'US Fascist' can't hack open discussion

by eoin Tue Mar 08, 2005 17:32

Seems like a fool by my understanding. A band wagon journalist if I ever saw one!

by CW Tue Mar 08, 2005 18:09

At a rough guess I would say that Delevan probably posted this story himself, just to advertise his blog and try to make himself notorious.
An aspiring 'Kevin Myers', perhaps?

by Alan - SWP Tue Mar 08, 2005 18:27

As far as i'm aware Delevan 'appeared' as an evening herald hack in the months leading up to the Iraq war. He has been a leading cheerleader for the war and as the above post notes does not accept any critisism of the invasion and occupation.
He has on Newstalk106 admitted to 'working with the republican party but not to being a member'. Not sure if i would call him a fascist but he is without a doubt highly arrogant. Lets not forget Mr. Gurdgiev of the neo-liberal think tank open republic institute.
A big supporter of the Iraq war, in my view obsessed with the idea of privatisation, extremely hostile to trade unions and likes to jet off to Paris to buy paintings to add to his art collection.

by a guy called satan Wed Mar 09, 2005 15:22

"elements of the political right who rely on intimidation, bull-boy tactics and plain evasion of facts to get their opinions across."
Yes, but the fact that the political right also owns and controls most of the media is the real reason why cranks like this are listened to .
Kevin Myers- who would read him if he wasn't given the run of the Irish Times every day ? Where would that clown Brendan O'Connor be if a Britophile like Sir Anthony O'Reilly didn't happen to own the Indo?
A friend of mine -a leftist - said to me recently regarding Myers, "But ,it must be admitted he is a very good writer" . It's like the rotten diet we're supposed to put up with in Ireland : there are probably people out there who believe that Sudan 1 is a highly nutritious health supplement.

by Terry Wed Mar 09, 2005 16:27

There was another hack from the Open Republic Institute on the Pat Kenny radio show today spouting about the Iraq war and the benefits of US foreign policy.

Luckily Denis Haliday was on to counter act some of the total lies and mis-information that he was pumping out.

These people are appearing in the media at the moment, in order to counteract any support for the Global Day of protest on the 19th March against the War.

These right wing people never mention the planned genocide of Arab peoples that is currently underway via the use of Depleted Uranium. Already 4,000 tonnes of DU has been used in Iraq and in terms of the radioactive release, this is equivalent to the radiation from over 200,000 Nagasaki bombs. This radiation is now killing and damaging forever the people and their genomes in that part of the world. The plan to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East is in fact a plan to spread the DU further and to permanently kill off all the Arab people since affecting their ability to reproduce is the mechanism of this horror.
See :
Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/082504Moret/082504moret.html

And one thing, Grace, the right-wing use a range of techniques and spokespeople in their approach to their propaganda. They range from the bully boy, ignorant type of Richard Delevan to the well spoken type of Constanin Gurdiev of the Open Republic Institute, but make no mistake they are all apologists for murder and are there purely to manipulate public opinion. The latter is used for appealing to those who think themselves as intellectuals but are in fact in denial about the facts on the ground.

More about DU at:
http://www.criticalconcern.com/depleted_uranium.htm

by jeff Wed Mar 09, 2005 17:27

...in my view, stems boith from Sep 11, and from the fact that a liberal led adminstration under Clinton in rthe 90s, combined with the end of the cold war, led a large number of people to forget just how shallow these seemingly 'new' ways of thinking really are.

While the rest of us here know and research the sort of issues the likes of Brendan O' Connor shoot off bile about, the rest of the populace does not. Just make sure you literally stalk with video camera BOC the next time he appears at a march, so he cannot literally attacjk people and then start lying afterwards...

He really is scum. I hope he has neither luck nor l,ove in later life. He does not deserve the cosiness he enjoys, he is a liar, and unworthy of any grace bestowed on him. Human excrement he is.

by lurker - DGN Fri Mar 11, 2005 08:42 afaireland at hotmail dot com 01-7330242

The new CIA funded "Freedom" Institute is also pushign their neoliberal pro-American agenda, encoraged to do so by their friends like Delevan in the O'Reilly media.

by watch Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:53

they can't be CIA funded. Look at their accounts

http://www.freedominst.org/ar.pdf

unless they're bogus accounts. That might be a possibility

by jeff Tue Mar 15, 2005 18:26

then they must be spending the money at the bookies, their website is crap! It is fecking blogspot.com, any gombeen illiterate can set up their own website with blogspot.

by jeff Tue Mar 15, 2005 18:30

Fascists had a severly regulated control on economic issues, though different from the state planning carried out by communists.Though, mind you, the corporatist model espoused by our right wing government and corporations has some of it's roots in fascism, namely via the 'rational choice' models espoused by Pareto.

