1
   

One event changes attitude in UK-----how strange

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
I wouold like to see your wrath directed at the correct terrorist group Ellpus. It was Muslim fanatics responsible for the latest bombing, how about venting your anger at them?


Isn't a short memory just the most convenient thing, McG? Lordy, how could a republican survive without one?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:25 am
georgeob1 wrote:

9/11 took about 3000 American lives in a very dramatic and visible event. That's about 60 times as many casualties as in the LOndon bombings -- the events are not on the same scale, even considering our greater population.


You are - as well as others here - aware of the fact that through the events of 9/11 more British lost their lifes than on 7/7.


georgeob1 wrote:
Until the early 1990s the Irish in Northern Ireland had good cause for revolution against a rather vicious Stormont government. Beyond that the IRA was a major part of the struggle for independence in the Republic.


The arracks before "the early 1990s" (on the British mainland, but in Northern Ireland as well as e.g. in Germany) were part of this "good course"?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:29 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I wouold like to see your wrath directed at the correct terrorist group Ellpus. It was Muslim fanatics responsible for the latest bombing, how about venting your anger at them?


Because Rayban started this whole thread by strongly implying that we were just casual observers to terrorism before last Thursday.

I HAVE to use the IRA as an example, in order to prove that he is acting like an arsehole in this matter.

And if you think that the IRA, or the Real IRA is not a current Terrorist Organisation, then you are being as naive as him.


I really don't care about the IRA and it actions against the British government. If you wish to start a thread regarding your opinions of the IRA you should. I am sure it will be an interesting thread. This latest action, and the action Rayban is discussing has nothing to do with the IRA and Bush does not get dragged through the coals in the many liberal rags you guys use for newspapers for attacks by the IRA.

This is about Muslim fanaticism and what are we going to do to stop them in the future.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:39 am
McGentrix wrote:
I wouold like to see your wrath directed at the correct terrorist group Ellpus. It was Muslim fanatics responsible for the latest bombing, how about venting your anger at them?


Get with the program McG. You have totally missed, or ignored Lord Ellpus' point. Go back to the beginning. Do not pass go and definitely do not collect $200.00.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:43 am
How can you compare the two groups. The IRA is so much more civilized!


http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050707/lester.gif
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:52 am
McGentrix wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I wouold like to see your wrath directed at the correct terrorist group Ellpus. It was Muslim fanatics responsible for the latest bombing, how about venting your anger at them?


Because Rayban started this whole thread by strongly implying that we were just casual observers to terrorism before last Thursday.

I HAVE to use the IRA as an example, in order to prove that he is acting like an arsehole in this matter.

And if you think that the IRA, or the Real IRA is not a current Terrorist Organisation, then you are being as naive as him.


I really don't care about the IRA and it actions against the British government. If you wish to start a thread regarding your opinions of the IRA you should. I am sure it will be an interesting thread. This latest action, and the action Rayban is discussing has nothing to do with the IRA and Bush does not get dragged through the coals in the many liberal rags you guys use for newspapers for attacks by the IRA.

This is about Muslim fanaticism and what are we going to do to stop them in the future.


The first line of your response speaks volumes.

The reason for my bringing up what you clearly regard as the inconsequential matter of the IRA, is that:-

The thread title ONE EVENT CHANGES ATTITUDE IN UK...STRANGE, infers that we have only ever witnessed this one event.

It makes no reference to "Muslim Fanaticism" so can easily be interpreted as that of terrorist acts in general.

His opening statement:-

"Brits have suddenly stopped bashing Bush because reality has smacked them in the face. It is very sad that it took such violence to force a change in attitude. "

It makes no reference to "Muslim Fanaticism" so can easily be interpreted as that of terrorists acts in general.
The wording is also insulting and inflammatory, certainly at this moment in time.

His summation:-
"In summation I wish to say that my only intent was to distinguish between being an observer and the victim........the attitude is entirely different"

It makes no reference to "Muslim Fanaticism" so can easily be interpreted as that of being a victim of terrorist acts in general.

