased.
@bj – You misunderstood what I was saying.
I assume the first two sentences were clear. By “don’t get sucked in”, I didn’t mean “don’t read anything”. I meant don’t get sucked in to sites like Wikipedia where twats all compete with each other to portray their own angles as unbiased and neutral. There really is no such thing.
I’m not sure that even that is clear enough. But consider this: do you seriously think there can be people who are, or do you yourself want to be, totally unsubjective when conversing about social matters, or indeed about anything else? That kind of attitude leads to wearing a Mr Objective uniform and ultimately to…somewhere very very unpleasant indeed. You can see where it has led in many big places on the internet. Sites such as Wikipedia and Stack Exchange are full of people who consider other people the way computer progams consider input, and who prostitute whatever intellects they have got to serve a beast they don’t name.
I don’t want to take part in a meta discussion about “here”, if that means the comment columns on this particular blog, because I find several likeminded people here who have my great respect. (My favourite commenter is probably Giyane.) Certainly I find the internet an oppressive place, not a place of much “freedom”.
The explanation how to find the diff is clear.
Personally, I am not convinced this first edit is necessarily biased. The information is factual (a reference to an article).
I haven’t seen all the subsequent edits by Philip Cross though. Needs time.
What do you imagine the point of the change was?
To be honest, the intention behind the edit isn’t relevant, as long as the edit is factually correct.
I say this, while not fully knowing the Wikipedia ‘rules’ with regard to:
1. Is is the case on Wikipedia that ‘anything factual goes’?
2. Is there a point when a prolonged series of edits, all factually true, are trying to slant the entire picture of the Wikipedia article under consideration a certain way that might be called ‘biased’
3. The removal of information (presumably factual) from a page the slant or bias the article
Mind you that I haven’t been able to find the time to see he other edits, just the first ‘diff’.
I could not more profoundly disagree with that. A neutral source has been replaced with an attacking source, for no apparent reason. The article is equally well served by both sources. That does in fact contravene Wikipedia rules. The obvious reason for the replacement is to post an article that attacks Piers Robinson. Don’t you think it is?
I don’t think so; the reference is factual. The content of the referenced article might be accepted reporting, even if it were ‘opinion’. Yes, I know there’s subjectivity in what is ‘accepted reporting’ (is that just the ‘mainstream’ with the exclusion of bloggers and sites such as The Intercept?). What are Wikipedia’s ‘rules’?
I am not saying something mightn’t be up. There might be. But I have just seen one diff. Sorry, but it’s late and I haven’t had time to see any more than the one. I’m not trying to brush you off.
I happened to come across this article though, which I am about to read now:
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Well, I must say that I find your opinion remarkable. Why not just leave the footnote as it was? Yes, I do realise it is only one example, but I would have thought that it was a pretty clear one. Somebody actually had to do some work to change that footnote, which was perfectly acceptable as it was. However, you are right, everyone has to make up their own mind.
Companies House is a reliable source for Wikipedia. There is no doubt at all about that. The Huffington Post is much more debatable. Philip Cross knows that: I’ve seen him say so. To replace Companies House with HuffPost is laughable.
From “Identifying reliable sources” (Wikipedia):
“Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.”
“The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In my opinion (and of course it’s only mine), Companies House trumps the HuffPost for the words in italics. It is hard for me to see any purpose to the change except to shoehorn in a hostile article from a less reliable source. Of course, everyone has to make their own mind up on that, but I think my opinion is a wholly reasonable one and Professor Robinson would be entirely within his rights to complain vehemently about such a change.
Yes, that’s only one example, but in my opinion it’s a thundering good one. I can assure you that there are plenty of others. One other trick Cross uses is to cite an article which is balanced but quote only the opinions within it that suit his agenda. I’ve been battling him on that, too. Anyway, goodnight.
I looked at that article you posted from the Intercept. The article is by Glenn Greenwald. Ironically, Greenwald has himself been the recipient of the Philip Cross treatment, although Cross’s editing of his article has been minimal. One notable non-neutral change is this:
Pre-Cross:
Before the Snowden file disclosures, Greenwald was widely considered one of the most influential opinion columnists in the United States.
Post-Cross:
Before the Snowden file disclosures, Greenwald was considered one of the most influential opinion columnists in the United States.
The reason given for the scrubbing of the word “widely” is that only one source supports the word. Well, actually, only one source supports the rest of the sentence too. (Why not delete the lot?) Anyway, the source is Newsweek, and the grounds for the whole sentence is that Greenwald is considered by a panel of fifty experts to be one of the Digital Power 100: “the most influential players in the digital space, as nominated by their peers, with an eye toward reach, impact, and innovation”. Sounds to me like the word “widely” is actually entirely justified. But, of course, opinions differ: it’s just that Cross’s correction has the effect of diluting the impact of the Greenwald article. Not by much, it is true: but the effect is there.
