Stinking Hypocrisy 68


183 Egyptian political prisoners sentenced to death: international silence. One Australian reporter given prison sentence: international outrage.

Nobody wants to see the Al Jazeera journalists freed more than I do, but the western hypocrisy over the conduct of the CIA and Israel backed military dictatorship, which toppled Egypt’s only democratically elected government, is absolutely stinking. In the same week the Al Jazeera journalists were jailed, the United States resumed military supplies to its Egyptian puppet regime.

The BBC has been compounding the stinking hypocrisy by constantly broadcasting reports implicitly arguing that the Australian journalist should be released while the Egyptian journalists kept in prison. They have repeatedly broadcast the assertion that there is a difference between Al Jazeera’s English and Arabic output. The latter, the BBC say, was indeed biased to the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt’s only democratically elected government) whereas the English language service, for which Peter Greste worked, was not.

The BBC thus seeks to square the circle of supporting the release of Peter Greste and at the same time taking the British government line of supporting the Egyptian dictatorship’s elimination of its political opponents.

The truth is that Peter Greste is only superficially the victim of an Egyptian dictator. At root he is the victim of a western foreign policy that believes the interests of Israel outweigh all other interests in the Middle East.


68 thoughts on “Stinking Hypocrisy

1 2 3
  • Mary

    I admire your tenacity Clark, but a racist stays a racist.

    What makes Australia such a racist (and Zionist supporting) country?

    I think of the Professor at the University of Sidney being hounded and given a hard time of it, Jake Lynch.
    https://twitter.com/ProfJakeLynch

    and of Sonia Karkar who runs the website Australians for Palestine. That website has been shut down on a couple of occasions and her e-mail database was totally destroyed in October 2013.

    She wrote:

    Dear Supporters,

    In June this year, just after we notified everyone of the Israeli propaganda
    ANZAC stamps issued by Australia Post, my personal email client was
    corrupted to the extent that most of the emails in our AFP list were changed
    to replace people’s names with the word “Shaheed”. To this day, I have no
    idea how that was even possible. But we have moved on and are continuing
    the good fight.

    It has been a painstakingly slow process going through a few thousand emails
    to try and correct this against the hard copies, made all the more difficult
    because of many personal commitments in my own life this year. This is why
    you have not been receiving any articles or updates since June and why many
    people have been writing and asking if they have dropped off our email
    lists.

    I think I have now restored most of the emails, but would really appreciate
    your help in verifying that your emails are indeed correct. It would also
    be really helpful if you could indicate your country of residence, and in
    Australia, your state. In this way, we can ensure that event and campaign
    notices can be directed to those who are in a position to attend or be
    involved.

    You can all be sure that Australians for Palestine is still very much alive
    (we have tried to do that daily via Facebook) and hope that many of you will
    join us for our annual Run for Palestine event on Sunday 10 November 2013 …..

  • Jemand

    “Because you like the ideological conclusion it leads you to – enforcing racial sexual segregation.”

    Is that why I married a brown Muslim? No, don’t answer this question because you cannot. At least not without resorting to elaborately fictitious explanations about how my mind works. It’s a bit like being harangued into believing that I have repressed memories of things that never happened.

    I was going to ask you what was the point of this ‘conversation’, that is, what you hoped to achieve by our exchange. But that opportunity has since been obviated by your last few comments. It seems, and of course I could be wrong, but i suspect it is all about you having an intellectual vanity and an emotional need for a strong online identity that meets with the approval of others. I’m not available as a sparring partner for you or anybody else to build up your self-esteem and approval rating with your friends, Clark.

    Finally, I have no more interest in discussing anything at all with you. You pissed in the fountain and sullied whatever curiosity and enjoyment I might have enjoyed in exchanging views with you. Clearly, you do not engage in good faith or with a preparedness to give the benefit of doubt to your correspondent. Your comments have been insincere, hostile and a poor demonstration of character. Who wants to argue with someone like that?

    Good luck with the shadow boxing, Clark.

    PS – read “subspecies” in place of “species” in my post above. Typo-ommission, not that you’d care to allow for that.

  • Clark

    Jemand, I’m sorry you’re finding this so personal, but restriction on interbreeding between “racial” groups is exactly the argument you were supporting Canspeccy in. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, I see no contradiction that you might want the reproductive advantages of genetic diversity for yourself while discouraging the same for others.

    Does your wife know you’ve likened her to an invasive species? No, on second thoughts, I’m not sorry you’re finding this personal.

  • Jemand

    “Jemand, I’m sorry you’re finding this so personal, ..”

    I didn’t realise you were such a sore loser, Clark. But if it makes you feel any better, I do feel a little foolish myself for having thought this was a genuine ‘discussion’. With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that it was personal all along. Is the world any better for this exercise? Are you?

1 2 3

Comments are closed.