It could have been anyone for all I care, it is racist! Indeed, any great men have their failings and Sir Winston certainly had his. I saluted him for his bravery, not his moral stance or political belives.

I have been asked to remove Unwell_Raptor's post above! I do not feel inclined to do so as it was a quote from Winston Churchill from another time and another set of circumstances. I know that does not make the sentiments expressed right or moral, but the removal of the post on those grounds would only be apposite if the sentiments were to have been expressed by Unwell_Raptor himself. Therefore, it would be nice if Unwell_Raptor were to actually divorce himself from the stated sentiments expressed in the quote. It would then become a suitable inject as a debating point.

Of course I accept that Mohammedan is an anachronism and I always use the expression Islam.

The reason for my posting Churchill's quotation is to point out that much the same points are being made today by thoughtful people who wish Islam well. Of course Churchill's language seems overblown coarse and inappropriate today, but the fundamental points remains that Islam needs to find a modus vivendi with the West that will allow its own followers to enjoy the fruits of progress democracy and prosperity.

So U_R, does that mean you don't agree with the actual sentiments expressed in the quote?

In that context, quotes from Hitler will also be allowed then, or is it just because it's Sir Winston?

U_R

That already exists with many moderate followers of Islam. Subscribing to Islam does not necessarily mean that you are a fan of OBL, much as subscribing to the catholic church does not mean you endorse the Spanish Inquisition. There are radical, moderate and anything inbetween muslems. Sad fact is that the news in our part of the world only reports on the radicals. I've been visting the more westernly orientated parts of the ME quite a few times and never met a radical muslem. To me they all came across as "normal" people very close to "us", albeit with a different culture and sense of perspective. But they all want to live in peace, raise their families, get a promotion and suceed in life.

However, desperate people often seek desperate measures and when you seemingly have no future, are poor and hungry and very poorly educated, you are easy prey for demagogs. Unhappy and uneducated people are the breeding ground for up and coming dictators, as world history has proved many times over.

Don't see why not FFF, as long as they fit into the context of the debate and they are not expressed as personal opinions, and as long as you make it clear you don't agree with his political stance and ideas as they fit into today's world.

Point taken, thank you for clarifying. Not that I am in any way inclined, or indeed able, to quote Hitler.

How about this one:
"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
- Adolf Hitler

And another that totally indicates the complete personification of evil that was that man:
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"
- Adolf Hitler

I trust that neither would seem appropriate to anybody today!!!!!!!!!!


:\

Castigating a religion is not racist. We need to coin a new pejoritive for religious bigotry. In fact, Arabs and native Israelis are Semites - of the same race.

Dubya Churchill was pointing out some inarguable tenets of Islam, the role of women jumped out to him as it does me, today.

I've only lived in Saudi for less than a year, but there I observed women can't drive. You can marry several. They can't say no, which may explain the high birth rate. Yet in some ways I found the rules very backward.:ok:

The "racism" refuge should not be employed in this debate - we have beaten to death the fact that Islam is in fact a peaceful faith as propounded in the Holy Koran and most/the great majority followers of the faith abhor the atrocities committed in their name by Al Qaeda and the rest of their primitive, fundamentalist savages/ copycat killers. It is the human interpretation of many tenets of Islam and their contribution to savage repression of their own people by those usurpers of the faith that causes dismay.

It is quite easy to take remarks out of context on this forum given it's very nature but many in Iran and Saudi Arabia would perhaps (very privately....) agree with the sentiments expressed by Churchill all those years ago ? You should visit those Countries to view the repression at first hand and watch the executions gleefully carried out in barbaric fashion in front of morbid onlookers, whether it be decapitation/amputation by the sword, or a quick hoist into the air by a rope round the neck attached to a 20 Metre crane jib. Nobody can deny that both of those countries epitomise all that is corrupted in Islam ? This is not a racist comment - it is fact !

Wholi, I would suggest that "Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." a very large number of civilised governments had taken those words at face value since they were first uttered and applied them in the cause of national interests, even quite recently. I stand to be corrected... :rolleyes:

Agreed, 100%. The present state of affairs is appaling and it would seem that the Sauds, in a desperate attempt to hold on to their money and perks, are allowing radical clerics to oppress the masses (women especially) in the most appaling of ways, including recruitment to various terrorists organisations and funding of terror cells and radical religious schools all over the world. Plenty of money for that, oh yes. You might go to bed hungry, but you'll do so in the firm belive that all that is bad is caused by a conspiracy of Israel and America, and prepare yourself to strap those 10kg of semtex to your body and blow up a busload of school children. But they've got oil, so good old Uncle Sam calls them "our friends". Pathetic; if any country in the ME was due for a "regime change" it is the KSA.

Pilgrim101/FFF,

So what are we waiting for in regards to the KSA.

As far as has been posted here recently they have oil (and plenty of it), an oppressive regime and are developing WMDs.

To me that sounds exactly like a country just a tadge (a term I learned from Chaffers) to the North.

So what I am asking of all posters is why are we not doing “an Iraq” on KSA?

Cheers

BHR

Saudi WMD's ? Where are they then Bill ? :E I notice you chose the Saudis as "friends" of the West (?) rather than the most antagonistic, confrontational and rabid Iranians who clearly are developing nuclear and chemical potential ?

If you are referring to the drainage / sewage system in Sharourah, then I'm with you !

Having served in KSA, I am within my rights to criticise their repression and harassment of foreigners/non Moslems, and indeed their own people, for surely they do indulge in that pastime but I never saw them gas anyone in a particularly troublesome village/hamlet or invade their neighbours with murderous intent (Probably a question of "Mafi Tartib", or the lack of ability to organise such an exercise I grant you) but a genuine comparison with the sadistic, vicious regime of Saddam probably falls a little short.

We won't have to do an "Iraq" on KSA because the infrastructure there cannot sustain itself without the religious blackmail and coercion / peer pressure and many of the young Saudis of my acquaintance are showing a marked reluctance to engage in these bankrupt old practices. Women there are beginning to question the interpretation of faith which demotes them to second class citizen and they recently had the temerity to demonstrate for the right to drive !! Signs of the times I suppose.

The most dangerous activity in Riyadh is in fact a drive round the city given their insane, fatalistic behaviour at the wheel. :}

BHR,

To give a straight answer to your sardonic question, because Saudi Arabia did not lose a war then reneg on the terms of the peace. There are no UN resolutions to force Saudi compliance on anything. No state is agitating to make war on Saudi Arabia. That's why. If you feel there's a need to attack them, make a better case.

Cheers

Saudi WMD's ? Where are they then Bill ? Here's the info, (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htm)Pilgrim101. Sorry if I speak out of my turn, Bill.

And that's why I asked why nobody fears Pakistan, which has operational nukes and is not afraid to threaten with them. And of course there's a little country in the area, of which nobody here dares to speak about, which has an arsenal of nukes and abc weapons.

I doubt anyone within the next 10 year will do another "Iraq" looking at the political damage it has done to the respective governments of the US and the UK.

And the Summary of that press article (accurate of course ?) is.......

""While there is no direct evidence that Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear option, the Saudis have in place a foundation for building a nuclear deterrent,"""

Far away from a clear ownership of a WMD Programme.

I think you perhaps overestimate the Political damage to the USA and UK by the way - France and Germany are getting the cold shoulder throughout the Middle East in business and politics - Ask De Villepin who is met at airports by very junior Government servants and French Industry who are getting cuffed by even the Chinese and Koreans throughout the region now.

Now, about Pakistan and Iran ..........:(

All the political upheaval and hand-wringing about the ME must be giving weapons exporters severe nightmares... :p

Some more "givens" debunked. That 'Bliar' and Dubya lied about
these things. Check your old posts to see if you should make
amends.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B300B11E4%2D657E%2D428C%2D9A58%2D6527944C58A8%7D&siteid=mktw


"The report concluded Iraq had the strategic intention of resuming its prohibited weapons programs, including its nuclear program, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions eroded or lifted."

"It also said that President Bush's declaration in the Station of
the Union Address in 2003, that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded, as Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999 for the purpose of acquiring uranium.

Interesting when it concerns "friends" we talk about "deterrent", but when talk about foes it's ", confrontational and rabid"... :hmm:

BenThere are you sure discussing the Nigeria Yellow Cake again? It was one of the most blatant flaws, based on forged evidence by an Italian con man.

I think you perhaps overestimate the Political damage to the USA and UK by the way Really? I advise you to change from FOX to another channel more frequently.

The once highly lucrative ME market for weapons is currently in tatters. All the big customers are now off-limits: Iran, Iraq, Pakistan... :( Now, some people are putting the word out that even the Saudis may be a problem. Oh woe is the life of the International arms salesman!

Steady on Airship,

That's my future employers you might be talking about !! :E And they're French !!! :p

Greetings girly men, I have just returned from pushing iron and I am huge... (well at least the belly.)

BHR,
Maybe I didn't come across correctly. I believe that when responsible nations gain access to nuclear weapons, that has a tendency to provide extra caution to their military. Witness Pakistan and India. Without a doubt, they would have fought 1 or 2 wars within the last decade. However, they now have nukes, a hotline and are more restrained. Its called deterrence. The problem with terrorists, in particularly the zealots, is that death is not a deterrence. If you do not have deterrence, and negotiating is not an option, all you have left is pre-emption.

However, what One World alluded to earlier is correct. The fancy weapons of the military are of little use in fighting terrorists. The historian Martin Van Crevald drives this point home. It all comes down to the indigenious population and who they support - which is why the battle to win hearts and minds is so important.

As for US leadership in the world, you must have leadership. You are not going to get it from the UN, and Europe lacks both the will and the means. Without leadership, the world will break down into either competing power blocks (i.e., Triple Alliance vs Triple Entente, etc) or the powers that be may retract into their spheres of influence and leave the rest of the world an ungoverned cesspool of failed states typified by terrorism, drugs, and absolutely no law.

As for Iran, does anybody here actually want the nuclear club to get larger? And remember that national security concerns involve access to Persian Gulf oil which powers the world's (not just the US's) economy.

As for quotes, "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people that are evil, but because of the people that don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein

PS: Happy Bastille Day!

It's getting difficult to find another "hotspot" these days! Africa shows some promise, what with the very strong recent price rises of basic metals on world markets. But as we all know, most of these profits usually just fatten-up offshore bank a/cs and end up as even more floating gin-palaces. Perhaps if someone could be encouraged to break the Antartic Treaty and seriously prospect with a view to production...? Fancy a change of climate pilgrim...?! :p

Prefixes, does Tony Blair have a phobia against using them? From his comments to the Butler Report according to the BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3890961.stm) "The evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was indeed less certain and less well-founded than was stated at the time," Mr Blair said. He could quite easily have said: "The evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was indeed more uncertain and more unfounded than was stated at the time," :rolleyes:

Some interesting theories here.

Regarding Africa, they have recently established a continental "security council" to deal with conflicts, including peace enforcement missions, the EU has agreed to fund it for 2004, Darfur will be the acid test. Its about time they assumed responsibility for their own problems.

As for the ME, well, what do you say?

Islam has a guide book, as with the Bible, its all down to the interpretation and as the sister of one famous muslim (hint: currently divorcing his UK wife) once pointed out to me, many practices that result in the degredation of women are cultural rather than religious. Can't argue that one...

As for KSA, second only to Kuwait as the worst place on earth for a "western" type person. We court them, we arm them and in years to come we will disarm them. Same sh*t, different country. It wouldn't suprise me what weapons they have or development programs they are running, at the end of the day it can allways be traced back to one or other of the cold war parties.

Airship..

Naah, I've already had some experiences in the South Atlantic and more sedately in Norway and way North of Rovajarvi in Finland. On the former, we nearly convinced our Boss that we should be enroute to what the Argentinians called "the Maldives", before he twigged ! :E

Extreme cold is not good for manly assets !!!!! :}

Mini,

What did you find so bad about Kuwait ? I find your remarks very surprising having been based there and having spent some time there during and after the liberation in GW1. ;)

Here is another article from CAPT Barnett from the Naval War College. Y'all might remember his first article "The Pentagon's New Map" caused a bit of controversary.

The article is entitled, "Mr. President, Here's how to make sense of our Iraqi strategy." One of the interesting things he says at the end is that Kerry might actually be a better choice to implement the plan.

Comments?
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2004/06/01/463656

Hope not to be overstepping any marks here!

A BBC documentary will tonight reveal BNP members making racist comments and other quite unpleasant stuff regarding Islam etc.

Rumours are that future episodes will expose bears using forested areas for defacation purposes and the Pope admiting to some Catholic tendancies.

:)

The government is suspending all diplomatic ties with Israel after two of its citizens were sentenced to six months jail for passport fraud.

Eli Cara and Urie Kelman, who are suspected of being Israeli spies, pleaded guilty last month to trying to obtain false New Zealand passports.

Jeez, that's a pretty gutsy move. Those Kiwi's aren't afraid of making tough decisions.

Well theres a major coup for the BBC! They are wasting our licence payers money on stating the bleedin' obvious

Next week they will be running a well researched documentary claiming most shark attacks occurr when one is wet...

It is one thing to be aware that an organisation is racist, but it quite another to see the style and delivery of their racist rhetoric. I hope the program reinforces the dispicable nature of such views, and does not act as a platform for the party.

does not act as a platform for the party.
It refers to one BNP individual wanting to machine gun Muslims as they come out of prayers. I doubt you have any concern!

Perhaps someone may like to do a "comparison" between say the BNP and other organisations. It may throw some light on what people of different religions and political pursuasions want and are prepared to do to achieve it. We are, by and large, a very tolerant country but it seems that tolerance is very very one sided. If you are white middle class etc then the whole weight of the various politcally correct bodies thinks you are fair game. When for example did we last have a white middle class person as head of the Commision for Racial Equality? That would never do would it? I stand for equality for all without fear or favour, it is to this country's everlasting shame this is not the case for everyone.

Yes, we all know the BNP is racist; that does not mean that this documentary was a waste of licence payers' money.

The purpose is to provide the evidence that the BNP's public denials of racism are bare-faced lies. And it looks as though this programme will provide a lot of evidence - Michael Howard being described in one speech to a party function as a 'Jewish interloper' who has no roots in England and therefore no business criticising the BNP.

When for example did we last have a white middle class person as head of the Commision for Racial Equality?

I'm not sure what the point is here. Why would we want a white head of the CRE? Surely the point of the organisation is to combat racism against underpriveliged ethnicities and cultures. You could be implying that whites are underpriveliged in the UK, but I'll give you more credit than to infer that.

Did they also suspend relations with the French after that thing with the Greenpeace ship many years ago?

Not quite sure if suspending diplomatic relations will yield anything but an adverse effect, but hey, I'm neither a politician nor a diplomat. Gutsy, or a knee-jerk overreaction?

I don't actually think they did FFF. A very sore point with Kiwi's, especially as I understand the French agents were decorated at a later stage!

Hard to say how NZ's decision this time will be viewed.

I saw the trail last night - the horror! In Keighley, too! And it wasn't just "machine gun boy" either. Griffin ranting about Muslims raping white girls, Tyndall about Michael Howard being "alien" (Read: Jewish). Grr.

I understand that on the back of this report Ken Livingston has just telephoned the BNP and invited them round to shake hands and eat cake.

Good on you Ken its nice to see that your not as one sided as some people made you out to be last week !



:ok:

As for US leadership in the world, you must have leadership. For leadership you must earn respect and being a self-appointed leader, when you say "follow me" looking back you must see the whole pack and not some cheerleaders who end up in your @<hidden> when you stop too abruptly. Guess pumping iron produces too much testosteron? :hmm:

"It is a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead -- and find no one there" ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt ~

Wedge

Surely your comment is the racist one. You imply that a white person cannot be in charge of an organisation whose purpose is to combat racism. Even if the racism were only against racial minorities it is clear that would not be the case. Did you also see the reports that the CRE is investigating itself for racism? It has been accused many times before. However I hope it may becoming out of its worst times. This investigation and Trevor Phillips's comments about multiculturalism have been promising.

Agree very much with you about the purpose of this documentary. The BNP claims not to be racist, and seems to have a fair few members who are xenophobic rather than actually racist. Exposure like this is important.

However I'm not sure about the balance of the BBC in all this. They always seem to attack the BNP and any racism in the Conservative members. Particularily they always seem outraged at the democratic election of BNP members, which great as is my distaste for the BNP I see as fundamentally opposed to the BBC's politically neutral mandate. See lots of stories elsewhere about the nasty side of left-wing politics and the racism of Labour and even Lib Dem members, never seems to excite the Beeb. In fact was there not some high praise recently for an actor who used to front a really nasty Trotskyist party? What would the Beeb have said if he'd been in the NF in his youth? Look also at the BBC's treatment of the Communist spies (in the dramatisation of the Blunt, Philby et al. issue) as if they were misguided but well-meaning people, rather than murderous traitors.

In fact was there not some high praise recently for an actor who used to front a really nasty Trotskyist party? What would the Beeb have said if he'd been in the NF in his youth?

They'd have said nothing - as they did when employing Ricky Tomlinson (Royle Family) - a former National Front member, in a leading role in a flagship programme. He has of course fundamentally changed his opinions since those days, as presumably has the 'nasty' Trotskyist.

As for my comment being 'racist'; I don't agree, I don't think a white person couldn't head the CRE, I just would not see the point in it. I'm sure there is racism within the CRE, as there is sadly everywhere, but I can't see why it is racist to suggest that the head of the CRE should be a prominent member of an ethnic minority, as a figurehead for those minorites the group is charged with representing.

One of the purposes of the CRE is to combat institutional racism in British institutions, and it would be naive in the extreme to argue that white people are not by far the more priveliged group.

Since we are asking why we have not had a white head of the CRE, why have we not had a black Prime Minister; why are almost all Judges, Senior Military officers, CEOs, Lords, and so on, white?

