There may be more to this story than what is reported here, but at least according to this report Bryan Cork didn't actually shout any racist slurs. He shouted an anti-immigration slogan and suggested that Muslims were not British -- but considering inflammatory rhetoric that has come from some Muslims in Britain about wanting to see the government overthrown and Britain established as an Islamic state, it is not altogether unfathomable why Cork would get this idea.
Now should someone stand outside a mosque and shout rude things? Of course not. Cork's actions are undeniably condemnable. But they make clear that frustration is rising over British officialdom's unwillingness or inability to confront the problem they have created by admitting into the country untold numbers of Muslims who want to see Britain become a Sharia state. When ordinary people feel as if they have no recourse, they do things like this.
"Man, 49, jailed for racist slurs," from the BBC, with thanks to Mathew:
A man who shouted racist insults at Muslim worshippers outside a Cumbria mosque has been jailed for six months.Bryan Cork shouted slurs including "proud to be British" and "go back to where you came from" outside Carlisle's Brook Street mosque.
He pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harassment on 30 November at the city's Crown Court on Tuesday.
Judge Paul Batty, QC, told Cork, of Thompson Street, Carlisle, that racism in any form would not be tolerated.
And so the suppression of dissent moves to the next level, well what would you expect from Tony's cronys, they are a bunch of closet marxists after all. Think on this, who but a selfrighteous concieted marxist, would believe it his right to enact law to direct individual thought. Britain is sadly walking right into a tyranny; what's more, with it's eyes wide open.
While you may say Mr. Cork's verbal assault was not very nice, it didn't happen in a vacuum. The government's refusal to deal with this problem, points to one of two things, either a predissposition to untilise Islamic inflamatory rehtoric and actions to further advance the marxist agenda - the destruction of societal norms and with it, the rights and ability of free people to express themselves, or undiluted cowardice on the part of Tony, Gordon and all their fellow travelers, currently holding the reins of power.
How much longer will the ballot box be respected by the governing elite and will this collection of thieves and mediocrities revert to form and seek the imposition of their view by the elimination of any dissent.
Who would have thought during the Thatcher years, that Britain would fall so far under the heel of authoritarian tyrants.
The recent BBC poll, or was it the Guardian, on who was the greatest man of the twentieth century, with it's clear winner being Karl Marx, clearly showed the depth of rot that has set into the cultural mind of a once great nation. Utopian fantasising is the order of the day, marked by a clear refusal to acknowledge and deal with reality which becomes nothing more than an impediment to be ignored at all costs.
Marxism always ends in blood and tears, it would seem that it's bastard child socialism is headed the same way.
The law, rightly, should go out of its way to protect the law abiding Islamic population.
But many of the Islamic people in Britain don't want to live under the very laws, which are used to protect them.
A part of being British is a respect for the laws which define the society.
Except for when it benefits Islamic people - they have no respect for the laws and society in which they live.
Shar’ia law directly opposes British law and society and therefore represents a foreign law that is anti-British and anti-establishment.
Which race is Islam?
Who would have thought during the Thatcher years, that Britain would fall so far under the heel of authoritarian tyrants.
Ho.ho..ho Maggie was herself a auhtoritarian bigot.
Anyways this guy maybe racist Asian baiting type or he may be just venting his anger at Jihad against infidels (but i doubt it).
Whatever he is, nothing he said comes close to the threats and intimidation in London when the orchestrated Danish cartoon mobs were out in force.
"Ho.ho..ho Maggie was herself a auhtoritarian bigot"
. Actually Vikrant_Camberleykar, I'm not in much dissagreement with your comment, for I was no great fan of Maggie myself. A tendancy towards autocratic rule she may have displayed, however, the general thrust of her arguments was towards placing the country on a sound financial footing, something she undoubtedly acheived. Unfortunately, she also sowed the seeds of class division by her autocratic manner; a division that Saint Tone and his band of merry men recognised and managed to ride to power upon and have ruthlessly exploited ever since, with totally predictable consequences, I might add.
The BBC are blatantly biased in much of their coverage of Islamic issues, but I don't think marxism has sunk into british society to quite the extent that you imagine..
The recent BBC poll for greatest britons:
* Winston Churchill - 456,498 votes (28.1%) - Mo Mowlam
* Isambard Kingdom Brunel - 398,526 votes (24.6%) - Jeremy Clarkson
* Diana, Princess of Wales - 225,584 votes (13.9%) - Rosie Boycott
* Charles Darwin - 112,496 votes (6.9%) - Andrew Marr
* William Shakespeare - 109,919 votes (6.8%) - Fiona Shaw
* Isaac Newton - 84,628 votes (5.2%) - Tristram Hunt
* Queen Elizabeth I - 71,928 votes (4.4%) - Michael Portillo
* John Lennon - 68,445 votes (4.2%) - Alan Davies
* Horatio Nelson - 49,171 votes (3%) - Lucy Moore
* Oliver Cromwell - 45,053 (2.8%) votes - Richard Holmes
Other than princess woodentop and Lennon, that's a pretty good list.
"The law, rightly, should go out of its way to protect the law abiding Islamic population."
Sorry, no the law should not go out of it's way, the law should show NO favour to any, but should be equitable to all.
QueeQueg: you like military adventurers who overthrow Parliamentary government and set themselves up as tyrants? (Oliver Cromwell.) Or war criminals who murder prisoners who surrendered on terms and congratulate Muslim tyrants on butchering women and children? (Horatio Nelson.) That is an appalling list, showing Britain's historical ignorance and its continued tendency to idolize any scoundrel who can be seen to enhance their macho and false self-image as a warrior nation.
I do not often agree with Vikrant, but this man sounds exactly like the usual kind of drunken bigot who makes anonymous calls and sometimes gangs up with other bigots to beat up a black or brown man in the street. "Go back to where you came from" is, in Britain, a classic racist slogan. Sorry, Robert, you picked the wrong martyr here.
QueeQueeg
I think that I am referring to a different poll, quite possibly from the Guardian, which was asking for the greatest individuals of the world (not Britain). Marx clearly came out the winner.
As to the depth of marxist infiltration into British society, into the general population, no, I agree with you, I think the vast majority do indeed reject those philisophical tenets so beloved in the halls of academia; but clearly it is also pervasive in political circles. The lure of marxist rehtoric is that it taps into the virtuous intentions of people as they seek meaning and direction in their existance. The fact that the rehtoric is a front, a mask to conceal the thirst for domination of minds awash in conceit, is the key to understanding both the tragedy and the cleverness that is the marxist dialetic.
More on this story here. It seems that there was a genuinely racist aspect to his words ("Carlisle is white"). This should not be confused with legitimate criticism of Islam and protestst against it. Nevertheless, the sentence is outrageous.
Ken Livingstone, High Priest of Multi-Culturalism, has also been telling some foreigners to go back to where they came from. But they were Jews, so that's OK. Take a look.
Paolo
It's been a long time since I picked up any books on the history of the Napoleonic wars, but just which incident are you referring to regarding Nelson?
their macho and false self-image as a warrior nation
Well we did have quite an empire you know. Not just an image. And it did a lot more good than harm. Just about every country that works well has been influenced by the British.
I think it is good that the British are proud of these figures, Churchill, especially. Who are we supposed to revere? Bob Geldof?
Interested
Mr. Cork may indeed be bigoted, he may or may not be a nasty person; but what gives you or me or anyone else the right to dictate what he is allowed to think. It is only when his thoughts turn to actions which infringe upon the rights of others that we can then restict and censure those actions. The idea that we can be perfected by our social betters into only thinking pure thoughts, is utopianism run amock. Religeous authorities have been trying for centuries, I don't see that they've managed to accomplish much on that score. Now it's the turn of the secularists, so far their approach seems too heavy handed to bode well for any degree of success, although they just might manage to criminalise the whole of society, at least that would appear to be what they are trying to do!
Mr. Cork may indeed be bigoted, he may or may not be a nasty person; but what gives you or me or anyone else the right to dictate what he is allowed to think.
I agree totally. Mr Cork should be allowed to think what he likes. But he should not be permitted to shout racist abuse. There is a difference between expression of ideas and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Where I part company with the aptly monickered Judge Batty, is in the severity of the sentence. Mr Cork should have been let off with a caution.
Why doesn't Tony Blair just hand the keys of the country over to the Imams and ask whose ass they would like him to kiss next? 6 months? How much time did the Mohammedans in London get for their threatening placards and chants? Huh? What a bunch of stupid people they are.
I'm glad Ireland kicked their asses out so that they have no control over our country and I hope that the Irish government will have more sense. Well, I was hoping out loud.
PJ
Interested
In following the link which you posted, it would appear that there was racist element to his tirade, he was also drunk; in a sane society, he would have been told he was a fool and that he should mind his manners in future and that would have been the end of it; the disapproval of the general society would have had a natural effect of reining in his baser exhortions. But we now live in a society where, different groups are accorded ascending rights depending upon political practicalities (what ever makes life easier for the politician). The judge in this incident is the one who should be behind bars, clearly a case of one man whose opinion of himself far outweighs his ability to fashion justice according to the need, over a man whose lack of emmotional control leads him into a folly not conducive to his wellbeing, nor that of his neighbours.
Law administered to the advantage of favoured groups, only succeeds in distroying respect for all law and will have dire long term consequences for society as a whole.
Interested, I know your position on the BNP, but if they are not to be handed the reins of power by default, due the absolute disgust of the public, due to incompetence and political pandering, something has to be done to correct the malaise engulfing the polity of the country.
