|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
London Bombing | from Nick - Wednesday, July 13, 2005
accessed 2481 times What's everyone’s opinion on the recent bombings in London? I personally was furious when I first heard about the bombings. Even though I was deeply saddened at the thought of loss of life and the 700 wounded, I initially had fears that the British people would react the same way as the Spanish.
I have to say I am very proud of the way the British public and Blair handled the situation. They didn’t lash out at the government, they didn’t cry out to give in to the terrorists demands like the Spanish did. They had the same "Don't fuck with us" attitude that won them an empire in the 1'st place and brought out that national pride the same way the US did in 9 11.
I think the Spanish should be ashamed of themselves after seeing the way the Brits are standing up to the terrorists the way they are instead of cowardly giving in to their demands.
On another side, I really hope this is a wake up call to the British BS PC attitude to all Muslims in the UK. Not that I am against Islam in itself, but every time I go home to the UK to visit I am appalled at how far the British people have to go to accommodate these none nationals even to the disrespect of their own culture! It gets worse every time I visit. I mean you cannot even fly the Union Jack over a damn police station because it offends other cultures. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from jez
Monday, August 01, 2005 - 10:50
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I too feel proud of the way my countrymen have reacted in defiance of the terrorists, by carrying on as normal. However, I am very concerned with the potential for human rights abuse, if a poll printed in yesterday's Mail on Sunday (not my paper of choice as I read the Independent) is correct. Purportedly 28% think torture can be justified in the fight against terrorism. WTF?! That, IMO is certainly not 'carrying on as usual'. I felt bad enough when I found myself moving into another carriage on the tube when a blatantly muslim man got on with a massive black bag. But to think that torture could be sanctioned, sends shivers up my spine.
(reply to this comment)
| from In "the most civilized country on earth"
Friday, July 29, 2005 - 15:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Five Shots To The Head For Fashion Mistake
by Chris Floyd. July 24, 2005
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian working in London, walks out of an apartment building being cased by police. The cops don't like the look of his bulky coat, so they come after him. But these are not uniformed officers strolling up to ask him some questions – it's a gang of up to 20 armed undercover agents in plain clothes coming toward him, the BBC reports.
That's right; a foreigner living in London sees a mob of 20 men coming at him, shouting at him to stop, telling him they are the police. What if they're not the police? What if they're a gang of yobs, rightwing hooligans looking to stomp some convenient foreigner? What should he do? He only has a second or two to decide.
He decides: he runs. They chase him into an Underground station – a mob of 20 men with guns. He jumps the ticket counter, runs into the tunnel, tries to hop onto a train, with the gunmen only a couple of steps away. He stumbles, they tackle him. They hold him down and one of them pumps five bullets into his head.
Maybe de Menezes had some other reason to run. Maybe he was involved in some dodgy business. Maybe he had drugs on him. Maybe his work papers weren't in perfect order. Or maybe he just decided that he didn't want to trust in the good will of 20 armed men in plainclothes running at him on a fine English summer morning.
It doesn't matter now. He's dead. And now we know that he wasn't armed, didn't have a bomb, and, according to the police themselves "was not connected in any way" to the recent London bombings. He just wore the wrong coat. He just ran when a gang of men in ordinary clothes told him to stop. He's just another piece of "collateral damage" in the "war on terror."
--------------------
Oh I can hear it now...
(reply to this comment)
|  From one who knows
Friday, July 29, 2005, 17:16
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I think they did the right thing. I've been in the same situation before. The first time it happenned I didn't shoot and I will forever regret it. I applaud the British Police.
We have to remember what could happen if they don't shoot first and that guy just happens to be carrying 20 pounds of explosives. It's a justifiable policy that should remain in effect.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From one who knows
Saturday, July 30, 2005, 18:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the man was given plenty of chances to surrender. He chose to run, and of all places, into a subway station packed with people.
The reason they held him down was to ensure that there would be no stray bullets hitting other passengers, and if he blew himself up that would minimize the blast radius.
Once again I applaud the actions of the Metropolitan Police. Too bad it wasn't a terrorist though.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Sunday, July 31, 2005, 06:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
There appears to be no witnesses that the police shouted or identified himself to the man. They were plain clothed and one witness said he saw the oficer put on a checked hat but that the man had his bak to them, so could not have seen. That area is notorious for robberies!
He left his flat, got on a bus, then made his way to the tube.(Which he did everyday to get to work) Why didn't they get him on the bus?
Why did they say he had on a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier? When this has proved not to be the case.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 30, 2005, 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just because Peter Gasston says so doesn't make it true. The latest reports I've heard state that his visa was 2 years out of date. There is an inquiry into the matter, and in time the 'real facts' will be out.
What I'd like to know is what the Brazilian government is doing to address the very real problem of police killings in their own backyard. Yes, the Met made a mistake, an innocent man was killed, but when you consider the duress that these police were under, in addition to the way that the evidence suggested this man could be a potential suicide bomber, I can understand why they concluded that was the only course of action open to them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Ne Oublie
Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 06:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anyone else hearing about the incidents taking place at Warren St, Oval and Shepherd's Bush? Again, 3 Tube stations and a bus - in Hackney this time.
Apparently - and hopefully - this is not as serious as the attack 2 weeks back.
(reply to this comment)
| From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 22, 2005, 03:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
When will these idiot terrorists learn that us Londoners aren't going to let their antics dictate anything to us? The IRA couldn't pull it off, 7/7 didn't do it either, and no other pranks they pull will ever do it. So next time they're feeling suicidal they can just go and jump off a bridge for all the difference they'll make (I hear there's excess sewage in the Thames at the moment... at least they'd get a familiar welcome).(reply to this comment) |
| | from SPR
Monday, July 18, 2005 - 09:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I think the Spanish should be ashamed of themselves after seeing the way the Brits are standing up to the terrorists the way they are instead of cowardly giving in to their demands."
Mmm, maybe they had a bit more sense. Why the hell must we mask invasions today as "bringing democracy", since when do we have conscience problems about conquering just because one is in a position to do so?
The Spanish realized that they had precious little interest in sticking it out in Iraq, should they stay around just to show how tough they are? The progressive spanish government is one of the few decent ones in Europe at the moment. As any good businessman cafefully calculates risks before taking them, they rightly came to the conclusion that staying in Iraq was not worth it.
It reminds me of that scene in Apocalpse Now Redux, when the French colonialist is explaining how the french army fought to keep Cambodia, and how they had made it their home, burned their bridges, etc. Then he says, "but you americans are fighting for the biggest nothing down here". Why is the US in Iraq? Get the oil, colonialize the that fucking desert, kill those wild arabs, not because you and your apeman president is any more "right" than they are, but because you can. And tell the world, or don't you have the guts?
And that way you can have more all-american martyr heros to make films about, so you can continue to feed your entirely hollywood-fabbricated (lack of) culture. The more fake it is, the more real it becomes, just like magic. Although I hate Europe and feel almost like an imposter here, culture, society and subcultures are so real it hurts, but you posers would never get if you stayed here 20 years, it's all a fucking show to you people, you don't even have a clue as to what "real" or "authentic" is anymore. You never did. At least be real about your motives.
As for the Brits standing up and facing the evil terrorists, anyone would be angry after those attacks, but once the anger subsides the ones to blame will be the politicians who sent off their men on a publicity crusade. You poke at a wasp's nest and get stung, who you gonna blame, silly?
(reply to this comment)
| From Korpesco
Monday, July 18, 2005, 10:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
As societies come together under the blanket of globalisation the very idea of strict culture does become more and more marginalised. Globalisation was perhaps ignited by the British empire and now another empire based in Anglo-saxon culture is continuing and strengthening global intertrade and cross country trade. Even culture is marketable now.
People out of touch with the times or who hang on too narrowly to any one culture will and do feel more and more marginalised in todays world. The backlash is almost predictable and will only increase as certain individuals desperately try to claw back the tide and hold onto their little sand patch of culture as the global, Anglo saxon-led tide of globalisation washes in.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Monday, July 18, 2005, 10:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
It takes moral clarity to forcefully impose the moral liberties of the west on the absolutism of the mideast.