We know the answer to that question, so to suggest it's racist to say the head of the CRE should ideally be from an ethnic minority is to ignore the truth about the under-representation of ethnic minorites in senior positions in almost every walk of life.

Geraing up for a major automotive expedition, the likes of Rommel's armoured columns plunging into the Qattara Depression, I went shopping for sounds at the local purveyor of comic books and remaindered music.

I thought I was on to something when I found an Erato CD of new releases for Spring 1992, for only €2.50, with 'The Ride of the Valkyries' on it, from Richard Wagner's opera, 'Die Walküre'. That would be the bit used in 'Apocalypse Now' as the Hueys came in to renovate/devastate that village full of bad guys/innocent peace-loving peasants (choose one or both, I don't care). So I bought it, thinking it would come in useful during one of those long, dull transitions between two points of interest as I play out my role of 'family chauffeur'.

The only problem is, the conductor is Daniel Barenboim. As most of you probably know, he is of the Hebrew persuasion, while Wagner, a vicious anti-semite in private life, is generally considered seriously un-Kosher. In fact, performances of Wagner are banned in Israel, I believe.

Here, DB gave it his best shot, but he was obviously no Walter Von Karajan, with his direction totally lacking that steely, fanatic, Teutonic edge. His valkyries come across more like Yamaha Viragos, in fact. Totally useless for my purposes!

So, am I supposed to just put up with this, listen to 'Queste lagrime e sospiri' from 'San Giovanni Battista' by Alessandro Stradella (died 1682, of boredom, probably), among other musical gems on this CD and stop nursing a grudge against Daniel Barenboim for costing me €2.50? Does this point to some deep flaw in my character? Well, make that 'another' deep flaw in my character.

If I were philo-semitic then I am sure that I would have just put up with this Jewish display of fat ladies dressed in warm and fuzzy suits of armour rather than a properly Germanic load of vicious tarts wearing cold steel, what I was really after in the first place, but I'm not coming from there, so to speak. I expect value for money, here and race just doesn't come into it.

Lesson Number One, when looking for a musical bargain: Always read the fine print!

Being reported this morning that the two Isreali "civilians" are actually Mossad agents. 6 months in jail each from the looks of it.

46Driver,

“As for US leadership in the world, you must have leadership. You are not going to get it from the UN, and Europe lacks both the will and the means. Without leadership, the world will break down into either competing power blocks (i.e., Triple Alliance vs Triple Entente, etc) or the powers that be may retract into their spheres of influence and leave the rest of the world an ungoverned cesspool of failed states typified by terrorism, drugs, and absolutely no law.”

I am disappointed in the above paragraph from yourself. I would like to raise the following points.

1) I do not feel that the tack being taken by the US is that of a leader. A leader, I feel, should do so by example. If the rest of the world starts to act in the same manner as that exhibited by the US in recent years then the world is going to end up with a lot more death and destruction. If you like I can give you some potential examples of what I mean.
2) I also disagree with you on the “need” for a leader in the global sense. Especially a dictatorial one such is the US is currently. I do not use the word “dictatorial” in a derogatory sense but in a literal one. By that I mean that the US has not been elected to lead but has instead appointed itself to this position. I am surprised that you do not see the hypocrisy of lauding the Coalition for its removal of a dictatorial head of state whilst at the same time advocating that your country take up a similar role internationally. The reason the UN is unable to run effectively is that it needs changing for the new world order. It was created at the beginning of the Cold War. Things have changed and the UN needs also to be changed. First off, the removal of the five veto powers. One country, one vote.
3) As to leaving “the rest of the world an ungoverned cesspool of failed states typified by terrorism, drugs, and absolutely no law.” What makes you think that the US is stopping this from happening now? Take a look at Africa. Vast tracts of this continent are already as you describe.

As always I look forward to your reply.

Cheers

BHR

Sorry Ontariotech, I should have said that. They were indeed actual Mossad agents who were fradulantely trying to obtain NZ passports to enter Arab countries.

I can imagine some of the things that would be being said here if these two were, for example, Iranians!!! :ooh:

Wedge - what nonsense you speak. Can only someone from a minority group (oppressed or otherwise) be capable of delivering reasoned coherent argument and follow the law in regards to questions of racial discrimination? That is what you say. if that's your belief then i hope you nebver have to represent a white middle calss person when you qualify

I don't think that wedge was suggesting that only a member of an ethnic minority could do the work of the CRE chair, but he is reflecting what is, to some extent, a political reality: having an ethnic minority CRE chairperson sends out the right sort of message and it is practically inevitable that the job will go to someone from a minority background. I don't see a problem with this. I am far from being a fan of the CRE, a body with which I have had many dealings professionally, as it is afflicted by internal problems and makes some very poor judgments, but it still has some positive achievements to its credit, and Trevor Phillips may influence its improvement as an organisation. The ideal model for an anti-discrimation force is the EOC, which is very well run and has helped to bring about real improvements in gender equality.

The idea that white middle class people are in some way an oppressed group is popular with the tabloids, but is about as convincing an idea as most tabloid theories. As for some BNP supporters being xenophobic but not racist, I am not sure that I see much distinction and, if there is one, being "merely" xenohobic is still nothing to be proud of. I don't think that the BBC has any obligation to be "balanced" about groups whose views are inimical to the open society in which a free media operates.

The Trotskyist in question (can't remember the name, not very interested in celebrities in general) is said to have used his position in Equity to try and bully people to violent socialist causes. I seem to remember that although Tomlinson may have been in the NF in his youth, I don't know, he was also a violent agitator for the trades union movement. Seems that his right-wing tendencies left him well before he came into his current career.

The point is that 93% of the people in the country are white. There is a publically-funded job from which they appear to have been excluded. The purpose of that job is to investigate complaints relating to racial equality laws. It is nothing to do with representng any minority. That would be the "Commission for Certain Races' Equality but not Others", a much more unweildy title. Equality means all of us equal.

The fact that we have never had a prime minister from a member of the minority 7% is hardly surprising. The fact that the senior members of professions that used to suffer much racism or that get relatively few people wanting to enter from racial minorities are overwhelmingly white is also not surprising. You cannot force peolpe into the services, and it takes time for the people entering professions to reach the top. Hence the blind stupidity of Greg Dyke (?) describing the BBC as "apallingly white" because only 3-4% of senior people were of ethnic minority. When they joined that was probably representative, or at the very outside it was racism then that kept the proportions down not current racism, now 10% are non-white which is actually an under representation of whites.

BHR,
I will stand by my original statement. Over the centuries, those have been the 3 predominate types of power structures:
a) one dominant power (i.e., Rome)
b) multiple competing power blocks (Warsaw Pact vs NATO)
c) chaos where nobody takes the lead (i.e., the 1920's - 1930's)

Multi-polarity seems to be a very unstable phase and quickly leads to one of the above.

The exception I have to the above is that we are (I believe) in a very significant time. However you want to call it, it is a post Treaty of Westphalian (sp) era. Countries are tending to give away self rule for larger units (E.U., etc) and movements without a dominant nation but prefaced upon religion (radical Islam). Of particular note is terrorism: now individuals have the capability of mass destruction that was formerly the provence of state militaries.

The US has to take the lead: no one else can. We have by far the most powerful military, largest economy, and 3rd largest population (maybe 4rth?). Even the French called us a "HyperPower" (very good article in this month's Foreign Affairs called "History and the HyperPower.") Nobody else has the power or the will to lead. We are the leader by default. If we don't do it, it seldom if ever gets done.

I believe the articles by Capt Barnett are accurate. Al-Quada attacked us - and we have joined the battle by taking it deep into the Middle East: Iraq and Afghanistan. We are doing our best to make them part of the global society - of Europe, China, Japan, etc. To give them liberalization, freedom of speech, freedom of religion - everything that the religious fanatics are afraid of. Somewhere between Huntington and Barnett lies the answer - or so I think. It IS a clash of civilizations: one looking forward and the other looking back.

This is more of a long term stability problem. If you look at the Middle East, how many of you see the status quo remaining? How many see violent revolutions? If a managed change is ushered in, it could POSSIBLY be what is needed. Sure, there are many things that need to be fixed: the Palestine Israel question (personally, I would make Jerusaleum an open city). Solve inequities in land and income. Create opportunity. Whatever Bush is doing, its proactive in contrast to Bush Senior, Clinton, and Europe being reactive. We call it seeing the handwriting on the wall. And perhaps Kerry is a better President to carry this idea forward. (and I am not blaming Clinton or Europe - it takes time to get out of the Cold War mindset and foreign policy mode.)

Yes, Africa is in trouble. However, you will soon begin to see, if not already, attempts by the US and Europe to do the same thing: to help them become functioning societies. However, we can only do so much - it is going to be long and difficult struggle.

It certainly sounds like this could backfire :)

'And it looks as though this programme will provide a lot of evidence - Michael Howard being described in one speech to a party function as a 'Jewish interloper' who has no roots in England and therefore no business criticising the BNP.

Check... :)

'When for example did we last have a white middle class person as head of the Commision for Racial Equality?'

Check.... :)

Black polo neck jumper...check :E :E

46D,

Could you see the point that an ordinary Muslim may make in saying that actually the US started this?

Supporting Israel, propping up a foul dictatorship in Saudi, Arranging a coup in Iran and installing the vile Shah, training the SAVAK in torture techniques, using and training muslims to fight the Soviets and then turning your back on them, installing a puppet Saddam Hussein encouraging a war against Iran etc etc

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but can you not see that? The US has made some calamitous and very immoral decisions in that region over the last 50 or so years.

I always try and empathise with people and try and myself in their shoes when I look at problems. If you were an ordinary muslim living in the ME, how would you judge the situation?

History does not record whether Mark Bonham Carter wore a black polo neck jumper, but as first Chairman of the Race Relations Board, which became the CRE in 1976, he was about as white and middle class as they come, being a member of the liberal Bonham Carter dynasty connected with Asquith and other liberal grandees, as well as being the actress Helena Bonham Carter's uncle. She may or may not have inherited his polo neck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/26/newsid_3220000/3220635.stm

Oneworld,
Once you go back more than a generation or so (20 years) you might as well go back to biblical times. Where do you draw the line?

Its a cop out. The reality is the here and now. Deal with it. If you want to look back you can ALWAYS look back far enough to prove that one side or the other is right. (of course look back a little further and it changes again)

Look forward and you have a chance. Look back like you are doing and its hopeless and we might as well uncork the nukes.

Cheers
Wino

Pilgrim,

Forgive my assumptions if they are wrong but I assume you were there with the military, i.e. mates, mess etc.

My time there was as a civvy, I was fending for myself, working for a useless crowd that couldn't even arrange a visa or an airport pick-up.

The only respite from the oppression and arrogance was the odd expedition to the UNIKOM bar...

Done the same gig in many places but I was really glad to leave KWI.

And what is there to look forward to??

The past is relevant here because its consistent, it's been about take, take, take al in the name of National Security/Interests.

A history of complete and utter unfairness. So why would a muslm today have any call to look forward with any hope or optimism that he and his people might be treated with fairness in the future?

Would you be confident if you were in their shoes?

"The US has to take the lead: no one else can. We have by far the most powerful military, largest economy, and 3rd largest population (maybe 4rth?). Even the French called us a "HyperPower" (very good article in this month's Foreign Affairs called "History and the HyperPower.") Nobody else has the power or the will to lead. We are the leader by default. If we don't do it, it seldom if ever gets done"

Factually correct, but rivulets of sweat roll down my brow assuming some sort of "manifest destiny" in that "we must, we shall lead because that is our place" mentality

I am much more given to regional solutions, tended to by regional powers unless there is some over riding US interest. One can point to paralysis at those levels (re: the Balkans, war by committee) but that doesn't mean local inaction should cause US resources to be pressed in to service. I was blessed last November (the 10th-he has a destiny) to welcome a new son to the family at an age when most of my contemporaries are putting theirs in to high school. He still won't crawl when kids younger than him are nearly walking. He is smothered and pampered by his mother and siblings. All that he needs is presented to him simply by whimpering. What's his motivation to crawl when he has someone to essentially crawl for him?
To quote, or at least paraphrase President Bush, we cannot be all things to all people. Granted that was pre 911 but it conceptually rings true today as much as it ever did.

What was that famous quote that said that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat previous mistakes?

BenThere, anyone who knew anything about the Middle East would laugh out loud at your "land bridge between Iran and Syria" theory....I certainly did.

1) Iran and Saddam didn't exactly get on....no common philosophy there.
2) Fundamentalists and Saddam didn't really get on either....the latter being a secular leader who didn't give a fig who you worshipped as long as he came a pretty close second.
3) How has making Iraq a lawless, porous country closed a "land bridge"?

The Captain's article was very interesting; essentially it takes much of the global relations theory discussing a rich "North" and a poor "South" and puts it into a more confrontational (some would say realist) context. I would have no objections if it came about.

Unfortunately, I simply think the current US administration is so tainted and frankly stupid to have any ability at following it through. Sorry.

Ah well, off to watch the Saudi programme on BBC2 shortly. I suspect it will simply confirm my worst fears.

One looks forward to a BBC investigation into Muslim fundamentalist groups spouting hatred, filth and bile towards the the UK and its people.

Mind you I won't hold my breath on that one.

Current policy of Beeb seeems to be to try to persuade us all what a moderate and level headed group they really are

Al-Quada attacked us - and we have joined the battle by taking it deep into the Middle East: Iraq and Afghanistan. 46D, you must read the Senate Report, if you have time. There was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Not a single soul argued with the invasion of Afghanistan and if in fact the US would have used the same military power to actually capture OBL, Al-Zhawiri and Mullah Omar just as they used in Iraq to capture all the Iraqi aces, inc. Saddam instead of using Afghani troops and letting them all of the hook, then things would be quite different.

Doesn't anyone wonder why Rummy the Great mentioned "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq"?

The three main parties are terrified of the far right, especialy when they start winning seats, you could see this coming a mile off, if the idiots in the BNP hadn't dropped themselves in it tonight, they would have been fitted up in some other way.

I watched the programme this evening, and the Newsnight interview afterwards. Yes, it made disturbing viewing, and it’s all too easy for something like this to become a catalyst for civil unrest, especially in somewhere like Bradford, where the filming took place.

Problem is – there IS a problem. I have to say that, as I see it, we, the indigenous majority, are no longer allowed to “say our piece”. To do so can lead to you ending up in a world of doo-doo! We have effectively stifled ourselves by allowing our “political correctness” to go out of control.

For those who come to this country and start banging on about how “racist” we are, or how we are all “infidels” in the eyes of their religion – well, there’s the door! We don’t go to your country and kick off – don’t do it in ours! As they say, “when in Rome….”

It is about time that the British people – Christian people - were once again able to express their opinions without the fear of the “race card” or the “religious card” being played against them. Whilst in no way condoning the BNP, it’s supporters, or its “methods”, (and even though he’s going to get his ar*e kicked!), I have to say that I admire the BNP Leader for sticking to his guns and refusing to apologise for saying what were, to him, his fundamental beliefs.

Connex - couldn't have put it better myself...

I am not a 'Nazi' being half Jewish and certainly not a 'Racist' for reasons from being bought up in multicultural West London to living in Africa for 8 years but I like to think of myself as a 'Nationalist' - as above :ok:

I found myself agreeing with the sentiment of some of the points...if not necessarily the actual BNP direction...

We don’t go to your country and kick off

You mean apart from the centuries of Empire building I assume?

And your assertion that the British people are 'Christian' is pretty wide of the mark. I'd imagine less than 10% of the population now consider themselves Christians. I'm not a fan of Islam, or any of the religions, but the UK is primarily a secular society now. The scaremongering about Islam taking over is nothing but hysterical nonsense.

For posting on here that you 'admire' the BNP leader - a man who already has criminal convictions for violence and inciting racial hatred, and who leads a fundamentally racist and anti-semitic party: rather you than me.

So then Wedge you probably wouldn't have a lot of time for a man convicted of conspiracy to murder, jailed for fourteen years and who, as the leader of a group, refused to denounce violence as a means to their ends for a further thirteen years but then became a national hero?

That would be Nelson Mandela, by the way.

Let me suggest, Wedge, and truly with the greatest respect, that you do not fail to find and read "The Enforcement of Morals" by the late Lord Devlin. It was the Second Maccabaean Lecture in Jurisprudence of the British Academy, in 1958, OUP, SBN 19 285018 0, published 1965. I bought my copy for $5.00 at a garage sale, one of the best $5.00 I ever spent.

Of course they will gain in popularity with all this politically correct rubish going on ,the ordinary majority have had enough. The major parties cannot say what alot of people feel incase they appear racist and offend some minority group.

When Christmas cards are stopped ,Christmas theamed stamps no longer printed and for Christ's sake even hot cross buns causing offence it's time to do something.

These minorities expect the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them,yet do as little as possible to fit in ,expecting schools to teach in their languages ,and swimming pools to hold women's only sessions.

I'm a straight white male and I have had enough of people expecting me to bow my head in shame because of it. If they want to come here they must be prepared to fit in with us ,not change us to fit in with them

As I was walking back from dropping off the family estate car to be bedizened with stripes (an attempt to differentiate our silver-coloured Passat from all the other ones out there on the road in north Germany) I noticed something interesting.

There was obviously some little nazi creep living on Roentgen Street, because there was a cluster of stick-on NPD propaganda adorning street lamp-posts and the shed for a transformer.

There was one old sticker complaining about the photo exhibit showing Wehrmacht soldiers committing war crimes and another, more recent one complaining about the US war of aggression. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

The new sticker in question says, roughly, 'Stop the US war of aggression. Stop the USA and its German collaborators from setting the world on fire. Against the oppressed, for the oppressed, NPD, the nationalists.'

The NPD is heir to the NSDAP, the Nazi party, which is of course banned. The NPD get as close as they can to saying what they really think without violating the German 'basic law' forbidding fomenting race hatred and displaying Nazi regalia among other things. The sticker is printed in black and red on white. Black, red and white are the colours of the pre-Weimar flag and the Nazi-era flag as well. Funny thing, that.

