Daily Telegraph: Although the language is much more sophisticated, regrettably the Telegraph reply is more or less the same as the Mail on Sunday.
I’ll spare you the full letter, the following excerpts sum up the reply: Mr Rhidian Wynn Davies, Consulting Editor, wrote: “Taken in context it is clear Mr Ali’s endorsement of the beliefs of Abdullah Azzam also extends also to the doctrine of jihad…”
He continues later, “Nothing that Mr Ali wrote differs from, qualifies or otherwise questions this doctrine. The inference that he agrees with, endorses and adopts it unconditionally is inescapable”. And concludes, “We are satisfied that our quotes from the blog were reproduced accurately and in proper context.”
From his letter it is clear Mr Wynn Davies is a master of the English language, and I can certainly learn a lot from him. However, through his articulacy he also manages not to answer my central complaint.
——-
Update on Mail on Sunday: John Wellington (Managing Editor) has replied to say: “I have already answered the question you raise in my previous e-mail, which I note you have published on your website.”
It seems Mr Wellington may have been spooked by my email which noted the Mail Online website had removed the offending article from their website. I did point out that he effectively acknowledged the articles were problematic. Perhaps in consideration of possible legal action by Azad Ali, the articles are now back up on their website!
Mr Wellington’s language may not be as sophisticated as the Telegraph’s, but he certainly isn’t stupid. Anyone in his position would know that removal of the articles is near enough an open goal! The false quotes may end up costing the Mail on Sunday money, but Mr Wellington isn’t dumb enough to hand it on a plate.
NB: I have now referred the Mail article to the Press Complaints Commission, and will do the same for the Telegraph, and eventually the Evening Standard (after they reply). Let’s see what the toothless tiger can do on behalf of those wronged!
——-
In a free and democratic society everyone has a right to freedom of speech. The media likewise has a right to criticise those who exercise it. That’s all part of the show. (We’re assuming obvious illegality is excluded).
In this particular case Azad Ali’s opinions are clearly controversial to some. He has said whatever he wanted to say, and the papers can criticise it as much as they want. That is their right and I have no issue with that.
BUT there is a clear Code of Practice (Press Complaints Commission) for the press, which means that they cannot misquote to bolster their argument about what Azad Ali’s opinions actually mean or would imply.
Finally, there is only a limited scope for any complaints. One cannot complain that someone else thinks their opinions are extreme. But it is unacceptable, and I believe there is a case for complaint, if the press cut and paste quotes to make that case!
what iraqi govt, mark t?
I agree with jango, the illegal uk invaders set up a phony govt to say that they want the uk troopps there…
you rite Jango, he nuff thick, a numbskull rather
Who’s Jango?
where are you mark? gone to bed dreaming of the star of david?
markieee? hush a bye baby…
Alpha, I can’t see any post by ‘Jango’ on my screen.
“if the British Government going to war may have been illegal, then are you saying it may have been legal and justified for UK troops to be killed?”
No, because the illegality or legality of the war is entirely irrelevant to determining the legality of British troops on Iraqi soil post resolution 1511.
That resolution makes their presence legal.
mark is one low life loser! he didn’t have the decency to say g’nite! maaan
“where are you mark? gone to bed dreaming of the star of david?”
Not everyone who disagrees with you is Jewish – although this comment does give a rather disturbing glimpse into your monomaniacal mind!
“the illegal uk invaders set up a phony govt to say that they want the uk troopps there…”
No, I think you’ll find there was an election in which some 13 million Iraqis voted – 80% of the voting population.
Do keep up!
no it don’t son… cos that would also mean the state of israel is illegal.
ANSWER THIS QUESTION! DO U AGREE WITH THIS!
THE UN RESOLUTION DON’T MAKE THE troop presence legal… cos that would also mean the state of israel is illegal. i.e. the un said so.
ANSWER THIS QUESTION! DO U AGREE WITH THIS!
Jango seems to be hot headed kid on my screen, but his making some ok points.
Mark T, answer the questions posted by Tim and my questions, you seem to dodging them your usual way.
80% went to vote? such utter BS! no wonder… mark believed the daily mail, now stats like that.