Apart from giving details of a speech given by Clarke, and expressing his opinions re Moslem terrorists, the whole tone is one that I, and strangely enough, the vast majority of respondants on this thread, have interpreted as that of him declaring that we are dawdling observers to the reality of terrorism, which I find grossly insulting. Hence, in an effort to convince Rayban, that people actually EXIST outside the USA, I have tried to tell him about a little organisation that calls itself the IRA, which has existed and has been so successful in its killing and maiming of British people, primarily because the USA was a DAWDLING OBSERVER, AND A LARGE NUMBER OF ITS NATIONALS WERE THE MAIN FUNDERS of this terrorist organisation for the past umpteen years......
....YES, SHOCK HORROR, BEFORE 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
Mc G says:- ......"and Bush does not get dragged through the coals in the many liberal rags you guys use for newspapers for attacks by the IRA."

....and these liberal rags would be? The Sun?....owned by Rupert Murdoch, he also owns Fox News I think. I never read the garbage, as it basically spouts hilarious untruths in a sensational manner....a bit like Fox news.

The Daily Mail?...Probably the most right wing arsewipe of a newspaper that we have. Racist, bigoted reporting throughout, but they still criticise Bush on a regular basis.

The Telegraph?....Right wing, contains lots of letters from Wing Commanders complaining about the demise of standards in our youth. It criticises Bush regularly.

Seeing a pattern here?

The Times? Owned by Rupert Murdoch, I believe. Milder than the Sun in its propaganda, as it is aimed at a more intelligent reader, but it still makes some space to criticise Bush from time to time.

So, even the most right wing papers (and they are very "right", believe me) have the FREEDOM to criticise whom they please.

Are you trying to tell us that there is no criticism of Bush in your newspapers? EVER? ......What does that tell you? How much advertising revenue do they rely on? What political persuasion are the bosses of the Companies that supply the advertising?

HOW FREE IS YOUR PRESS.........or, following on from the tagline in a well known TV Commercial.....

What's in YOUR newspaper? Probably, the answer is rubbish, just like ours. The only difference being that our rubbish is not being dragged around on a lead.

We give that priviledge to our Prime Minister.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:26 am
"Brits have suddenly stopped bashing Bush because reality has smacked them in the face. It is very sad that it took such violence to force a change in attitude."

The main point is that Bush was being bashed in the British tabloids and liberal press. Is that true? Was he? How many headlines discussed Bush and the war on terror and Iraq? I believe that to have been his main point, not to be derrogatory towards the British populace.

Now that the British have been directly impacted by Islamic terrorism, perhaps they will be able to understand Bush's position towards the elimination of such.

I believe that to be the main point Rayban was making, not that Britain had no history of bombings or other examples or terrorism. You have managed to blow the proportion of Rayban's statement far beyond his original position.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
"Brits have suddenly stopped bashing Bush because reality has smacked them in the face. It is very sad that it took such violence to force a change in attitude."

The main point is that Bush was being bashed in the British tabloids and liberal press. Is that true? Was he? How many headlines discussed Bush and the war on terror and Iraq? I believe that to have been his main point, not to be derrogatory towards the British populace.

Now that the British have been directly impacted by Islamic terrorism, perhaps they will be able to understand Bush's position towards the elimination of such.

I believe that to be the main point Rayban was making, not that Britain had no history of bombings or other examples or terrorism. You have managed to blow the proportion of Rayban's statement far beyond his original position.


Well, maybe he should learn to communicate effectively then.

He did it to get a reaction, and he got one.....simple.

No mention of Press and a sweeping denouncement of "Brits".

I just KNOW how you would have reacted, had either you or Rayban seen my alternative thread, less than a week after 9/11.
You would have punched me hard in the mouth with so much "Yeehah" spirit that I would have had to stick a toothbrush up my arse in order to clean my teeth.

Dont kid a kidder.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
"Brits have suddenly stopped bashing Bush because reality has smacked them in the face. It is very sad that it took such violence to force a change in attitude."

The main point is that Bush was being bashed in the British tabloids and liberal press.


McGentrix wrote:
Well, to be fair, he is addressing his post towards liberals Spendius.


