And hardly being marked, you'll notice.
If the world is a conspiracy, then it is a remarkably unsuccessful conspiracy. And in the case of 11th September 2001, the truth is far worse than a mere inside job. That day was indeed the happiest day in the life of George Bush: at last, something that could be used to bring about his otherwise inconceivable second term as President.
And also in the lives of the neocons whose unwitting, because witless, puppet he was: at last, an excuse to take out Iraq, Iran, Syria... Anywhere but the real culprit, the country that funds both the Bushes and the Clintons. But this was not because of any sort of conspiracy. Rather, it was because, in their own terms, they had suddenly found themselves lucky beyond their wildest dreams. Yes, it really was, and it really is, as bad as that.
Then again, who cares about the neocons any more, really? And, in the faintest echoes of his party's foreign policy realist glory days, even Bush withdrew American troops from Saudi Arabia in response to 9/11, in consequence of which there has been no further attack on American soil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you ever going to recover from your humiliation by Telegraph commenters?
ReplyDeleteThey can't still be at it! Poor, poor souls...
ReplyDeleteWell, I am writing for that site (among others), and they are writing neither for it nor for any other. I am very sorry that they cannot cope with that. But the reasons why are at least almost on-topic for this thread.
9/11 isn't even mentioned on Harry's Place.
ReplyDeleteI suspect they are less interested in writing for the Daily Telegraph website than you are. It isn't everybody's burning ambition, you know.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's stopped but they pointed out that you were no academic. It was painful to watch.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a major item on the BBC News Channel all day, and it's the top story on the CNN website.
ReplyDeleteShark, it wasn't mine. But they are clearly very annoyed that I have got it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I never said I was in the sense that they seem to have meant, but misunderstnading on their part does prove that I am lot a more academic than they must be, or they would not have experienced such confusion about basic terms.
And Clumsy, nothing on what it was. Next year, will there be anything at all?
As you pointed out it is normal to list Durham tutorships when publishing.
ReplyDeleteOK, you've got me. I lied. Your humiliation by Telegraph commenters has not been mentioned by the BBC News Channel, and nor is it the top story on the CNN website.
ReplyDeleteMy personal favourite was the one who kept saying that he'd been at Durham when he so obviously hadn't. He didn't even know how to look up the University Calendar, or which colleges had or had not existed when he claimed to have been there.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, back on topic.
Far from being true to your name, Clumsy, good for you for staying on-topic.
ReplyDeleteI think their failure to appreciate the importance of buying the occasional drink for undergraduate students and offering to write them a reference, without having any academic responsibility, reflects significantly worse on them than it does on you.
ReplyDeleteYou never did, and never would, claim to be an academic. Your considerable reputation is based not on your intellect, nor on your publication record, but on your good nature. Who needs a high-class intellect or a publication record anyway? A friendly smile is worth a thousand jobs, or votes, or academic accolades, and on that basis, David, you are a rich man.
Have I got this right? Your bio on the Telegraph site says you're a college tutor at Durham Universoty and all that this means is pastoral care? You aren't any sort of academic or teacher?
ReplyDeleteJust imagine! He claimed to be a former Durham student, but he didn't even look at the university calendar! Any true Durham alumnus would have looked at the Calendar and turned instantly to the list of Collingwood College tutors, where they would have found the name "David Lindsay BA" a little over halfway down the list. This impostor probably didn't even know that the Calendar was online. But every single Durham student consults the Calendar every day. And every single former Durham student keeps it bookmarked.
ReplyDeleteAs for finding a link to a College that didn't even exist when he claimed to be there - that's the crucial piece of clinching evidence. After all, pointing to evidence that relates to current, rather than former, college tutor practices makes no sense when making a claim about current, rather than former, college tutor practices.
Baskey, I know! I've asked the University that awarded them both to put "BA, MA", but they still haven't. Scandalous! But not their worst such, I'm told...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, there is rather more to it than that these days, although there didn't used to be. And people use it as a hook on which to hang their academia, since the books tht they need to consult are rarely likely to have been taken out by your average undergraduate.
People use it to describe themselves on the backs of their books, never mind on blogs. I explained to the Editor exactly what the job was, and he chose to use it to describe me on by byline. And why not?
Rice, I am, aren't I?
Now, back on-topic. I mean it. Although the inablity to find anything to say about this one does rather illustrate its point.
Which authors have called themselves college tutors on the back of books? I'm just trying to understand what this position is.
ReplyDelete"I explained to the Editor exactly what the job was, and he chose to use it to describe me on by byline. And why not?"
ReplyDeleteWhy not indeed? What else could you have put on the byline, after all?
Embittered envy is a bad look, Burce.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, oh, Arthur Middleton, John Blakesley, there are others. And watch this space.
You wouldn't just Google "random Durham college". If you'd ever been at Durham, then you would automatically look up your own. You just would. That bloke had never been near Durham.
Nothing more off-topic will be put up on here.
