• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • ‘Third most hated country in the world’


    by Al-Hack
    3rd May, 2006 at 3:38 pm    

    Would you think it a bit wierd that anyone who hates a country would also stand as a political candidate? Welcome to the wierd and wonderful world of Yvonne Ridley. She writes:

    The source of all this adulation was British-born Sami Yusuf, who is so proud of his claret-colored passport that he wants us all to wave the Union Jacks. I’m amazed he didn’t encourage his fans to sing “Land of Hope and Glory.” Brother Sami asked his audience to cheer if they were proud to be British ,and when they responded loudly, he said he couldn’t hear them and asked them to cheer again.

    How can anyone be proud to be British? Britain is the third most hated country in the world. The Union Jack is drenched in the blood of our brothers and sisters across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Our history is steeped in the blood of colonialism, rooted in slavery, brutality, torture, and oppression. And we haven’t had a decent game of soccer since we lifted the World Cup in 1966.

    She is also standing for the local elections in Church Street Ward, Westminster. What would her constituents think, representing a country she hates so much. I don’t want to call it mind-numblingly stupid hypocrisy or anything. Maybe she should stand for parliament in Afghanistan and see if they let her run?
    Via Indigo Jo


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Humour,Party politics






    87 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. One perfect rose…? » Blog Archive » Where’s the RESPECT?

      [...] I know I should take anything written by a RESPECT candidate with a truckfull of salt - or ignore it altogether but if she hates Britain so much why does she continue to seek election to public office?  Maybe as Pickled Politics suggests she should stand for election elsewhere. I’m not in any way suggesting there should be a nationalism test for candidates just that if you really a hate a place so much why stay? Although I have to say I did find the equating of poor football performances with torture and oppression quite amusing - England matches really aren’t that bad! [...]




    1. sonia — on 3rd May, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

      ah. she’s not representing a country in a local election is she now? besides it’s inherent in democracy to be able to realize your society for what it is.

      Besides she didn’t say she hated Britain.

      Reflexivity in a politician? Now that’s commentworthy.

    2. David T — on 3rd May, 2006 at 3:50 pm  

      She is standing for RESPECT; a party which thrives of peddling fear, bigotry and racism. This is standard fare both for La Ridley and her party.

      Afghanistan - post liberation - has a constitution which reserves 25% of its seats in the lower house and 17% in the upper house of Parliament for women. She would, therefore, have no difficulty in principal standing in Afghanistan.

      I do not know if she would be elected there. I do not think she will be elected in Westminster.

    3. j0nz — on 3rd May, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

      Watch a whole hour of Yvonne Ridley

      …Nutjob woman. Who was sacked from Al-Jazeera.

      Maybe she should stand for parliament in Afghanistan and see if they let her run?

      LOL. You can take the girl out of Afghanistan…

    4. Jay Singh — on 3rd May, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

      She is a total asshole.

    5. j0nz — on 3rd May, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

      Sorry if you’ve seen this already, but in case you haven’t here’s a quote from our favourite Taliban hostage

      something rather repugnant about those who rush to renounce acts of terrorism

    6. Sunny — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:00 pm  

      Lol, I can’t remember how many times I’ve said the woman is off her trolley.

      Funny she didn’t mention the first two hated countries since everyone knows American Muslims are even more patriotic than British ones. There they even have God Bless America on Mosques. Has she ranted about that yet?

    7. Jay Singh — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

      I read her article and I have to say there is something really especially loathsome about anyone who hates the sight of girls enjoying themselves and cutting loose at a pop concert - her blood boils because some hijabi girls enjoy themselves listening to a Muslim pop star - what a joyless wicked witch.

    8. David T — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:31 pm  

      But I mean, isn’t this the essence of the RESPECT project? It is significantly a manifestation of George and Yvonne’s attention seeking behaviour.

      Basically, she’s on a wind up. She gets a kick out of your reaction.

    9. mirax — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:47 pm  

      Muslims should take care to distance themselves from raving nutjob converts like Ridley. When she puts herself out as a muslim spokeswoman, she does the cause (whatever it is, Palestine, Islam, the ummah) major damage.

    10. sonia — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:51 pm  

      “Basically, she’s on a wind up. She gets a kick out of your reaction”

      hmm now that sounds like a whole bunch of politicians to me.. :-)

    11. sonia — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:51 pm  

      possibly Westminster Council will think much the same sort of thing.

    12. SajiniW — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:51 pm  

      I don’t hold out much for Ridley in Church St. There may be a lot of muslims here, but they’re not necessarily fluent in English or registered to vote.

      I’m aware of a census problem round here - a lecturer in Endocrine Medicine taught us that there’s been a one million drop in Westminster residents between the last two Census counts; interesting when the overall number of births at St Mary’s is increasing with over 50% of these being to Muslim women.

    13. Sid — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:52 pm  

      She and George are two cheeks of the same camel’s arse.

