He seems like a bright boy. Has some interesting ideas. Who wants to spring for a trip to Afghanistan for him. I’m sure that he could show us how it’s all done.
Um… NEWS FLASH! EVERYONE at Fox News is a psycho. You missed this because…
You donated your last paycheck to the RNC, didn’t you? :rolleyes:
Conservative Compassionism on the march!
You know, if someone from the BBC had said that kind of thing about New York after 9-11, Gibson would probably have been calling for their head on a silver fucking platter.
Fucking tosser.
Gibson didn’t say anything knocking London. He knocked Tony Blair. Calling Gibsons’ remarks racist just because they’re tangentially about Africa, given Africa’s enormous diversity, is itself a stereotypically racist observation. Just as there is more to gays than their sexuality, there is more to Africans than their race(s). Gibson wasn’t complaining that Blair was obsessed with Black people; he was complaing that Blair (the Prime Minister of Britain) was obsessed with some place other than his own country (Britain) at a time when his own country (Britain) was reeling from a terrorist attack nearly on the level of New York and Madrid. Gibson wasn’t saying that no one should ever pay attention to Africa, but that on that day — the day after the bombings — it seemed more appropriate to him that Blair offer reassurances, officially verify information, set up task forces, address issues of safety, call upon businesses to accomodate stranded Londoners, and so forth, rather than fixate on a pre-set agenda that just happened to be about Africa.
Gibson wasn’t saying, “Why are we all so obsessed with the colored people?”. He was saying, “Why is Blair so obsessed with his pre-set itenerary in a time of emergency?”
Maybe because he considered the situation in Africa to be an emergency, also? Besides, it’s not like Blair did/said nothing about the bombings.
That’s certainly not how it came out, if that is what he intended. Chiefly because the alternative is so idiotic. What is he suggesting they do, cancel all the non terrorist related meeting and organize tons of press releases, all along the lines of “Um, uh, no new news yet, but rest assured we are so focused on these bombings that all other government functions have ceased to function.”
It makes it difficult to see that he doesn’t just disregard the whole continent. Obsessed? Obsessed?! I mean, what the fuck? As you mentioned, it was a pre-planned meeting. It’s like saying they’re obsessed with education since they didn’t cancel all schools and send all the kids out looking for clues.
Speak for yourself, Kimosabe. That’s how it came out to me. Maybe you’re just obsessed with finding offense and injury in anything a conservative utters.
Taking nothing from your observations, (and I could be misreading an unclear comment), but I was under the impression that Guin was reacting to the second comment by Gibson, linked later in the thread, in which he wished that Paris would get the Olympics so that they could get bombed.
I first head of this shit-for-brains Gibson last week, as I was reading my July 1st edition of Maclean’s magazine, featuring an article slagging Canada by the wonderhead boy.
He seems to be a grade A asshole trying to push everyone’s buttons as he nears forced retirement. Methinks I’ll continue to ignore his existence.
Maybe’s, maybe’s, maybe’s. Maybe you’re sucking Gibson’s cock. Who knows? I presume you’re basing your opinion on my extensive history of pitting conservatives? Oh wait, I don’t have any fucking history at all, so that can’t be it.
It seems pretty clear, however, that it is very possible to get offended by this particular comment by Gibson, based on the comment itself. If you can’t see that yourself, fine, but blanket accusations of bias on everyone you don’t agree with is pretty stupid.
Indeed I was, thank you.
Can anybody find stats on how many people die a day from starvation in Africa? I could only find world-wide stats.
No, I can’t imagine that happening in America. More’s the pity.
I’m a little late at posting to this thread, but here goes…
The OP’s target, John Gibson, seems to me to have a fundamentally-flawed impression of what it means to have the Head of State and Head of Government be two separate people.
