Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced Cunt 126


Brown is appeasing domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile British diplomats on the United Nations Security Council are under direct instructions to offer “tacit support” to United States’ efforts to block a ceasefire.

I have been told this directly by a former colleague in the UK Mission to the United Nations.

A footnote on the uses of obscenity – 7,200 people read this entry between 15.30 on a Sunday afternoon and 08.30 on a Monday morning. That’s normally the slowest time of the entire week.

Amazing what a catchy heading will do. Besides, if you think the title is obscene, how do you describe what is happening in Gaza?


126 thoughts on “Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced Cunt

1 2 3 4 5
  • Tom Kennedy

    Thanks, amk.

    I think it's important to find a way of describing those anomalous groups which are cited as representative of Islam (or Judaism etc) in such a way that an ordinary man or woman will understand that they are far from the mainstream of their claimed faith. Most people will not be interested in abstruse discussion of technical terminology – it needs to be kept simple.

    The use of words such as Islamist, jihadi etc obscures the true nature of these groups and confuses people. Similarly the term "Zionist" is often used interchangeably with "Zionist Jew" or even "Jew", which debases the wisdom, brilliance, charity, humanity and indeed humour of Judaism.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with "extremist" or "heretic". You can pick any point in a whole spectrum of mainstream Islamic belief and these people will be outside of that. They have selected parts of the Qur'an and rejected others. They act outside of the spirit of Islam. They lack humility, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance. Muslims should not be afraid to call them what they are and reclaim the good name of Islam.

    I understand the inherent reserve of a muslim to declaim someone who also claims the same faith. But the longer this situation is not faced up to, the more ordinary muslims will get caught in the crossfire between renegades and imperialists.

  • eddie

    amk

    Here for starters. As far as I am aware Chomsky has never repudiated any of the

    points made by Hitchens and others. Chomsky is the great dissembler. He supports Faurisson's right to SAY that there were no gas chambers but says that does not mean that he supports Faurisson's VIEWS. This is cant and humbug. Where does it end? Would he support the right of a paedophile to say that children should be sexually abused? The man is a fraud. His vision of the world is clouded by a visceral anti-Americanism.. Hence his support for Pol Pot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

  • eddie

    amk

    I would like to respond to your request about Chomsky but I am afraid Mr Murray appears to have censored my response.

  • ingo

    I used to support the existence of Israel, but today, after much deliberations and with heavy heart, I have changed my mind, Israel is not able to exist like other nations, there is no right for it to exist anymore, by its own actions it has extradited itself from the world community. If this makes me a target for Israely aggression so be it. Should there ever be a Government elected in Palestine that supports one country for all its people , that stifles the supremacy of zionists and their violent means and instead supports a multi religous society for all, I shall review my opinions.

    Feel free to support my declaration, or not, I could not care less, live death, its all the same to me.

  • bb

    The Israelis bombed a UN school, safe haven to hundreds of dislaced, terrified and hungry Palestinian civilians this morning, killing 3 civilians. Mark Regev, someone else for whom the moniker cunt fits like a glove, was at pains to suggest this was not a targeted attack on R4 World at One. Israel would not attack a UN school; it could be Hamas. They are that wicked, not us.

    Shortly after, a second UN school, safe haven to hundreds of dislaced, terrified and hungry Palestinian civilians was bombed by Israel, killing over 40 innocent refugees.

    This time an Israeli amsassador insists it was a targeted attack as Hamas had been thought to have used it in the past to fire a missile. No evidence at all.

    A UN aid guy in Gaza said conditions there, the horror against civilians was worse than anything he's ever seen in his long career, including Rwanda, Bosnia etc.

    How low can our leaders go before they say enough?

  • eddie

    Ok I may have done something wrong but I have tried again and it don't work. Your site has too many glitches and life is short. amk look up Cchomsky and Faurisson on wikipedia – there is plenty of documentary proof of Chomsky's support for the Holocaust denier Faurisson and his support of Pol Pot. Chomsky's visceral anti-Americanism clouds his judgement and makes him unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Supporting Faurisson's right to say that there were no gas chambers is disingenous – would he support the right of a paedophile (on grounds of free speech) to day that children should be abused? I don't think so. He is a fraud.

  • amk

    Eddie, you clearly do not understand the concept of free speech.

