Friday, August 10, 2007

Neil Clark - weapons grade arsehole

This is quite possibly the most unpleasant article ever written on Comment is Free. I would say that by writing it Neil Clark sacrifices any claim to bein considered a normal human being, but I have a feeling that that ship sailed a long time ago. We can start with the title Keep these quislings out, by which he is referring to Iraqis who worked as interpreters for the British Army. Likening these men to Quisling - the Norwegian who betrayed his country to the Nazis - is quite fantastically offensive. But that's only the beginning. Neil Clark, the evil little son of a bitch, goes on to make some staggeringly obnoxious statements.
Now the cakewalk brigade is telling us those who collaborate with - oops, sorry, work for - the liberators may not actually be the most popular guys and gals in town.
So, nice use of collaboration there, although if you genuinely believe that the British forces in Iraq are equivalent to Nazi Germany then you demonstrate a degree of political maturity somewhere between a Student Union and Neil from the Young Ones. And that's a very good trivialisation of torture and murder. Clark is, must be, aware that the interpreters aren't being sent to Coventry or being ignored in the local Tescos. Being 'unpopular guys and gals' entails being cut dead in a more literal sense. He deserves, no demands, to be punched in the head. Repeatedly. Honestly, I mean this. He is trivialising the brutal murders of civilians - making a (not particularly funny) joke about murder. Please, someone show him why this isn't funny. Preferably by demonstration.
The most nauseating aspect of the campaign is the way we are repeatedly told that the Iraqi interpreters worked for "us".Who exactly is meant by "us"? In common with millions of other Britons, I did not want the Iraq war, an illegal invasion of a sovereign state engineered and egged on by a tiny minority of fanatical neoconservatives whose first loyalty was not to Britain but to the cause of Pax Americana. NHS doctors and nurses, firemen and the police force work for "us", but in no stretch of the imagination do Iraqi interpreters, who are employed by British forces that have no right or cause to be in Iraq.
The British Army is part of Britain - in exactly the same way as doctors, nurses, firemen and police. People working for the British Army are working for 'us'. Whether or not Neil 'punch me in head' Clark agrees with British foreign policy is immaterial.
The interpreters did not work for "us", the British people, but for themselves - they are paid around £16 a day, an excellent wage in Iraq - and for an illegal occupying force. Let's not cast them as heroes. The true heroes in Iraq are those who have resisted the invasion of their country.
OK, I said 'punch him in the head' but clearly that's not enough. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi 'resistance' has involved bombing bus stations, markets and weddings. This is about as 'heroic' as if several hundred people ganged together to kick Neil Clark in the balls - only infinitely less justifiable. Killing civilians - as much as it seems to amuse and impress Neil Clark - is not a mark of heroism for any but the most fuck-headedness - a subgroup that definitely seems to include this little shithead.
There is a simple answer to that "practical military issue": let's do all we can to keep the British army out of war zones. And in the meantime, let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain. If that means some of them may lose their lives, then the responsibility lies with those who planned and supported this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, and not those of us who tried all we could to stop it.
First - if they die the responsibility lies with the cowardly muderous little 'heroes' that you eulogised a little while ago you fascistic little traitor. Second, if this article has any benefit at all, it is in exposing the festering little maggots that crawl out the 'anti-war' movement. My powers of invective are frankly deficient to deal with this sort of shit. I feel tarnished having read it, and wish that Neil Clark would fuck off and die in a drain.
UPDATE: Comments have now been locked on that thread - with an explanation saying Our policy is to close threads after three days. Comments have now been closed on this entry. Three days or, as in this case, three hours...

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you think that we should take in these "quislings" because they fear for their lives, then surely we should also take in all the refugees who have fled Iraq already in fear of their lives and the internally displaced as well. Having not worked for the British occoupation forces they are surely more innocent that the "quislings".

Personally,even though I have always been opposed to this war, I think we have a duty to take in all the refugees and internally displaced people - we broke it, so we fix it.

11:20 pm  
Blogger punkscience said...

What anonymous said, with big, fucking bells on.

However, even though I disagree with him over the fate of the interpreters , I agree strongly with Neil Clark's condemnation of the pro-war bloggers support for this cause.

Truth hurts, hey lizard?

7:53 pm  
Blogger Tim J said...

More innocent? That's bullshit. These people were working for coalition forces that are in Iraq now under both a UN mandate and with the full support of the first democratically elected government in Iraq. As for Neil Clark's calling this hypocrisy on the part of bloggers who were in favour of the war - I don't see it.

As a matter of fact, I was never of the belief that the whole of Iraq would welcome the US and UK as 'liberators' - I was a historian for god's sake - but to say that, because you were in favour of the removal of a brutal dictator, that makes it impossible to support the granting of asylum to those people who worked for the army is ridiculous.

When the British fought the communist insurgents in Malaya, those communists who 'turned' and worked for the British were looked after in return - some being granted new identites and new lives in places like Australia. That the British Government should do the same here is, to me, irrefutable.

If there's a good argument why being in favour of the war makes it incoherent to support this thyen I've yet to hear it.

10:30 am  
Blogger punkscience said...

Its not incoherent- no-one used that term. I think the word you're looking for is "hypocritical". Whether you agreed with the translators right to asylum or not as a supporter of the illegal invasion you have no position from which to opine on this matter- you're lack of morals excludes you from commenting on the subject.

3:39 pm  
Blogger Tim J said...

Hypocritical? Meaning to state one position publically while privately practising the opposite? And this applies here how?

The fact that you disagree with one of my opinions does not rob me of moral authority to argue an entirely different opinion. Besides, if lack of morals barred people from political comment, there'd be a lot of empty newspapers around.

9:41 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home