I agree that the sentence was absurd. A caution would have been sufficient. Perhaps it will be reduced on appeal.
My position on the BNP is unchanged.
Just Another Richard
I would agree that there is a discrepancy in the law - the cartoon protest in London, were a fine example of this.
Here is one guy saying ‘Go Home’ ‘Proud to Be British’ outside of a mosque. And he gets six months.
While a whole group of Muslim people - stand in the middle of the city, just off Buckingham Palace, with signs - telling us that the ‘Real Holocaust Hasn't Happened Yet’ - with one of the protesters appearing in a suicide bomber outfit.
And if it wasn't for pressure from the general public - these Islamic protesters would not have even been arrested.
And just how Muslims use our laws when it suits them – take Hamza – who practically spat at our laws and flouted them to the max – but once he was locked up – every one of the laws which he hated, is now at his disposal.
Interested
Your opinion on the BNP is unchanged. Well I wasn't expecting it to. My point was, that unless something better comes along soon, given the general trend of political ineptitude emminating from the great and the good, that events may overtake common sense, and by default power will devolve to those who defend the rights of the majority or more accurately, will be percieved to defend those rights; whether they do or not will be beside the point as they ride the discontent to positions of authority.
How did the line in the song go..."Men of steel, men of power, losing control by the hour." Thank you Phil, that is the perfect summation.
Just Another Richard: the poll you mean was about the greatest philosophers. Atrociously, not only did it rank Marx first, but placed the horrible atheistic fraud David Hume second. (Have you ever read Karl Popper on Hegel? Well, that is nothing compared to what I would have to say about Hume.) After those two champions of materialism and negation, they had the condescension to place Socrates third.
QueeQueg. I was referring to two appalling episodes of the Napoleonic wars. The first occurred in Naples in 1799. After the French troops had overthrown the king of Naples and taken over all the continental part of his kingdom (he fled to Sicily), the king's minister for Agriculture, a learned clergyman called Cardinal Ruffo di Calabria, who had never fired a shot in anger in his life, took it upon himself to revolt the country in the king's name. What followed was one of the most astounding Boy's Own-type adventures in history: landing on the coast of Calabria with no men or weapons, Cardinal Ruffo started a tremendous revolt that swept all of southern Italy, won victory after victory, and in three or four months was at the gates of Naples at the head of a great rebel army. Worried about what his men could do - they had already indulged in some butchery, against his orders, especially at the taking of a town called Altamura - he personally signed a surrender on terms for the pro-French Neapolitan forces. At which point, Nelson, who had not fired a shot in the whole epic, sailed into the bay, seized and murdered in form of law the admiral of the pro-French forces, and declared open season on all pro-French prisoners. Over a thousand were murdered. Cardinal Ruffo, whose victory he had stolen and besmirched, was so disgusted that, after his heroic efforts in his king's name and after a lifetime of honourable service, he went straight over to the enemy and never returned to his country again.
The second took place a couple of years later, when the Albanian Pasha Ali of Janina, having taken a French fortress in, I think, Preveza, had every local person, men, women, and children, killed, till the very executioners were tired and their axes no longer cut. Who was the only European leader among all the enemies of Napoleon who congratulated Ali Pasha, the monster, on this monstrosity? However did you guess? Horatio Nelson was the scum of the Earth. In 1799, there was serious talk of having him court-martialled and hanged for the affair at Naples, but, to England's disgrace, he got away with it: after all, he had only murdered Italians, and revolutionaries at that. (Anyone who wishes to indulge in revisionism and question the right of the American settlers, a generation earlier, to revolt against England ought to remember that this is the sort of thing they were in revolt against.) What is more revolting is that, to this day, his English biographers, in order to clear him of his obscene acts, have the shameless nerve of insulting the heroic and blameless Cardinal Ruffo, whose one fault was to think that his king would be as honourable as himself. I have personally read books in which this foul interpretation of history is still pushed.
There is a footnote to this appalling story, which might interest JW readers. The monstrous Ali Pasha turned out to be, in the end, too much of a monster even for the Turkish Empire; the Sultan had enough of his atrocities, and, in 1821, he ordered his arrest. Knowing what expected him - the same kind of punishment he had exacted on countless Christians - Ali Pasha suddenly discovered his Christian ancestry, wrote a proclamation in pure revolutionary style to all Christians in Greece, and turned the revolt that had been smouldering in the country for decades into the blazing fire of the Greek War of Independence (1821-1830). Ali Pasha got what he deserved in the end, but do you know which country tried everything in its power, until the pressure of European public opinion and of events forced it into the Greek camp, to support the "legitimate rule" of the Sultan? Britain, of course.
Nelson beat the French. As far as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
Paolo
Thanks for the answer to my question. I can not say that I was aware of the incident with Ali Pasha, though I did know something of the Naples affair, though with a somewhat different colouration. I don't doubt the sincerety of your position or even that your portrayal of events may indeed be the correct one, but here comes the 'but', England was at war with France, all war is marked by brutality, indeed victory often falls to those who will be the most ruthless in their endeavours, with the one exception being, when the aggressor makes just too many enemies and is eventually overwhelmed, a'la mister Hitler. The actions you retell, if accurate do indeed leave a stain upon the memory of Horatio Nelson, however from the British perspective, he was the saviour of the nation, as only the English fleet stood between Napoleon and an invasion of England, and given Napoleon's rampant success during the period in question, remember that in 1805 Napoleon had not lost any battles at that stage, it is perfectly understandable that the British would revere him. Hell, the Rumanians revere Vlad Tepes, while the rest of his think he was a monster, because he did save them from muslim incursions into their territory, not right and pretty maybe, but in the end, who can really condemn Rumanians. The alternative brings us to the slogan "better red than dead", sorry Paolo, I'm in the camp of the "live free or die"
Pardon me, Interested. Alexander I of Russia beat the French, with the Russian winter doing most of the work for him. Then you have to count the armies of Prussia, Austria and Sweden as well as several smaller German states. Without the support of most of Europe, Britain might just have gone on pecking at France for ever without accomplishing anything. France, at the time, had the strength to hold back two or more great powers at the same time, as it proved repeatedly. And incidentally, you have just proved what I said about the British being willing to regard any murderous filth as a hero so long as he reinforces their "warrior nation" self-image.
Just Another Richard: are you telling me that the British fleet was not strong enough to hold the British at bay without the murderer? More to the point, are you telling me that "greatness" means "usefulness", so that a murderer has to be put on the same level as Churchill, Shakespeare, or Brunel, merely because he was useful? And was he? The behaviour of Nelson in Naples lost all the Italian leading classes to Britain for years to come - years during which Napoleon recruited massively and merrily in Italy, and the English never could get a foothold on the peninsula. A considerable amount of the armies that swept Europe at Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland and Wagram were recruited in Italy. Even the southern peasants who had revolted after Cardinal Ruffo ended up following the king whom Napoleon had imposed on them - his brother-in-law Joachim Murat - and dying by the tens of thousands in Russia. And this in spite of the fact that French rule in Italy was mostly a disaster; just because it had been shown that the return of the exiled Bourbon and Savoy monarchs would be even worse, as indeed it was. (The very long-term result of the failure to align Italian public opinion with Britain and the anti-Napoleonic alliance was the rise of the Italian nationalist party in the first half of the nineteenth century, and of all the struggles and wars that followed till, in 1870, Italy had been unified. The patriot party began with the suppressed, but still numerous and influential, partisans of Napoleon. And I insist that Napoleon would never have been as popular, or at least tolerated, in Italy, if Nelson had not left the impression that rule by England and her allies meant butchery and tyranny.)
Uh, I meant "hold the French at bay".
Most heros are not squeaky clean. Churchill certainly wasn't. Gallipoli, anyone? The point is whether their later deeds outweighted their earlier ones.
In the case of Nelson, yes.
And of course the British, at that time, if not now are going to care less about dead Italians than dead Englishmen. Are you seriously suggesting for one minute that this would not be the case if the roles were reversed?
Outweighed, that should say.
Paolo - I was thinking specifically of Trafalgar. As far as I'm concerned whatever else he did doesn't matter at all, set against the fact that he stopped the invasion of my country. Same goes for Churchill. If Italy has any such heros, no doubt you feel the same about them. Can't think of any right now.
Interested: yes, we do have a fair few warrior heroes. The difference is that, by and at large, our warrior heroes were not murderers, and our murderers were cowards too - like Graziani, who killed harmless Ethiopians like it was going out of style, but was incapable of fighting 20,000 Britons with 300,000 soldiers. On the other hand, Garibaldi, one of our heroes, was stopped by a French army in 1867 when trying to storm Rome; only four years later, he actually came to the help of beleaguered France and fought by the side of people who had shot at his men only a few years before. Why? Because he had this funny idea that freedom ought to be defended wherever it was under assault. By the way, when he went to France, he was already sixty and had stopped a bullet or two. Oh, and then there is Armando Diaz, the fat little clerk-like figure who won the decisive battle of World War One, knocking the Austrian Empire out of the fight and forcing the Germans to surrender. But such things are not mentioned in polite society, where the British (and the Americans) have to be supported in their delusion that they polished off the Huns all by themselves...
Interested: are you saying that poor decisions, like at Gallipoli (where Churchill was certainly not alone in making mistakes) are comparable to cold and deliberate murder, as at Naples, and to the public praise of mass murder, as with Ali Pasha? Try to think clearly.