Okay, not liberals, neither here nor in Britain, but tabloids [right wing tabloids, as LE pointed out correctly] and liberal press - to which you obliously count the right Telegraph and the rightish Times as well.

Well, you are sometimes really funny, you funny American conservatives.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:50 am
I'm now tired of this. I have made my point, and state firmly here and now that I have ALWAYS been right behind the idea of wiping AQ off the face of the earth. I sorely grieved for the victims of 9/11, as I have sorely grieved at ALL victims of terrorism.

I would NEVER have been so dispassionate as to start such a thread as this, whilst you were clearing up the rubble, and bringing out your dead.

I feel that the British have at least a comparable level of intelligence with the Yanks, and feel that I can speak for the majority when I say that ANY form of terrorism is unacceptable, and that AQ and other Moslem fanatics are the high profile ones at this moment in time.

DONT, however, presume to tell me how to act, how to think or indeed, how to feel.

I shall now vacate this thread permanently, and allow other people to have their say.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:52 am
Walter, when I speak of "liberals", I speak of people who follow the same type of political path as American liberals. The people that hate Bush, vote democrat, float towards socialism, etc... I can not be bothered by your tiresome comparison of eurocentric liberals or trying to be as specific as possible in every post. So from now on when I say "liberal" I am referring to people like Franken, Fisk, Gore, Moore, Kerry, Kennedy and people that are like minded to them.

Is that ok?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:54 am
Don't leave because of churlish discourse Lordy. Pour the 5 PM martini and stick around.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:55 am
"One event changes attitude in UK-----how strange"

Raybans opinion...(note the snide tone)
we wait for confirmation from an article or speech.

"Brits have suddenly stopped bashing Bush because reality has smacked them in the face."

Raybans opinion. Now we're really sure the article will underline his position.

Then Clarcke's speech. Nary a mention of Bush

So, are there any articles saying The British are doing an about-face and embracing our fearless leader?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:01 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I'm now tired of this. I have made my point, and state firmly here and now that I have ALWAYS been right behind the idea of wiping AQ off the face of the earth. I sorely grieved for the victims of 9/11, as I have sorely grieved at ALL victims of terrorism.

I would NEVER have been so dispassionate as to start such a thread as this, whilst you were clearing up the rubble, and bringing out your dead.


And you've made your point very well indeed, Ellpus. Amazingly restrained & civil in the circumstances, I think. ... I doubt many others here would have been so insensitive as to start a thread like this at such a time.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:03 am
McGentrix wrote:

Is that ok?


Well, at least it is new for me, since up to now I had believed, your liberals were our socialists. (European liberals are really different and have nothing to do with that.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:08 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I'm now tired of this. I have made my point, and state firmly here and now that I have ALWAYS been right behind the idea of wiping AQ off the face of the earth. I sorely grieved for the victims of 9/11, as I have sorely grieved at ALL victims of terrorism.

I would NEVER have been so dispassionate as to start such a thread as this, whilst you were clearing up the rubble, and bringing out your dead.

I feel that the British have at least a comparable level of intelligence with the Yanks, and feel that I can speak for the majority when I say that ANY form of terrorism is unacceptable, and that AQ and other Moslem fanatics are the high profile ones at this moment in time.

DONT, however, presume to tell me how to act, how to think or indeed, how to feel.

I shall now vacate this thread permanently, and allow other people to have their say.


Do you believe that all brits think the same way you do? I know for certain that not all Americans think the same way I do. I know for certain that there are some Americans that are actively plotting future terrorist acts against the US. I know for certain that some of my fellow Americans Hate George Bush with an extreme passion and will not be happy until he leaves office. The faster the better for them. I know for certain that there are some fellow Americans dying to protect the future of Iraqi's because they were ordered to do so. I know for certain that some of my fellow Americans are crack heads living in the alleyways who have no idea who the president even is.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
Walter, when I speak of "liberals", I speak of people who follow the same type of political path as American liberals. The people that hate Bush, vote democrat, float towards socialism, etc... I can not be bothered by your tiresome comparison of eurocentric liberals or trying to be as specific as possible in every post. So from now on when I say "liberal" I am referring to people like Franken, Fisk, Gore, Moore, Kerry, Kennedy and people that are like minded to them.