    14. Don — on 3rd May, 2006 at 5:11 pm  

      Was her prose style as excrable before she converted? A bit like George and his ‘they are raping your beautiful daughters…’ spiel. Or do they just think that part of the moslem identity is over-blown rhetoric?

      And she knows nothing about football.

      By the way, I’ve never actually been to a lap dancing club, but perhaps some of you decadent metropolitan urbanites can tell me, do they actually employ fluffers? I would have thought that was going beyond their remit.

    15. mirax — on 3rd May, 2006 at 5:47 pm  

      What are fluffers?

    16. Don — on 3rd May, 2006 at 5:56 pm  

      A fluffer is a lady in the pornographic film industry who ensures that the male talent remains ready for action between takes. Or so I’m told.

    17. Bikhair — on 3rd May, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

      jOnz,

      You know its all that American hip hop she listens too.

    18. mirax — on 3rd May, 2006 at 6:17 pm  

      Er, now that I know what fluffers are, I am all agog to know the answer to Don’s question #14.

    19. Jai — on 3rd May, 2006 at 6:39 pm  

      Two things I can say:

      1. Stockholm Syndrome.

      2. (Re: George’s statements & behaviour) : “Chamchagiri”. The Asians here in particular will know what I mean by that and the various connotations it has, but loosely-translated it means “sycophancy”.

    20. Jai — on 3rd May, 2006 at 6:40 pm  

      PS If Yvonne Ridley hates this country so much, why doesn’t she just leave ? She has 57 Islamic countries to choose from.

    21. Sunny — on 3rd May, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

      Yup, that is the only definition of a fluffer I am aware of too. So it’s funny that Ridley included it in her column. Maybe she knows far more about these things than she lets on.

      The “they are raping your beautiful daughters” is common Hizb ut-Tahrir shpeel, always backed by no evidence.

      She mentions the increased Muslim stop-and-searches, and De Menzes’ killing, but glaringly fails to mention the London bombings. I’m against the former two as well, but I’d never side with Ridley’s duplicity.

      I guess “your brothers are blowing themselves up in central London” does not make for good article material.

    22. Roger — on 3rd May, 2006 at 7:17 pm  

      Actually, there is curious dichotomy: many of the people who most hate the USA and Britain are among the most eager to go there. I can remember someone explaining the unforgivable sins of the USA, culminating with “…and the bastards won’t give me a student scholarship and a visa.”

    23. Sajn — on 3rd May, 2006 at 10:34 pm  

      ‘Muslims should take care to distance themselves from raving nutjob converts like Ridley.’

      Why? Do you make a point of distancing yourself from Bush? Blair? That Welsh bloke in charge of the BNP?

    24. Sunny — on 3rd May, 2006 at 10:57 pm  

      Why? Do you make a point of distancing yourself from Bush? Blair? That Welsh bloke in charge of the BNP?

      I do. Don’t you?

    25. Chanad — on 3rd May, 2006 at 11:15 pm  

      She was in invited to Bahrain to speak a couple years ago, and I actually made the effort to go see her. What a waste of time.

      The crowd loved her though… you know how we brown muslims love nothing more than seeing a white person praise Islam…. it’s an honour for us even if the white person is a retard.

    26. Amir — on 4th May, 2006 at 12:28 am  

      Ridders is mad as cheese… mad as cheese, I say.

    27. Amir — on 4th May, 2006 at 12:42 am  

      What disturbs me, however, is that she’s a regular commentator/presenter on the Islam Channel (The Agenda, I believe?) – along with his gracious-cum-most-highness George Galloway (‘peace and blessings be upon him’). She obviously wields some minor influence on Moslem public opinion, given, that is, the Islam Channel’s high viewing figures.

      What a horrible thought! And - as a result - I feel this nasty churning sensation in my stomach knowing that some poor, impressionable Moslem kid is being brainwashed by that miserable banshee.

    28. Amir — on 4th May, 2006 at 1:27 am  

      Sajn
      Why? Do you make a point of distancing yourself from Bush? Blair? That Welsh bloke in charge of the BNP?

      From the BNP: yes. From Bush and Blair: no. I, unlike many people, supported the Iraq war (as do 75-80% of Iraqi people). According to my own moral compass, the unmitigated horror and depravity and economic privation inflicted by the Saddam Hussein regime and multilateral sanctions was enough to trump any argument from pacifist-realist camp.

      Opposition to the war - the marching, the petition signing, the mirthless derision of George Bush, and so on - meant one thing very clearly: Had this campaign succeeded in its goal and actually prevented the war from happening, the life of the Baathist regime would have been prolonged, with all that that entailed: imprisonment, exile, torture, rape, disfigurement, amputation, execution, exile - the thousands buried, sometimes alive, in mass graves; the barbaric tortures involving acid baths and wood chippers, electricity, power tools, ravenous dogs, and even forced cannibalism (yes, I’m not joking).

