Irish responsible for 9/11

dathi1

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1212721,00.html

I agree with this bit....but Jezus

The ex-diplomat claimed that the Irish media were dominated by 'an invasion of the body snatchers from a planet peopled by time-warped 1960s radicals and Marxist revisionist historians'.

wait until they get a load of the anti Bush marches.

ixoy

I can't remember the '91 coverage, but surely the British media is as bad, if not worse, than the Irish one (given the BBC's publicly challenged stance on the issues)?

More pointedly though, at what point will such figures ever cop on to the fact that a criticism of American foreign policy does not equate with an iintense dislike of all things American? We are able to differentiate between the two, even if certain figures seem to assume that an attack on the leader is an attack on everything about the country itself.

seamus

:rolleyes:

He's obviously as delusional as the people he criticises.

He claimed that Irish columnists appeared to blame the United States itself for the terrorist attacks rather than Osama bin Laden's Islamist network.

Ireland 'was the only country in the civilised world which did not support the coalition in that war [1991 Gulf War]- the only assistance lent by Ireland was to allow US military transports to transit Shannon airport'.

He added that during the build-up to last year's invasion of Iraq, 'Irish attention seemed preoccupied with questions of Ireland's neutrality, as though there was a moral case to be made in support of Saddam's contention that Western "imperialism"was behind it all'.

Like we've seen time and time again on this board, he seems to have completely missed the point of the Anti-War sentiment and criticism of American foreign policy.

I would say it seems so prevalent because our two foreign policies are so at odds. We're mostly interested in peaceful trading with nations and providing assistance to poorer ones, while the United States is more interested in forcing nations to trade with them and ignoring poorer countries. Our constitution expressly tells us that we must support resolution of international disputes through peaceful means, while American foreign policy swerves wildly between peaceful negotiation and all out bombing, depending on who's in the chair.

Faust

Originally posted by seamus
:rolleyes:

He's obviously as delusional as the people he criticises.

Like we've seen time and time again on this board, he seems to have completely missed the point of the Anti-War sentiment and criticism of American foreign policy.

I would say it seems so prevalent because our two foreign policies are so at odds. We're mostly interested in peaceful trading with nations and providing assistance to poorer ones, while the United States is more interested in forcing nations to trade with them and ignoring poorer countries. Our constitution expressly tells us that we must support resolution of international disputes through peaceful means, while American foreign policy swerves wildly between peaceful negotiation and all out bombing, depending on who's in the chair.

Ironically enough you also seem to have missed his point.

seamus

Originally posted by Faust
Ironically enough you also seem to have missed his point.

I'm ignoring his point. Any "fuel" the Irish media added to hatred of the United States is negligible compared to what the United States itself did to fuel it.

hostyle

Originally posted by Faust
Ironically enough you also seem to have missed his point.

As did that Dempsey bloke. Next thing he'll be saying that the Irish are harbouring terrorists ...

kahlua

I'm sure Osama Bin Laden tunes into the nine o' clock news in Ireland every evening. Such 24hr news channels like Sky News or Al Jazeera played very little influence in events.

mr_angry

He added that during the build-up to last year's invasion of Iraq, 'Irish attention seemed preoccupied with questions of Ireland's neutrality, as though there was a moral case to be made in support of Saddam's contention that Western "imperialism"was behind it all'.

Wow. How wrong we were. :rolleyes: Clearly the massive stockpiles of WMDs that we were found have long since justified the invasion of Iraq.

I'm a firm believer of the old saying "Put your own house in order first". If he wants to go around criticising our foreign policy and national media, maybe he should review his own country's foreign policies and Fox News first. There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this thread.

Lemming

The phrase; "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" springs to mind ...... :rolleyes:

dictatorcat

I've heard him speak a couple of times, he's an idiot and his arguments are easily rebutted, he wears rose tinted glass when looking at his fatherland. He's a washed up has-been etc.
I'm actually quite surprised that the Guardian would give him the time of day!

mike65

Also discussed here

Mike

SantaHoe

This doesn't dignify a response, a moron with a voice...

Lennoxschips

So Ireland is the "the only civilised country" not to have backed the first Gulf War. (even though we let them use Shannon, but that wasn't good enough for the man)
Not only has he insulted Ireland, but he's gone and accused half the world of being uncivilised. If he ever fancies a skiing vacation in the Swiss Alps then he'd better keep quiet.

magick

Bertie better hide those WMD! looks like time for Gaelic Jihad:D

the_syco

In his critique of Irish foreign policy at the time of the 1991 Gulf war, Dempsey noted that Ireland 'was the only country in the civilised world which did not support the coalition in that war - the only assistance lent by Ireland was to allow US military transports to transit Shannon airport'.