    Making claims about historical events is materially different from advocating crime. You will find the former is constitutionally protected in the US, the latter not.

  • OrwellianUK

    Eddie,

    You are disingenuous in claiming Chomsky supported Faurisson's claim. Chomsky merely supported the right of Faurisson to exercise his right to free speech even though he disagreed with Faurisson's views.

    Furthermore he is not a supporter of Pol Pot. He pointed out that it was the US who supported Pol Pot's regime. See this interview below:
    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060121.htm

    Chomsky is not anti-american, but merely anti-imperialist. A distinction obviously too difficult for your narrow mind. However, since Chomsky is himself an American, he will admit that it is his own governments policies he is most concerned with holding to account. This is his right and duty as a US citizen.

  • eddie

    Neither of you read any of the documents – I suggest you do. Chomsky went way beyond supporting Faurisson's right to free speech. If Chomsky is anti-imperialist why is there never any criticism of China (Tibet) or Iraq under Saddam (Kuwait) etc. It is all one sided. Why no mention of Darfur or Zimbabwe or North Korea. It is all one died. Orwellian – your tag is a fucking disgrace. To use Orwell's name for your twisted views is heinous. You have clearly never read or understood Orwell. Narrow minded my arse.

  • eddie

    Neither of you read any of the documents – I suggest you do. An interview with Chomsky is worthless as he has a track record of dissembling and quoting out of context. The documents speak for themselves. Chomsky went way beyond supporting Faurisson's right to free speech and if the Holocaust is not a crime I don't know what is. If Chomsky is anti-imperialist why is there never any criticism of China (Tibet) or Iraq under Saddam (Kuwait) etc. It is all one sided. Why no mention of Darfur or Zimbabwe or North Korea by him or any of your lot. It is all one sided and everything he writes and says follows his own twisted agenda. You debase the language with your bile. Example – Livingstone and Galloway comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto – this just reduces political discourse to the gutter – there is simply no comparison, yet these claims are made and go unchallenged. Orwellian – your tag is a fucking disgrace. To use Orwell's name for your twisted views is heinous. You have clearly never read or understood Orwell. Narrow minded my arse. Read Politics and the English Language to begin with.

  • Bear Witness

    No coincidence, then, that BBCi player's top billing for today is 'The Diary of Ann Frank' – Episode 1 – together with 'The Secret Diary of the Holocaust' ['39-45' not 2008-2009]….

    I was going to end that sentence with an exclamation mark but after what we've witnessed this week in Gaza it really comes as no suprise at all.

  • amk

    "It is all one sided."

    What China does or does not do has no effect on the rights or wrongs of American policy. It is irrelevant. You commit a red herring fallacy by bringing up China.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

    as well as an ad hominem fallacy when dismissing all of Chomsky's writings because of this.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

    Chomsky concentrates on the US because he is American, and can in theory influence it. He discusses Israel because he is Jewish and the US is Israel's sponsor.

    I did read you Wikipedia link, thanks. Maybe you should read the Freedom Of Speech article linked therein?

  • eddie

    amk

    I am talking about the whole world and the sum of good and evil in the whole world. A Martian reading Chomsky would imagine that the USA is the begetter of all evil in the world. It is simply a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Your world view is distorted and weird and I don't know why. There are things happening in this world right now that are hundreds of times worse than the events in Gaza. Why do you not protest about these things? Simply because they do not match your anti-US agenda? As for Orwellian, I can guarantee that he will not find a single reference in Orwell's work to US imperialism becasue I have read every word. Orwell risked his life fighting against totalitarian regimes, whether fascist or communist, and was impartial in his quest for truth. Shame on you for your bias.

  • amk

    eddie, Chomsky has never claimed to write a complete guide to the world's evils.

    You are now making the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html

    You are making a further ad hominem fallacy by accusing me of bias. You don't even know what I think of anything else!

    Your pro-Western bias (born of ingroup bias) is noted.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias

    Have you ever read Orwell's original preface to Animal Farm?
    http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html

    "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news – things which on their own merits would get the big headlines – being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

  • writerman

    Come on! Chomsky isn't 'anti-American' at all. He's, if anything, anti the American ruling-class and the system of unbridled Capitalism and chronic injustice in perpetuates. Chomsky thinks the US is a great country, compared to most others, with fantastic potential. He's really an outstanding American patriot, but he's highly critical of the corrupt elite that rule and control almost everything.