      For me, the end of tyranny (and triumph of democracy) is the ‘be all’ and ‘end all’ of politics.

      But anyway… Yvonne Ridley, to quote Snoop Dogg, is a ‘biaaatchhh’.

    29. Zak — on 4th May, 2006 at 1:54 am  

      Britain bashing is no big deal in my opinion..it’s more accepted as part of the identity (our denial over how we are a nation of whingers should be condemned).. jokes aside I’ve made this point in my Blog..in British pop culture a movie like V for Vendetta didn’t get panned despite some of the scenes shown..if someone said what Ridley said in America theyd be lynched.

      Whats interesting about Ridleys show on the Islam channel (I’ve seen it a few times) is the high profile guests she seems to attract..I find that “interesting”..

      As for her comments ..does anyone expect anything else from a follower of the demagogue that is Gorgeous George? (a man whose recent achievements include celeb big brother!)

      On that note I am off to bed..before I go I ask all of you to pray with me ..for Sir Alan Sugar..may all that is Holy give him the strength to know the difference when choosing the apprentice next week and give him strength not to offer Syed some sort of job after the show is over.. (as has been suggested)

    30. mirax — on 4th May, 2006 at 5:58 am  

      >>Why? Do you make a point of distancing yourself from Bush? Blair? That Welsh bloke in charge of the BNP?

      Whenever the situation arises - I am not a public figure- I absolutely would.
      In fact, almost all here who appear to be muslim have made their revulsion for Ridley’s politics pretty clear - and that’s a pretty good thing imo!

    31. Shuggy — on 4th May, 2006 at 9:44 am  

      “Would you think it a bit wierd that anyone who hates a country would also stand as a political candidate? ”

      Heh - you’d think, but we’re used to that. It’s a bit like those loons from Ukip standing for election to the European Parliament. Damn minds being lost all over the place. This lady is obviously mad as a cut snake. It’s the zeal of the converted. She’ll probably calm down in a couple of years, by which time one would hope she’d have the grace to be embarrassed with the nonsense she’s been coming out with.

    32. Katy Newton — on 4th May, 2006 at 9:51 am  

      I’m glad I’m not the only person who thinks Ridley is insane.

    33. soru — on 4th May, 2006 at 11:02 am  

      Ridley is one step away from those far-right heavy metal nutters who ‘convert’ using the logic:

      1. Islam is Evil
      2. Evil is Cool
      3. I want to be cool…

      In their case, no matter how much scripture they quote, their practises have about as much relation to islam as Satanism has to do with worship of the Philistine god Ba‘al Zebûb.

    34. bananabrain — on 4th May, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

      i bet i know who were nos 2 and 1. no surprises there. *yawn*

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    35. mmmm — on 5th May, 2006 at 9:27 pm  

      JAI AND SUNNY….DON’T CHAT BULLSHIT u ugly shitz get ur facts straight….get urselves out of george bush’s arse LEAVE YVONNE RIDLEY ALONE….the only reason Yvone Ridley is where she is now because she has BRAINS unlike sume people….

    36. Jai — on 6th May, 2006 at 10:38 am  

      Re: post no #36

      Another stellar example of the intellectual might of the armchair “internet warrior” .

      Twice in one week. Wonderful.

      Global civility can’t be far off then, Inshallah.

    37. Zarqawi — on 6th May, 2006 at 8:05 pm  

      Hi Everyone,

      I just wanted to say please support my dear sister Yvonne in the elections. Although I have my doubts sometimes as to whether she is a zionist spy or a taliban one. My brothers it doesnt matter. She openly supports my work so it is now a duty for all my muslim brothers and sisters to support her.

      And yes, I like Try not to Cry of Sami Yusuf.

      See you all in hell.

      Yours Zarqawi

    38. Bamboozul — on 7th May, 2006 at 1:55 am  

      Thats her reputation gone, poor lass’

    39. Amir — on 7th May, 2006 at 2:38 am  

      mmmm
      iz you chillin with da’ phillin, me llilin? I ain’t got no time for da ridley me’ smidley - jah know what I’m saying? The only reason MMMMM cumes on Pickled POliticz without hiz dictionary iz cus he has got no brains.
      No brains from stainz - dat iz what they call u!
      Bruthva
      Amir

    40. Amir — on 7th May, 2006 at 2:45 am  

      Me’ cousin Jamal - he haz got dis’ big Ridley blow up doll, which he bought from Afghanistan. He sayz it is better dan his Phillipino wife.
      Dya’ get me bruthva?
      SO stop CHATTING shitta me’ ritter!

    41. Amir — on 7th May, 2006 at 3:21 am  

      The mind of Yvonne Ridley [...cue music from the 'Twilight Zone' ]

      1. There’s something so unmanly and cowardly about a man who grovels, and the Uriah Heap characters who bow and scrape in front of Straw make me want to retch.