Some of you Jet Blast deep thinkers who like to quote Hitler, for example, could easily find yourselves in trouble with the law here for doing just that. Free speech here is much more restricted than in the UK, in the name of protecting freedom. Whether that makes complete sense or not is a good question, but that is the law. The struggle to balance freedom of speech against responsible use of that freedom is a very active one in modern Germany, much less taken for granted than in many other countries.

So here we have the moral heirs to one of the most violently aggressive political parties of all time shamelessly climbing on the anti-war bandwagon. I find that rather amusing if not surprising.

Not that it proves anything for or against some of the fevered arguments here on display, I just thought you might enjoy seeing who some of your new friends are when you are busy digging up every far-fetched argument against what the USA gets up to.

Well, Metroman I'm also a straight white male and I think that anyone who subscribes to the filth that the BNP and their squalid fellow-travellers spout ought to hang their head in shame.

Funny how none of you seem to mention that you agree with the anti-semitic elements of BNP "policy". I wonder why............ :E

If they want to come here they must be prepared to fit in with us ,not change us to fit in with them Given that our culture and language has been shaped and moulded by successive waves of invaders, settlers and refugees over the past few millennia,ranging from the Romans to the Norsemen and all points between, I can only presume that you speak Welsh, live in a crannoch and worship the Sun.

Otherwise this notion of homogenous British cultural purity being polluted by "them" is disingenuous at best.

If I believed in the Tooth Fairy I would also believe that Nelson Mandela received a fair trial in early sixties South Africa.

Speaking of my good friend the Tooth Fairy, I tend to regard all religious beliefs as intellectually on the same level as believing in her, or in Santa Claus (in fact, they are on a lower level, as there is at least some empirical existence that the Tooth Fairy exists, which puts her ahead of any other delusional cult known to history).

I share some of the reservations well expressed by David Goodhart in "Prospect" magazine earlier this year as to an unconsidered version of multiculturalism (Trevor Phillips initially criticised Goodhart for his article but then wrote something quite similar to it), but, tabloid scare stories about banning Christmas notwithstanding, our society is broadly more secular than ever, and we can say more or less what we like about each other's mad beliefs. I am trying to be optimistic that rising prosperity will marginalise extremism in immigrant communities. It worked for bog Irish like me: my family used to be poor, ignorant, in thrall to wicked superstitions peddled by nasty old men, and prone to joining the IRA, but now we're all rich, educated, sceptical and moderate.

There is still a problem here and elsewhere as faith groups on all sides become more entrenched and militant. The Islamic fundamentalists are despicable and dangerous (the BBC has made its share of programmes pointing this out), but sitting next to someone who's done the Alpha Course at a London dinner party populated by people one expects to be rational is a pretty spooky experience, and those nutters appear sane compared to their American counterparts. Come back David Hume, we need you.

Flashback re Abu Ghraib: "You ain't see nothing yet"

Read this... (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=541472)

Chuks, Germany has only just started to cope with their Nazi history. Until then everything was put far away in their collective memory. Employing German soldiers abroad even on peaceful missions was a nightmare. Germany has changed from one of the most warmongering nations into one of the most pacifistic within 50 years.

Wedge - your random guess is completely wrong. Recent surveys suggest most British people consider themselves Christian (the figure was around 70%).

Try not to quote other people out of context. "... I have to say that I admire the BNP Leader for sticking to his guns and refusing to apologise for saying what were, to him, his fundamental beliefs." is extremely specific. It has nothing to do with any criminal conviction he may have, or what those views and beliefs are. It has to do with his willingness to express those views when the illiberal establishment tries to suppress him.

Tell me, have you ever heard the expression "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it"? It is attributed to Voltaire. The so-called "liberals", certainly in our Liberal Democratic Party have never understood it.

Caslance

That is not the issue. Their views are nasty and vitriolic. However those views are restricted to the tiny minority. When a much larger number of people with moderate views are not allowed to express those views then they develop fellow feeling for Griffin and his ilk.

Do you really suggest that it should be acceptible in modern Britain to demand people change just because it happened in ancient times, and because we voluntarily accept some changes? It would be acceptible for the Romans to invade again and force us to take bribes, drive like maniacs and drink decent coffee? Perhaps just because we have accepted the cultural influence of curry we should allow people to force their daughters into arranged marriages?

There is a big difference between the acceptance of cultural influence, the imposition of cultural influence by invasion and the forcing of cultural change on society by a small, bigoted political and cultural elite in the government and the media. Only one of the three is acceptible.

Did anyone say anything about a homgenous British culture, or did you put that extra condition on?

FNG

Not sure if Mandela received a fair trial, but it is generally acceted that he did commit the crimes of which he was convicted (I believe he even admits himself). He was a terrorist. You may agree with his cause, but that does not mean his trial was unfair. That means the system he was fighting against was unfair.

Could you name some of the BBC programmes against islamic fundamentalists? I have no television so have missed them, but would like to read about the issues they discussed.

Dear Kaptain Kaos,

I think it might be fairer to say that Germans are easily led. In the hands of a warmonger they go to war; with pacifist leaders they are pacifist. One of their own leaders said, in so many words, that proposing to send German soldiers abroad would be like giving a drink to an alcoholic. I defer to his judgement of his own people.

Golo Mann's history of Germany states that from April of 1945 Nazis in Germany ceased to exist. Certainly there was no wide-spread effective resistance, despite what someone here on JB stated as fact. In fact, the Allies were quite surprised how cowed the Germans were in the face of the Occupation. They had come prepared for much more trouble than they got.

What we are now seeing is opportunism, I think. It's safe for some of the old believers to come out of the closet wearing brown socks at least, to try it on in the name of German patriotism. The reactions to that photo exhibition were quite unintentionally revealing, certainly.

The thing is, that on this forum people seem to get a bit wound up, so that just to prove their point they can go quite OTT. You can see two basically reasonable people drive themselves into unreasonable corners trying to insist on their rightness over a bascially unprovable point. I don't know the answers to any but the Big Question (43!), so that I just cannot resist taking the michael over some of the rhetoric that blows across my screen.

With the possible exception of someone either on active military service or else directly involved with 'foreigners' in whatever capacity I find it pretty rich to see people here espousing this or that course of action. It is as if one seeks to control the news by manipulation of the remote control.

We once had a 'good old boy' who told us about this fellow from their town who used to get up on the overpass to direct the trains passing through... some of what I see here makes me think of that.

It is astonishing that people can find anthing or anyone in the BNP to admire. Yes there are problems with the UK's policies on immigration asylum etc but the solution is not the BNP. Not unless you want to wear swasticas and encourage your kids to join the Hitler youth.

The BNP appeal to peoples most base instincts and unfortunately those with little intellect and narrowness of mind find them appealing.

The BBC's programme brought out nothing new to those of us know what the BNP agenda is but a bit of bad press may just make a few of the less enlightened voters think again about who they vote for. That cannot be a bad thing.

Nick Griffin and his mentor John Tyndall do nothing more than Goebbels did in 1930s Germany. Instead of an outright attack on Jews the BNP mix it all together with attacks on the Black and Asian community as well. I watched the documentary and the Newsnight interview and felt sickened. I am married to a lady of mixed race and in the BNPs ideal world I would probably end up in a ditch with a bullet in my head for mixing my aryan blood with that of an untermensch .

I abhor extremism in all its guises, be it left right or religious, but when I read the views of posters to this forum who appear to sympathise with Griffins views I realize that I need to choose sides. I side with a multicultural Britain that treats all of its citizens with fairness and justice irrespective of race, creed or colour. This doesn't mean I have to agree with economic migration to the UK, although no one suggests it is wrong when we (WASPs) travel to other countries to set up new lives because of better standards of living etc. I happen to like Christmas stamps and Christmas trees in public places. I do not like political correctness when taken to extremes.

Let's learn from history and be mature rather than agressive in our democracy.

FNG in addition to SC's remarks above you should remember that Mandela was considered to be a smart lawyer which is why he managed to avoid the charge of murder and had to answer to one of conspiracy to murder, (had the murder charge stuck he would have got the rope).

No real reason for him to have received an unfair trial either, at that time he was just another lesser known political thug who had conspired to murder a fellow black activist that the ANC considered too soft and likely to steal some ANC support, there was no black/white issue.

Connex

Well put, I entirely agree with all you say. I have served on Loan Service to a certain state in the Far East for 2 years. All Loan Service personnel respected the laws and the beliefs and mode of dress of the country in which we were serving at all times. We were collectively known by the locals as the "Orang Putehs" however it was never taken as an insult. I believe as Connex states it is about time we think seriously about retaining our dignity and freedom and stop all this stupid “political correctness”. This is a Christian country and there should be no restriction regarding Christians celebrating Christmas. The Royal Mail should sell special issue stamps at Christmas, Churches should be allowed to advertise our religious festivities. During my Loan Service at Christmas time the local stores were decorated and playing Christmas Carols just as at Hari Rya they celebrated the end of Ramadam. We in fact insult people by being so “politically correct”. What next? Will these “do gooders” try to ban Trooping the Colour because it is flaunting the Guard’s Battle Honours to the world thus making the nations against which they were earned as feeling inferior?

s.g. Herr Chuks, the old "Historikenstreit"... As a writer for the London Times wrote: "How far can German historians discuss Hitler in a normal way -- advancing positive as well as negative elements -- without seeming to be Nazi sympathizers?"

Hitler is portrayed as a peculiarly, even uniquely evil figure -- far more so than, for example, Stalin or Mao Zedong or Pol Pot -- each of whose victims vastly outnumber Hitler's.

As a result of this aberrant view of the past, Germany remains, even after half a century, a nation permanently "on parole." Because it has already been collectively tried and convicted, so to speak, any "relapse" brings swift condemnation and threat of renewed punishment.

If Nick Griffin seriously believes that the actions of a few extremists give rise to Islam being a "vicious wicked faith", then does he also consider that the actions of a few extremists(IRA) mean that Roman Catholicism is also a "vicious wicked faith"?

Apologies for thread creep: Mandela was convicted of sabotage. He was at the time a leading figure in the ANC and well known inside and outside South Africa. The description of him above as a "lesser known political thug" is curious.

For a contemporary report of the trial, see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/mandela/story/0,8224,435941,00.html

Mandela's own statement on the matter:-

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html


SC: I do not keep a list of BBC progs, and it might not do you much good without a TV, but examples include a series earlier this year on European anti-terrorist operations, Ignatieff's progs last year on bilateral warfare, and assorted Panoramas.

Dear all,
Where do I start with all of this? I have a question for some of those expressing “admiration” for the BNP. Since when did nationalism have to be racism? We have a strong nationalist movement in Scotland yet it is most certainly not racist (btw I am not an SNP supporter, my political affiliations are to the LibDems) I would also like to ask the difference between xenophobia and racism, since several posters feel there is a difference and that one is acceptable and the other is less so.

Connex,
“I have to say that, as I see it, we, the indigenous majority, are no longer allowed to “say our piece”. Seemed to work out ok for Robert Kilroy-Silk.

“We don’t go to your country and kick off – don’t do it in ours! As they say, “when in Rome….” What about English football fans and tourists in Portugal and Greece this summer so far?

“It is about time that the British people – Christian people - were once again able to express their opinions without the fear of the “race card” or the “religious card” being played against them.” If someone says something that is racist why should they not be called as such? You want freedom of speech then that freedom has consequences and one of those is that others can say what they feel about you. Or should only the racists be allowed an opinion?

“I have to say that I admire the BNP Leader for sticking to his guns and refusing to apologise for saying what were, to him, his fundamental beliefs.” There are people in this world who hold and have held true to their fundamental beliefs that are far more worthy of admiration.

Metro Man,

“the ordinary majority have had enough” I do not know what it is like in Oz but here in the UK the majority of people still vote for the three main parties.

“The major parties cannot say what a lot of people feel in case they appear racist and offend some minority group.” Or perhaps these parties are actually not racist.

“When Christmas cards are stopped, Christmas themed stamps no longer printed and for Christ's sake even hot cross buns causing offence it's time to do something.” Funnily enough it is never the people who will supposedly be offended to lobby to have these changes made.

“These minorities expect the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them, yet do as little as possible to fit in, expecting schools to teach in their languages, and swimming pools to hold women's only sessions.” I live in Glasgow and the ethnic minorities are an integral and essential part of the city. They have changed the city and have in turn been changed by the city. Both for the good. As for teaching their languages in schools here, why the hell not??!! The level of bi- and multi-lingual ability in this country is offensive and yet we talk about “when in Rome” and go there and demand that everyone speak English.

Cheers

BHR

Unlike most of you - I hope - I have met Nick Griffin a couple of times (cue sound of lots of shifting on seats..)

He is an unimpressive very small man with limited public speaking appeal. If he is the worst/best the Far Right can muster as Leader then - friend - we have little to fear.

He is prone to self indulgent rants about his own 'analysis' of the Koran and as such displays a paucity of political guile which renders him forever fringe.

Mr Griffin lives on a small farm not very far away from my own just outside the peaceful Mid-Wales town of Welshpool. This is how I have encountered the bloke.

Cheers,

WWW

Oh BHR, where do I start?

I have a question for some of those expressing “admiration” for the BNP.
haven't seen anyone do that so far. Someone admired his guts for sticking to what he believes....
There are people in this world who hold and have held true to their fundamental beliefs that are far more worthy of admiration.
Then admire them as well. I didn't realise that it was a competition, and only the winner gets admired
“We don’t go to your country and kick off – don’t do it in ours! As they say, “when in Rome….” What about English football fans and tourists in Portugal and Greece this summer so far?
I think that you have taken that out of context. Original poster meant (Ithink) that we don't move to other countries and demand that they avoid offending our traditions... Nothing to do with fighting
“the ordinary majority have had enough” I do not know what it is like in Oz but here in the UK the majority of people still vote for the three main parties.
The BNP polled 4% of the votes at the European elections. Not a huge total, but significant.

“The major parties cannot say what a lot of people feel in case they appear racist and offend some minority group.” Or perhaps these parties are actually not racist.

Or perhaps the original assertion was true. No real evidence either way

Funnily enough it is never the people who will supposedly be offended to lobby to have these changes made.
Again - nobody said that they did. it is the left wing PC crowd that make these decisions, and wonder why "tensions are inflamed"

I didn't see last night's programme, but I have read about it this morning. One of the main culprits is reported to have taken part in a "racist assault" At first I assumed that they had randomly beaten someone up because of his race. Then I read more... Doesn't excuse what happened, but it does rather change the perspective.. I suggest you all read it...

Chips

FNG, you write:
___________________

If I believed in the Tooth Fairy I would also believe that Nelson Mandela received a fair trial in early sixties South Africa.
___________________

I am asking because I do not know the answer, although I do have an impression. My question is: Have you reason for your scepticism above? My impression at the time was, and it may have been mistaken, that the courts -- unlike the politicians who are political by definition -- in South Africa were remarkably un-political, and my opening presumption would have been that the accused did receive a fair trial. Was I wrong?

I fail to see why we should admire someone for sticking to their beliefs when they are manifestly wrong. Does anyone admire Hitler or Stalin "because they stuck to their beliefs"??

I agree, Octopussy. There seems to be a lot of "I don't support the BNP, but maybe they have a point" and "I'm not a racist, but enough is enough" going on, some of it apparently based on urban myths about hot cross buns and the bizarre perception that the white majority in the UK is somehow oppressed and/or gagged.

Davaar, I only mentioned Mandela at all because of the suggestion of what appeared to me to be a superficial and inaccurate comparison between him and current BNP activists with convictions for violence. The charge against Mandela was highly political, and he and the other defendants were effectively pitched against the entire state structure of the apartheid regime. It appears that the trial involved the use of evidence from anonymous witnesses, and evidence obtained after 90 day interrogations of men held in solitary confinement. I do not suggest that the trial could be equated with a Stalinist show trial, but I am not convinced that it would satisfy our notions of a fair and even handed process either. Anyway, none of this is as important as my bid to take over the world via a Tooth Fairy cult. Are you in?

As I say, FNG, I am not at all dogmatic on the topic, and my interest over the years was casual, but I do recall quite often being impressed by what seemed to me judicial independence and courage in South Africa.

In your pensees on religion you will of course pay tribute to that devout cult so strict in its obedience to the Great Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Drink South African Wine.

Moving right along, I yield, as we say, to none in my dedication to the Tooth Fairy. She is my principal source of income these days.

Very well Clowns, my figure of less than 10% was a guess, admittedly - but if you could provide me with figures on how many of these 'Christians' actively follow the religion, let alone go to church, I'd be grateful. Britain is primarily a secular, not a Christian society.

Secularisation is for the most part a jolly good thing, I'm a religionist first and foremost, believing it to be at the root of most of the world's ills.

Davaar, I will seek out and read the text you have recommended, thankyou.

Even the right-wing tabloids (Sun and Mail) have risen to applaud last night's expose on the real BNP agenda, and are united in their vilification for Griffin and his odious 'political party'.

As for any of the other points, I am grateful to FNG for answering them far more coherently than I could have.

The thread is loosing the point.The point is the BNP feed off the problems caused by the white middle classes and their PC "facism", NOT the wishes of the racial minorities in this country, who on the whole could give a flying toss about stamps, and Christmas cards and Hot cross buns etc etc etc.

The average mouth breathing shaven headed thug actually thinks its the minorites that are complaining, when they are not.

The Daily Mail and other "toilet paper " press have a lot to answer for, so when the beer swilling scum have finished their chips and having wiped the grease away actually read whats written actually take for gospel what is going on.

These beer swilling thugs would only find another avenue to vent their spleen ie football, but that is now well and trully under control, so the BNP is another natural outlet.

Basically Lack of education+ right wing press+ Middle class PC do gooders=gullible bigotted thug and racial tension

Take away the middle class PC do gooders, the Mail has nothing to write about and therfore thug isnt indoctrinated.