You see, an awful lot of the work of Cross is like this. J
@bj – You ask about Wikipedia rules.
1) No
2) Yes, of course there is.
I urge you to reflect on the whole idea of “neutrality”.
I am not sure how much drive you have to reach an improved understanding of how scenes to which apparently “everyone” can contribute “for free” nonetheless express a “biased” “point of view” and can be very oppressive and totalitarian towards those who think for themselves and who uphold decent human values. In this day and age that is something that many should be thinking about. It is a major feature of Facebook, Twitter, and of the worldwide web generally. It is a major feature of our time. But sadly that doesn’t mean that many have thought about it. In fact, very few have done. It’s like a big “no no”.
SA is absolutely right to say that Wikipedia is not a neutral source.
Fighting inside the Wikipedia system, trying to expose the biased and to argue with apparently middle-ground people about the application of “rules” of “neutrality” is like banging your head against a wall. That’s if you believe in it. If you just go in for occasional raids, then fine. Be cynical in such places, my friend. You are on enemy terrain there.
I should add that I don’t know who Piers Robinson and Philip Cross are. I am making general points about attitudes towards Wikipedia that I hope some people here will find useful.
Before the change, the front of the article looked like this:
————–
References
Professor Piers Robinson. Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
Organisation for Propaganda Studies. Companies House. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
————–
After the change, the front of the article looked like this:
————–
References
Professor Piers Robinson. Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
York, Chris (19 April 2018). “‘Whitewashing War Crimes’: How UK Academics Promote Pro-Assad Conspiracy Theories About Syria”. HuffPost. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
————–
Given that the only point of the footnote is to establish Professor Robinson’s membership of the Organisation of Propaganda Studies, do you seriously suggest that the second version is an improvement on the first? Given that the replacement is an attack specifically on Piers Robinson? J
Just give me some time.
Okay, I’ve seen a couple more edits by Philip Cross, and I agree that most of them, and the lot of them in toto, seem to be of a belittling and derogatory nature.
What is remarkable is that he does seem to give some rationale for his edits, the longer of which breathe some shallow reason, but are often belittling at the same time.
Apart from his zest, he must have a lot of time on his hands.
Excellent piece of research, JS-D. Thank you for taking the time to make it accessible to those less familiar with Wiki editing. I agree it is difficult to suppose anything other than a malicious motive for the change Cross made.
Following the instructions I have given precisely demonstrates changes in the text of the article made by Philip Cross. Don’t take my word for it. See for yourselves.
Couldn’t you give us a couple of examples of what the Professor feels to have been malicious editing? Just a couple?
Oh, that’s interesting! An edit dispute is going on regarding the Piers Robinson page just today! “Bobfrombrockley” (16:41) is disagreeing with “Tibloc” (08:08). “Tibloc” says Robinson has written for the Guardian, which is true. “Bobfrombrockley” says that Piers Robinson is “not a regular Guardian writer” (which “Tibloc” did not say he was!) and replaces with Robinson having written *twice* for the Guardian. Both are true statements. The effect of the edit is to attempt to diminish Robinson’s prestige taken in context with the fact that Robinson has also written regularly for sources such as Sputnik and RT.
Funnily enough, “Bobfrombrockley” follows “Philip Cross” on Twitter. Now, isn’t that an odd coincidence!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
Hold on for a second there.
“Robinson has written for The Guardian” and “Robinson has written twice for The Guardian” are both true statements.
You claim that the second of those two statements is an attempt to diminish Robinson’s prestige. That is a supposition on your part.
I, on the other hand, could claim that the first sentence is truer than the second because it is more accurate. I could then voice the supposition that whoever wrote the first sentence did so in an attempt to increase Robinson’s prestige (by leaving the impression that Robinson was a regular writer in The Guardian.
Spencer-Davis’s comment makes my point very well for me, ie, much of this is purely subjective. As such, and absent some better examples ( I have asked for some twice now), I siggest that the charge of mmaliciousness remains undemonstrated.
Correction : should read ” I, on the other hand, could claim that the second sentence is truer than the second because it is more accurate.”
Fuck!!
Should read ” I, on the other hand, could claim that the second sentence is truer than the first because it is more accurate.”
🙂
It seems that the charge of maliciousness was very convincingly demonstrated just a few minutes later:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/not-forgetting-the-rohingyas/comment-page-1/#comment-748911
Not only does Oliver Kamm follow Philip Cross on Twitter, but Marko Attila Hoare does as well: Kamm’s former colleague at the Henry Jackson Society. Not bad for someone whose “main published outlet is via my Wikipedia account as Philip Cross” and who did not even write Hoare’s Wikipedia page.