      I iz not unmanly Yvonne! Dat Ridley blow-up doll haz ‘ad all the manly treatment she can get! D’ya get me bruva?

      2. Why can’t these foolish Muslims face reality? They will never become part of the Establishment. As Muslims we will never be really liked by the Establishment.

      How can we establish thingz with dee establizment if dee establishment can’t establiz us to begin with?

      3. You know if I wasn’t a Muslim I’d probably be having a bloody, good laugh at the antics of the Blackburn House Slaves. Instead I am ashamed, deeply ashamed at the disgrace they are collectively bringing on all of us. Shame, shame, shame on you.

      I luv colletivzzz! I can’t think of meself as an individuaal. Have you checked out dat thing on Star Twek - de ‘borg’ de call dhem? I luv de borg. Dey is like dat RESPECT PARTY.

    42. Zarqawi — on 7th May, 2006 at 5:48 am  

      Sister Yvonne,

      If you ever get to read this message, blease move to Iraq or Afganistan where I bromise to brotect you. Thank you for your open subbort of my jihad.

      Yours

      Zarqawi
      Al-Qaeda Iraq
      (this is a coded message)

      p.s: And to all the dogs of America its not I-raq its pronouced e-raq.

    43. sidera — on 7th May, 2006 at 11:51 am  

      i could go to sleep when i saw the bradford riots on tv at the end where all gone get chuked out or englen and sent back to pakistan coze relly all these white people at raciset including blair

    44. Roger — on 7th May, 2006 at 11:58 am  

      “As Muslims we will never be really liked by the Establishment.”
      An interesting sidelight on Ridley’s reasons for becoming a muslim perhaps: she couldn’t get to be part of “the establishment” so she joined another estabishment.

    45. John Browne — on 7th May, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

      lists of most hated nations are difficult to gauge but at a guess I’d say it goes like this (this doesn’t take into account the LEVEL of hate just the NUMBERS who dislike or hate)…

      1. Japan (China is the biggest country in the world and its almost a definition of being Chinese to not like Japan - a bit like England France thing but worse).

      2. Pakistan (Same reason as above - a bit of wobbly thing with Indian hindus).

      3. Russia - must be disliked by most of Eastern Europe and also much of Central asia.

      4. USA (just because they are the biggest and thus is the most well known). Anything they do wrong is on the front page.

      5. Scandinavia generally (artistic types around the world hate the abortion culture and this is its centre).

      6. Saudi. Disliked by Christians because no churches allowed or bibles. Gives people the willies.

      7. UK - disliked in particular in Western Europe for being anti-EU, anti-Euro and boastful about the 2nd world war.

      8. Isreal. some Muslim groups take mega dislike of the state.

      9. Germany. old people with memories.

      10. France. Disliked by USA’ians and to some extend UK’ians (for very different reasons).

    46. Sunny — on 7th May, 2006 at 2:38 pm  

      That logic must make China the most loved country in the world. Heh…

    47. Rohin — on 7th May, 2006 at 3:00 pm  

      That’s assuming all Chinese people love China Sunny…

      2. It’s not just Indian Hindus. A famous Indian Muslim filmstar (Feroz Khan) recently went on a drunken rant against Pakistan, when at a film premiere..in Pakistan. A lot of Indian Muslims have no love for Pakistan, I wouldn’t say they hate it, but many chose India over Pakistan in 1947 so they are loyal to their country. India’s also had its share of right wing anti-Pak Christians. However now, on a global (= American) scale, Pakistan is viewed as partner in the WoT.

      5. Artistic types hate abortion? Artistic? I’ve never heard that one before. Maybe ‘Christian’ or ‘religious’, but artistic?

      I think the most hated countries are Israel, US, China, Saudi. Right? Iran is really only hated by the yanks.

    48. John Browne — on 7th May, 2006 at 6:02 pm  

      Artists such as Tracy Emin dislike places such as Sweden because until very recently (1970s) women prisoners, foreginers, thickos etc were forceably sterilised. Up to 60,000 women were treated in this way.

      What a place to live, sounds like hell.

    49. raz — on 7th May, 2006 at 6:08 pm  

      Rohin, to be balanced, Pakistan also has plenty of support in India, not just from Indian Muslims but from Hindu Dalits as well. It’s well known for some Indian Muslims to support the Pakistan cricket team in matches against India, especially in Kashmir but also in other parts of India. Also, I’ve heard several accounts of Dalits getting into trouble for waving Pakistani flags.

    50. Sunny — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:02 pm  

      Can we stop hating on the Pak brothers? One of my parent’s family used to live there… so I have some affinity with the place.

      Apart from some parts of the Arab world I doubt Israel is that hated. There was an interesting article I read about Bedouins and other Arabs really liking Israel as they weren’t too fond of ahhabi Arabs. I think it was on Michael J Totten’s blog. I think India has always had a soft spot for Israel too. The US too, used to be hated but the Indians and Chinese have really turned since liberalisation over the last decade.