Its funny how all of this is perpetrated by a minority of the white populace

History is repeating itself

I'm trying hard to argue with you, Simon, but I find that I cannot.

As I said earlier, I have a hearty contempt for Political Correctness and the prissy self-regarding know-all control freaks responsible for it.

It's not a left vs right thing - it's all about imposing a set of values on "the lower orders".

It's one US import that we could well do without, I fear.

Send Clowns..The fact that we have never had a prime minister from a member of the minority 7% is hardly surprising.

Why?

The minority 4% who own 80% (at least) of the wealth in the UK have ruled for centuries indeed most Primeministers have come from a 'well-to-do' background.

The 'elite' minority of the UK have only been ousted from the top position in the last 50 years or so. John Major being a prime (no pun intended) example.

Back to the main theme,

Last night's program made it very clear. The BNP/NF/Nazis are a disgusting bunch of thugs who, if left to their own devices could pose a huge threat to this great country.
Do not underestimate them, Hitler was voted into office remember.

Nice to see Barclays Bank have seen fit to close the BNP's accounts today. Must have learned their lesson over South Africa!:E

Point taken, Captain K.

Personally, I wish that we were a bit more sensitised to evil in all its forms in the sense of being a bit more ready to try to be fully humane. All this emoting can be a bit wearing, really. Wearing your heart on your sleeve means it ends up a bit yucky; better to keep it under your shirt where it belongs but spring into action when you have a target of opportunity.

I guess the thing was that Hitler had a centrally placed stage and got everyone's attention for what he staged. He really was a third-rate artist and he had a vivid sense of theatre, to the point where Nazi regalia still exerts a powerful pull on the weak-minded.

Too, he made some big claims for defending Western values, even if a lot of those were just things he and other people had made up. This would be what people are talking about when they want to refer to the positive side of nazism, I suppose. Sort of like the curate's egg, I guess, where '...parts of it were excellent'.

'Racial purity' for instance, is a complete nonsense in the context of Germany. This place is nothing but a big, flat crossroads with people of every stripe passing through throughout history to add their mite to its gene pool. Yet we now have some clown allegedly trying to start some sort of eugenics centre just down the road from where I live. (It's not quite clear what he's up to yet but he already has form for being involved in several neo-Nazi projects.)

I was chatting with someone I know here, not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but not a complete moron either, who leant over and told me, apropos of nothing, what the Jews were getting up to, some racist twaddle or other. I just shook my head but didn't bother going into the five-minute argument.

So as far as the Germans being kept on a short leash, well, serves them right, I guess. And if that includes my own children, that won't matter as long as they stick to the values we have tried to give them! What, people should have permission to be jerks? Adolf only killed six million and Stalin killed twenty but Adolf is the bad guy. What, we should give him credit for the 14 million he didn't manage to do away with? Give me a break!

One of the funniest things to happen was one of my daughter's classmates telling everyone that he knew who was a foreigner and who was purely German just by looking at them. My daughter asked this jerk what she was then. 'German of course' came the answer, when she told him that she was actually 50% American. 'Good for you,' I thought, when I heard the story.

I used to have people here blurt out some complaint about all those 'foreigners' not working, getting government money, etc, etc. Then they would turn to me and say, 'Well, I don't mean you of course!' when I would just smile and shrug. You can hear this sort of thing wherever you go, it is just that the targets change around.

I think a lot of the argument heard here at the Speaker's Corner suffers from a lack of perspective. If people would pull back a bit and think about what they really are proposing they might feel a bit abashed about how far they have gone in a circular direction, following more and more tracks so that they must be headed in the right direction.

I don't want to spoil your fun here, but quoting Hitler, for instance, is, for me, about like wearing a sign reading 'kick me'; it's very hard to resist. I have taken the point about insults and bad language, so that I hope to use the stiletto rather than the bludgeon but it sure is inciteful.

Well, perhaps a lot of the folks here, like me, have some time on their hands to spend with what I like to think of as 'barflies in a box'. You can turn the computer on and tune in to whatever heated discussion is going on without even having to buy anyone a drink. And when normal life beckons you can just hit that little box with an x in it and go do whatever else beckons. Some of you even seem to feel that you have real, meaningful relationships with each other even if that just means enmity. Modern life, I guess we can call this.

Turin

Where on Earth did you study statistics? If you haven't, don't try to blag it, you just make an argument that is tempting for others similarly untutored to accept but actually makes no sense. If you have, shoot your teachers. Your logic is completely flawed. Just because one minority has dominated a post has no tendency to increase the probability of another minority holding it.

Therefore the entire post before "back to the main theme" has no bearing at all on any discussion on this thread.

Wedge

This is about culture, not religious observance. The celebration of Christmas with a mix of religious and secular symbolism is part of our culture. It is perhaps particularly relevant to those who proclaim christianity, but even to me (I am an atheist brought up to Christian culture) it has relevance.

The statistic I gave was to counter your made up one, which related to those who described themselves as christian, not those who practise.

P.S. Did anyone listen to "The Now Show" this evening? I think they've been reading PPRuNe, as they repeated eal401's comment Rumours are that future episodes will expose bears using forested areas for defacation purposes and the Pope admiting to some Catholic tendancies.

Have to agree Caslance, while my reflex was to disagree with simon's post, I think he makes some very valid points.

btw SC just in case you took it seriously my post on the other thread about agreeing with banning Xmas stamps was tongue in cheek. Of course the suggestion of banning Xmas stamps is ludicrous.

Fair enough Wedge.

What I find astounding is the complete difference of approach shown between Mr Griffin and Mr Hamza by the 'Law enforcement' authorities.

Mr. Hamza was continually allowed to preach hatred, violence and intolerance against anyone who was not Muslim. He called for violence to the point of inciting the more gullible to become suicide bombers.

The Police took NO action other than to protect HIM.

Mr. Griffin did not incite people to commit murder however the Police are actively looking at how he may be prosecuted !.

Now pardon me for appearing to be thick here but what on earth is going on !

Whilst I personally do not subscribe to Mr Griffins views by comparison with Mr. Hamza's they are of the milder variety.

No wonder people are being driven towards more extreme political parties when it can be clearly seen that there are double standards

Astrodome, I think you'll find that Mr Hamza is being deported!

Sorry but No he is NOT being deported.

He is fighting that option every step of the way and is lilkely NEVER to be deported because some moron mentioned the death penalty........Played right into his hands.................

Having said that the ONLY reason Hamza is being detained is on the basis that the USA are the ONLY Country with the courage to take this individual on.

Absloutely NO action has been taken against Hamza in respect of his activities over here. And that includes his well recorded and documented hatred calling for Muslims to attack and kill non-Muslims.

I think you'll find he's not being deported but extradited. Or at least the US are wanting him to be.

Of course that's only if the UK promise that he'll not face the death penalty. BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3856445.stm)

Aren't we kind!

Even kinder, and perhaps a candidate for 'worst job in the world' is this article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14385572&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=hamza-gets--30-000-nurse---to-wipe-his-bum-name_page.html)
Basically,
TERROR suspect Abu Hamza has been given new hooks on the NHS - and a £30,000-a-year nurse to wipe his backside in jail.

The Muslim extremist, who has no hands, was fitted with special £5,000 replacement hooks because it was feared his original metal ones could be used as weapons.

He is unable to clean himself as he could do himself an injury. So prison officials have hired a male nurse named Harry to perform the task.
Only in this green and pleasant land!

I believe that the Syrians (?) would love the opportunity to lavish medical attention upon the animal.

Nice one that using the Daily Mirror website...nice touch ! :ok:

That should put certain people on here who always berate the Daily Mail into somewhat of a tail spin ! :D

I have no sympathy for Abu Hamza and would not mourn his passing. However, after listening to the ranting of John Tyndall in the documentary the other night I would suggest that it could be said that it isn't only extreme Muslims who get away with racially motivated vitriol.

Just a comment on evil and one on 'foreigners'.

Evil has less to do with how many one tyrant has killed than with the nature of his mind. Hitler and Pol Pot killed for race and ideology, respectively. Hussein killed fewer only because of the means at his disposal, and I believe he killed to retain power, primarily, and I suspect, out of a sadistic nature. Can equivalent evil exist in a father who has only the power to destroy his own family? Maybe, but few would know about it.

As for foreigners. I once lived in a community with a large number of Sikh immigrants. How much they added to the fabric of a small city in the West! Hard working, good hearted, and non-hostile. I know there were baddies in their midst, but the group added to the strength and success of the community, and I never observed any resentment or xenophobic bigotry against them, even among the rednecks. And they are as different to the people around them as night and day.

I think resentment builds when the social costs are high with an immigrant group. When crime, welfare, and a sense of losing one's own culture come into play, the bigotry meter rises. Is it legitimate? Our sense of fair play says you can't punish a good member of a group for the collective behavior of his group. Just as you shouldn't reward a deviant from a successful group. But how does the society protect itself?

Good to see that the CIA have found a suitable replacement for Saddam http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html?oneclick=true/ here. Interestingly this was on the drudge website yesterday but has now vanished.

You may agree with his cause, but that does not mean his trial was unfair. That means the system he was fighting against was unfair.

Be careful now! By the same logic the French resistance in WW2 were terrorists as the Vichy government was a legally constituted government.

And Working Hard, do you have the balls to admit that you admire the BNP and that 'they have a point' like your mates Connex and Send Clowns?

What are you hiding behind?

SoS

SC

Study statistics? Statistics? Study?

What, any particular statistics or just ones generally floating around in the ether?

Never studied stats in my life. Nor do I intend to start now.

However, the view that the majority of wealth in this country is in the hands of a very tiny minority holds true.

The fact that the leaders of this country have been drawn from this wealthy minority is just that, fact!

I never suggested anything about probabilities. It was you who brought up the subject of minorities becoming primeministers.

I only suggested that if one minority can do it, why not another.

Sorry to draw off thread again but I had to reply to SCs jibe.

Caslance

I dont remember saying its a left vs right conflict.I merely used the example of the right wing press and right wing thuggery, as that is what is going on.Perhaps the term gutter press would have been more approriate.....

Remember the fuss when the Chief of Police of Saigon shot a bound VC prisoner right in front of Eddie Adams? Adams won the Pulitzer Prize for the photo, the Police Chief was machine-gunned in an ambush later that day but survived (I think he lives in Hawaii now) and the VC, I can't quite remember what happened to him but in the picture it looks as though he really isn't having a good day. He had just killed a Saigon cop a little while before, which kind of pissed off the police chief, to the point where he wasn't worried much about bad PR. To be Chief of Police of Saigon already meant that he didn't sit up late thinking about human rights and that sort of thing.

The moral of the story was possibly that situations like that involve bad guys and worse guys or else that you shouldn't have the gentlemen of the press looking on when you do nasty things.

These two lessons seem to have been forgotten by the USA over the intervening 35 years, along with possibly the big lesson not to get involved in messes like Viet Nam, etc, if you can possibly help it. Well, I guess this is exactly the stuff you guys like to chew over, so have at it.

Interested to read this rather telling line by West Coast:-I am much more given to regional solutions, tended to by regional powers unless there is some over riding US interest.So we can take it that, in the eyes of WC and people of similar political hue, US interests override regional solutions - in other words, you can rule yourselves unless we think we would prefer you to have another, different government - e.g. Chile, Iran, Iraq, El Salvador... plus a few others...

chuks,

I remember when the Berlin Wall came down, all the noble rhetoric surrounding that event, Germany once again a nation unified under one flag. After the party, the hangover began to take shape, however, and the West Germans not only came to see just how far apart they had grown from their brothers and sisters on the east side; lifestyles, work ethic, social & political orientation, but also how much of their hard-earned national resources would be required to bring them up to speed. (I believe the ‘solidarity tax’ is still in effect?) In subsequent years, I think many Germans secretly wished to have the wall put back up.

The national identity crisis spawned by that single event, in my opinion, their geographical and ideological placement at the epicenter of the Cold War collapse, overshadows any lingering self-doubts regarding the Nazis. Germany is most certainly a nation in intense transition, but not one transiting from a post-Hitlerian order of things, as some writers here are suggesting.

There's a joke that's commonly heard here: They should rebuild the Berlin Wall, but three meters higher!

With hindsight the critical mistake in re-unification may have been pegging the Ostmark to the D-mark at 1:1. That killed the market for East German goods and sent their economy into steep decline. Another part of the same problem was that, according to conventional wisdom, the East German industrial base was thought to be in reasonable shape. Instead, when closely looked at, it was found to be a shambles. So instead of needing a mild stimulus the patient ended up on life support.

There were a lot of other things to worry about at the time, particularly a neo-fascist regime moving into a power vacuum in the East, so that what now looms so large was then not taken to be of such concern.

For an amusing view of post-transition East Germany have a look at the film, 'Goodbye Lenin'.

I have a friend who has been working in the former East for some years. He keeps shaking his head over the state of affairs there.

We have been through there a few times, once just after re-unification and again just a couple of years ago. It's certainly interesting to look at and to think about what is going on there.

Germany is most certainly a nation in intense transition, but not one transiting from a post-Hitlerian order of things, as some writers here are suggesting.Do you really think the Germans can shake off their past like a dog the rain? I'm afraid life is not that easy. Why do you think it took 45 years before the Germans held a memorial day for the NS victims ("Tag des Gedenkens an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus")? History doesn't change. On the contrary, the more the black hole of civilisation goes back in history, the sharper it gets. The first presence of a German Prime Minister (Gehard Schroeder) on D-Day this year, adds to the coming clear of the German (and Allies) who can finally tell their children that the Jews did not went somewhere far away East, but in the neighbour countries. The danger lies however in the fact that instead of discussing the real issues, moralising groups of people will battle about the symbols, like what happened with the Holocaust Monument in Berlin.

Couldn't agree more, the 101 exchange rate DMark-Ostmark was a historic mistake of monumental proportions....

It's amazing, the closer we get to the election we now have stories coming from the US that some of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran! Not so subtle is it?

The case against Iran I suppose is slowly being put together, should be nice and juicy with all kinds of scaremongering reports being put out prior to November........:rolleyes:

FNG Sorry, you were right, conspiracy to muder was not one of the charges against Mandela, the list is as follows:


• One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
• One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
• Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:

(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);

(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;

(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:

(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.

Dear Captain K, and others,

As to the nature of the German transition, I really wouldn't know for sure. That quote came from someone else, 'Buggsmasher'

But as to 'history' I think that is a very, umm, intangible entity. In fact, I got into a rather weird argument with someone on this very forum, just having a little fun I suppose, when I insisted that my history is not necessarily his history and that histories can and do change. There I was more exercised about showing some backbone in the face of the usual depressing news, something I happen to believe in.

My own first-hand experience of Viet Nam has showed me just how history can change. Refugees from Communist oppression, living in large sewer pipes in Saigon (yet to be installed, let me point out) have mutated into refugees from American bombing campaigns, just for one example. Their history hasn't changed but mine has, if you take my meaning. Then I was a 20 year-old ignorant Yankee, still wet behind the ears. Now I have grown up a bit.

After having been led down the garden path to Auschwitz by a pathetic excuse for a human being of an Austrian failed artist, just how ready were most Germans to accept in 1945 that they had made total asses of themselves? From their side, not very and from the side of the Western Powers, they were given a bit of a free ride after we had hanged a few of the high-profile bad guys. We needed lots of former Nazis to keep Germany running, much as we are now willing to use Baathists in present-day Iraq.

So the history of Germany circa 1945 may not be the history of the Germany of today. And you still have some people here and elsewhere trying to burnish Hitler's memory, to scrub off the bloodstains and present the 'good' ideas that he had. To me this is just as much nonsense as the curate saying that parts of his rotten egg were excellent. Yet people will still try it on, even here on this forum, albeit in somewhat guarded form.

There was this rather weird owner of a baseball club in the States, a real throw-back of a rich, ugly white lady, who got into hot water expressing her appreciation for Hitler-think and also indicating that she thought her black players were closely related to monkeys. The really funny bit was that she couldn't understand why people got so upset with her for just saying what she thought 'everybody thinks'. She had forgotten that to own a baseball team is, in the USA, a sacred calling, to be a guardian of part of our national ju-ju, that which sets us apart from lesser nations. (George W. Bush? Baseball team owner! Part owner? Well, anyway, his fortunes were tied very closely to a baseball team in some way, even though I don't know the details.)

I think if you keep a bit of distance from your subject then, often, a recognisable pattern emerges, the same old human capacity for self-deception, selling ourselves whatever self-beneficial lies we need to get through the day rather than going about in sackcloth and ashes giving the spineless backbone a good workout with a cat o' ninetails. Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Groucho Marx, even, used to make a very good living out of pointing out human folly, but do you think the material they worked with has somehow gone the way of the Passenger Pigeon and the Dodo?

Here, so often, you see people plunging into the examination of the most minute details, as if they were researching the contents of an elephant's umbilicus while ignoring the rest of the beast. Hmmm....

I dont remember saying its a left vs right conflict Indeed you didn't simon. I was justing pointing out that it isn't! :ok:

The case against Iran I suppose is slowly being put together, Care to bet that they'll have WMDs on 45-minute standby by election time? :hmm:

Care to bet that they'll have WMDs on 45-minute standby by election time?

Problem now of course Cas is we have the ol' "Boy who cried Wolf," even if it was true, who could possibly believe the governments now??


chuks,

I may be reading you wrong here, but I'm struggling to find out what it is you're trying to say.

I mean when do we say enough is enough with Germanys guilt for WWII? It was 50 years ago, most people involved with the regime are now dead. It was nothing to do with young germans today, they are no more guilty then you and I are for what happened. Even children of Nazi officials could not be held to account.

I think I am misreading you here, help me out!

Omark, you wrote of Mandela

"at that time he was just another lesser known political thug... there was no black/white issue."

