By Ant Rogenous
Andrew Bolt can barely contain his glee in posting what he believes is a “gotcha” of epic proportions for John Pilger and anyone else who believes the USA’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan during World War II was a monstrous, and unnecessary, act of barbarism:
John Pilger says Japan wanted to surrender, so the bombing of Hiroshima was yet another American war crime. Japan’s war-time Prime Minister begs to differ:HIDEKI Tojo, Japan’s prime minister for much of World War II, wanted to keep fighting after the atomic bombings because he believed surrender was a disgrace, according to journal entries published today…
In the run-up to Friday’s anniversary of Japan’s surrender, the Nikkei newspaper said it had discovered Tojo’s diaries from the last days of the war.
“Without fully employing its abilities even at the final moment, the imperial nation is surrendering before the enemies’ propaganda,” Tojo wrote, as quoted by the newspaper…
Tojo said Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.
Gosh, whom to believe about Japan’s intentions — it’s (sic) leader or Pilger?
There is the customary amount of obfuscation and appalling research in this latest effort by Bolt.
First of all, calling Tojo “Japan’s war-time Prime Minister” and then discussing him in the context of the highly contentious end to the war is disingenuous in the extreme — Tojo was forced to resign MORE THAN A YEAR before the bombs were dropped, and promptly went into seclusion after stepping down. He had no official role in the surrender.
This fact make the utterance of this line:
Gosh, whom to believe about Japan’s intentions — it’s (sic) leader or Pilger?
yet another of Bolt’s blatant acts of dishonesty.
In any case, Pilger claims Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Bolt then uses Tojo’s dear diary from “the last days of the war” as evidence that the country didn’t want to surrender, which clearly is not what Tojo wrote or was even capable of writing with any authority by that stage.
Obviously, since it was nothing more than a personal diary, Tojo was offering nothing more than his personal (i.e. unofficial) opinion about what he thought would constitute an honourable course of action for his country.
Tojo also surmised that Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings. That may well have been the case, but it doesn’t in any way refute Pilger’s (and other war historians’) claims that Japan was ready to surrender before the Americans decided to drop bombs they knew damn well would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Execrable stuff from Bolt, as usual. But, surprise surprise, his gullible flock is lapping it up straight out of the fetid trough that is his blog.
Here’s the best comment so far. The jubilant sentiment is eerily familiar to Bolt’s — in fact, the only thing that really distinguishes the comment from the post is its idiotic prose and the jettisoning of Bolt’s famed pretence of civility:
Hahahahahaha. Take that, Lefties!!!! Fay of Perth and I have said this many times, but we always had lefties come on and say how Japan was going to surrender. Well suck it up morons, you were wrong. Come on. Where are all of you now?
*Does a happy jig as the mental institution comes and takes him away*
Inquisitivemind of Brisbane (Reply)
Tue 12 Aug 08 (07:45pm)
It really is a case of the wilfully blind leading the culturally retarded over there.
176 Comments
12 August, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Five minutes on google finds the following:
- Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
“. . . my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . ”
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.”
- Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
“The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.”
12 August, 2008 at 11:23 pm
“Gosh, whom to believe about Japan’s intentions — it’s (sic) leader or Pilger?”
whatever andrew, but do you have a graph? distortions, you see…..
13 August, 2008 at 1:26 am
Good work, Ant.
13 August, 2008 at 2:01 am
In fairness, the quote on Bolt’s blog does state that Tojo was “Japan’s prime minister for much of World War II.”
Ok, so he wasn’t ‘its leader’ at the time of the bomb, but Bolt’s point is a reasonable one and is this: When assessing the state of mind of the Japanese government and indeed its people at the time leading up to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who is the better source – recently deposed PM Hideki Tojo circa 1946, or John Pilger circa 2008?
I think in your hearts you all know the answer to that one. Your arrows have missed Bolt on this occasion.
13 August, 2008 at 2:02 am
Bolt ignorant of history? Shocking and completely unprecedented.
The man is an imbecile. A cancerous lump on the backside of Australian news media. Does he know anything about anything?
13 August, 2008 at 2:09 am
“who is the better source: PM Hideki Tojo circa 1946, or John Pilger circa 2008?”
Yeah, let’s take all primary sources at face value. Sources from the mysterious past are author-less and written without bias or intended audience in mind. Hitler, for example, in the dying days of the war often claimed that the entire conflict was the fault of the Jews. Hitler was leader of Germany at the time, clearly a better source than any egghead academic from the present, who if I may remind everybody, wasn’t even present at the time it all occurred!
13 August, 2008 at 2:25 am
“Hitler, for example, in the dying days of the war often claimed that the entire conflict was the fault of the Jews. Hitler was leader of Germany at the time, clearly a better source than any egghead academic from the present, who if I may remind everybody, wasn’t even present at the time it all occurred!”
Of course, you must judge both primary and secondary sources from all sorts of angles. Hitler’s claim that the war was the fault of the Jews doesn’t take an egghead academic to disprove. It is the claim of a lunatic in the last desperate throes of his life. Hell, he blamed the Jews for every bloody thing. What a ridiculous example to cite.
However, when we are talking, as I said the ‘better’ source, assuming both have some merit and neither may be fully right or wrong (a nuance I concede the black & white Bolt doesn’t really make,) no right minded person would find Pilger a superior source to the most recent Japanese PM. That’s Bolt point, although perhaps made a little crudely.
If that makes him: “…an imbecile… a cancerous lump on the backside of Australian news media,” well so be it. But I think an attack on him on this point is entirely misplaced.
13 August, 2008 at 3:29 am
Bolt’s thought-process is that Tojo is more reliable than Pilger because Tojo was there at the time and Japan’s leader. That is the only angle Bolt looks at the Tojo source. Bolt is an imbecile because he didn’t do what you admitted was a critical part of the study of history, a reasoned skepticism towards primary sources. Of course we shouldn’t believe Hitler when he says that the Jews caused the war, but why should we believe Tojo when he says that Japan wasn’t willing to surrender? We certainly can’t look to Andrew Bolt for the answer to this question because the man apparently believes the study of history is about chucking around quotes from Very Important Historical Individuals in order to humiliate evil lefty activists on dumb News Ltd. blogs.
I mean, Eisenhower believed the bombings to be unnecessary, as did MacArthur, Nimitz and the 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Are they more or less reliable than Tojo? Does Bolt care, or even mention this? Of course not, it would detract from his narrative of ‘evil lying lefty’ versus Common Sense and Truth.
13 August, 2008 at 7:11 am
In fairness, the quote on Bolt’s blog does state that Tojo was “Japan’s prime minister for much of World War II.”
Daics, that qualifier was attributed to the Adelaide Advertiser, the source to which Bolt linked for his post.
Look at the claims Bolt himself made in writing: he quite clearly called Tojo “Japan’s war-time Prime Minister” (disingenuous) and “it’s (sic) leader” (brazenly dishonest), in an attempt to give Tojo’s views at the end of the war some official weight in his personal vendetta against Pilger.
13 August, 2008 at 7:40 am
WHO said this, and who said that,is all history now. America’s greatness was founded on slavery and arms deals, and it is the only country ever to use weapons of mass destruction to solve a conflict. This is the country who supported bin Laden for years and called them” freedom fighters” when the might of the Russian Army was defeated in Afghanistan, as was America who was humiliated in Vietnam. Dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan, Andrew Bolt and his cronies tell the story to suit their American leanings. 50 years ago I still remember my school teacher in the class room, going off his rocker, and saying the Americans would be cursed for dropping these bombs on Japan, he really made a scene,but did not understand why he was so upset at that period of time. In the art of killing, the Americans are no.1—-Bolt does not like Pilger, you can see that in his columns of bile—too anti-American for Bolt’s taste.
13 August, 2008 at 7:46 am
Bolt does not like Pilger, you can see that in his columns of bile—too anti-American for Bolt’s taste.
I thought it was because Pilger is frequently rubbery with the truth and an apologist for totalitarian regimes and their leaders.
13 August, 2008 at 8:27 am
Surely the most reasoned response to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is … rueful ambivalence.
The calculated killing of hundreds of thousands of people seems extreme. But this was after four years of gruelling conflict, with millions of casualties.
It’s difficult to fully condemn or defend. That Bolt and the Boltstrokers can’t find a few grams of precious ambivalence, though, says a lot about their Manichaen mindset.
13 August, 2008 at 8:42 am
AS Sir Peter Ustinov said: Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.
13 August, 2008 at 8:46 am
Of course there are arguments on both sides and the discussion is an important one, but Bolt makes no attempt at intelligent discourse because the evidence he uses in this article is too easily shot down when looked at objectively. Who do you believe, Pilger or Tojo…a ridiculous, fatuous over simplification of a complex issue that adds absolultely nothing to the debate.
The whole point is to simply take the opportunity to have a crack at Pilger, whom he despises, and he knows that his shallow thinking claque will eat anything he dishes up along those lines with a spoon.