How was France in them days?

Cake Fiend

Shouldn't this be on the humour board?
I'm also surprised the Guardian let this yahoo publish his wild jabbering. Maybe they did it out of a sense of humour/irony.

Hairy Homer

This guy's just a silly old fool. He used to live in Ireland until recently and was regularly trotted out on to programs like Prime Time and Questions & Answers by the supposedly 'anti-American' RTE.

Perhaps his silliest hour was last February on Q&A when he was asked to comment on the peace marches that had taken place around the world the previous weekend, including the one in Dublin on which 100,000 people marched. Here's what he said: (You can still check out the original on the RTE Website. Go to rte.ie/news and get the Q&A show from February 17th last year. Question one about five minutes in)

'There’s an assumption here that this was a peace march. I didn’t see one poster that called upon Sasddam Hussein to disarm or to be gone from Iraq.

What I did see were a lot of posters, and I hope this was just a lunatic fringe, equating Israelis with Nazis and President Bush with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. What I saw on exhibit was a nasty minded Anti American and Anti Israeli demonstration.

I’m going to presume that a majority of people on that demonstration were genuinely sincere people. They are best described by a Kurdish refugee who is now a student at Trinity College who said: "The people on the march might be well meaning but they are being used by Saddam and his regime. Their opposition to war only buys time for his dictatorship They are his dupes."

And the question is, why did they march? They participated because they were convinced by bogus arguments based upon spurious facts.'


Bogus arguments?
Spurious facts?

I reckon a demand that the world go to war because of non existent weapons of mass destruction certainly counts as a bogus argument based on a spurious fact.

What a silly twunt!!!!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dictatorcat
I've heard him speak a couple of times, he's an idiot and his arguments are easily rebutted, he wears rose tinted glass when looking at his fatherland.

Reading the piece, this was something that jumped out at me. In particular he postulates:

"The hatred of America, which drove the suicidal terrorists, doesn't flourish in a global vacuum."

Which is quite true, yet seems oblivious to even the possibility that it may be the US itself that is creating the environment of hatred. Had I been arguing his case, I would have at least considered this possibility and then rebutted it.

I would certainly accept that RTE and the Irish Times have a definite pro-Arab / anti-Israeli (and perhaps even anti-American) slant. However, whatever limited merit there may have been to his argument was rapidly drowned in the blind patriotism of this unfortunate buffoon.

sovtek

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
I’m going to presume that a majority of people on that demonstration were genuinely sincere people. They are best described by a Kurdish refugee who is now a student at Trinity College who said: "The people on the march might be well meaning but they are being used by Saddam and his regime. Their opposition to war only buys time for his dictatorship They are his dupes."

Yes I remember that moron saying those things. I was embarrassed to be American that day.
Nevermind that I was at that March and heard a contingent of Kurds speak about the US backed slaughter of their fellow Kurds by the Turks (ie American supplied F-16 strikes on Kurdish villages and whatnot) in the late 90's as well as by Saddam throughout his 30 some odd year US backed reign of Iraq.

vorbis

I never get why the us backed sadamm comment gets thrown around so easily. They did back him but were by no means his chief backers. That honour falls to Russian followed by France. The phrase with us backing implies that they were his chief backer. A small point but it crops up every time in any discussion.

this guys statements were a bit idiotic though. About the only thing he was right on was our media having an unhealthy obsession with demonising America. In contrast, a radio discussion on the Chinese Premier was far more balanced. Up until they skirted the issues of Taiwan and the Falun Gong.

thejollyrodger

what an excellent article. Looks like terrorism will always be advocated by this state.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
I never get why the us backed sadamm comment gets thrown around so easily. They did back him but were by no means his chief backers. That honour falls to Russian followed by France.

I'm confused.

In the Iran/Iraq war, The Soviets were backing Iran, and the US were backing Iraq.

How do you reconstrue that to mean that the Russians were a bigger backer of Saddam than the US?

A small point but it crops up every time in any discussion.

I guess it depends what timeframe you choose to look at - the entirety of Hussein's political career, or just the last couple of years (since Gulf 1) since the US had it in for him.

jc

Scruff

Originally posted by magick
Bertie better hide those WMD! looks like time for Gaelic Jihad:D

he'll never be able to do that, there are just far too many Women of Massive Dimensions in this country.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Scruff
he'll never be able to do that, there are just far too many Women of Massive Dimensions in this country.

Roffle