I have had some experience editing Wikipedia pages and have come up against Philip Cross. One mode of operation seems to be to move quotes and references from the lower sections of the article – what might be callled ‘opinion’ or ‘controversy’ – up towards the top, where they will naturally appear to be accepted fact.
I urge people who are dismayed by the editing patterns Philip Cross to learn how to edit Wikipedia. It’s not difficult, though it can be tedious. If you make sure that you back up your edit with polite and clear reasoning (this is the hardest part), you can get your change to stick.
Just to be clear, I meant to say: One mode of operation used by Philip Cross is moving quotes etc from opinion into fact.
And I meant to write ‘the editing patterns *of* Philip Cross’.
Kickstarter isn’t a charity site though, if you are looking for donations – there are better sites out there. Somewhere like kickstarter people are going to be expecting a product and if you don’t provide products then you are unlikely to meet your total. There is no reason that the journalist couldn’t provide a copy of the documentary for people who fund at a certain level. If they went to gofundme or somewhere similar, where there is actual donor market…
Best wishes to Nadira and Shahida Tulaganova on this latest project. Nadira’s first film, the docu-drama Locked In, is very moving and excellently made, so I hope that this documentary reaches its fundraising target swiftly.
The “I just want to make you think” trope reminds me unhappily of modern art and toneless music.
Seconding Clark. Good luck Nadira and Shahida.
Thank you Sharp Ears, and good to hear from you.
Also seconded, Sharp Ears. I’ve added a pledge to the kick starter page.
Dachau:
Prisoners killed: more than 32000. Guards killed: about 30.
Ratio: about 100:1.
A 1933 law obliged guards to kill any prisoners who entered the “kill strip” next to the fence.
Do these facts remind people of anything?
I mean about 1000:1.
Ratio: about 1000:1
I am sure that it wasn’t the Nazis’ intention to act as instructors.
What do the Rohingyas have in common with Palestinians or Kashmiris?
Both are followers of the “ideology of Peace”. The victims of that same religion are not supported by the Gulf $heik$ plus not aggressive so don’t get space in Western MSN nor even here(!). Nothing about Javanese or Egyptian Church goers, Syrian minorities, Nigerian girls etc. etc. Fully one sided brainwashed with success.
Intriguing. What’s driving this alleged western MSM support for oppressed Muslims, in your mind?
$unni oil in $$
Antonyl is just recounting standard Islamophobic bigotry memes. That post should moderated. You get them a lot on unmoderated commentary columns. But he can’t get it right: normally they call Islam “the religion of peace”, which is an incorrect translation of the Arabic (but the Islamophobes don’t know it).
Who exactly are you to tell us which posts should be moderated – by which you mean suppressed, I suppose? Perhaps you should apply your censoriousness to yourself first. I wonder if you mark down your students who take a different line from you on various issues.
Because it’s a racist post (which you are apparently defending). I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else here. In general Craig is against racism, so I was just pointing it up. I didn’t expect to find people posting in defence of a racist post.
You are perfectly entitled to consider the post racist although I don’t quite see how it is. Therefore your take on it is a personal opinion which others might not (and in my case do not) share. It follows from that that your call for the suppression of the comment is an attempt to impose your interpretation on other people.
And do drop the sly but silly attempt to conflate criticism of your attitude with support for racism. It’s quite a tactic of yours, one I hope you don’t use to browbeat your students.
So let’s get this straight. You are saying that Palestinians are being financed by sheiks?
Some professional trolls are taught that their aim should be to infuriate, convince, or drive away.
Funny, I have not seen any MSM comparison of the Rohingya vs. Palestinian ethnic cleansing.
Craig,
Not in anyway to want to minimise the clear suffering of those fleeing those areas in Myanmar (and if you’ve not seen this already) can I suggest that you take a look at this three part piece from Adam Larson on the (lack of) evidence supporting some of the harrowing stories that we have heard from there.
It very much seems like HRW have been at it again as far as exageration and falsehood is concerned…
Adam Larson is one of the ‘open source’ researchers who essentially dismantled the mainstream narratives on the alleged CW attacks in Syria and FWIW I respect his work greatly (unlike Bellingcat/Higgins he’s open to discuss much of his work).
http://theindicter.com/fake-news-and-massacre-marketing-in-the-rohingya-crisis-part-i-questioning-the-massacre-stories-1/
Where would be be, but for heroic journalists dismantling mainstream narratives? Probably still in Islington, lol.
Are all lying?
6,700 Rohingya shot, burned or killed by other violent means in Myanmar, report says
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/6700-rohingya-shot-burned-or-killed-by-other-violent-means-in-myanmar-report-says
How much proof do people like you need?
Why is Burma now referred to as Myanmar?