      My money is on the Mongolians. No one likes them… I mean - who the hell even knows one? It’s easy to cuss the Mongolians since you’re very unlikely to run into one. Bloody goat-shaggers.

    51. Rohin — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:12 pm  

      Why do people assume I’m agreeing with the people I mentioned who don’t like Pakistan?

      I’ve not heard of dalits waving Pakistani flags, but if you say so Raz.

      John eugenics in Sweden stopped in the 60s. It is a shocking period of history, but Sweden is certainly not a horrible place to live now, I’d rather live in Scandinavia than most places in the world.

      Sunny I think Israel is very much hated outside the Arab world. Most Muslims in the world hate it and as they keep reminding everyone they are the world’s fastest growing religion etc. Then loonie lefties the world over consider it an extension of America and plenty of moderately minded people may not hate it but dislike the treatment of Palestinians.

      I love the Mongolians and I know two! Great food and great horses. I can only really vouch for the first.

      I don’t like…Australians. Yup. That’s my choice.

    52. Gustav Strinberg and his angst — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:23 pm  

      Well, as the last time most of the world came across Mongols was when Genghis Khan Tours organised a trip round Asia it isn’t surprising they make a good target for hatred.
      I think the reason many “artists”- including Scandinavian ones- don’t like Scandinavia is because Scandinavia has a reputation as bourgeois social democratic and paternalaistic practisers of repressive tolerance who don’t even get shocked by the wayartists- especially piss-artists behave.

    53. Don — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:30 pm  

      Switzerland. Smug bloody neutrals.

    54. Rohin — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:31 pm  

      On the flip side, Scandinavians hold freedom of speech in higher stead than most countries in the world. Which I would I have thought most artists would appreciate.

      Hating countries is interesting as I’m trying to differentiate between the governments and the people. You see, North Korea has a shit head government, but most North Koreans are simple folk who don’t deserve my hatred (that isn’t meant to be patronising). Mongolians are also ordinary people. America has a shithead gov’t but most Americans I’ve met have been nice. So that’s why I choose Australians, because most Australians I have met have been spanners. I make sure to tell them they are spanners, right before I say “two beers”.

      Favourite T-shirt I saw recently:
      “We’ll win the Ashes, you pour the drinks.”

    55. Don — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:32 pm  

      And Toblerone is just plain dangerous. Bite into one of those big airport bars and you could lose two teeth and an eye.

      Also fondue.

    56. Rohin — on 7th May, 2006 at 7:40 pm  

      Don, fondue’s Swiss. Were you nominating it as something Swedish or just a country you don’t like?

    57. Don — on 7th May, 2006 at 8:21 pm  

      Cross post. See 54.

    58. Sunny — on 7th May, 2006 at 8:32 pm  

      Mongolians are also ordinary people.

      How do you know?? The last Mongolian everyone heard of, as Gustav points out, was a murdering maniac. Plus there’s nothing going on in that place! Apart from looking after the goats and copulating - what could there be to do in Outer Mongolia?

    59. John Browne — on 7th May, 2006 at 8:48 pm  

      I am a Roman Catholic, and as such I should point out that the Vatican is a state that is possibly high up on peoples lists of hates.

      On the one side: anti condoms, anti women priests, anti gays etc. On the other all the sex abuse stories.

      the Vatican probably escapes getting on the list because many people do not know its a country. Now that the Pope is a German and his number three is a Japanese cardinal its not going to help matters.

      LOL…..

      the main point about my list was to high-light that its all to easy to get euro-centric and also have a touch of self loathing and thus a feeling that the UK is the THIRD most hated country but in reality , if you add up the numbers from big population countries you ignore (China, Brazil, Russia, USA etc) I doubt the UK gets into the top 10.

      I’m pretty old and I remember the Falklands war. I was in Bogota (Captial of Columbia) and at first the locals in the pub called me a “gringo” - I said “no; English”. At that everyone bought be a drink and said “Maggie Maggie”. The reason? For some unknown reason Argentina was not a favourite country of Columbians.

      These lists are all parochial nonsense. there is no reason for these Muslims to not feel PROUD to be British…. We are not the third most hated state, there is no third first or tenth - the list is meaningless - The writer just has a sense of Self Loathing.

      John

    60. Roger — on 8th May, 2006 at 11:22 am  

      Actually, Sunny, Mongolia has a very interesting musical tradition. Genghis Khan himself- apart from being a direct ancestor of nearly everyone in Mongolia- was a comparatively benign ruler, compared with most of those he disposed of, at least. “To the right of Genghis Khan” to describe extremeists is an error.
      John Browne: there’s a long history of other South Americans hating Argentinians even more than they hate one another. “A bunch of Italians who speak Spanish and wish they were English.” was one characterisation. I read a description of Che Guevara as a “typical Argentinian- going round the rest of the continent trying to tell other people what to do.”