I think that Tony Blair (for whom I am no means generally an apologist) handled it perfectly. He was the chairman of the long-planned G8 meeting, at which he was proposing policies with lasting global significance. A bunch of wankers set off some bombs; within a couple of hours, it was clear that this was not the start of Armageddon. It also appears that it was timed to coincide with the opening of the G8 meeting (those who think that it was due to London’s winning the 2012 Olympics, implying that the perpetrators would have had the ability to choose targets in one of five cities on a few hours’ notice, credit them with too much flexibility IMHO).
The very worst thing that Blair could have done would have been to have allowed the summit to be derailed, especially since his cornerstone was “aid to Africa”. If that discussion had been allowed to be postponed, it could be seen by AQ and others that, when it came down to the wire, a few dozen Londoners were seen to be more important than millions of Africans.
Meanwhile, the Queen, the Head of State, was going round hospitals in London doing what she does best [which might cynically be described as her saying “There, there!”, “Wasn’t that awful?”, etc]. No-one with any sense of history will miss the historical link to her parents – especially the late Queen Mother – doing the same thing during the Blitz in WWII.
A series of attacks such as those on 7/7 had been expected and prepared for in London for years. International terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. As far as I can tell, although there had been no prior warnings of the bombs, the London police, fire, and medical workers acquitted themselves perfectly on the day, and all of the appropriate talking heads were available for calm press briefings.
I, for one, am rather glad that Blair didn’t run around like a chicken with his head cut off, which seems to be what John Gibson wanted.
I also like that London Mayor “Red Ken” Livingston took the Tube to work the next day. Good for him.
Oh, come ON. Look, I hate the way that 9/11 has been over-used as an emotional masturbation-pole by people whose lives should largely have been unaffected by it, but it was still a pretty freakin’ big deal, at least for those in NYC, the DC area, the relevant part of PA, and those on the planes and their loved ones on the ground. That said, the 7/7 London bombings did not begin to approach 9/11 in its magnitude, in any sense. This is, of course, not to belittle the suffering of the victims and their loved ones.
[Antonius Block, Londoner born and raised.]
And yet it does so all the same.
The head of state versus head of government thing is a good point, though.
No, it doesn’t. I grew up in a London in which the Blitz (even in the 1970’s) was something considered to be recent history by several neighbors (both my parents were in uniform, and mobilized outside London in the early 1940’s, so neither experienced the Blitz personally). The worst night of the Blitz caused more deaths than 2001/09/11, and that was just one night out of hundreds.
I grew up with IRA bombings and British Rail accidents. All told, the latter tended to have more fatalities (sick British humor at work here). Hence, the first genuine post-7/7 joke that I received as an e-mail from a friend in London involves the idea that if the perpetrators had really wanted to maximize the casulaties, they should have hired an ex-British Rail or London Transport driver as a consultant.
September 11, 2001 fundamentally changed the way US residents --especially those in New York City – viewed the world.
July 7, 2005, for the British? Not so much. It’s an event in a continuum. Those who died are mourned by me, to an extent that is perhaps even greater than 9/11 (I knew well each of the London Underground stations and lines that were hit, but then I had also been in the WTC and the Pentagon).
My statement still stands that the attacks of last week were not “nearly on the level of New York”. That in no way disrespects the victims of 2005/07/07, or their loved ones.
Very well, then. You make a reasonable argument. I stand down my objection.
His comments are [checks forum] bollocks anyway. In no way were the media putting all their focus on Africa and ignoring the attacks on London. The press conferences were covered, sure, but even those were not completely dominated by Africa. Is 10% of the coverage (made up from own perception) dedicated to Africa too much in light of the London bombs? I do not think so. BBC News has been my channel of preference since the 7th and it features practically 24/7 coverage of the ongoing investigation. They have not even mentioned Africa in the last few days. The papers the next day were overflowing with information and speculation about the attacks (every paper offering a different theory, which they’re all certain is true).
I dislike Tony Blair with a passion but i am actually proud of how he acted (for once). Allowing the terrorist attacks to derail the G8 meeting, which may have been their intention after all, would have been a travesty. I’ve never bought any of Blair’s fake emotion and empathy in the past, bar his first press conference after the attacks.