I hope that, on reflection, you may consider that those words were somewhat unfair. Mandela was a figure of international repute even before the trial, and his crime involved plotting to bring down a regime which was based on a conception of racial superiority (and before any of the apologists for the regime start up, I am aware that apartheid was supposedly about "apartness" or separation of races, but remember that I am also the Tooth Fairy's right hand man and Vicar on Earth.) To say that there was no black/white issue is, I politely suggest, about as off target as a certain celebrity homemaker cum jailbird comparing herself with Mr Mandela.

If I had Osama Bin Laden's millions, I'd have bought myself a big floating whisky-palace long ago (back in the late '80s) on which to spend the rest of my days.

If I was OBL, I'd probably still consider buying a yacht on which to hideaway until things got calmer. Nurturing the chip on my shoulder so to speak.

In the meantime, I'd be looking around to buy...oh, why not an old chemical plant of some sort. There must be a few of those around, even in the USA. You know the sort of plants I'm talking about, years since any money was invested in them but still important to the local economy in terms of employement. So there would be plenty of interest from local politicians should an entrepreneur show up, even if he was foreign. Hell, old GWB may even have put through financial incentives for people like us! Well obviously, my representatives wouldn't show up with passports from a ME country, that might attract unwanted attention. But what if they arrived with good old NZ passports...even if those blasted Kiwis still ban any warships which are nuclear-powered or could be suspected of carrying nuclear weapons?!

So here I am, OBL, with my own chemical plant, well situated close to a major population centre, like thousands of others in Europe and the USA I might add. The whole idea came to me after reading about the continuing saga involving the aftermath of the Bhopal Union Carbide pesticide plant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3906691.stm). 20-25,000 deaths for only $470 million sounds quite a good deal. Especially as I'd probably still be able to find a buyer for the company even after all that. What's really great, is that all I'd have to do is find one disaffected employee on which to blame the whole thing. By all accounts, even a US court would throw out further proceedings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867863.stm) against me.

OBLCC (Osama Bin Laden Chemical Corp.), an equal opportunities employer, coming to a location near you soon! :uhoh:

Ummm, noone's posted all evening. Sounds ominous. Should I expect to be awakened in the early hours? Look, Jack Ryan was a lowly analyist. He saved Prince Charles and Lady Di from almost certain death. For which he obtained a knighthood. He went on to become a US President! OK, so I can't save Lady Di anymore, and I wasn't born in the USA. So maybe Tom Clancy'll ask me to help him out with his latest offering...! :O

Am I right in thinking that Apartheid was a creation of the Dutch Reformed Church?

What makes you think it was?

Well I seem to recall reading that, but as I'm not sure I asked the question. Is that ok?

The National Party (NP) introduced apartheid as part of its campaign in the 1948 elections. With its victory, apartheid became the governing political policy for South Africa until the early 1990s. Although the official policy of apartheid is generally associated with the NP victory, and especially with its chief architect, Dr H. F. Verwoerd, who was Minister of Native Affairs (1951-1958) and later Prime Minister (1958-1966), it built on a long history of racial segregation and discriminatory laws intended to ensure white supremacy. Thus, the migrant labour system, based on special land reserves and highly restrictive pass laws; masters’ and servants’ laws which hampered African trade union organization; the job colour bar, which reserved work defined as skilled for whites only; and urban influx control were all established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the wake of the discovery and exploitation of South Africa’s vast mineral resources.

(Thanks again Google!)

Actually Maxflyer you may well be right...

"Apartheid received much ideological support from the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC), the main Afrikaner Protestant Church, and racial segregation and discrimination were justified by Christian discourse and ideas spread by the DRC."

From a report on the web.

Also according to the history of the CALVIN PROTESTANT CHURCH OF SA, they established their branch as a break a way from the then Dutch Reformed Mission Church in SA (NGSK) due to the question of Apartheid in the Dutch Reformed Church (NGK).

True FNG, though at one stage he had to renounce the leadership of the ANC and remained it's underground leader but yes, higher profile than I gave him credit for.
Somewhere in the ANC's history there most certainly is the murder of a fellow black activist whom they considered too soft for their liking, haven't unearthed the details yet!

He was himself originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government. He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades!
(same reference, State v. Nelson Mandela etc.).
So the white regime was hardly likely to be their only target was it? To me it looks as though they were planning the age old terrorist route, attack the opposition and anyone who shows any sympathy for them or even works in their employ etc. and destroy the infrastructure, as taught in all the best Russian terrorist training facilities of the day. The bottom line is that violence, murder and mayhem were high on the agenda and Mandela was in there helping to organising it. Whether the regime was a legitimate one or not did it justify that level of planned violence and taking of life?

(edited for bda spooling).

Some things are worth fighting against. A regime based on vile racial theories, supporting itself by military force, secret police, and extra judicial execution, is one such thing. I am referring, of course, to the Nazi regime defeated by this country and its allies in 1939-45. The Apartheid regime in South Africa was not on a par with that of Hitler (and J C Smuts courageously led South Africa to join the allies in World War 2, despite internal dissent, at a time when South Africa was racially segregated in social structure, but before the apartheid regime was in place), but the regime developed many of the characteristics of the worst of governments, as described above. It was, fundamentally, a regime based on the idea that one race is superior to another, and it condemned a multitude to live as inferiors on explicitly racist grounds. Mandela and others conspired to overthrow the regime, and to replace it, not with black supremacy or communism, but with a fairer government. I am very glad that apartheid eventually fell without bloody revolution, and heartened by the survival, in very difficult circumstances, of a form of democracy and the rule of law in modern South Africa, but I can't condemn Mandela for resorting to desperate measures when he did.

Mandela came into this thread because somebody above equated him with one of the football hooligan BNP leaders who also has criminal convictions. That seems to me to be another comparison about as worthy as that made by the incarcerated cookie queen between herself and Mandela.

Be careful before you set yourself up to judge who should hold what rights, FNG. That is a dangerous road. On it you follow much of the "Liberal" establishment in the UK.

TURIN

Did you ever actually read my post?I never suggested anything about probabilities. It was you who brought up the subject of minorities becoming primeministers.

I only suggested that if one minority can do it, why not another.Where on Earth did I say a member of any minority could not be Prime Minister? You are accusing me of racist comments, which I certainly did not make!

What I actually pointed out is that it cannot be considered unlikely that no member of a small minority had ever been made Prime Minister in the short time that minority had been significant, even given absolutely equal opportunity. You counter this with an example of a minority whose selection is not independent of the selection of Prime Ministers, a completely invalid statistical comparrison.

You then (proudly, seemingly) admit not to know anything about statistics. This would suggest to me that you shouldn't try using them in an argument, valid as the statistic in isolation may be. Statistics are a lot more tricky than most people think, and often counter-intuitive. "Lies, damned lies and statistics".

One mans terrorist and all that...........

How would Washington and co been viewed by the British at the time, or the Irish Rebels early last century?

I do not propose to be at all "careful" on the subject of whether anyone has the "right" to hold others in subjection on the basis of their racial origin. I do not propose to be "careful" in saying that a system based upon such subjection is anything other than absolutely and unequivocally wrong. It may be fashionable to be culturally and politically relativistic, and to refrain from judgment on how others arrange their affairs, but I think that to be a cop out. We shouldn't shrink from identifying things which are in every case intolerable. Racism is one of these. I would add to the list many of the practices of some Islamic societies: female genital mutilation, enforced veiling of women, compelled marriage. The Tooth Fairy will not rest until the last mullah is strangled with the guts of the last priest, but that's her business.

As for the UK's liberal establishment, if that is what is responsible for making the UK, for all its faults, still on a broad measure one of the freest, most tolerant, most civilised and orderly countries in the world (all of these features are under enormous pressure, but they are still there), then hoorah (faintly) for the liberal establishment.

Under Apartheid South African blacks had the highest standard of living of any blacks in Africa (United Nations figures) SHOCK !

Do you remember seeing any famine such as in Ethiopia ? Or genocide like in Rwanda ?

They had a problem with illegal IMMIGRATION ,blacks from outside trying to get in and find work.

Certainly a lot of wrong was done .Forced removal of masses of people ,land seizures ,very inferior facilities(compared to whites) etc .But ,compared to Idi Amin ,Emperor Bokassa ,Mugabe ,Biaffran war ,Ethiopian famine ,Rwandan genocide ,wars in Sierra Leone ,Liberia ,Congo ,Sudan etc was it really that bad ?

Yes an inhuman system ,but on a continent where a lot worse went on and is still going on.

And before everyone jumps on me ,give me an example of an independent African country where things have improved for its people since independence.

Yes, and some slaves in the ante-bellum south had better living standards than my peasant ancestors in mid C19 Ireland, so that makes it alright. Civil War? 13th Amendment? doh! Silly billies.

Nighty night, all, I am off to slip between the sheets. Those of you who want to dress up in yours and set fire to crucifixes, please do it down the road from me as I have to get up early.

The Liberalist establishment is NOT what makes the Uk tolerant.

Quite the opposite !

Most people in the UK are generally quite tolerant. The problem comes BECAUSE of the Liberal/Leftist elite.

They hold the view that because one is white anglo-saxon protestant, that one is automatically racist.

The Liberal/Leftist agenda has put back race-relations by years in this Country

Do you really think the Germans can shake off their past like a dog the rain?
Cap’n K,

I’ll have to agree with OW22 on this one; at what point does a nation, a peoples, cease to lay claim to the actions of their forefathers, no matter how heinous? In taking them to imperious account, is there a limit that is morally acceptable, and do you yourself disingenuously cross that treacherous line?

There are, without doubt, certain factions who play their historical end game to maximum advantage. Not surprisingly, most that engage in this sort of embarrassment were not even there, had no part in those events. A matter of twisted perspective, I would say.

In the strident, adolescent shaming of the grandchildren for the excesses of their forebears, I see no hope, progress or resolution, only regression and ugly repetition.

chuks,

You appear to have a casually acquired, yet intimate knowledge of the Teutonic psyche, perhaps I am wrong. What exactly do you think of the hopes and aspirations of the average German?

Smasher, yes I've casually aquired knowledge of the Teutonic psyche. I have a business in Germany, travelled there for the last 30 years, speak German and have always a great interest in the German society and history of great philosophers. I've seen the changes in the German society on first hand. My point was, it's not how we think they should think, it's how they perceive the history and cope with it's burden. After 40/50 years the shame and the embarrasment resulting in silence and oppression, seem to be over and the Germans are able to discuss what happened. I've rarely seen War documentaries on German TV until the last 10-15 years which also includes the atrocities of the Nazi's.

Nowadays the the hopes and aspirations of the average German aren't that much different to most of the other European, due to the ever increasing Globalisation. Many English words creep into the German language and I believe that outside the US the Internet is most widespread in Germany. The days of the "Wirtschaftswunder" are over though, Germany has (next to Holland) the most holidays in all of Europe. I hardly can reach anybody on most Fridays...

As for the German war-generation, I would suggest you read "Die Blechtrommel" (The Tin Drum) von Guenther Grass.

Very interesting thread and so far reasonably civilised (no biting, no eye gouging and only the odd 'accidental' low blow).

If I may comment on a remark from Maxflyer:

___________________________________________________

This doesn't mean I have to agree with economic migration to the UK, although no one suggests it is wrong when we (WASPs) travel to other countries to set up new lives because of better standards of living etc.
___________________________________________________


As an expatriate UK citizen who is living in another country because of better financial remuneration and hence a better 'standard of living', I cannot see anything wrong with this.

I have a valid work permit, am contracted to carry out certain specialist functions (for which no locally available ie national employee, can be found),for an agreed remuneration for a fixed period of time. After such time I am obliged to leave the country. Everyone is happy.

The problem in the UK appears to be the influx of migrants who frequently enter the country illegally, have no special skills to offer, expect the state to keep them and have no intention of ever leaving!

Hey, a few bonkers (but excessively tabloid-publicised) social workers with ludicrous ideas of cultural relativism and western guilt don't make up the liberal establishment. I'm a paid up junior member of the latter, and come across a few senior members in the course of work, committees and such, and they and I are as dismissive of the bonkers social workers as most people. Every Daily Mail reader has heard of a school where the nutters have banned Christmas, but no one knows anyone who actually goes to such a school.

By the way, re Africa, I agree with an observation made by Boris Johnson in the Spectator a while ago that what Africa needed was not less imperialism, but more. If the Brtitish and French Empires had lasted a few more decades before transforming themselves into commonwealths (as the British certainly planned to do), things might have been much better. Not so the Belgians, but who cares about them?

I say this fully conscious of the many vices and injustices, racial and otherwise, of colonialism, but it wasn't uniformly bad (see Niall Ferguson's book "Empire" for a balanced view on this). Interestingly, US foreign policy post 1945 played a key role in ensuring that the two empires did not long survive.

Smeagol

I wasn't referring to the illegal economic immigration that is currently causing problems. I was trying (seems I got it wrong) to make a reference to the legal immigrants who come here to work in low paid jobs. They are being targetted by the likes of the BNP in equal measure, although like you, they have come to a new country by following the correct procedures.

The figure of illegal immigrants entering the Uk is about 10,000 per year I believe out of about 70,000 people who apply for asylum.

Is that really so bad? It's hardly indicitive of the UK being "swamped" now is it?

Thanks for the clarification Maxflyer. I have no problem with legal immigrants.

OneWorld

Two points on your numbers.

1) As 'illegal immigrants' are illegal how are their numbers monitored? If certain organisations are to be believed the 'official' numbers of illegals are underestimated by quite a large factor. Must admit I have no statistics either way.

2) What is the difference between an 'illegal immigrant' and an 'asylum seeker' who poles up in the UK illegally and then claims asylum?
(At least the 'illegal' is unlikely to be directly supported by the state.)

3) I did not mention being 'swamped'.


Three points!!!

(Refer to MPFC)

Just typed "Asylum Seeker - Definition" into Google and got this...

someone who leaves their own country for their safety, often for political reasons or because of war, and who travels to another country hoping that the government will protect them and allow them to live there:

Not the same as an illegal economic immigrant. This is the difference that needs explaining to people. Britain has often helped those in fear for their lives and welcomed them to our shores. Illegal economic immigration is a different issue and needs addressing as such. It is a political matter that needs to be looked at by the EU. I agree that we appear to be a soft touch, but without knowing the actual figures it is difficult to compare us to other European nations.

The last time I saw their figure the Home Office admitted that 'at least' 300,000 would be immigrants who'd had their cases turned down were now out there somewhere, done a runner within the UK.

Lest we forget, the UK is quite small with a population approaching 60,000,000 that can reproduce quite well so space and natural resources are becoming limiting factors.

Australia is frequently described as a huge country that could easily accept millions of immigrants/asylum seekers but that is simply not true either.
Australian natural resources are mainly gathered down the east coast and Australia has a continuing water problem, just entered it's eighth year of drought.

The community worlwide, but particularly in the UK, seems to be divided along the lines of those that think space and resources are unlimited and no amount of immigration will have an effect on the infrastructure that could possibly justify exclusion and those who have done their homework and know that there is a finite limit to the number of people the land can reasonably support.

Sorry Maxflyer, maybe I was a bit too 'tongue in cheek', I already knew the definitions (albeit a bit vague).

I suspect, however, that many 'asylum seekers' are actually 'economic immigrants'. Difficult to prove, I know, and we will all believe what our particular convictions dictate.

Also, the numbers given by OneWorld (if accurate) are worrying to me if not to him. I think that 70,000 genuine asylum seekers annually coming to the UK is frightening. If one considers that many of these people, if granted asylum and residence, will then bring several times that number of dependents, the numbers do get a bit on the high side.

Or is this just my xenophobia showing?

Our developed societies need economic migrants. As our prosperity rises, few of us wish to take on unpleasant jobs with long hours and low pay. Successful economic migrants add significantly to the economic health of the country. My parents' very large families arrived in the UK in the late fifties. The "No Irish" signs in the windows of the B&Bs were soon replaced by signs saying "No Blacks" as the next wave of migrants arrived. My parents, aunts and uncles did rubbish jobs and went to night school. They sent their kids to university. I reckon that the taxes paid by me, my brothers and my cousins (who are very numerous), all first generation economic migrant children, could staff a decent sized school or clinic. We support Ireland if they are in the cup, but if they aren't we support England. Some of our fairly recent ancestors shot at, and were shot at by, people in British uniforms, but some of us have put those uniforms on.

There are numerous abuses in the asylum and immigration system (a system of which I have first hand knowledge, as an advocate for Blunky, and in which my wife sits as a tough Immigration Judge, no sleeping gatekeeper she) and some of the migrants display a similar culture of dependency to that displayed by our home-grown underclass, but the scare stories about swamping and cultural dilution are to be taken with a large measure of scepticism. I am not saying that there is no problem, but exaggeratiing it plays into the hands of the BNP and others like them.

As for genuine non-economic asylum seekers, people who flee from the most bestial lives of war and cruelty, it honours this country that we receive them, and are regarded by them still as a beacon of fairness and opportunity.

FNG

Racism is wrong. So is taking away people's rights to express their views, however unpleasant may their views be. So is taking away people's rights to vote for whomsoever they like. So is taking away people's right to life, by supporting someone who would blow them up for a political cause. I am infering from your post that you are at the very least skirting on advocating these restrictions.

There are many things wrong in the world. That is life. We counter them as best we can, but not be perpetrating further wrongs of our own.

SC, I don't see how you get any of that from anything I've written. I don't advocate any restriction on free speech (something I spend a fair chunk of my professional life defending) or on voting rights. I don't advocate political violence, but I can understand how and why it sometimes comes about. If people hold objectionable views, as BNP supporters do, based upon misinformation and sheer prejudice, I advocate seeking to inform them, and others who might be tempted to join them, of the facts and arguments which invalidate such views.

As this is a forum for the exchange of opinions (and knob gags), why not tell us positively some of your own (opinions, or knob gags) instead of forever interpreting other people's? I could misread your contributions as suggesting a degree of sympathy for the position of the BNP, but that would just be me reading something into what you say, don't say, or hint at. There is no harm in telling us what you think. Are there too many immigrants? Is this country's way of life at risk? If you think this, why not say so? If you think something else, why not tell us that? Telling each other what we think the other has just said isn't very profitable in my view.