13 August, 2008 at 8:49 am
Spot-on, Ray.
13 August, 2008 at 9:33 am
“I thought it was because Pilger is frequently rubbery with the truth”
And Bolt isnt?
Bolt has been exposed in this very thread as being ‘rubbery with the truth’ by Ant, and by jimmyj and his 5 minutes on google.
“and an apologist for totalitarian regimes and their leaders”
Bolt is a staunch supporter of Israels right to impose apartheid on the Palestinians and to illegally occupy and settle Palestinian territory. He also regulary attempts to justify the US’ illegal actions in the War of Terror, as seen recently with his ‘Bush is Batman, he breaks the law to get the bad guys’ post.
Pilger is a respected (albeit lefty) journalist who has written a dozen books, made dozens of documentaries and is read and respected all over the world, as evidenced by his 20 or so journalistic awards, including ‘reporter of the year’. He has university degrees in Art and Philosophy.
Bolt on the other hand, is a poorly educated two bit muckraking hack who has written one book (about himself oddly enough..) has NO uni degree, has won NO journalistic awards and is about as respected a journalist as i am.
13 August, 2008 at 9:46 am
Boy it’s amusing to watch the Boltards come over here and peddle their ‘fake but true’ bullshit: “yeah, Bolt has manipulated facts, quoted selectively and distorted history, but the point he is making is still valid”. How willfully blind can you be?
It’s entirely obvious that the choice being presented here is not between Pilger and Tojo, but between Pilger and Bolt. It’s equally clear which of the two has more journalistic credibility.
13 August, 2008 at 9:52 am
Pilger is one of my favourite wordsmiths, and I love his film documentaries—pity he lives in England. As for comparing Pilger to Bolt , is like saying that some doctors don’t have cosy relationships with drug companies
13 August, 2008 at 9:56 am
Agreed Ray. And that is what Ant’s post is all about. Bolt using half truths and partial facts to create a story.. Then expect him to link it again and again when he needs to have a go at Pilger or the “left” talking about war or violence or anything else.
Well done to THR and a few others getting comments up.. The monkeys (bingbing) certainly are throwing the droppings around.
13 August, 2008 at 10:17 am
Pffffft. What would you all know, anyway? You weren’t there. YOU WEREN’T THERE AT THE TIME!!1!!!
13 August, 2008 at 10:29 am
Just want to compliment you on a much more professional site (the comments aren’t any smarter but I would think that wouldn’t I)
RR why are you posting under Ash’s name – bit piss weak isn’t it?
13 August, 2008 at 10:31 am
have to agree with Lee Harvey Oddworld’s comment above that
“Surely the most reasoned response to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is … rueful ambivalence.
It’s a terrible thing to have to fight back against an army intent on invading and conquering the entire world by force. That it led to flawed moral judgements in the dying days of the war is not surprising.
The bomb program was initiated when the Axis was winning, and when the Allies learned that the Axis had already started an a-bomb R&D program of its own. (of course as the tides of the war turned, the Axis’s a-bomb research fizzled).
While I don’t justify its use, I share Bolt’s concern that the a-bomb (and Dresden) are used to draw moral equivalence between countries that were drawn into a war against their will, and a group of nations that made a genuine attempt at total conquest.
13 August, 2008 at 11:03 am
It’s rather ironic for anyone on this blog to accuse Bolt of playing “gotcha” journalism.
Oh, did I say “ironic?”
sorry, I meant hypocritical.
13 August, 2008 at 11:12 am
Wow, you got us there, Daddy Dave! Ka-pow! Another victory for Teh Right!!1!
13 August, 2008 at 11:21 am
While I don’t justify its use, I share Bolt’s concern that the a-bomb (and Dresden) are used to draw moral equivalence between countries that were drawn into a war against their will, and a group of nations that made a genuine attempt at total conquest.
Spot on DD.
It is also wrong for us in the safety of the 21st century to sit back and judge those that had to make decisions when faced with the Horrors that Japan & Nazi Germany inflicted on the world back then.
This is why it is wrong for Pilger to make statements like this; The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale
13 August, 2008 at 11:27 am
While I don’t justify its use, I share Bolt’s concern that the a-bomb (and Dresden) are used to draw moral equivalence between countries that were drawn into a war against their will, and a group of nations that made a genuine attempt at total conquest.
Why do the righties always make their argument by over-stating the issue?
Dave – simple criticism of a wartime decision made by our ’side’ is not an attempt to create some sort of over-arching ‘moral equivalence’ between us and the Japanese – it is simply an attempt to evaluate the morality of our decision against an objective measure. Asking “was it right for us to have dropped those bombs?” is totally unrelated to the question of “Were we just as bad as the Japanese?”, yet you and most of the Right seem intent on treating the two questions as one and the same.
Does rejecting overall moral equivalence between Japan and the West make it easier for you to ignore criticism of our use of A-bombs on a civilian population?
13 August, 2008 at 11:32 am
Dave – simple criticism of a wartime decision made by our ’side’ is not an attempt to create some sort of over-arching ‘moral equivalence’ between us and the Japanese – it is simply an attempt to evaluate the morality of our decision against an objective measure. Asking “was it right for us to have dropped those bombs?” is totally unrelated to the question of “Were we just as bad as the Japanese?”, yet you and most of the Right seem intent on treating the two questions as one and the same
You are forgetting MR, that this whole debate was initiated from Pligar’s claim;
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale
So it is hypocritical for you to state this; Why do the righties always make their argument by over-stating the issue?
When Pilgar claims this; The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale
13 August, 2008 at 11:39 am
The killing of a vast number of civilians for a military aim is indisputably a war crime, if not an act terrorism.
Attempts to justify it by wingnut revisionists are pathetic and laughable.
13 August, 2008 at 11:44 am
Wow, you got us there, Daddy Dave! Ka-pow! Another victory for Teh Right!!1!
clearly not.
Clearly, I should have spelled out blow by tedious blow all the transgressions that Pilger has made over the years as a journalist that you are utterly uninterested in… this is about criticism of right-wing journalists because of their political alignment.
If it was otherwise, you’d be taking down mediocre journalists of all political persuasions.
13 August, 2008 at 11:44 am
The killing of a vast number of civilians for a military aim is indisputably a war crime, if not an act terrorism.
Attempts to justify it by wingnut revisionists are pathetic and laughable
Well, given that ALL sides in the WW2 wars are guilty of killing of a vast number of civilians for a military aim, Are you suggesting that EVERY government involved in WW2 should be charged as war criminals?
Tagain you are a total fool. War is not about flowers and butterflies. War is about life and death survival. It is almost impossible to have a war and not have civilian deaths. You seem to be deluding yourself.
13 August, 2008 at 11:51 am
… this is about criticism of right-wing journalists because of their political alignment. If it was otherwise, you’d be taking down mediocre journalists of all political persuasions.
Jesus wept, Daddy Dave.
It’s been pointed out to other befuddled people already, and it pains me to have to do it again — but scroll up to the top of the page, have a look at the masthead of this blog and note of what it’s called.
It doesn’t pretend to be anything else.
13 August, 2008 at 11:51 am
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale
this is not compatible with “rueful ambivalence.” We’re not imagining it. This is out-of-context use of the a-bombs to draw moral equivalence.
Make up your mind, weasel words. was it terrorism or not? was the Japanese invasion of Singapore “terrorism?” Was it a “war crime?” There were plenty of dead civilians. Seee, you’ve framed the debate in a simplistic and foolish way.
Attempts to justify it by wingnut revisionists are pathetic and laughable.
Typical leftist argument by assertion. “i say it’s laughable, therefore it’s laughable” (with no reasons given).
Besides, I don’t want to justify it. I do want to explain and understand it, as a historical event.
13 August, 2008 at 11:56 am
but scroll up to the top of the page, have a look at the masthead of this blog and note of what it’s called.
I know.
I’m question the reason for having such a blog for just two journalists who happen to have a particular political viewpoint.
In fact its very existence may be an exercise in bias. This post highlights the problem. In this dispute, and you’ve limited yourself to picking holes in what one side says while letting the other side off scott free. That’s about as biased as it gets.
13 August, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I can’t speak for the other two authors, Daddy Dave, but as far as I’m concerned this site exists purely as a means of countering Bolt’s (and to a lesser extent, Blair’s) shameless ideological polemicising in the pages of, and on the websites of, two of the nation’s biggest newspapers.
None of the authors here make any secret of their left-wing bias, but you’ll note that their posts generally don’t argue for ideology’s sake — most of them focus on the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy, the apologetics and the outright lies these two columnists use to push their agendas.
This post is an example. I’m making no attempt to shut down debate about whether the atomic bombing of Japan was the right or wrong thing to do. I’m not even presenting a case against it in my post, though I clearly disagree with it — I’m criticising Andrew Bolt’s poor research, historical distortion and disingenuous technique in getting his “point” (i.e. a snarky little potshot at Pilger) across.