Oh, one thing that might interest you. The reason why Churchill and everyone under him miscalculated as to the ease of storming Gallipoli is that, only three years earlier, the Italian fleet had tried the same manoeuvre and succeeded brilliantly.
In 1911, Italy invaded Lybia, then a Turkish province. The war dragged on, and spread to the Aegean, where Italy took by storm first Rhodes and then a few other islands (which remained Italian colonies until 1945). The Rome government still needed a knockout blow, so they sent the Italian fleet to storm the Dardanelles and threaten Istanbul. Gallipoli fell, the Balkan states went to war against Turkey, and Turkey was forced to surrender Lybia and Rhodes to Italy. Unfortunately, the British never stopped to think that the Turks might have learned a thing or two from their humiliation at Italian hands.
Galipolli was more than just a poor decision. It was culpable negligence. You try to think clearly.
Each country's citizens values its heroes and excuses their crimes and misdemeanours. And each country exaggerates the crimes and misdemeanours of its enemy's heroes. This is a fact of life. It is why such artificial institutions as the EU will never bring about unity, but will be exploited to suit national aims.
If it was me l'd sack my lawyor and appeal. SIX MONTHS, FOR WHAT!? Grrrrrrr
Interested: "Culpable negligence". "Deliberate mass murder of helpless enemy prisoners in violation of a signed act of surrender on terms." Compare and contrast.
Oh, by the way, I agree too that the sentence on the wretched Mr.Cork was excessive. You do not send a man to the hellholes that many prisons are just for being stoned out of his head. A fine or some community service, or even better a suspended sentence (requiring him to behave in the future), would have been much more to the point.
Paulo - again, along with many of my countrymen, I simply don't care what Nelson did before he saved my country from invasion. Or Churchill. That was my point. You are Italian, so obviously you see things differently. Fair enough.
If Sharia law is so important to Muslims, and we bend over backwards to accomodate Islamic beliefs in prison, how come you never hear of any Muslim prisoners in the UK demanding to be punished according to Sharia law?
Paolo
No, what I am saying is that all war is scared by brutality, in fact the act of magnanimity in warfare is rare, mainly because it tends to be perceived as weakness by the enemy and often leads to further conflict. The fact that you or I do not like war is beside the point; when two conflicting ideas clash to the point of open conflict, only a few possible outcomes prevail, either one side wins outright and imposes it's will on the vanquished, or it is faught to a standstill, with neither side gaining an advantage, usually to be resumed at a later date when one side perceives an edge and starts the conflict again, or then we have the intractable Palestinian question, where one side has the means but not the political will to truely impose it's position v's the other that possess the absolute will, but lacks the means to carry out it's designs. On this latter, I'm with Niccolo Machiavelli, where a ruthless assault will lead to an early end to hostilities and therefore in the long run, a lessor number of fatalities to both parties of the conflict. Yes I am aware of the arguement that brutality and oppression breed resentment and further conflict, but magnanimity can only be a usefull recourse after your enemies have been disabused of their fantasies, not while they still hold to them. This last one cuts to the core of the on-going conflict between morality and practical reality, unfortunately the world is not as we would wish it, but the last time we had a saviour or at least thought we did, we ended up sticking him on a cross and then hurrying back to our endless arguments; given the current animus in political dialogue, I suspect the should he reappear, we would quickly repeat the performance just to get back to our endless bickering.
By the way, I thoroughly agree with you about Socrates
Er... JAR? Check out the life history of Machiavelli. He was a loser. His fantasies of a great, ruthless military head to destroy all enemies were the result of a defeated and disappointed Florentine patriot, who had fought for liberty and seen it go down under the feet of semi-barbarous German mercenaries.
Paolo
It is all very well to demean the the positions of men of history, by pointing to their accomplishments and failings, but it dosen't diminish their stated opinions, it only diverts the thrust of an argument away from it's course, something I'm sure we are all guilty of from time to time. I for one can think of a great many philosophers with whom I disagree on most issues, but I can still find value in some of the places their minds have travelled to.
Look there was some comment on this on Harry's Place, a Muslim, made 90 threatening phone calls to Jews, men, women and children and was let of with community service, I seem to remember hearing the words he was suffering from mental problems (Islam anyone.) Oh yes there is racism here, but it is not the racism that Mr Batty seems to believe in...
JAR, I am saying that Machiavelli's life history reflects directly on his reasons to write as he wrote. There is an interesting fact about his ideas: that one of the worst scoundrels and most successful Machiavellians - so to speak - of all times, Frederick II of Prussia, wrote a book to refute Machiavelli. This scoundrel of scoundrels and most ruthless of all militarists knew perfectly well that scoundrelism and militarism do not do any good. What you need is the devotion and belief of your supporters, the belief that you are doing something good, the belief that you are morally superior to your enemy - and above all, you need your enemy to believe it too. Brutality may at most be a tool; it can never be a policy.
How are wars won? Not by killing people: Hannibal killed hundreds of thousands of Romans, and still went down. They are won by convincing or forcing the enemy to surrender. In the First World War, the Germans were convinced to surrender: they had an army still able to fight in November 1918, but they knew that their attempt to conquer Europe had failed, so they sought (in Thomas Mann's expressive phrase) to liquidate their failed enterprise. Plus, the sudden rise of the new and terrible enemy of Communism in Russia had made them miscalculate that the Allies would be willing to preserve their army as a bulwark against it. That is what gave rise to all the tragic comedy of horrors that followed: the Allies were certain that they had won the war, the Germans just as certain that they had not lost it. In the second world war, the German were simply overwhelmed; the war stopped because there were no armies left to fight it, no guns or gun factories, no territory, no resources of any kind. In all of this, "frightfulness", to use a famous WWI word, played very little part; it was a matter of people being willing or able to pursue a given course of action. Of course you wage war by killing people; but you wage it more effectively by forcing them to surrender without wasting your resources; and you fight it more effectively still by convincing them never to go to war at all. You mistake the means for the end, and a bad choice of means, such as the German decision to loot conquered Europe instead of trying to placate it, is often actually disadvantageous. And I am telling you that the control of continental Italy for fifteen years - from 1800 to 1814 - and the continued loyalty of Italian soldiers, was worth a lot more to Napoleon than a few thousand murdered Neapolitan aristocrats. He could lose more soldiers in a victorious battle than that.
Europe is a strange place to live nowadays.
What ever happened to free speech in Britian?
Britian is going the way of Austria and Germany who have enacted B'nai B'irth anti-hate laws which make it a crime to diminsh the 6 million figure of Jewish Holocost victims?
"Thought crimes" carry severe punishments in Austria and Germany.
Read:http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/crackdown.html
Paolo
You raise many valid points, yes brutality on it's own engenders little but fear and resentment. You point out Hannibal's slaughter of Romans only to fall to defeat to Publius Cornelius Scipio, a man who learned from the master, and by all accounts was indeed one of the most humane commanders, ever to take the field. I wonder, had not a Scipio appeared on the scene, how would Rome have fared, for all their other commanders could do no more than a holding action against Hannibal, none had the tactical skills, nor the devotion of their soldiers, which are absolutely essential to overcome great odds and accomplish seemingly insurmountable problems. Remember prior to Zama, nobody had defeated Hannibal, nobody. Zama was no fluke either. If you can't guess, yes Scipio is one of my favoured historical figures, probably more because he engendered the resentment of lessor minds than even his prodigeous accomplishments.
And on that note I have to leave, as I have some work to do. While we have deviated off of the subject in hand, sorry Robert, it has been interesting and certainly more fruitfull than the last time you and I locked horns Paolo.
Interested:
Yes, it's remarkable what can be said - when the "to whom" and "by whom" questions are considered.
The scary part is with certain politicians attempting to pass hate laws in the U.S. it is only a matter of time before this happens here.
So what if he only vented his feelings!! Frankly, I feel if they cannot accept our consitution and want to force Islamic law on us I also say, " If you do not like our form of government then go back where you came from.
To tell the truth with current events I think it is foolish to bring in third world people from Muslim nations or known terrorist countries.
I wrote my Senator and expressed this so I encourage others to do so likewise.
UNITED WE STAND- AMERICANS!!
Yes. I didn't think he had much understanding of Hegel. He has some interesting things to say about Plato and Marx, but the section on Hegel is definitely the weakest in the book. (However, it is only fair to add that Popper amended his view somewhat towards the end of his life when he had paid rather closer attention to what there is in Hegel that is still of interest.)
I fail to see the connection with Popper's view of Hegel: first, Hume is not an "historicist" (or "rationalist" (in the relevant sense of the term)); and secondly, he is referred to with approval in several places in the book you speak of.
But, in any, case I fail to see what this has to do with a man shouting outside a mosque. Or is the purpose merely to sow dissension here - to annoy people who may have read Hume and enjoyed the experience?
Yojimbo, I just quoted KRP on Hegel as a major instance of the art of invective. People are too mealy-mouthed about writers who have got, one way or another, into the canon of respected thinkers, and it is rare to hear one of the acknowledged "great minds" treated as Popper treated Hegel, or Cobbett, very deservedly, treated Hume. Cobbett proved that Hume had been guilty of extensive and deliberate lying in his History, which was the work that actually made his name as a thinker. The History is now no longer reprinted - it has suffered a genuine damnatio memoriae; wonder why? - but the reputation of Hume survives. Nobody seems to wonder whether Cobbet's frightful revelation of intellectual dishonesty in Hume's historical writings could in any way reflect on his sophistical, arrogant, but oh-so-comfortable anti-religious philosophy.