Josephine Butler is the top result for Googling college tutors durham. Maybe he did that.
ReplyDeleteWhich proves my point. No one who had been at Durham would do it like that. They would look up their own college.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations. Another thread closed.
Who are Arthur Middleton and John Blakesley?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect them to be, famous? On Friday Night with Jonathan Ross?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thread closed.
Middleton appears to be an academic and not a tutor in the sense that you are, i.e. no teaching responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteYou still don't get it, and you'd be wrong even if you did. He's probably retired now, anyway. I'd have to check.
ReplyDeleteWhy are so all so fixated on this? You're like a dog with a bone. Yet there is absolutely nothing here.
Because you said something on your Telegraph blog that appears to be highly misleading. I'm trying to understand it.
ReplyDeleteArthur has never held or sought a lectureship. On the back of his tutorship he has published several books, which is more than can be said for some heads of house. He is retired from his parish but still active in his college. He always declares his tutorship when publishing, a completely normal thing to do. Why would it not be?
ReplyDeleteIt is not "misleading" at all. That is what the position is called, and I hold it. It's not my fault if people ... well, what, exactly? This whole thing is utterly baffling.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Tutor.
Now, this thread having been taken over by the half-educated who think that they are in the academic first rank merely because they had rich parents, it is closed once and for all.
But it is misleading. Lots of readers thought you were a member of the academic staff of Durham University and they were wrong. That's your fault, not theirs.
ReplyDeleteNot one actually appears to have thought that at all. Several seem to have felt it necessary to go and on about it, but that's not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I've just looked up the list of Collingwood College tutors in the University Calendar, and your name does not appear in it. Can you explain this?
ReplyDeleteNo one's name appears on that link - it doesn't work.
ReplyDelete9/11 was a response by al-Qa'eda to three things: the occupation of Saudi Arabia by American troops; the suffering of the Iraqi people because of the sanctions and the "no fly" zones; and the intifada in Israel. Very little evidence has been found to support your theory of Saudi government conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteThe reason American troops were occupying Saudi Arabia was to protect that country from Saddam Hussein. The sanctions and the "no fly" zones in Iraq were similarly intended to "contain" Saddam. The decision finally to depose Saddam in 2003 was taken at least partly on the basis of intelligence supplied by the Israelis that Saddam was the main financial backer behind the intifada, giving bursaries to the families of suicide bombers via the Arab Liberation Front.
You've finally lost it. Even Bush now admits that it was nothing to do with Iraq, and everyone but him now says out loud the glaringly obvious fact that it was the Saudis.
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to be abusive. I did not claim that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. I specifically wrote that the al-Qa'eda was responsible.
ReplyDeleteI do not know of any evidence that the Saudis were behind 9/11. Why do you think they were? Is it because the hijackers themselves were Saudi citizens?
As you believe that the Saudis were behind 9/11, what action do you think the United States should have taken against them?
Bush was asked what Iraq had had to do with 9/11 (those words, not whether the Iraqi government had organised or funded it), and his reply was "Nothing".
ReplyDeleteImagine if a plane load of British Citizens had done that. Britain, not least as an American ally, would have been expected to do something about it or face the use of the American bases here for the purpose. Saudi Arabia is at least as close an ally as we are. And there were American bases in Saudi Arabia at the time.
Yet the action was against Afghanistan and Iraq, for which all sorts of ludicrous and contemptible excuses have had to be dreamt up ever since.
Thank-you for answering some of my questions.
ReplyDeleteI have some more questions.
Do you believe Bush when he says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Do you think that Bush here was talking about remote causes as well as proximate causes? (Do you think Bush knows the difference between a remote cause and a proximate cause?)
Do you believe Bush when he says that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?
The "excuse" for the invasion of Afghanistan was that the Taliban had given sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his followers. Do you deny that this was the case? If this was really just an excuse then what do you think was the real reason for the invasion?
Do you believe that Osama bin Laden was working for the Saudi Government - or for some covert Saudi government organisation?
You did not say what action you think the Americans should have taken against Saudi Arabia after 9/11, given that you think the Saudis were responsible for it.
If a British terrorist attacked America would that make the British Government responsible? Is the logic of your case that if this happens then America should attack Britain?
Since 9/11, Saudi Arabia has conducted one of the most effective counter-terrorist campaigns against al-Qa'eda in the world. This is because Saudi Arabia is one of al-Qa'eda's most hated enemies. Do you believe that this is not the case?
Do you believe Osama bin Laden was lying when he said that 9/11 was motivated by (i) the occupation of Saudi Arabia by American troops, (ii) the suffering of the Iraqi people because of the sanctions and the "no fly" zones, and (iii) the intifada in Israel?
Do you deny that the reason American troops were occupying Saudi Arabia was to protect that country from Saddam Hussein?
Do you deny that the sanctions and the "no fly" zones in Iraq were similarly intended to "contain" Saddam?