Hi,
I know next to nothing of the historical back story of the Rohingyas, I thank Craig for offering a brief sketch here,
I’m also reticent to engage with the mainstream media as it always has an agenda beyond reporting what is actually happening,
I found the investigation of what’s been happening on The Indicter, connected with the Sedish Doctors for Human Rights, opened up a reality that is much more complex than either/various factions are trying to present it as,
http://theindicter.com/fake-news-and-massacre-marketing-in-the-rohingya-crisis-part-i-questioning-the-massacre-stories-1/
I give the SWEDHR & The Indicter a degree of credibility based on their analysis and deconstruction of White Helmet videos in an attempt to judge their validity, this was being done quite early on in the exposing of the White Helmets.
the Western aligned Media seems to be using the issue to bash Myanmar, within the Rohingyas there seems to be foreign jihadi influence of an IS flavour, they’re meddling in Indonesia and the Philipines at the moment trying to subvert local differences to their cause (whatever that is?!)
as always it seems that there are 3 sides to every story, one sides viewpoint, the other sides viewpoint and the truth which is somewhere inbetween,
and, as is always the case, the majority of the victims are the ordinary people caught up in the middle of differing group’s Machiavellian power plays,
I watched the teaser for the documentary and approved when the lady said she would be talking to the women to find out their story,
hopefully she can choose who she talks to instead of having people presented to her to give a version of the story,
someone with a good understanding of the regions languages and people would be invaluable, there are many subtle indicators that westerners are oblivious to,
is the woman you’re talking to muslim or has she been abducted and forced to convert and currently under the influence of her captors?
are the jihadi infiltrators trying to manipulate the story and provide ‘massacre porn’ to the Western media who will gobble it up and use it to bash Myanmar?
although the camera never lies it would appear newspaper editors do quite frequently, are the pictures you are being shown really of the events the newspapers claim them to be?
I daresay the actual Rohingya people are mostly pawns caught up in a dirty game and will bear the brunt of any suffering required by the primary actors,
What are you talking about? Mainstream media? You mean there are no killings?
A genocide going on against defenseless people.
Why do you defend these killings?
Jack – no one is defending these killings, but what is very much in contention is the somewhat over-simplified narrative we’ve been fed (Myanmar-bad ethnic cleansing).
No, the Indicter piece does not show that ‘they’re all lying’, but what it does show is that, as far as the statements go in the reports so far presented, they cannot ALL be telling the truth.
When someone question massive killings, they seems to atleast deny that it happend. Like holocaust denial. It makes no sense, because there are irrefutable evidence that massive killings (genocide according to some groups) has happend and is ongoing.
Jack
They aren’t really defending those killings, they’re either denying that they took place or, like Mr Murray, blaming it ll on the UK (after writing the usual Pharisee-like disclaimer “This background, which in no way justifies the recent ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas,.. “). You have to realise that nothing must be allowed to deflect attention of the human rights variety from the Palestinians and the misdeeds of the West.
The Palestinians’ existence really gets you, doesn’t it?
What could “get” me are J** haters who wrap their hatred in the cloak of concern for the Palestinians.
BTW, did you enjoy the demo?
“BTW, did you enjoy the demo?”
I couldn’t make it. My raccoon had hepatitis.
Who wouldnt hate a state that engage in racism, killing, occupation, annexation?
This antisemitic-accusations doesnt work anymore. World is fed up with this terrorist regime in tel aviv.
Sorry to hear about your racoon, bj. I imagine you must have been very upset both at its affliction and at the fact you couldn’t back up your fiery words with physical attendance at the demo.Hope the racoon recovers in time for the next demo!
Did anyone see Sky’s documentary on the Rohingjas? I didn’t and wonder what the reviews were like.
Alex Crawford and co picked up a BAFTA for it the other day.
No Rohingya population in this country according to Wikipedia but there are many in other countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people
Setting off in boats. Desperate.
http://news.sky.com/story/boatloads-of-rohingya-refugees-risking-death-at-sea-11372672
Muslim rohingas, muslim palestinians = no support by the western media, governments.
Despite the fact that a significant minority of Palestinians are Christian.
0.2% Christians in Gaza is not significant. 1 to 2.5% on the West Bank – where Jesus lived many years- is also peanuts.
Imagine the same number of Muslims in the Mecca – Medina region….
Craig,
You should Kick Start a Film, called Murder in Samarkand, and act in it yourself. It shouldn’t be too difficult, to get yourself to look 20 years younger, and you should have no difficulty whatsoever remembering the words, partcularly if you write the entire film script yourself, based on your book. Writing the storyboard, should be really easy, particularly with your wife’s contacts in the film business. Surely Nadira can Direct it. I assume by now, you do exactly what she tells you to do.
