John Bolton’s Fake Applause

by craig on February 16, 2013 12:13 pm in Uncategorized

The Oxford Union has dubbed fake applause onto the videos of John Bolton’s address to the Union. It has not done this for any other speaker.

If you listen to these videos of Bolton itching for war with Iran, you can hear precisely the same burst of ultra enthusiastic applause at the start, fading “naturally” as he begins to speak.

This dubbing in of applause is not used for any other speaker on the Oxford Union website, either before or after Bolton.

Everyone else just gets the actual applause that really existed.

Contrast the presentation of these question answers from Bolton with this from Julian Assange:

One futher interesting feature of the Bolton video is that the students asking questions – who were mostly hostile – are all edited out in favour of fake applause.

I was involved in heated negotiations with the Oxford Union on the transmission of Assange’s address, against attempts not by the students but by the Board of Trustees to block it “on legal grounds”. These conversations were not pleasant. When Assange’s address was finally put out, the sound was completely messed up and remained so for a fortnight, with this comment from the Oxford Union posted underneath:

Thanks for your feedback. We are aware there are issues with the audio when playing on mobile devices and we are working on getting this fixed as quickly as possible. The audio can be heard on desktops or with headphones on laptops.

I am therefore fascinated by the skill with which the Oxford Union have merged the dying of the fake applause over the start of Bolton’s speaking, when they were technically incapable of a simple straight sound feed of the Assange address.

Bolton is not only banging the drum for neo-con war, he is a war criminal with a direct role in launching the illegal role of aggression in Iraq. His address to the Union was the day before Assange’s speech to the Sam Adams Award at the same venue. Yet not a single one of the students who demonstrated against Assange demonstrated against Bolton.

To take the issue of rape, which was ostensibly the subject of the protest, Bolton’s Iraq War directly caused innumerable rapes. Nobody can know the exact figure, but certainly tens of thousands of rapes, and very many of them were fatal or had the most devastating consequences for the women who suffered. Read this excellent article

Rape is a common weapon of any war; no one knows how many Iraqi women have been raped since the war began in 2003. Most crimes against women “are not reported because of stigma, fear of retaliation, or lack of confidence in the police,” MADRE, an international women’s rights group, wrote in its 2007 report about violence against women in Iraq. Some women, like Khalida, are raped by Iraqi security forces. A 2005 report published by the Iraqi National Association for Human Rights found that women held in Interior Ministry detention centers endure “systematic rape by the investigators.”

They did not demonstrate against Bolton because the mainstream media and establishment have whipped up no hysteria about him. But they were directed to outrage against Assange, a man who has done a great deal to expose war crimes and try to prevent war, because the mainstream media and establishment pushed the useful idiots in that direction with some extraordinarily unconvincing accusations.

I said most of this IN my owN speech to the Sam Adams awards. Strangely the Oxford Union have not posted that speech at all…..


With thanks to Herbie, there is a history of Bolton and false applause. Perhaps this is insisted upon by his minders – who presumably know he doesn’t get real applause outside the Republican Party!

Tweet this post


1 2 3

  1. Interestingly enough, through my job I meet a lot of ex Gulf war vets…inevitably the question of WMD’s comes up..I have never met anyone that has actually seen one, and these people are experts in thier field…just goes to show that the invasion of Iraq was, and is, about Big Oil..I am sure that if u you dig deep enough you will find some connection to Bolton in there somewhere..I am sure that Craig knows more on this ?

  2. Shameful. Yet Oxford comes top of the list of the world’s most prestigious universities or similar.

    Perhaps they dubbed the applause from that YouTube linked below of Tony Robinson on bankers in a QT episode.

  3. Does the same happen on these other videos? I could not bear to watch them. I think he is the most evil of men.

    Terrorism in Africa | John Bolton | Oxford Unionby OxfordUnion 38 views
    Latin America | John Bolton | Oxford Unionby OxfordUnion 122 views
    UN Reform | John Bolton | Oxford Unionby OxfordUnion 38 views

    On the first YT Craig links to, towards the end Bolton says with a straight face that another 9/11 is needed to wake the people up. Wonder what he has in mind for next time?

  4. The fake anger generated in the campaign against Assange is disturbing.
    One of the strangest examples has been in the “debate” in the “SWP” in which the dissident faction, led by Richard Seymour, have insisted that it is a mark of socialist merit to smear Assange and, indeed, George Galloway.
    The SWP has become a cheerleader for imperialism not only in this case but in Libya and Syria too.

  5. Didn’t the same Oxford Union also invite the BNP fascist, Nick Griffin, to speak? I’d like to know who within this “union” is making the decisions to give public platforms for criminals and fascists to air their views. Are these the same people involved in audio tampering? These individuals need to be publicly exposed.

  6. I can say it: I love John Bolton. John Bolton is just the most perfect example of what is wrong with neoliberalism. Everyone should scrutinise his career. John Bolton is, quite simply, one of the dumbest men ever to have a successful political career. The man is simply not a smart man, he knows nothing much about anything, has no charisma, isn’t telegenic, has few skills, and is basically an utter, utter nobody. And yet, he was once powerful, and even now is listened to by people who should – and do – know far, far better. And that’s why I love John Bolton. He teaches us all about politics, and we should heed the lesson. Politicians often ain’t that clever, and we should often laugh at them. This is a valuable lesson.

    JB often makes me laugh. I chuckle when he gets on stage with his nonsense, or gets an article in The Gruan. Because his lack of intelligence, and his patent and obvious personality disorder are quite funny, in their way, just as Dr Strangelove is funny. Naturally, it’s deadly serious for the people of Iraq, that men whose IQ’s are barely in 3 figures can exert such power. I probably shouldn’t find JB so funny.

  7. Chris2, the notion that the SWP are cheerleaders for imperialism is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.

  8. Love the Fake Applause. Well spotted. But worrying. I can’t even stand fake laughter in sitcoms let alone in political programmes.

    As to rape and war you are spot on again. Thanks to Wikileaks some of these real rape stories have been released into the public domain but they are being diminished by false accusations against Assange in order to get him to the US. It is well know that Women Against Rape have expressed their concerns about the Assange accusations diminishing what action is taken in real rape cases. This is shared by individuals who have been raped. For example this is what Felicity Ruby has to say:

    “- As a feminist, a rape survivor and a former UN staffer I personally have been devastated by the utilisation of feminist goals and principles to attack Wikileaks, because Wikileaks has provided the peace and women’s movements with many gifts – troves of evidence, example after example of the crimes and culture of militarised masculinity on the battlefield, in the board room, in the Embassy.

    – I would be less worried if the epidemic of violence against women was being addressed quite as athletically by governments, the media, courts and police as it is in Assange’s case, if arrest warrants and man hunts were occurring with quite the same fervour. Because they are not, I don’t find this selective and concerted effort on one man to be a feminist victory. Rather than something being better than nothing, selectivity damages and delegitimises real efforts to address violence against women.”

  9. @Daniel @chris2 In addition, Richard Seymour’s perspective on Assange is far more sensible than most.

  10. Naomi

    Thanks for the link and I am glad to see it – I like Richard and I was concerned by reports he was vehemently anti-Assange (which several people had suggested to me).

    My own view of the SWP is that it is an organisation containing some wonderful people it does not in the least deserve. On one level its current “rape crisis” is the kind of problem bound to arise from time to time from its Stalinist “democratic centralist” structure. On the specifics, I think all of those involved, including the alleged victim, ought to have gone to the police. The decision not to do that was a fundamental error. I don’t think you can declare the individual guilty of rape in the absence of that, though whether he has a serial history of sexual harassment is a different question.

  11. Not far away from Parliament Square, in another London Square,we sometimes chant ‘Israel is a terror state’.

    These MET types and the ones with the clipboards and pens from the City of Westminster are wasted on London. Note how they quote odd bits of law. I hear them say at one stage ‘We have the power’. How right.

    Arrest: is an Umbrella a bigger crime than GENOCIDE?!

    They have to keep Parliament Square for the tourists. Of course.

  12. The Medialensers often have a go at Seymour for the language he employs. Some of it is incomprehensible.

    He is so left wing he has now joined the Guardian but nobody has heard from him on the staff lay offs there.

    Perhaps he gets paid by the column inch.

  13. All I can say is that when I was the archivist of the Cambridge Union Society (for about 3 years), we published debates in full, and unaltered(*), as a matter of record. This is actually how I met Craig, who appears in one of them.

