Tribune weblog

2004-07-19T14:08:00.000+01:00

Out of the blue I recalled an undergraduate Lecture from some half a century ago on the assessment of primary sources (in specifically Roman History) wherein a novel pronouncement was made which obviously has stayed with me!
It was to the effect that Roman Historians made a moral judgment of the character of their subject, and dependent on that was the motive for ALL his political and military actions.
Palpably absurd, of course, but it explained a lot.
I had occasion to look up the other dossier (Saddam Hussein's), from December 2002, in which he made the claim that "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction".
This claim in 43 volumes.
While unnamed sources called it a "dog ate homework" report, and one with "ommissions large enough to drive a tank through" the major players were quoted.
Our Prime Minister's reply was " It would be naive to suppose that Saddam Hussein will comply with the order to destroy his weapons of mass destruction tion"-Saddam is duplicitous.
Jack Straw went even further " Saddam's previous disclosure have been a pack of lies"......ergo so is this -Saddam is a liar.
Recently, very recently our ally George W Bush has told the free world that " I acted because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman" - Saddam is mad.
Just a suggestion, but substitute modern politician for ancient historian and absurd or not it is an alternative explanation to explain the inexplicable!
Incidentally one or two things caught my eye from that December.
David Edwards of MediaLens pointed out that he had read NO mention of what might happen in the event of a peaceful resolution i.e. if Iraq was given a clean bill of health.
And a complaint was made by Iraq about the 1141 allied aircraft sorties and bombing that had been made in the month prior to the production of there Iraq dossier.
No mention was made of the effects of United Nations sanctions on the country, and although U.N. Resolution 1441 was occasionally referred to, no one even suggested it was a reason for war, and if it had been why should the insistence on WMD have been pursued so feverishly?
Why was the case not built on 1441?

Albert A'Hara

2004-03-25T16:03:00.000Z

The dabate rages, admittedly rather meekly, in the Grauniad's letters page
about the defacement of said publications front page by a Manchester
newsagent to protect the sanctity of the Koran (or rather, a picture of the
Koran).
Dr M Tasab points out that no Muslim would consider the front page of a
newspaper to be an appropriate place [to print a picture of the Koran]'.
Noone rushing to the defence of the book seems that bothered about the
placement of it in the picture itself, namely impaled on a rather large and
vicious looking dagger.
Hardly the right place for the holy book of a 'religion of peace'.

Padraig O'Riada
London

2004-03-24T17:01:00.000Z

Yvonne Ridley's conversion to Islam must've had a VERY profound impact on her thinking if this article on "Jihad unspun" is anything to go by. How can she compare Islamist volunteers in Afghanistan with the 1936 International Brigades? Unbeliveable.

Cut and paste the following link:
http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=97622&list=/home.p

Greg Jacks
London

2004-03-24T11:20:00.000Z

Nice to see the Lib Dems displaying party loyalty in the run up to the EP
elections. Perhaps Champagne (and gin, and whisky, and Buckfast) Charlie
should remind his party of the inspired words of past Liberal liqour-lovers
such as good old Winston Churchill (gawd bless 'im). "I may be drunk, Madam
Tonge, but you are an idiot, and I will still be drunk in the morning." Or
words to that effect.

Padriag O'Riada
London

2004-03-04T11:25:00.000Z

A detail in a Radio Worldservice programme last week in which Prince Turki Al-Faisal, head of Intelligence in Saudi Arabia for twenty five years, was interviewed in "The Interview" seems to me indicative - or at any rate the total absence of any report of it in the media does - just how threadbare the linking of Osama Bin Ladin with Saddam Hussein has become.

The Prince met Osama as one of thousands of volunteers, he said, who took part in the joint operation (Saudi Arabia, USA and Pakistan) against the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrew in 1990, and after the invasion of Kuwait Osama came to the Prince for help "to liberate South Yemen from its Marxist regime". The Prince was now, he said suspicious of Osama's motives and turned him down.

Then the detail - "and he came to you ", said the interviewer (Grace Carrie?)," after the invasion of Kuwait wanting to take on Saddam Hussein". "To our Government, not to me", said the Prince, but he was turned away.

So here is indeed a link between Osama and Saddam: Osama was willing to bring Saddam down. What a buddy! The Interview can be heard on bbc.co.uk/worldservice

A.W.A'Hara
Dundee.

2004-02-11T16:19:00.000Z

Noted with amusement, the Tribune cartoon in today's (11 Feb) Guardian. At least if Tribune HAS joined New Labour's axis of evil even if it isn't as dangerous as the Beeb, it's still more dangerous than Robin Cook!

Frank Kennedy

2004-02-04T17:20:00.000Z

The launch of the anti-fascist campaign in London yesterday can only be a good thing, provided it backs up its talk with action. Calls to unite, fight fascism etc. are all very good but people need to be going from doorstep to doorstep making sure the message is out there. And not just the week before the election. Fascists have their footsoldiers and the Left needs theirs also - we shouldn't surrender our streets to the BNP. Anti-fascist rhetoric needs to be more than a platform for politicians and union big wigs to grab a headline.

Richard McClean

2004-02-02T10:54:00.000Z

It's true what they say of Labour MPs:

"One Blair to rule them all, One Blair to bind them

One Blair to lead them all and to the darkness drive
them"

Jim Mearns

2004-01-23T14:20:00.000Z

I think Hugh Macpherson omitted a pertinent quote in his valediction for Tam Dalyell in the Tribune. Today’s Guardian reports that 7 out of 10 Britions believe the Holocaust was exaggerated and that 11% strongly disagree that a Jewish PM would be acceptable.
Perhaps these attitudes are helped when people like Mr Dalyell, the former "Father of the House", stood up in Parliament and made an inflammatory speech accusing the Prime Minister of being under the influence a "Jewish cabal".
Nothing priaseworthy in that, Mr Macpherson.

Anne-Marie Jennings

2004-01-16T15:10:00.000Z

Peter Tatchell's article in this week's Tribune about an armed overthrow of Mugabe makes for interesting reading. However, I remember an astounding call he made in Tribune before the start of the Iraq war where he called for the West to arm anti-Saddam factions, most notably the Kurds and Shia Muslims.
For those who have to live with the consequences of armed groups running around a destabilised country, I'm sure the idea of yet more Zimbabwean "freedom fighters" may not make the ordinary people of that state sleep safer in their beds....

Kevin Folkes

2004-01-12T12:44:00.001Z

At least the good people of Britain will now be spared from his inane programme in the mornings. This isn't his first offence though - he once described Ireland as a land of "peasants, pixies and priests." As in football, second yellow card...you're off.
Alan Leys

2004-01-12T12:44:00.000Z

The suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk from his odious television show is a well-deserved punishment for his sickening racist tirade against Arabs in the "Sunday Express". But why are we still waiting for the suspension of BNP councillors who belong to an openly racist organisation be from THEIR jobs also?

John Macken