georgeob1 wrote:Vivien wrote:Lord Ellpus put the facts very well but if you don't want to face facts you ignore them - as those making sweepingly inaccurate statements, about a country they don't know are doing.
America funds many terrorist organisations including the IRA - what to do about that? We had many years of IRA bombing as a direct result of American finance
Great Britain has given the world several examples of real lunatic leaders - far worse than Vivien's characature of our President. One even sped our revolution along.
I assume the "America funds many terrorist organizations" bit is code for the support Jewish Americans provide for Israel. Perhaps Vivien should read a bit more about the role of The British Empire in the creation of the "Zionist Entity", and the original betrayal of the Palestinians.
While some American money may have funded some IRA activities, the organization itself sprang from centuries of British oppression in Ireland. The IRA bombings were the legacy of centuries of British misrule. Don't try to blame that on America. The attitudes of the Irish Americans who once provided support to the IRA were formed by those of their parents and grandparents who knew the situation very well indeed.
I think too much of the British people to suppose that Vivien truly speaks for them as she claims.
Every country has given the world lunatic leaders in its time and I haven't said Bush was the only one.
I was
not referring to Israel in the way you suggest but rather worldwide covert support to suit America wishes - ok every country probably does a degree of this but it doesn't make it any better. American funding is larger and therefore - more impact.
We suffered the bombing.
re IRA - grandparents and parents - they remembered an Ireland of generations before, not the present day. Perhaps the Sioux too remember the tales of their grandparents who were driven off their lands, slaughtered and sent to reservations.
You will obviously keep your illusions of support for Bush - dream on - Blair lost a huge majority in an expression of the peoples dislike of his support for Bush.
Lash wrote:Fox--
My post crossed yours.
Thanks for bringing that great article.
Aside--- Britain should free the Irish.
I don't think my husband realised he wasn't free
personally I don't like the jilbab - it depersonalises a woman - you stand next to someone (rare here for people to wear this but there are some who do) wearing it at the supermarket checkout and there is no smile, no interaction, it's so isolating and inhumane. It makes integration into the community impossible.
The headscarf should be no problem - what harm can a headscarf do? Afro Caribbeans here often wear a stylish wrapped headscarf too, it is sad that a woman must cover her hair for the sake of 'modesty' n the cse of Islam but if she wishes then she should be allowed to. I have a friend who asked us all if we objected if she started to wear one to work - we were amazed and asked if she was being pressured into it - it was her own choice and we didn't mind one way or the other, she's a lovely person scarf or no scarf.
I would hate to see our tolerance and integration marred
France did ban
all religious symbols including the cross and chain remember, not just Islamic symbols,
you ask who was being insulting to Britain on this thread ...
- Lord Ellpus has already told you
Reading through all this, it does seem as if Rayban and others, not many, are saying about Britain what they despise anyone from saying about the USA. We hear now that the English are the soft ones and that the French, the FRENCH!!!, who have it right. It smacks very sharply like "It was their own fault." doesn't it? It's simply the rudest tripe ever offered.
There is no pleasing the American right wing, either you follow their follies to the letter or you are contemptible and weak, which is exactly what McG and Rayban have been disgustingly saying here about the British and they. the British, not the frigging British government, are supposed to have been our closest allies in the War on Terror. Ellpus rightly points out the myopic American view on terrorism and is responded to with weasely 'that was then, this is now' crap.
As to our President and the view both here and abroad, we in the opposition do not hate George W. Bush, that would be a waste of feeling, rather we see him as he portrays himself, an ideologue with a pig-headed streak and we regret very much that we have failed to convince more than half of the voting populace that that is more a danger to our Republic than a benefit.
I'm sure Vivian is correct when she says many in other countries see him as a lunatic, but that, of course, is, ironically enough, his own fault. His actions, whether it's the run-up and conduct of the war in Iraq with it's associated horrors with the prisoners of war, excuse me, enemy combatants, or his heartfelt belief that there is no such thing as global warming or the myriad of other semi-bizarre attitudes he represents (think stem cell research) and one can see a person who might be in need of some kind of treatment.
Walter, McTag, Ellpus: The events you all referred to did not happen either within the USA nor in the past eight years which are the limits of retrieval for the American right wing, that's why you got the reply "Wha??"
Joe(sitting in an American subway car)Nation
Hear, hear Joe. You bring a refreshing insight to this thread.
I vividly recall the early post-9/11 threads on Abuzz. Regardless of what any of us from other countries thought of US policy, the response was uniformly one of total respect for the feelings of the people of the US. And so it should have been for the British following the recent attacks in London.
msolga wrote:I vividly recall the early post-9/11 threads on Abuzz. Regardless of what any of us from other countries thought of US policy, the response was uniformly one of total respect for the feelings of the people of the US. And so it should have been for the British following the recent attacks in London.