    (*)Of course we made minor tweaks like boosting audio levels, fixing brightness, sync, file-compression etc, but we never changed anything of material importance or public record. In fairness to Oxford, I think JA’s lapel mic fell off to cause the broken sound – this has happened to me on occasion too. We also suffered the occasional technical glitch.

    [I have no idea what the current policy in Cambridge is].

  14. Are MI5 trying to float a rumour that a man who last year told Rolling Stone that he’s bankrupt and had been put on the PEP status (Politically Exposed Person) list (how exactly does that happen, when you don’t hold any public office?) has a secret stash of £1,000,000?

    “Security sources said Assange, who is reported to have a personal fortune of £1million, would be arrested and deported if he stepped outside.”

    Well, if the intelligence services do monitor this blog – Come out and explain yourselves, yer lying bastards! We know what your game is.

  15. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    16 Feb, 2013 - 4:08 pm

    I agree the applause was suspiciously overenthusiastic for such an event (unless the audience had been served alcoholic drinks beforehand). John Bolton is one of the few politicians who is correct about Iran. It has been a revelation to me why he thinks so many Europeans are soft like Obama on Iran. I had no idea why until today and I read all the various comments here.

    No, the Iranians are not coming [to conquer us?], but the Iranian leadership can see no other way to win respect other than by projecting power through nuclear ambiguity (never allowing the world to be confident Iran does not have a nuclear bomb or isn’t one screw-turn away (Karim Sadjadpour’s expression) from having one). If there is evidence Iran does already have one (being mindful of the false intelligence on Iraq and the debacle that that led to) of course I think the West will have adequate reason to remove the weapons by force (which may later make it necessary to get rid of the regime, depending on the severity of their response to our actions – which will probably be quite severe, perhaps involving far more casualties than most people anticipate).

    In my view Iran must open up Parchin for inspection and answer the IAEA’s questions about possible non peaceful uses of nuclear technology that have hitherto gone unanswered. There is a problem with Iranian lying (they are not the only nation in the region that lies, and of course Britain has lied in the past – the MacDonald Falklands announcement – but the scale of the problem is probably quite different, which makes negotiating with them quite tricky: they probably think we are lying when we are not?)

    There are issues about whether Iran should have a nuclear bomb to counterbalance Israel’s (a fair point), whether a Western invasion of Iran is to steal or control their natural resources (as much a plausible argument to yourselves as to many Iranians, but it is an argument which I think is flawed), whether Iran will miraculously transform into a Western style parliamentary democracy (it almost certainly will not), whether the West will profit from such an invasion (in the long term it may do, but in the short term that seems very doubtful: for a start the loss of life occurs first before any benefits accrue), and finally (what seems to get you all so annoyed) is the point about those who pay the cost of a war (giving up their lives) being different to those who reap the benefits (doesn’t almost every policy have wealth and income redistribution effects, although none more so than a decision to go to war?).

    If you are thinking I am some sort of Israeli armchair war monger, nothing could be further from the truth: I am happy to offer to drop the first bomb on Natanz or Fordow myself, and I do love everything about Iran, especially the food, but not the leadership. And of course not even the exiled Nobel Peace prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, is pro attacking Iran, so of course I couldn’t be Iranian.

    With views like yours, I am surprised you haven’t all offered a new home for Lenin’s tomb.

  16. @Richard 3.56pm

    ” In fairness to Oxford, I think JA’s lapel mic fell off to cause the broken sound – this has happened to me on occasion too. We also suffered the occasional technical glitch.”

    His microphone did not fall off, it is clearly visible throughout the interview. One of the audio channels was dimmed which is curious when we understand that the microphone is wired mono and not stereo. Interestingly, the dimmed channel is the one we heard on small devices with single speakers, like my iPad and most smart phones.

  17. The left and right channel on the broken sound JA video are out of phase (waveforms mirror images of each other) and cancel each other out when combined and played back in mono. A very basic sound error and one very easy to fix at source. With playback on mono devices try to turn one channel down so you only have the left or right channel playing and it will sound fine. Alternatively stick headphones on.

  18. @KarimovaRevengeFantasist “There are issues about whether Iran should have a nuclear bomb to counterbalance Israel’s (a fair point), whether a Western invasion of Iran is to steal or control their natural resources (as much a plausible argument to yourselves as to many Iranians, but it is an argument which I think is flawed), whether Iran will miraculously transform into a Western style parliamentary democracy (it almost certainly will not) […]”

    Western governments have long coveted Iran’s natural resources, namely oil, they have a history of doing so actively, toppling legitimate governments, installing the puppet and despotic Shah, you do not say why such strong suspicions are flawed.

    In Mossadegh, they had a far more more democratic, popular, social and economic reforming leader and government, that was as close to ideal from an Iranian’s perspective and from our own, which leader we along with the US and other criminal regimes, toppled. They had a working representative democracy, which was maliciously destroyed; I should also that that this particular “Western style parliamentary democracy” of ours is dysfunctional, corrupt and atrocious, you might myopically think it great, but I wouldn’t inflict it on anyone.

    You talk of loss of life before benefits accrue, might I remind you the loss of life on the Iranian side, innocents, women, children, non-combatants, would also be high and no benefits would accrue, as you so obnoxiously put it, to those maimed of deprived of loved ones.

    Maybe not an Israeli warmonger, who knows your bestial allegiances, but a war-monger still.

  19. The applause is part of the Oxford Union’s “ident”, part of the debating union’s branding if you like. Listen:-



  20. Neocon philosophy is based on the teachings of Leo Strauss who in turn based his philosophy on Plato. It is a class based system with a ruling, warrior and worker class. The reality of the lower classes is controlled by the ruling class.

    This is how one White House aid explained it:

    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    They make no secret of it, they know they can continue to lie to the people and that the people will continue to believe them, people will believe their false reality rather than a reality based on facts. It’s human nature.

    John Bolton will have had someone with him to ensure that the reality the people saw was the reality he wanted them to see.

  21. Kempe

    You are completely and utterly wrong.

    Both the examples you give are of actual applause; you can see they coincide with actual applause. Neither is the same as each other (the first includes whistling) and neither is the same as the much louder canned applause on the Bolton videos, which is precisely the same on each.

    The second example you post gives a good audience shot that makes it very plain the noise does coincide with the actions of the audience and fades and stops as they do. By contrast, the fake Bolton applause would have to be occurring between the question and the answer, which is pretty improbable.

    For reasons best known to yourself you continually turn up on this site and always to argue that whatever I have posted, on whatever subject, is untrue. I have no idea why you do this. But on this occasion you have made a complete fool of yourself.



    Tony Benn encounters Neocon Nazi ‘Bonkers’ Bolton. With unfortunate results for Bonkers. Tony Benn was 82, but he looks a lot healthier than Bonkers. Bonkers showing the predictable Dorian Gray results of the hellishly debauched evil which was the Neocon PNAC project … No change there, then! –


    In addition to ‘Democracy’ (below) see his joint interview with his son, the Labour cabinet minister Hilary Benn, for the personal side of the man – “The Railway Children Story.” When Hilary Benn was elected to parliament, Tony Benn introduced him in the House, as his father had introduced him. It was an emotional moment. His family were watching from the gallery. They nudged each other, “It’s The Railway Children.” It was a standing family joke that Tony Benn would burst into tears during The Railway Children. A nice man. : )

    Family secrets – Tony Benn’s hand gestures –


    Tony Benn – ‘Big Ideas That Changed The World: Democracy’ – Tony Benn –

  23. BBC watchers (I don’t, personally), how to interpret this?

    Calls to reduce Met Police’s 24/7 Julian Assange guard:

    A mixed bag as signals go. No word about the Ecuador elections, of course, but I suppose gritted teeth is not thought very telegenic. Maybe they’ve heard that the peasants are tweeting and making v. angry noises about the bloody waste of taxpayers’ money?

  24. Craig says, of Kempe:

    “For reasons best known to yourself you continually turn up on this site and always to argue that whatever I have posted, on whatever subject, is untrue. I have no idea why you do this.”

    Fred points out above that the central tactic of neoconism is the idea of “noble lies”.

    These are discussed here:

    but the central idea is of:

    “a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda”

    This is in contrast to a more rationalist approach involving critical realism and a search for truth.

    You, Craig, represent the latter approach and Kempe the former, and never the twain shall meet.

    We could say then that you find nobility in exposing lies or finding truth whereas Kempe feels it’s noble to create lies and suppress inconvenient truths. It really is that simple, but still it’s something that many people have difficulty grasping.