    61. John Browne — on 8th May, 2006 at 7:38 pm  

      Brazil has the largest number of Italians outside of Italy (I think its about 40 million). Argentina is pretty famous for having a large Welsh population - perhaps thats why its not so popular ( sorry).

      John

    62. Rohin — on 8th May, 2006 at 7:42 pm  

      I’ve always wondered why people name OUTER Mongolia as somewhere really remote? “Oh he’s run off to Outer Mongolia”. Surely Inner Mongolia’s harder to get to?

      How do you know??

      I told you Sunny, I know two Mongolians. And these libellous comments about Mongolia must stop. Have you had Mongolian food? It’s phenomenal.

    63. Don — on 8th May, 2006 at 7:57 pm  

      Rohin,

      Mongolian food may be tasty, but don’t you have to ride around with it under your saddle for several hours?

    64. Rohin — on 8th May, 2006 at 8:01 pm  

      Not really.

      I give up. You people are determined to badmouth Mongolia.

    65. John Browne — on 8th May, 2006 at 8:05 pm  

      Mongolia (apparently) is the “home town” (genetically) of all the native americans. Perhaps they should try and reclaim their colonies…

      John

    66. Rohin — on 8th May, 2006 at 8:12 pm  

      Right. They crossed the Bering Land Bridge in around 12,000 BCE.

      More here. But there are different theories.

      I wonder what made people up and decide to walk across miles of ice - they didn’t know what was on the other side. Europeans explorers set off to conquer, but these people still had plentiful resources in the homelands, so why risk the icey journey not knowing where it would take you? I guess I’m not thinking like they were.

    67. Sajn — on 8th May, 2006 at 10:41 pm  

      “Why? Do you make a point of distancing yourself from Bush? Blair? That Welsh bloke in charge of the BNP?”

      “I do. Don’t you?”

      Since the point was in asking why ALL Muslims are expected to condemn someone that the poster feels is an extremist, then a valid response would be to ask if the same response is requested from ALL Christians when the extremist is a Christian. From your response am I to assume that you too have now joined the Christian faith?

    68. Sajn — on 8th May, 2006 at 10:45 pm  

      “Opposition to the war - the marching, the petition signing, the mirthless derision of George Bush, and so on - meant one thing very clearly: Had this campaign succeeded in its goal and actually prevented the war from happening, the life of the Baathist regime would have been prolonged, with all that that entailed: imprisonment, exile, torture, rape, disfigurement, amputation, execution, exile - the thousands buried, sometimes alive, in mass graves; the barbaric tortures involving acid baths and wood chippers, electricity, power tools, ravenous dogs, and even forced cannibalism (yes, I’m not joking).”

      “For me, the end of tyranny (and triumph of democracy) is the ‘be all’ and ‘end all’ of politics.”

      I don’t have a problem with people advocating the use of force to prevent events such as Halbja or the Rwanda Massacres. However the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with whatever Saddam had done to his own people and everything to do with US political interests and oil. Otherwise they would have attacked in 1988 when Halabja was gassed and the would also have invaded Zimbabwe and sent in troops to Rwanda etc.

    69. John Browne — on 8th May, 2006 at 11:19 pm  

      sajn,
      There is some element in what occured to Iraq that was connected to Saddam being “bad”.

      There is also some hint of US/UK opportunism. What could the US/UK want?

      - more oil and more army basis?

      Why? How?

      Look at the facts. The US already has naval and army basis in Saudi. It does not really need more bases. It can’t steal the oil in some hidden pipe-line without others seeing. It cannot negociate incredibly cheap oil deals without the Chinese, French etc etc blowing a head gasget. There is no real way to make a fortune out of this Iraq situation that counteracts the piles of dead people.

      On the KNOWN facts, it appears the only possible net gainers to this mess are the Iraqi seperatists, democrats and Iranians. The Iraqi Catholics certainly did not gain (they live in Sunni areas).

      If it was about oil how come we aren’t getting any - riddle me that?

      John

    70. John Browne — on 8th May, 2006 at 11:20 pm  

      lol - basis - should read “bases” - sorry (I’ve dreadful spelling).

    71. Sajn — on 8th May, 2006 at 11:29 pm  

      Actually the US does need additional bases in the region as is evident from their deal with one of the smaller gulf kingdoms (can’t remember which one at the moment).

      My point is that the pro-war camp keep citing evidence of atrocities committed by Saddam during the 80′s as justification for the war. So why didn’t they attack him then rather than now?

    72. Don — on 9th May, 2006 at 12:01 am  

      John,

      That’s not really a persuasive analysis. Saudi is not long-term stable. The US doesn’t give a damn if the French blow a gasket, not when long-term oil is at stake. The Chinese have got their own dirty blood for oil thing going, so don’t expect any moral stand there.

      People have made and are making fortunes out of this, not withstanding the dead people.