“THE UN RESOLUTION DON’T MAKE THE troop presence legal… cos that would also mean the state of israel is illegal. i.e. the un said so.”
You are a little confused.
The UN has never said the state of Israel is illegal.
And yes, the UN resolution does make the troop presence legal – whatever you might think.
“80% went to vote?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_December_2005
stop thinkin sooo hard mark… ANSWER THE QUESTION!
DAMMIT! ARE YOU UNABLE TO SPEAK? OR DO i TAKE YOUR SILENCE THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE UN SAYS THAT ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE?
“80% went to vote?”
Summary of the 15 December 2005 Council of Representatives of Iraq election results
Alliances and parties Votes % Seats Gain/ loss
United Iraqi Alliance 5,021,137 41.2 128 -12
Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 2,642,172 21.7 53 -22
Iraqi Accord Front 1,840,216 15.1 44 +44
Iraqi National List 977,325 8.0 25 -15
Iraqi National Dialogue Front 499,963 4.1 11 +11
Kurdistan Islamic Union 157,688 1.3 5 +5 1
The Upholders of the Message (Al-Risaliyun) 145,028 1.2 2 +2
Reconciliation and Liberation Bloc 129,847 1.1 3 +2
Turkmen Front 87,993 0.7 1 -2
Rafidain List 47,263 0.4 1 0
Mithal al-Alusi List 32,245 0.3 1 +1
Yazidi Movement for Reform and Progress 21,908 0.2 1 +1
National Independent Cadres and Elites 0 -3
Islamic Action Organization In Iraq – Central Command 0 -2
National Democratic Alliance 0 -1
Total (turnout 79.6 %) 12,396,631 275
The UN has never said that Israel is an illegal state.
I will pay you the princely sum of 50p if you can prove otherwise!
oh, so these don’t mean nothing?
Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and “the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
Mark T, be honourable and answer my question about their presence before UN Res 1511? at which point they were illegal combatents.
ANSWER THE QUESTION, STOP DIVERTING FROM THE REAL ISSUE.
Yes, alpha, but it doesn’t say that the state of Israel is illegal, does it?
Do learn to read old chap!
I know it difficult for your zionazi kind to part with money, but I want my israeli 50p!
Israel’s settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
“Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
What is referred to as the state of Israel is stolen land from Palestinians.
Its illegal, and illegally occupied and that is a known fact when you look at the history…. UN stating it or not is not a major issue.
Again, the settlements are considered illegal.
The state of Israel is not.
Illegal? define it how you want buddy…
The resolutions speak for themselves, even if my wording was wrong. Do you agree with the above 2 resolutions?
SAME BLOODY QUESTION. ANSWER IT YOU SNAKE!
SO THE SETTLEMENTS WERE ILLEGAL? oh my, so you agree that the current state of israel is illegal in its current form?
ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION YOU DIMWIT
“llegal? define it how you want buddy…”
What is “illegal” is the possession of territories held after the 1967 war. Not the state of Israel, which has never been declared illegal by the UN. I hope this is clear.
“Do you agree with the above 2 resolutions?”
I think that Israel should withdraw entirely from both the West Bank and Gaza, in conjunction with a lasting and permanent peace deal with its neighbours.
“SO THE SETTLEMENTS WERE ILLEGAL? oh my, so you agree that the current state of israel is illegal in its current form?”
You seem unable to distinguish between an illegal POLICY and an illegal COUNTRY.
If you can’t grasp the distinction then heaven help you.
“No, because the illegality or legality of the war is entirely irrelevant to determining the legality of British troops on Iraqi soil post resolution 1511.”
So are you saying that pre-resolution 1511, it was OK for British troops to be killed?
During the Iraq war, it was legal for British soldiers to be killed by uniformed Iraqi soldiers, yes.
Pace Geneva Convention, et cetera.
agreeing with those resolutions is to commit treason buddy. the jews might excommunicate you, i.e. takfeer
I didn’t ask you bout gaza or west bank you prat!
ANSWER THE QUESTION
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT RESOLUTION?! then maybe only then can we discuss the legality of brit troops in iraq or the mandate…
nice try mark…
it was the policies that expanded israel to the current borders it controls. the settlements WERE the very reason why israel covers the space of land that it does…
ANSWER THE QUESTION
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT RESOLUTION?!
