Two classics on one day from the pages of The Dictators' Friend, sometimes known as the Guardian comments pages.
First up, Mehdi Hasan finds it oh so reasonable that with everyone being really nasty to Iran (I wonder why that is), it is no wonder that they want nuclear weapons. Well who wouldn't? Not that there is any evidence of them actually trying to get them, perish the thought. Of course, he doesn't mention that the nature of the regime might just give a few causes for concern. The classic is when he writes, without even a hint of irony,
Another who is feeling got at is that reasonable chap Mr Assad. Those bullies in the Arab League have turned on him, but at least he has got Jonathan Steele to stick up for him by telling them to desist and to proffer mediation instead of condemnation and isolation. Of course he is duly critical of Syria:
The Assad regime has made mistake after mistake. Stunned by the first protests this spring, it turned too quickly to force.
Erm, "too quickly"? Does that mean that it would have been OK if they waited a bit before shooting thousands of people? And of course it was a "mistake", not a crime.
Whatever you think the right response should be and even if you think that the current policy is wrong, it is perfectly possible to to argue the case without throwing your moral compass in the bin and turning a blind eye to murder. The question is how we deal with repression, tyranny and vile ideologies, not how we minimise their crimes.
First up, Mehdi Hasan finds it oh so reasonable that with everyone being really nasty to Iran (I wonder why that is), it is no wonder that they want nuclear weapons. Well who wouldn't? Not that there is any evidence of them actually trying to get them, perish the thought. Of course, he doesn't mention that the nature of the regime might just give a few causes for concern. The classic is when he writes, without even a hint of irony,
On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".Hmm ... if I were American or Israeli I think I would be feeling a bit queasy about that and conceivably I might think that it is rather a good idea to stop Iran acquiring the means of actually delivering that death.
Another who is feeling got at is that reasonable chap Mr Assad. Those bullies in the Arab League have turned on him, but at least he has got Jonathan Steele to stick up for him by telling them to desist and to proffer mediation instead of condemnation and isolation. Of course he is duly critical of Syria:
The Assad regime has made mistake after mistake. Stunned by the first protests this spring, it turned too quickly to force.
Erm, "too quickly"? Does that mean that it would have been OK if they waited a bit before shooting thousands of people? And of course it was a "mistake", not a crime.
Whatever you think the right response should be and even if you think that the current policy is wrong, it is perfectly possible to to argue the case without throwing your moral compass in the bin and turning a blind eye to murder. The question is how we deal with repression, tyranny and vile ideologies, not how we minimise their crimes.
1 comment:
"The question is how we deal with repression, tyranny and vile ideologies, not how we minimise their crimes."
No.
It is how do we ensure every single time 'we' are always on the other side of the argument to America and or Israel.
Coming soon: When it is right to eat babies.
Post a Comment