To answer your question, this came up because someone else mentioned that ghastly BBC poll last year about the nation's favourite philosophers - ghastly, for once, not for what it revealed about the Beeb, but about the British reading public, that valued Marx and Hume above all other philosophers. That may have nothing to do directly with a drunkard - although God knows that I felt like getting pissed when that poll came out - but it has an awful lot to say about the education and ideology of the average educated Briton.
Paolo - what is it with you and Britain? Why do you continuously, and tediously, whinge about it?
Do you live here? If so, why? If not, why do you keep going on about it?
She's got a point there, and no mistake.
Paolo - what is your problem mate? wHY THE CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER Do you want to calm down a bit, as your comments on british people are borderline racist as well. Italy certainly has some blood on its flag as well, or do you need reminding? Your country has a far greater problem with racism than the U.K has at the moment. Have you ever been to a Italian Soccer game? But every`where in the world has its bad apples. But i wonder if Italy really has got rid of facism? Mussolini, who was diet cola version of Hitler, was a hero to many, not a few, and you have the balls to criticise Churchill?
P.S IM Scottish, not British, I dont feel British but i dont blame every English person with whats went wrong with our country. Do you blame every German for ww2?
Get a grip bud. You cant change the past, but British inventions, like Penicillin, save millions PRESENTLY in the world today. Cheer up.
That's right, folks. We will fight on the beaches, and on the blogs.
One must take this Paolo's historical orations, apparently based on some transcendent moral compass only he and some privileged few are privy to -- that allows them to stride across national boundaries and epochs with a divine gleam in their eyes --, with a grain of salt.
Key word there is privy.
Great Churchill quote, when told that the Lord Privy Seal was there to see him:
Tell the Lord Privy Seal, that the Prime Minister is sealed in the privy, and can only deal with one s*** at a time.
With one-liners like that, it's no wonder we won the war.
I'm not sure Marx is properly described as a "philosopher" at all. He said himself, that: "philosophers have only described the world, the point is to change it".
I don't know the poll says anything about "the education and ideology of the average educated Briton". If it did, then presumably Marxist parties would dominate our political life rather than being, as they in fact are, on the fringes.
I think the poll says very little about educated Britons. I suspect it rather says something about the propensity of half-educated Britons to pronounce on topics they know nothing about - and probably also their propensity to vote on polls that lack any real proceedure of verification more than once.
Reminds me of the infamous incident where the college student was put in jail for a night for calling a British police horse gay.
Looks like the UK is on the way to become the USSUK/PRUK, where only westerners and their ideas, religions, and possibly even their existance are wrong. Then again, all of Europe is headed down that way.
Besides how can "racism" be applied here? The correct charge would be attempting to incite violence. The terms "racist" and "racism" have been so overused and misused. For the very last time, there is not an Islamic race.
Beagle-
"Which race is Islam?
The e-race.
Sometimes spelled with an "s".
So now you cannot defend your own homeland and civilization in Britain.
Islam wins.
Goodnight, London.
Interested - it is not that I am not willing to criticize Italy (there are two Berlusconites on this site who regard me as a traitor worthy of hanging) as that you live in a world where criticism of Britain, or rather of certain specific British attitudes, is unheard-of. You imagine that I have a chip on my shoulder because I criticize two of the worst scoundrels in British history (Nelson and Hume). You seem to have missed my little serenade on the murderous coward and traitor Graziani, or the love-song to the walking catastrophe Berlusconi, or a dozen other criticisms of Italians. But then you live in a world where criticism of British "heroes" is inconceivable.
Just Another Richard, wrong about Scipio at Zama being the first to defeat Hannibal, he was defeated in a battle before Zama, if my memory is correct twice, though they were not major defeats, more like rebuffs.
Hannibal slaughtered many Romans and their allies in battle, but he failed because he did not take Rome when he could have, remember the comment "Hannibal you may know how to win battles, but you do not know how to win wars." The defeat of Hannibal came about because of the strategy of Fabius the Master of Horses and Hannibals failure to take Rome when he could have done.
Paolo, I enjoy reading your posts, I will add the History of Italy during the Napoleanic peiod to my furture reading list, better get in before the Muslims burn all the books or rewite history ;-)
From the little I know of Garibaldi, I can see that he was a great leader, wish we had him now.
Yojimbo - whatever, I hope you agree with me that it was a terribly depressing poll. Although (to satisfy Interested) I have a strong suspicion that Marx would have come on top in Italy as well.
But then you live in a world where criticism of British "heroes" is inconceivable.
Nonsense. However, I can put the flaws of our heroes in perspective.
Why do you live here, if Italy is so wonderful?
daffersd - the criticism of Hannibal for not storming Rome is in my view ill-founded. At the end of his great victory at Cannae, his men were exhausted morally and materially (having to literally butcher 73,000 human beings like beasts must have taken something out of them) and still a small number, 26,000 or so. I doubt whether they would even have been able to surround Rome, which was already then a large city; and besides, the surviving Consul, Varro, was busy gathering together new forces, and within a month or so he had managed to gather 40,000 more troops - not enough to face Hannibal, but certainly enough to make any prospect of storming Rome impossible. Hannibal's failure was political: in a decade or more of occupying the Italian peninsula, he never managed to detach enough locals from Rome to significantly alter the strategic balance. When you realize that the reaction of Rome's allies in southern Italy to Cannae was TO ENLIST MORE MEN in Varro's new legions, you have to see that Hannibal simply was not welcome. A few towns, Capua being the most important, did defect, but none enough to make a difference. And that was - if we can be sure of events that happened decades before their first narratives as we have them - because Hannibal never impressed the locals as a trustworthy ally. The Roman slur on Fides Punica - "Carthaginian Honesty", meaning treachery - does seem to have something to commend it; the Italians, though many of them still bore the marks of Roman swords, preferred Rome to Carthage. And that being the case, as soon as Rome had a couple of capable generals (Just Another Richard seems to have forgotten Fabricius) the fate of the war was written.
Interested, since you ask, the reason has curly brown hair and blue eyes. Any other questions?
Television - yes, alas, how terrible of me, I do know some history. I am not even limited to the orthodoxies you seem to require - alas and alack. As a matter of fact, history is my RL work. Ghastly, is it not? I know that the likes of me ought to know our place and not bother your refined tastes, but I am afraid I have this bad habit of saying what I think... tut tut... dreadful, I agree...
chu-doc - you evidently missed the post in which I said that Italian fans are far worse than British ones and a disgrace. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010623.php - check my second and succeeding comments. Interested uses the usual desperate tactic of anyone who does not like to hear his "heroes" debunked - "why can't you criticize your own, what are you doing here anyway?" - without realizing that it changes precisely nothing about the moral worth or otherwise of Horatio Mass Murder.
Well, this post turned out to provide an excellent history lesson (mostly thanks to Paolo).
I would just like to add two things:
1) the first place where Napoleon was defeated was not Russia, but Portugal (in the three successive invasions that spanned from 1807-1811), with Spanish assistance I might add; only after the French were repelled by the Anglo-Portuguese army (truth be said, most of the senior officers of this army were English or German) did the Spanish revolt that would bleed the French start, and in 1812 the Russian disaster started.
2) Paolo was not "anti-Britain" in his comments. However, he showed something that I too have tried to show in the past: history is presently "written" by anglo-saxons who tend to minimize the role of others. Stories about how "Italians can't fight" or that "The French army only knows how to retreat" are propaganda that never went away, and false propaganda at that, one might say.
The problem comes when you - the unwelcoming and unprepared recipients - are suddenly hit with the other "truth". Guess what? The Iron Curtain is no longer, and Popov didn't invent everything.
Just the other day I bought the excellent 1980 "Shogun" mini-series that (who would guess?) portrays both Portuguese and Spaniards as Catholic intolerant scum, while the "Pilot" (almost rhymes with "pirate") was some sort of saint. At that time, the English had already burned or beheaded their Catholics, but who cares about that footnote of history?
There are two sides to every story, sometimes more. Don't accuse someone of "racism" because you don't like to hear what others have to say, otherwise you are on the wrong side of the barricade of the "Danish cartoons part II".
The Cronulla riots in Sydney last year were also depicted as 'race-riots'- Nothing could be further from the truth. Each and every fool (lefties, movie-stars & starlets along with the usual suspects) came out of the woodworks to chew the cud about how 'racism' cannot be tolerated and that we should be 'ashamed' that there is still so much 'racism' in Australia.
Every time I heard the "racism crap" I wanted to puke.
Fortunately we do have a prime-minister and quite a few people in government that didn't swallow this, and of course many in the population are very well aware that these riots were in fact just a reaction to the constant rapes, attacks and harassment by MOMEA's (men of middle-eastern appearance) or to be blunt, by those who follow Mohammeds command to rape, rob & subjugate, who are 'to strike terror in the hearts of the infidels': The Muslim Arabs who should have never been allowed into the country in the first place.
I don't believe that a man shouting 'muslims go home' or whatever outside a mosque should easily, too easily be vilified and punished for being a 'racist'.
There is more to it than that.
That criticism was by one of Hannibals own generals, and there was nothing to defend Rome at that point.
But I do agree with the attitude of the allies of Rome, they did not trust the Carthaginians, who had behaved especially badly in Sicily. Capua was one large defection, there was a couple in the south too.
Many great people, or people who have stepped up to the plate to do their bit have flaws, no one is or ever will be perfect. We should all remember that, what is evident is that the people who are in charge at the moment are a pale shadow of people like Garibaldi and Churchill.