Cross atlantic criticism is really popular these days. America may have fought in vietnam for "nothing" as you put it. But this was part of a pattern of not allowing itself or the world to be pushed over by forces their western ideologies did not agree with. Vietnam, had it been won by america, could have gone on to become another south Korea or Hong - Hong, or Japan or any number of asian success stories that sprung from accepting the western paradigm.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From SPR
Monday, July 18, 2005, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, in this era the most annoying sin is closed-minded cultural elitism, whether it be the Texan white trash or the ignorant French farmer. Or is going into a country on claims that your form of government is better than the one of those you're conquering, thus putting you in a position of moral "right". You like to kill, you want a liberating rampage, you'd like to go on an adventure of a lifetime, then don't whine when you get killed or mutilated. Don't talk to me about heroes then, adventure-seekers, maybe, opportunists, more likely, not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you're way up your ass in leftist intellectualism, a geek, yes, the world needs geeks too, but your meekness makes you no better than anyone else.
To avoid more killing of feeble-minded, but very authentic Europeans in terrorist attacks, if Bush and Blair wanted to go on a hunting safari in Iraq, why did they go in the name of their country? They should've posted newspaper ads around the world, looking for wild okes who looking to escape the drudgery of everyday life.. Make up a silly name, logo and flag and go! Happy hunting !!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From SPR
Monday, July 18, 2005, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, in this era the most annoying sin is closed-minded cultural elitism, whether it be the Texan white trash or the ignorant French farmer. Or is going into a country on claims that your form of government is better than the one of those you're conquering, thus putting you in a position of moral "right". You like to kill, you want a liberating rampage, you'd like to go on an adventure of a lifetime, then don't whine when you get killed or mutilated. Don't talk to me about heroes then, adventure-seekers, maybe, opportunists, more likely, not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you're way up your ass in leftist intellectualism, a geek, yes, the world needs geeks too, but your meekness makes you no better than anyone else.
To avoid more killing of feeble-minded, but very authentic Europeans in terrorist attacks, if Bush and Blair wanted to go on a hunting safari in Iraq, why did they go in the name of their country? They should've posted newspaper ads around the world, looking for wild okes who looking to escape the drudgery of everyday life.. Make up a silly name, logo and flag and go! Happy hunting !!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From SPR
Monday, July 18, 2005, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, in this era the most annoying sin is closed-minded cultural elitism, whether it be the Texan white trash or the ignorant French farmer. Or is going into a country on claims that your form of government is better than the one of those you're conquering, thus putting you in a position of moral "right". You like to kill, you want a liberating rampage, you'd like to go on an adventure of a lifetime, then don't whine when you get killed or mutilated. Don't talk to me about heroes then, adventure-seekers, maybe, opportunists, more likely, not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you're way up your ass in leftist intellectualism, a geek, yes, the world needs geeks too, but your meekness makes you no better than anyone else.
To avoid more killing of feeble-minded, but very authentic Europeans in terrorist attacks, if Bush and Blair wanted to go on a hunting safari in Iraq, why did they go in the name of their country? They should've posted newspaper ads around the world, looking for wild okes who looking to escape the drugdery of everyday life.. Make up a silly name, logo and flag and go! Happy hunting!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Declining Empirialist
Monday, July 18, 2005, 11:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Western paradigm of expansion and growth faces three major limitations over the next 40 years. Within this generation, we will have tapped out the last of the cheap labor markets (India, China & South America). As the expectations of the working class increase with economic growth, more pressure is put on governments to provide education, health care, and disability/old age safety nets. As public services & entitlements increase, taxes rise and profit margins drop. To maintain profit margins, corporations must look for cheaper labor...but alas, the Chinese & Indians & South Americans now expect a living wage and social safety nets and landfills as far as the eye can see for their disposable goods! Well, maybe there's Africa as a final market of cheap labor, but highly doubtful given the AIDS pandemic and environmental devastation in the sub-Sahara. Potable water, you know, is a necessary condition for development. The natural environment is the final barrier to continued expansion and growth beyond another generation or two. We'll reach peak oil production in the next 5 to 25 years, so that the energy that has fueled the agricultural and industrial growth of the last 80 years will no longer be cheap.
The world as we know it will change radically in the next two generations. We might figure out how do sustainable growth. On the other hand, the elites might figure out how to continue holding onto 85% of the resources while the rest of the world descends into chaos.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from
Monday, July 18, 2005 - 09:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/070705terrorcard.htm
The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.
Think about it. The attack only benefits empires desperate to maintain a foothold in the Middle East without further eroding public opinion. Will Parliament shrug their shoulders and push their soldiers into longer tours of duty because of this? Obviously it's too early to tell, but if that happens, insurgents and rebels will have lost more than they could have ever possibly gained in destroying part of the Underground.
Brian Kilmeade of Fox News agrees, claiming the sabotage "works to ... [the] Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together." It doesn't just make "terrorism" an American problem. It makes it a worldwide problem. The Number One problem.
No longer do we need to concern ourselves with two world leaders (who have spawned more worldwide terrorism than any fanatical religious organization) going unquestioned in their lies that started a war. We can cast off our sluggish economies, lack of freedoms and pitiful descent into draconian law. Terror is on the rise.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from
Monday, July 18, 2005 - 08:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3329
It is strange how they all had return tickets, paid they're parking etc. The tube was closed down in parts and they happened to be running a test that very day!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from
Monday, July 18, 2005 - 08:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3329
It is strange how they all had return tickets, paid they're parking etc.
(reply to this comment)
| From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 01:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's not like they needed to save money or anything - the minimal increase in costs was therefore perfectly good value-for-money if it would help ensure the success of their mission, or to arouse less suspicion over their movements.
It would be rather stupid for someone to scupper their own suicide bombing attempt by insisting on saving up 'for their future' and not paying their parking, or buying a ticket that didn't quite get them to their destination.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Mack
Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 16:00
 (Agree/Disagree?)
These attacks give me another reason to do my job and kill people who breed the terrorists. I just returned from Israel where my Marines had a chance to sharpen their killing skills, and I can say the Israelis have the right idea. The US should back them up alot more than they currently do. Kill!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Everyone who has ever spoken to me knows I am not enormously patriotic (I still intend to emigrate eventually!). The London bombings effected me in different ways. Firstly, i was shocked by the degree of civic spirit displayed by the public in response. I did not realise that in this day and age, one might be able to expect passers-by and even survivors to act as altruistically as they did. I always imagined that in the event, that what would follow would resemble hillsborough, in which the dead were looted by the crowd. Also, the public response towards the moslem community has been relatively (with few exceptions) exemplary. If I am permitted to be proud of my heritage then it is in moments like this, in which the liberal traditions of Britain have not been shed but remain steadfast and even strengthened under fire.
On the other hand, the political response has been victim to recurrent and repetitive displays of what I feel is pointless rhetoric. Blair comes on telly an says that the objective of the terrorists is to destroy our way of life, which is then repeated by Ken Livingstone, and subsequently every Tom, Dick & Harry who appears on telly. We are nothing in this country if not willing slaves to the media.
As far as PC BS is concerned, this conutry is indeed a victim of a lot of noisesome crap, but this does not merely concern the Moslem population. Con-conformists and/or social malcontents in this country are always more than happy to cry unfair treatment or police brutality in a country whose police and civil service are considerably less heavy-handed than in the rest of Europe. Our policemen will never fire over the heads of crowds as in Belgium, and our schools would never ban the Hejab as in France.
Islam is admittedly a faith whose less educated followers have fallen prey to greater levels of fanaticism, but anyone who completely dismisses the faith as the unquestionable progenitor of such extremism knows nothing of it. When one explores the essential tenets of the original ideology one is compelled to conclude that in its originality Islam was undoubtedly the most enlightened of the Judeo-Christian faiths, with strong emphasis on criticism, analysis, and logic. Their actual concept of God has arguably greater intellectual credibility than either Christianity or Judaism.
One should point out that Britain has not only a large Moslem community but also a strong Moslem clergy which is considerably more diverse than the representation of madmen like Abu Hamsa. Talk to any Moslem Cleric and 99% of the time you will find as much distaste for the actions of Al Qaeda as any non-Moslem.