Do you concede the possibility that the decision finally to depose Saddam in 2003 was taken at least partly on the basis of intelligence supplied by the Israelis (that Saddam was giving financial support to the intifada in Israel)?
The "excuse" for the invasion of Iraq was to enforce UNSCR 1441. After the Gulf War of 1991 the men who decided to keep Saddam Hussein in power were essentially the same men who twelve years later decided to get rid of him - Dick Cheney (Defense Secretary, later Vice-Presiden), Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later Secretary of State) and President George Bush (father of later President George W Bush). Do you think anything happened in America in those twelve years that made them change their minds about their policy of keeping Saddam in power?
"Do you believe Bush when he says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Do you think that Bush here was talking about remote causes as well as proximate causes? (Do you think Bush knows the difference between a remote cause and a proximate cause?)"
ReplyDeleteYou've answered your own question there.
"Do you believe Bush when he says that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11?"
Yes.
"The "excuse" for the invasion of Afghanistan was that the Taliban had given sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his followers. Do you deny that this was the case?"
It may have been sincere, but it was misataken. He's not there. He's probably in Pakistan, but we can't know for certain. We can and do now know for certain that he is not in Afghanistan.
"If this was really just an excuse then what do you think was the real reason for the invasion?"
Taking out the Taliban was certainly an easy way into taking out other "outposts of tyranny".
"Do you believe that Osama bin Laden was working for the Saudi Government - or for some covert Saudi government organisation?"
There are certainly ties. Out-of-favour Saudi princelings and the like have given him assistance in the past. Some are convinced Islamists. Others are just passed over. And there are an awful lot of out-of-favour Saudi princelings and the like.
"If a British terrorist attacked America would that make the British Government responsible?"
It would guarantee that the British Government had to do something about it, or the American bases here would.
"Since 9/11, Saudi Arabia has conducted one of the most effective counter-terrorist campaigns against al-Qa'eda in the world."
The others must have been completely ineffective, then.
"This is because Saudi Arabia is one of al-Qa'eda's most hated enemies. Do you believe that this is not the case?"
Depends which Saudi grandees you have in mind.
"Do you believe Osama bin Laden was lying when he said that 9/11 was motivated by (i) the occupation of Saudi Arabia by American troops, (ii) the suffering of the Iraqi people because of the sanctions and the "no fly" zones, and (iii) the intifada in Israel?"
No. Those were the reasons. Mostly the first one.
"Do you deny that the reason American troops were occupying Saudi Arabia was to protect that country from Saddam Hussein?"
Only initially. They were withdrawn well before he was removed. Rightly so, since there has susbsequently and consequently been no further attack on American soil.
"Do you deny that the sanctions and the "no fly" zones in Iraq were similarly intended to "contain" Saddam?"
And the no fly zone worked.
"Do you concede the possibility that the decision finally to depose Saddam in 2003 was taken at least partly on the basis of intelligence supplied by the Israelis (that Saddam was giving financial support to the intifada in Israel)?"
They are all doing that.
"Do you think anything happened in America in those twelve years that made them change their minds about their policy of keeping Saddam in power?"
Yes, the coup by those whom Bush Senior, a foreign policy and intelligence expert, had literally refused to have in the room, calling them "the Crazies".
Could you please answer my first three questions?
ReplyDeleteDo you contend (or accept) that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan in September 2001 but that he has subsequently left Afghanistan?
When you talk of out-of-favour Saudi “princelings” do you mean that they are or that they are not members of the Saudi Government? When you say that “the Saudis” were behind 9/11 do you mean the Saudis themselves, or do you mean Saudi dissidents such as Saudi members of al-Qa’eda?
You say that the British Government would “do something” if British terrorists attacked America. What do you mean by this? Do you believe that a British “crackdown” on dissidents in this country would be as severe as the actions that have been taken again dissidents in Saudi Arabia?
You write ‘The others [i.e. the other counter-terrorist campaigns] must have been completely ineffective, then.’ On the contrary, in all likelihood many have been totally counter-productive.
When I wrote “Saudi Arabia” I did not mean Saudi grandees. I meant the Saudi government.
According to the BBC and other media reports at the time, American troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Why do you say that they were withdrawn well before he was removed?
The no fly zones worked, but they were no sanctioned by the United Nations and they were very costly to maintain financially and, because of the loss of life amongst Iraqi civilians involved, diplomatically. They were certainly not a long-term solution in the same way as the DMZ in Korea is.
You did not answer my question about Israel. On the Israeli connexion to the Iraq War I’d recommend Yossef Bodansky’s book The Secret History of the Iraq War and Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby.
Which particular event in America (in, let’s say, the autumn of 2001) do you think precipitated what you call the coup by the so-called “Crazies”? Did these people include the likes of Donald Rumsfeld (Ford's Defence Secretary), Cheney (George Bush's Defence Secretary) and Colin Powell (JCS Chairman under George Bush)?