It was in your objection to the comparrison with Mandela, FNG. You were rather unclear as to what you were objecting to and on what basis, but I took it to mean that some people (Mandela) could state their political viewpoint (not sure if you advocated the violence he did), and the fact he was a thug was excused because of his standing among left-wing activists internationally, and others (Griffin) should be restricted from doing so and the fact he is a thug should be deplored.

If this was not your intended meaning I apologise, and would welcome clarification. Your comments seem not to preclude the comparison of Griffin and Mandela (as at the time of his imprisonment, not as the man released many years later) as thugs otherwise. If it is the intended meaning then I would suggest that it is hardly for left-wing activists to decide who should have a voice - they tried that in a lot of parts of the world.

A year after the Kelly/Gilligan horror story, it seems Gilligan was right after all?

"In the original draft a passage on page 114 contained stronger criticism of Mr Blair's Commons statement of September 24, 2002. The report as published stated, in one of very few direct references to Mr Blair's conduct: "The language in the dossier may have left with readers the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgments than was the case: our view . . . is that judgments in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available."

"In the original draft this last sentence was much stronger, expressing the opinion that Mr Blair personally masterminded the misleading impression left by the dossier. The passage is important because Downing Street maintained last week that the report at no point questions Mr Blair's "good faith".

Fuller and Firmer? Masterminded? Can we say.....sexed up?

Link: The Telegraph (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/nbut18.xml)

As for the German war-generation, I would suggest you read "Die Blechtrommel"

Do you mean the apathy shown by the German people at the time to the rise of the Nazi's which this book showed?

Surely though you agree that for today's German born after the war, any imposing on them by the rest of the world of guilt is wrong and they are no more culpable than you or I?






In other news.....

I see that Ariel Sharon has now opened up his worringly big mouth and has called for all French Jews to return to Israel! What a stupid comment and there's a bit of a diplomatic war now over it.....French Jewish groups have gone on the attack also. The comment was incrediby insensitive.

First the Israeli government insults the New Zealanders now the French, anyone else?

Speaking of the Kiwi's a Kiwi friend of mine sent me the link of a website populated by some right wing Jewish-American psychos. Their paranoia and hyperbole knows no bounds. Some of the comments they make about NZ are disgraceful and a dreadful slur on the New Zealand people. New Zealand is one of the most tolerant and peaceful nations on earth.

See here to be disgusted..... (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11781_Hamas_Hails_New_Zealand#comments)

The comparison suggested was: BNP leaders are thugs with criminal convictions, but so is Mandela, so they are all alike. This seemed to me to be an inaccurate comparison.

Mandela: leader of a movement commanding substantial popular support seeking to replace a system which denied equal rights on the basis of race, internationally condemned by right and left alike, with a system based on racial equality; convicted of offences having at least some political character.

BNP leaders with criminal convictions: leaders of a movement commanding minority popular support seeking to replace a system based on racial equality with a system denying equal rights on the basis of race, espousing views condemned by right and left alike; convicted of offences with no apparent political character.

If the comparison seems fair to you, well, there you are.

Let me ask you a question for a change. Proposition: The BNP are a bunch of odious racist thugs. Agree or disagree?

'Where are the Kiplings of today to rouse public opinion?" my anguished colleagues on the Leader page asked yesterday apropos Sudan. "Do we humanitarians care less about Darfur than our imperialist ancestors would have done?" The answer to that second one is: yes. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/20/do2002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/20/ixopinion.html) Discuss.

For the record, I think there is a point.

FNG

That is exactly my point. You are saying Mandela has more rights to be a thug because you agree with his political opinion. Since he was at the time a communist, I would disagree with as much of what he then stood for as I would agree with. He backed and was backed by people far nastier than the BNP could imagine being.

Who put you up to decide what political opinion allows people to use unpleasant rhetoric and violence against innocent people?

Disagree. You are the one exposing prejudice now. Some, even most, members, especially in the leadership, of the BNP are "... odious racist thugs". However that does not give them any fewer rights than a communist thug or any other person.

What is the point of your objection to the comparison? Are you suggesting Griffin should have fewer rights than Mandela deserved? (Note I am not comparing with the rights Mandela was offered at the time) Are you suggesting he should have no right to spout his garbage?

As I say, it is rather unclear to what you are objecting and on what basis, unless it is on the basis "I agree with A but not B, as do a lot of people".

Troll away, the billy goats will be along in a minute. If you really cannot understand what I am saying, I regret that, but I cannot magically convey upon you the gift of comprehension. Only the Tooth Fairy can do that, and she is busy overseeing the strangling of mullahs.

Good article, twill get the luvvies knickers in a twist no doubt.

The former African (and other) colonies are on their own...by their direction/action/choice...so they can get on with it...cant have it both ways :hmm:

Wonder if the Frogs and the Krauts will have the balls to step up and do something decent for the world and carry a flag in to this region to prevent a genocide.

I can understand if the Brits/Yanks/Aussies and Poles don't, after the appauling way the hippies and liberals and those with a political axe to grind in this world backlashed against them for taking a moral stand!

Send Clowns, your suggestion that there is some sort of symmetry between Mandela and Griffin is bigoted nonsense.

If you can't see the difference between a man who fought (illegally or not) to displace the imperial white settlers from power and the racist apartheid regime, and a man who leads a racist, anti-semitic party which glorifies this country's racist imperial past, opposes immigration and even suggests non-whites and Jews should leave the country - well, as FNG says, there you are. The comparison with Mandela is naive and deeply innaccurate.

He backed and was backed by people far nastier than the BNP could imagine being. Was he? Who? Nastier than the BNP? Again a bigoted and offensive suggestion, or a very naive one.

I'm the first to have grave reservations about banning a political party, no matter how odious their views - not because I think that they should be heard but because to ban them would probably lead to an underground increase in support and a greater probability of racial unrest.

You have denied that the BNP are all odious racist thugs.

However that does not give them any fewer rights than a communist thug or any other person.

That's not correct. They don't have the right to voice their opinions as a Communist would, because advocating Communism is not a crime, but inciting racial hatred, rightly, is.

FNG is absolutely correct on this one, and I don't think any more needs to be said.

It rather reminds me about an episode of 'Yes Minister' with Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey discussing policy towards South Africa (which was then still under apartheid).

JH - 'If we impose sanctions on a white govenment oppressing black people, why dont we impose sanctions on black governments oppressing black people?'

SH - 'We cant do that, that would be racist Minister!'

Sums up the liberal attitude to all this.

I suppose its an interesting question, is good imperial government better that bad African government?

Good article, twill get the luvvies knickers in a twist no doubt. Why's that, Mr D? Do you imagine that only the haties care about this, or something?

In Kipling's time, populations were (in general) smaller and (again, in general) a higher proportion of each nation's agricultural sector - its load-bearing capacity, if you like - was given over to local subsistence rather than to cash crops for export.

Add to this the vast hydro-electric and "water management" projects that have distorted the water cycle in much of the Third World since Kipling's day and it's not hard to discern the underlying reasons for much of the problem - not to mention the Cold War habit both sides had of propping up whichever corrupt local brigand proclaimed himself to be anti-Communist/Communist (delete as applicable).

Blaming the UN for the world's ills is, IMHO, a commonplace rightie/hatie reflex that may help bolster a few personal convictions here and there, but doesn't help much towards finding a solution.

The UN isn't perfect by any rational standard, but I don't see many people talking about workable alternatives - and certainly not the risible (and faintly racist) notion in the article about "taking up the White Man's burden". I wonder how Colin Powell (for example) would react to the concept?

Still, it was an opinion piece in the Torygraph...... :rolleyes:

Is there no Indian-American representative here to underline the humane and kind manner these ones were dealt with by White Immigrants?

What an example for arab warriors in Darfur!

FNG
Proposition: The BNP are a bunch of odious racist thugs. Agree or disagree?
It's impossible to respond (sensibly) to that proposition with a simple 'Agree' or 'Disagree'. It's beyond doubt that part of the membership deserves that description, but I doubt if it applies to all members and am certain it doesn't apply to all the people who support the BNP by voting for them.

"I am not saying that there is no problem, but exaggeratiing it plays into the hands of the BNP and others like them."
Could it be the government's refusal to admit the scale of the problem and/or failure to take adequate measures to deal with it which plays into the hands of the BNP? I believe many people vote BNP out of frustration at the failure of the government to take adequate measures to deal with the problem. There's no shortage of promises but little evidence that the talk is translated into effective action.

"it honours this country that we receive (genuine non-economic asylum seekers), and are regarded by them still as a beacon of fairness and opportunity."
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but is this country seen as a beacon of fairness or as an easy touch where, even if an application for asylum fails, a high percentage of applicants simply remain anyway.

"scare stories about swamping and cultural dilution are to be taken with a large measure of scepticism."
Is there any difference between cultural dilution and cultural enrichment in this context? Some people think it's a good thing we're now a multicultural cosmopolitan society and that we've been enriched by the influx of different cultures; others don't. Aren't they different sides of the same coin, the choice of expression depending upon whether the change is seen as good or bad?
Not liking the change doesn't make someone a racist. It's a great shame that free discussion of such an important issue is so often spoiled by accusations of racism which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are wholly unjustified.

Flying Lawyer - I hear what you say, but a really free discussion of this important issue is the very last thing the BNP and it's apologists want.

They much prefer their certainties, dogma and slogans instead.

Well Grandpa my great-grandmother on my mother’s side of the family was a Native American (Indian). Before she died she owned one of the biggest farms in Eastern Oklahoma and sadly the farm just happened to be in one of the few areas of Oklahoma that did not have any oil or gas.

She died at the age of 103.

And your point is?

Thank you.

CP

Of course its all our fault.
I was in the Sudan in the sixties, twas a toilet then and it has not progressed one iota since.

Should be yours con-pilot!

Nevertheless, I will try to tell you:

Maybe, in year 2150, two guys will be talking on some kind of internet, and one of them (just call him con-something) will tell the other one:

"My great-grandmother on my mother's side of the family was a Native (black) from Darfur.
Before she died, she owned one of the biggest herd of buffalo in Eastern Darfur, and sadly the fields were in one of the many areas in Darfur where there was not any water.
She died at the age of 104......................"

His mate will turn his eyes to the sky, and say:

"Were not we talking about the way White colonist dealt with natives, and managed to steal their land, and massacre their population.... wich was just the way taken by Arab militias in Darfur too?"

I hope you understand con-pilot............so I don't need to ask you:

"What was your point?"

Err, well you did ask a question old boy and I answered. I answered with the truth about my family and you replied with a sarcastic degrading insulting response. If you do not desire answers to questions you ask please refrain from asking them in the first place.

Thank you.

CP

One of the most sensible posts so far in my humble opinion.

FNG
I think we are closer to holding similar views, and although I don't agree with everything you say, I do think that your posts have been well reasoned and your arguments succinctly put.

I had considered posting but have decided to stay away as this thread is at danger of running into the usual Left/Right argument, with those out of kilter with the Left being harangued as racist.

If you want to avoid sarcasm..............refrain from your family's saga and PLEASE answer the question, which was:

"Is there no American-Indian representative here to underline the humane and kind manner these ones were dealt with by White Immigrants?"

...............Humane..........?

.............Kind................?

Please reply!

And for "insult", I'm sorry could you be more precise?

here we go again...... :rolleyes: it's frog legs at 50 paces. or the first one to knock the other down with garlic breath.

rivetting................... :rolleyes:

anyway.......

4 words:

survival of the fattest

3 words:

we've got th'bomb...

Ok, lets start fresh, you asked, “Is there no American-Indian representatives here to underline” etc.

I answered assuming that you wanted to know if there was someone, on pprune, who was an American-Indian (or as it is termed now a Native American). While I will admit that I am not a true Native American I am certainly part Native American from my maternal side of the family. I guess a 16th or something like that I suppose, however I may be the closest you are probably going to get.

My family’s saga (as you call it) is about Native Americans, my great-grandmother, who was a Native American, a member of the Pawnee Nation to be exact!

You also included in your question to know how Native Americans were treated by “White Immigrants” in regards to a humane and kind manner. Is this correct?

Well, in part answer to your question I can only believe that my Native American great-grandmother was treated in a very kind and humane manner by my great-grandfather (a “White Immigrant”) he married her. This a part of my family history. I cannot answer for other families or change history.

Therefore I have answered your question again, I am sorry if I did not expand the answer into enough detail so you could understand the first time. I will forgo explaining why I perceived your first reply to be insulting as a language problem.

Also when you use the term “White Immigrants” do you mean, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, etc? In other words European. Most immigrants into the United States in the 1700s and 1800s did not have a Texas accent, if fact great many of them, two of my great-grandfathers included, could not speak English.

So again, what is the point of your question?

Thank you,

CP

PS, the farm still belongs to our family, not much going on there right now, just a few horses and very nice small lake stocked with Bass and Catfish.

Alright, keep ignoring me. Just you wait until Tom Clancy ditches Steve Pieczenik for airship and his next NY times best-seller. Do you think I'll bother even to say hello here from time to time?! :(

Clicked on your link...it didn't work. I'm not sure that anyone in NZ cares what America thinks anyway.

Don't see what this has to do with aviation and give it a very short shelf life before it gets locked...theres already enough garbage here without a race/religion debate!

Woomera???

OK, the link is working now.

Check it out quick, this thread may well get closed allright, that's why I posted here!!

FNG

I don't understand what you are sayinfg because you studiously avoid commiting yourself to anything but an insistance that the BNP is nasty and that Griffin cannot be compared to Mandela. If you refuse to say anything meanoingful, it would be a miracle for anyone to understand it.

Of course that is a fairly typical tactic of the "liberal" centre politics in the UK (about the most illiberal bunch since the apartheid regimes themselves). Say something that is hard to disagree with, then asure everyone that it has answered all arguments when actually int he context of the discussion it was completely meaningless. Then when someone tries to pin down a meaning you say that is not what you meant, and instead of commiting to a meaningful, relevant view restate the previous platitudes and assumptions that are still irrelevant, and put a meaningless point for the other party to answer.

Your last post but one is a classc of the type.

I ask you again: except for the fact that you disagree with the politics of one and agree with the politics of the other, what is the fundamental difference between Griffin and the Mandela at the time of his trial, apart from the fact that Mandela had openly advocated violence for political ends?

Caslance... a really free discussion of this important issue is the very last thing the BNP and it's apologists wantSo you agree with them? You seem to agree with the politically correct people who want to stifle debate. I and perhaps Flying Lawyer want the open debate. If this is the last thing Griffin wants then surely it is something we should offer him.

How do we discredit "...certainties, dogma and slogans..." if we supress them?

Wedge

I am not bigoted. I am saying they have the same rights. Are you seriously trying to suggest They should not have? I would suggest your bigotry is showing, for an openly violent communist against someone who, in public at least, advocates non-violent political change. You also expose your bigotry in the clear implicatoin that if it were not for the practical impossibility of preventing it you believe that people should not be allowed to form political parties with views you find odious.

You really think there was no-one in the communist world nastier than the BNP? I think I know who is being naive here ;)

That's not correct. They don't have the right to voice their opinions as a Communist would, because advocating Communism is not a crime, but inciting racial hatred, rightly, is.Rightly, in the view of the lord, high fount of all wisdom himself, Wedge. I was saying that the nature of their views does not restrict there rights to express them. The law does so, but as so frequently when used for too specific and political a purpose the law is an ass, and counter-productive.

Mandela did not have a right to vote under the law. Do you think he had a natural right to influence his government? Did he have a right to fight the government that refused him the rights you would say are his? If so then the law and his rights did not coincide. Yet you assume above that rights and the law must coincide.

Inciting violence of any sort for any reason ought to be a crime, but there is no legitimate reason for any specific restriction relating to race. There can be no justification for singling out motive, and further to that objection inciting hatred cannot be a crime. Otherwise you would be guilty: you incite hatred of Griffin, yet he should have the same rights in law as anyone else. The term "inciting racial hatred" is ridiculously vague.

Well Clowns I'd suggest now it is you who needs to be careful here, you seem to be suggesting inciting racial hatred should be lawful.

I was saying that the nature of their views does not restrict there rights to express them.

Quite clearly you are wrong about that, the law does restrict their right to express them.

Inciting violence of any sort for any reason ought to be a crime, but there is no legitimate reason for any specific restriction relating to race

Inciting or conspiring to commit violence are all crimes, already. I'll be corrected by one of our learned friends, but as far as I understand, while there is not a crime called 'inciting violence' there are several crimes in law that mean exactly that.

The term "inciting racial hatred" is ridiculously vague

No it isn't. It's quite clearly defined in law. I'd hate to think that you really would like to see the laws on incitement to racial hatred retracted. If they were then the kind of language used in the documentary, defined by the Barrister they consulted as "threatening, abusive, or insulting", "designed to stir up racial hatred" would no longer be crimes. Is that really what you would like to see? If anything, the law is likely to be extended now so that inciting religious hatred would also be a crime, so that Griffin's vile anti-Islam rant could also land him in Court on criminal charges.

And as for: Otherwise you would be guilty: you incite hatred of Griffin. Complete nonsense. Show me where I have incited hatred of anybody: if your response is going to point to the fact that I have called his party a bunch of racist thugs, I won't even need to answer you.

I'm reluctant to say this, but the more you post on this thread, the more my interpretation is that you are a Nick Griffin apologist.

Flying Lawyer - a well reasoned post that makes valid points. Much as a may be viewed a 'liberal' by JetBlast's right-wing standards, I'm hardly left-wing, and I fully agree that there is a problem with economic migrants dishonestly claiming asylum, and even when they are refused, the UK's record on deportations is appallingly bad. Furthermore, you are right to suggest that it's not inherently racist not to like the changes in the UK of the past 50 years, but I'd disagree that accusations of racism are wholly unjustified in the 'overwhelming' number of cases. In many cases the accusation is entirely justified. I'd also disagree that there is any significant section of the BNP membership who could reasonably be described as non-racist. True that not all who have voted BNP are racists, but those non-racists who have voted for them have only been hoodwinked by the BNP's propaganda, lies, attempts to whip up racial tension and dishonest campaign to represent themselves as a non-racist party. We all know that they are overwhelmingly racist, and the documentary provided further evidence for this.