Tony
The Sky News reports.
Rohingya babies dumped and left to die in Myanmar crisis
Sky’s Alex Crawford travels to Myanmar’s Rakhine State, witnessing first-hand the military’s brutal crackdown on Rohingya Muslims.
13 November 2017
https://news.sky.com/story/rohingya-babies-dumped-and-left-to-die-in-myanmar-crisis-11123366
Sky crew: Harrowing plight of Rohingyas in Myanmar will stay with us
A Sky News producer and cameraman describe the heartbreaking scenes they experienced while making a daring journey into Myanmar.
27 November 2017
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-crew-harrowing-plight-of-rohingyas-in-myanmar-will-stay-with-us-11123835
Rohingya: ‘This genocide is still going on’
14 May 2018
https://news.sky.com/video/rohingya-this-crisis-is-still-going-on-11372041
Saturated with blood like ticks the Saudis enter Ramadhan confident that their prayer rituals will whitewash their multiple war crimes, the latest being the funding of Rohinga terrorists for Uncle Sam. But it’s not clear to me that Saudi performance of Islamic rituals will satisfy The Most Merciful tah the Saudis have understood a single word of the Qur’an. This tribal dynasty, what’s left of it after recent murders and purges, has trashed the entire Muslim world in the name of oil trillions. That’s what happens when a small group of people with no friends get very scared of losing their privilege and power illegally obtained by sucking up to a now disintegrated empire.
I don’t think Saudi war crimes , sacrifices or zucking up to the onez that muzt be obeyed will reprieve them for one second.
Theresa May’s words might as well have been written by the IDF
“We call on all sides to show restraint. There is an urgent need to establish the facts of what happened yesterday through an independent and transparent investigation, including why such a volume of live fire was used and what role Hamas played in events.”
I have a question for the Z__nists reading this. Please imagine the tables were turned. I realise this cannot be done exactly, because the J_wish people do not have an ancestral homeland, but please imagine. Imagine Palestine used to be J_wish. Imagine a fascist ethnic-supremacist regime in the whole of that country had been created by terrorists. Imagine that it encouraged Arab settlement from all parts of the Earth, having caused 5 million of the original J_wish inhabitants and their descendants, in numbers around 5 million, to live as refugees. In those circumstances, would you
1) lie down and take it
2) be like Gandhi
3) fight using terrorist methods
4) something else?
The non violence route is the hardest path to take but at some point the world will sicken itself and no longer take it…we are seeing that now as Western governments are reluctant to support such violence at least for a period
Inmates went to the Gaza camp fence peacefully in large numbers. Guards (ridiculously called “snipers”) are operating a kill strip the way the SS did. That’s clear.
The struggle of the Palestinians depends on solidarity from outside. The Z__nists understand this very well. That is why they used military force to attack an unarmed foreign ship bringing supplies to Gaza. It’s why they fight the BDS movement everywhere. It’s why they fight, and pay their lackeys to fight, the public reference to the very concept of J_wish racism.
“Close the I__aeli embassy” should be the call. In every country where there is one. As part of wider BDS, but “close the embassy” is a very clear, very simple aim.
As you correctly observe, the J_wish people do not have a homeland other than a tiny slither of land in a great swathe of Islamic territory from which virtually all J_ws have been expunged.
Muslims cannot accept any loss of Muslim territory (they’re still banging on about Andalusia), even when they lose it fair and square in wars that they start.
Because of what has happened to the J_ws throughout history they will hold onto and defend the tiny slither of land at any cost. See it as a kind of insurance policy.
Hope this helps.
If you’re implying that Arab states started the 1967 war, that’s just wrong.
The Arab states rejected the UN partition plan and started the 1948/9 war.
And lost it.
Nice try, Lysias.
The Haganah started the 1948 war well in advance of the formal independence day of 15th May, and started ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the coastal plain by force, all well before. Ben Gurion had been planning it since 1936. It’s well -published in all the works of history you have failed to read.
Ethnic cleansing? A lot of that was going on in that period in the whole ME and also Indian Sub continent. Why focus on the mini case in Israel by a small minority group? Better go for serious ethic cleansing in places like Irak, Libya, Pakistan or Bangladesh done by a big majority group.
Sure, Laguerre. Next you’ll be telling us that France, Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Holland (not to mention a certain religious minority), jealous of Germany’s achievements, started WW2 well in advance of the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. YCNMIU!
The word is ‘sliver’. Snakes slither as I often remind the trolls on here.
O/T but of interest.
Someone on The Lifeboat News is claiming (angrily) that Counterpunch has hosted an article on Julian Assange which does Assange no favours at all. I’ve been unable to find the offending article – has anyone else seen it?