    There’s much that can be said about these respective positions and the real philosophical meat is in the detail of that discussion, but suffice it to say, noble lies are the reason why many of us find corporate media to have that spooky unreal quality about it.

  25. Arbed

    I’d interpret it as another way of attacking Assange.

    The argument will become one in which he is costing us this money and that’s another reason why he should just off himself to Sweden. It’s all his fault.

    It certainly won’t be about a rational questioning of the use of police resources. It never is, but they’ll attempt to present it as such.

  26. “Kempe

    You are completely and utterly wrong.”

    No, I’m not. It’s clearly part of the ident.

    I know none of the faithful on this blog will acknowledge it but the evidence speaks for itself.

  27. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    16 Feb, 2013 - 8:08 pm

    Coveting (desiring strongly) is not a crime. Stealing their natural resources is. Substituting “coveting” for “stealing” switches off further thought about how you actually steal the oil and maintain a long term benefit from theft. Yes, when you read history BACKWARDS, the behaviour of the Anglo-Persian Oil company (now called BP) does not look good, but there are reasons (if you read history forwards, while shutting out knowledge of what subsequently happened why BP’s behaviour in Persia may not have been as high handed as it now seems. For a start oil is a far more valuable commodity today than it was then: its utility has since multiplied. Also Iran was not then the plentiful place full of oil and gas we now know it to be: the exploration risk taken was arguably bigger then, so the rewards may have needed to be bigger. There was maybe little reason to be optimistic finding oil then?

    I don’t know much about Mossadegh, except he was a nationalist and that he expropriated BP’s oil fields, and that that may have had a lot to do with our interference in Iranian politics at the time (“malicious” seems a bit harsh given the facts at the time, although I accept many Iranians are justifiably irritated about it (we did not kill him?) but our high-handed behaviour on that one occasion seems a mere trifle compared with the mess Iranians have inflicted on Iranians over the last 33 years.

    I reject the guilt dump about loss of life and the unflattering view of the value of human life you wish me to have. Most people in my experience have a variety of contradictory views on the value of life and they flip effortlessly between them all in the same day often without noticing it. It is perfectly okay to have different contradictory views all in the same day depending on what you are doing? Also the West only seeks to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon, so the amount of killing that subsequently occurs is partly in the hands of the Iranian leadership: it is not all the West’s fault? Sometimes overwhelming force is the only answer: it worked with Japan and Germany (nobody seriously objects to them knowing how to make nuclear weapons now?) Iran, on the other hand, has a leadership that seeks to preserve a dogma and it is a dogma the leadership refuses to de-construct. I accept Iran has never declared war on anyone in modern times, but I am in no doubt they are on the path to acquire nuclear weapon-making know-how, and that they are not a suitable country, with the current leadership, to possess such knowledge.

  28. Kempe

    Good Lord – for you to repeat it is not a mistake, it is a lie.

    The two examples you give are very clearly actual applause from the audience, the start of which is overlapped with the Oxford Union banner – the “ident”. The two examples are clearly different applause – one has whistling and one doesn’t – and close study of the audience after the banner goes and the picture comes shows the applause really is the sound of the audience.

    The Bolton case is completely different. The Bolton videos have the same identical run of canned applause on each and it bears no relation to the audience.

    The applause on the links you post is the natural applause for a speaker who has just been introduced.

    By contrast the Bolton links show him answering questions – and the applause would therefore be between the unseen questioner and his answer – a most improbable spot for such rapturous acclaim.

    The analagous videos are other question answers, of which I posted one from Assange and there are plenty on the site. None of them have this canned applause at the start. In fact only Bolton on the whole site has non-existent canned applause.

    Your attempts to blow smoke in the eyes and obfuscate this very clear picture is really weird. Kindly fuck off.

    Now go away.

  29. “Fred points out above that the central tactic of neoconism is the idea of “noble lies”.”

    And the greatest threat to the tactic is the truth, web sites where people can leak the truth to the general public are their worst enemy.


    Tony Benn on the US Empire, the future, Europe, the Cold War as a (US Empire) anti-progressive stunt and the return of Labour and Democracy – the engine of Britain’s progressive development. (“If you can find the money to kill people, you can find the money to help them.” Hence the National Health Service.)

    Q. “What about the special relationship?’ A. “The UK is a subject nation. Because the UK wants to remain a nuclear power and keep nuclear weapons, the UK is a subject nation to the US Empire.” HA! Thank you very much! Lobster magazine – Robin Ramsay – has it right! –

    – See Lobster #58, ‘The meaning of subservience to America’ – Page 87, Issue #58 –

    Q. “There is a lot of discontent in Britain. Do you think it will lead to Socialism with a capital S?”

    A. “There _is_ a lot of discontent in Britain. People are understanding who runs the world. Bankers. International Corporations. Great powers – Empire.”

    “When people realise that they are powerless and want to take control of their own lives – that’s _democracy_. _That’s_ what I call socialism. That’s how we (in Britain) got votes for men. That’s how we got votes for women. That’s how we got a National Health Service – our greatest socialist achievement. I don’t think that Tony Bliar’s effect – of dismantling the Labour party – will be as lasting as people think.”

    “The whole Cold War was used to prevent progressive change. The Russians (won WW2 for the world and) lost 25 million people and were never going to occupy western Europe.” Paraphrased inexactly.

    Tony Benn has been voted Britain’s favorite politician several times and you can see why. And why many revere him as a wonderful absolute truth teller.

    He famously retired after fifty years as an MP “to devote more time to politics” – his wife Caroline’s line – and he’s still doing it. Tony Benn is now 87. Go Tony! – : ) –

    – Tony Benn – 29.00 minutes – 25th January, 2013 – Voice of Russia radio –

  31. The applause is identical in both clips and is clearly “canned”.

    What an awful thing for the Oxford Union to do. Also, what an utter shit Bolton seems to be.

    I would rather like to see your conversations with the OU about Julian Assange – any chance?

  32. doug scorgie

    16 Feb, 2013 - 8:43 pm

    16 Feb, 2013 – 4:08 pm

    You say:

    “If there is evidence Iran does already have one [a nuclear weapon]… I think the West will have adequate reason to remove the weapons by force…”

    There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program let alone a bomb and International law would prohibit such action anyway. But then who gives a shit about the law? Not you obviously.

    “In my view Iran must open up Parchin for inspection and answer the IAEA’s questions about possible non peaceful uses of nuclear technology that have hitherto gone unanswered.”

    India, a non-signatory to the NPT, has many nuclear weapons. Does the West not have adequate reason to remove India’s weapons by force?

    Israel is a non-signatory to the NPT but is alleged to have hundreds of nuclear weapons. If you think Iran should open up its nuclear facilities to international inspection (which it does), why do you not state at the same time that India and Israel should do similar?

    “There is a problem with Iranian lying…”

    And there is not a problem with the USA; the UK, Israel and many more countries lying?

    “…whether a Western invasion of Iran is to steal or control their natural resources (as much a plausible argument to yourselves as to many Iranians, but it is an argument which I think is flawed)…”

    Why is that argument flawed? You don’t explain. Why not?

  33. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    16 Feb, 2013 - 9:11 pm

    Brendan, you can call John Bolton many things, but you are very wrong when you say he’s stupid. He is an extremely intelligent individual; how he uses uses his intelligence is of course another matter.

    This is not an original comment, of course, but the worst thing about the man is surely his absurd mustache.

  34. doug scorgie

    16 Feb, 2013 - 9:33 pm

    16 Feb, 2013 – 8:08 pm

    “I don’t know much about Mossadegh…” [sic]

    “BP’s oil fields…”?

    It seems you don’t know much about anything judging by your comments. I suggest a week or two studying the history of the Middle East and the history of British Imperialism.

    Again if you don’t know much about Mosaddegh then you know fuck all about Iran and are thus not able to put forward valid arguments on the subject.

