Friday, February 02, 2007

A 'debate' with a neo-con

Earlier today, I sent the following email to Stephen Pollard:

-----Original Message-----From: Neil Clark 02 February 2007 10:52To:
Subject: Iran and 'genocidal butchers'

Dear Stephen,
Perhaps you can explain why a nuclear-armed Iran would decide to attack Israel, knowing that, in President Chirac's words: ? "It (the nuclear missile) would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."?

The 'peace' I would like to see in the Middle East does not include an Iranian attack on Israel, as you mischieviously infer, but peace for all the countries of the region, Israel included.

Also, kindly drop the silly jibe that I hero worship a 'genocidal butcher' .Milosevic did not commit genocide. If you like I can send you transcipts of the trial at The Hague, in any case they're all available on line.
Don't you think if Milosevic had been a 'genocidal butcher' some evidence would have come to light after four years?

Can I also point your attention to Tony Daniels' review of Dr John Laughland's book on the trial of Milosevic, which appears in the new editionof The Spectator. If you're consistent, you should also be labelling Daniels an apologist for 'mass murder/genocide'. I wonder if you will?

Yours, Neil Clark

Here's Pollard's reply. Isn't it wonderful how those who are so keen to spread 'free speech' around the globe are so keen to restrict the parameters of debate back home?

Dear Mr Clark,

I do not propose to get in to a debate with you about the fact of Milosevic's genocide. It is however a simple matter of fact that anyone who admires Milosevic admires a genocidal butcher.
I will repeat that formulation whenever I choose.

With regard to Iran, I assume by 'infer' you mean 'imply'. But that lack of sense simply mirrors your lack of sense in claiming to believe that an Iranin possession of a nuclear weapon would further the cause of peace. Should you choose to reply to this, rest assured that your reply will not be read but simply placed in my trash folder, where it will well deserve to sit.
Stephen Pollard


Witch-king of Angmar said...

Pollard's moto:"Why let such simple things as facts get in the way of my distorted view of the world?"

Martin said...


What a fucking prick Pollard is.

Gojira said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Estavisti said...

Sometimes a view is held so strongly it becomes part of a person's identity. Any evidence contradicting that view thus negates the person's identity and must be denigrated and/or ignored. Can't remember whose argument this was - could be Orwell's.

Quite depressing that insults and unsubstantiated repetition take the place of rational debate, especially when it's a supposedly reputable commentator we're talking about. His attitude smacks of the blind repetition of ideological dogma well known to anyone acquainted with the Communist Yugoslavia (to name just one example).

I also see that he supports (as a member of the Henry Jackson Society) the imposition of "liberal democracy" around the world (whatever the "liberal" is supposed to mean) by means of military "intervention" (invasion, before it was sexed up and spun). What larks...

1defender said...

Stephen Pollard is using the old propaganda trick that if you repeat a lie enough times it will become the truth, and I quote:

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ..." Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Mr. Pollard should either put up or shut up. If he has any evidence that would have convicted Slobodan Milosevic he had a place to take it to. The kangaroo court at the Hague had no such evidence. If it had it would have hung, drawn and quartered Milosevic long ago. They would not have had to resort to death by other means.

Neil Craig said...

It is a matter of fact that anybody who calls Milosevic a genocidal butcher is a wholly corrupt Nazi. It is also a matter of fact that, by the standards of evidence to which he aspires, it is certain that he has aquired several loathsome sexual infections from various farm animals.

There is no actual evidence that he has but no highly paid organisation has spent 4 1/2 years examining his genetalia & failing to find any & zero evidence is a much higher standard of proof than that to which he aspites.

Patrick said...

Just a few points.

Well Adolf did not sign the orders for the holocaust..but we all know he did it. Don't we?

The difference between national socialism and international socialism is the difference between the concepts of Historicism and Holism.
Its not hard for a statist like Milosevic to be both.

Liberal Democracy is pretty simple to define, Its when the adult population of a nation have at regular intervals the right to change and replace its government in a peaceable process based upon law, and to be able to fully participate in that process without interference....not too much to ask is it?

Just one question, with regards to this. "or lasting peace and security- based on respect for the sovereignty of nations"

So are you saying that if a nations leaders (regardless of the legitimacy bestowed upon it by the above standard for ethical government) take it upon itself to kill, torture, displace etc. its citizens/surfs. BECAUSE it reaches your ethical standard (that of sovereignty) that should be the basis of world peace?

NOTE, ive not descended into the childish name calling, if you cannot raise your standards to proper argument based upon a scientific standard of truth
(objective truth as expressed thru K Poppers falsification, not Khuns post-modernist view of science as a social construct) then please don't bother replying.

1defender said...

To Patrick I presume you are thinking of Yugoslavia when you say:
So are you saying that if a nations leaders (regardless of the legitimacy bestowed upon it by the above standard for ethical government) take it upon itself to kill, torture, displace etc. its citizens/surfs. BECAUSE it reaches your ethical standard (that of sovereignty) that should be the basis of world peace?

Why limit it to "it's citizens/serfs"?

Oh, yes, I see, that would implicate all those good people, Thatcher, Reagen, Clinton, Bush the father, Blair and Bush the son just for starters. Yugoslavia was an internal matter until the above mentioned do gooders, among many others, decided to stick their oar in. They meddled in the business of a sovereign state until they tore it apart knowing full well what the fall out would be.

What was Blair thinking when he told the Serbian public at the last election who they should vote for?

Steven said...

Thank you for standing up to the despicable Stephen Pollard. As you noted, Anglo-neocon "terms of debate' on the break-up of Yugoslavia are conditional upon the acceptance of Milosevic’s role in genocide and guilt for having started 4 wars. No proof required. It would of course be a thousand times easier to nail Tony Blair for war crimes but in the end we may have to settle for a form of poetic justice, namely an ex-prime minister effectively under house arrest, in constant fear for his life. Something tells me that history may eventually be much kinder to the “evil” Milosevic than to the angel of Downing St. who led us to democratic paradise in Iraq.

I also agree with your assessment of Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would curb the lunatic schemes of the gangsters in charge of American foreign policy. Frankly I am impressed by Ahmedinejad’s defiance. He is not at all scared of the USA (which is what scares the USA). I’ve often said that the Iranian parliament should consider passing a “USA Liberation Act” just to highlight Washington’s hypocrisy.

PS. Have you noticed how Oliver Kamm, the self-proclaimed “militant liberal” (ie. liberal militarist) and professional anti-Serb, has descended into self-parody? Lately every post is about him, or who he met, or what other people had to say about him, etc. What a tedious fellow. Funny too how the more rubbish one talks, the more one is invited to give one’s opinion on TV or radio. I’d bet my bottom dollar on a statistical correlation.

Steven said...


"We all know he did it." is not an argument. Where is the concrete evidence? Where are the secret plans, the racist speeches, the destruction of entire races?