13 August, 2008 at 12:26 pm
d dave have you read tobias’ thread about creative quoting by bolt to make a “point” (potshot) about barack obama? who knows who tobias leans towards out of mccain or obama, he’s simply highlighting how bolt has not even quoted correctly in order to represent both men’s views on the russia/georgia issue. the diff is we know exactly who bolt is cheering for, and he slants his writing accordingly.
13 August, 2008 at 12:42 pm
yes, I have read that thread, and is probably more in keeping with the concept of this blog, ie highlighting percieved bias and selective reporting.
But with Pilger, well, there’s a journalist who’s guilty of everything you accuse Bolt and Blair of. In the linked article, Bolt is criticising Pilger’s account of the end of World War Two. Fair enough. A conservative disagrees with leftwing radical. No news there.
But for you to then criticise Bolt – without addressing the veracity of Pilger’s claims and overall position- makes it look like you are siding with an extreme left-wing polemicist.
13 August, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m using the pronoun “you” collectively btw. I understand that Ant wrote the post, but Confessions is defending it.
13 August, 2008 at 12:46 pm
and when there’s a pilgerwatch i’ll make sure to contribute…..
13 August, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Have it your way, Daddy Dave. I’ll call America’s atomic boming of Japan a war crime. I’ll also concede that Japan’s invasion of Singapore was a war crime.
By your rationale, both nations are guilty of crimes against humanity … though somehow I suspect you won’t see it that way, and will attempt to pass off two wrongs making a right in this case.
13 August, 2008 at 1:01 pm
But for you to then criticise Bolt – without addressing the veracity of Pilger’s claims and overall position- makes it look like you are siding with an extreme left-wing polemicist.
But I’ve just admitted to you that I do agree with Pilger’s claims in this instance. His “overall position” and his alleged peccadilloes in other instances are entirely irrelevant to this post, which is a criticism of Bolt’s flimsy case.
You’re overstating things by saying I’m “siding with an extreme left-wing polemicist”. That kind of rhetoric is Bolt’s domain — using the same flimsy logic, you might also accuse me of siding with Adolf Hitler were I to promote the virtues of clean living and environmental protection. You don’t seem to be an unreasonable bloke — surely you can see how ridiculous that is!
13 August, 2008 at 1:15 pm
This is out-of-context use of the a-bombs to draw moral equivalence.
You’re doing it again Dave – creating a strawman argument and building false outrage over something that nobody has said.
Nobody here has even once come close to arguing that “the West was no better than Japan during WWII” – which seems to be the argument that you’re deperately refuting. What has been argued is that the dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian populations was a morally reprehensible act of terrorism.
Why can’t the right debate this issue without constructing ridiculous strawman arguments about moral relativism? Why does your response to the accusation almost uniformly include some reference to whether or not our behaviour was worse than ‘the other side’?
13 August, 2008 at 1:26 pm
What has been argued is that the dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian populations was a morally reprehensible act of terrorism.
In one foul swoop Mrock totally contradicts himself and exposes what a farce his argument is.
Mrock, did you forget that you only said this earlier;
Dave – simple criticism of a wartime decision made by our ’side’ is not an attempt to create some sort of over-arching ‘moral equivalence’ between us and the Japanese – it is simply an attempt to evaluate the morality of our decision against an objective measure.
13 August, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Oh god, my sides.
Rad, please — adults are talking.
13 August, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Rad – both of my comments above are entirely consistent.
Calling something “a morally reprehensible act of terrorism” is a “simple criticism of a wartime decision made by our ’side’”.
So what the hell are you talking about? In what way have I attempted to argue moral equivalence between us and Japan?
13 August, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Why does your response to the accusation almost uniformly include some reference to whether or not our behaviour was worse than ‘the other side’?
I have an answer to that, even though it’s clearly rhetorical… and then I’m done (for this thread).
The reason is that I accept the belief in conservative circles that World War Two history is being revised with an anti-American narrative.
I think the a-bombs have to be discussed in the context: a war-weary populace and war-weary decision makers that had had the crap beaten out of them in the early years of the war. We’re not talking about office-jockeys that you sometimes have in today’s wars where the human tragedy was far removed. In WW2, the human tragedy was up close, personal, and in everyone’s face. Vengeance is ugly, but it played a role.
The event happened at the end of years of terror and horror that the Axis inflicted on the world, and the enormous litany of hideous things they did. There’s this attempt now to strip it of context, hold it up in front of schoolkids today and go “look at this terrible thing.” I mean, we’re talking about an unusual historical situation: an alliance of nations that literally attempted to kill and/or enslave the entire rest of the world. It was a uniquely vicious war. That’s the context.
It bothers me that the context is being removed, in the name of demonising America.
okay, I’m done.
13 August, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Kiwi—look who’s talking, BOLTA’S little pet blogger, who use to post under the name of Greg Williams, and was banned on Bolt’s blog, and for the record, ash was not to happy with you,it’s all on the internet for the world to see. Kiwi who did you have to inform on to get into Bolta’s good books,after been banned there?
13 August, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Dave,
I’ll agree with you – removing context is problematic. In fact, my most recent post on Bolt related to that – he stripped out the half of Obama’s and McCain’s statements that left the impression he wanted to create of each candidate.
Here is Pilger’s original article, of which Bolt quoted very little. If you take the time to read it, you will find that Pilger does not ignore or remove the context. He argues that the context does not justify the bombings, as I imagine you would argue that it does. If you want to argue that point, you can post comments on his story.
But Bolt often ensures that the full context of what his opponents say is more than a single click away. In this case, to read the whole of what Pilger said you have to follow a link back to a previous post by Bolt, then click another link to get to the Guardian. On the other hand, the argument he supports always gets extensive quotation and is directly accessible.
All of this applies to the way he has framed this argument, even setting aside the fact that he gave a distorted impression of the facts about Tojo.
13 August, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Shorter Daddy Dave:
“Yes it was an atrocity, but Japan was comitting atrocities as well so ours isn’t so bad once you put it in context.”
And these people have the utter gall to accuse the Left of moral relativism.
13 August, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Can anyone explain the attraction for the RWDBs of the term “moral relativism” as an epithet? Or even what the hell it is meant to signify?
I’m sure this could be Godwins Law of Relativity – any critical comments relating to wars/conflicts held dear by the hard-right, will eventually lead to indignant accusations of “moral relativism”.
13 August, 2008 at 2:56 pm
When Bolt was talking about “Tojo” he was probably just being racially abusive like his Germany is the “Farterland” jibe. But doesn’t he just hate Pilger with a vengance.
13 August, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Sue Gant—Bolt has got more hate in him since Howard lost his seat to a former ABC journalist. But then we must excuse him— NO-NO I won’t say it–the Editor told me to cut out the personal crap—-GEE it’s hard sonetimes.
13 August, 2008 at 4:00 pm
correct.
I would only modify to
…but Japan and Germany had been committing far greater atrocities and had plans for even worse…
13 August, 2008 at 4:17 pm
RR – so you don’t deny you are piss weak in using another bloggers (any other bloggers) ID. No surprises to see here then.
13 August, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Can anyone explain the attraction for the RWDBs of the term “moral relativism” as an epithet? Or even what the hell it is meant to signify?
It works like this Michael: lets say that your neighbor’s daughter rejects you for a date, and so in retaliation to walk up to her and punch her in the face. When your neighbor hears of this, he comes to your house and shoots you dead.
Now if you were to analyse the outcome of this scenario and make ANY mention whatsoever of the fact that you may have precipitated it by punching your neighbor’s daughter then you are being a ‘moral relativist’. In the world of the rightard, making any enquiry as to what you might have done to provoke the reaction against you is an attempt to justify that action against you. They believe that, by enquiring after what you may have done to lead to the shooting and accepting responsibility for that, you are effectively saying that the murderous shooting is less immoral when viewed in context (i.e. their morality should be judged ‘relative’ to your morality, and not to an objective standard).
They also seem to enjoy describing this process as ‘blaming the victim’.
It’s utterly retarded.
13 August, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Kiwi reply to Geoff of Shepparton today 10-06am on Bolt’s blog of shame.”I know you won’t answer this because you are a troll”(and a misleading one at that. Kiwi now I know why these birds can’t fly—–they are full of shit.
13 August, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Mondo
…so I guess we agree.
I would adapt your thinking to the current situation thus:
if you make ANY mention whatsoever of the fact that Japan and Germany started a war that resulted in 48 million dead then you are being a ‘moral relativist.’
anyway I said I was done, but couldn’t help myself… :-(
13 August, 2008 at 6:20 pm
No Dave, I’m afraid we disagree. The key statement, that you appear to have overlooked, was this:
In the world of the rightard, making any enquiry as to what you might have done to provoke the reaction against you is an attempt to justify that action against you
You may not have noticed the clear implication of this statement – i.e. that it is entirely possible to explore the reasons behind a reaction without seeking to use those reasons as justification for the reaction. Many of us have the ability to say “I can see why you did it, but that still doesn’t make it right”.