If it’s true, then I wonder if it’s a sign that even the left-wing tide is turning against Mr Assange and that this, together with what is reported as being the position of the new government in Ecuador, could be an indication that Mr Assnage’s days of volontary imprisonment might be coming to an end?
Is it this article by Simon Floth?
I suppose it must be. Thanks. It appears that the content of the article is less interesting than the article’s appearance in Counterpunch of all places. What do you think?
Floth appears to be an exegist and apologist of Russian politics. Is that Left or Right-wing these days?
Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Is Assange left? What about the DNC? Is Russia?
Anyway — we all know it is no secret Assange has enemies, some of them have excellent left credentiials.
Mr. Floth, in the referenced article, to me sounds a bit personal.
He’s from Australia. I’d swear he has a personal axe to grind. That’s as obvious as it is interesting.
I agree that the article sounds somewhat personal and having reread it I must say it’s distinctly unimpressive. Strange though that Counterpunch gave it house room – perhaps a roundabout way of supporting Assange by printing one of his sillier critics?
Floth doesn’t appear that silly in other fora. That’s odd and to me signals a personal axe to grind.
The Sun might explode tomorrow. If true, at least I’ll be free of my debts.
Whilst it is important to acknowledge the suffering of the Rohingya people, it is also important to remember the “wrong kind of people”
These include the people of East Timor, South Sudan, Egyptian Coptic Christians, Indonesian Christians, Pakistani Christians an the victims of Boko Harem. Some may also suggest that a special thought be given to those holding the Gold Medal for being the wrongest kind of people of all. I give you South Africa and the average of 49 people per day who are murdered there.
It escapes me completely why all of the people killed and injured in these conflicts/atrocities are the wrong kind of people. If you excuse me but I need to prostrate myself before the alter of moral relativism.
Keep seeing this suggestion that oppressed Muslims are a cause celebre of western media. But never any explanation of why that would be. Are you and Antonyl implying that Muslims control western media?
It has to do with a toxic combination of cowardice and self loathing.
The right kind of people involves the suffering of anyone anywhere where the west can attribute the suffering to its own innate evil.
Some good and holy and pure things are accomplished like ending apartheid. Consequently it is now necessary to believe that South Africa is a paradise on earth. The murder rate there must be ignored. If it cannot be ignored then the residue of white people can be blamed. If that is impossible then the messenger will be attacked.
The intellectual classes of the west have long since moved beyond any need for God. Therefore people of religious faith can be safely sneered at. Theories will be developed that Religion is responsible for all wars – so who cares if a few Christians are killed somewhere. The single exception to the cult of godlessness has to do with Islam. Here the nihilists of the west meet head on with a vibrant, self assured and proselytizing force that contains enough members willing to enforce their ideas of things like blasphemy with deadly force. Simple cowardice explains the sudden respect of the otherwise sneering atheists.
It is not edifying and it will not end well.
That plus Sunni oil in U$ dollar$ and the Stockholm syndrome in the face of Islamist violence. The latter mostly amongst Western women / feminists – totally counter common sense or logic.
Loony
The essential point you make (in your last substantive paragraph) has also been made in print more than once by Nick Cohen. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism, by the way.
Iraqi Elections. We all remember how a Kenyan IT official who set up the electronic system for Kenyan elections was murdered in July 2017. What you may not know is that the new IT system for Iraqi elections was designed by Iran. It is programmed to alter any results which are fed into it into keeping the existing candidates in power, however much the electorate voted against them. This is why the British Bullshit Corpse has been promoting absolute confidence in the new system.. Oh whoops, that also means that Trump’s rejection of the Iran Nuke deal is also BS, the Brexit referendum is all BS, the Scottish exit referendum result is all BS and the last UK General Election result is all BS.
Mucktadar Bin Sodar appears to have won.
“What you may not know is that the new IT system for Iraqi elections was designed by Iran. It is programmed to alter any results which are fed into it into keeping the existing candidates in power, however much the electorate voted against them.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________
In fact, the Iraqi elections have produced results which are not particularly to Iran’s liking (maybe their ‘IT system’ didn’t work properly?):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-election-results-muqtada-al-sadr-future-kurds-muqtada-sadr-a8352946.html
@ snickid May 15, 2018 at 23:14
Why on earth didn’t they use Diebolds? They do a fine job (ask ‘w’).
Fellow observers as the world hurtles to hell in a handcart, please pay attention:
the Trump-Kim Jong-Un summit may be called off.
Yeah, I saw that. Maybe he got instructions that shipping off his nukes to the US wasn’t such a great idea. I don’t blame them. That, and the US’ notorious violation of agreements and promises, of which they might have been cognizant sooner.
Or maybe there’s a late-minute coup underway against Kim, to prevent the plunder of NK by the US.