How true msolga. Were it a fact, this thread would never have started. It seems to depend on whose bull is being gored here.
If Canada should be unfortunate enough to suffer a catastrophe, I can imagine the fodder that rayban and his ilk will have to write. Or, is that a little close to his border?
Vivien wrote:Lash wrote:Fox--
My post crossed yours.
Thanks for bringing that great article.
Aside--- Britain should free the Irish.
I don't think my husband realised he wasn't free
If he is satisfied with the lack of autonomy and England's thumb on his head, I'm glad for him. There are other people who can't stand oppression, though, even in less punitive forms.
Lash wrote:Vivien wrote:Lash wrote:Fox--
My post crossed yours.
Thanks for bringing that great article.
Aside--- Britain should free the Irish.
I don't think my husband realised he wasn't free
If he is satisfied with the lack of autonomy and England's thumb on his head, I'm glad for him. There are other people who can't stand oppression, though, even in less punitive forms.
Americans used to be free, too.
I hear a distinguished British muslim cleric, who has been honoured for his community work by the Queen, among many other distinctions, has been refused entry (to take up a lecture invitation) into the US. No reason given.
Hey. We're free. But we're looking under his robes if he comes here.
You can keep your distinguished muslim cleric. We'll be OK.
Joe Nation wrote:Reading through all this, it does seem as if Rayban and others, not many, are saying about Britain what they despise anyone from saying about the USA. We hear now that the English are the soft ones and that the French, the FRENCH!!!, who have it right. It smacks very sharply like "It was their own fault." doesn't it? It's simply the rudest tripe ever offered.
There is no pleasing the American right wing, either you follow their follies to the letter or you are contemptible and weak, which is exactly what McG and Rayban have been disgustingly saying here about the British and they. the British, not the frigging British government, are supposed to have been our closest allies in the War on Terror. Ellpus rightly points out the myopic American view on terrorism and is responded to with weasely 'that was then, this is now' crap.
As to our President and the view both here and abroad, we in the opposition do not hate George W. Bush, that would be a waste of feeling, rather we see him as he portrays himself, an ideologue with a pig-headed streak and we regret very much that we have failed to convince more than half of the voting populace that that is more a danger to our Republic than a benefit.
I'm sure Vivian is correct when she says many in other countries see him as a lunatic, but that, of course, is, ironically enough, his own fault. His actions, whether it's the run-up and conduct of the war in Iraq with it's associated horrors with the prisoners of war, excuse me, enemy combatants, or his heartfelt belief that there is no such thing as global warming or the myriad of other semi-bizarre attitudes he represents (think stem cell research) and one can see a person who might be in need of some kind of treatment.
Walter, McTag, Ellpus: The events you all referred to did not happen either within the USA nor in the past eight years which are the limits of retrieval for the American right wing, that's why you got the reply "Wha??"
Joe(sitting in an American subway car)Nation
You are so full of sh!t my computer is starting to stink. Please quote any reference by me that I find the British "soft" or that I, in any way support the French. If you are going to include my name in your gibberish, you'd better be able to back it up.
Lash wrote:If he is satisfied with the lack of autonomy and England's thumb on his head, I'm glad for him. There are other people who can't stand oppression, though, even in less punitive forms.
Even when you talk here about Northern Ireland (Ulster), there's definately not "England's thumb on the head" but that of Her Majesty's government aka of the United Kingdom (and NI is part of that) :wink:
Contortions like this are rampant since the London attack.
They can't bear that they've been wrong....and worse, that we've been right.
It seems the London attack has begun to show that Bush and Blair have been correct in what they've said and how they've responded. It's so upsetting to some, that they've just started inventing things to attempt to deflect the facts.
Walter.
Call it what you want. I know what I mean. Ireland was taken by force and has been starved, relocated, oppressed and practically caged.
I say it is wrong and Ireland should be freed from English rule.
How naive can one get?
Free to do what?
Have their own foreign policy eh?
Then they could sign a treaty with anybody couldn't they-if they were "free".Like China say.Or Libya or Iran.And have bases on their soil.Like Castro did.
You'll never get your head round it talking abstract concepts.
They are due unhindered self-determination.
The Irish are hardly a worldwide threat.
Lash wrote:They are due unhindered self-determination.
The Irish are hardly a worldwide threat.
Simplistic. Ireland has a complex history. Poor buggers have been invaded for centuries, no wonder they drink, probably wondering when the next wave is due in.
The Republic has a democratic government and they know what Sinn Fein and the IRA are up to (can you say "one-party state"? ) NI wants to stay with the Brits rather than the Republic (although I have no idea why).
You must think you are in possession of the only book of Irish history...?
I know it well. I was interested in my Irish ancestory as a child--and have read a great deal about it.
I know their rather pitiful history, and feel they are overdue for FREEDOM.