Furthermore, one must also consider the social ramifications of this event. most of these young men are Moslems from Leeds, and anyone who's been to the north knows the enormous comparative difference in demarcation between communities next to the south. To me it seems partially redundant to speak of an attempt to destroy our way of life (as pointless as that statement is in any case). These young men have lived our way of life for the entirety of their lives. To me their actions must underly something darker an uglier. These men chose not only to plant their bombs but to allow themselves (completely unnecesarily) to be killed in the blasts. The logic of such an action may have credence to suicide bombers in the occupied territories, but it makes little sense here (of course, it would not in any case). Like the young Palestinian Moslems who do the same in Jerusalem or Gaza, these men must have felt driven to this action by something marginally more powerfull than religious rhetoric. The only comparison this country has ever experienced is the PIRA, whose conduct was very different and who always went to extreme lengths to ensure they were neither anywhere near danger nor left any residuous evidence. Suicide bombing is one of the most powerful personal statements a person can make, and cannot be merely dismissed as religious fanaticism.
I feel personally that the subconscious motivations of these misguided souls was a simple rejection and cry of rage against an increasigly sanitized world in which they were marginalised and alienated. It should come as no surprise that the perpetrators were not only young males but that they were black and Pakistani, two social groups whose young men are demonised and consistently stereotyped. As globalisation continues it engulfment of planet earth, I feel sure that events of this kind will continue to increase in frequency and scale. As J.G. Ballard puts it: In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
(reply to this comment)
| From cool8pack
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 11:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wrote:I feel personally that the subconscious motivations of these misguided souls was a simple rejection and cry of rage against an increasigly sanitized world in which they were marginalised and alienated. It should come as no surprise that the perpetrators were not only young males but that they were black and Pakistani, two social groups whose young men are demonised and consistently stereotyped. As globalisation continues it engulfment of planet earth, I feel sure that events of this kind will continue to increase in frequency and scale. As J.G. Ballard puts it: In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
You my friend are just another paralyzed leftie with a warped sense of socialiation - maybe that comes from growing up in TF I presume . This barborous act has absolutly nothing to do with being socially misaligned. It does not take rocket science to check out history and a good look of the map today and see that the Muslim/Islamic culture/religion is as evangelical as any other exremist/fundamental ideaology that speads is goals thru the sword. Everywhere they creep into they carve out a place on the map, do not integrate, do not adopt the local cultures, and then wave the white flag of human rights. From the Philippines, to Papua New Guinea to Southern Thailand, to Bosnia to Bradford to Leeds. Their's my friend is a world domination program. If u hv time pls check ' The Death of Europe ' on the internet. Ha! And they are the AAC's - what a joke that was!!!
If all other religions behaved the same and reacted with indiscriminate violince the world would be on fire. The hindus of india would be bombing all over pakistan and bangladesh. The buddhists of the world would be attacking chinese and muslim targets worldwide. The native americans would be bombing all over the usa. The christians of sudan and armenia would be blowing up arabs and muslims worldwide - the list is endless. The muslim world has to take responsibilty for the elements within their communities and what is being taught by segments of their world that is producing the terrorists and violince if they are preaching the superiority of islam to all other faiths and consequently justifying their indiscriminate acts of terror surely this is at the root of the problem ---- shalom --- it all comes down to culture. Can u imagine the Christian world if they never came out of the 'ol testament 'eye 4 an eye' understanding
Again you wrote:
Islam is admittedly a faith whose less educated followers have fallen prey to greater levels of fanaticism, but anyone who completely dismisses the faith as the unquestionable progenitor of such extremism knows nothing of it. When one explores the essential tenets of the original ideology one is compelled to conclude that in its originality Islam was undoubtedly the most enlightened of the Judeo-Christian faiths, with strong emphasis on criticism, analysis, and logic. Their actual concept of God has arguably greater intellectual credibility than either Christianity or Judaism.
To this sir I say - crock 'o shit. Yes - they gave us numbers!! Cool! The Chinese gave us paper and fireworks... Almost every Muslim nation is backward, treat their women like dogs and have not advanced along with the rest of the world. A strange thot is, almost any country in the world that is wealthy today gives their women equal rights which they deserve in the the home and socially(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Monday, July 18, 2005, 02:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is possibly no way for me to respond to the ignorant crap you have just conveyed in any fully emotionally descriptive way.
I just had an old mate killed in the Basra area of Iraq, dickhead. His wife and kids were were crying on the television. This is something that has effected me personally as well. Understand that when I respond to your shit.
Firstly, I have worked with far too many good, decent and intelligent Moslem men and women, some of whom were under uniform (yes, Moslems do serve their home countries). The men who carried out these acts of violence are not men whom i can assume to know or understand completely, but the communities from whence they hail are BRITISH communities. Their parents are OWED an enormous debt. Walk around any of those neigbourhoods, talk to the older generation of men, and you will find another series of old warriors. These did not fight ji'had, or tribal wars. They will show you their medals and decorations. Thousands of them served (as volunteers) in the second world war. They live in a society in which they, unlike their white counterparts, they do not feel confortable to wear their history in the same manner as their white counterparts, especially in the northern areas. Yet they remain all the same. Furthermore, only a complete moron (like you) would even begin to ignore the contributions of the moslem community in this country. You whose understanding of global politics is derived from the media may imagine that they exclusively exist as cornershop owners and take-away houses, but that is because you (like an admittedly comparative number of people) choose to ignore that the moslem community in this country are among the most academically over-achieving.
I am insulted because these Moslems whom you seem so ready to ostracize are as far as I am concerned (and as far as they themselves are concerned) are British. Even those who engage in this insanity will, when pressed, admit that that is who they are. Their progeny may suffer from a disproportionate degree of fanaticism, the white working class in this country seems hell-bent on procreating a disproportionate number criminals (if the media is to be believed); The Irish Catholic community has (it appears) furnished the population will the motherlode of its male paedopliles (if statistics are to be believed).
In it's original conception, Islam was arguably the enlightened of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Their original concept of God was not the anthropomorphic manifestation found contemporarily. The closest thing to icnonography in a mosque is the geometric patterns found on the doors. This is because in the original thought, God was an idea not manifested in the form of traditional deity, but in every instance in which one finds mathematical success in nature. Needless to say, this idea was quite far ahead of any developments in Europe at this time.
Al Qaeda's notion of Ji'had is a gross misrepresentation of moslem law. Ji'had is intended to be called only in instances in which one's homeland is violated (Which the factor that makes what these men just did wholly irreconcilabe to most honest moslem clerics). By moslem law a moslem army in a foreign land is meant to follow an unusually strict code of discipline, in which they must pay for everything they use and can't ut down trees.
Moslem mistreatment of women is irreconcileably a pervertion of decency. But (at least in this country) Moslem women are not forced en masse to assume ninja-garb. In fact, their is no point in the Q'uran that commands the enforced dress-code imposed by the Taliban and other extemist groups. The actual original idea was an (obviously simplistic) attempt to give women a level of dignity and equality at a time in which they were objectified and debased to a degree even in excess to which they are now. All that is happened is that groups of people simply refuse to evolve. This may create pockets of ignorance in the world, but (and this is the point, because these offences were perpetrated by indegenous people) in this country they are just that: pockets. The greate number of moslem women in this country are busy dealing with the same ammount of inequality as is suffered by the rest of the female population. They enjoy the same rights and are legally accorded the same treatment. Perhaps their are elements among the male numbers of their communities who continue to think that the mistreatment of women is justified, but this is not unlike the behaviour of working class white males in the northern areas of England or in Scotland.
Whatever motivated these men to do what they just did was not the Moslem community form whence they came, and whom they also harmed (there were moslem victims as well).