  35. *canned applause*

  36. It is you KarimovaRevengeFantasist who is positively salivating at the thought of stealing it. You’re more than coveting it, you’re encouraging a gang of criminals in commision of a crime, like some infantile dare, pushing others into trouble from which they’ll take the blame or consequences and you’ll walk off sniggering, scot-free, looking for further evils to foment, you’re nothing more than a dangerous fool, dangerous to others, a danger to humanity. I don’t think you’re one of the less than 1% who might personally benefit but one of the deluded remainder who have swallowed whole the frankly absurd notion that they might pocket some loot too –take it from me you won’t, for all your bowing and scraping before the bloodthirsty tyrants you worship, none but a few already with wealth beyond comprehension will gain. Whoever BP dealt with back in the day, they were conned, the seller did not have title, it’s Iran’s oil, the Iranian people’s and not as you posit BP’s with those inconvenient Persians cheekily living on top. It’s been known what’s there and where since the early 20th century where it took no exploration or risk as the stuff was bubbling out of the ground and of such purity and lightness that oil-fuelled ships could run on it raw with no further refining. Incidentally fully exploited I doubt it is in total not much more than than 40 days predicted current world daily consumption, not worth hanging for, but you’re already party to a conspiracy to theft and mass-murder, primed to cheer on from the sidelines, in sadistic ecstasy at epic scale deaths planned. Nailed your colours to the mast, and so out of your depth, you’re drowning already.

    The alternative is easy, Iran I expect still remains perfectly willing to sell its oil, for goods in kind that it needs, not worthless fiat toilet paper; if not saddled to the crash and burn US empire till its utter demise, dragging all into the abyss, this country could trade again with Iran, profitable for each party, two-way trade, if only we had something more to offer than criminal casino banking, ignoring the US dictated sanctions and ending the phony special relationship, with an appeal to International Courts for leniency for the British people, tendering whatever mitigating circumstances might dig us out of the hole, throwing our errant leadership to their just deserts. This subservient fealty, to the US and to its execrable child Israel, has to end if this country is to flourish and not finish mired in inexhaustible eternal ignominy. If things are tough inside Iran, that is almost entirely attributable to 33 years of vindictive sanctions and a proxy war with Iraq, also of our making, the victims of which still mourned and honoured in Iran.

    And as it isn’t really about oil but of doing the criminally insane bidding of the supreme rogue state, the paranoiac parasitical cuckoo in the Middle East – Israel – not so much a country as a 65 year long crime spree, a threat to world peace since its creation, we’re far better out of it, frankly, even oil can’t sweeten the taint of such association.

    As the US and UK (Israel is even further gone) descend into the madness, paralysis and detachment from reality that typified the demise of Nazi Germany; a fraction of the wasted costs of senseless, insane military expenditures so far, of the last decade, could by now have put our power generation and transportation systems on a sustainable infinitely renewable basis and invigorated the domestic economy, employment market and national spirit.

    No-one with an ounce of humanity could contemplate with glee, such horror as you do, you’re some sort of shameless monster, some throwback to an evolutionary dead-end, re-animated.

    A robotic shill, payed mouthpiece, ten a penny racist war-monger. Zero redeeming qualities.

    Just like John Bolton, I wonder if you’re related?

  37. I tried to point out earlier that the idea of 20 year old university students manipulating a debate in favour of a neo-con is even more scary than the neo-con himself. What are they going to grow in to if they are neo-cons at this age? But I included a hint that the OU’s president is Jewish, which is not irrelevant, and got zapped. Bit touchy, don’t you think Craig?

  38. Jonangus Mackay

    16 Feb, 2013 - 11:00 pm

    No such thing as a non-Freudian slip. Couldn’t help but note that the opening titles helpfully popped onto the Bolton video by the Oxford Union’s media manipulator/s’ (who he/she/they, exactly?) read as follows: ‘John R. Bolton, Iran and the Ware on Terrorism.’
    Just checked my handy on-board dictionary. Predictably & succinctly enough it defines ‘ware’ as, ‘commodity offered for sale.’
    An animated logo immediately precedes the spelling bungle: ‘The Oxford Union Society, 1823. People Who Shape Our World.’ Or, at least, learning to.
    This mysterious farrago now ranks, particularly since still completely unexplained, as one of the most shameful in the Union’s 189-year history.

  39. Habbabkuk, thats the exact same thing that struck me–absurd moustache. But that also tells that he may have high intellect, he’s not very ‘intelligent’. One day you and i are going to have a chat about the difference between those two words but suffice it to say, one recognises beauty/aesthetics, the other does not. Tired now, Sleeping Beauty :-)

  40. Excellent observation Jonangus–well spotted.

  41. Guano

    The ethnicity of the OU’s President is completely irrelevant, plus you are wrong about it anyway.

  42. Someone posted earlier something about the latest shameful person to have been outed.

    Shameful is a wonderful word. Shame full. Full of shame. It’s quite a biggie, and like in a really fundamental way. It ain’t good, if you got it.

    It can refer to private shame or public shame.

    If private, it’s one’s own personal shame at one’s own perceived failures, compared to some internal ideal. (How is that constructed)

    If public then it’s a shame at not living up to some community ideal. (How is that constructed)

    Anyway, I was just wondering where the English word “sham” came from. No dictionaries etc please. I’m looking for audio tapes of really really old illiterate people and in black and white where the sounds expressed are really really close to the emotion intended.

  43. I realized instantly from a previous thread that this Kempe character was a troll. I can only hope that he doesn’t return.

  44. English Knight

    17 Feb, 2013 - 7:07 am

    Now that Craig has shoojooed Kempe, how will us peeps experience genuwine sayanim hasbara in real time now?! Or is the resident Methodist Dorkshireman going to up his game and allow us to “take in a movie” of how to see through Michael Winners dinners?

  45. It was once thought and said that Sarkozy was a sayan. Either he never was or he has turned.

    The Times of Israel January 27, 2013

    Sarkozy urges pressure on Israel at Jewish fundraiser

    Former French president shocks donors by saying international community must bring down the ‘walls of Jericho’ surrounding the state

    By Stuart Winer

    Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy shocked donors at a United Israel Appeal fundraiser in Davos Friday when he said that the international community should apply pressure on Jerusalem in order to establish a Palestinian state.

    “Israel has surrounded herself with walls of Jericho,” Sarkozy, who was France’s president from 2007 to 2012, told the closed gathering of wealthy Israel supporters at the charity dinner held at the Hotel President Wilson on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum. “It will be necessary to bring down the walls in order to save her,” Maariv reported Sunday.

    Sarkozy, who during his term in office made the Middle East peace process a major aspect of his foreign policy, went on to say that the international community should pressure Israel in order to establish a Palestinian state and prevent what he termed “a disaster.”


    Or perhaps he’s creating a diversion from the charges he is facing for taking a £120k donation from the l’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt.

  46. I can’t believe Tony Benn has said this!

    Questioner: ‘The Republican party have accused Obama of leading the USA down the path of socialism. What do you think they mean by that?

    Tony Benn: ‘I think he is a professional politician myself, and I think he has some radical ideas. Some things he has done I agree with, like healthcare; I disagree about the Afghan war. But he’s so much better than George W. Bush and better than Romney. So I’m very glad he has been re-elected.

    I think Obama is prepared to work with people who would call themselves socialists, and that again may alienate some rich people who don’t want those associations to be allowed to develop…

    I think the United States under Obama is trying to adopt a more peaceful policy. His relations with Russia are better than they were during the postwar period. He’s been warning the Israelis about the building of settlements in Arab territory. He’s played quite a progressive part in some ways. But, of course, he’s a product of the society in which he lives; and therefore many of the things he is doing I wouldn’t agree with at all.’

    Mind you I seem to remember that he supported Bliar’s re-election in 2005 by canvassing on the phone for him.

  47. O/T but a good illustration of how things are managed by those with the power. In a just society, Purnell and his crowd would have been sent into oblivion.

    From Medialens

    BBC to pay Blair flunkie £295,000 a year
    Posted by nick744 on February 16, 2013, 10:22 pm

    Is anyone else outraged that the BBC will pay Blair’s former research assistant James Purnell £295,000 a year as its “Director, Strategy and Digital”, starting next week?

    That’s more than Obama gets ($400,000 or about £250,000).

    How can the BBC justify spending our money with such abandon, especially at a time of supposed austerity? They’ll presumably say that’s the market rate, but the BBC is a unique quasi-monopoly, not part of some capitalist free-for-all market.

    In any case, it’s utterly irresponsible for a public service to pay such obscene salaries. It really makes you wonder whether everyone should just stop paying the licence fee in protest.

    (The right-wing Purnell became an MP and voted for the Iraq war. His former partner was a BBC producer until recently; she’s now a “special advisor” to George Osborne, according to the Telegraph. Cameron’s media advisor is also a former BBC employee).