I welcome the arrival of UKIP onto the scene for this reason, because we need a right-wing party for those seriously disaffected voters to turn to, without having to put their cross in the box for a racist party.

Wedge, I do not know which definition you have in mind:
___________________________
It's quite clearly defined in law.
___________________________

and until I see it I shall keep an open mind.

Year by year legislatures make their best stab at clear definitions for the purposes of collecting revenues. They do try very hard, for a simple but good reason:tax lawyers have been driving buses through the "clearly defined" definitions they made last time, and those clear definitions turned out to be as opaque as experience would predict.

I have been on both sides of the process and, perhaps for that reason, whenever I examine a statute, especially if in a client's interest, I check for illiteracies and lesser faults of the draftsman among all the clarity they hope to express. Then I move to the regulations, not always, but not infrequently, ultra vires; and not always to inconsequential effect.

We once had a client who had signed a handwritten confession of income tax evasion. Twelve pages of gruesome detail. The confession said he had read it and understood it. He had signed it in his own hand. There was his signature, the circumstances of signing attested by two subscribing witnesses, staring balefully at me. What could be more clear? Hmmmm!

One thing not clear to me was why the writing (by the revenuers, as it later turned out) in the text differed from the writing of the signature. I invited the client to visit the office, chatted as one does in the West of the awful grain prices, handed him the day's paper, and asked him to read me the headlines. Couldn't do it; his secret from all but his good lady, the Lutheran pastor, and now me. Only the four of us knew.

In court, the revenuers were rubbing their hands in glee until we had a wee voir dire; hit them right between the eyes. Our client could neither read nor write (save his much-practised signature), the swine had been grilling him from 0700 to 2000 prior to writing the confession, and they hadn't a suspicion as to his illiteracy. Confession excluded. Bless you! Your Honour! Case dismissed.

If I leave aside the statutes and my own modest experience, and examine the heavy thoughts of the judges, I can find bafflement there too, even from Lord Denning.

This very day I observed a hearing that hinged on a divorce admitted on all sides. It was all very clearly defined, open-and-shut, the very date of the divorce uncontested. Admitted, that is, until someone asked to see a copy of the decree. Had it ever been granted? Ummmmm.

"Clearly defined", you say? Is anything ever clear? Pontius Pilate gets blamed, to my mind unjustly, for having reservations as to clarity. We should not be too quick to dismiss the lessons of religion.

Many assert virtues in multiculturalism, revealed to them, but less clearly revealed to me; and many hold that I am not allowed to voice that latter bit or even think it. I find that many of the pro-multiculturalists preach their gospel with a fervour, based on Revelation, as religious as the fervour you dislike in Christianity.

Does my statement in the first sentence in the immediately preceding paragraph amount to racism? Am I allowed to think my thoughts? Am I allowed, with or without abuse (I do not suggest, of course, from you), to express them?

Having watched SBS "The Cutting Edge" program last night entitled "The World According to Bush" it explained the extreme link between fundamentalist Christian groups in the US and the Israel.

It appears that these fundamentalist groups are even more fervent supporters of Israel than the US Jewish groups. The basis of the support is that the Jewish believers are merely misguided in that they fail to see that Christ was the Son of God and that by their actions in Israel today they will cause the second coming to occur sooner rather than later.

So, logically, if the NZ Govt. prosecutes members of the Israel Government they are impeding the second coming. Hence the vitriol from the fundamentalists.

Simple isn't it?

If it wasn't for religion, think of how much more peaceful the world would be.

Is there no Indian-American representative here to underline the humane and kind manner these ones were dealt with by White Immigrants?

Grandpa,dear man. You need to forget about the America and the Americans for awhile,it is nice to be paid so much attention but obsessions are very bad for your health.
We're not worthy! ;)


Con,

Have you had a chance to visit the Crazy Horse Memorial yet? It is awesome,especially if you have Native in your ancestry. Just stay clear of the Crows,they are still the nastiest lot.
My best friend was born and raised in OK reservation,near Wetumka, even though she's full blooded Cheyenne.

Excuse my ignorance, but what New Zealand troops in Iraq?

Excused - these ones:

The New Zealand government has approved, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, the deployment to Iraq of an engineer group of 61 personnel to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. Comprising about 40 engineers plus their support staff, the group will work alongside British and other nations' forces under British control in Southern Iraq. The second of 2 six month deployments departed on 5 March 2004.

At the end of this decade whites will no longer be the majority in London ,at the end of this century they will no longer be the majority in Britain. If that doesn't show immigration altering the make up of the country what does ?

Without wishing to sound racist ,the track record of non white ruled countries leaves a little to be desired. Poverty ,corruption,drugs ,crime ,war , misery and chaos are the order of the day across a large part of the world. I'm sure everyone watches the news and has seen the goings on in Haiti ,Somalia ,Papua New Guinea ,Middle east etc. People from these places flock to Europe looking for better lives ,found under white rule.

Realisically what do you think will happen if whites become a minority and are no longer in charge ?

Ahh...those ones. Thanks.

Here's one to confuse the Torygraphers: I'm a luvvie imperialist. We did once care more about Sudan and other similar places. We should have stayed there longer, and we planned to, but then along came the twentieth century and screwed up the British Empire's enlightened plan to develop, over a century, a commonwealth of free nations.

The suggestion that, because the locals have made their own bed they should lie (and die) in it, is brutally callous. Tens of thousands have died already in a man-made disaster. Are we to stand by and do nothing, or score cheap points against our European neighbours rather than assisting? Get your credit cards out now.

Why do some of the locals behave like this? Why is Africa still home to barbarism (with automatic weapons)? For those who wish to understand why the separate pace of development (in technology and in political sophistication) has nothing to do with ethnicity but a lot to do with topography, climate and eco-systems, I strongly recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining why we conquered them and not vice versa. His thesis is in my opinion weak on China, but strong on Africa and America. Some of you "I'm not racist, but...." people, please read it, and then next time you say "I'm not racist", you may actually mean it. Fellow luvvies, read it also, as it adds ammunition to your racks.

Metro man, as you are not a racist, but are struck by the (correct) observation that black people often (although not invariably) make a poor job of running things in their own countries, may I, in all seriousness, recommend that you read a book by Jared Diamond called "Guns, Germs and Steel". It explains why we conquered them and not vice versa, and shows why the development in Europe of higher technology, more advanced civilisation, and higher forms of social and political organisation than occurred in most of Africa, Asia, America and Australia has nothing to do with racial differences but lots to do with climate, topgraphy and eco-systems. The book is a very stimulating read. Diamond's thesis is in my opinion weak on China, but strong on Africa and America.

SC: I have noticed that your characteristic debating style is to harangue others for being unclear, and to tell them what you think they mean. You rarely, save by implication, reveal your own positive views, and I again politely invite you to do so. I think that most people reading this thread can see pretty clearly what I mean, whether or not they agree with what I say. I get the impression, for example, that Astrodome can see where I'm coming from, even though he/she may not agree with all I say.

The suggestion that I or anyone else here seeks to suppress the free expression of opinion is fanciful. I started my legal career working on the Spycatcher case and have remained actively involved in free speech cases during the 18 years since then. I'm an Article 10/First Amendment purist, and would prefer the limitations on free speech recognised by the Courts in the UK and the US to be even more restricted than they actually are, but you may be aware that certain limitations are placed upon what, in American legal parlance, is referred to as "hate speech". Hence laws as to incitement to racial hatred and so forth.

I am more interested in the content of what the BNP say than whether they have the right to say it. The original reference point of this thread was a documentary pointing out that the content of the BNP's speech is racist. Subject to the operation of laws on incitement etc, no one says that they cannot speak out, but the documentary made the point that, when they do speak, they reveal themselves as bigots, with repellent views based upon a conception that white people are innately superior to black people. I find those views odious. Do you?

At the end of this decade whites will no longer be the majority in London ,at the end of this century they will no longer be the majority in Britain. If that doesn't show immigration altering the make up of the country what does ?

Without wishing to sound racist ,the track record of non white ruled countries leaves a little to be desired. Poverty ,corruption,drugs ,crime ,war , misery and chaos are the order of the day across a large part of the world. I'm sure everyone watches the news and has seen the goings on in Haiti ,Somalia ,Papua New Guinea ,Middle east etc. People from these places flock to Europe looking for better lives ,found under white rule.

Realisically what do you think will happen if whites become a minority and are no longer in charge ? .



the reason these countries are in a mess is because of the white man. bottom line. know your history. since coming from the caves of europe and out of their own uncivilsation, the white man has entered civilized africa, bought black slaves, raping and killing our women for joke, taking over all the treasures of our lands and, stripping us of our identity and religion and giving us chirstianity, and implementing white supremacist policies over us to rule the world even till today, thus placing the black race under mental slavery.

know thy history first.

Before white rule in this world, there was no such thing as "race" we were just "humanity" way, way, way before whites came out of uncivilisation from the caves of europe, and black people ran themselves pretty fine without europeans.

the black race is still opressed and the likes of the BNP my freind dont help the situation. always moaning that "whites are so hard-done-by because of the immigrants taking our jobs" what takes the pss is that people moan about immigrants and f:mad: king IMMIGRATE themselves to spain!

even worse still, they want me and my family, who were born here repartiated. what on earth??? so does that mean we can kick out all the whites from south africa and barbados and america??????

don't think so somehow. It's just wrong

anyone who in my opinion sides with the BNP is sad, and is under the misconception that the white man has a god-given right to own the world, tell ethnic people where and where they cant go and live, but can live where the hell he pleases.

:{ :{

:uhoh:

WOW!!! The next few posts should be interesting! Don't make them "too interesting" though please folks.

Jeffrey, we are on the same side, and I am fed up with the pussy footing in this thread from those who skirt around the edges of agreeing with some of what the BNP and their ilk say, but won't come out and say so directly. I politely take issue with you on one point: the lamentable state of affairs in post-colonial Africa cannot be attributed entirely to the misdeeds of the colonial powers. Note that I say "not entirely": I acknowledge that the former colonial powers have a share of the responsibility. The situation is enormously complex and cannot be described in, if you will forgive the expression, black and white terms. I heard one African leader blaming the British for the fact that literacy in his country was at forty per cent. A conservative journalist responded: "when the British arrived, literacy was at zero percent". I only refer to this in order to illustrate the point that the problems of Africa are multi-dimensional. They are, of course, in no way attributable to racial characteristics and anyone who even suggests that they are is wicked, or mad, or both.

My own country, Ireland, felt its share of the ill effects of British Imperialism, but took some benefits from it as well. After we cast off the Imperial yoke (Michael Collins and others writing the textbook on how to harass colonial powers to the negotiating table through ruthless terrorism directed at the agencies of that power), we made some right royal screw-ups of our own and suffered for decades from self inflicted wounds: poor economic decisions, failure to shake off the curse of the Catholic Church, staying neutral in WW2 etc, but through EU membership and constructive engagement with our former rulers, we sorted ourselves out.

Of course, African nations face greater difficulties than Ireland did in the 1920s and afterwards, and I'm not alone in scratching my head as to the possible solutions.

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the white man ever set foot in Africa,we made it more efficient is all,the idea that Africans led a idyllic peacefull life untill we honkeys showed up and built their infrastructure, railways roads ect and put them on the path of civilisation is one vast cosmic joke, the fact that they have continually failed ever since is hardly our fault.

Grandpa

It's funny when you get the reply you ask for, but it's not the one you were hoping for. You seem to throw your teddy out of the pram and claim that was not what you were asking for.

If you acrtually bother with reading the article at issue in the thread, you will see that it has a lot o very apt criticism of people like you who are obsessed with attacking the USA.

If you don't want to address that article, then please write in another thread. Start your own if you like, just don't do it here.

Caslance

You are making up your own article in your head, then answering that. Nothing in the article blames the UN for the Sudanese crisis. It seems to indicate Sudanese government responsibility. As a hint, if you read the article it criticises people of your sort of political view but with more potential influence for obsession with perceived American failings to no effect when they could actually do some good by looking to somewhere like Sudan to voice their humanitarian impulses.

The entire article is roughly summarised in the phrase "The point is that today's humanitarians are too busy for Sudan.". The clue here is starting a sentence with "the point is", telling you about what the point of the writer's argument is.

The UN is criticised not for being responsible, but for refusing to take any action and for allowing viscious dictators to have a say on human rights issues. Is that not the case?

Was the UN right to elect Sudan onto the Human Rights Commission just as it should be condemning that same country for human rights abuses? The UN is right to have Zimbabwe on the same body? To allow those nations to prevent any effective criticism of their behaviour?

Is the UN right for criticising the US for is aid just because it does not pass through the UN that is involved in one of the biggest corruption scandals in the world, ever, at the moment, corruption involving an aid programme?

You yourself prove the article to be correct. You care more about the UN than the Sudan.

You make the common assumption that these regions cannot feed themselves, given some assistance in times of particular hardship. It is just not true. Can you name a democratic country where many thousands have starved due to famine? Zimbabwe was a huge net exporter of food. It is now about to suffer famine. These problems occur because of war, bad government and corruption.

There is a lot more of importance in the article. I suggest you read it, and if you're going to comment again it might relate to the issue at hand on the thread.

P.S. in case after all these months it hasn't occured to you, "luvvie" is nothing to do with love, so not the opposite of hate. It is to do with the tendency of some to call people "luvvie". If you use the word "hatie" it tends to suggest that you're not really up on what's going on. Just a helpful hint.

Wedge

You ignore my entire point, and make it for me accidentally.

Griffin's views do not restrict his rights to express them. The law as applied to those views does. In case you didn't notice the sarcasm, I do not mean that a law is correct just because you arrogantly declare it to be so. I believe that law to be wrong, and it is that law that restricts people's rights.

Either

(a) You are using the strict legal definition of rights, as in rights under law, in which case you are correct. That the law rstri cts the rights of hatemongers. However in that case Mandela had no right to fight the South African government.

or

(b) You are assuming Mandela has a right under natural justice to fight an unjust system. In which case Griffin has a right to express his views, as long as they are not inciting people to hurt anyone, again under natural justice and regardless of the law. We then have the right to ridicule those views.

You cannot have it both ways: Mandela having rights by some philosophical justice and Griffin having only those rights left him by the law.

FNGwe sorted ourselves outThat would be the strongest economy in the EU that is still a net receiver of aid? Don't you mean that EU money sorted you out? EU largely funded by the UK?

JeffreyBefore white rule in this world, there was no such thing as "race" we were just "humanity" way, way, way before whites came out of uncivilisation from the caves of europe, and black people ran themselves pretty fine without europeans.What do you mean by "pretty fine"? Where is the evidence that things were any better before whites entered the continent? What evidence that there was no inter-racial conflict?

Think what life would have been like then. As Draper said, it already contained slavery. It also contained fighting, and struggle for survival, and starving.

I am not saying it wasn't a better life, as I am not myself fond of all modern values, but it was harsh. Life would have been tough, brutish and short. By the judgement of modern liberals it would have been terrible: iniquity, no access to decent health care, death simply accepted as part of existence, even very early death. Certainly most people would not make it to reproductive age. Ecological proof of that is that there was no populaion explosion at that time.

We pay charity money so that people can have access to water and not have to walk a long distance. Are we wasting our money? Before the white man come to Africa this would have been normal in most parts.

Hey FNG was that the same Michael Collins that managed to convince most of Ireland that more food was being exported from Ireland at the time of the famine, (1847ish), than was being imported?

Just wondered as the records, still available for scrutiny, show it was just one big shining lie!

Michael Collins had an agenda and wasn't afraid to manipulate the Irish people in order to achieve it.

Collins was prepared to do what it took in order to achieve what every previous Irish rebel leader had signally failed to achieve, and that included cold blooded murder. Mastering propaganda to win hearts and minds was part of his game. The Easter Rising was unpopular with most of the Irish population at the time, but within a few years, a combination of clumsy British counter insurgency action, and effective terrorist and propaganda campaigning by Collins and others, had made the participants in the rising into heroes and martyrs and fuelled a surge in popular republicanism.

The figures on the famine are debatable. It is a subject clouded by emotion and patchy evidence. Part of the problem was that Irish (not British) merchants were exporting grain whilst the famine raged. British reaction was not quite as callous as has often been suggested, but it wasn't very well organised either, and was not the Empire's finest hour, by a long shot. Niall Ferguson and even "historian-lite" Simon Schama* are quite good on this topic, although their treatment lacks the narrative sweep of Cecil Woodham Smith's "The Great Hunger", which is balanced as well as emotional.



* this is deliberately unfair! Schama used to be a serious scholar before he put the leather jacket on and sold out to TV. Ferguson has got the TV big- bucks, but is still a serious scholar.

FNG:

I quickly skimmed thru your posts good points.

BUT

Tony Draper:

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the white man ever set foot in Africa,we made it more efficient is all,the idea that Africans led a idyllic peacefull life untill we honkeys showed up and built their infrastructure, railways roads ect and put them on the path of civilisation is one vast cosmic joke, the fact that they have continually failed ever since is hardly our fault.

Like i say, KNOW THY HISTORY FIRST. We already had a slavery thing in place, it was just a way for people to pay back debts to our master IN NO WAY did we strip our fellow man of their identity, beat, torture, rob, kill, rape and infiltrate our society.

Your forefathers HAD US build the railroads under brutal slavery, right up until the 20th century, remember?

They were a WICKED, murderous people and you KNOW IT.
Life wasnt perfect, but the white man revolutionised slavery and from that day forward, has been a "white supremacist". they robbed africa of the "best", killed and slaughtered them and now, look at it.