@ N_ May 15, 2018 at 21:02
The answer is simple. The US does not want peaceful reunification of Korea, any more than a certain unmentionable Regime in the Middle East wants an equitable peace in Palestine.
So, when things seem to favour a peaceful solution, the US and the ‘Unmentionables’ throw a spanner in the works (just as the CIA did, against Ike’s orders, to screw up rapprochement with the Soviets with Gary Power’s U2 flight. I make Kruschev right banging his shoe on the table.
‘North Korea cancels talks with South, threatens to call off US talks over military drills’:
https://www.rt.com/news/426827-north-korea-threaten-talks-trump/?
Agreed. But it may be more than a case of a spanner thrown into the workings of a machine that was about to move things in the direction of reunification. When “the deal” is seen to be “off”, there might be something very different from the status quo ante.
Interesting comparison with Gary Powers even if I’m not sure anyone in the US is playing the role of Ike here.
It was never likely that Donald Trump was going to “bring peace” to the Korean peninsula. War, yes.
Got to wonder what’s in the minds of the US-based evangelical Christians involved with the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology.
Yes come to think of it, Craig, when are you going to do a piece on, say, the abduction and forced conversion of Nigerian girls, or the murder of Christians in Pakistan? I mean this being a “human rights” blog and all that. I might even subscribe.
Do you consider the MSM coverage lacking? If you are so concerned with human rights you should have your own blog.
Anon1 is all about human rights. Yes, indeedy! But only the rights of the
white_right_ sort of humans, if you know what I mean (wink, wink).Anon1: When have our great western democracies given the thumbs-up to this sort of thing – abduction and forced conversion of Nigerian girls et cetera? Never of course, it goes without saying. Stop pretending that this counts as approval or disinterest.
When did you last condemn the anti-Semitic rantings of holy-roller Christianists for that matter?
It’s one thing to condemn those that everyone can get agree are worthy of condemnation – that goes without saying. You like to cosy up to those in power, brave man that you clearly are. When did you ever condemn the powerful, those that the State officially approves of, our Official Friends?
About never, in my recollection in the long years of your presence here. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@ Anon1 May 15, 2018 at 21:34
Sure, and I wonder who funds ‘Shish Kebab’ or al Shabaab or whatever name has been allotted to them? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, and I have a pretty shrewd idea of the answer. And it ain’t Putin!
Mr Bostik is prominent in the comments tonight. No sympathy is a expressed for the Palestinians who are burying their dead today and dealing with the thousands injured.
Why don’t you drop the “Mr Bostick” business, Sharp Ars ? Is that what our grandfathers and fathers fought for all those years ago?
It is heartening to see this report on Sky News from Alex Rossi. He has humanity in his heart.
Gaza. A portrait of grief after day of deadly violence.
http://news.sky.com/story/gaza-a-portrait-of-grief-after-day-of-deadly-violence-11374032
Written an hour ago in Gaza.
I think the latest reason to care about them is yet another march to a war, using the group ARSA (Saudi backed proxy soldiers) that appeared to be attacking Rohingya in the hope of kicking off a war / general instability. Sadly genuine human rights doesn’t appear to be on the radar of our establishment, as ever. They’re yet another pawn for geopolitical gain.
@ Jo Smith May 15, 2018 at 21:46
The Saudis do nothing without US (Is) orders. The PTB really are Satanic (Luciferian), that is why they are so bloodthirsty, sociopathic and SUCCESSFUL. Yes, the Devil is the ‘Prince of this world’, as Jesus referred to him on at least three occasions in the New Testament.
I just started a petition – help me get it started? Shared with facebook friends and twitter followers but I need some shares that go further afield. I’ve also put a link to a website with some interesting ideas about what reforms to the UN could look like.
The UN security council (and particularly the veto power of its superpower members) is an outdated mechanism that grossly misrepresents the moral aspirations of the other 188 nation states. The in‐ability to deal with key humanitarian issues such as the Rohingya crisis and the war in Syria are only two recent examples. World peace and security are being threatened by this in‐balance toward military‐industrial power over people power. We call on the UN to re‐define its purpose in the 21st century by reforming the security council.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_United_Nations_Reform_the_UN_security_council/?cDKHaib
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/05/18/how-to-reform-the-un-security-council/
I posted this on another thread but all of the issue being discussed recently on this blog lead us back to the failure of the international community to effect any meaningful influence. I wonder, like me, do you completely disregard the UN as a force fore any practical good when the worst happens……and it happens ALOT! I for one am sick of it. Reform of the UN is long overdue. It’s a post war relic….and yet, diplomacy and shared peaceful long term goals are the way forward. So here’s my plea for help…again:
I just started a petition – help me get it started? Shared with facebook friends and twitter followers but I need some shares that go further afield. I’ve also put a link to a website with some interesting ideas about what reforms to the UN could look like.