I'd though just end up calling this fella a bollix.

by mise Tue Mar 15, 2005 18:38

Why have broadcasters never associated the British or American state with Terrorism? Why have such privileged communicators, with unlimited access to the facts, lined up to describe an unobserved, unverified, illegitimate, cynically manipulated election, held under a brutal occupation, as "democratic", with the pristine aim of being "free and fair"?

John Pilger

by not surprised Tue Mar 15, 2005 19:02

- "Luckily Denis Haliday was on to counter act some of the total lies and mis-information that he was pumping out."

So what's your problem? That sounds like a fair and balanced show to me. A speaker from one side, and one from the other. Or are you suggesting that right-wingers shouldn't be allowed to espouse their opinions?

- "These people are appearing in the media at the moment, in order to counteract any support for the Global Day of protest on the 19th March against the War."

These people couldn't give a shite about the Global Day of Protest, or who is organising it. Nobody outside of the incestuous left does, unfortunately. Don't over estimate the impact of the left - it simply has no real impact on most people's lives.

- "they are all apologists for murder and are there purely to manipulate public opinion"

As is the left. Halliday was there to manipulate public opinion, just in the same way as the Open Republic Institute guy was.

Why does your totalitarianism lead you to label everyone who doesn't agree with you a fascist or a murderer. Your polemicism totally fucks up the point of your argument.

by jeff Tue Mar 15, 2005 21:01

In the context of the argument being considered, you, like other right wingers, glibly ignore the fact that this war started on the basis of a lie, or a mistruth, and the occupation is now being called democracy and freedom, despite the fact that the Iraqi people have had no say in the privitisation and selling off to foreign investors their countrys services.

Along with this, we see 100,000 people dead. Again, you will glibly say that this is better in the long run. Better for who? Are you a clairavoyent or something? I don't think that if you went to a poor Iraqi who lost his or her family, as part of collateral damage, and gave rthem this speel, that you would be welcomed.

Many ordinary people marched against this war, less will do so on Saturday, but they will none the less give their support. Glib, bitter right wingers will not be popular with ordinary Dublin folk if seen spewing their lies and venom.

This has nothing to do with people being alleged Stalinists or whatever, this war has killed innocent people, and very few of them lived the life of disgruntled, middle class suburban tax payers.

(Very mad right now, must hold fire hot finger typing avoid any vitriol so point will be made and retained on this screen.)

by not surprised Wed Mar 16, 2005 00:46

I haven't, glibly or otherwise, expressed a single opinion on war, or the rights and wrongs of it. I have referred to both right wingers and left wingers, yet because I have challenged the view of an Indymedia-ite, you automatically assume that I am a warmongering, Myers-esque blood tyrant. I could very well be, but then again, I could have been at every anti-war march held in this city. From my post, you'd never know. But you assume. Rightly, or wrongly, you'll never know. Argue my point, not what you want me to say...

The point is, the polemicism of the "radical" left leaves it unable, and unwilling, to engage on anything other than a hysterical level with those who don't, either partially or otherwise, share their world view.

That, my dear Jeff, is the problem.

The "radical" left, personified by hysterics displayed by the likes of yourself and Terry, cannot interact with anyone else. It's totalitarian....... incestuous

by not surprised Wed Mar 16, 2005 00:48

Looking at the title of this thread, I don't think it's the "fascists" who can't hack open discussion!

by jeff Wed Mar 16, 2005 17:48

Pro life people allow no compromise on abortion, which they see as murder.

The pre emptive attack on Iraq was not only mass murder, but a dangerous precendent that now allows a super power to pre emptivly, and henceforth, murder civilians of a country it deems 'could be a threat.'

Nuclear weapons hence, are no longer to be seen as a deterrent to stop third world nations from attacking countries. Now it is all to do with 'could be.'

I, for one cannot compromise with that, and I don't think families of the 'collaterally damaged' or those people who will in some years contract cancer via depleted uranium, will accept that.

As for Dennis Halliday being an apologist for murder, he was not, he simply does not agree with innocent people dying.

Regarding open discussion, myself and Terry will engage with these right wingers in verbal dialogue in order to counter act their propaganda. If are arguments are too forceful, concise, robust and to the point, well too bad.Just because we are better at arguing than Myers and co. does NOT make us totalitarian.

It's like ' The death of 100,000 people does not justify this war.'

And in response ' Hey!Your totalitarian'.

Try a new ruse, they use flimsy arguments like that in thew States when they want people like the Dixie Chicks to shut up. Totalitarian my backside! I think finding members of your family sliced up by daisy cutter bombs is totalitarian. Probably the response will be ' Oh, now your being emotive...'

by not surprised Wed Mar 16, 2005 20:07

You're still being hysterical. Are you incapable of engaging in any sort of rational discussion? At what stage did I ask you to compromise?