      ‘If it was about oil how come we aren’t getting any - riddle me that?’

      Oh, come on. You have a problem getting oil? No. Nor will you, in the long(ish)term.

    73. Sunny — on 9th May, 2006 at 1:22 am  

      ou people are determined to badmouth Mongolia.
      Damn right. The country has nothing to be proud of. And also, don’t you hate the way Mongolians come into other countries, register on the dole and start producing 15 babies a pop and live off the welfare system? Bloody scroungers the lot of them! Deport them…. to OUTER-OUTER Mongolia1

    74. Amir — on 9th May, 2006 at 1:41 am  

      Have you seen that South Park episode??

      ‘Those goddam Mongolians - trying to knock down my shitty wall

      ‘Mongolians!!!’

    75. Amir — on 9th May, 2006 at 1:58 am  

      I hate u Mongolians. Twyin to knwock down my shitty wall… GODDAMMM Mongolians! I hate u. I hate u!

      Mongolians ….

      Mwahahahahahaha!

    76. Amir — on 9th May, 2006 at 3:44 am  

      Don and Sajni,
      You’re both wrong. Oil had nothing to do with the Iraq War. And here’s why:

      Point 1) First, the United States is already in control of the main oil reserves (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, the Caspian Sea, etc.) Why, then, would America go to war in Iraq if She could just as easily ‘cut a deal’ with Saddam? Traditionally, the US has secured its oil reserves by appeasing dictators, supporting proxies, bribing corrupt monarchs and seducing egotistical stratocats. That’s the cheapest and easiest way of safeguarding a steady supply of oil. War, by stark comparison, is expensive and very, very damaging to public opinion.

      Point 2) In any case, it is not the US that decides on the price and the level of production. Decisions on these matters are made by the OPEC and non-OPEC individual countries.

      Point 3) Revealingly, big oil producers such as Iran and Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) have repeatedly sought co-operation with US oil companies… but to no avail. In the mid-1990s, Exxon, a giant American oil company, nearly concluded a very lucrative contract with the Iranian national Oil Company. And yet, the contract was never finalized – not because of Iranian reluctance but because of a decision by Bill Clinton that, in fact, ordered Exxon to back off. According to two presidential executive orders (12957 and 13059), investing more than $40 million in Iranian oil industries was declared punishable. Similarly, under Saddam’s regime, high-ranking Iraqi officials (e.g. Tariq Aziz) invited US citizens to take part in Iraqi oil concessions. Again, it was the US administration that declined the invitation.

      Point 4) Fourthly – and here’s the crunch – the urgent and constant need for oil (including exports) is independent from the political identity of persons who will be in charge of the region. The shah or ayatollahs, Saddam or non-Saddam, King Fahad and even bin Laden – all of them are heavily dependent on oil for their income. Therefore, there is no need to put military pressure or to ‘colonize’ these countries to assure the production and circulation of oil.

      Point 5)To restate the obvious once more: just look at how much the Iraq war is already costing: until the summer of 2004, the US spent more than $100 billion on war and reconstruction in Iraq (a continued military presence will be needed for up to 10-12 years). Since Iraq’s oil revenue in recent years has been only approximately $12 billion per year, how many years will it take to cover the US’ expenses? Thus: If you add up the total costs and total benefits hitherto, it is hardly a good-looking balance-sheet in the greedy world of realpolitik.

      So there.

    77. John Browne — on 9th May, 2006 at 7:31 am  

      Apparently some of the intelligence used in the Iraq war came via Iranian sources. If that is true that really shows that UK/USA intelligence agencies are incredibly naive and damm right incompetent. My gut feeling is to say that is nearer the truth. At least it makes more sense than the oil stories.

      John

    78. Sajn — on 10th May, 2006 at 12:16 am  

      Point 1) America doesn’t actually control the oil fields that you mention and would have some difficulty in taking them over legitimately.

      Point 2) Backs up what I said above.

      Point 3) Why sign contracts for a share of the profits when you can take the lot?

      Point 4) It is not to ensure the production but to own the product.

      Point 5) Again how do you think the war is being paid for? How much oil is being produced? How much is being accounted for?

    79. Amir — on 10th May, 2006 at 2:01 am  

      Sajin
      Well, on points (1) and (2) – you’re wrong (you interpret ‘control’ too literally: ‘secure’ is a more accurate delineation). Point 4 contradicts what you’ve just admitted on point 2…??

      As for points 3 and 5, well…it’s just pure conjecture. No ‘real’ evidence, in other words, to amass these confident accusations. And besides, what makes you so sure that America is in situ to ‘monopolise’ the oil reserves in Iraq once the country is pacified? These lucrative contracts are being handled by the United Nations and by Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, not - may I emphasize - by Halliburton or the Carlyle Group.

