High life

Taki: My main gripe with Gaddafi is the quality of his cocaine

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

 New York

Libyans are among the most civilised people on earth. When a Russian hooker (I assume) killed a Libyan Air Force officer, a mob stormed the Russian embassy seeking revenge. They failed, but not for lack of trying. This time last year, another mob murdered the American ambassador and three others in a similar attack, although no Yankee gal had harmed any Libyan flier. The civilised Libyans also did democracy proud when they captured Gaddafi. They shot him up the bum with an AK47, dispensing with a boring trial. The bad guy that got away is Hannibal Gaddafi, who with wifey used to beat up and torture Filipino servants and intimidate the Swiss government by kidnapping Swiss citizens working in Libya and holding them on charges unknown. He slipped over to Algeria where his ill-gotten moolah is welcome. My friend Saif Gaddafi wasn’t as lucky. He was ‘detained’ while fleeing the country and is held by some nice guys south of Tripoli. I call him my friend because we were introduced in New York four years ago and I mistook him for a coke dealer and politely asked if he had anything good.


Yes, folks, war is in the air all over the Middle East and no use saying that war has always been with us and always will be. War in the Middle East has been endemic since the 7th century, and if you don’t know why, ask George W. Bush, who went to war without knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni. (He thought the former were terrible shits and the latter nice and sunny. It’s the other way round.) W will go down in history as a modern Alexander the Great. Like the Greek, he stirred things up down south two years into his presidency. Iraq is now the most violent place on earth, competing with Syria for numbers killed and exiled. Libya — a Cameron-Sarkozy-Obama triumph (with Taki’s blessings, I hate to add, because Saif’s coke was so lousy) — has become a safe haven for militants seeking rest and recreation far from American government officials, while Jordan and Lebanon hang in the balance and are being swept under by refugees.

What are the moral responsibilities of liberal democracies in a situation such as the Middle East at present? That’s an easy one. Stay the hell away and let the Saudis and Qataris do the fighting, which is like asking them to be nice to guest workers from Pakistan. My question is, why is it that I knew what was happening in Syria two and a half years ago, and such brains as Obama and Cameron and Hague and la Clinton were out in left field? Why is it that I knew that extremists who want to erase Syria’s borders and establish a transnational Islamic state were the enemy, while the media and the EU were screaming bloody murder against Assad? Only three weeks ago, in our chairman’s programme This Week, the arselicker Christiane Amanpour was shouting about democracy and human rights and how we have to intervene in Syria. Andrew Neil was polite, as was Simon Schama, who dared suggest that the mercenaries doing the fighting were not all they pretend to be.

Let’s face it, folks. The jihadist agenda is a priority in Syria. Anything else is propaganda from Saudi, which knows very well whom in the media to approach. The al-Qa’eda branch is establishing its own agenda in Syria while arselickers like Amanpour are whistling Dixie. For God’s sake, jihadist extremists — and they are all extremists, make no mistake about that — are seizing towns, replacing crosses on churches with black flags and holding classes to teach Syrian children about the importance of battling ‘infidels’, meaning anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim. Public executions of Alawites and Christians by men walking around in masks are common, but back here at home all we hear about is Assad’s chemical weapons and how we should not repeat the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain. As they say in the Home of the Depraved, is this for real or what? Paid fighters from Chechnya and other parts of Europe are committing terrible atrocities in northern and eastern Syria, and we’re talking about a gentleman with a nice moustache who waved a piece of useless paper in an airport long ago.

The best, however, is one Dexter Filkins, who writes for a New York magazine that takes itself more seriously than God. This guy Filkins puts the whole blame for the mess in Syria and even Iraq on an Iranian, some poor slob called Suleimani. I don’t know what Filkins is smoking or sniffing, but for his own sanity he must change dealers. ‘To save his Iranian empire in Syria and Lebanon, he [Suleimani] has helped fuel a Sunni–Shiite conflict that threatens to engulf the region for years to come…’ Like George W, who was given a history lesson by the Israelis and the neocons in Washington and decided that Saddam’s fall would turn the Middle East into Palm Beach and Monte Carlo combined, our man Filkins has decided that Qassem Suleimani is the bad guy, and if Mossad, say, can get rid of him we shall be going to Damascus and Latakia and Beirut and Hama for the holidays instead of crappy places like Gstaad and Zermatt. The funny thing is, it’s the other way round. The Iranians were helping Bush attack the Taleban after 9/11, then some neocon told Bush that Iran is in the ‘axis of evil’, and you know the rest.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Din Sel

    First time I come accross this “Spectator” website.