Fanatical rhetoric is on the rise among male moslem youth in this country, and the Moslem leadership in Britain do need to confront this issue, but at the same time we in Britain choose not to alienate an entire community for the sake of a margin. The past few days have been among the few in my life in which I have been truly proud to be British, because if anything, the incidents of 7/7/05 have forced our community closer together. Perhaps it has forced the Moslem intellectual and social leadership to confront the issues of their wayward youth. In any case the result is that (bar a few ignorant miscreants) we as a nation are probably strengthened in term of national solidarity than almost anytime previously. We leftie liberals appear less than willing to discard the priviledges which we enjoy in this country. Or maybe we choose not think that our society consists only of those we wish it to consist of. Those women you speak of whose rights are violated are MOSLEM women, and many if not most will retain and defend their heritage. alienating them and their community will do them absolutely no favours.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 05:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I agree with you in your effort to avoid stereotyping and alienating muslims I also feel that some of your statements perhaps emotionally over-embelish their virtues in order to make this point. Your statement that the islam idea of God was "quite far ahead of developments in europe" isn't an objective fact and can be bantered this was and that depending on which angle and interpretation you use.
I should like to point out two things, as far as the Christian is concerned. The Christian recognizes in the human nature of Christ the perfect expression in human terms of the incomprehensible Godhead, and he learns from Christ how to think about God. But at the same time it is certainly no part of the Christian religion to say that God himself can adequately be comprehended by the human mind. And that He cannot be so comprehended seems to the rational mind to be at once a truth vital to religion, in the sense that it prevents the degrading of the concept of God, a truth which follows necessarily from the fact that our own knowledge begins from sense experience. In this manner we humanize the incomprehensible and do not suggest that anything more than analogical concepts drawn from sense experience can be comprehended.
Not that this is any more "ahead" of the islamic religion...it is just a different angle of religious expression.
The difference is that the west slowly moved out and away from religious absolutism and more and more into individual freedom while the islamic world, regardless of its golden age, stayed on a different plane of developement, both economically and socially.
I have to be honest with myself and say that despite wanting to tolerate muslims I am prejudiced and do view the spread of absolutism in any form, be it Muslim, Christian or political with suspicion. I have a nagging thought in the back of my mind that if muslims spread their culture it will eventually undermine the institutions of individual freedoms and responsiblity now intrinsic to the west. Simple freedoms like not feeling pressure to remain a muslim and being free to choose ones path individually without tremendous parental and/or cultural pressure. Perhaps this pressure helps them achieve high marks in academics but does their life have the same freedom of expression I value? Or am I showing tolerance for intolerance to my secular culture values?
As for the social privileges I enjoy I must ask myself if i am too satisfied with the status quo in order to make the changes necessary to preserve it.
In the evolutionary battle for hedgemony of ideas I will attempt to marginalise those which go against or compete with my own..this is human nature. This means that while I wish to tolerate muslim culture I will react negatively if I feel that its ideology and culture will try and supplant my own.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 18, 2005, 08:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Blair doesn't need these attacks to win him the ID card - it's the fact that our compatriots voted Labour a clear mandate, coupled with the effective techniques of the Labour Whip, that won him the last vote, our last chance of defeating it is to convince more Labour ministers to vote their conscience - time for you Labour voters to start putting your elected officials to work.
I'm glad to say my Tory MP voted with her party against the ID card bill! Hopefully with new stronger leadership to come the Tories will be able to more effectively counter Labour's monopoloy in the House of Commons.
Lucky that we've still got the House of Lords, who so far have been more representative of the average Briton than our elected representatives - it's no wonder Tony Blair is hell-bent on ridding himself of this last threat to his power. I think that the fundamental concept of a Life (and even hereditary) Peer is such as to provide the perfect counter-balance to the populist vote-seeking officials. They have nothing to lose and so can make informed and well-thought decisions, free from lobby groups or wealthy donors.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conjoined twins
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
regarding women - which culture treats their women like dogs? look at how women are portrayed in both men's and women's magazines in western culture - pure objects to be classified and picked over. feminism lost.
On the other hand moslem women in this country are highly educated - I was a classroom assistent for a day and I saw how the moslem girls were the only one's paying any attention to the lesson......education is the way to win the only freedom that's real - wisdom.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ack
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 12:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
You make some excellent points. Lucid, intelligent, bravo! I wouldn't minimize the monumental contribution of the arabic numeric system, and the colosal contribution of the number zero. I do have to point out that arabs were using those characters long before islam came along, so the credit cannot go to them (muslims).(reply to this comment) |
| | from mia1
Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 17:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
oh yeah one more thing...ack
why with all the racist slurs on some of the posts here??? I mean like we are one to talk. Most of us have had the "benifit" of growing up in other countries and experiencing different cultures first hand....yeah the family sucked, but shouldn't we be a bit more opened-minded? Yes, there are a lot of wack people out there but that isn't all. I think it's cruel to group people together as one thing, you're giving no room for error. Being of an ethnic minority myself I know firsthand what it's like to be discriminated against even though mostly it was for an ethnic group I didn't belong too. Regardless of what race you belong too, people all over are being victimized by terrorist and instead of laying the blame on this or that we should be more mindful of what our own countries are doing to maybe cause what is happening.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 03:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Once again you display a blatant ignorance on the topic of which you are mouthing off! There are 60 million Britons, which makes us a minority as compared to:
China
India
USA
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Russia
Nigeria
Japan
Mexico
Philippines
Vietnam
Germany
Egypt
Ethiopia
Turkey
Iran
Thailand
and even France!
Now I don't know what your definition of a minority is, but I can assure you that if any race qualifies the whites would be in with a good case.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Nosepicker
Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 01:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shoot all the fanatical christians, the fanatical moslems, and the fantical hindus, and the fantical jews, along with the fantical cog.
Let their "god"'s sort each out. Let them all go to their respective "afrterlife".
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from The
Friday, July 15, 2005 - 14:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
The british have been through the IRA bombings for decades.
(reply to this comment)
| from frmrjoyish
Friday, July 15, 2005 - 13:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree, Nick. I think their attitude has been brave and inspiring. The best thing to do is go about our lives and reject the fear that terrorists try to incite. Good Luck to everyone. I hope none of us that live over there were hurt or injured. Does anyone know?
(reply to this comment)
| from cool8pack
Friday, July 15, 2005 - 00:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wrote:
Let me ask you a question; Have you ever wondered why the rest of the world holds you british somewhere between mild disgust, and a slight mockery? It's cause you're collectively delusional, you think the world owes you something beyond what you've stolen over the centuries. (and you have bad teeth?). So you had an empire, it ended with a bald man who starved himself. Get over it already.
Get ur facts right before you slander. Under the British Empire there was much more fair trade with 3rd world countries benefiting than there has been rivaled to date - meaning benefiting Africa and the poor third world. Study Nial Ferguson's fantastic book 'Empire'. Documented factual historical evidence. May I add also that 'no' the world does not hold Brits in gisgust/contempt for 'robbing' them. The British, while pompous at the time, installed the basics of business and trade and the rule of law that remains intact to date to an uncivilised world at the time, brought prosperity and world trade to most of the known world. Take India before the British garrisson there expanded itself to the size of an army for it's own protection against a ruling, barbaric Mogul (Islamic) ruler. India before the British was not ruled by Indians. By the time of the 2nd world war came, look at all the ugly alternatives to 'ugly(?)' British rule - The Japs and Germans. The Japs trying to take Asia and look at the carnage left behind them and not to mention the Germans and their systematic extermination of races. Not without its mistakes, no one is, but I would far prefer to live under the security and protection of good government though foreign than revert to that of a Mugabe-style, home-grown chaos who is now pillaging his own. I think anyone British should be mildly proud of their history and the many positive attributes left instilled, and adopted, embraced by most 'colonized' cultures around the globe from the US to the islands of the Pacific. The Brits unfortuantly have been drawn into this guilt complex of embarresment over their past, now are just too tolerant and self-effacing which allows and tolerates to their their own dimise a multi-ethnic culture with a too open-door policy of asylum.
(reply to this comment)
| From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 15, 2005, 01:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whether or not one admits the modernisation and many benefits enjoyed by the former colonies while under British rule, one thing you can't deny is that without the British empire English as a language would not be so widely spread, meaning that the current volume of information we currently have access to would simply not be possible due to language restrictions. Also, had those colonies not been exposed to both the language and culture they would not have progressed to the state they are at now - indeed, far more Africans, Middle Easterns and Asians would still be living in poverty and cultural incarceration in their little agrarian villages, instead of taking jobs in English-speaking call-centres, or as IT workers.