It isn't a desperate tactic. It is a legitimite question, and one which many here have asked of Muslims who criticise the values of the country they live in.
Because Nelson, Churchill and other heroes, flawed though they were, defended this country from invasion, it is safe and attractive for people like you, Paolo, to live in. If their flaws really outweigh their virtues, then perhaps you should move back to your beloved Italy and whine about that country for a change.
It isn't a desperate tactic. It is a legitimite question, and one which many here have asked of Muslims who criticise the values of the country they live in.
Because Nelson, Churchill and other heroes, flawed though they were, defended this country from invasion, it is safe and attractive for people like you, Paolo, to live in. If their flaws really outweigh their virtues, then perhaps you should move back to your beloved Italy and whine about that country for a change.
Stories about how "Italians can't fight" or that "The French army only knows how to retreat" are propaganda that never went away, and false propaganda at that, one might say.
Really? Tell me about the Italian and French war effort. Bit of a joke.
"If their flaws really outweigh their virtues"
I would replace the word "virtues" with "deeds". Churchill screwed up many times (Galipoli, Narvik, Dieppe) but in the end History remembers him as the guy to held Britain together against the Germans. As to Nelson, I doubt that he was a "great man" filled with virtues. He commanded a frigate for most of his navy officer career (to command a frigate was the XIX century version of the Letter of Marque - carte blanch for piracy), and the cheated on his wife with a married woman who was left penniless when he was killed. Why is he remembered? Because he was a brilliant tactician (I still don't get it how in the hell his fleet wasn't completely destroyed during the first part of "Nelson's Touch") and because - as other have already reminded us - his victory kept Britain in the fight.
This said, it is true that the British army of the XIX century had a reputation for cruelty against civilians. Wellesley (later Wellington) wrote about - and to his abilities, tried to prevent - this sort of behaviour. To some extent, to the ordinary civilian this turned Britons and Napoleonic French as two sides of the same coin.
cruzado, you are correct about Portugal, but only up to a point. Napoleon's worst mistake was not to take the Peninsula as important. If he had seriously committed himself to breaking local and British resistance, he could have done it; after all, Spain was not the only place where he met popular resistance - Germany from Tyrol to Saxony was never more than half-pacified, but it did not manage to do him any serious harm. But Napoleon despised Spain; he only once went there, and when he did, he drove the British into the sea. That shows what he could have done had he applied himself to the job - and that is not an insult against Hispano-Portuguese courage, but simply a recognition that no one country could resist the power that, in 1807, had flattened Prussia and forced Russia's back against the wall. But he could not be bothered to take an interest in the continued slaughter in the Peninsula. And this had two more bad (for him) effect: first, he exposed several good French marshals to undeserved disgrace. Second and worse, he had no personal experience of Wellington's innovative defense tactic, the transverse square - the tactic that would butcher his charging regiments at Waterloo. If he had met Wellington in battle in Spain, and perhaps taken a salutary beating or two, he would not have thrown away the lives of his best men when it mattered most.
This said, it is true that the British army of the XIX century had a reputation for cruelty against civilians.
And which army didn't?
Interested: I am not going to tell you anything you are too lazy, opinionated, vain and ignorant to read for yourself. Read what the British in 1918 had to say about Clemenceau and Foch, at least. And do not go around insulting those who know things you do not.
Yes, it's all thanks to France and Italy that we defeated the Germans, isn't it?
"Really? Tell me about the Italian and French war effort. Bit of a joke."
For most of the middle ages, when one ruler wanted mercenaries he would hire Italians and Germans - not Britons. On the other hand, when England decided to follow Portugal and Spain in the exploration business, she hired Portuguese and Italians.
The only thing you seem to remember was that there was a war 60 years ago. There were other wars, and both France and Italy have a proud military history. Even in WWII the French made one hell of a stand in the south of France. Let us not forget that they kept on fighting while your lot proclaimd a "victorious retreat" at Dunkirk.
As to the Italians, Rommel himself wrote about the good qualities of the ordinary Italian soldier, and of the terrible qualities of the officers of the Italian army. Plus, Mussolini went to war too soon at a time when his army was not prepared. He expected a war in 1943, not before. In 1940, his crappy Autoblinda tanks were pierced by ordinary rifle bullets - the only thing that the crew could do was die.
Now, if you want to sing "Rule Britannia", by all means google up "Jenkins ear war", or the invasion of Macao of 1622. Have fun :).
Well that's going back a bit. The Romans were pretty good fighters too.
Apparently Islam was a great civilisation - 1000 years ago.
Well that's going back a bit. The Romans were pretty good fighters too.
Apparently Islam was a great civilisation - 1000 years ago.
damn, that fool Interested managed to get me annoyed enough to make a useless post. We should remember, this is a site about Muslim aggression. And speaking of Muslim aggression, Interested does not seem interested in what was it that kept Italy Muslim-free (and drove the Muslims off Sicily) in spite of having them across the narrow seas for thirteen centuries, and being invaded dozens of times. Some countries have done a lot of fighting against the common enemy. Others have not.
Well how strange, then, that you choose to make your home in one of the latter. You wrestled with your conscience and won?
Yes, I agree with your last post Paolo. The Grande Armeé would have squashed us like a bug. The total of Frenchmen of invaded Portugal in all three invasions was less than 100,000 so we can only guess what would have happened if half a million had crossed the borders.
As to Wellington's tactics, in my (very modest and amateurish) opinion, the fact that the French always charged in "column" formation while the English fired volley after volley in "line" formation, turned the first into cannon fodder. This was exactly why Marshall D'Erlon's first charge at Waterloo was stopped by Sir Thomas Picton's highlanders and by the English heavy dragoons. Err, sorry, I got carried away :).
Interested does not seem interested in what was it that kept Italy Muslim-free (and drove the Muslims off Sicily) in spite of having them across the narrow seas for thirteen centuries, and being invaded dozens of times.
I thought that was the Normans, Vikings who settled in northern France.
Italian tanks - five reverse gears and one forward gear.
I have read a lot about the Peninsula campaign and there was certainly more than 100,000 French troops there. The army that Wellington created would have given the Grande Armee a run for its money, but the army that fought at Waterloo was not the army that won Spain and invaded southern France. And cuzado you are correct.
In the second world war the Italian soldiers heart was not in it, cowards, no and yes their tanks were awful and the strategy even worse.
Paolo, you lose people when you slip into insult mode, Interested is not a fool, Interested has an opinion. I have studied the second world war in detail, and the defeat of the French was not due to cowardice, but the wrong tactics against an enemy who used the right tactic. General De Gaulle saw that and was the only French officer to use tactics similar to the Germans and held his area. The British also had not realised this, even though the tactics originated in Britain.
"I have read a lot about the Peninsula campaign and there was certainly more than 100,000 French troops there. "
One hundred thousand in Portugal alone. At least another two hundred thousand in Spain. And like I said in my first post, during the first invasion of Portugal the French had Spanish allies on their side. Considering Spain's betrayal, I can only regret the fact that Portuguese troops fought and died to defend and liberate Spain both during the Peninsula War and also during the Roussillon campaign that preceeded it.
Several of my uncles, and friends of my fathers served in north Africa (and then into Italy) It was not unknown for captured Italian POWs to have cockney accents, having been brought up in London. Their heart was not in the war, or in the regime. It was a bad regime so that cannot be a completely bad thing.
This should have been, could have been an interesting debate, but Paolo your tone has been lecturing, hectoring, even insulting. You have a right to your opinion of British heros, but you must not be surprised when we rise to their defence. We are learning to stand up for ourselves again. I'm a mild mannered woman but I will speak my mind.
I'm talking about competence rather than courage. Strategy, if you like. Foresight, perhaps. The French and the Italians lacked it. As regards the latter, one of their number has plenty of hindsight.
Paolo me man its been months since you were here, i was just wondering what were you upto whole year. How many poor wog souls did you salvage from their dark beliefs?
Italian tanks - five reverse gears and one forward gear.
Hey, i thought that was French tanks.
Same difference.
"Hey, i thought that was French tanks."
In 1940, French tanks were some of the best in the world. Better than the British and even better than the Germans. In fact, they were so good that the Germans used them in Russia.
And this sort of ignorant comment (I am surprised that no one has started saying that Italian women have moustaches or that French women smell) is exactly the sort of ignorant quasi-racist post-victorian arrogance that Paolo initially spoke against.
Well, if it wasn't the tanks, it must have been the people who were driving them.
It's a joke, silly.
In 1940, French tanks were some of the best in the world. Better than the British and even better than the Germans.
Yeah and all it took was 4 days for frenchies to surrender.
Yes the French tanks were the best tanks, but were used to support infantry in isolation. I understood it was a joke, it is an old one ;-)
The Spanish also fought with the British against the French, well some of them, they were also fighting each other and were most unreliable, Wellington used to hate having Spanish allies as he had to supply them and keep them in order. As soon as he got into France he sent them back to Spain.
Actually the French in the second world war applies to all of Europe now, we don't really have the will, or the right strategy to defend ourselves.
Paolo,
Remember it was those darkie wogs with their rovilting beliefs (Hindus and Sikhs) who helped liberate Italy in WW2.
"Yeah and all it took was 4 days for frenchies to surrender."
Well, in 1622 all it took was one afternoon for a vastly superior number of English and Dutch pirates to have their asses wooped by a bunch of Jesuits and civilians from Macao.