I couldn't give a shite what your opinion on the war is. My problem is that you, Terry, and the other "radicals" (who have zero influence on the mindset of the vast majority of people in this country) are totalitarian fascists who don't accept that most people don't think like you. Everybody has the right to hold and express opinions. Even "radicals" and "fascists".

I never called Halliday an apologist for anything. Stop selectively editing what I say. I said he was there to manipulate public opinion in the same way as Delevan was. 100% true.

- "Glib, bitter right wingers will not be popular with ordinary Dublin folk if seen spewing their lies and venom"

I wouldn't suggest you are lying, but glib, bitter left-wingers will be just as unpopular with ordinary Dublin folk if seen spewing THEIR venom.

- "If are (sic) arguments are too forceful, concise, robust and to the point, well too bad.Just because we are better at arguing than Myers and co. does NOT make us totalitarian

If you and your lot are so good at arguing, then why are there still a whole bunch of people getting killed in Iraq? You lost that argument. Nobody listens to you because you don't argue rationally and you don't acknowledge anyone's right to disagree with you.

- "Very mad right now, must hold fire hot finger typing avoid any vitriol"

More bloody hysteria. You might have a good point about the war if you'd stop spitting teeth, and more people (including me) would listen to you if you addressed the actual points in the right-wing argument, instead of taking the lazy option and labelling everyone who disagrees with you as murderers, apologists for this 'n' hat, or fascists.

by R. Isible Wed Mar 16, 2005 21:06

QUOTE: If you and your lot are so good at arguing, then why are there still a whole bunch of people getting killed in Iraq? You lost that argument. Nobody listens to you because you don't argue rationally and you don't acknowledge anyone's right to disagree with you.

Most people are opposed to the war. Fact. The argument has been won. The problem is that this society isn't controlled by the majority of people. It's controlled by a minority that the majority cedes their power to at the ballot-box.

The good news is that the "coalition of the willing" is thinning out rapidly. Italy has started pulling its troops out after Berlusconi realized that he couldn't keep insulting the Italian people after the murder of one of their own security forces by the US allies.

Halliday has presented a rational argument for why the UN Oil for Food Program sanctions are immoral. Most people accept that argument.

He was a senior civil servant with a publically obtained merit and expertise.

The pocket Bushes trotted out to give balance are just noise and distraction designed to disrupt discussion of these serious issues whether it's by shouting down their oponents, raising hysterical spectres of "IslamoNazis", or if that fails then walking out of the studio when trounced by reasoned, calm debate.

Now, back to the Illegal War and Occupation based on complete Lies and Deliberate Deception of the Public coupled with Massive Profits for Companies with Strong Links to the Invading Regime.

by not surprised Wed Mar 16, 2005 22:01

There's no big conspiracy!

If all people felt as strongly about Iraq as you do, then it wouldn't be happening. Don't insult people by telling them they are being fooled all the time. They are not stupid. Asking people if they are opposed to war is like asking then if they are opposed to crime. The answer is a foregone conclusion.

But you can't just infer from that that people agree with evrything you say. So, R Isible, the argument was not won. If the aim of your argument was merely to be heard, then maybe you did win. But I have no respect for a political movement that aims only to be heard if what it says never has any chance of happening.

It sounds like a pretty simplistic thing to say, but most folk simply don't believe you.

While libertarianism may be a useful counter balance to right-wing conservatism in ideological terms, in the real world where the rest of us reside, it is irrelevant.

If "radicals" were so effective, and everyone agreed with them, then there would be no war in Iraq.

People are dying, hence the argument was lost. Fact.

by eeekkkk Wed Mar 16, 2005 22:23

Governments can and do go to war against the wishes of their populations. Italy and spain had way over 75 disapproval of their governments involving them in the war. They went anyway. They can do this because they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their states.

Slowly but surely however the anti-war movement is changing things

spain - done - withdrawn

italy - withdrawing

US - support for the war is falling apart as the mess becomes more and more apparent and the USA becomes the number one demon on the planet - this will affect their economy more and more as noone wants to prop up and finance a greedy bully living on a massive line of european and chinese credit while it loots Iraq.

"The number of people who say the war was worth fighting has fallen from 70 percent during the war to 45 percent now. And the number who say it's put the United States in a stronger position in the world has fallen from 52 percent to 28 percent. (It was a vastly higher 84 percent after the 1991 Gulf War.) Indeed more now say the war left the United States weaker (41 percent) than stronger"

that's from this abc/wapo poll

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=582744&page=1

Ireland - we shall see - no opinion polls have been done since the early weeks of the war

it aint over till it's over

by jeff Wed Mar 16, 2005 22:32

'If you and your lot are so good at arguing, then why are there still a whole bunch of people getting killed in Iraq? You lost that argument. Nobody listens to you because you don't argue rationally and you don't acknowledge anyone's right to disagree with you.'

