Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey replies to Brian Court: "The Globalization of Terror"

"The Globalization of Terror"

Mr. Court, thank you for your comments and for taking the trouble to write to Pravda.Ru. Feedback from our readers is fundamental for us to keep ourselves informed as to how people react to what we write.

May I start by saying that your letter to me has an unnecessary insulting slant to it? OK you may compare me to a twelve-year-old if you wish, it is your right but in so doing, you leave yourself open to the possibility that I may respond in kind, for example by calling you a self-opinionated, po-faced, pompous smartass who also happens to be a prick of the first order.

However, I will refrain from the temptation and endeavour to engage you in debate.

I am happy that the education system in your country is so advanced that 12-year-olds can equal my articles as word-smiths. How wonderful. That must be the reason why the people of your good nation have a reputation for being so clever, so intelligent, so wise, so versed in general knowledge.

Well, I suggest you use your superior education and look at the top right-hand corner of the section where my article The Globalization of Terror was placed. You will read: Opinion. O-pi-ni-on.

I do not need to substantiate claims that Bush launched a war against Iraq in an opinion article. I do not need to substantiate claims that civilians were murdered, I do not need to substantiate claims that ten thousand were murdered, because it is common knowledge, I do not need to substantiate claims that DU and cluster bombs were deployed, because they were.

What you have is a case of what the psychologists would call "denial". Bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, believe everything that Bush says, believe that Iraq is better off because hey! Saddam isn't there any more and forget the rest. Comfy little world, kind of cozy too, isn't it?

OK shall we re-write the news for easy consumption? Let's see. There's this bad guy in Iraq (don't say he was a CIA creation) and he killed thousands of people (don't say that he was given the nod by Washington as far as the Iranians were concerned and don't say that many of these were killed when Washington armed the Shi'ites and instigated them to rise up against the government).

(Don't say that up to 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of the USA deploying depleted uranium in the first Gulf War). (Don't say that Kuwait was invaded because of cross-drilling, stealing Iraq's oil). (Don't say there were no WMD and that Bush lied). (Don't say that the Bush regime had documents forged to prove that Iraq had an active nuclear programme).

Err.Brian.what CAN we say?

What Saddam Hussein was the legally elected President of his country and that he counted on the support of more than 50% of his electorate, unlike Bush? That Washington is not responsible for murders in Iraq? That 10.000 civilians did not die? That it is right to slaughter ten thousand people and mutilate 35.000 others just because Saddam was supposed to be a bit of a bastard? So a neighbour beats his wife and you set fire to him, his house and kill his kids? Is that the logic?

Let us see your logic. You say: "Your sweeping claims seem to be chalked full of facts and proof". It is a broad-based opinion article, not a day-by-day report of what is happening in Fallujah.

You say: "Right or wrong this is a poor piece of journalism and does nothing to further thoughtful dialogue". Neither does saying it was written by a 12-year-old or words to that effect. You have to learn to see the difference between an opinion article and a report. I write hundreds of reports a month. Probably you have never read any.

But then again, it is more difficult to take issue with a report, isn't it? It is much easier to take an opinion article and criticize it because it does not read like a piece of investigative journalism.

So, let's go to the butcher and complain that his steaks do not taste of fish.