The white man always claims to be the race that civilised. they WERE NOT (sounds harsh but all true - check it) they 1) can only be traced back to 3,000 years whereas the black man can be traced back to hundreds of thousands of years 2) they are a relitively new race, and they can only be traced back as far as rome after they were driven northwards (check - historians who are white can tell you this) 3) they lived in caves in europe, ate raw meat and THATS UNCIVILIZED!

So mate, with all due respect hush up and check your history based on FACT and not TYRANNICAL PROPAGANDAS!

and as for send clowns:


What do you mean by "pretty fine"? Where is the evidence that things were any better before whites entered the continent? What evidence that there was no inter-racial conflict?

I mean by the fact that we were building an empire, building pyramids, ruled ourselves without tyrannical rule of the white man. Theres a lot of things not taught in schools. for example: africans had been engineers,and invented airships WAY before it was discovered in europe.

take a look at White ruled Eastern Europe, Russia, Chechnya and anywhere poorer than the west. Then re-evaluate what your on about with your 'white rule' being better policy, and problems being less.

Sounds to me like your just as gullible as those europeans who beleived christoper columbus when he came back with propaganda that we were savages!

Anyway back onto topic now, griffin is WROOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!!

There is NO truth in what he is saying, his scumbag party still beleive in repatriation of all minorities, still beleive in beating up and murdering my black people for no reason at all..... not only that the BNP are sad sad SAD because they blame all crime on ethnic minorities......what on earth????

Send clowns, you really need to wake up bruv, youre failing to see that the BNP have NOT changed their policy on oppressing and already oppressed people.. and mate you cannot argue with any of all what i have sad as it is ALL TRUTH.

Check it for yourself and open your eyes




:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I appreciate the vigour of your sentiments, Jeff, and am with you all the way in condemning the BNP, but aren't you in danger of being just a tad simplistic? I politely suggest that it is unhelpful to fight racism with racism, by making generalised statements about "the white man", and it isn't realistic to lump together the cultures and histories of northern Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America etc etc (as is done in that patronising concept "World Music"). Those areas tend to have in common that they got turned over by Europeans with a whole bunch of guns, but they each have their own complex story before and since.


PS: Airships?

Mate when i say the white man i mean their rulers, not all white people.:ok:

All of what im saying is not racism but proven fact. or else id be wasting my time here.

if i said: all black/white/indians (delete) are Drug Dealers/Rapists/Conmen that would be predgudiced (spelling?)
because it is just my opinion and is just generalisation. But what i spit here is all fact proven fact.

As a black man living in this world, i am fed up, day by day of the opressive vibes that have been passed down, and when people moan about lack of freedom of speech (just an exuse to run around calling people nig6ers/p4ckies/whatever to peoples faces and get away with it), asylum seekers who are contributing to this country and about "ethinic minorities"

This PC crap also, i agree does nothing more than fight fire with fire, but this subject irritates me because its all based on lies and propaganda.

Airships, yes apparently for building the pyramids:\\ check it!

these are not my opinions, unlike GRIFFIN its all facts!:ok:

Do keep them coming, I'm off to advise my farmer cousin in Connemara which Merc he should buy with his EU cash freebie. :oh:

Surely though you agree that for today's German born after the war, any imposing on them by the rest of the world of guilt is wrong and they are no more culpable than you or I? Sorry OW22, just like Bugg Smasher you're missing the point of my arguments, again. I was talking about the assimilation-process of the Germans re their NS history, not what the world is imposing on them. And talking about assimilation, I believe the stereotyping of the Germans is only surpassed by the Arabs the last 50 years. On second thought, the French are now climbing fast on the stereotype hitparade.

The "Befehl ist Befehl" culture has now been replaced by "use your common sense"in the German army. It's not by incident that the German Army recruits are swearing their oath on Stauffenberg's memorial day the last 5 years. And his star is rising lately in Germany. Some say the failure to kill Hitler on July 20th 1944 was one of the great tragedies in the 20th century. Others (Philipp Baron von Boeselager) say it was their destiny to go down as a nation together with Hitler to shake off their NS history. When Hitler was killed many Germans might have said with Hitler we would have won the war (although he was probably the worst war leader in history).

Hi airship ;)

Now I recall the famous Pharoah (and Pilot) of the 34th Dynasty (Middle Period): "Pthitotube". Archaeologists stll debate whether the Pyramids were mooring masts or navaids. It certainly turned out to be a bummer for the Pharoah that the Egyptian Airforce was grounded through maintenance issues when Moses and his team did a runner, especially as the 14th Imperial Chariot Squadron hadn't trained in amphibious warfare. Moshe Dayan learned a few lessons from that one for 1967 and 1973.

Ok Capt. K, I get you now. Good points well made.

Who would you rather have in charge ,the BNP or Comrade Bob Mugabe ?

Mugape recently declared that he "no longer considered whites to be citizens of Zimbabwe." Do you remember hearing any condemnation of this from the UN ,EEC etc ? No one had the guts to condemn him incase they appear racist. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Tony Blair said he didn't consider blacks to be British ?

Mugape has reduced a once prosperous country into a typical African basket case. He is however not so anti white that he won't take millions in aid money from us ,of which he skims off a considerable percentage through a rigged exchange rate.

Yes of course everything was paradise before the white man came along ,there were no tribal wars or slavery,life expectancy without our medicine was far higher,slash and burn cultivation produced more food than our modern agriculture.

I never enslaved anyone and I refuse to apologise for something over which I had no control. I also refuse to pay money to certain people who have read a few history books and decided to try for a few quid by making whites feel guilty.

I have seen first hand the consequences of black rule, the result is not pretty. Ask the million plus Zimbabweans in the UK trying to escape from it.

As for airships ??? Where on earth do you get that idea from ?

Metro Man. Lest Ye be dealt with:

Here we go again:

Who would you rather have in charge ,the BNP or Comrade Bob Mugabe ?

None, BNP means i will be repartriated, Mugabe is wrong in his approach, but at the end of the day the black people were raped, and killed and forced off the land. I cannot agree with what he is doing, however i can see why he is doing it...

Metro man im not going to even BOTHER to get medieval on ur right-wing ass as i am TIRED today now. and id be just repeating myself.

The BNP and Mugabe are both tyrants, mugabe also on the contrary makes his own black people suffer.

:mad:

Airships - check it!

Metro, as you are not a racist, would you care to replace "the results of black rule" with "the results of rule by corrupt criminal dictators"? Mugabe is a thug, a crook, a racist, a tyrant. Would I rather him or the BNP? Neither, thanks awfully.

Edit: Jeff, White Rhodesia was similar to White South Africa, but compare the success of post-apartheid South Africa in rebuilding democracy, the rule of law, and racial tolerance with what has happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is wrong, whichever way you look at it.

Jeff, White Rhodesia was similar to White South Africa, but compare the success of post-apartheid South Africa in rebuilding democracy, the rule of law, and racial tolerance with what has happened in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is wrong, whichever way you look at it.

I agree i edited the post:ok:

As for metro man (ill be breif as im tired):



Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Tony Blair said he didn't consider blacks to be British ?

I don't need to have tony bliar to tell me im not british, i get reminded of that every day i go to work (i get referred to "as a jamaican/darkie/coon wig-wog) and i was born here - im not making this up neither. i work in a BNP area!


Metro man i Pity Thee. You obviously beleive in white supremacy and white superiority there are plenty of white supremacy websites out there for you.......

Me however beleive in spitting the truth and opending minds.....and equality restored to mankind

I've been staying out of this one, because I think it has strayed away from the original point of the thread towards a usual left/right fight.... however...

Jeffery S - I'm sorry that you are subject to abusr=e at work. i do note however that..

I don't need to have tony bliar to tell me im not british, i get reminded of that every day i go to work (i get referred to "as a jamaican

In your profile you describe yourself as "From Wolverhampton (but a Jamaican)"


:confused:

Hi Nani, just a quick note as not to cause thread creep.

Yes I have been to the Crazy Horse Memorial, a very nice place. We have the Western Heritage and Cowboy Hall of Fame here in Oklahoma City; it has one of the greatest collections of Western art in the world. If you come to OKC I would be proud to show you the Center.

The Cheyenne are very nice folks, but nowhere as civilized as us Pawnee. (Just kidding!)
:) :)

I am of Irish descent and believe that on balance being colonised by the British was of benefit to us ,and that Ireland would be a poor backward country without it instead of being in the top 10 of the UN human development index.

However unlike some other ex British colonies Eire is today a modern ,stable ,prosperous democracy. Its people able to successfully govern themselves and succeed in the modern world. From being a net exporter of people unable to find opportunities at home ,now the Irish are advertising in Australia for construction workers !

As for South Africa ,ten years on things could have been alot worse and progress has been made.Unfortunately I don't think the long term prospects are very good ,pity it's a wonderful country.

FNG , I will alter my statement as you suggest as soon as you give me a few examples of successful black rule to show how it can succeed. Botswana is about the only one I can think of.

Jeffry I have nothing against black people ,but you must admit you record on governing yourselves is not good

Jeffrey S Do you consider yourself a racist? (be it justified or not justified; thats neither here nor there

Not at all. I am telling you the truth here go and do some research, it is not my opinion it is plain truth backed by historical evidence, to be honest they should teach the truth in schools.

Yes Mr Metro i see, Here I go again with you.

Africa was a rich and prosperous country under our rule Looooong time before there were europeans? Go and check your history, you are a fairly new race. But africa got raped of it's wealth and of the Best people. When i say best people, i am on about all our intelligent people who were capable of ruling. We were left with the strong and agressive ones, as these would be the ones who would be good enough to be slaves for you.

Colonising did NOTHING for my people, it has RUINED Africa. The mind of the white ruling man is programmed to be supreme and to make the black man inferior.

What do you think happens if you go to a country, tear out all its good, enslave its people and supress their minds for hundreds of years???? and your telling me this was good??

(off topic, go to google and do a search on willie lynch)
:\

Chapter 93. In which the natives are lectured by some chap in a hat.

"You native chappies mean well, but you're not very good at the old government thing, are you?" said Sanders of the River, in his square-jawed fair-play manner, to the pygmy Chief of the Fakarwe tribe (who, as usual, was jumping up and down in the long grass).

Continued next week in The Boys' Empire Magazine. Wizard japes for all!

Last time I checked, most of the Caribbean States were governed by black people. Jamaica has problems with organised crime and political violence, but countries such as St Lucia, although poor, are stable and score quite well in human rights surveys. The BVI are not poor, and appear to be stable and well governed. Morocco and Algeria are under severe threat from Islamic extremists, but are (relatively) stable, governed by non democracies, but not grossly misgoverned. India has huge problems, but cannot be called a failed State. South Africa is a success at present. If it fails, it won't be because its governors are black, white, purple or pink. Shall I go on?

anyway back on track and cooling down, my fault for drifting,. its just that the subject gets me:mad:

The BNP policy is to get rid of Non british people regardless of colour. anyone of mixed race has to go, mixed race relationships would be outlawed and if your in a mixed race relationship, you have the choice whether to stay or go (if british white)

is this REALLY the kind of government you want ruling britain?

Doesnt it concern you that all they ever talk about is asylum this, asian violence that, and never about getting the trains to run on time?

:confused:

Quick reminder of the facts of life-as-we-know-it on JB.
* Argue the argument, not the person.
* Do not put words in other people's mouths and then attack them for what you claim they have said.
* If there is something about another poster you want to discuss with him/her, use the Private Message function at the top of each post. Do not abuse this thread for such one on one messages as they will be deleted.....
* Less agression would be good too.

This ends the broadcast of Your Humble Servant. ;)

Jeffrey S,

The mind of the white ruling man is programmed to be supreme and to make the black man inferior.

Slightly Sweeping statement that. I'd put it to you that if a white person wrote that (in reverse) on PPRuNe he would be accused of the worst condescending, patronising racist overtones.

I have no doubt that racism in the form that you describe it exist in this country but your sweeping statements do nothing for your cause.

DeepC

Mate check your history. i will keep saying it.

these arent my views it is known fact. from the beginning of the "supreme" race, its been all about power, murder, stealing and lying, go back to the roman times when the race was pushed northwards. since then its about world dominance and power.

It isnt racist at all, and i assure you that if it wasnt fact then i can assure you it would be prejudiced.

in fact i like to see it as education to open the minds of those not in the know, and not propaganda, which this world has been reliant upon since christoper columbus ect.

Jeff, the Romans gave a kicking to pale skinned Celts, Dacians, Teutons, and so forth, as well as dark skinned Carthaginians, Nubians, Moors, Semites, Persians and others.

Later on, the Romans got a kicking themselves from assorted Mongols, Vandals, Huns, Persians, Arabs, and loads of others. It wasn't a black/white thing.

The Romans were a violent and greedy lot, for sure, and did not always act from the best of motives, or achieve the best results. As Tacitus said: "Solitudinem faicunt, pacem appellant" ("They make a desert, and they call it peace" George W Bush, please note).

In between the kicking and the getting kicked, there was a period in Europe and the Med during which people could live in unfortified dwellings and travel and trade unarmed (first time that had ever happened, and last time it happened until the 17th century), governed by a code of laws some of which are still used today. History is all about nuance, not absolutes.

Which history books have you been reading? I've already mentioned above Niall Ferguson on Empire, and Jared Diamond on pretty much everything, but mention them again. There are numerous single volume summaries of the Roman Empire, but these are all big and complex subjects, so most of the books miss out the airships.

Immigrants can benefit a country and in some cases are essential for it's survival. However not all immigrants are good. Anyone remember the metropolitain police commissioner under attack simply for stating a fact - that 80% of muggings in London were commited by young black males ?

If the BNP do start deporting non whites please can they start with the muggers ,drug dealers ,yardies and Nigerian con artists.

It seems that the word racism is inescapable in this discussion. To facilitate understanding (hope springs eternally) this is what The Oxford English Dictionary says:

racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

Applying the above, stating that the white ruling men in the days of colonialism had minds programmed to be superior, does not to me seem a racist statement. Antagonistic; yes. Probably meant to provoke; yes. Probably true; yes. Racist; no.

As an aside; does the BNP (or Metro man) propose where to deport people to? Those people born somewhere else I can see some possibilities for, but what about all our home-grown felonious Brits? No more "empty" colonies a la Oz to serve as dumping grounds. Tricky that.

FNG beat me to the punch on much this “white man” business. I don't tolerate any form of racism, and racism certainly isn't a one way street.

However,, I haven't encountered a single race of people that doesn't exhibit racism. Neither I, nor my parents, nor my grandparents have ever oppressed anyone, violently foisted our beliefs on others, enslaved people, or even introduced cane toads and rabbits to Australia. So I certainly won't apologise for these actions, however regretable they are. Let the relevant country apologise for its actions, but current inhabitants probably had nothing to do with it and won't be best pleased with the responsibility for these actions being firmly placed on a group of people sharing a common skin shade - the “white man”

There is a very unpleasant period of recent history where atrocities were committed by persons of European origin. No one is disputing that. What we don't know is how many other atrocities occurred prehistory. FNG has inserted some much needed balance on the historical recollection of this thread.

Between 1530 and 1780, North African pirates removed more than 1 million Europeans and forced them into slavery. Am I bitter towards people sharing the same skin colour as those North Africans? No. Why? Because those events had nothing to do with the modern day inhabitants of Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and so on. Would I feel the same way about a modern North African that is racist? No, I would feel he was a racist and should be dealt with accordingly.

The past misdeeds of “the white man”, although perhaps being indicative of a mindset, have absolutely nothing do to with justifying modern day racists whether they be “the white man” or “the black man” (I find it very strange that people who claim to not be racist use these terms). Current racists should be dealt with in the most forcible manner permitted by the law. Racism does not justify retaliatory racism. The net result of that is simply vying for supremacy, not equality.

[Edited after the edit of my edit in light of editing of other posts being ed ... gees, I don't envy you Moderators! You've got a full time job here! ;) ]

Send Clowns - Welcome to my Ignore List, of which you are the sole occupant.

Feel free to indulge in your apparent fixation on me to your heart's content, or at least until the Mods tell you to stop. Again.

Sorry Mods, but I'm starting to feel as though I've got a stalker here. :ooh:

To return to more interesting matters....

Racism really does cut all ways, and may very well be an inherent human trait.

But that doesn't make it desirable or acceptable, whatever the source and whoever the victim.

Many genetic and congenital diseases and ailments are inherent to the species, but that hasn't stopped us trying to find a cure for those, has it?

Hey theres too much info on the page to reply too

Metro man sir:

Immigrants can benefit a country and in some cases are essential for it's survival. However not all immigrants are good

You yourself said it. your ancestors are immigrants too. 'nuff said!



Anyone remember the metropolitain police commissioner under attack simply for stating a fact - that 80% of muggings in London were commited by young black males ?

If you remember sir, this was NOT A FACT. and infact paul condon got pushed out for this.



If the BNP do start deporting non whites please can they start with the muggers ,drug dealers ,yardies and Nigerian con artists

sorry sir but does this include the supreme race's paedophiles, rapists, serial killer, neo-nazis?

do you get my drift? we are not all muggers, drug dealers ect just like the supreme ones are not all paedophiles, rapists, serial killers, neo-nazis.
:hmm:

Too many of you not getting the drift of this forum. :rolleyes:
No way are we going to use our time trying to keep in line a bunch of grown-ups who make the conscious decision to ignore the forum rules and our polite requests stick to them.
What are you guys taking us for?

Shame, it was an interesting discussion.

Who really cares what the yanks think, 95% of them think were part of Australia anyway, not really relavent to this site is it?

Who really cares what the yanks think, 95% of them think were part of Australia anyway, not really relavent to this site is it?

Oh, but you ARE part of Australia - its in the Constitution preamble ;) ;)



"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".

I think you should remember that most of the guys on that website think Genghis Khan was a liberal, pinko, commie b*st*rd.
I never heard anyone described as an ultra left Nazi before ... these people are more than a little confused, but mildly amusing all the same....