  • amk

    (Comments are being awkward, this may get posted twice)

    eddie, Chomsky has never claimed to write a complete guide to the world's evils.

    You are now making the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html

    You are making a further ad hominem fallacy by accusing me of bias. You don't even know what I think of anything else!

    Your pro-Western bias (born of ingroup bias) is noted.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias

    Have you ever read Orwell's original preface to Animal Farm?
    http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html

    "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news – things which on their own merits would get the big headlines – being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

  • Ron

    eddie

    Why are you having a go at someone because of their bias? Surely what you perceive as bias is simply their point of view, isn't it? Also, why the rant? It seems that Chomsky upsets you because he sticks to subjects that he feels qualified to talk about and maybe he lacks the confidence you have in such abundance.

    Finally, to say "There are things happening in this world right now that are hundreds of times worse than the events in Gaza" seems a bit odd. How are we to measure them and at what point should we stop talking about Gaza and other minor problems?

  • eddie

    Don't stop talking about it. What is happening in Gaza is bad, but there are lots of bad things happening around the world that the far left never discuss or protest about, because it doesn't fit with their twisted agenda. When will we ever see protests about Mugabe and the terror he has unleashed on his people? Or the genocide in Darfur, carried out by Islamists? Or the fact that China is executing more people than the rest of the world put together? Or the slave society that is North Korea? Or the execution of gay people in Iran? One of the only decent people who campaigns on ALL these issues is Peter Tatchell. As for Chomsky, yes I despise him because he uses his stature and intelligence for evil ends. He could be doing more to fight injustice in the world yet he does nothing, unless he can attack his own country. The sow that ate its farrow.

  • writerman

    But Tatchell is a professional protester, it's what he does for a living, Chomsky has a proper job. He can't be expected to protest about everything can he? He's a patriotic American living in America, so surely it's only natural that he concentrates on what he sees around him, the faults of his own country? It's not as if they are a whole army of Chomskys dominating the American debate and monopolising the media, Chomsky is out-numbered at least a hundred to one. When was the last time Chomsky was interviewed in depth on mainstream US television or was given space in a national newspaper?

    Chomsky is a dissedent intellectual, an enemy of the corrupt elite that is destroying America like the aristocracy in France before the revolution in 1789. This makes him 'dangerous' but it certainly doesn't make him unpatriotic, and only if one defines 'patriotism' as support for the 'aristocracy' no matter what in contrast to the rest of society.

  • amk

    "What is happening in Gaza is bad, but there are lots of bad things happening around the world that the far left never discuss or protest about, because it doesn't fit with their twisted agenda. When will we ever see protests about Mugabe and the terror he has unleashed on his people? Or the genocide in Darfur, carried out by Islamists? Or the fact that China is executing more people than the rest of the world put together? Or the slave society that is North Korea? Or the execution of gay people in Iran?"

    Unlike that list the British government helps to arm Israel and gives it diplomatic cover. As I can, in theory, influence the British government this makes support for Israeli policy my moral responsibility. It also means protest may actually achieve something,

    No-one claims the British Government is involved in Darfur or North Korea.

    Chomsky has explicitly used this argument. He feels partly responsible for the actions of the US government (including sponsoring Israel). He is not responsible for Iran's.

    Surely this is obvious?

    It is a nonsense to regard a nation as Goodies or Baddies. Only an individual person is a moral actor. Just because you are determined to see Western nations as Goodies doesn't mean those who disagree with you see them as Baddies. You clearly hate Chomsky because he challenges your view of the US as Goodies. Your rationalisations are transparent.

  • writerman

    But an innocent Martian wouldn't read Chomsky for numerous reasons, too silly to go into here.

    The point is there are no innocent Martians, we are all 'biased' Earthlings, with all that implies.

    Why do many leftist intellectuals criticise the West? It's completely untrue that they don't criticise other 'evildoers.'

    The point is, we, the West, are supposed to be the good guys, supporters of democracy, freedom, human rights and liberty… So, if we do bad things, if we are hypocrites and liars about who we are and what we do, that is news and interesting. If we do things that remind one of the bad guys, that's news.