    After reading this article, it will also be my last.

    • Sanctimony

      Are you a Sunni, or a Shiite?.. looking at your name, maybe a Dim Sum…

    • monty61

      I don’t think we’ll miss you somehow.

    • Goodbye.

  • It’s a quirk of language, is it not, that Libya is described as being in the Middle East when Tripoli is due south of Rome.

    • panzerwagen

      It is not the geographic location, but the area of turmoil.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    I remember him when he was doing his university bit. I thought he tried very hard, but was unsure of the authenticity of his claims. He was all over the media , once or twice. I do hope he’s OK.

  • Andrew

    I don’t know who this class A drug user ‘taki’ is, but I’ll thank you for not thrusting him into my Sunday again, Spectator. Knowing my luck, casual drug use amongst your writers is the new normal, and something I’ll be forced to accept, like the Queen’s granddaughter simulating sex on camera. Both are tasteless and classless, like the editorial standards in the Spectator it seems. Shame on you all.

    • Kennybhoy

      Amen.

      • Toby Esterházy

        Martin Luther and John Calvin would both be spinning in their graves at your Judophilia!

        • Kennybhoy

          Luther was a mere heresiarch. Calvin was a devil worshiper.

          • Toby Esterházy

            “(Article 8: Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?) I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ’s faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.”—The Second and Revised Translation by the English Province of the Dominicans of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225/1227-1274) (1265-1274), 1920.

          • Kennybhoy

            You really think this supports you in your wickedness?

          • Toby Esterházy

            The Israelites and the Mohammedans are both Infidels, and the Israelites are both Heretics as well as Infidels.

            “(Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?)

            Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): “The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil.” Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle’s command.

            Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): “There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you.” Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

            Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle “to grow until the harvest,” i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

            On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted.”

            I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

            On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

            Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already “subverted,” as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

            Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and “makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully,” as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

            Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), “to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.” A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his “spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.” Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.”

          • panzerwagen

            Nobody is answerable for other’s wrong doings. A man himself can take any path he wants, none can force him. The Prophets and Messengers have come and gone, now it is up to him either to follow a particular religion, or remain an atheist. No skin off anybody’s nose, so long as he does not against the norms of society, decency, or misbehaviour. Every man has the right to choose his own way to Hell.

    • panzerwagen

      This drug thing is just a spoof, a cynical, or a satirical part of the whole of what is written, and should be viewed as tongue in cheek. The gist of the message has nothing to do with drugs or drug users.

    • Fritz123

      I dig his hate for bad drugs immediately and nothing is so insulting than to be ripped of by one of those sons of Allah.

  • Kennybhoy

    Jesus wept (Fraser) Nelson! Mark Steyn or Melanie Phillips cannae get a gig hereabouts but this Jew hating, drunken coke head can…?

    Shame on you! F**k off to the gutter press where you belong!

    • Toby Esterházy

      Her true name is Melanie Philippsohn.

  • FishFlue

    I had to stop reading when the fifth fact (like geography and physics) were suspended in his rant. – none of this was even researched.

  • GenJackRipper

    Jeez, what’s with all the hating among the commentators?

    Taki is brilliant. Shut up and learn.

  • Fritz123

    “Paid fighters from Chechnya and other parts of Europe are committing
    terrible atrocities in northern and eastern Syria, and we’re talking
    about a gentleman with a nice moustache who waved a piece of useless
    paper in an airport long ago.” Whereever they came from, my informer spoke of “experienced streetfighters from Iraq and Afghanistan” who were “liberating” his hometown and he liked it. The Syrians were all cowards. This is not a religious war, it is a game played by the superrich with the help of the superpoor against the Syrian establishment. And when we look closer, count the deaths, Assad father was mucho more humane with his nicenst little butchering of 20.000 in one week. Surprise, surprise!

  • m. altajouri

    Very intertaining! Gives a new face to just-plain-facts journalism. This guy needs to be on BBC America. We would love him here.

Close