The right is apparently blind to this possibility – seeing no difference between seeking to explain and seeking to justify. To you they are one and the same. You prove this point by engaging in exactly this behaviour above – you seek to justify the bombing of Hiroshima by referring to the provocation that lead to it. You seek to use their behaviour to justify ours.
Apparently you are incapable of seeing why we dropped the bombs as a separate question to whether it was right for us to do it. Ergo your true ‘moral relativism’ – an inability to view morality objectively, seeking instead to express it in relative terms.
Its complex stuff Dave, I know, but you can understand it if you really want to.
13 August, 2008 at 6:35 pm
THANKS Kiwi—see you are spilling your guts about me, to the moderators, on Bolts Blog of untruths—-dobber—I do anything for you—moderators—you make me vomit.
13 August, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Its complex stuff Dave, I know, but you can understand it if you really want to.
It looks to me like he’s mounting a credible alternative argument. Or at least an accurate observation on the irony of criticising Bolt’s journalistic integrity in contrast with the arch-apologist for despots. Does your use of a snide response indicate the limits of your intellectual efforts or is it merely baiting? The latter I hope. It would be a shame to see you run out of puff so soon.
13 August, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Kiwi aka Greg Williams, you’re back mate. You were doing so well extricating yourself from Bolt’s unhealthy society, yet unfortunately you fell of the horse and returned to him. Didn’t you learn your lesson before when he and Phil Maguire led one of those cowardly Boltist gang-attacks against you, preventing your ability to defend yourself? He will do it again.
I thought it was good when you contributed here last time. My view is that revulsion for Bolt’s “work” and that of other commentators like him, should transcend political boundaries, and include real thinking conservatives. For a worryingly large amount of people, somewhere along the line, their ability for objectivity and reason have been completely trumped by ideology. The result being no matter how disingenuous and dishonest, and no matter how juvenile and ridiculous, Bolt’s “work” is, he still has a large flock of minions who will virtually always support him, simply because of ideological servitude. Talk about relativism.
13 August, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Does your use of a snide response indicate the limits of your intellectual efforts…”
lol!! this from someone who has contributed nothing BUT snide responses to this blog. by all means have a go at people to feel like your contributing, but fair crack of the whip mate, leave the hypocrasy at the door when you come in.
13 August, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“In the world of the rightard, making any enquiry as to what you might have done to provoke the reaction against you is an attempt to justify that action against you”.
So true Mondo, such sort of thinking runs beyond the constraints of the rightard’s thought processes, which generally make his/her contribution too discussion of today’s complex issues completely useless. Its related to the general inability of the rightard to self-asses their, own behaviour, or the conduct of their own country or own group, in contributing to the creation of problems.
Case in point – Terrorism.
Any discussion of the issues that create circumstances that motivate individuals to become extremist, is dismissed by the rightard as justifying terrorism and akin to defeatism and/or treachery, despite the fact that mitigation of terrorist activities needs to be a multifaceted approach, not one that simply involves using force. The rightard has to straw-man anyone who points to US foreign policies that contribute too anger against the US, as someone who justifies attack against US civilians, or even supports terrorists.
13 August, 2008 at 7:38 pm
case in point 2 – NT intervention.
entrenched disadvantage in marginalised communities that results in poor health outcomes and poor parenting requires comprehensive primary and preventive health care, and long term investment in social and economic interventions to break the cycle of disadvantage. all these require input from the target population rather than being imposed upon people without their agreement or involvement. yet whenever the failure of the nt intervention to engage communities was raised , the rightards (great word btw!) shrieked in howling rage claiming you were on the side of pedophiles.
13 August, 2008 at 9:16 pm
RR – “you make me vomit”
Dare I say then RR – Mission Acomplished!!
And RR all I will say is that I am surprised (just kidding) that Jeremy etc don’t condemn you for misleadingly posting under other ID’s. It does not make honesty seem a priority for them.
Chris of Brissy – just passing thru – won’t be staying long. I’m over this McGuire, Ash and Bolta thing BTW – isn’t it time everyone else was. While I don’t have a huge mount of respect for some of Andrew’s judgements at a personal level I enjoy and agree with most of his commentary which is why I returned.
13 August, 2008 at 9:28 pm
kiwi the big question is what did you have to trade to get into Bolt’s good books? That girl was going to take legal action against you, is that not so?
13 August, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“That girl was going to take legal action against you, is that not so?”
oh for FUCKS SAKE! do you have to pollute this blog with your outrageous hate campaign against people you don’t even know with shit you can’t even confirm. first it was someone with cancer now this person. i’ve had it. either contribute meaningfully or piss off to some other blog where blind hatred and vile posts are welcome.
13 August, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“That girl was going to take legal action against you, is that not so?”
oh for gods sake! do you have to pollute this blog with your outrageous hate campaign against people you don’t even know with shit you can’t even confirm. first it was someone with cancer now this person. i’ve had it. either contribute meaningfully or piss off to some other blog where blind hatred and vile posts are welcome.
13 August, 2008 at 10:44 pm
RR – so just to clarify the big question is not why you lie and mislead about your identity on Bolta’s blog but why some over-exitable girl was going to take legal action against me and why Andrew Bolt allows me to post on his site.
The honest answer is I have no idea. All I’ll say is that I am honest and proud of it – you are dishonest and apparently proud of it.
13 August, 2008 at 11:13 pm
oh for FUCKS SAKE! do you have to pollute this blog with your outrageous hate campaign against people you don’t even know with shit you can’t even confirm. first it was someone with cancer now this person. i’ve had it. either contribute meaningfully or piss off to some other blog where blind hatred and vile posts are welcome.
Why? Is the quota here full for today? Looks like maybe you’re hogging all the fun.
13 August, 2008 at 11:25 pm
All bombs are terrorism.
It doesn’t matter who drops them or explodes them.
14 August, 2008 at 6:30 am
Greg ( aka kiwi ) talk about honesty, why get booted off Bolts’ blog then come crawling back and change your screen name hoping people won’t notice?
14 August, 2008 at 6:32 am
Where is Abu?
14 August, 2008 at 7:45 am
WHERE is Kiwi?
14 August, 2008 at 8:15 am
Geoff – just so I know – are you the troll from Shepparton. If so you have probably read the blog on one of the five or six occasions I have said that I am the same poster as Greg Williams – I have never denied it.
And why is me getting booted off any different from all the others who get booted off and come back – why am I crawling back when the others aren’t?
You guys don’t make any more sense here than you do on Bolta’s blog.
And what is this “Where is Abu – Where is Kiwi” about?
You guys aren’t that bright are you!
14 August, 2008 at 9:00 am
“Apparently you are incapable of seeing why we dropped the bombs as a separate question to whether it was right for us to do it.”
Mondo, I do see that, and I think we do agree. It wasn’t right to drop the bombs.
14 August, 2008 at 9:04 am
…I guess where we disagree is with the “why”. If you’re Pilger, the bombs are just a part of the bigger picture of . For him, they’re a symptom of plain ol American badness, and I don’t accept that.
14 August, 2008 at 9:05 am
sorry… edit…
“if you’re Pilger, the bombs are just a bigger picture of [insert your favorite Anti-american cliche]“
14 August, 2008 at 9:29 am
“But, surprise surprise,his gullible flock is lapping it up straight out of the fetid trough that is his blog.”-A.R. That is poetry,music to my ears,and so true and unbias. Even you must agree Kiwi, that is a good quotation, off you go now, and inform your mate Andy.
14 August, 2008 at 9:34 am
The rightard has to straw-man anyone who points to US foreign policies that contribute to anger against the US, as someone who justifies attack against US civilians, or even supports terrorists.
Spot on Chris – the truly hypocritical aspect being that those same people will behave exactly like the strawman they have created (and condemned) when defending US/Western behaviour. They demonstrate the very moral relativism that they are so desperate to falsely ascribe to the Left, but they convince themselves that it’s OK because they’re using it to defend their team.
I wish they would just be honest about it and simply admit that they’re barracking for the home side, regardless of what motivates or drives that side. I’m tired of watching them try to dress up their rampant nationalism in the clothing of reason and logic since they’re quite evidently unable to do so – mangling their arguments and contradicting themselves all in the name of protecting the motherland.
Apparently they remain blissfully unaware that the conflicts we end up fighting are largely due to the fact that our ‘enemy’ is mirroring the blind patriotism that sits at the very core of their ideology.
14 August, 2008 at 9:46 am
‘enemy’ in scare quotes.
That pretty much says it all.
14 August, 2008 at 9:55 am
I guess where we disagree is with the “why”. If you’re Pilger, the bombs are just a part of the bigger picture of [insert your favorite Anti-american cliche]. For him, they’re a symptom of plain ol American badness, and I don’t accept that.
