« Anyone with JSTOR access? | Main | Grow Up, Please! »
August 10, 2007
Neil Clark Agin
Ahahahahaha!
Sorry, just too, too perfect. It's really Craig Brown, isn't it?
Well, glad we've got that sorted out. I always thought there was something over the top about his pieces and now I know there. He's a spoof, and as always with such, he's got caught.
August 10, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e39825e8788833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Neil Clark Agin:
Comments
What a truly loathsome individual. There's no retort to this sort of filth except a really spectacular head-butt, followed by a kicking.
Posted by: David Gillies | Aug 10, 2007 5:29:40 PM
If the looniest element of the Strasserite left opposes this campaign, it has to be worth joining- doesn't it?
Write to your MP, and make Neil Clark cry.
Posted by: Dan Hardie | Aug 10, 2007 5:42:36 PM
David,
I agree with every word of Neil's analysis.
Does that make me "a truly loathsome individual" worthy of "a really spectacular head-butt, followed by a kicking"?
Posted by: Martin | Aug 10, 2007 8:39:11 PM
"The true heroes in Iraq are those who have resisted the invasion of their country."
If they really are a resistance movement, why are they killing their own countrymen in such huge numbers? Not criminals, but ordinary citizens - people in the street, people at weddings, people celebrating a football victory.
C'mon Neil you idiot, explain that.
Rule #1 for a resistance movement: don't kill your countrymen!
Either:
1. It is history's most inept resistance movement.
OR
2. Clark, Galloway and other clowns who peddle the 'resistance' line are telling us porkies about really what is going on.
Posted by: Effing and Blinding | Aug 10, 2007 10:14:11 PM
effing and blinding- I do not support the killing of innocent civilians by anyone. Period.
Tim adds: Please define "innocent civilian".
Posted by: Neil Clark | Aug 10, 2007 10:22:53 PM
Neil, it isn't a question of whether you support the killing of civilians. I'm sure you don't.
The question is how accurately you define the real nature of the conflict going on.
In the quote I extracted, you define it as a resistance movement. You aren't on your Pat Malone doing that. Others such as Galloway do so too. Like you, they manage to avoid the questions as you have dodged mine.
Rule #1 in any resistance movement: stop killing your own countrymen (and indeed go out of your way to avoid doing so) - even those with whom you had a prior grudge. You do it out of self interest - to prevent betrayals, and to remain focused.
The Pythons got it right when Brian implored the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean People's front to concentrate on the common enemy 'Ah yes, the Popular Front'. 'No, the Romans'. [the penny drops] 'Oh yeah!'
Point I am making is: the conflict in Iraq has bugger all to do with resistance, at least as far as those doing the killing is concerned.
Neil, please have another go at explaining yourself. And no Ali G like crap please...
Posted by: Effing and Blinding | Aug 10, 2007 11:50:56 PM
Neil, you quite implicitly support the deliberate execution and torture of these individuals and their families, because you are in fact encouraging their opponents to do so. Your are simply an utterly dishonest weasel with no guts to do it yourself.
Innocent civilian, how about a child happily running around celebrating a soccer victory, when one of your "true heros" detonates himself in the vicinity. Of course, by even daring to celebrate while "under occupation" they can't really be innocent, can they Neil ?
Oh, and you risked life and limb, didn't you, protesting against this "illegal war", what a hero Neil !
Posted by: Ed Snack | Aug 11, 2007 1:08:14 AM
Tim,
In this context, I would venture to define "innocent civilian" as someone now more at risk of violence from the hands of state actors or their opponents than before March 2003 - which would be just about everyone.
Is that agreed?
Effing and Blinding,
You write,
"Rule #1 in any resistance movement: stop killing your own countrymen (and indeed go out of your way to avoid doing so) - even those with whom you had a prior grudge. You do it out of self interest - to prevent betrayals, and to remain focused"
Could you please provide an example of any resistance movement which has not gone out of its way to attack those it deems collaborators?
"Point I am making is: the conflict in Iraq has bugger all to do with resistance, at least as far as those doing the killing is concerned. "
I would venture to suggest that view is nonsense, if only because you stubbornly seem to exclude the combined powers of faith and culture from your argument.
Ed,
You describe Neil as,
"quite implicitly support(ing) the deliberate execution and torture of these individuals and their families, because you are in fact encouraging their opponents to do so."
At the start, I was an avid supporter of this war - indeed in 2002 I wrote a piece for a (now defunct) comment website imploring Senator Ted Kennedy to back it -
http://martinkellytwdarchive.blogspot.com/2006/03/open-letter-to-senator-edward-m.html
Two years later, I cashed out and went home on account of Abu Ghraib. The nightshift quite routinely tortured, humiliated and abused "innocent civilians". Do you support what they did?
You describe Neil as being,
"an utterly dishonest weasel with no guts to do it yourself".
I don't know Neil, have never met the man and from what I've read of his work I know we don't seem to share many of the same interests - I can't stand horse racing and prefer 'Starsky & Hutch' to 'Ellery Queen'.