You can't argue or make forceful points on the issue at hand, namely, this 'pre emptive war'. Like I said, I condemn the murder of 100,000 and you still say 'Totalitarian'.

Anyway, governments haave a tendency to do as they please. Polls conducted in Spain when Aznar sent the troops in showed over 90% oppossed to this war.
Then the PP got voted out.

Give it up, man, you can't argue, all you can do is blow out empty phrases about how totalitarian we all are. Your boring.

by jeff Wed Mar 16, 2005 22:36

Most people here have given their points of argument as to why they oppose this war. In return, you engage in empty phrases.We talk about death, you indulge in linguistic abstractions. We feel this pre emptive strike has created a dangerous precedent, you reply with ( surprise, surprise) 'Your totalitarian'. You should join The British Labour Party, you could make a career out of spin...

by jeff Wed Mar 16, 2005 22:39

I have not seen you make points about the issue at hand, just different ways of saying how totalitarian we all are. Have you any opinions on this war, or are just merly content to say; Your totalitarian!

If that is all you can say, then it is you, sah, who is fickle with debate, and thus possesing a pedigree of charactah unbecoming of a squire or a gentleman, yas,indeeda!

(At this stage, I do find it hard to take you seriously. I must be totalitarian-a!)

by not surprised Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:39

Quote - "I have not seen you make points about the issue at hand"

Look at the title of the thread. It is not a pro-war V anti-war thread, so I'm not going to get dragged into a slagging match, glibly using the deaths of Iraqis as a cynical stick to beat the 'other side' with. You don't know the first thing about the middle east - I bet you've never even set foot in the place, yet you see fit to lecture the rest of the world.

Quote - "Give it up, man, you can't argue, all you can do is blow out empty phrases about how totalitarian we all are. Your boring"

I've obviously hit a raw nerve with this one. Look back at the thread and you will see I used the T word twice, early on. Since then, Jeff, you've used it, hysterically, NINE times. What's your fascination with it?

Quote - "you engage in empty phrases. We talk about death, you indulge in linguistic abstractions."

After lecturing me on using "linguistic abstractions", you come up with this next beauty:

"it is you, sah, who is fickle with debate, and thus possesing a pedigree of charactah unbecoming of a squire or a gentleman, yas,indeeda!"

And then YOU say that you can't take ME seriously?

Bring on someone who will address the real issue at hand**. Is Jeff the best that the left has to offer?

**Which isn't the war (there's plenty of other threads for that) it's the fact that the extreme left can't tolerate the legitimacy of the existence of centre-or-right opinions. (I won't use the T word again, seeing as it causes such offence!)

by jeff Sat Mar 19, 2005 14:39

Pre emptive war is a bad idea. It causes civilian casualties, it creaes a new legal precedent that can now be interpreted by anyone for anything, and thus over rides the principles enshrined in international agreements.

Add to that the fact that Depleted uranium will cause a lot of cancer in the next few years. Overal, the war a really bad idea.

Now, what can you say to that. You actually have said you will not get into a debate about the Iraq war, you will just say that we cannot accept the opppossing arguments. Well, obviously thats going to happem. Thats what we believe. What, you want us to compromise and vot PD s in the next election?

People will have opinions. It has nought to do with the left not accepting other arguments. It is human nature, especially when it comes to war.

The original thread was talking about Mr Deveny and his walking out of a debate. Funnily enough the 'left' speakers ie; those oppossing the war, stayed behind and talked. I'm sure if Terry was there he would have talked. He would not have accepted the oppossing argument as truth, but nonetheless would have talked so as to demonstrate the inherent falsehood of the oppossing argument. Thats my interpretation of his point.

You have made none, except to say we are the t word. Again, you insist on indulging in mere abstractions.


And don't accuse anyone here of 'using' dead Iraqis to forward our points.It is the coalition that is responsible for their deaths, and it is coalition actions we oppose. You are the one being glib accusing us of that. We have our human sentiments and are against war, yet people like you accuse of of being subversive Stalinists with plans to usurp the nation and instigate state planning of the economy, complete with gulags!

get real...

by irish cultural attache in san francisco Sat Mar 19, 2005 18:20 irishculturalattache at gmail dot com

I enjoyed the blog actually - about time someone took on that tool Niall O'Dowd (The Boy for George) - a cheerleader for Bush's war in Iraq 2 years ago with his constant stream of indignant articles in the Irish Times, complaining about the "mean" treatment of soldiers passing thru Iraq on their way to Iraq etc, and his similar outrage on RTE that Irish people weren't lining up behind the Americans (not Irish) who buy his paper. The Irish Voice is a joke, Niall. Yes, we really do want to hurt you.

I love the "pre-mature" comment. Very ironic.