Dave – I really do appreciate your attempts to keep this discussion alive. Your statement above seems like an honest summary of your problem with Pilger, and I’m grateful that you have persisted with me.
To the extent that I’m misrepresenting you, which I think I am a bit based on your recent responses, I apologise. There are many trolls who visit this site with no purpose other than to inflame discussion and I so tend to respond with derision as a knee-jerk reaction.
I do want to point out, however, that when you think about what you’ve said about Pilger above you may be forced to admit that it’s a somewhat false construction. You seem to be admitting that it’s not what Pilger says that you object to, but your personal view of why he says those things. It’s almost as though you’re saying “I wouldn’t have a problem with Pilger’s criticisms if someone else was making them.”
Surely you must see that this is an invalid basis on which to judge someone’s observations? It’s no more intelectually defensible than supporting a particular viewpoint simply because Bolt happens to be the one expressing it.
14 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
enemy’ in scare quotes. That pretty much says it all.
If you really believe that an ordinary Iraqi fighter who has taken up arms against a foreign invading force is your enemy Dave, then I’ll have to take back all the tentatively nice things I said above.
Argument by retarded right-wing cliche is just about the lowest form of debate available to man.
14 August, 2008 at 10:42 am
Like I say RR – you’re not too bright are you.
Why would I, or Bolta for that matter, care what AR (whoever he/she is) says about Bolta or people who support him on a blogsite which is dedicated to hating Bolta. AR is entitled to their opinion.
My point is, and remains, that you’re a liar when you post under another persons name and the people who run this blogsite obviously support you in that lie.
14 August, 2008 at 11:39 am
Dave, criticise Pilger all you like, but Bolt’s body of work is something laughable in comparison.
Pilger has criticised many tyrannical regimes (such as Burma, and Cambodia) long before the likes of Bolt could even find them on a map.
As for charges of ‘anti-American cliches’ – the US is the undisputed world power, and has been for some time. It has by far the biggest military capacity, and exerts more economic influence than any other nation. US leaders and intellectuals are themselves quite upfront about this sort of thing. Given that in recent history the US has thrown its weight about in violent and less-than-democratic pursuits (Iraq, Vietnam, or less famously, Colombia and Uzbekistan, among others) some criticism hardly deserves to be mocked as ‘cliche’.
14 August, 2008 at 11:58 am
Given that in recent history the US has thrown its weight about in violent and less-than-democratic pursuits (Iraq, Vietnam, or less famously, Colombia and Uzbekistan, among others) some criticism hardly deserves to be mocked as ‘cliche’.
But Hap – if that criticism is not mocked and insipidly attributed to irrational anti-Americanism then the Right might have to actually engage its content.
And we can’t have that. That would be tantamount to treason.
14 August, 2008 at 3:27 pm
IS it not strange, Bolta never makes any comments about Telstra and the over-paid CEO’s. Is he a share-holder? hence the silence.
14 August, 2008 at 3:57 pm
John Howard plunged Australia into the war in Iraq for one reason only—to please his American friend George Bush. Under international law it is illegal to invade another country, unless under threat. Iraq was a good trading partner. The Australian Wheat Board can vouch for that. There were no suicide bombings there before the invasion. History will not be kind to Howard.
14 August, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I alway thought if the US dropped the atomic bomb on an unpopulated or military area they could still have made their point to the Japanese.
14 August, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I’m with you windrider. The Americans knew what the bomb would do. There was no justification to destroy two cities. They could have dropped it near the Japanese fleet, I suppose, and made their point.
What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was inhumane and morally repugnant.
14 August, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Absolutely. The thing about the vast majority of our rightards is that if these people were born in Russia or China or Iran, then they would be the same blind, tribal, nationalistic and militant supporters of the home-nation as they are now.
If they lived in China, they would abuse pro-Tibetan supporters and be bellicose towards Taiwan, if they lived in Russia they would fully support tough action against Georgia and other former Soviet States, and if they live in Iran, would be in full support of the Ayatollah and Sharia law. If they grew up in Iraq and saw their fellow country men die from American bombs, they would be the ones with the most irrational hatred towards all things American, burning effigies on the streets. They are ostensibly right-wing nationalists and tribalists wrapped in Liberal clothing.
I wouldn’t generalise that this is so for all people of right-wing disposition in Western societies, and certainly not for the vast majority of true thinking conservatives, but it would certainly apply too many of the inhabitants that make up the blogs of Bolt and Blair, those whose type of behaviour can probably only be best described as “Rightard”
14 August, 2008 at 9:12 pm
sorry that above bit was meant to reply to
“Mondo Rock
14 August, 2008 at 9:34 am”, when he/she
described the nature of the rightard succinctly with
“I wish they would just be honest about it and simply admit that they’re barracking for the home side, regardless of what motivates or drives that side”.
14 August, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I don’t know who moderates here but if they had any integrity you would ban Richard Ryan for posting under other peoples names (mine in this case at 7:56pm on the forum thread) over at Bolta’s blog.
I know you wouldn’t do this for my or Bolts benefit but you should do it for your own sites reputation. You people run around this site saying how terrible Andrew Bolt is but in the place where your own integrity is on show you lack the balls to do something about a liar.
It’s up to you guys – have you got any honesty here or are you hypocrites?
15 August, 2008 at 12:33 am
That’s plenty of rhetoric Greg, but little substance. I think that you will find a lot of people have condemned some of the actions of Richard Ryan here, despite the face that his is critical of Bolt and even if his actions don’t surpasse that of many of Bolt regulars.
Your statement doesn’t really make any sense, given that if RR is impersonating you at Bolt’s site, as bad as that sort of behaviour is, surely that is up to Bolt’s moderators to fix and I dont think really anybody here even knows that RR has supposedly been doing that. Its certainly not a measure of anyone’s integrity here to investigate what RR does at Bolt’s site and what RR does at Bolt’s site is certainly not the responsibility of any of the moderators here.
You should also take note of the fact that when somebody impersonated you at this site once, they were promptly classicised for doing so, and you were supported by the hosts, to the extent that I think Jeremy was willing to advise you on your legal rights. In light of this fact, your attempted condemnation of the hosts here is even irrational and disingenuous.
15 August, 2008 at 12:35 am
GEE-Kiwi— I get the blame for everything that happens on bolts blog of shame, someone else going off at me for sending an email to Peter Dutton the Liberal at the Telegraph. Ye people are all quite strange over on that site, and nasty,weird,vile,I see bolta is going on sick leave, would not blame him.
15 August, 2008 at 12:35 am
Geez the problems of speed type and spell check.
That should have been “despite the fact”,
and later “they were promptly chastised”.
15 August, 2008 at 12:59 am
kiwi just checked over on that blog of shame—the stench is terrible there, that reply to macca bagging me with the screen name kiwi-is still there, since 7-56pm last night. It proves the moderators have passed it as genuine.
15 August, 2008 at 1:36 am
Chris – Ryan has been banned at Bolts site (I mean properly banned not the Claytons variety) so he gets his rocks off here.
Like I say I don’t expect much help from the people here. I remember that someone did impersonate me here and as you say Jeremy dealt with him correctly (although another poster threatened to torture my children and apparently that is OK on this site).
I am not saying what Ryan does at Andrew’s site is someone here’s responsibility – all I am saying is that if you don’t want to dilute your message about how terrible Andrew Bolt is, then you’d be better off getting rid of an admitted liar and fraud.
As far as you guys not knowing what RR does at Bolts site is concerned, you’re kidding aren’t you. It does you no credit if you can’t join those dots (e.g. you all read Bolta’s Blog – you see comments made by people over there repeated here using RR name).
Up to you people really – are you hypocrites or not – that is the only question that needs to be answered. Everything else is just fluff.
Condemn RR properly and get rid of him once and for all – he doesn’t help your cause.
PS I can see how you might describe my condemnation of the hosts here as disingenuous but don’t see how it could be said to be “irrational”.
15 August, 2008 at 1:48 am
Shorter Kiwi:
‘The only question is, will you condemn?’
http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html
15 August, 2008 at 1:48 am
RR – when you state “the stench is terrible” I’d suggest you get used to it, because, wherever you are, there will be a stench.
15 August, 2008 at 2:55 am
Bonjour, il y a quelqu’un Greg ?
Like a small smudge on my TV…
Can’t be f**ked getting up to wipe it.
Run off loner,
Charlton’s anniversary’s coming up.
Much for you to organize…
15 August, 2008 at 6:44 am
Kiwi, it is up to Bolt to do something about what you say….I think you have some personal issues with RR so you ” dob ” on him ( wheather it’s true or not ) I think even Bolt would be doing something about RR if what you’re saying is true. ( impersonating you )
15 August, 2008 at 7:02 am
kiwi they have hung you out to dry overthere,but I still think that idea of Alan of Sydney going fishing with me was really funny. Still on the blog site by the way—-sorry you are not wanted there, your use by date has expired. Maybe the Editors can find a spot for you here.