    The close connections between this government (and previous ones for that matter) and the BBC is illustrated here –

    Poppy Mitchell-Rose is so trusted by George Osborne that they were pictured sharing ear phones on a first-class train carriage.

    The popular special adviser is, however, now leaving the Conservative Chancellor for America, where her boyfriend, Ben Wright, Radio 4’s chief political correspondent, will take up a post at the BBC’s Washington bureau. She will work in the private sector.

    Osborne is to replace her with Thea Rogers, 30, the BBC’s lead political producer.

    Rogers, 30, is an intriguing figure who excites members on both sides of the House of Commons. James Purnell, the former Labour Cabinet minister, was among her lovers.

    Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s “spin” chief, a former BBC boss, is one of her fans.

    She is now courting Ameetpal Gill, the Prime Minister’s chief speechwriter turned “head of strategic communications”, Gill now runs the all-powerful “grid” of government events and announcements.


    So when we next hear Ben Wright speaking from Amerika, think of Poppy and then of Osborne and then of Thea and then of Craig (Oliver!) and then of Cameron.

  48. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    17 Feb, 2013 - 8:41 am

    1. My complaint about your substitution of the word “covet” for “steal” still stands.
    2. Your argument technique includes imputing the worst possible motives, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence (how do you know I covet Iranian oil: there’s is insufficient space to store it in my home) rather than dealing with the actual argument.
    3. Your use of a stream of insults

    “No-one with an ounce of humanity could contemplate with glee, such horror as you do, you’re some sort of shameless monster, some throwback to an evolutionary dead-end, re-animated.

    A robotic shill, payed mouthpiece, ten a penny racist war-monger. Zero redeeming qualities.”

    because my motives are bad from point no. 2 plus the fact you need to substitute different words in my arguments (point no. 1) suggests you find my arguments hard to deal with.

    The reason, if we are forced by the Iranian leadership to take military action against Iran will be because the leadership in Iran want to retain the weapon of nuclear ambiguity (i.e. we will be doing it for not cooperating with the IAEA over a 10 year period or so). The reason we will not be taking military action to STEAL (steal = make it our own with a view to making a financial gain, covet = wish it was ours but do nothing further?) their oil and gas is because none of the different methods of stealing it produce a long term gain:

    Method 1. Turn on the Iranian oil taps on full and depress the oil price. The theft benefit would be dissipated among many countries. Also it would annoy other oil producers who might boycott our goods. Finally it would annoy the Iranians intensely. They in turn would boycott our goods. An ineffective method of theft.
    Method 2. Physically remove the oil and not pay the Iranians anything. A more effective method, but it has serious disadvantages. The Iranians would boycott our goods. They could justifiably attack us. We would be condemned in the U.N. Many countries would boycott our goods (the initial benefit of the theft would be reduced over the long term. Our self image in the world would suffer. Probably not a very clever thing to do.
    Method 3. Award ourselves contracts to extract the oil on favourable terms so that we benefit from the expected changes in the present value of the expected future profit stream as the oil price goes up and down and extraction costs remain relatively constant. This is by far the smartest apparent type of “theft”, but to be effective it requires you to sell out your operating interests in the oil fields at the top of the oil price cycle and to buy in at the bottom. It also requires a dumb buyer to buy at the top of the market and a distressed seller at the bottom. In addition, you don’t seriously think a commercially savvy nation like Iran would stand for that sort of thing? Iran is one of the few countries in the world that has buy-back agreements in place to prevent operators of oilfields benefiting from oil price movements on the unextracted oil reserves. That may be the reason their oil production was lower before the start of the sanctions than it was when the Shah was in power: their operating terms were just too mean?
    4. Iraq and Libya are not complaining of oil theft by the countries that launched military action on their territory. They are not boycotting Western goods. Maybe we are not stealing their oil?
    My argument stands: your use of the expression “covet their oil” neatly circumvents consideration of the three methods of theft and point no. 4, but at the same time imputes dishonest motives for military action against Iran if Iran does not do what the IAEA asks.

    @Doug Scorgie
    Your first post starts off promisingly, but your rapid descent, unprovoked, to four letter words to a complete stranger only 50 minutes later in your second post is surprising. I understand now where John Bolton gets his views about Europeans from. It is true I haven’t been a saint myself in making a joke about Lenin’s tomb: it could be interpreted as weakness in my own arguments if I sought to insult you all by associating you with Lenin. However, many of the views expressed here on many things seem to be from the view point of the ultra far left.

  49. What a weird combo on Marr this morning.

    17/02/2013 9am

    Duration: 1 hour

    Guest presenter Eddie Mair is joined by Work and Pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP, Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of Madeline McCann, and singer Sinead O’Connor.

    QC and Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy and acting editor of The Times John Witherow review the Sunday newspapers.  Show less



    Tony Benn – a man whose party backed the UN Declarations on Human Rights – because their generation had seen World War 2 and knew of World War 1 and the carnage of both. On the British National Health Service founded in 1948 by a penniless Britain – “Because if you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.”

    Which Britain’s US Empire Sell-Out Shill and Spiv leaders – Conservative, LibDem and Bliar’s New Labour – aka Thatchler’s ‘greatest achievement’ – Conservatives, naturally – are now attempting to destroy on the QT. –

    – Tony Benn with Michael Moore on the NHS – “Britain’s greatest socialist achievement” – Sicko –


    “Pick a cause that you don’t mind failing at, because all the really big causes – the worthwhile causes – take hundreds of years. Slavery – slavery took three hundred years to repeal. The voting franchise – originally it was for gentlemen with estates, and not every man. Women’s suffrage. Civil Rights. Gay rights. Colonialism. Empire. Generations of men and women willing to labour to change an unjust situation. Knowing that they would never see the victory. Willing to try, and to fail. Until one day, one of them succeeds. And then it looks as if it was inevitable. But it was not. Not without the countless thousands of unknown men and women who laboured knowing that they would not see the victory.” Tony Benn, paraphrased.

    – Tony Benn – ‘Big Ideas That Changed The World: Democracy’ – Youtube –

    “Each and every one of us has to be given confidence. If anyone asks me what I hope people will say of me after I have gone, I hope it will be, ‘Tony Benn – he encouraged us.’ I would like that written on my gravestone.”

    Tony Benn – a noble, noble man.

    See Articles -> Articles and Articles -> Audio/Visual

    See Added 8/26/08 for for later Articles and Audio/Visual

    Tony Benn – Search for ‘bennites’ web site via Wayback machine –


    Interesting how Paxman spins out his notion that other states have the desire to own WMD.

  52. Mary, attacking Tony Benn for one or two statements which might seem at odds with your own thinking is not fair. I think you’ll carry quite a few trolls along with you on that one. Practically every rally I have been on Benn was there, including the big one in Hyde Park in 2003, against Blair’s war. And to be honest Obama is much preferable to Bush. Human rights lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, said he would be voting for Obama, because the alternative would have been so much worse. Although Obama has reneged on promises like the closure of Guantanamo Bay he cannot speak for himself because of the money and machine that put him in power. Benn always speaks for himself.

  53. Nobody’s perfect. I advised people to vote LibDem at the last election!

  54. KINDLY fuck off…. I am honoured. Always a sign somebody’s run out of arguments when they start throwing obscenities about, thank you, that really brightened up a dull morning.

    I might pop back in a couple of days when things have calmed down.


  55. Craig
    So, can I teach religious classes at the synagogue in St John’s Wood. I wasn’t talking about ethnicity as I’m not a racist. I’m not even sure about my own ethnicity.

  56. Craig
    As to the religious beliefs of the president of the Oxford Union, I personally think that it is highly relevant that a 20 year old who supposed to be idealistic and open-minded has invited and assisted a war-weary neo-con in the manner you have described and invited and mis-treated your friend Julian Assange.

    Your on/off part-time political correctness is rather weird.

  57. Separation of powers at risk?

    “Judges ‘sabotaged’ MPs’ bid to deport rapists and thugs… but Theresa May vows to crush judges’ revolt by rushing through tough new law.”–Theresa-May-vows-crush-judges-revolt-rushing-tough-new-laws.html

  58. Mary

    Tony Benn is a very nice, kind, human being and rarely has a bad word to say about anybody. That seems to be his only fault as a political activist.

  59. I am quite partial to a bit of Cheddar myself. I had a granny who emanated from Jewish ethnicity whose father my father told me had a black beard like mine. My father didn’t like either his father in law’s Jewish beard nor my Muslim one and he was pretty much the same as Craig in his dislike of divine instructions to prayer.
    My great grandfather was a leather-worker in Kettering, where I subsequently used to buy my bookbinding leather from.

