Tuesday, June 13, 2006
ONE POST ON TWO IDIOCIES
I thought that in this case rather than two posts, one on two rather similar idiocies was more than enough.
First, the reporting on the combat killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is increasingly navel-gazingly ridiculous. Here's one of the leaders in that ridiculousness, the BBC:
Ah, those "questions" that had "arisen". But I'm not quite sure what the "questions" actually are. The implication seems to be that he could have been saved?
Has the BBC ever heard of a mortal wound? It happens to be fatal. No matter. Coalition forces were supposed to within moments after hitting him whisk the mortally wounded Zarqawi by supersonic transport at huge expense to the UK . . . presumably for at least an immediate lung transplant to be paid for on the NHS.
Secondly, well, well, look who the BBC have trotted out, for, presumably, his scholarly knowledge of the Guantanamo subject:
Yes, he was "held at the camp". And why?:
Yes, yes, he was "an observer only". As we know, those Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan, pre-September 11, 2001 "training camps" -- easy to get to, easier to visit, and famous for their hospitality, openness, and all those jetsetting in and out European passport holding "observers".
Of course his overarching reasons for being in Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan in the first place were profoundly noble:
And yes, why not? It makes perfect sense. A law student from Birmingham who ran an Islamic bookstore, who was also an Afghan water infrastructure improvement expert in his spare time.
Of course, "fleeing" those American bombings . . . which as we know were undertaken for no particular reason.
Interestingly, the BBC hurridly glosses over in the opening sentence of the above January 2005 synopsis of Mr Begg's plight, that he didn't complete his "flight" from Afghanistan by heading back to Britain immediately:
Presumably, the "father of four" had been delayed in Pakistan for four to five months due to his helping with Pakistani water supply issues.
And those admitted pre-September 11, 2001 "observer visits" to al Qaeda camps are curiously not mentioned at all. However, in fairness, that "factoid" may have come out AFTER he finally returned to Britain. But if so that is actually even more damning, given the BBC's perpetual swoon over Mr Begg post-release. (Clarification: if his "visits" took place after September 11, 2001, his being there as an "observer" is even less acceptable or easy to explain away, since immediately after September 11 Briton Moazzam Begg's British government had made it clear it stood with the U.S. and would take part in strikes on Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan. And it did.)
All things considered, as far as most Americans are concerned Mr Begg's views hold about as much "humanitarian weight" as those of any other released enemy annoyed his preferred side was chased from power.
UPDATE, June 15: The New York Times (of all sources) has much more on Mr Begg. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 13, 2006
I thought that in this case rather than two posts, one on two rather similar idiocies was more than enough.
_____________________________
First, the reporting on the combat killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is increasingly navel-gazingly ridiculous. Here's one of the leaders in that ridiculousness, the BBC:
Militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died from injuries consistent with the results of a bomb blast, US military officials have said.
Questions had arisen over how he had died after the Americans revealed he had still been alive following the bombing of a safe house by US planes.
An autopsy revealed the cause of death was a blast injury to the lungs, but he took nearly an hour to die, they said...
Questions had arisen over how he had died after the Americans revealed he had still been alive following the bombing of a safe house by US planes.
An autopsy revealed the cause of death was a blast injury to the lungs, but he took nearly an hour to die, they said...
Ah, those "questions" that had "arisen". But I'm not quite sure what the "questions" actually are. The implication seems to be that he could have been saved?
Has the BBC ever heard of a mortal wound? It happens to be fatal. No matter. Coalition forces were supposed to within moments after hitting him whisk the mortally wounded Zarqawi by supersonic transport at huge expense to the UK . . . presumably for at least an immediate lung transplant to be paid for on the NHS.
_____________________________
Secondly, well, well, look who the BBC have trotted out, for, presumably, his scholarly knowledge of the Guantanamo subject:
...Briton Moazzam Begg, 37, who was held at the camp for two years, said the three suicides were "just awful"....
Yes, he was "held at the camp". And why?:
...Begg acknowledges he did visit two training camps in Afghanistan, [but] he says he was there as an observer only...
Yes, yes, he was "an observer only". As we know, those Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan, pre-September 11, 2001 "training camps" -- easy to get to, easier to visit, and famous for their hospitality, openness, and all those jetsetting in and out European passport holding "observers".
Of course his overarching reasons for being in Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan in the first place were profoundly noble:
...Moazzam Begg was a law student and ran an Islamic book and video store in Birmingham.
Mr [Azmat] Begg said he had urged his son to move to Kabul with his wife and children to fulfil an ambition to build a school and help improve water supplies.
Mr [Azmat] Begg said he had urged his son to move to Kabul with his wife and children to fulfil an ambition to build a school and help improve water supplies.
And yes, why not? It makes perfect sense. A law student from Birmingham who ran an Islamic bookstore, who was also an Afghan water infrastructure improvement expert in his spare time.
Following the American bombings, the family then fled the Afghan capital for Pakistan, where the arrest took place...
Of course, "fleeing" those American bombings . . . which as we know were undertaken for no particular reason.
Interestingly, the BBC hurridly glosses over in the opening sentence of the above January 2005 synopsis of Mr Begg's plight, that he didn't complete his "flight" from Afghanistan by heading back to Britain immediately:
The father-of-four from the Sparkbrook area was detained by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002...
Presumably, the "father of four" had been delayed in Pakistan for four to five months due to his helping with Pakistani water supply issues.
And those admitted pre-September 11, 2001 "observer visits" to al Qaeda camps are curiously not mentioned at all. However, in fairness, that "factoid" may have come out AFTER he finally returned to Britain. But if so that is actually even more damning, given the BBC's perpetual swoon over Mr Begg post-release. (Clarification: if his "visits" took place after September 11, 2001, his being there as an "observer" is even less acceptable or easy to explain away, since immediately after September 11 Briton Moazzam Begg's British government had made it clear it stood with the U.S. and would take part in strikes on Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan. And it did.)
All things considered, as far as most Americans are concerned Mr Begg's views hold about as much "humanitarian weight" as those of any other released enemy annoyed his preferred side was chased from power.
UPDATE, June 15: The New York Times (of all sources) has much more on Mr Begg. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 13, 2006