15 August, 2008 at 7:23 am
kiwi—thanks-thanks-thanks, for the write up on bolt’s forum this morning,glad to see ye all miss me. SO unbias too, unlike your style, the rumour has it here, they maybe a small cameo role here for you, now is that not great news.
15 August, 2008 at 7:26 am
Richard and Kiwi: knock it off, would you? This blog isn’t a forum for you to conduct a childish war of words you’re no longer able to have a Bolt’s blog.
15 August, 2008 at 7:39 am
OK ANT – I just wanted it confirmed that you guys are hypocrites without integrity and you have confirmed that.
15 August, 2008 at 7:44 am
Why, because you expect us to ban someone here for allegedly posting a comment under your pseudonym at a blog over which we have no administrative access?
Fuck off, clown.
15 August, 2008 at 7:55 am
Andrew Bolt reminds me of Lord Ha- Ha. While Iraq is a disaster, with the deaths of thousands of innocent men,women, and children. Bolta tells the story to please his political masters George Bush and co. Yankee soldiers invading Muslims lands,would be like waving a red flag in front of the bull. Bolta tells us the war is won, the war is over–US troops will be pulling out shortly. Why-Why does he distort the facts. Surely he does not swallow all the propaganda he hears from the invaders. Iraq is a shambles, a Muslin Vietnam.
15 August, 2008 at 8:13 am
Jeeze even you are not that stupid Ant. There is nothing “alledged” about it dummy, RR admits he is posting under other posters doing it on this site.
But really this is not about Richard Ryan is it, he’s a dickhead, you know it and I know it, it is about this site’s integrity (or evidently the lack of it)
Given your post about the “snip” it will be interesting to see at what point you cut me off Ant.
15 August, 2008 at 8:22 am
While we’re on the subject of getting facts straight, you might want to note the byline at the top of that SNIP post, imbecile.
Richard has been warned about his conduct here by The Editor, in another thread. He’s since pulled his head in a bit.
Now I’ve warned both of you to knock this juvenile sniping off, because it’s irrelevant and, more importantly, boring as hell. It won’t be tolerated from either of you any longer.
You seem to be concerned about this site’s integrity for some unfathomable reason. If that’s the case, bugger off back to that stronghold of decency, ethics and morality from whence you came.
15 August, 2008 at 8:28 am
Point proven Ant – sheesh you’re an amatuer old fella.
You are in a trap aren’t you – you want to be thought of as a site with a point and purpose but all you are is a site which can’t stand Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair because they have success and you do not.
I gave you a chance to show that honesty means something to you but you are too weak to even stand up to RR.
15 August, 2008 at 8:37 am
Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have success–ha-ha-ha-arf-arf arf, did someone sleep with the light on last night?very bright. That is very funny–ha-ha-ha
15 August, 2008 at 8:42 am
Richard – so you’re saying they don’t have success. And you are who exactly??
15 August, 2008 at 9:08 am
BOLT’S success are governed by the principles of his wallet, and his Telstra shares.
15 August, 2008 at 9:41 am
“OK ANT – I just wanted it confirmed that you guys are hypocrites without integrity and you have confirmed that”
Ant has told RR to stop being a pain in the arse, as has Jeremy (i think), as has Confessions and for what its worth, i will too.
RR, stop heckling people just for the hell of it. And if you DO use other peoples names, its gutless and proves nothing. Win arguments through logic, not with childish bickering and cheap trickery. (or mindless pedantry, so often the order of the day on the Rightard blogs.)
This is not BoltBlog, no matter how much you want it to be.
So, where is the hypocracy, Kiwi?
If the Hosts let RR abuse people and didnt allow them the right of reply, as regularly happens on BoltBlog, fair enough to cry hypocrite.
If the Hosts only printed half of your posts, snipping the meat of the thing along with the supporting links in a feeble attempt to make you look foolish, as so often happens on BoltBlog, equally fair enough.
However, you appear to be accusing Ant and co. of hypocracy for NOT snipping people, editing posts and controlling the debate. Doesn’t make any sense, mate. Hypocracy is when you behave in the same way as people who’s behaviour you condemn. This is patently not the case.
Kiwi, you and RR need to meet up in person and either fight or fuck each other. Get it all out of your systems.
15 August, 2008 at 9:48 am
Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have success–ha-ha-ha-arf-arf arf, did someone sleep with the light on last night?very bright. That is very funny–ha-ha-ha
Well the fact that you RR know who they are and you are a regular to their blog sites shows that they are a success.
Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t dissolve their popularity or success.
Also, the fact that we are having this conversation on a blog site that is dedicated to debating their blogs sites is a statement of their success.
15 August, 2008 at 9:58 am
fuck each other—-NO THANKS.
15 August, 2008 at 10:08 am
Success can be measured many different ways, so yes Kiwi Bolt can be called a success. Bolt is a successful con artist, so was Tim Johnston from Firepower. Bolt is successful at surrounding himself with shallow thinking yes men, who rarely dissent from his narrow view, he succeeds at snipping those who shine light through his deranged views. Where Bolt does not succeed is in reasoned, well thought out debate which contributes to society, nor does he succeed in being respected or awarded by his peers, unless of course you mean Piers as in Akerman.
Bolt can be called a success, but so can Castro, it just depends on your definition of success.
15 August, 2008 at 10:18 am
‘fuck each other—-NO THANKS’
Just kidding RR!
But seriously, these peoples arguments can be destroyed without fighting dirty.
Just takes a bit more effort>:)
15 August, 2008 at 10:20 am
Kiwi, if you’re asking them to do something about Richard Ryan then you misunderstand the point of this blog.
Richard Ryan is the mouthpiece that spews the vile that the owners of this blog would like to say themselves but can’t. If they ban him or delete his posts, then, well, they’d have no one-eyed, bigoted, hateful, screwed-up blubber-brain to sling mud, slander, and otherwise spew bile at their arbitrarily-appointed ‘enemies’ on their behalf.
Richard Ryan exemplifies the reason why I shouldn’t be posting here or engaging with this site. I think I’ll stop.
15 August, 2008 at 10:28 am
Wow – Kiwi’s thrown a hissy little tanty on this thread, hasn’t he? Doesn’t get his way and so resorts to abusing and insulting the site owners.
I think it’s safe to write him off as a legitimate or serious commentator from this point forward.
15 August, 2008 at 10:31 am
Daddy Dave’s shrill, ludicrous claims a minute ago just about write him off as well.
And just when he was beginning to argue with a modicum of reason yesterday, too.
15 August, 2008 at 10:38 am
Richard Ryan is the mouthpiece that spews the vile that the owners of this blog would like to say themselves but can’t
Is Dave capable of making an argument that is not built entirely around a strawman?
What is it with Boltards – they spend 95% of their time constructing and then knocking completely hollow charicatures of ‘the Left’ and the other 5% high fiving each other like a bunch of pathetic children.
15 August, 2008 at 10:59 am
IF my prediction proves to be true, more are on the way, to have me silenced. They have done it on other blogs.
15 August, 2008 at 11:03 am
oh for god’s sake boys, do you really want this doofus around? He’s mentally unhinged.
Message to Richard Ryan: Nobody cares. You are experiencing paranoid delusions and… (I’m being totally serious here ) probably need some kind of medical help.
15 August, 2008 at 11:12 am
i’m with d dave on this one. trolls: best ignored.
15 August, 2008 at 11:26 am
If you’re as annoying on other blogs like you are on this one, RR, then no wonder you’ve been “silenced”.
Either contribute something worthwhile or shut the fuck up.
15 August, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Mondo Rock – you’re easy, just look at who called me a “fuckwit”without any provocation on my part.
Ant if you think you are using “reason”in this discussion you are flattering yourself.
DbD – the hypocracy of this site is that they complain that Andrew Bolt is dishonest etc and then knowly actively allow a poster who is an admited liar and fraud to post on this site about his activities on Bolta’s blog. I know you probably can’see this as your dislike of Bolt overcomes all else (you too Mondo & Ant) and so anything goes as long as they have something, anything, negative to say about Bolta.
It is your site so it is obviously your choice BlairBoltWatch moderators – do you want RR on this site or not?
Finally Ron if you really believe what you write then you should be the first one clamo0uring for the removal of Ryan. If you have got anything worthwhile to say do you think his presense here helps or hinders your case?
15 August, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Kiwi, read the following very carefully:
I DO NOT GIVE A CARBON-OFFEST FLYING FUCK WHAT RICHARD RYAN OR YOU DO OR SAY, OR HAVE DONE OR SAID, AT ANDREW BOLT’S BLOG. IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND IS NONE OF THIS SITE’S CONCERN.
One more word about it and both of you will be put on moderation, ensuring that the only comments of yours we subsequently publish here are relevant to the posts under discussion.
Hypocracy (sic) and dishonesty? Jesus wept. You are one of the most petulant, deranged little fizgigs we’ve had the misfortune to come across on this site — and that’s really saying something.