  60. John Goss I don’t wish to and won’t fall out with you on Tony Benn. I too think he ia great orator and has spoken out against injustices but when he says he prefers Obama as being better than Bush or Romney, I give up. He misses the point that anyone is preferable to Bush or Romney. He should have roundly condemned Obama for his war crimes in Libya and Afghanistan and for his Kill by Drone policy.

    Nor can I forgive Benn for picking up the phones for Bliar in the 2005 election and for not supporting Lindsey German and Nicholas Wood in this move to have Bliar arraigned for war crimes here.

    ‘A letter was signed by over 4000 people, including this author, which sought the arraignment of Blair and his cabal for war crimes. It was addressed to Kofi Annan and headed by Tony Benn, president of STWC. A meeting to make a final decision is recorded thus in Tony’s new diary:-

    Lindsey German and Nicholas Wood came to see me about the next stage in the campaign on the war crime question, about how we could advance the cause of the letter. There’s been no coverage in the press, although Kofi Annan has replied. We went on to discuss the whole question really of whether we were demanding a war crimes tribunal. My view is that you shouldn’t do that. I think it’s a complete waste of effort trying to put Blair and Bush on trial : (a) it won’t happen; (b) it’s so negative: ( c) it’s all about personalities.’

    I cannot account for the trolls here as you know. One of them on this thread described Bolton as ‘intelligent’. So intelligent that he endorsed Romney. (Wikipedia) Bolton is described as a paleo-con there, not a neocon!

  61. As to Tony Benn, he and George Galloway talk more sense about the neo-con project, its banking scandal, its neo-colonial scandal, its anti-Muslim scandal, its global power scandal, than any other people in politics. But neither of them get or like Islam.

  62. “if we are forced by the Iranian leadership to take military action against Iran”

    I thought that was an amusing typo at first and you meant “Israeli leadership” but then:

    “…will be because the leadership in Iran want to retain the weapon of nuclear ambiguity (i.e. we will be doing it for not cooperating with the IAEA over a 10 year period or so)”

    It appears to have escaped your notice that the Iranian nuclear programme is the most scrutinised and least ambiguous nuclear programme on the planet. Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA since the day it signed the Non-proliferation treaty. It is those countries who have not signed the treaty and are not inspected at all who are pursuing a policy of “nuclear ambiguity” – India, Israel and Pakistan in particular.

    I think that what you call “ambiguity” here is really just your own neo-con paranoia but it is not clear to me why you are so fixated on Iran in this regard.

  63. John Bolton is obviously an intelligent man. Whether his view or beliefs have validity and deserve respect is another question. It does seem disturbing that the OU has to resort to the tricks of trash TV.

    Even poor old Tony Benn is not safe in pious Mary’s black and white world of sanctimony and faux indignation. Whoever next? Gorgeous George? Even Craig himself better watch out.

    Politics seems to be a zero-sum game for her and many others on the fringes of the political spectrum. Tricky and difficult propositions like compromise and a rational cost-benefit analysis of candidates are not for them, better just to shriek on the sidelines.

  64. CE
    Three cheers for Mary’s black and white world.
    You are one of those analysts of the entrails of spin, conk-clonkers on lamposts in the smog of the dirty game of politics, sorry for mixing my metaphors. There is nothing worse than those who mock the light of human conscience because they can see a cover for their dishonesty in the mainstream fog of lies.

    Only in the light of truth can we see the dappled, colourful, beautiful world we live in.

  65. Mary, I wouldn’t fall out with you either. Your comments and links are too valuable for that. But we can differ. I can’t blame Benn for how the US political system works. I agree with you over Obama’s drone attacks, wars, failure to keep promises and believe he has really let down Dr Martin Luther King who fought for black rights. In the same way Margaret Thatcher let down the suffragette movement which fought for rights for women. What we have is what we have. Right now we have another woman weened on odium in the form of Theresa May – an out and out racist. I bet we agree on that!

  66. Guano,

    If you are attempting to argue that Maria Roumine’s being Jewish inclines her to being a neo-con you are absolutely wrong. I don’t care whether you wish to define Jewish people ethnically or religiously, and I don’t care about your own antecedents, your remarks have over the years (and a variety of different names you use) displayed considerable prejudice against Jewish people. I recall you were banned for a time under another name.

    The students no longer control the Oxford Union. It is appalling that this has happened without giving rise to serious dissent, but all “political” decisions are taken by the Board of Trustees. Now they are serious neo-cons and the moving force is the former Head of Merril Lynch Asia Pacific who is linked to “security studies” organisations and is a long term MI6 “asset”.

    Maria Roumine did a very brave and courageous job of standing up to these people so the Assange talk could go ahead. So you are quite wrong to keep hinting that her being Jewish is in some sense a problem.

  67. Apparently Bolton has form in the fake applause department. I’m just speculating here but I think it’s certainly arguable that he needs the addition of fake applause because real human beings don’t agree with the garbage he talks.

    There’s some real applause and cheering in this clip too, but it’s for the veteran who talks sense. See if you can tell the difference:

    Perhaps Bolton has a clause in his media contracts that insist fake applause be applied to his witterings. That would indicate that he knows he’s talking garbage. That’s the noble lies thing again. Ultimately the real problem is corporate media itself. Without this fake media and its replacement with real discourse then these liars wouldn’t get away with half the stuff they do.

    Reminds me of the revolutions brought about by the invention of the printing press.

    Corporate media is a kind of inverted world where real world dangerous trolls are actively assisted by the moderators.

  68. Craig/Mods Could we have an “Ignore” button please. The halfwit trolls are getting to be a pest.

  69. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    17 Feb, 2013 - 1:23 pm

    “It appears to have escaped your notice that the Iranian nuclear programme is the most scrutinised and least ambiguous nuclear programme on the planet. Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA since the day it signed the Non-proliferation treaty.”

    It may be the most scrutinised but it is the one we have the most doubts about: the contradictions in it are startling; the lack of cooperation and the huge number of meetings at which no progress is made are mind boggling – Mr Nackaert’s visit this last week to get access for the nth time to Parchin has again yielded nothing.

    The contradictions include:
    1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)
    2. Iran suffers from earthquakes: it is the last place you want to have a nuclear power station if the safety of the Iranians themselves is a consideration
    3. There are no good ECONOMIC reasons for Iran to do uranium enrichment itself: it is cheaper to buy in the enriched uranium from other countries who for historical reasons perhaps have a competitive advantage (other countries benefit from economies of scale?).

    So why does Iran want to do its own enrichment? It either wants to gain the know-how or it is afraid of being held hostage by overseas suppliers who could punish it by withholding supplies e.g. for human rights abuses. The additional cost in doing its own enrichment is a useful indicator of how desperate Iran is to do its own enrichment (for whichever of the 2 possible reasons). My guess is the difference in cost is quite large, so Iran is desperate. It is probably a safe bet to assume both reasons have played a part in the leadership’s decision.

    The lack of cooperation with the IAEA I think I have dealt with. There are unanswered questions, and the Iranians are not granting access to the scientists who have the answers.

    India, Pakistan and Israel already have the nuclear bomb, so there is nothing we can do about that, but Iran does not, so we may be able to stop them getting one (hopefully through negotiation, but realistically probably not, since the regime relies on a common enemy to create national unity around a Government that otherwise would not command a lot of respect.

  70. “Craig/Mods Could we have an “Ignore” button please. The halfwit trolls are getting to be a pest.”

    One has been provided, it is on your keyboard with “PgUp” written on it.

  71. Intelligent is too complimentary a word to assign to Bolton, a dishonest cold blooded warmonger, he lacks intelligence where it counts most, in the heart.
    And his little moustache is as much a gimmick to distract from his twisted activity as anything else, works for some anyway.

    Benn cant be beyond criticism, although he quit parliament he lived it for a long time and stuck it out. Even speaking out against wrongs, he must have ignored signs and aspects of his peers natures, and favoured and been seduced by some, to not have been cast out. Maybe most people who are working for the good amongst the bad lot, cant actually make out the worst of it. On the other hand, by not regarding Obama as total conman, Benn is trying to make out the best of ..someone. But i dont believe him either now. Obamas only defence is that he has to go along with shit, he talked up a lot of hope, and has so far signed most of it away. So far he is more of peace prized conman than his Texan predecessors.