The UN security council (and particularly the veto power of its superpower members) is an outdated mechanism that grossly misrepresents the moral aspirations of the other 188 nation states. The in‐ability to deal with key humanitarian issues such as the Rohingya crisis and the war in Syria are only two recent examples. World peace and security are being threatened by this in‐balance toward military‐industrial power over people power. We call on the UN to re‐define its purpose in the 21st century by reforming the security council.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_United_Nations_Reform_the_UN_security_council/?cDKHaib
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/05/18/how-to-reform-the-un-security-council/
@Goatboy
I agree that the UN security council is outdated and needs to be reformed. But I will not support your petition, because there’s high possibility the reforms will be made to benefit military‐industrial power.
You can see how it is made nowadays with many UN resolutions ignored. That is the point. We must invent mechanism to make UN resolutions OBLIGATORY and no way to avoid it.
Addition to illustrate –
UN resolution on Jerusalem is not violated by moving US embassy, but we all understand it is the reason to cause Palestinian protests and shooting.
So, will USA make a favor to the world and pull their embassy back to Tel-Aviv? No.
Will any country expell US diplomats? No.
——–
It is nothing to do with UN resolutions. It is strong power doing what they want to do and none to stop them, resolution or not.
snickid
The Independent:
” He was denounced by the US as a pro-Iranian proxy, but he has made clear over the years that he opposes Iranian interference as well as that of other countries. ”
Everybody knows Sadr’s politics are nationalistic but even Iraqi Shi’a clerics are not immune from saying one thing to the public and doing something else underneath afterwards.
“The Sadrist success in the election this month will be unwelcome in both Washington and Tehran.
The US had done everything it could to back Mr Abadi as a victorious war leader… ”
USUKIS created Islamic State with the sole purpose of intimidating and weakening Tehran, Baghdad and Saudi Arabia. Obama said he would keep Daesh there for 20 years for its regional interference programme
How lovely of him to run out of time as POTUS so that Russia and Iran could run them out of town. It is Trump’s ” mad dog ” General Mattis that gets a heart attack when the Iranian army is on the loose in the region, hence the stupid withdrawal from the Iranian Nuclear deal. True, neither the US nor Iran want Russia controlling Baghdad but they have to eat poo, as they are both under Russian military control.
Logically therefore, Iran supports an Iraqi Nationalist against the dominant foreigner who is usurping their cosy position in Baghdad. Nobody knew the result of US intervention would be Russian and Chinese dominance in the Middle East. As the Iraqis say, better if they had left it alone.
Loony:
” The single exception to the cult of godlessness has to do with Islam. Here the nihilists of the west meet head on with a vibrant, self assured and proselytizing force that contains enough members willing to enforce their ideas of things like blasphemy with deadly force. Simple cowardice explains the sudden respect of the otherwise sneering atheists.”
The cult of Godlessness starts with colonialism and the building of pagan Classical mansions like Stourhead. I don’t see it quite like you do. I believe as a Muslim that when the West exceeds ne bounds , God gives them a new cult which permits their latest deterioration. Darwin popping up with proto-Apartheid was the end-result of centuries of African slavery.
The Muslims endure the same Divine wrath. Takfirism is a cult that has been visited upon Islam because they abandoned honesty as a basic principle of Islamic living. Nobody suffers more under the curse of Takfirism than the Muslims and the solution is obvious to me , that the Muslims need to reform their totally unacceptable habit of lying.
Western cowardice is the type of bravery that will go and poke a stick into a dead lion. It’s totally humiliating for the Muslims that westerners sympathise with the punishments ravaged by the Muslims on their own brothers and sisters through the dirty politics of lying. We westerners who live under the thrall of our newest false god of Market Greed alias Thatcher-bitch-ism, dare to poke a stick into the corpse of Muslims who are being punished severely for lying, by a cult of total betrayal by political Muslims of all the other Muslims.
All I can do personally is not to lie, and Allah has sent some reprieve for the Muslims by the hand of Russia and China, who have cracked a stunned USUKIS over the head. USUKIS is currently staggering around like a drunkard cursing whatever has knocked them out, sending a terrified Theresa May to the City of London to bad-mouth Russia, followed by *”@*& blistering barnacle buffoonery by Gavin Williamson, MI5’s nosey Parker and Boris Jockstrap, wondering how he’s getting cold turkey when he hasn’t even had a shot of cocaine.
Got to admit, it says a lot that nobody who is in the family of the latest young woman to marry into the British “royal” family wants to take part in the ceremony to give her away. A number of them seem to have a lot more humanity and decency than she does.
Jeez, I didn’t know that! And I didn’t know you were a “Royal watcher”, N_
Nick Witchell had better look out for his job.