15 August, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Kiwi, I know RR can (is?) annoying at times but you do feed him, by replying to him. I think you really are trying to get RR banned from here so you can go and tell Bolt what you did.
Really, don’t reply and he will give up. You are halve the problem. Look in the mirror!!!!
And comparing this site to Bolts? On Bolts site if you happen to point things out to him he won’t even put it up.
15 August, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Geoff, I appreciate that you’re trying to talk some sense into Kiwi, but I’ve just asked him (and Richard Ryan) once and for all to stop their juvenile bickering, so I don’t think either of them should be encouraged to continue discussing whatever issue got them at each other’s throats in the first place.
15 August, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Fair enough :-)
15 August, 2008 at 1:23 pm
In response to Ant Rogenous’s column piece”Don’t mention(the end of the) war” I would like to point out that this was mass genocide on a grand scale, an act of a barbarian, a terrorist act. In the art of killing the Americans,if this was an Olympic sport, would win every gold medal, for the dropping of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan.
15 August, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Jeezus christ RR and Kiwi
Stop being such shit people.
* Sorry for being hypocritical and name calling, but I thought it slightly warranted.
15 August, 2008 at 2:29 pm
WHY don’t ye guys get back to the topic, the dropping of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan—why do we hear people say it saved lives—what utter rubbish—- how do we really know that. But then on the other I know Aussies who were POW’s and they still hate them with a vengence. War is a terrible thing, for those who have to fight them.
15 August, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Nothing to do with RR, ANT but are you really the guy who runs this site? You’re so thick I just can’t believe it. I wish I was able to continue so I could see you head explode (metaphorically of course) but you’ve got the off switch so I’ll leave you to it.
15 August, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Greg aka Kiwi, how disappointing you really are.
Despite your juvenile and tribal conduct on Bolt’s site, when you operated under the name “Greg Williams”, regularly acting in concert with that monumental imbecile DAN_W, I was beginning to think that you were capable of arguing reasonably and maturely. You demonstrated this too a degree in the past after you migrated here to seek solace, once you were made privy too Uncle Andy’s dark side. I was beginning to see you as a rational conservative, with whom I was be happy to debate with on an adult level.
But after an extended return to Bolt’s community, you have re-possessed your Boltist credentials, and in typical Boltist behaviour, attempted to level ludicrous and irrational accusations against people here, based on the most pathetic and illogical grounds. Do you really thing that anyone here trawls through all the comments on Bolt’s blog, to track the behaviour of individual bloggers, comparing posts by people under the same pseudonym, checking for patters of irregularity, in the interest of investigating whether someone may be impersonating someone else.
Absolutely pathetic.
Take off the ideological goggles and think rationally. You would have been cut off in the first past, for levelling such an accusation against Bolt under the same circumstances, although you never would.
15 August, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Have you guys noticed a pattern here? Greg is basically doing the same thing that he did with that Phil Maguire clown, using this blog to wage one of his pathetic little disputes with another blogger, in this case RR, trying to drag everyone else in the process, abusing the moderators and regularly posters here with the very liberties he is affored at this blog. RR and Greg, exchange emails, and you can send all the hate mail that you want too.
15 August, 2008 at 4:53 pm
What a steaming pile of absurd bullshit from Daddy Dave above.
Where are all the rational conservatives this days. Are Boltism and Blairism different strains of the same disease spreading throughout individual conservatives, rendering them dishonest, juvenile imbeciles.
As was stated above, daddy dave did seem to start to debate rationally and then spews this nonsense out. How typical Boltist rightard behaviour, take the posts or words of ONE poster or commentator, and use it too typecast an entire group of people. Pretty much every regular poster here has condemned RR’s behaviour, and if it helps to remove Daddy Dave’s welded on blinkers, then I will add to this.
RR take your juvenile, personally offensive bullshit elsewhere. Like the contents of so many Bolt commentator posts, I don’t like to read it, and it detracts from adult discussion. It also gives Bolt and his minions a tiny crack in the door to exploit, parading around your comments as being akin to anyone who criticises Bolt’s moronic rubbish.
15 August, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Where are all the rational conservatives this days.
Well, to be fair, we ARE trawling the absolute dregs of the conservative movement by reviewing comments at either Bolt or Blair’s site. These people don’t use their brains to explore anything – only to sure up long-held and rarely considered base fears and predjudices.
I present, as exhibit 1, Dave’s idiotic “I don’t accept Pilger’s analysis because I don’t like him” dribble above.
15 August, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Chris – you are flattering yourself if you think your opinion means anything to me. Why would it – your just another boltwatch drone.
And Mondo – will you ever get over me making an idiot of you last time I visited here – get over it son – plenty of lesser people than me can make a fool of you.
15 August, 2008 at 7:21 pm
FOR FUCKS SAKE, HAS HE GONE YET? I feel like I’m been stalked. WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH HIM.
15 August, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Exactly. What next? A site that stalks Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair?
You and Kiwi ought to get a room and take it offline.
15 August, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I smell troll!!
15 August, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“If you’re as annoying on other blogs like you are on this one, RR, then no wonder you’ve been “silenced”.
Either contribute something worthwhile or shut the fuck up.”
Spot on. This bullshit is ruining the site. Piss them off.
15 August, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Get over yourself Dickie – I hadn’t even mentioned you in the past few posts. Am I making you feel uncomfortable son – hell this is working out better than I expected. I think I’ll copy and paste your comment back on Bolts blog and claim a victory. LOL
John 51 – then take a bath mate!
15 August, 2008 at 9:23 pm
sorry to interrupt, but getting back onto bolt’s deluded rantings, he has another shocker today with his germaine greer rant. according to bolt, aboriginal men are prone to violence, can’t help it, in the genes, always been the case, yada yada yada. why? cracked female skulls found pre-colonisation, and pre-colonisation inter-tribal warfare.
NEWSFLASH: apparently nomadic tribal life was shit. (bolt provides a 51pg reference to support this (still working thru it)).
bolt calls greer racist for expecting that aboriginal men shouldn’t change. but he himself has already pointed out that they can’t change:
“Is Greer really saying that the high level of violence is new to Aboriginal men, dating only from white settlement? In fact, the high proportion of cracked skulls found of Aboriginal women in particular from pre-colonisation times show she is wildly wrong. So does the evidence of astonishing levels of tribal warfare.”
so. aboriginal men were violent pre-colonisation, and implicit in bolt’s argument is the racist notion that aboriginal men pre-colonisation can and should be compared with today. his own racist sentiments are equally as valid as those he throws at greer:
“Why, of all the people in all the world, are Aboriginal men deemed unable to control themselves?”
because andy, you just said it came with the territory.
unbelievable!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greers_racist_excuse/desc/#commentsmore
16 August, 2008 at 6:43 am
MY GOD, kiwi ( aka Greg ) still here? I noticed your old mate Phil has crawled his way back to Bolt, just like you did.
Sorry I should take my own advice and ignore the TROLL, but he is up to his old tricks.
16 August, 2008 at 7:28 am
LAST night I awoke from a nightmare covered in sweat, ( no smart-arse I was not having a wet-dream). At the end of my bed was this brown bird about the size of a large hen with the head of Andrew Bolt, and it kept saying, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Iraq is won, and it wore that weird smirk on it’s face, which is the ABC trade mark of bolta. When I told it, we still had bombings in Iraq, it made this characteristic cry, which now I have been told is a kiwi,the national emblem of New Zealand.It jumped around on the end of my bed calling me a liar, a id faker, banned on bolts blog for life for that capital crime, then it pointed it’s strong claws, and told me to leave The Blair/Bolt Project, as Tim was very unhappy with me,and had banned me also from, his site on Andrew’s advice. Then this bitch appeared,from Tizona’s Weblog who goes by the screen name of ash, and told me I was also banned there, for been vile to Andrew and Tim, when I replied for fucks sake, this kiwi bird hopped on my head and started scratching my face with it’s strong claws. The moral of the story :don’t mess with kiwi’s—the bird type I mean.
16 August, 2008 at 8:11 am
Richard Ryan and Kiwi’s comments have been relegated to the moderation queue. They were warned repeatedly to act like adults and wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do so.
Kiwi, you’re cleary just a garden-variety fuckwit. Adios.
Richard Ryan, you’ve been spamming this site for days now. This isn’t a forum for you to hurl bizarre comments and personal attacks at Andrew Bolt. You’re free to set up your own blog if you wish to do that, but we prefer mature and relevant criticism (and defence) of Bolt’s writing on this site.
16 August, 2008 at 11:12 am
Does anyone know if this guy is Andrews relation?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1819129_1819134_1825728,00.html
http://www.pumarunning.com/#EN/running/content/main/chasingBOLT
He is in the 100 metres Olympic sprint. He could win a medal too!
Now if we could get a Chaser boy to pull a prank interview …
16 August, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Anyone who does not know dropping the two bombs on Japan was the right thing to do is an ignorant ass who has NO CLUE as to the facts.