So, before you go re-writing history to suit your self-flaggelating agenda (or are you suddenly no longer a Brit?) why don't you take an objective look at what the world would be like if our ancestors hadn't 'ruled the waves'. On balance, I find no reason to be ashamed of my British heritage, so I'm not going to start with the self-hate because of a couple idiots who blew themselves - along with 50+ others - after having been granted the privilege of residence and citizenship in our nation.(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 13:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nobody is asking for self hate, just perhaps some introspection. Something you people are either incapable of, or, and this is more likely, just traditionally averse to. And when one of your compatriots does begin to ask the hard questions, what is your first reaction? Well, scroll up and see for yourself. You challenge her patriotism. Shall we quote Goering again?
Those were home grown terrorists btw. Born and raised. Of Pakistani decent for sure, but born and raised just a little ways from London. (Pakistan, a country founded by Britain).
Perhaps you should take a look at what sort of community harbours the schools of thought that enable this sort of murderous dementia. You could comunicate your findings to your MP. Really make a differece you know...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 13:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your country would never have had to end slavery if it hadn't begun with the practice in the first place, so stuff that. And what's this "sacrifice" talk? Poor martyrous saint Britain fought tooth and nail to keep her empire. Still does to this day. Anyone remember Ireland? Scotland? Faulkland islands? Cayman? Bermuda? Etc. et al. Spare us the self serving drivel.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 10:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are probably one of the most ill-informed historical commentators \i have ever heard on this website.
The sheer stupidity of your first statement is so blatant that I hardly feel the need to scrutinize it. Secondly, The body-count would have been incomparably higher had we actually made the kind of retentive effort that other colonial powers made to keep their territories. There is no Dien Bien Phu in British 20th century history. There is no Algerian insurgency in British 20th century history. While the other powers clung tooth and toenail to retain their holdings , the British quietly and relatively peacefully walked away from ours, or if we were involved in violence, we usually won - Aden, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, etc., etc.. Northern Ireland may be an ugly exception to that standard. Somehow I'm not sure how much of Ferguson's work you actually read. The British empire was built on economic pragmatism, and when it ceased to be profitable it was jettisoned. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Baxter
Monday, July 18, 2005, 02:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I take absolutely no pride in the memory of the empire, being that it was a parasytic development, an act of global rape as far as I am concerned. But it was a commercial entreprise from whence evolved an entirely different and wholly abhorrent animal. it was this monster which we shed post WW2 and unlike France, Italy or Germany, our lebestraum was merely greed not pride of conquest or show of military virility. The British have usually been able to minimize their involvements in protracted war unless it was absolutely necessary. The point was, we walked away from our empire instead of kicking and screaming, and when we left them our colonies were in far better order than those of other countries (including yours -look at the Philipines). This is not to imply that they din't suffer post-independence. THE post war colonialists have certainly done their damage, but they did so without the benefit of official national sanction. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 18, 2005, 03:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
The British Empire cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be described as parasitic! The definition of parasite is an organism draws benefit from another without returning benefit of some sort. The British Empire, for all it's failings most certainly benefitted the colonies - take a look at the fact that most former colonies are now voluntarily a part of the Commonwealth, some of whom even joining once they realised the benefits they could draw from this last vestige of the British empire.
In addition to globalisation and spread of the English language (which together have had immeasurable significance in global modernisation), the Brits built up the infrastructure of their colonies (there is a marked difference in the quality of services - many of which have barely been upgraded since the end of the empire - of former British colonies, and companies of a comparable geographic or economic status). They also brought education, with many of the top learning institutions in those countries still being those that were established by the Britishers.
Even politically - while their cartographic and king-making skills were sometimes lacking - what they did leave behind were modern-style governments, not always purely democratic, but with parliaments and functional services. Considering the political hierarchy prior to British involvement, I think all will agree that it was a marked improvement and progression on the path to democracy. The British empire also provided their former colonies with professional armies of an international standard.
So, yes, we did go and 'stick our noses' in others' territories - but the areas we entered were primarily feuding tribal territories which had progressed little (if at all) in the preceeding centuries, and we left behind governments, nations and economies which were (and are) able to compete in the modern global marketplace.
These are NOT parasitic characteristics!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Korpesco
Friday, July 15, 2005, 14:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Incorrect, Britain not only stopped practicing the slave trade herself but also stopped the traffic of all the other nations who tried and continue long after it had become passe in britain. This list includes france, holland, the USA, and the arab world.
In fact at one stage the greater part of the navy was involved in this.
Furthermore Britain never fought "tooth and toenail" to keep her empire. In fact she gave it away sometimes too readily.
Canada and Australia were granted a degree of autonomy around the turn of the century and after the 2nd world war Britain readily gave independence to those who asked. The ease and fancy footwork of diplomacy done by the british is still marvelled at when we compare it to the costly wars fought by france and portugal in places like vietnam, algeria, and guinea bissau.
The falkland war was only fought because its citizens desired to be part of britain. This honoured the UN right to self autonomy.
Its interesting how you mention Scotland as in contrast to other nations the degree of devolution occuring in britain far exceeds any other EU nation. British usually support self determination and diversity.
And yes, poor martyrous Britain had the choice to allow Hitler and keep her empire or fight him and loose it. A phyrric victory .. a glorious demise few nations can emulate.
True the USA and Britain are imperial by nature but again i ask you ... any better alternatives to fill the power vacuum if they never had existed?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 18:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
"...after the 2nd world war Britain readily gave independence to those who asked. " - Let's just pause here for a second. You seem to forget, or, (more than likely) deliberately ignore the fact that much of England and most of London was rubble thanks to the Nazi's right about that time. Not the best footing to be trying to preserve an empire. You may adopt a self sacrificial tone about the whole thing, but nobody's buying.
I think you should run along now, I think I hear Blair filling a trough you don't want to be at the back of the sheeple line, all the best tasting lies are at the front.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 15, 2005, 23:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
ack, Blair espouses the same self-hating propaganda that you so readily spew in here, so if anyone's feeding from his trough, it'd be you!
Now, let's get our history straight - yes, London was bombed during WW2, but the important thing is that it SURVIVED the Blitz without losing an ounce of morale, and our troops went on to kick Axis ass, along with our Allies. An interesting (if not eerie) coincidence is that on 7 July the morning papers printed newly-released maps showing the damage that was done to London during the bombing, and you know what? While there was indeed extensive damage, the majority of the city survived - as is clearly visible to anyone who's visited central London and seen the tremendous wealth of historic architecture that comprises this global hub.(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Saturday, July 16, 2005, 00:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, obviously London survived, (thanks to us hated americans. BTW, I have relatives who fought to save you stuck up bastards. But my guess is you still think we owe you something). It doesn't take a blind man to see that. And yes, it is eerie how many disturbing "coincidences" continue to pop up in relation to this bloodfest our leaders are so gleefully orchestrating.
"ack, Blair espouses the same self-hating propaganda that you so readily spew in here, so if anyone's feeding from his trough, it'd be you!" - LMFAO! Nice try, but no dice. You must think everyone is a complete idiot if you think you can turn it around with grade school rhetoric like that. ;D Don't feel too bad about it, it does have some comedic value.
Um, there's nothing self hating about me. In fact, I like me quite a lot. So... no. Not a self hater. Again, nice try.
Reading comprehention is a subject you must have had quite a lot of trouble with. Still have, if we're to judge by your nonsensical regurgitations. But oh, if life were just that simple. Poor, poor little Oublie, ne? I don't expect you to ever admit to being the ignorant boob you obviously are, but I wonder if you'll ever snap out of it long enough to die of embarrasment.
I can't imagine the gargantuan bliss you must live in, your ignorance is so monumental. (And dare I say, deliberate?) You're Sheeple!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From ack
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 01:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's great that you feel proud of who you are, seeing as you have no other option. What exatcly are you proud of, the randomness of who banged and knocked up whom?
There's no argument that the world is what it is thanks to Britain, unbridled greed and terrorism included.That's right, it's the whole enchilada or nothing. Your nation stuck it's nose where it didn't belong and got it whaked! It's too bad for those who were hurt, I am against violence, all violence, whether perpetrated by middle eastern terrorists or british/american ones.