      Embarrassingly, what you fail to acknowledge is the part played by ‘oil’ in the psychology in of Vladamir Putin and Jacques Chirac. For the past 10 years, France and Russia have turned the UN into a stage from which to pursue naked self-interest. They have used multilateralism as a way to further unilateral policies. The dust from the gulf war had not settled when the French government began a quiet but persistent campaign to gut the sanctions against Iraq, turn inspections into a charade and send signals to Saddam Hussein that Paris was ready to do business with him again.

      The Russians have also been more interested in cozying up to Iraq than disarming it. There are more than 200 Russian companies in Iraq, doing deals that total at least $4 billion. Moscow has been Iraq’s most dependable ally in the Security Council, routinely endorsing its objections about sanctions and inspections. It helped sabotage the most recent efforts to create ‘smart sanctions,’ which would have dropped broader economic barriers in favour of targeted ones against Saddam’s regime.

    80. John Browne — on 10th May, 2006 at 7:12 am  

      Global peak oil production apparently occured in 2005 (perhaps 2006) which is suspiciously close to the war. See various web links using google.

      John

    81. MusaHabib — on 14th May, 2006 at 7:15 pm  

      Yvonne Ridley is our sister yes, but truly her words are not to be taken seriously? I mean, come on, she converted a few uears ago and now she feels it’s her duty to teach us about Islam and what the Ummah should be doing?? Come on. Honestly, I believe the only reason why people are taking her ‘HT’ and ‘Muhajirooni’ comments seriously is because she’s white and a convert - pure and simple! We are such a sad ummah! What is so different about her and Zarqawi OR other finatics?? I mean she openly and blatatnly supported Zarqawi! And no brother I disagree with thing about Zionists etc. Extremism is extremism. Whether it’s from Wahabism or Atheism!

    82. Eugenio — on 15th May, 2006 at 8:07 pm  

      Could please anyone give a simple message to “sister” Yvonne? I know it’s not critical, and it’s really a minor point, but after more than 80 comments, I think someone should make it (it’s about the complete article though, not the small piece presented here).

      It’s the siege of STALINGRAD, you ignorant cow! The one in the annals of history as an example of enduring resistance to oppression is the siege of STALINGRAD! Not Leningrad!
      Sheesh. Don’t they teach history in the adult-education madrassa you attended?

    83. zarqawi up yvonnes — on 15th May, 2006 at 11:23 pm  

      Assalamu Alaikum, greetings of peace,

      I think we all need to calm down and stop attacking our sister Yvonne.

      I am sure she is regretting her outbursts which i can only put down to her monthly cycle.

      May Allah find her a husband where she can let go of her steam rather than attacking Muslim artists who are trying their utmost to enhance a new medium of giving da’wah.

      Ameen.

    84. sonia — on 15th May, 2006 at 11:46 pm  

      oh gosh listen to the lot of you! let the lady be..so she might have some funny ideas but looking at this thread she aint the only one.

      besides from what i can see, a hell of a lot of muslims in britain ‘blindly’ follow their religion and don’t know much about it…’because we can’t be seen to be disrespecting our elders, and nonconformity, and who the hell gives a damn anyway..its just about our identity and how different we are to ‘white’ folk”.

      Puh-leese. politics of identity as a basis for spirituality? Reading out ‘arabic verses’ without having a clue what they mean?

    85. sonia — on 15th May, 2006 at 11:51 pm  

      Amir - ” According to my own moral compass, the unmitigated horror and depravity and economic privation inflicted by the Saddam Hussein regime and multilateral sanctions was enough to trump any argument from pacifist-realist camp.”

      i see - no doubt you were in Iraq before the war? you must have something to compare to the horror currently being experienced? perhaps you’ve even been there fairly recently and can comment with conviction on the improved state of affairs? and if not why not? oh right i get it, let shrapnel affect someone else…needless to say, it was your own comment on the other thread ( where jay singh came down so hard on you - and you know what i actually thought there was something in what you said, and that he was too harsh on you) this business of ‘only some of us can afford to be progressive. you seem like a fairly smart fellow- you probably get Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. you know - like you were saying ..food on the table. vs. sitting and being ‘progressive’. similarly…when they’re are bombs falling on your head, and you can’t literally step outside cos either one of 2 or more camps are out to get you..well who really gives a shit about ‘democracy’ then. eh.

    86. Roger — on 16th May, 2006 at 3:43 pm  

      “It’s the siege of STALINGRAD, you ignorant cow! The one in the annals of history as an example of enduring resistance to oppression is the siege of STALINGRAD! Not Leningrad!”
      Actually, the Siege of Leningrad lasted longer than the siege of Stalingrad and involved many more civilians. There’s a fine symphony by Shostakovich [who lived in Leningrad through the siege], a history- The 900 Days- by Harrison salisbury, and a novel by Helen Dunmore- The Siege- which is good.
      Neither siege though can be considered a good “example of enduring resistance to oppression”. Each is an example of defending the vile against the even more vile.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.