However, I have always found him to be consistent; which is a damn sight more than I can say for myself - and I do admire his self-control in not going all guns for those who, equally consistently, slur his wife whenever she puts pen to paper.
In this instance, Neil is right.
Tim adds: "Tim, In this context, I would venture to define "innocent civilian" as someone now more at risk of violence from the hands of state actors or their opponents than before March 2003 - which would be just about everyone."
Not a good definition I think. There are those who are now less at risk from State actors (those under the eye of Saddam's police): do we need to claim that they are now not-innocent civilians?
Posted by: Martin | Aug 11, 2007 6:54:39 AM
"Oh, and you risked life and limb, didn't you, protesting against this "illegal war", what a hero Neil !"
Oh, come now....! He "...went on several anti-war marches and risked arrest in protests against the war, as well as writing articles against the invasion."
He could have got blisters....or even worse, writers cramp! Don't mock his suffering, hater!
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 11, 2007 6:56:12 AM
"David,
I agree with every word of Neil's analysis.
Does that make me "a truly loathsome individual" worthy of "a really spectacular head-butt, followed by a kicking"?"
Hmmm, tricky question. I'd have to say......yes!
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 11, 2007 6:57:07 AM
"However, I have always found him to be consistent...."
Yup. He's certainly been a consistent disgusting little s***bag, that's for sure...
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 11, 2007 6:59:29 AM
JuliaM,
I look forward to your confirmation that you have enlisted, so that you can go to Iraq to defend your principles.
Maybe once you've seen some violence close up then you'll think twice about inciting violence against fellow citizens who have done nothing to you other than express a point of view which differs from our own.
Posted by: Martin | Aug 11, 2007 7:18:54 AM
"I look forward to your confirmation that you have enlisted, so that you can go to Iraq to defend your principles."
Ah, the 'chickenhak' argument. Whoever told you it was a winner was lying....
"Maybe once you've seen some violence close up then you'll think twice about inciting violence against fellow citizens who have done nothing to you..."
...unless they are 'collabarators', I suppose? They deserve all they get, according to you & your pal Clarky. What a pair of...words fail me.
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 11, 2007 7:49:19 AM
Julia Manton,
'chickenhak' - no, chickenshit.
Broadly the same.
"They deserve all they get, according to you & your pal Clarky."
Do they deserve to die? From my point of view, no. However, they made choices and must live with the consequences.
Posted by: Martin | Aug 11, 2007 7:58:53 AM
Tim,
"Not a good definition I think. There are those who are now less at risk from State actors (those under the eye of Saddam's police): do we need to claim that they are now not-innocent civilians?"
Hmmm, you're engaging in a little casuistry here - bit like theorising as to how many suicide bombers can dance on the head of an IED.
I don't think you read it fully. I wrote "State actors or their opponents". Ok, even if the Ba'athist police are around more, the jihadists still are. The risk has transferred away from being taken to a torture chamber to being blown up in the street.
One way or t'other, Bubba, they're still dead.
Posted by: Martin | Aug 11, 2007 9:53:31 AM
"There's no retort to this sort of filth except a really spectacular head-butt, followed by a kicking."
Ahhh, principled libertarianism in action: We need to be violent toward people we disagree with.
And no 'Tim adds' on that lovely little comment either, I notice.
Well, now we know where you stand on the old freedom-of-speech issue Timmeh! Glad we cleared that one up!
Tim adds: And here it is: he's allowed to say what he wishes. As you are. That is, I think you'll find, called freedom of speech. There's nothing in that concept which requires that I defend you from rhetorical attacks, only that I do so from either physical or legal ones. Neither of which are in play here.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 10:13:21 AM
"Ahhh, principled libertarianism in action: We need to be violent toward people we disagree with.....now we know where you stand on the old freedom-of-speech issue Timmeh! Glad we cleared that one up!"
Not everyone, but I suspect even Gandhi might have made an exception for a warped specimen like you....
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 11, 2007 10:41:35 AM
"Neither of which are in play here."
Oh dear, defending the indefensible now, are we?
Funny, I read "There's no retort to this sort of filth except a really spectacular head-butt, followed by a kicking" as a clear incitement to physical violence.
Perhaps it says something different when read through your special 'classically liberal principles' magic specs.
(Oh, and this is a different Neil, by the way - not of the Clark variety. Don't let that stop you advocating a good beating just for expressing my opinion though.)
Tim adds: If it were said in the same room, or in any form of physical proximity to Neil Clark, then yes, you're probably right. As this is the interweb, you know, cyberspace, and none of us knows the physical location of any of the others, then it isn't.
Please also note that I did not make that statement: that was someone else, all I've done is not censor it. You know, freedom of sppech: he can say what he wishes, that's what it means, right?
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 11:00:30 AM
Shorter Tim: It's okay to add comments inciting violence to my blog (but criticise me and I'll be all over it).
Well that answers your question, Martin!
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 11:22:43 AM
...anyway, better make myself scarce lest one of your enforcers pays me a visit.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 11:24:35 AM