There are no settlments in Jerusalem because it’s OWNED by Israel (illegally) and does not come under the UN mandate that initially outlined two-states here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm
Compare that to the current ’state’ of Israel.
“greeing with those resolutions is to commit treason buddy. the jews might excommunicate you, i.e. takfeer”
Again, I’m not Jewish. Give it a rest.
“I didn’t ask you bout gaza or west bank you prat!”
Resolutions 242 and 446 refer to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza – the key words, you will find, are “post 1967″ (prior to that date these territories were administered by Jordan and Egypt respectively).
I certainly agree with the full wording of 242. I will have to quickly re-read 446 before I give my opinion.
so i take it that you agree with those quoted UN resolutions!!! well done my son
“Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war THAT YEAR”
“Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
“Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied SINCE 1967″
Is that clear?
Israel should withdraw from settlements in territories occupied since 1967 – in exchange for a full and lasting peace settlement with its neighbours.
That is my entirely uncontroversial position.
Do you agree with the UN resolution or did you just become a permanent member over nite to rewrite the wording?
SAME BLOODY QUESTION
I just quoted the resolution. I did not rewrite it.
What are you on about?
mark, you can’t play word games like that no more
“During the Iraq war, it was legal for British soldiers to be killed by uniformed Iraqi soldiers, yes.”
Thank you. What was all the fuss about then?
“Israel should withdraw from settlements in territories occupied since 1967 – in exchange for a full and lasting peace settlement with its neighbours.
That is my entirely uncontroversial position.”
doesn’t say you agree with the resolutions, both of them!
AGREE WITH RESOLUTIONS?
YES OR NO?
GETTIN FED UP WITH THIS ZIONAZI
Atleast sy good night, mark. mummy not teach ya manners?
I am neither a ZIO or a NAZI or indeed a ZIONAZI.
I have already answered your question at 3:43.
Are you taking the piss?
YES OR NO? Agree with the resolutions, pisstaker? YES OR NO?
for God’s sakes, Mark! Answer the dude’s question, will you?
yes or no?
Now you are taking the piss! Read my post at 3:43!
[seeing as you're busy elsewhere]
Mark T said:
“UN law IS international law.
I can see I’m dealing with the dregs here.”
I hope you don’t prove to be a ‘dreg’ by going against UN resolutions!
I don’t recall the UN resolution saying anything about ‘in exchange for a lasting peace’. instead, it says ‘that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a SERIOUS OBSTRUCTION to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
If you believe in UN law so much, please agree that Israel needs to return to its borders JUST as the resolution says.
So do you agree with UN resolution or not?
UN Resolution 242 -
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Both points I can certainly agree with.
3.43 doesn’t say jack, you were reading the wording of 446?
just answer… or are you just like the rest of the losers from Harry’s place?
Of course I expect you chaps believe that the entire state of Israel is an illegal settlement, don’t you?
I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that.
446 is merely a restatement of 242, without the condition of 242 –
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
I can agree with 242 in its entirety, but not with 446 which I consider to be a partial document.
both resolutions 242 AND 446!
damn, you are really showing yourself up as the zionazi two faced scum you’re being accused of.
not ‘both points’…
Do you agree with both resolutions? yes or no?
MarkT, I take it then you do not agree with resolution 446 which says:
“Resolution 446 (1979)
of 22 March 1979
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East…
…Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories…”
Even though YOU said:
“UN law IS international law.
I can see I’m dealing with the dregs here.”
Does that, in your own words, make you a ‘dreg’?
Oh, I certainly agree that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied since 1967.
However 446 makes no mention of a peace settlement between the Arab states and Israel.
That is why I am quite happy to agree entirely with 242, but not with 446.
But,
“UN law IS international law.
I can see I’m dealing with the dregs here.”
Does that, in your own words, make you a ‘dreg’?
What on eaarth was all that fuss about ‘mandate 1511′? You YOURSELF are being the exact ‘dreg’ you insulted others with and disagreeing with UN law!
Where does that leave us with your argument about Iraq?
“Does that, in your own words, make you a ‘dreg’?”
No it does not, because while I am free to disagree with resolution 446, I still recognise that it constitutes international law.
I am free to disagree with any law I choose – of course breaking that law is a different matter.
Again this is a distinction you don’t seem to be grasping.
partial document, eh?
so the UN mandate for troops in iraq must be partial document too… cos i don’t agree with the wording of res 446 as I have become a permanent member of UNSC and disagree with 446!!!
hahahahahaha
told you he was a zionazi!
told u so told u so told u so told u so told u so told u so told u so
What on eaarth was all that fuss about ‘mandate 1511′? You YOURSELF are being the exact ‘dreg’ you insulted others with and disagreeing with UN law!
To repeat the point I just made – you can disagree with a UN law, but that law remains binding, regardless of your opinion of it.
So is it ‘binding’ on Israel to follow through with these:
“Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East…
…Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories…”
Im sure everyone agrees with international law here, so don’t try and snake out of this one you weasel!
You don’t agree with the UN resolutions that ISRAEL is BREAKING, yet your all for the UN mandate in Iraq! what a two faced pile of sh!t you really are…
damn, its true what they say about these zionazis…
“So is it ‘binding’ on Israel to follow through with these:”
In the eyes of the UN, it certainly is.
That is what is meant by a “binding UN resolution”. In these terms Israel is in violation of this resolution.
What is your point?
“You don’t agree with the UN resolutions that ISRAEL is BREAKING”
No. I don’t agree with a particular UN resolution, but I can at the same accept that Israel is breaking that resolution.
Just as someone (not you!) might not agree with UN resolution 1511 – unfortunately that resolution still exists. British troops have a legal presence in Iraq, however much anyone might disagree with resolution 1511.
Basic stuff chaps.
the resistance in iraq is in violation of the UN mandate by killing uk troops
what’s YOUR point?
UN mandate, remember? boy, everyone knows you a fool sucker
But in YOUR eyes, Israel does not have to fulfill these UN obligations right?
Even though: “UN IS international law!”.
Yes, my point is that killing British troops in Iraq represents a violation of international law.
Just as, in strict terms, Israel is in violation of Resolution 446.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
so no fuss there really, you don’t agree with UN resolutions, looks like others don’t neither.
some respect you got for international law son… two faced b@?!ard
“so no fuss there really, you don’t agree with UN resolutions, looks like others don’t neither.”
The difference, of course, is that I am sat at home on my sofa voicing an opinion about the resolution.
I’M NOT ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE RESOLUTION BY KILLING SOMEONE.
Is that clear?
But in YOUR eyes, Israel does not have to fulfill these UN obligations right?
Even though: “UN IS international law!”.
so what, you prat? i’m also in bed you idiot, not killing jews in Israel…
you sooo lame… you agree with us then!!!!
Just to be clear – in my eyes, Israel has to fulfil UN 242 – if this is fulfilled then 446 is irrelevant. But, yes Israel does have to fulfil UN obligations under international law.
If it does not, it is breaking international law. This includes resolution 446.
“so what, you prat? i’m also in bed you idiot, not killing jews in Israel…”
What does this have to do with the international law that legally mandates the presence of British troops in Iraq?
Nothing.
I agree with Tim on this one. nicely said, buddy
mark was exposed for what he really is.
goodnite zionazi. I won’t be replying… zzzzzzzz
I’m getting quite bored now, so before I go to bed, here is a brief summary -
UN resolutions can be disagreed with by individuals such as you or I. However that does not alter their status as international law.
UN Resolutions 242 and 446 set out conditions that Israel is currently violating.
UN Resolution 1511 legally mandates the presence of British troops in Iraq.
Are we clear now?
see what I mean?
mark is definately a zionazi…
he says it’s illegal for israel to break the UNSR 446 just like it’s illegal to kill british troops in iraq because of the UN mandate/ppartial document…
btw, nite wayne’s dad
“…in my eyes, Israel has to fulfil UN 242 – IF this is fulfilled then 446 is irrelevant”
This is about ‘your eyes’. Remove the ‘if’ and let me know: in YOUR eyes, does israel have to fulfil UN resolutions 242 AND 446.
“But, yes Israel does have to fulfil UN obligations under international law. If it does not, it is breaking international law. This includes resolution 446.”
This is irrelevant as I want to know what you think, not what international law dictates on paper.
So, to summarise:
-you have justified the killing of British troops during the Iraq war
-you (not the UN – YOU) believe that international law does not have to be followed through
-you believe that Israel is above international law because it can choose to be in violation of it with your support
Thank you -we have come a long way since your first post.
so, it’s ok for the Israeli’s to break international law, but not for the occupied iraqi people?
you put the nail in that coffin
RIP
ZINAZI
MARK T
g’nite y’all
-you have justified the killing of British troops during the Iraq war
No.
-you (not the UN – YOU) believe that international law does not have to be followed through
No.
-you believe that Israel is above international law because it can choose to be in violation of it with your support
And finally no.
We have come precisely nowhere, and lying about my opinions won’t change that.
“so, it’s ok for the Israeli’s to break international law, but not for the occupied iraqi people?”
No, it is not okay for Israel to break international law.
No, it is not okay for UN mandated troops in Iraq to be killed.
Mark T, sad to hear you were bored but I was learning a lot from this debate!
shame you’ve gone to bed though…
The DailyMail will be interested in this thread!
Perhaps we can bring in the Guardian and the Independent too!
mark, go to sleep… even zionazis need sleep. (no sleep for the wicked) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! you a cry baby, now lemme sleep. i’m punching shut down.
ciao comrades
Yes, I’m sure the Daily Mail will love to see the profligate use of the term zionazi on a blog to which Azad Ali contributes. I’m sure that will help his reputation as a reasonable and moderate community leader no end in his legal battle with the Mail.
As will the many contributors here who seem so willing to find loopholes that will justify the killing of British troops in Iraq.
Good luck Azad! With so many reasonable and moderate people here on the IFE blog, you cannot fail to persuade a jury!
Mark T, said
“the difference,of course is that i am sat at home on my sofa voicing an opinion about the resolution
i am not actually violating the resolution by killing someone”
“during the iraq war it was justiified for Iraqi soldiers to kill brtish soldiers”
Mark T. it includes YOU. And that comment seemed quite to the point. You wont looking for any loopholes.
Ah, you’re fabricating my quotes now. Good stuff.
I’m sure Azad Ali – who incidentally is threatening to sue the Daily Mail for suggesting he thinks that killing British troops in Iraq is justified – will be just thrilled to find so many people posting on his blog who are so keen to justify the killing of British troops in Iraq.
Good luck Azad!
So you do work for the Daily Mail. every time mail is mentioned you seem to rant on about how they are being sued. Is your job at stake!
Are you sure you don’t – I mean, you’re doing quite a good job sabotaging Azad Ali’s legal case.
I suspect you’re a double agent!
Rest assured, if I did work the Daily Mail, I think this particular thread would already be in the hands of the paper’s legal department.
“Ah, you’re fabricating my quotes now. Good stuff.”
Can’t believe you said that on this particular thread! What does it feel like to be on the receivng end now?!
“Azad…will be just thrilled to find so many people posting on his blog who are so keen to justify the killing of British troops in Iraq.”
That’s right, I do recall YOU as the one who justified the killing of British troops! Azad Ali will certainly see that!
and I thought you were going to bed….
Mark T said,
“the difference of course is that i am sat at home on my sofa voicing an opinion about the resolution, I AM NOT ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE RESOLUTION BY KILLING SOMEONE”
“During the Iraq War it was JUSTIFIED for Iraqi soldiers to kill British Soldiers”
Mark T, It Includes YOU. ANd That comment seemed pretty much to he point, no attempts at loopholes from your side. The Mail legal team should find this interesting too.
Sadly none of you have a clue who I am – so what I say is rather irrelevant, by comparison with Azad Ali – who is a public figure in hot water for justifying the killing of British soldiers in Iraq.
Not that ANYONE on his blog would consider doing such a thing.
OH NO!
It’s almost as if you guys are TRYING to get him in trouble.
Hilarious.
You sound scared.
Scared? Of who?