Jenkins Ear War is even more humiliating.
Like I said, every country had his moments of glory and of shame. France and Italy are particularly poor choices for target practice because of their proud military history.
Monsieur cruzado,
My comments were not meant to be taken seriously. Lastly i'm British but not an Englishman, dont confuse the two vastly different terms.
"as soon as Rome had a couple of capable generals (Just Another Richard seems to have forgotten Fabricius) the fate of the war was written."
Paolo
As I recall, Fabricius' stratagey was to shadow and harass Hannibal's flanks, but to avoid outright pitched battles. While this tactic proved useful in checking Hannibal's depredations throughout the Italian countryside, it did not stop him from laying waste to large areas nor almost wrecking the Roman economy, however, due to the protracted nature of the conflict it did have the benefit of also wrecking the Carthaginian economy. Hannibal's failure was in part due to a weakness in his tactical makeup, it would appear that seige warfare was his weak spot, and I think he realised it. That isn't to say he didn't take towns, for he did, but well defended cities he tended to avoid as being too time consuming, too costly in terms of men, and above all, to not appeal to his martial vigor, ergo, not worth the effort.
Daffersd
Fabricius' victorys were not against Hannibal in a pitched battle, they were a harrying action and any successes were against Hannibal's field commander's, never when he actually took the field. As a atratagey it worked, but only because Scipio was eventually able to deliver the coup de grace. Scipio, by taking the fight to Africa and the Carthaginian heartland, forced Hannibal onto the defensive, something no Roman had been able to do in the 18 years that Hannibal had roamed the Italian peninsular. Remember, Scipio's remit from the Roman senate was the defence of Sicily, he raised his own legions just by the stature of his accomplishments in the field. His idea of taking the fight to the enemy's homeland did not have the undivided support of Rome. I believe it was Cato the Elder who regarded Scipio as an opportunistic upstart, too ambitious by far; the tale of history would seem to refute that base accusation, for there are few incidences in history of a nation served so well. Was Scipio perfect...no, like all great men, he had his failings, but on the whole Rome itself got more value for money out of this one citizen than legions of those who went before and those who came after; the worst they could throw at him was some unsubstantiated claims of corruption relating to the disbursement of monies for the army. Given his fame and following, he could easily have turned like Julius Ceasar after him, into an ambitious seeker of greater power for himself, he did not, after great acrimony after Zama, he retired to his estates and took little further part in state affairs untill his death.
Another Strawism,
But Mr Straw told BBC One's Sunday AM show there was "no smoking gun" to justify an attack on Iran despite "high suspicion" over its nuclear work.
"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to go to military action," he said.
I think having any uncertainty over Iran's intentions when it comes to nuclear weapons is one hell of a reason to go to war. Obviously he has closed his stupid eyes to the nose modification of certain Iranin missiles, what a prize twat, has he converted to Islam by any chance like his son?
I find the British-Italian-French heroism competition very amusing. First the West traded Czechoslovakia for peace, then Poland was betrayed by Chamberlain and Daladier - very unreliable allies to say the least. In the Battle of Britian Polish pilots inflicted 11% of all the losses on Germen, Poles died in thousands at Ancona and Monte Cassino, 6 millions Polish citizens (3 of them Jewish) perished in WWII, only to be sold in 1945 in Teheran, Jalta and Potsdam to suffer 60 years of enslavement under the Communist rule. Hey you Westerners, stop feeling so morally superior. You make me luagh (bitterly!).
Just Another Richard, check for two battles where Hannibal was defeated before Zama, and I am damn sure he was in charge of at least one of them, in fact I am sure the two, they are in Livy's book, in fact Hannibal was on the defensive in Italy before Zama, the Romans took back Capua and there was not a damn thing that Hannibal could do to stop it, I think he suffered one of those defeats trying to relieve the city if my memory is correct.
Over time Hannibal was being contained to the south.
But I don't disagree with you about Scipio and the Senate unwillingness to attack Carthage. I think you will find this happaned to many fine Romans, it was fear of one man becoming greater than the Republic that caused men like Scipio to suffer such attacks.
Interested
I always liked the tale of Winston's visit to the loo at the House of Commons.
As the story goes. The lavatory in the House had a long urinal against the length of one wall. One day when Winston entered, he passed Clement Atlee, the labour leader, doing his thing by near the door. Winston procceeded to go all the way to the other end, before addressing the wall, where upon Clement said..."Winston, I know we have our differences, but do you really have to bring them into the mens lavatory". Winston's quick wit came right back. "Clement, the problem with you socialists, is that any time you see anything in robust condition, you always want to regulate it."
Daffersd:
Douglas Murray has asserted that Straw's son has converted to Islam, but I have yet to see that confirmed by any other source; so I'm inclined to think that Murray was confusing him with someone else - viz. Frank Dobson's son.
Straw's son has, however, been cautioned for drug dealing.
I thought it was:
"A little stand-offish today, are we, Winston?"
"No, it's just that every time you see something big you want to nationalize it".
The Polish pilots and others did a great job in the Battle of Britain, morally superior no, just lucky to be on an island and not to suffer defeat when we were very weak, I happen to be under no illusions on this matter.
My wifes grandmother hid Jews in their hotel in occupied France, that is heroism.
Yojimbo, well selling drugs to infidels seems to be an Islamic tactic, so it would not surprise me. Straw deserves a drug dealing son, the man is a prize twat.
JAR, there is another story told of Churchill, which may or may not be true. Apparently he was talking one day to his housekeeper, whose daughter, Frances, was serving at the front. "How long has your Fanny been at the front? " he asked. "Why Mr Churchill, I thought you were a gentlemen," - or something like that - was the reply.
I live near the site of a former airfield. There are many Polish graves, among the British, Commonwealth and US in our local cemetery to remind us of the sacrifices made. There are also still a few (but less than there were) old ladies who remember them well.
About the only other reference in Google:
Straw given a black eye by girl.
He may have dealt drugs, and he obviously made himself annoying to this girl, but I see no proof that he's done the other.
The display of racism outside a mosque by Bryan Cork in Cumbria, is indicative of the double standards that the British Government represent.
A Government for Which I did not vote, but for those who did, well you have to bear the responsibility.
I beleive it is shear hypocrsy to promote deals with countries which flaunt the Human Rights Charter and who seek to undermine the very basis of our democratic freedoms and our way of life, and then prosecute a citizen for a foolish non-violent outburst, just because it might be seen to be pandering to the Islamiphobists.
But then we would be foolish to think that the law was impartial and does not play politics.
Personally speaking I do not care for Moslems or any other race who do not wish to be part of my culture, I certainly do not encounter these persons in my professional life or in my social circle, and their views are somewhat irrelavent to me.
We can all explore other cultures from a safe distance, but unless that culture is actively involved in promoting the furthering of us as a human race I do not see the benefit of engaging them except from viewing them in an archiological perspective.
The Moslems wish to live in 7th Century and observe laws that are antiquated by any standards of a modern indiustrial society, then so be it.
We need to trade for their oil, and that is reality, so let us trade with them.
But what I do not see as a benefit is in giving them technolgy so readily and easily, especially technology which can be used directly or indirectly for Militray purposes, Technology we have laboured for many years to develop and which they can purchase without accepting the responsiblities and moral charge that come with having these sophisticated items.
Quite frankly I do not believe that certain cultures in this world are mature enough to possess certain technology.
But our Government in its idealistic free trade for all, seems to think otherwise, that is why we end up being killed by the very weapons we devleoped to give ourselves the advantage and hopefully maintan some peace.
Bryan Cork, unfortunatley is being used as a political statement in that our Government is trying to show that it is quite capable of curbing un-civilised behaviour, when the very fact that it engages in arms deals with unstable regimes proves it is more obscene than any unpalatable verbal protestations could ever be.
countries which flaunt the Human Rights Charter ...
Flout, not flaunt. But otherwise spot on.
Daffersd
I don't recall any instance in Dodge, Cottrell, or Liddell-Hart where Hannibal actually suffered a reverse on the battlefield, though you are right in that he wasn't able to stop the Romans taking back Capua, but I must admit, it was a long time ago that I read anything on the subject, I guess I'd better dig out Livy, yes I do have a copy floating around here somewhere.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/spring98/OSS.html
Two young MPs were discussing the Member for Woodford (Churchill) in his last years in the House. One of them said, "They say he's practically gone these days, poor old buffer." From behind them came an unmistakeable growl: "They say he's deaf, too."
But my favourite Churchill story is the famous one about Lady Astor - a modish Tory politician who hated him. At a party, with a sweet smile, she said in a calculatedly penetrating tone: "You know, Winston, if you were my husband, I would put arsenic in your tea." Without wasting a second, Churchill retorted: "You know, madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it."
Now if Not Very Interested in Anything but His Own Orifices had asked me about Churchill, he would have found that I admire and respect him more than almost any statesman in history, that I regard him as a hero - and that I have compared our Robert to him, to his great confusion, because he stands up to great and pervasive evil with cheerful courage.
Not the CPS?
But in an earlier thread you had claimed to a US citizen.
"Peter":
Not the CPS?
But in an earlier thread you had claimed to be a US citizen.
And Yojimbo, I think you are right, I got Straw's son confused with Dobson's. I guess it was a kind of subconscious wish, because I like Dobson a whole lot more than Straw. One wonders, though, what kind of set of values he can have handed on to his son.
if Not Very Interested in Anything but His Own Orifices
Not another sex change. My orifices are female, and my interest in them is no more than average. Still, good to see a foreigner's attempt at toilet humour. As the good Dr Johnson said about the dog walking on its hind legs...