    We all know who the bad guys are don't we, is it any surprise that they trample on human rights and freedom? The 'surprise' is that we, the people with the white hats, pretty much do the same thing and increasingly so. Compared to us in the peace and freedom loving West, the rest of the world is on its knees. We are so much more powerful and richer and successful than they are.

    Look at the real world! The United States is a global empire with over 700 military bases across the globe and it's building more and more of them. What other country has the power to send vast armies to the other side of the world to protect it's interests and topple regimes it doesn't like?

    Is there a huge Muslim army that's occupied Holland? Is an Islamist fleet cruising off the coast of Maine. Are they bombing and bombarding San Francisco? It's a lie that we are under attack. It's us that are really doing the attacking, occupying and changing regimes, and we are doing it because we think we own the world and have a right to take what we want and use our military to do it. This has been the characteristic of the West for centuries, agressive expansionism at massive cost to the nations we attacked, invaded and occupied.

  • amk

    Eddie, do you think that, if I were to criticise Iranian democracy, freedom of expression, and religious freedom, that I'd need to append "… but North Korea is worse" (which it is whichever way you want to cut it) to satisfy intellectual honesty?

    I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't.

    If not, then your thought processes are laid bare. It isn't because of intellectual honesty that you insist that the US and Israel are always compared to others. It's because you need to maintain their status as the Goodies by contrasting them with the Baddies. Iran is already a Baddie, and thus a comparison to another Baddie is irrelevant.

    It's also notable that Saudi Arabia, friend of the US, is worse than Iran too, but that it doesn't appear in your list of evil states.

  • eddie

    "Why do many leftist intellectuals criticise the West? It's completely untrue that they don't criticise other 'evildoers.'"

    Do you have any evidence for that statement? I see very little on the web and in the media. Do you really think that we in the west have no power to stop the atrocities that are happening in China, North Korea or even Saudi Arabia? Of course we do. I hope you guys sleep well at night. Of course I have a bias towards the West – I live in England and I would rather live here than in any of the other countries I have mentioned. It allows me to write this crap to start with. Of course we are bad, no one is good (well perhaps the Swedes) but others are far worse and we CAN do something about it. As for Chomsky I don't believe he has a full time job – he does little or no work on linguistics and he could do more to atack other regimes. His intellectual dishonesty is self-evident and he has his own distorted agenda. He is far better known outside the USA by the way.

  • punkscience

    Having taken the time to read through the whole comments thread I have several further conclusions to add:

    Michael, several of your posts contain interest facts and references but others contain bizarre conspiracy theories and by failing to differentiate between Jews, Israelis and Zionists you are being overtly racist. The Israelis make great use of Israeli Arabs in the IDF and it was such characters who were responsible for the murders of the cameraman James Miller and the peace activist Tom Hurndall. Anyone in any doubt as to the sheer malevolence and deviousness of the IDF should read both their stories on Wikipedia. Films were made about the lives and deaths of both men.

    Eddie: You do not understand Noam Chomsky's arguments. OrwellianUK tried to point this out to you but you just ignored him. I won't bother with you further.

    Dr Nick Ashley: You are ill-informed or you are a GIYUS bot. I don't care which- you are wrong.

    OrwellianUK: I like your considered and informed posts.

    Some material for further consideration:

    I wrote to my MP, Alison Seabeck, during the height of the Lebanese genocide to demand why prominent Israelis were not the subject of war crimes investigations by the ICC. The response is damning of the Labour government's attitude to the conflict in the Middle East:
    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2006/10/ridicul

    Reports of depleted uranium traces in Gazan casualties are not at all novel. The Israelis have a history of deploying novel and existing chemical weapons against Palestinians. See the documented linked from another British film maker, James Longley:
    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2006/09/israel-

    Also see these posts about a new mystery weapon Israelis were deploying in Gaza in 2006 whose shrapnel seemed to cauterise wounds and didn't show up on X-rays.
    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2006/09/mystery
    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-de

    The Israelis are also systematically targeting Emergency workers and ambulances, as related on this heroic blog from a paramedic In Gaza right now
    http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/what-the-m

    Did I mention that Craig Murray rules?

  • amk

    "As for Chomsky I don't believe he has a full time job"

    He is eighty years old.

    punkscience: thanks for the link. Mark Thomas certainly should be a legend.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.