As far as the most civil, fair, tolerant (lol, couldn't get through that one with a straight face), don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Korpesco
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 08:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Im also against violence ack but I am not in denial. It is a part of human nature. Competition and the dynamic of greed breeds progress. The important thing is that everyone is given ample opportunity.
Actually the British empire saw more fair trade with undeveloped nation than what we see today. The general global outlook,global trade and increased tolerance in diversity of culture and religion is also a byproduct left over from the british empire. Today the anglo sceptre has gone to america.
Sticking its nose where it didnt belong"..lol..so tell me then where you believe the proverbial noses should be?
I look at almost every nation Britain "stuck her nose" into and then think ..who would have had their nose in there if the British hadn't...the alternatives are never appealing.
You see human nature is such that a vacuum of power will always be filled and one can only hope that it is filled with the best of all possible options.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from David.M
Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 23:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well hell! I am against Islam and Christianity. Damn them! I look at it as a "love the sinner but hate the sin", not that I believe in sin itself cause thats religious BS. Those religions will be deleted from this earth one day...nothing to worry about. Its already happening, slowly but surely.
I say that the US should pull out of the east once and for all but if they ever fuck with the west no matter if its terrorists or not than we should just send them an A-bomb and get it all over with and send their islamic asses to hell!
There is a great need for new parking spaces and disneylands etc.
Seriously now, our main enemy Nr1 is ISLAM. That is what we need to fight against first of all. The rest will take care of its self.
(reply to this comment)
| from Haunted
Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 21:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, terrorism has nothing to do with the majority of those who believe in Islam. Of course we accept them,we accept you red-neck christian-types and you have to deal with us pansy-tree hugging types. Acceptance for any specific religion has nothing to do with this. That is a completely ignorant point of view.
And I say this with much love.....
(reply to this comment)
| from ack
Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
The attack on London represents a brutal attempt to coral the British population behind accepting the introduction of the national ID card, renewing support for the war on terror and reinvigorating trust in a government that had the backing of less than 15 per cent of the country.
Even at this very early stage it is clear that the evidence points to inside involvement.
The statement on a website from an unknown Al-Qaeda group claiming responsibility is exactly what we'd expect after such an event. Santa Claus could post a message saying he was responsible for the attack, does that make it so? Rupert Murdoch's Sky News are busy playing Al-Qaeda training videos with masked militants jumping through flaming hoops. The emotive propaganda is clear, these images are being linked in montages with past images of 9/11, the Bali bombing and the Madrid bombing and injured people crying in the streets.
Even if the police and government back away from the Al-Qaeda claim, which now appears to be the case, pro-establishment Neo-Con media outlets will repeat it like an endless drumbeat until it sinks in.
The key evidence thus far is as follows.
Original Associated Press and Israeli radio reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli Prime Minister received a warning before the first explosion that an attack was about to take place. Scotland Yard passed on a warning to the Israeli embassy who forwarded it to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was due to make a speech at a Hotel adjacent to the site of the first blast. He cancelled the speech and remained in his hotel room.
Arutz Sheva sourced Army Radio with the following.
"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."
For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight?
Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.
Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.
About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. It seems as if they are scrambling to co-ordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.
Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?
On June 7th, MI5 downgraded the London terror alert from its second highest level “severe general” to a lower category of “substantial”.
Why did they do this, was somebody lowering the guard?
The timing of the attack is very suspicious, coming on the heels of the start of the G8 conference. Both Tony Blair and George Bush in their speeches have tried to paint the attack as an assault on globalization and the G8 itself. This means that if you're against the G8 and globalization, then you're with the terrorists! It's a tried and tested method they've used time and time before.
In any crime you look at history and motive, The British government has been caught in multiple examples of carrying out bombings in London which were then blamed on the IRA. They even had one of their own MI5 agents wihin the Omagh bomb squad. .
The British government has also been caught scripting fake terror alerts for political effect. Days before the Queen's speech notable November speech in which she first introduced ID card legislation, ITN news correspondants and government lobbyists got together to cook up a fake terror alert involving planes attacking Canary Wharf. A London Independent article later exposed this as a crass psy-op campaign to get the British people behind the ID card.
From Putin blowing up his own apartment buildings to Israel being behind Hamas, the evidence is consistently clear that large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.
The Madrid train bombing is another example. The bombers were found to be police informants with close links to the Spanish security services. They had access to the most secure areas of the Madrid train system. The Spanish government initially tried to blaim the Basque group ETA for the blast in the hope that the people would rally behind the government and get them re-elected. After ETA denied involvement and the people started saying the government was involved, the Spanish government had to blame Al-Qaeda and kill some patsies by claiming they blew themselves up during a raid.
The wider agenda will become clearer when Blair firmly points the finger at the selected patsies designated to take the fall. But for the moment he's happy to grandstand as the courageous leader who immedately returned to London to take control of the chaos.
BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?
(reply to this comment)
| From new zealander
Friday, July 15, 2005, 21:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
New Zealand Herald | July 10 2005
Comment: Although there were initial rumours of this in the early hours of the aftermath, we have seen no other reports detailing this at all.
A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.
The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).
Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said.
He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.
Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.
Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.
Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 15, 2005, 23:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
The bulk of the British media is fiercely Left-Wing, which is one reason Blair has managed to maintain his popularity levels - Conservatives would simply not be allowed the scope that our media affords this Labour government (despite the fact that New Labour can hardly be described as socialist).
No, our media is not heavily censored - even (ironically) the BBC which is a state-sponsored network, and yet has been significantly critical of government policies of late.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Friday, July 15, 2005, 13:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
....and here come the conspiracy theories.....
This ridiculousness just deflects from the real problem here. Yes, radical subsets of Islam are responsible for the brutal murder of so many people. Yes, the US and British foreign policies are in part, I said IN PART, responsible for the conditions that breed and feed terrorism. There is no black and white, no good and bad.
Just because the US does some shitty things doesn't give some stupid mulah the right to blow up innocent people. And just because some stupid mulah blows up innocent people doesn't give a buck tooth brit and a dumb american cowboy wannabe the right to lie to the world in order to start a war.
People need to wake up and demand more of their leaders! Despite their lies and the debacle in Iraq both countries re-elected them, although at least here in the US the margin was very slim. Then maybe we can talk seriously about solving this terrorism problem.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From a Londoner
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 16:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
So, what is your point then? Or are you just plagiarising others' rants for the sake of it? You know what, OF COURSE the British (& American) governments knew that there would be an attack on the London transport network - I knew that! It is the obvious target for any wannabe terrorist. But you know something else I know, it is impossible for any government to prevent every terrorist attack - 3 million passengers a day use the Tube network alone, not to mention the busses and mainline rail services, at least half of the passengers are carrying luggage that could conceivably carry explosives, so what are they going to do? Search every passenger as we get onto the train?
As for lowering the security alert level - first of all, if they hadn't, and nothing had happened you'd be accusing them of excessive scare-mongering, so there really is no way to please you. That said, neither the attacks in NY or Madrid were carried out on the occasion of significant global events, so who's to say that an event taking place in another country (yes, Gleneagles is in Scotland, while London is in England) would be the fatal trigger this time around?
In the end, I am proud of the way that the Emergency Service and London Transport staff handled themselves and the situation. It is because the efforts of these individuals, and the British public as a whole, that the casualties were kept so low comparatively.
I don't want to see my government manipulating this event to their own ends, but equally I don't care for idiots to manipulate the retelling of events to explain some far-fetched conspiracy. The attacks that were carried out in London would have happened whether or not we had participated in the war in Iraq - they would simply have found some other (equally irrelevant) reason to justify their actions. The fact of the matter is that blame for terrorism lies with the terrorist alone. No matter how 'just' one may consider their 'cause' to be, they lose any shred of moral standing by rationalising acts such as these.
Anyhow, thanks to the efficiency of our police, we now know who was responsible for the attacks, and, were the cowards still alive they would soon find themselves in custody and facing British justice. In closing, before you attempt to tell me what the British people are thinking, might I recommend that you actually make the effort to listen to them?(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 16:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
This was repost. From a briton no less... this is YOUR coutryman's opinion. So shut the fuck up!