Interested
So some mortal actually got the better of Winston in a verbal exchange, good for her. What's more, I suspect Winston being the great character that he was, had a good laugh at his faux pas himself.
Paolo, I have always wondered about the Italian view on the econimic decline of the Byzantium Empire and the role of certain Italian trading cities in that decline, I have often wondered what would have happaned if the Byzantium Empire had not been so expertly plundered in economic terms by Venice?
I suspect Winston being the great character that he was, had a good laugh at his faux pas himself.
In that he was the quintessential Englishman. And he wouldn't have said "faux pas" - too poncy.
The son sounds fairly dozy:
However, I think it likely that this is the "perception" he had (or, rather, wished to promulgate) at the time he was interviewed rather that at 16.
This is revealing:
IOW, the "values" that you speak of Frank Dobson "handing on to his son" were "socialist" ones. I suggest that pre-existing socialist views had somehow prepared a seedbed in which the triffid of Islam could grow. It seems to be a familiar story.
Bessie Braddock to Churchill "Winston, you are drunk!".
Churchill: "Bessie you are ugly but in the morning I shall be sober"
Other versions say that he had this exchange with Nancy Astor.
JAR, Nola 215 BC, by Marcellus.
So stupid machismo is not an exclusive male preserve. Well, UnInteresting, we knew that already.
Weatherwax,
The quote you were referring to goes like this;
Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Winston: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."
She was noted for her appeasement stance and the fact that she thought "rubbish" of Churchill's view that Hitler was a threat.
I also like this open
Churchill: "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"
seems like our current day politicias have been taking Churchill literally
Daffersd, I studied the period in question mostly from French texts - it is not part of my field anyway, and I doubt I could say anything more than what you seem to know already. It does seem to be the case that Venice did the Empire no commercial favours in the period leading up to 1204, but earlier in history it had been the Byzantine Empire that had progressively impoverished the West and left it with a chronic shortage of gold that lasted for centuries - so it's swings and roundabouts. And the Byzantines did not improve matters by their successive and state-sanctioned massacres of Western settlers. Bitterness between the two sides had been increasing for years before the disaster of the Fourth Crusade.
Paolo - know your bread and the side on which it is buttered.
Most Italians I know like a laugh, even if you wouldn't trust them to drive a tank the right way.
You fall between two stools.
Interested
You do seem to get taken for a man quite often don't you. I guess it must be that combatative style we all know and love. Don't let the bastards grind you down I say.
Paolo
Given that you are obviously so well read, I wonder if you can help me? Another area of historical interest of mine is the Anglo / Austrian conflict against France and Luis X1V. Actually the collaboration between John Churchill Duke of Marlborough and Eugene, Prince of Savoy, Known to history as the "War of the Spanish Succession" My interest is primarely in Eugene, as there has been plenty written about the first emminent Churchill, but I have not been able to find out much about Eugene, another fascinating historical character. Do you know of any books either specifically about him or where his contributions frame a large part of the narrative
I am sorry, JAR, that is out of my period by centuries. Prinz Eugen is much better known in the German-speaking world, and if you can read German you stand a much better chance of reading about him. Even French or Italian might help - the Prince was a French-speaker from an Italian ducal house. Unfortunately in England he is understandably outshone by John Churchill. The only thing I know for sure of these two is that it seems to be the only instance in history in which a dual command between two equally gifted and ambitious commanders worked like a charm.
And the sentences given to the many thousands of Muslims who in demonstrations with placards which are fully docuemented with hatred towards UK is ? Well how many of the thousands have been charged 2 or maybe six for their hate crime? Check the videos of this event it brings fear to me that I can be killed just for being a non-Muslim according to some of the posted placards.
Interested
So I'm poncy am I Interested....lol. Well you sure know how to win friends and influence people.
Going back to what you earlier mentioned about Winston and the fiasco of Gallipoli. Two things, first Winston was not the primary cause of the failure of the plan, there are plenty of lessor know characters who carry a greater burden of the Guilt, Winston did however get to carry the can on that one, and as the senior government minister involved, rightly so, though Lord Kitchener, came through remarkably unscathed, for the life of me I don't know why, his foot dragging bordered on criminal negligence once the decision had been made to go ahead. Second, with the benefit of hind sight and from the comfort of an armchair, it is extremely easy to castigate those who in the thick of events, stumble or fail, however had Gallipoli succeeded, it would have been considered the greatest strategic accomplishment of the twentieth century. And there would have no shortage of voices clamouring for the laurels of victory. Inshort it was a brilliant plan piss poorly executed. But is not history but the tale of folly and consequence of man's asperations, grandiosity, and conceit.
Richard - I never said you were poncy - just that your turn of phrase was not Churchillian. It was - a joke. If people stop getting them, I'll just have to stop making them.
Of course Churchill can be forgiven for Galipolli.He can be forgiven for everything. That was my point.
Paolo
Well, it was on the off chance, I guess I'll keep searching. The inseperable twins Castor and Pollux, the two of them understood each other so well, they could anticipate each others actions, coupled with the remarkable ability to subsume their egos to accomplish a comman goal, two highly intelligent men, gifted with wisdom, in the right place at the right time. Incidentaly, two commanders who like Scipio engendered a deep love and respect with the common soldiers under their command. A rare trait or more correctly, a rare combination of traits.
"JAR, Nola 215 BC, by Marcellus."
Thanks Daffersd, I'll look it up.
Interested
lol. I was just giving as good as I get, I did get it but I guess we both end up feeling missunderstood; body language being an essential ingredient of subtle humour, is sorely missed in these situations. I know I've been away from England for a long time, So I guess my subtlety is just too obtuse these days.
JAR - bestest. Nitey nite.
Interested said, "Yes, it's all thanks to France and Italy that we defeated the Germans, isn't it?"
I believe, the outcome of WWII was determined by the efforts of the Russians as early as July 1942.(Stalingrad) and the Americans in the battle of the Bulge (Dec 1944)
We in post generation Britain have to stop thinking that we defated the Germans as if we were a major player and have a monoply on the victory.
Without the Americans and Russians fighting alongside us the war would have had a totally different outcome.
The Battle of Britain was a great battle, but Hitler had already moved his vast divisions to prepare for the the Russian invasion.(Jun 1941)
Had he fully mobilised against Britain we would not have been successfull in repelling him.
Russia, absorbed most of the brunt of Hitlers forces and this weakened his position greatly.
After the war most of Germanys industrial infrastructure was intact. (Ref Kings College London) This would indicate that the bombing campaign of the allies (American and British) was not as successful as we were led to believe.
To speak of the French as a credible army in WWII, who contributed to a favourable outcome is quite laughable, when we consider the giants involed in the theatre of conflict. (Germany, America and Russia ). The French's contributon is small.
As for Italy, well, Hitler was frequently upset with the result of their efforts, and concluded that they were more of an embarrasment than a tactical advantage as a friend.
There are campaigns which we in Britan should be proud of and those are the ones in N. Afrika
The Atlantic, Burma and of course the Bulge.
Churchill was correct in saying that Hitler would "have to break us in these islands or lose the War", and he was right, but he knew the Americans would join eventually and that it would erve as a staging post for invading the European continent.
It is easy for us to deride the efforts of Churchill, but in my view he was truly a great man, not because of his speeches but because he was smart and practical and knew Hitler, (and Stalin) for what they were. murderous dictators.
I often wonder how he (Churchill) would regard the British politicans of today, and how he would view the actions of the courts to this mans outburst in Cumbria.
I suspect he would be somewhat sick to his stomach.
but he knew the Americans would join eventually ...
No, he didn't. He hoped so. And he knew which side our bread was buttered on. And still is.
Many don't.
To all
In leafing through Winston Churchill's "The Island Race", I came upon this passage, so pertinent to today.
"The Whigs were sensitive to the danger of French aggression in Europe. But the Tories were now in one of their moods of violent reaction from continental intervention. Groaning under taxation, impatient of every restraint, the Commons plunged into a campaign of economy and disarmament. In 1697 the Whig administration was driven from office upon such themes, and with such a programme Robert Harley, now the rising hope of Toryism, created his power and position in the House of Commons. Harley was supported by Sir Edward Seymour, the pre-eminent "sham good-fellow" of the age, who marshalled the powerful Tories of Corwall and the West. In the lords he was aided by Nottingham and the Earl of Rochester. They did all they could to belittle and undermine the strength of their country. No closer parallel exists in history than that presented by Tory conduct in the years 1696 to 1699 with their similar conduct in the years 1932 to 1937. In each case, short sighted opinions, agreeable to the party spirit, pernicious to the national interests, banished all purpose from the State and prepared a deadly resumption of the conflict."
My, how history repeats itself, eh!
JAR - good morning, and I'm glad you notice certain cultural continuities. The parallel is closer than you think: not only was "the country" obsessed with peace at all costs and wilfully blind to Louis XIV's aggressive character - more inexcusable than anything that ever happened with Germany or Islam, since they had known him for forty years - but, just like today, most of the intelligentsia was on the pacifist side. As C.S.Lewis (I think) pointed out long ago, it is difficult not to convict Swift of appeasement: his writings are full of praise of the valiant and glorious French and contempt for any Englishman who took an anti-French position. It was, as so often, the force of sheer fact - Louis XIV's outrageous refusal to reach any compromise over the Spanish succession, although he must have known that the idea of uniting the French and Spanish crowns would have been intolerable to all other European kingdoms - that forced Britain (England and Scotland were united during the war) kicking and screaming into the war.