  72. Interesting article on Gove’s history curriculum which too seems to come from the noble lies agenda.

    I think Gove is another of those whose output might benefit from lashings of fake applause.

  73. I agree that the President of the Oxford Union being Jewish has no relevance to the dubbing of applause on to Bolton’s videos. Do we know who was responsible for doing it?

    The JC claim her here. Isn’t she gorgeous!

  74. “1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)”

    The country with the largest gas reserves, Russia, has nuclear power stations. The country with the fifth largest, America, has nuclear power stations.

    Iran needs to export their gas, it’s their main export industry, their main way of getting foreign currency. They can feed developing nations like Pakistan and India. Iran and Pakistan have just signed a deal for a pipeline to carry 21.5 million cubic meters a day.

    Even Saudi Arabia is planning to build 16 nuclear power stations over the next 20 years.

  75. It doesn’t sound a very happy ship or does this sort of thing go on in all university student unions?

  76. “Later this month the union will be hosting a debate whose subject is, she said, “close to my heart”.
    Its title is “This house believes Israel is a force for good in the Middle East” and JC editor Stephen Pollard will be one of its proposers.”

    Oh dear. They’ll be needing to go heavy on the noble lies, glittering prizes and fake applause to pull that one off!!

    The brightest and the best, eh.

  77. “It may be the most scrutinised but it is the one we have the most doubts about: the contradictions in it are startling”

    The most startling contradiction is in that sentence. And who is “we”? Count me out.

    “1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)”

    Perhaps it wants to eek out its cash-cow and use as little gas as possible domestically. It’s investing for the time when the gas runs out. Norway does the same. It uses practically none of its North Sea gas and relies instead on hydroelectric power for domestic consumption. Iran doesn’t have the geography for that.

    “2. Iran suffers from earthquakes: it is the last place you want to have a nuclear power station if the safety of the Iranians themselves is a consideration”

    Ditto the USA and Japan. Let’s invade them too.

    “3. There are no good ECONOMIC reasons for Iran to do uranium enrichment itself: it is cheaper to buy in the enriched uranium from other countries who for historical reasons perhaps have a competitive advantage (other countries benefit from economies of scale?)”

    You’ve got to start somewhere. Where’s your sense of enterprise? Iran probably wants to muscle into the very market you describe. It wants to become an exporter of nuclear services and products. It is seeking to achieve, through economies of scale, the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by others. That’s why it’s producing so much uranium at only medical and power production levels of enrichment. Probably.

  78. I see that it has been held Herbie. Fancy inviting Perle! What’s the matter with them?

    This is by Hoffman of the JNF. If you have ever been at a meeting supporting Palestinians when he has been present, you will know what a disruptive and unpleasant presence he can be for the participants.

  79. I see, Mary

    And the scores on the doors:

    “The motion ‘This House Believes That Israel is a Force For Good in the Middle East’ was defeated 132-208 at the Oxford Union Debating Society”

    Just as I thought. There ain’t enough noble lies, fake applause or glittering prizes on the planet to pull that one off.

    But that don’t stop the noble liars trying to spin it anyway:

    Here’s how the JC reports the defeat:

    “Oxford Union Triumph – Near 40% say “Israel Force for Good in Middle East””

    So what were the 61% saying…

  80. From Rioumine’s twitter, the reader could assume she goes along with Bremer’s view of the Iraq war and occupation. If so, indefensible.

    Feb 5Maria Rioumine‏@MariaRioumine
    Paul Bremer: “The fact that we withdrew our troops makes it less certain that Iraq will remain one country.”

    Feb 5Maria Rioumine‏@MariaRioumine
    Bremer: “By the time we left, all the economic indicators had gone up.”

    Feb 5Maria Rioumine‏@MariaRioumine
    Paul Bremer @OxfordUnion: transitioning from dictatorship to democracy.


    Who will they have there next? Bliar? Bush? Kissinger? Powell? Rumsfeld?

  81. Mary

    Actually I think you have the spirit in which she tweeted those 180 degrees wrong. They have a good balance of speakers. Galloway recently, Peter Tatchell in the Israel debate (brilliant I hear), Assange, my humble self.

  82. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    17 Feb, 2013 - 2:44 pm

    Neo-con or Paleo-con, they’re all atavistic troglodytes. They survive only because of their tribe, and they are the most intelligent of that sub-group. However, that intellect is only significant within that dynamic of intelligence. It’s like they are the most intelligent members of the Neanderthals, and we know what became of that crowd.

  83. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    17 Feb, 2013 - 2:49 pm

    Uh, oh. ‘Tribe’ was meant in the sense of a generic sub-group of like minded persons of that political persuasion.

  84. Craig, Mary quoted Rioumine from the JC above in which described the topic for debate, “Israel is a force for good in the Middle East” as a subject “that is close to my heart.”

    I wonder whether she was passionately in favour or against the said proposition?

  85. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    17 Feb, 2013 - 4:53 pm

    @ Mary :

    I suppose I’m the “troll” who called John Bolton intelligent?

    I’m beginning to lose any residual sympathy I might have harboured for you (the same sort of sympathy that any normal person might have for Tony Benn, btw), because I’m beginning to think that under that Saintly exterior you’re a pretty unpleasant person (I shan’t say – yet – with fascistic tendencies).

    A troll has been described as someone who disrupts a blog; (whatever that means); have you extended the definition to include someone who has opinions like “John Bolton is an intelligent man”? No details, but I certainly know a great deal more about Bolton than you do, and my opinion stands. I also wrote that the uses he puts his intelligence to are of course up for debate, but naturally you didn’t see that, or pretended not to.

    I think I shall have to renew the very close attention I paid to your vapourings and respond accordingly.

    PS – thank you for your response to Mary, CE, exactly my sentiments as well.

  86. Daniel, James Purnell would definitely agree that “Israel is a force for good”.

    Herbie at 1.29 pm. What do you think the chances are of getting Gove to agree to including Robert Tressell’s “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” as an ‘A’ level option?

  87. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    17 Feb, 2013 - 5:01 pm

    And, by the way, why so much attention to, and indignation about, the President of the Oxford Union?

    Who gives a damn what he/she says or opines?

    The Oxford Union was a busted flush when I was up, trading on its past glories; its officers got themselves elected for career reasons (Robert Jackson, Edwina Curry née Cohen, the list is endless)and most of the attendees joined for the other faciliteis the Union offered and if they went to the debates it was for entertainment. Most normal undergrads paid no attention to it then and I imagine even fewer do so now.

  88. Craig
    I suspect you didn’t like being called a troll against Allah.
    Your comments frequently mention zionist banksters, and the lady in question is clearly a zionist in the Matthew Gould meaning of the word.

  89. [Re: Comment: “Chris2 16 Feb, 2013 – 1:08 pm The fake anger generated in the campaign against Assange is disturbing. One of the strangest examples has been in the “debate” in the “SWP” in which the dissident faction, led by Richard Seymour, have insisted
    that it is a mark of socialist merit to smear Assange and, indeed, George Galloway. The SWP has become a cheerleader for imperialism not only in this case but in Libya and Syria too.”]

    “Personally, I always feel a touch of sadness and a sense of nostalgia when the state and their forces push the ‘self-destruct’ button within the far left, such as in parties like the late, occasionally great SWP. In the face of the brutal, tortuous, turgid stranglehold of the machine, humble, honest party members are so busy at the coal face. Dealing with all the interventions and consequent disruptions. They seem near incapable of taking a step back, and – with fresh eyes – seeing and tackling – what is going on. State subversion of Britain’s political parties, campaign organisations, civic society and activist groups is a lamentable state of affairs.”

  90. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    17 Feb, 2013 - 6:18 pm

    General note to all:

    I only came to this site as a result of being interested in Uzbekistan (I have little interest in British politics): I had no idea you were all far left extremists, so when I say “we” it usually means “the West, the Establishment, the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties” but not including all you whichever party you all belong to. I presume I am a neo-Con in your parlance whatever that is. I don’t mean to include all of you when I say “we”, but I think I dislike the vocabulary you want to handicap me with: I don’t want to refer to the Establishment as the neo-Con Establishment: I’ll just stick to “we” if you don’t mind because it is more neutral, but I don’t mean to offend by appearing to include you all.


    “The country with the largest gas reserves, Russia, has nuclear power stations.”

    Accepted. But USA and Russia both produce nuclear weapons and export reactors but Iran does neither of these things (USA and Russia therefore derive extra benefits from having nuclear power stations?). Okay, having large gas reserves on its own and wanting nuclear power is not evidence of malign intent, but it is still something to be suspicious about, in my view. I accept having diversity in the sources of energy supply is of itself a prudent thing though. I concede defeat on your point.