Yes , yes, firemen, police, doctors, the're all heroes... I get it, blah blah blah, you sound like CNN after 9/11... spare me.
Let me ask you a question; Have you ever wondered why the rest of the world holds you british somewhere between mild disgust, and a slight mockery? It's cause you're collectively delusional, you think the world owes you something beyond what you've stolen over the centuries. (and you have bad teeth?). So you had an empire, it ended with a bald man who starved himself. Get over it already.
Finally, no where did anyone rationalize the terrorist action. It's deplorable. It's also deplorable to throw around unfounded accusations to the tune of "if you don't agree with me, than you support terrorism"<---(please read in a whiny british Blair accent, or a G.W. Bush twang).
What fucking cloud do you live on? One suggestion? Get your union jack print panties out of a bunch.
Oh yes, preach it brother! Here it comes, the paradigm of british morality! Jesus fucking christ, gaaaag.
"...were the cowards still alive they would soon find themselves in custody and facing British justice." -which I'm sure is far worse than blowing ones self up with a home made bomb! Bozo. I can see why you're so quick to label others as idiots... you can well identify with the role.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really don’t know why I am bothering to reply to this brainless post at all, but here goes.
You have got to be a complete idiot to try and suggest that the British Gov had anything to do with those bombings. Your just as stupid as those dim-witts in the fam that thought everything was a conspiracy or was the Jews fault.
You said "The attack on London represents a brutal attempt to coral the British population". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The bombings don’t “represent” anything. They were terrorist attacks. Simple as that.
There was not sinister plot behind the attacks to use them to sway public opinion to any political cause including the war on terror. Just because you don’t agree with the government that doesn’t mean that you can spout off unfounded, ludicrous and unpatriotic gibberish and claim it as fact. Gezuz! Get a life!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Phoenixkidd
Friday, July 15, 2005, 16:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hate Muslims! There I said it....I speak from some experience having lived in the largest muslim country in the world for quite sometime, and I don't believe much of the bible, but the adage seems true and seems like a good proprietor for life...."By their fruits, ye shall know them"! Ummm that means every gun touting, bomb-wearin, Allah Praisin, 5 time-a-day-prayin, shawl-wearin, lungi-wearin, turbanor headress wearin, hot head NEEDS TO HEAR and take notice of what this freaky religion does to people!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Phoenixkidd
Friday, July 15, 2005, 16:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hate Muslims! There I said it....I speak from some experience having lived in the largest muslim country in the world for quite sometime, and I don't believe much of the bible, but the adage seems true and seems like a good proprietor for life...."By their fruits, ye shall know them"! Ummm that means every gun touting, bomb-wearin, Allah Praisin, 5 time-a-day-prayin, shawl-wearin, lungi-wearin, turbanor headress wearin, hot head NEEDS TO HEAR and take notice of what this freaky religion does to people!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 13:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
There was never a question about the identity of the bombers. ID cards would have been irrelevant in either preventing or solving the crime. As far as I know the Conservatives are still opposed to the ID card bill (as they would have been from the beginning had it not been for the fact that Michael Howard had supported a somewhat similar scheme decades back). In any case, I will be talking to my MP, and if necessary, attempting to convince her of the absolute futility and waste of this scheme.(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 13:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Typical, latch on to a minor point while deflecting the main issue. Do you do this in every conversation?
Here, let me try this another way.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
You do know who Herman Goering was?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 14:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ummmm, News flash loser, you WERE attacked. I don't think that you have to "tell them they are being attacked”. That ship has sailed the min the 1st bomb went off.
And while your right in way that people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, your forgetting that the leaders in the UK were chosen by the people. The people knew what they were for. They knew Blairs stand on the war and they know what they were voting for. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 15, 2005, 06:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
The British electoral system is even more complicated than that. Only 24,429 people voted for Tony Blair - out of the 35% of the population that voted for Labour ministers - as I'm sure you're well aware, voting for him is reserved for those in his constituency of Sedgefield (an interesting note is the Michael Howard received more votes than Tony with 26,161 - and the Tories only came in @ 3% below Labour, evidencing that their support is more widespread than concentrated).
Anyhow, after all those (useless?) details, the point I'm making is that I agree, the war in Iraq was not a deciding factor in this election, but I will hotly dispute that either Labour or Lib Dems have a balance of 'decent policies'. The Tories' main problem at present is one of image and messaging, not policies.(reply to this comment) |
| | From weegirlie
Friday, July 15, 2005, 08:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very true. Although you must admit that when people were voting for their local MP they were taking into account the overall effect of their local seat's outcome. I know I certainly considered it.
However I agree with you entirely that the war in Iraq was not a major factor in this election (except to bring more votes to the opposing Lib Dem side) and by no means does it show a support by the British public to Blair's war policy. I would also hotly dispute that either Labour or Lib Dems have a "balance of decent policies" (there's no one I'd happily back 100% at the moment), but personally I thought that, ignoring the war, Labour seemed more sensible of the three. Saying that, I voted Lib Dem since I wanted our local Lib Dem MP who did manage to gain the constituency, so at least I'm content with one aspect of the election. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 16:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
The general election was a mere 10 weeks ago. While I am by no means a Labour supporter, Labour won a clear majority giving Tony Blair a proper mandate as Prime Minister.
In any case, every country and race throughout history has interfered in others' internal affairs, it just so happens that Anglo-Americans are currently dominant politically, economically and militarily. Everyone else is and has been playing the same game, we're just the current winners - doesn't mean we're any worse than them, just more successful.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From ack
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 16:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, in that case they should suck it up. This is a religious war. One side may not see it that way, but there are two sides, count'm, two sides with bombs. So, they re-elect a man they know will keep them in this war, well that's though shit. Funny little thing called Cause and effect.
(the spanish, which you so easily deride, were ruled upwards of four hundred years by muslims... You can't even compare the history of these two nations with regards to their dealing with Islam. Really dude, I don't know why I expect so much from people... Am I doomed to have to chronically dumb it down to be understood?)
I feel bad for those people, all those people that have been killed in this war. Most brittons no more asked for those bombs than most Iraqis have asked for their unfair share. Yeah, sucks all around.
My reason for that repost was not to insinuate any jewish conspiracy, (my mother in jewish you asshole), but merely to show that perhaps there was some information kept from your countrymen, possibly to avert a general panic, at the cost of lives. Just a few dozen, but painful none the less.
Oh yeah, one last thing. See how effective it is when you use name calling in the proper context? ;)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 16:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the spanish, which you so easily deride, were ruled upwards of four hundred years by muslims... You can't even compare the history of these two nations with regards to their dealing with Islam"
You're right, the Muslims ruled in Spain making it an oasis of tolerance and education, while the Brits are only responsible for the establishment of just about every Arab nation (which were previously ruled by the Turks), the infrastructure in all of their colonies (much of which is still the backbone of those countries' economies) and... wait for it... enabling the Arabs to benefit from their primary source of wealth - their oil reserves! So yes, you're right, the Spanish benefitted (temporarily) from the Muslims, while the Brits laid the foundations for whatever economic success the Arab world may currently enjoy.
"Am I doomed to have to chronically dumb it down to be understood?"
Oh, so you mean you've been putting on the dumb act ON PURPOSE!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Korpesco
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 18:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Go reread your history, and come back and tell me hitler was elected by a majority. While he was supported by certain sections of society he never gained an elected majority.
Before you open your mouth ask yourself where the world would be if the arabs now ruled it.
I thank England for Anglobalization which has raised and organised the world into interdependant connected civilisations and prosperity.
England can invade whatever it wishes to. Using your logic we can ask why free Germany from Hitler? Why abolish any dictator?
Go cry in your little corner, the world is firmly anglo - saxon and your whinning and jealous comments wont help it go away.(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jelousy. It always comes down to that word with you people when eveything else fails you. Newsflash: Americas owns you. Have since WW2. It's the only reason England got stuck in this messy war in the first place. Blair is Bush's little lap dog, as England has become Americas. You may not like it, but you just have to deal with it.