This quote from Churchill has no doubt appeared many times on Jihadwatch but I thought it could bear another posting:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Winston Churchill, The River War, p. 248-50, (1899)
Paolo
I'm late to this thread, but I wish I had all of my European history references with me at the moment.
While every European country had a rich military history, not just England/Britain, the one that is most relevant at any given time is the most recent. Sure, France had Napoleon, Louis XIV, Cardinal Richelieu, Charlemagne, and to be at least remotely in sync with this website, Charles Martel. No offense, but I didn't know that Italy, as an independent country, existed prior to Garibaldi - wasn't it always part of the Habsburg empire - either under Austria or Spain? Every country in Europe - England, Prussia, Russia, Austria, France, Bavaria, Spain, Portugal - had great militaries prior to WW-I.
However, going by recent history, Europe hasn't had much to show for. The last time Britain did anything was in the Falklands in 1982, where they proved that a tinpot junta wouldn't keep the islands just because they had captured it and that it was closer. The defeat there led to democracy in Argentina and a ripple effect throughout Latin America, which may have been part of the Islam-free analysis of those betting that democracy in Iraq would have a similar effect on all Arab countries.
But in Europe recently, which European country has showed that it has the military balls to do anything? I'd say none. We saw that in Bosnia, where it wasn't that Europe thought the Serbs were right; it was just that they huffed and puffed, but did nothing about Bosnia (accidentally the correct decision), even though the US didn't touch that with a bargepole. In Kosovo, where the US did intervene (on the wrong side), there too, both Western Europe (don't give me that deal about NATO) didn't do a thing against the Serbs, and much to my surprise, Russia didn't lift a finger to support Serbia.
The only place I'd depart from the above posters is that none of the European countries have the balls to do anything militarily (not just France and Italy, but Britain and Russia as well) - they (excepting Russia) have been too busy de-militarizing since 1991 to be able to do anything about anyone (Reason I include Russia in this is given their lack of action in Serbia, and the fact that their military weakness has been exposes in Chechnya). While we in the US may make jokes about the French, truth is that it is really true about all of Europe - UK included. If it isn't being said about Britain, I'd submit that it's just politeness to an ally willing to put their troops there. But seriously, both Britain and France having veto powers in the UN Security Council is a joke - the only 3 superpowers that remain are US, China, and (arguably) Russia.
To paraphrase another joke that went around, "Going to war without the Europeans is like going deer hunting without ones accordion".
I play the accordion, Infidel pride.
Believe me, in my hands it is a weapon of war.
Although I conceed the superiority of the bagpipes.
Have you never heard Hawkwind's Sonic Attack?
Infidel Pride, I think you have to look at two distinct issues, the first issue is that Europe has lost all pride in its culture and identity, part of which is due to the elite socialist driven agenda of unelected EU functionnaires doing all they can to destroy the nation state and of course the over-riding guilt factor over the Holocaust (I thinks its right to be guilty, but not to be so pathetic so as to no longer protect ourselves against what is really quite an obvious enemy.)
Europe has for a long time under-funded its military, but some countries such as the UK and France have maintained a certain capability. The UK is still the one country in Western Europe who could fight a high intensity battle, though I am not sure how long that will last.
There is not the all round capability as that shown by the USA, one major weak point is transport or logistics. However the British Army is actually pretty effective and has proved itself yet again. France has changed its military to a professional force, from a conscript army and has pockets of excellence. As far as people who have analysed the military side of things the USA is out there on its own.
I think that the will to fight is not there, be it cultural, military or economic, there is a preference for what is called soft power. One can almost laugh at the lack of willingness to defend the European culture, as it is the one area where the left has actually won control and that is true of the USA.
There is now only one super-power, though if you do this based on destructive power (Nukes) Russia is still a super-power. China will be a super power in about 10 years time.
I happan to think an awful lot of the USA, but even a pro-USA European like me gets a bit tired of jingolistic comments like this even if it is correct, we are in it together, that our leaders in Europe do not have a clue is not the fault of the majority of Europeans who visit this site, we know what the issue is and we know who to blame when we start getting killed.
Well,it looks like the Islamists are winning. Our free speech is quickly becoming eroded. It just p*sses me off to hear free speech crusaders being jailed by speeking the truth. Is it a crime to speak against fascism and communism? No. I will be a crime very soon if we speak against another ideology- Islam. And if we let the Islamists win, more than half of us who post on this site will be jailed.
In UK,the Privileged Muslims can shout in the center of the London roads"behead the anti Islamists" and "Death to Cartoonists" and "Islam will rule Europe".Even Burka clad ladies were shouting slogans against Christians(whose salt they are eating in England). But our judges as so graceful as to turn their heads otherside. Why o Why the Britisher's blood is not boiling?
Tony Blair promised to deport 90 Imams who are dangerously spreding the anti christian feeling in England. But till now,no one were sent home.So what is wrong with shouting "go HOme" out of frustration?
Granny,
I don't care how badly you play (not that I believe that you are a bad player of the accordion).
But even if I concede that it may be effective against the Americans, Asians or Africans, it would be totally worthless in a Jihad. Not just that, it may even be mistaken for a muezzin call to prayer, and thereby be counterproductive (unless it happens to be a prelude to missile strikes on mosques).
Daffersd
I'm not an US citizen (yet anyway), so the above comments weren't meant to be jingoistic - my apologies if it came out that way; it was just a factual observation from outside. It's just that this whole thread about the greatness of European military commanders of the 16th to 20th century, admirable as they all were, is about as relevant as it would be if some Islamist supremacist landed here and started gloating about the military achievements of Saladin, Caliph Abu Bakr to Umar II, Tamerlane, Suleiman the Magnificient, Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammed Ghori, Shah Abbas II, Aurangzeb, Ahmad Shah Abdali et al. You get the idea.
As for being in it together, a majority of Americans not only supported the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but also seem to have the right idea about Islam, as evident from the recent NBC poll. While there have always been anti-US sentiments in Europe (no, I don't buy the malarkey that Europeans are anti-Bush but pro-American, given their opposition not just to the war in Iraq, but their dragging on the talks with Iran, and support to the Palestinians, as well as that French bestseller "The big lie") it's not an opposition borne out of the president's dhimmi attitudes, but rather, the cases where he comes out strong, such as the enemy combatants, profiling of Muslims, et al.
I appreciate the sentiments of those Europeans who post here, but I'd be interested to see what % of Europeans share the same attitudes as Americans about Islam. If the numbers are anywhere close, I'll buy your point that we are in this together. Until then, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, we have to confront the Islamic threat without assuming that European countries (with some rare exceptions, like New Europe and Denmark) are necessarily on our side.
Interested
"No, he didn't. He hoped so. And he knew which side our bread was buttered on. And still is.
Many don't."
In 1939 and '40, the Germans and Italians did not attack Russia, Instead, German General Rommel rushed across North Africa to grab the Suez Canal and control all oil shipping through the canal.
America was in danger of losing its oil, which was now responsible for powering its economy.
The United States was brought into the second world war because it effectivly stopped shipments of oil to Japan and this would bring the Japanese industry to a halt, Germany had made an alliance with Japan.
It was inevitable that the Japanese would attack the U.S, and Churchill, because his own supply oil was being threatened, as early as 1939, knew that this meant the U.S was in danger of losing its supply.
For Churchill the situation was doubly difficult, if the additional suppy from the U.S was cut off because of Hitlers incursions into the oil Fields of Persia , the War would end for Britain very abruptly.
It is interesting to note that
The Persians had declared their alignment with Adolf Hitler's Nazi "Aryan Race" movement. They had even proclaimed their alignment with Hitler by changing the name of their country from Persia to "Aryan," (or "Iran" in the Farsi language).
Many don't."
I can't vouch for the many who didn't, but they were not Government officals, certainly the American public were divided about getting involved in the war, but their opinions were not relevant. the British and American Oil supplies were under threat.
The saga of how the oil played a role in WWII is seldom discussed but it is very pertinent.
Sorry for the long winded explanation !
back to the post-
what's outrageous here is not just the curb on the man's freedom of speech, but that the UK allowed the wild mullahs to call for war and massacre against non-Muslims --especially Jews-- for years and get away with it. What about Abu Hamza? Why was he allowed to rant and rave for so long? And then, as someone pointed out above, what about those bloodthirsty demonstrators on the Cartoon issue with their signs praising the 7/7 bombers? Isn't that sedition? Isn't sedition still a crime in the UK?
White man shouts "I am proud to be British", "Go back to where you came from" First offense too, just had a breakup with his partner and was drunk, spur of the moment thing and gets 6 months for a racist insult.
A Muslim phones up 90 Jews, men women and children over a period of time making threats or a very personal nature, totally pre-meditated. He gets community service and then let off as he was suffering from an illness.
Muslims walk in London with placards calling for death to infidels etc. Not one arrest at this point or no caution that I have heard of. During the march, people who got upset with the march were threatened with arrest and two people with cartoons were arrested.
At the Freedom of speach rally a Muslim was aided by the police in picking out a person with the cartoons and the placard holding man was cautioned and last I heard the CPS was continuing with the action.
Not a single one of the 90 identified Jihadits imans have been deported.
At this point you can only conclude that Britain and the West have totally and utterly lost all sense of right and wrong and proportion, and more fundaemental then that, our governments are no longer interested in protecting the people.