During the six week period the Japs conducted the “Rape of Nanking” the Japs slowly, tortured, raped and killed MANY MORE people than died in BOTH A bomb attacks.
Dropping the bombs SAVED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of JAP lives as well as Millions of Alled lives. They samed many mnay more MILLIONS of Ja[ps being being wounded and starved.
Last, they JAPS had successfully tested their OWN A-bomb and anyone who thinks they would have not used them on us is so stupid they should not be permitted to breed!
And if you were not alive and old enough to have a clue WHILE WWII was going on, keep you ignorant comments to your self as I pay no attention to CHILDREN!
16 August, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think Kiwi might have fooled you ANT.
16 August, 2008 at 1:49 pm
During the six week period the Japs conducted the “Rape of Nanking” the Japs slowly, tortured, raped and killed MANY MORE people than died in BOTH A bomb attacks.
The old “two wrongs make a right” argument.
Dropping the bombs SAVED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of JAP lives as well as Millions of Alled lives.
Mere speculation and wishful thinking.
Last, they JAPS had successfully tested their OWN A-bomb and anyone who thinks they would have not used them on us is so stupid they should not be permitted to breed!
First of all, this is bullshit. The extent to which the Japanese nuclear development program progressed is highly disputed, and most credible sources (i.e. not embittered, pig-ignorant old coots) don’t agree there was a successful test.
Secondly, you’re going back to two wrongs making a right, except in this case the USA’s wrong was committed preemptively. That’s logically flimsy and morally reprehensible.
And if you were not alive and old enough to have a clue WHILE WWII was going on, keep you ignorant comments to your self as I pay no attention to CHILDREN!
Well, congratulations! But the quality of your argument indicates that you probably haven’t spent much of your life listening to anyone — least of all your primary-school English teacher, who would be convulsing in his or her grave over your appalling spelling and grammar.
After braying about “facts” in your first sentence, you give us moral relativism, wishful thinking and half-baked conspiracy theory instead.
You’re a stupid old goat, Neil — an example of why young people should question their elders and withhold their respect for the ones who can answer honestly and sensibly.
16 August, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Warwick, how so?
16 August, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Neil Reinhardt, you are an offensive racist pig, nothing you say should be read, let alone taken seriously when you repeatedly use the term ‘jap’, which you know damn well to be a racial slur. Here’s a tip Neil, the second world war ended 60+ years ago, stop using it as a weapon to continue to use against Japanese people today.
16 August, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Ah Kiwi, please come in . Now just slip down your shorts just a little, bend over, thats it. Now I will just give you this little injection into your upper thigh, it won’t hurt. Now have a nice long sleep!!! Good bye Kiwi!!!
17 August, 2008 at 9:48 am
Interesting little fantasy you’re expressing there, John51.
17 August, 2008 at 10:38 am
Bolt wins the 100 metres in 9.69!!!
17 August, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Ant Rogenous 16 August, 2008 at 8:11 am
Amen.
17 August, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thank fuck thats over.
The last week or so has proved a theory that me and my dad came up with over a few beers.
Being of the extreme right/extreme left, and buying into any ideology wholesale is NOT a political stance, it is a mental defect.
The clowns visiting from Boltland have proved it once and for all. They cannot win an argument with logic, facts or wit. They have, on the other hand managed to clog up this site with bullshit for the better part of a week, totally derailing any serious debate or discussion. Personally, I enjoy political debates with clever and mature rightwingers. I equally enjoy debating theology and the like with smart, well educated god botherers.
But these people are not interested in discussing the issues. They KNOW they are right and are far more interested in slagging off anyone who doesnt agree with them than they are in mounting a convincing argument.
It is sad though, that after repeated warnings to behave like adults and weeks of taking advantage of the ‘open mike’ policy you guys have in place, that you have had to put these jokers on permanent moderation. Likely in their minds, it proves the ‘hypocracy’ that you have been accused of. I have seen it as an object lesson in the price of a truly free and open dialogue, that being that even the craziest, stupidest and most poorly informed fuckwits get to have a voice.
17 August, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Andrew Bolt: Chris Berg finds green consumers are like green advertisers – more interested in seeming than being…
Because, you’re like…so real, Dude…
18 August, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ant – I would have thought that was obvious. He came here to stop Richard Ryan posting freely – he achieved that objective – he gets what he wants
19 August, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I think you’ll find, Warwick, that RR was banned due to his own intolerable behaviour – not because Kiwi tricked Ant into doing anything.
I would have thought that was obvious.
19 August, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Then why ban Kiwi if that was the case Mondo Rock.
A more intelligent thing to do was to ban RR and leave Kiwi until he did something “intolerable”.
Now that really is obvious
19 August, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“The last week or so has proved a theory that me and my dad came up with over a few beers”.
“Being of the extreme right/extreme left, and buying into any ideology wholesale is NOT a political stance, it is a mental defect.”
Thats funny since me an my old man came up with pretty much the same theory a while ago as well. He always being ostensbily conservative minded, and me generally left-leaning. Those that buy into one particular ideology wholesale, arent really debating at all, they simply chant the party line. Because they are so assured of how right they are, no rational debate will ever change their position, as they simply go through some sort of mental machination, putting the cognitive dissonance into gear, controting things to assure themselves that they are right, no matter how hypocritical or inconsistent they are shown to be.
20 August, 2008 at 10:36 am
Then why ban Kiwi if that was the case Mondo Rock.
Geez Warwick – I can’t believe it’s necessary for me to point this out to you, but Kiwi was banned for (surprise, surprise) his intolerable behaviour at this site.
Did you miss the posts above where he attacked the integrity of this site’s moderators and then degenerated into taunts and abuse towards everyone else? You did? What about the childish demands that this site moderate another poster simply because he wanted it done?
Kiwi and RR were each banned for their poor behaviour at this site. How is this such a difficult concept for you to get your head around?
20 August, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Gee Mondo Rock – Kiwi seems to have really gotten to you. I wouldn’t let it worry you so much – he’s just another poster.
21 August, 2008 at 6:36 am
Kiwi, doesn’t care if he got banned from here….his main objective was to get RR booted also.
It’s an old trick of kiwis, he would go back to Bolt and brag about what he’s done.
21 August, 2008 at 11:00 am
Kiwi, doesn’t care if he got banned from here….his main objective was to get RR booted also.
RR got himself booted for the quite obvious and deliberate trolling he was engaging in. He was adding nothing to the discussion and was clearly only trying to inflame. If he had refrained from this behhaviour whilst Kiwi was whining about him then nothing would have happened (to RR, at least).
Each individual poster, Kiwi and RR, were put on moderation due to their individual beahviour. If anyone was ‘fooled’ it was RR – for being lured into the appalling behaviour that then led to his moderation.
Warwick is only posting here in order to have a completely unwarranted dig at Ant. The fuckwittery in his latest posts is a pretty good example of exactly what he’s up to.
21 August, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jeeze Mondo Rock, you’ve got a temper on you. Have you got private health cover – if so see someone soon
22 August, 2008 at 7:34 am
“Jeeze Mondo Rock, you’ve got a temper on you.”
What? telling it the way it is in a calm, rational manner is hardly indicative of a temper.
However you really don’t mind revealing that you are a worthless troll!
22 August, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Indeed – Warwick appears to have abandoned his paper-thin pretense of being a sensible participant and is now just blatantly trolling.
Sad really – it wasn’t even a challenge to get him to show his true colours. He just rolled over and died after the most cursory questioning of his initial claims.
22 August, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Warwick, we’ve just about had a gutful of this nonsense. There is always plenty to debate here, and plenty of people with whom you can engage if you wish. So consider this your first and only warning: get on topic or join the sadly growing rollcall of idiots in the illustrious moderation queue.
22 August, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Kiwi was right wasn’t he – you people don’t take any kind of critisism do you. Kind of ironic considering how you continually claim Andrew Bolt silences people.
Considering I was responding to other posters points why don’t you warn them as well Ant?
I know you’ll “moderate” my posts now but I still expect the same cowardly reaction to my silencing as that given to Kiwi (including John wanting to put me to “sleep” with a needle).
22 August, 2008 at 10:07 pm
What “criticism”? All you’ve done is come in here and drag out a childish, tiresome dispute that had nothing to do with you, and which only ended when both naughty kids had their toys taken away from them.
You’ve made not a single attempt to contribute to any meaningful discussion. All you’ve done is repeatedly come back and provoke responses from Mondo, whose only mistake has been giving a petty shit-stirrer the time of day.
So spare me your martyr’s complex and disingenuous talk of cowardice and being “silenced” (Jesus, don’t Bolt’s little buzzwords just rub right off on his disciples?).
As I said earlier, come here when you have something relevant to say about issues raised in our posts. Far from being “silenced”, your contribution to the site will be most welcome and published without hesitation.
But your blatant, infantile trolling will not be tolerated any longer.
22 August, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Ant has spoken.
Comments are closed.