Oh... I can hear it now. The outrage, soon to be thinly masked by your slightly derisive tone. What a joke.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 19:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
"England can invade whatever it wishes to. Using your logic we can ask why free Germany from Hitler? Why abolish any dictator?" #1. We invaded to free england (and France), if it was for the jews it would have been done long before. Please tell me it was not waste of time, money and blood. If we invaded to free a nation of people like you, unfortunately it seems we may have wasted our time. I am confident however that Great Britain has better specimens to offer.
And who said I wish the world was ruled by arabs? Only you. Projection anyone?
For fucks sake... another worthless peabrain assuming too much!
Is this all you brits have to offer?
P.S. I'm as anglo as they come... jelousy just doesn't apply here, fucktard!
"I thank England for Anglobalization which has raised and organised the world into interdependant connected civilisations and prosperity." -You worthless racist fuck!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From conan
Friday, July 15, 2005, 12:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
So in other words, despite the fact that we were all raised in a cult, you are the only one involved in this (moderately) intelligent conversation to be unable to think of "big" words like ‘ad hominem’ and 'fallacy' on your own? Clearly you're fairly unintelligent to go and believe the first conspiracy theory you hear and start advocating it as thought it were the gospel of Saint Ack. Speaking of impressed, isn’t that the only reason you brought out this ill-conceived conspiracy theory from some bitter Brit who doesn’t like his government and so sees it as an entity of pure evil and manipulation; you wanted to impress people? If you truly believe the shit you’re spewing so freely on here, then you’re probably a lost cause when it comes to any case that may require logical thought process. Go find some more hyperbole garbage involving the CIA infiltrating the British Transportation system and planting the bombs as we were afraid that the waning popularity of the war in Britain would hurt Bush’s chances of further agenda pushing in Europe. See how easy it is to make shit up for the sake of ‘shock’ or confusing dramatization of supposed events to traumatize people into a stupor of terror? And I’m not even a fan of Bush or Blair. I do however think that you’re a complete idiot!(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 12:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, and this is where it gets funny, I don't really believe the whole of that article. It was a repost, from a british source no less. I don't believe it's entirely incorrect however, I do believe that much like Bush knew that planes where going to be used in an attack, the british government knew of threats to the transit system. I don't think they planned them, I'll give you that.
And yes, it is quite amusing to me to see all of this frothing at the mouth. You people spew more hypocrisy than I've ever seen anywhere else! And yes, I did attack your jelly soft middle. You wear all this mental armour, but it's so fun identify your soft spot and poke it. Foam away.
Conan, I have long believed you are an idiot, and I'm sure you've been one longer than my opinion of you was formulated. Such idiocy takes long practice, and you are a master. So it would be rather insulting to be considered anything else by you. Plus, your a pathetic suck up and crowd pleaser. The real pedantics wannabe minime. In short, the loathing is mutual.
Thanks anyway for your two cents. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From weegirlie
Monday, July 18, 2005, 03:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's funny cause of all the places I've travelled (yes out of TF, it can hardly be considered "travelling" while in TF) the UK is far less racist than any other country I've been in. In fact the US was one of the countries where we found racism to be the most rampant and obvious, even in so called "progressive" cities like NY. I recall on our most recent holiday to NY my boyfriend and I were quite horrified by the way blacks were not only treated but seemed to even regard themselves as "lower" individuals than their white counterparts and the most shocking was how no one even seemed to notice it. Similar behaviour in the UK would never have been stood for.
While of course there is still some problem with racism in the UK, our general policies and public view is certainly the most acceptant of those societies that I've come across. So I must say I find your comments regarding British "chronic racism" fairly ludicrous.
In closing, you seem to have a major chip on your shoulder with regards to British people, which makes me wonder what the underlying issue with you really is.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Monday, July 18, 2005, 13:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
WOAH!!! What part of New York were you in wee?? I live in NY and while obviously racism is still an issue here as well as everywhere else in the world, I don't know where on earth you got the impression you just relayed to us. I mean I live here, but moved here from another state, and I have to say that New Yorkers are probably more tolerant of race and ethnicity than any other place I've been to. Oh, and by the way, New York is also the site of the worst terror attack ever (9/11 for those who seem to have already forgotten) and yet even in the aftermath of the terror attacks, Muslims, well Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples to be more specific, were not threatened as much in the city and state of New York as they were in the rest of our nation.
Of course there are still racist incidents and shit, but the fact that you refer to African Americans as 'blacks' seems to me that you are in fact yourself a racist and therefore saw things the way you wanted to see them. No offense, but that's the way your post came across(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Korpesco
Friday, July 15, 2005, 12:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you have hidden issues with British.. you sound like a hater, maybe you lost a girlfriend to a brit or got beat up trying to play rugby.. I dont know and dont care. Regardless,in my opinion it is not in good tastes to go into a forum discussing a tragedy and start venting, and hating and stereotyping and throwing out angry statements. People in London died because of hate and I find any brand of anger and small minded stereotyping of people and nations extremely distasteful given the circumstances.
Its ok by me to call british racist ...but while doing so give me one nation on earth who is any less racist than the british ack...
Give us some examples from history...give us what you would consider a good alternative to anglo emperialism and explain why.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From ack
Friday, July 15, 2005, 17:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would expect you to be completely blind to your own hypocritical stance, so no amazing revelation there.
In one breath you act morally superior and toss around what seem to your favorite pet terms, and in the next get all indignant about my focusing in your own post, on what you yourself found flawed in mine. Talk about hollow.
And this continued insinuation that If I have no better FIVE MINUTE CURE FOR THE WORLD, that somehow this makes the Anglo/American empirical oppresion of the world the best option. Well, my simplistic little buddy, it doesn't work that way. You may think it does, but alas it does not.
"I have not lost my moral high ground but am trying to excuse your behaviour in some desperate way." - Yes, you have. And what behaviour would this be? It's not like I blew up that train, I just poked the eye of your pet ogliarchy. You need to be excusing yourself. And with the argument you have put forward, I would say that desperation indeed becomes you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Saturday, July 16, 2005, 13:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I knew you couldn't provide any better alternative...instead you are grumbling against the best of all options. If Anglo emperialism didnt exist you bet the power vacuum would have been filled with other... perhaps more unsavory agendas.
Hatred of Britain is what inspired these sucide bombers your brand of anti anglo hatred is extremely unpopular and distasteful given the circumstances. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Korpesco
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 08:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never made a comparison between your views and that of terrorists (whatever they may be). What I did state was that airing anti-Britian hate posts in the wake of bombings perpetrated by anti-Britain hate really was distasteful.
I would be like (on an exaggerated scale) filling up a forum dedicated to the survivors of hiroshima with anti Japan tirades.
Every nation on earth has skeletons in its closet, why? Because every nation on earth is run by humans who sometimes err or follow distressing lines of ideology. Pinning down all the worlds problems on "english empirialism" or any nations doings is extremely small minded and simplistic.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From ack
Sunday, July 17, 2005, 12:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Pinning down all the worlds problems on "english empirialism" or any nations doings is extremely small minded and simplistic."- By that same measure attributing all the worlds progress, civility and tolerance to british rule goes beyond simplistic and treads well into the realm of narcissistic arrogance.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Daily Show Fan
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 22:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
This was my favorite quote on the issue so far:
"Where are the country singers threatening to put boots up peoples' asses? ... Who grieves this privately? This American likes his sorrow in t-shirt form" - Rob Cordry, from the Daily Show
(reply to this comment)
| From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, July 13, 2005, 23:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
What I love so much about London's reaction is that by-&-large there hasn't been one. Us Londoners have barely dignified the attacks with the effort of flicking a "V" and telling them to "sod off" before returning to our normal lives. I think that the ultimate defiance of terrorism is to IGNORE it, and that is what we have done. If passenger numbers were down on the Tube today, the hundreds of people who stood for the duration of their journey in my carriage alone wouldn't know it! Everyone has simply gone back to work and gotten on with their lives as if nothing had happened, and IMO that is the greatest act of defiance possible to those maniacs who planted bombs in our transportation - and the craziest thing was thinking that it would actually make any significant difference in our lives!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]