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>

10 thoughts on “Don’t Read This, Read That

  • Freeborn

    Oh the high quality dialogue (LOL)!

    Are you referring to another blog?

    If not the description offered above can only refer to the earlier satirical contributions to the thread from Abe Foxman,Angelina Jolie and Jon Voigt.

    In the first Foxman took great exception to your use of a lower case “h” when referring to the “Holocaust” and let it be known that your “pathological denier status” would not go unpunished. ADL policy henceforth was that Metro Goldwyn should not go ahead with the film project.

    Angelina Jolie I believe was most graceful in making apologies on behalf of herself and Bradd Pitt for their decision to withdraw from the film project. She was also particularly sympathetic to you personally for the scurrilous satire that had been levelled at you since you posted the hagiographical homily on youself by Der Spiegel yesterday morning.

    Jolie had by her own admission been besotted with the idea of working with such a “womanizer par excellence” as yourself. She was quite unconcerned by the Der Spiegel suggestion that your educational background at a non-Ivy League university like Dundee counted against you in your dealings with other embassy personnel. Her experience of having dated various “Bonesmen” in the past had taught her what a thoroughly perverted sense of male bonding existed in such Ivy League institutions.

    The offer of a part in his remake of Midnight Cowboy by her father,Jon Voigt which followed Jolie’s message,was utterly enchanting and by Voigt’s own account based on the supposition that your time trawling the various strip-joints and bars in Tashkent would serve as the groundwork for a highly distinguished method-acting performance by you in the said remake.

    For you to excise these messages of goodwill from your comment board aside from being decidedly ungrateful will do nothing to enhance your much-vaunted reputation as a defender of free speech. Nor will it remove the implication the more astute commentators here have taken that you are THOROUGHLY IN THRALL TO THE LOBBY!

    P.S Don’t forget there’s a capital “H” in Holocaust!


  • Apostate


    I loved those bits of the thread too!

    The turgid legal dialogue that followed bored me shitless.

    As we await the Ubersturmfuhrer’s coming excision we can at least take this as confirmation that this blog is another gate-keeper controlled opposition limited hang-out.

    And as confirmation that our humourless censor is far more committed to RESTRICTED PC DIALOGUE THAN HE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    P.S. Don’t forget there’s a capital “F” in Friends of Israel!

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Have just read the article in Der Spiegel. It is of course very comfortable to write an article and discuss all this from very safe distance, the editorial office of Der Spiegel for example. It is very different when someone is faced with the reality of torture and constant abuse of their rights by those who hold a power.

    Putting it in other words if the one who wrote this article would have spent at least a day in any Uzbek prison or have been visited at night by Secret Uzbek Police SNB then we would have very different article and very different opinion about two approaches-Mr Murray’s and German envoy’s.

    Confronting such bustards like Karimov is the best tactics if you are to save lives of people or trying to improve something in a very difficult situation like the one in Uzbekistan. I am saying this as the one who was saved by Mr Murray’s involvement and the one who witnessed brutality of the regime towards those who dare to even think of speaking against them. But reading quite substantial amount of books about Central Asia and Western politics in general, I now have to admit that it will be very long and very problematic to change or improve situation in Uzbekistan. The West is quite clearly have chosen immediate security ?” even very short and spontaneous- over long term strategy towards Uzbekistan. Putting it in other words Western approach towards Uzbekistan is no more different then towards for example Egypt or to some respect Saudi Arabia. The West will support Karimov and his successor until they provide West with the access to their military compounds and guarantee that every kind of religious (Islamic) extremism will be suppressed (as more cruel as better). The West does not seem to understand that this strategy will ?”in the long run- turn into very catastrophic consequences. It will inevitably lead to instability in Uzbekistan and as the consequence of this to instability in whole Central Asia. Failure to influence regime to liberalise economy and politics will turn very dear to the West. Karimov and his successor will always benefit from the balancing between Russia, China and the West and will always play on the geopolitical interests of latter for their own good.

    It is very shameful, but it is very unlikely that there will be another diplomat like Mr Murray in Uzbekistan or anywhere else in the world. Those who rule the world would rather accept Karimov and allow him to place his billions to Switzerland then allow someone to criticise the catastrophe over the 27 million population. Why one need to ask the government to send an army or navy to colonise the nation when one can do so by supporting this nation’s bloodiest dictator who would be happy to colonise this nation for the one who wants to benefit from the wealth that the nation can offer?

  • nextus

    I think the (remarkably civilised) debate on the diplomacy thread has been getting to the heart of some real diplomatic controversies. The sudden outbreak of rationality is greatly to be welcomed. I was heartened to see Charles Crawford set such a conducive tone with a very considered analysis, and respond convivially to my (typically didactic) criticisms. Clark, Technicolour and Alfred have made some particularly edifying and memorable contributions. And now ‘Uzbek in the UK’ has brought some humanity and realism to the ideological debate. I’m finding the constructive exchange very enlightening. There are lots of shared values and principled differences emerging.

    We should make allowances for the fact that Charles is outnumbered, though. The other esteemed apologist for tainted intelligence, Brian Barder, has pledged to rejoin the debate, and will hopefully do so in accordance with the respectful tone already set. I’m genuinely interested in how Brian, as a former senior diplomat, reconciles his morals and principles with the grim reality of secret intelligence. On his own website, he’s still blustering in defence of the establishment spin, but Clark is pinning him down efficiently and his defensiveness is waning. I’m sure Brian, like Charles, is capable of laying out a coherent defence of his advocacy, and I look forward to reading it.

    This debate could be worth pitching to a learned society for a one-day conference, probably in London. Nothing too formal, though. I might be able to pull some strings. Anybody interested?

  • somebody

    Anyone have any comments on the US elections? What next? They’ve had hope and change (failed), now they have had a change.

    Did the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq get mentioned in the run up?

  • dreoilin

    “Did the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq get mentioned in the run up?”

    Anything I’ve read suggests not, somebody. All about domestic issues and the economy.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Uzbek in the UK,

    Which sane and humane person would disagree that a government ought not to torture and literally boil its critics.

    The hypocrisy of the dipolmatic exercise is that it consistently works double-standards, and turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, especially when valuable resources are involved.

    The example of Uzbekistan, and a certain Ambassador who protested wrongdoing – is a case in point.

    So much for the state standing on the high moral ground – Murray claimed it some time ago and sits on a moral mountain top, with no other diplomats making much effort to pull themselves up to his standard.

    Your post is taken as an honest and heart felt expression based on the facts.

Comments are closed.