    “The most startling contradiction is in that sentence.”

    I don’t understand your point. If America can land a craft on Mars and navigate it from earth, surely they can remotely land something to take soil samples from Parchin clandestinely. I am sure Iran’s nuclear activities are scrutinised both officially and unofficially, but why is it so many questions remain unanswered? That is the contradiction I find so startling. The Iranians do not appear to want to operate their nuclear enrichment programme in a transparent way such that we can be certain they are not diverting any uranium for making nuclear weapons. There is a problem generally with them lying (the problem is not unique to Iran), and it is not that we don’t lie either, but on a spectrum of “lying frequency” Iran is some distance away from the UK in the wrong direction, and it isn’t always a problem: it is just something to be aware of perhaps. Anyone who has been there knows that, and it is not a reason to dislike them: it is just a reason to be a little circumspect some times. They tell you any old crap some times just to be polite, including misdirecting you rather than admitting they don’t know where you are trying to get to.

    “Let’s invade USA and Japan” [because they have earthquakes]

    I disagree: the safety concerns about having a nuclear power station in Iran are important. Their attitude to safety some times amounts to “it is God’s will”. The earthquake in Bam was serious. The cynical might wonder if the location of houses around the Bushehr plant was to deter attack. Let’s hope they don’t have a Chernobyl in Bushehr. Iran does have mountain ranges, so it would be unsurprising if they didn’t also have some hydroelectric power. No, I don’t think it is a suitable country to have nuclear power stations, but I guess the safety aspect has to be balanced against the concern you raise of making the gas supplies last longer. On balance they are probably better off without any nuclear power stations in my view, but if they were interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon surreptitiously, they wouldn’t give a toss about safety.

    “You’ve got to start somewhere. Where’s your sense of enterprise? Iran probably wants to muscle into the very market you describe.”

    This is the worst argument in my view. Iran wishing to do its own enrichment is the equivalent of building a massive factory to turn out 100 Concorde passenger jets and then only ever producing one passenger jet from the factory. If you only want one passenger jet you save yourself the cost of building the factory by just importing the jet from someone who already has the factory to make it. It is a grotesque extravagance to spend all that money on Fordow and Natanz and to then only produce piddly amounts for making medical isotopes. This is how Iran wants to project power: they want the world to know they know how to make a nuclear bomb any time they feel like it and that there is nothing the world can do to stop them, if they choose to go ahead. That alone will allow them to bully their Arab neighbours (just like the bully their dissidents), and it will provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is why we (sorry, but you know what I mean) must be prepared to use force to stop them. I do understand the stupidity of trying to bomb knowledge, so that is not something I see any point in doing, but stopping them from riding a coach and horses through the IAEA compliance requirements does matter as far as I am concerned. Just my view.

  91. Habeas Corpus
    “The Oxford Union was a busted flush when I was up, trading on its past glories; its officers got themselves elected for career reasons”

    Yes, that is precisely why I do care about what the president of the Oxford Union thinks. I ask myself the question in what possible career could it be thought to be a bonus not to boycott one of the most deadly and active post 9/11 neo-cons repeating the rhetoric of the Afghan and Iraq campaigns?

    Craig says she made a courageous decision in complying with her political superiors in the Oxford Union and supporting the invitation to Julian Assange. To this day Craig has maintained that 9/11 was executed by Muslim terrorists and he also believes that Julian Assange, coming from the second home of international Jewry in the whole world, Australia, is a genuine whistle-blower.

    the mere fact that Assange has pretensions to stand for election in Australia should raise questions about his real affiliations because it is a well-known fact, only denied by the diplomatic community that Zionism controls the whole world’s elections. What I see is a conspiracy of that diplomatic community to feed us common people a cleaner than clean version of participants in world political affairs.

    I don’t buy any of it for one second. As I said above, you cannot even see the lampposts in the smog of subterfuge. The power of the supermarkets keep the price of meat down and block the controls that let horsemeat into the food-chain. Zionism controls world politics and organises the riderless horses like Assange to clutter the field.

  92. Craig I realize that, in order to have a debate, speakers for and against a motion are required, but there are far too many neocons,’paleocons’ and warmongers in the lists for my liking. Even one of the creators of the PNAC, Richard Perle is included.

    Hope you enjoy the party. President Correa is ahead in the polls.

    ‘Opinion polls suggest Rafael Correa is heading towards a comfortable victory’ say the BBC although they attempt to take the gloss off by adding ‘But critics accuse him of being a dictator in the making.’.

  93. Karimova

    How about Britain, America and Israel let’s Iran inspect their nuclear sites?

    They know what happened in Iraq, UN inspectors were actually CIA spies gathering intelligence for an invasion that was coming anyway despite the fact Iraq didn’t have any WMDs.

    Iran would be stupid to let American agents into their nuclear facilities because America has shown time after time that they can not be trusted.

  94. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    17 Feb, 2013 - 7:14 pm

    “How about Britain, America and Israel let’s Iran inspect their nuclear sites?”

    Fred, You’ve got to be kidding: Britain, America and Israel are relatively open societies. People in Iran suffer terrible interference in their lives from higher up officialdom. They really have to mind their Ps and Qs, otherwise you end up being tortured in Evin. A lot of the hangings are not for what the sentence was that was passed. The courts are not independent: quite similar to Uzbekistan in that respect – and of course both countries take hostages to advance their demands. Iran can’t even obey the Vienna Convention on Diplomats let alone be trusted on anything else. The hypocrisy of the regime is diabolical: few Brits can have any idea how bad it is. Have to stop now.

  95. KarimovaRevengeFantasist

    17 Feb, 2013 - 7:29 pm

    The Iranian ambassador’s hi five and his claim he didn’t touch hands is in contrast to the way brutal thugs beat up women demonstrators in the street. Some films that are uploaded from mobile phones in Iran are so vile they have to be removed in case anyone seeing them needs psychiatric counselling. I appreciate here that most people have such a left wing view that any country like Iran that is an enemy of America must be good, but I’d urge anyone who thinks like that to seriously think again. I have to leave it there.


    This tiny incident of dubbing applause onto Neo-Con Nazi ‘Bonkers’ Bolton speaking (incoherently and incompetently – No change there, then!) is actually a useful teaching example. No, Really! ; ).

    How are Britain’s future leaders are selected? From Oxbridge, naturally, the most talented – read devious / unscrupulous / fawning on US Empire goals – are selected by false-front U.S. foundations for trips to the U.S. where they can be evaluated by U.S. intelligence agencies. (In addition to the C.I.A. there are (at least ; ) ) 15 more of the buggers – DIA, NSA, and now DOD!, etc, etc)

    As Craig Murray showed in the Werrity Affair, these false-front foundations are used by ‘Deep Politics’ groups – U.S. Neo-Cons (Nazis!), Jewish Nazis (Gilad Atzmon’s term) and UK traitors – to foment war. Now against Iran.

    Previously, presumably, against first Afghanistan, then Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Mali, on and on and on.

    Werritty Affair – Craig Murray –

    – Robin Ramsay at Lobster magazine provides chapter and verse that the UK has been in the US’s pocket since Suez. See ‘Who were they traveling with?’ by Tom Easton, from Lobster #31 –

    Ramsay further reports that these Atlantic Bridge false-front foundations are US trolling bait for UK traitors. Oops, our bad, ‘Up and coming UK politicians.’ – ‘Unperson – A life destroyed’ – Denis Lehane – page 209, issue 59 –

    Blair, Brown, Mandelson (cited in another issue) and others all took the freebie trips, but did they also take the US shilling? – Issue #60, page 90 –

  97. Remarkably detailed very recent interview with Julian Assange, covering a lot of stuff we don’t usually hear about.

    This really exposes the Guardian crap for what it is.

    Another case where fake applause not needed.

  98. Far left, far right, no just good old liberal do good`rs.

    How simple it would be if we all strive to “do good”

    How it is though presently most counter politics is reactionary
    So where ever your view point having achieved a position reactionary politics is a step backwards.

    From where I sit to see any politics take credible steps forward would be a time to rejoice and sit back and focus on important things.

    Human nature is really under the microscope and it needn`t be.

  99. Karimova

    And things were better under the Shah we imposed on them after overthrowing their democratically elected government how?

1 2 3

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud