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!
“Scared? Of who?”
Yep, you definitely sound scared.
Oh, please threaten me. Please. I would love it.
Love it.
“Oh, please threaten me. Please. I would love it.
Love it.”
Must be a show of false confidence.
You are threatening me!
Great stuff.
Come on you keyboard warrior.
Imagine me making chicken sounds, flapping my arms.
If that helps.
“You are threatening me!
Great stuff.
Come on you keyboard warrior.
Imagine me making chicken sounds, flapping my arms.
If that helps.”
Now you’ve reached hysteria.
No, I’m just joshing you.
It’s so easy when you’rse so mean and moody.
Lighten up!
Or alternatively, imagine that I’m a Daily Mail employee.
“No, I’m just joshing you.
It’s so easy when you’rse so mean and moody.
Lighten up!
Or alternatively, imagine that I’m a Daily Mail employee.”
Mood swings.
You couldn’t justify the killing of British soldiers in Iraq for me, could you?
Just one more time.
“During the Iraq war, it was legal for British soldiers to be killed by uniformed Iraqi soldiers, yes.”
-Mark T
Well, I guees that makes YET ANOTHER person on Azad Ali’s blog who is justifying the killing of British soldiers in Iraq.
Good luck Azad! How can you fail to prove that you don’t think think it is justified to kill British troops in Iraq when your blog is so chock-full of people who think it is?
Truth be told, everyone’s at this justifiying business nowadays.
In fact it was only yesterday my elderly upstairs eighbour Mrs Miggins – while she was pouring her tea – confided in me that “the British crusaders in Iraq should be slaughtered by the resistance.”
In fact I can’t really escape people justifying British troops being killed in Iraq.
Oh no, hang on a sec! What I meant was I can’t really escape people justifying the killing of British troops ON THIS BLOG.
“Good luck Azad! How can you fail to prove that you don’t think think it is justified to kill British troops in Iraq when your blog is so chock-full of people who think it is?”,
i.e. MarkT.
“…I can’t really escape people justifying the killing of British troops ON THIS BLOG.”,
i.e. Mark T.
And you, AAA.
Come on now, don’t be coy!
Mark T confirms his justification for the killing of British troops in Iraq:
“AND you, AAA.”
This isn’t going to look very good in the morning is it?
So many people justifying British troops being killed!
I hope for his sake Azad gets busy deleting!
“So many people justifying British troops being killed!”
i.e. Mark T.
“This isn’t going to look very good in the morning is it?”
Nope, not for Mark T I’m afraid.
Joseph -
“the Iraqis do have the right to attack and kill members of the occupation as an act of self defence, whether that occupier is British, American, Arab or Asian.”
Shafi –
“Through which sense of logic do you propose that British soldiers should be immune from attack in “Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever they may be serving”?”
Bill Rammell -
“I jsut want to express my full support to Mr. Ali. You are entitled to your opinion and something that is reflected in internation law: Geneva Convention if no one has mentioned yet. Any has the right to resist and defend themeselves. Even a criminal is forced to defend himself if he is attacked.”
Kim -
“Iraqis are occupied and they have a legal right to resist.”
It would be rude of me to allow a willful misreading of my comment to be added to this choice collection.
After all, I wouldn’t want to make things worse for Azad than they already are!
What with all the antisemitic slurs as well.
Good luck Azad!
“Nope, not for Mark T I’m afraid.”
Unfortunately, I’m posting here anonymously. How is your misreading of my comment going to have any bearing on me?
Unlike poor old Azad Ali. Perhaps he should have posted his comments anonymously.
Mark T -
“During the Iraq war, it was legal for British soldiers to be killed by uniformed Iraqi soldiers, yes.
It would be rude of me to allow a willful misreading of other comments to be added to this one above.
After all, I wouldn’t want to make things worse for Mark T than they already are!
What with all the zionazi slurs as well.
Good luck Mark!
If only you knew who I was!
Perhaps it would make the Daily Mail.
But alas no! That is reserved for people who justify the killing of British soldiers in Iraq IN THEIR OWN NAME.
Ta ta old bean.
“If only you knew who I was!
Perhaps it would make the Daily Mail.”
Further confirmation from Mark T.
“But alas no! That is reserved for people who justify the killing of British soldiers in Iraq IN THEIR OWN NAME.”
i.e. not for people like Mark T who justify the killing of British soldiers in Iraq under a pen name.
So the summary made by Tim regarding Mark T remains standing and will come to much use (and I quote him):
Tim Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:50 am
“-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.”
Reading through the whole thing (and it was long!), I think it’s clear what Mark T came on heere for and what he stood for: deception, arrogance, two-facedness.
I don’t know how anyone can ever believe zionist supporters ever again…the lies and hypocrisy stink!
What goes around comes around.
It’s a shame his witch-hunt backfired!
Looks like Mark T. got himself in a little mess. Mark T. is now officially justifying the Killing of British Soldiers! what a hypocrite!
Mark T,
” during the iraq war it was allowed for iraqi soldiers to kill british soldiers, yes”
There is definatly no fabriation in this qoute.
“sadly, non of you have a clue who i am, what i say is irrellevent”
so it is ok (relevent) for a neocon like your self to say what you want and get away with it, but as soon a “muslim” says it it becomes a crime.Hmm. Hypocrite.
i am suprised that Mark T. has justfied the killing of british troops in such blunt terms.
I would have thought he would so some symathy towards them as they where forced to goto Iraq by our treacherous government. They are fighting an illegal war but under duress.
SAVE OUR BOYS. BRING THEM BACK. SEND THE WARMONGERS TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. CHARGE THEM WITH THE MURDER OF EVERYONE OF OUR SERVICE MAN THAT WERE KILLED. THEY ARE HEROES PAYING THE ULTIMATE PRICE!
The nerve he had to call me a ‘berk’ – was he under pressure?
What with all the all that rant about ‘UN IS international law’! Only to go and expose his twisted agenda and hypocrisy by refusing to accept UN Resolutions over Israel (and I must commend Tim for not giving into Mark’s wordgames over his own views and that of the UN’.
Lies and hypocrisy never get you anywhere son!
Who is AAA?
NOT Azad Ali!