Via Islamophobia Watch, a hilarious exchange among Jamie Glazov of Front Page Magazine and Norman Geras and Nick Cohen, to which David Horowitz is later introduced. The “interview” was supposed to be about the Euston Manifesto, but it degenerates into a diatribe by Glazov about how the left was always the faction that supported Stalin and Pol Pot and never had any moral credibility anyway, so how could it have lost it as Geras and Cohen allege.
Martin Sullivan at PhobeWatch opines:
Hardly surprising – they all have so much in common. Glazov congratulates his interviewees: “Overall, it is highly admirable to see members of the Left such as yourselves standing up for a moral and decent position in our current terror war.”
… How long, I wonder, before Geras and Cohen follow Horowitz’s example, ditch the pretence of being in any sense left wing and openly embrace the Right.
I actually think that Geras and Cohen come out of the exchange rather well, having demonstrated the total inability of the FPM mob to think outside the “unreality bubble” they have built around themselves. It kind of reminds me of why I used to respect Cohen for his columns in the Observer, before the Iraq war when he dismissed the entire movement as a coalition of the Marxists he didn’t like and the Muslims he didn’t like, noticing the people on the podium (or some of them) and missing everyone else.
Having seen the sort of articles Horowitz allows to be published on FPM, I know what sort of people they are: they have no honour and they have no shame, providing the means to debunk the lies they tell as if they do not care about being found out (see this example and my reply). Among Glazov’s tactics is to demand that someone answer a hostile question, rubbish his answer and then move on, as he did in his interview with the fake sheikh Palazzi last September; one sees this in the first question he poses to Geras after allowing him and Nick Cohen to introduce themselves; he dismisses the answer, posing another question to Cohen.
I was going to pose the question of whether they should have known that Glazov and Horowitz are debaters of dubious honour with closed minds, but perhaps they expected that they as “allies in the war on terror” would be treated with a little bit more respect. FPM has in the past done a feature on one of the Iranian Worker-Communist mob when they were opposing Shari’a arbitration in Canada; I’m not sure if the FPM writer did not know, or did not care, that her subject was a Marxist. I have a world of differences with Geras, Cohen and their ilk, and have criticised articles they wrote about various issues on this blog, but I’ve yet to see them employ the shameless, dirty “debating” tactics of these debased people.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Welfare Reform Bill and the Royal Assent petition
- Another pioneer for the Tory workfare scheme
- Holby City’s ridiculous bone marrow transplant story
- Retail “work experience” is nothing of the kind
- Why we protect vulnerable prisoners