Is that ok?


Ah, well, there's your problem then.

Our political system is shifted more to the left than your political system, so our equivalent of your Democratic Party would be something centre.

Your Republicans have no real equivalent in our country, as far as I can tell. All Parties here support things that Republicans would never do, regardless of their location on the political spectrum.

The real Liberals in our country have no real political party that represents them and the ones that do are in such a minority they can never get into power.

The American concept of Liberal and Conservative are more skewed than the British ones.

The likes of Franken and Gore (I refuse to class Moore, because even I think he's a jerk) are pretty much representative of the majority of the UK, regardless of whether they see themselves as Conservative or Liberal.

And when you say, Kennedy, who do you mean?

I take it you don't mean Charles Kennedy, the Leader of our Liberal Democrat Party. You don't mean JFK, do you, the man that was a failure at politics but at least championed the rights of the blacks?

And as for newspapers, LE got it spot on. The majority of them, with the exception of the Observer and the Guardian are all right-wing.

And Lord Ellpus, apparently according to a publication I read, our press is no more free than America, less free than that of Hong Kong and even that of Canada. Not that it isn't free, of course. It's quite good compared to China and all the dictatorships around there, but it's still not the best.

(I think that's only because the press in the US is owned by a mere handful of companies, which helped to lower the US's score).

Our political spectrum is not comparable to yours, because unlike America, we never had Communist witch hunts in the 1950s that purged out anything that looked even remotely left-wing, and polarised the country to the right-wing of politics.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:09 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Is that ok?


Well, at least it is new for me, since up to now I had believed, your liberals were our socialists. (European liberals are really different and have nothing to do with that.)


So, in the future, when I refer to liberals and liberal things, you will have a better understanding of what I mean?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:05 am
rayban1 wrote:
To all Brits from rayban

Would you all please read the article by your Home Secretary....Suddenly you are no longer sympathetic observers of the tragic attack on this country----instead you are the victims. I merely pointed out the different perspective you now have and that you take the attitude that you must now do something to combat this evil menace.

When you were merely observers, two different perceptions formed in my mind. First there was the perception of total and absolute support from your PM, Mr. Blair, and he has followed through without hesitation and has become our best and often only ally. On the other hand, a large percentage of Brits immediately took the stance that it was our fault. We had created this terrorist monster and they gave your PM holy hell for supporting us in any form or fashion.

Now that you are the victims, it is obvious that you want action to be taken and both Mr. Clarke and your PM are responding admirably, IMO.

I very much admired the stoic response of all the Brits and you very much displayed the spirit eloquently spoken of by your PM, who BTW is in my estimation a great leader, that you would not be terrorized. There was no panic and by the next day it appeared to me that the British people were determined to show that everything was again normal.

In summation I wish to say that my only intent was to distinguish between being an observer and the victim........the attitude is entirely different


I did not mention the IRA for the same reason I did not mention the Buzz bomb attacks during WW2. It should be self evident that the only relevant source of terrorism in the London bombings, is the Islamist Fascism variety. I repost the clarification of my opening comments in response to your self righteous indignation.......you might want to go back and examine the lack of real intent to support our efforts to unify the civilized countries of the world against the menace posed by Islamist terrorism. There was agreement on cooperation to restrict the money flow to known terrorist organizations, and to coordinate intelligence efforts, but actual unity in a global war effort was never forthcoming because it became apparent that most countries secretly believed the US had gotten what it deserved for meddling in the internal affairs of so many countries.

I will again say that the British Gov't of Tony Blair has given 100% support as well and a high percentage of the British people. My complaint and the reason for this thread, lay with the other high percentage of Brits who have constantly ridiculed Bush and our efforts to combat terrorism. If you fall in that category then face facts......if you were always in support of us then please don't take offense at anything I have said because it was not aimed at you.

If you among those who are in denial of the obvious then so be it.....let self righteous indignation rule the day.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 01:51:16