Pakistan

[clivex]

Do you think that if that was the 'only' thing that Hitler and were guilty of that Britain would still have gone to war with Germany?

That has nothing to do with whether we are entitled to hold a view on their behaviour. We cannot go to war with everyone we disgaree with over every issue can we?

But the answer may well be yes

We went to war because they invaded countries far removed from Britain.

Quite possible that the allies (not britain alone without the strength at the time) would have taken action if it had simply been the genocide in place

 

[clivex]

always find images such as these horrifying - but that doesn't mean others will, or even should

One minute you type this and then you hammer western leaders for not condemning

all over the place

Muddled left as ever. lost it

It is quite clear that the West holds an opinion on Belsen - Israel?

????

 

[Warbler]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true of the "hard left" Clive. Under certain circumstances they advocate and have a history of standing up to certain barbaric regimes (ironic given that quite a few of them would qualify in their own right). I think the sentiment you're looking towards is more of what I'd called the trendy left or even liberal at a push

 

[Harbinger]

The International Brigades, for example?

 

[clivex]

yes

The hard left may have stood up to facists but not the likes of Stalin or Mao

The SWP for one, have routinely flirted with militant muslims. and where would you place Ken livingstone who seems to positively admire all things islamist?

But its not a straightline as you rightly say and the likes of Roy Hattersley and Shirley williams appeasement and apologies for islamists (Hattersley being particularly disgusting during the Rushdie affair) is almost as bad as the " we are all hezbollah now" sloganning of the far left

 

[Harbinger]

The hard left may have stood up to facists but not the likes of Stalin or Mao

I think that's what Warbler was implying when he said "ironic given that quite a few of them would qualify in their own right".

 

[Warbler]

Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Nov 20 2007, 05:03 PM

The hard left may have stood up to facists but not the likes of Stalin or Mao

I think that's what Warbler was implying when he said "ironic given that quite a few of them would qualify in their own right".

Precisely, they'd be fighting against themselves a bit there, but lets not forget that there's no shortage of factions on the hard left who have routinely fought each other (no better example than Spain, or the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks)

I wouldn't describe the SWP or Livingstone as hard left myself. They're much more muddled trendy trots.

 

[trackside528]

Originally posted by clivex@Nov 20 2007, 10:36 AM

Do you really think the likes of Iran and Syria were in favour of deposing Saddam to install a liberal democracy Clive? Come on now..

errr yes i do

Then the obvious question would be... why do they continually undermine its establishment?

Not sure where the Nazi extermination of Jews fits into all of this exactly, but it must be pointed out that while the vast majority of Germans supported Hitler (for reasons that are so often oversimplified), very, very few of them (virtually no civilians) actually had any idea of what was happening to the Jews.. many Germans believed the Jews were simply being moved to camps where they would actually establish their own separate societies (as that is what the official German line was)...

How any of this compares to the Middle East I am not entirely sure tbh...

 

[clivex]

Then the obvious question would be... why do they continually undermine its establishment

Perfering one to the other doesnt mean that they are enthusiasts. Either way, both of those countries will undermime whatever the americans do regardless of objectives

Whether they are doing so with much resolve is a different matter. It is well known that the Iranaians have worked with america to defaet AQ in the area

As for the Nazi point. That was brought up in response to the argument put that we have no right to comment on the way other cultures/societies operate. If that applies to stoning of young muslim girls then it must also have applied to the Nazis
I think that is ludicrous myself

 

[clivex]

very few of them (virtually no civilians) actually had any idea of what was happening to the Jews

Depends what you mean by very few, but I am not at all sure about that...

 

[trackside528]

Surely you accept that there are real differences though Clive that make the two incomparable...

Firstly, though we may consider the justice/penal system in Saudi Arabia as barbaric (and don't get me wrong, the 200 lashings story was a sickener), they have actually committed a crime (at least in the eyes of the countries judicial system) and are being punished according to the law of their respective country..

The Holocaust was a wide-spread extermination of an entire race for no reason whatsoever... that was in no way, shape or form a cultural or societal issue..

The truth as far as I'm aware (have studied the topic in some depth as well) is that the vast majority of Germans were 'put away' as to what was going on with the Jews Clive..

What I mean by very few BTW is Himmler (who essentially ran the whole operation) and those carrying it out (mainly Einsatzgrouppen men) along with a number of officials high enough up in the Nazi party machinery to have knowledge of it...

 

[clivex]

Doesnt matter whether they are different or not. The principle remains the same.

Equally i could not take the view that i am able to comment on genocide but not stonings or lashings because one is worse than the other

The point was whetehr we in the west are entitled to take a view about practices such as flogging victims of rape. I believe that we are. The cultural/religous excuse doesnt wash with me. There is no excuse for inhumanity in the name of the law

 

[simmo]

Originally posted by clivex@Nov 21 2007, 01:59 PM
The point was whetehr we in the west are entitled to take a view about practices such as flogging victims of rape. I believe that we are. The cultural/religous excuse doesnt wash with me. There is no excuse for inhumanity in the name of the law

Presumably then, people are also entitled to disagree with wishy washy, liberal, lefty, humanist, "Western" politics.

So to summarise, we are entitled to take a view on their politics and actions and take whatever action is deemed necessary in order to persuade them to alter their views.

And they are entitled to take their view on our politics and actions and take whatever action is deemed necessary in order to persuade us to alter our views.

Therefore, any invasions, political manipulations, terrorist actions etc are all entirely legitimate and we can stop arguing about who's right and who's wrong now and get on with the truly important business of killing each other for whatever reason we deem necessary. N'est pas?

 

[Flagship uberalles]

Originally posted by clivex@Nov 21 2007, 01:59 PM
Doesnt matter whether they are different or not. The principle remains the same.

Equally i could not take the view that i am able to comment on genocide but not stonings or lashings because one is worse than the other

The point was whetehr we in the west are entitled to take a view about practices such as flogging victims of rape. I believe that we are. The cultural/religous excuse doesnt wash with me. There is no excuse for inhumanity in the name of the law

I don't think we are in disagreement - you're just (deliberately) choosing to misinterpret what I am saying. I'm saying we should hold a view on these issues, and our governments should take action through political methods to try and changes these things. Our governments only do this when it suits their needs or agendas, and this is also wrong.

What I am strongly against is anything other than political methods being applied. Including going to war under false pretences, then putting your hand up and saying oops, but then saying "but we brought moral liberty to the oppressed" so its ok. Honest.

As for the rest... what simmo said.

 

[clivex]

And they are entitled to take their view on our politics and actions and take whatever action is deemed necessary in order to persuade us to alter our views.

Oh really?

Well i think that the the civilised world would take a lot of persuading that this is the way ahead..

'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Gillian Gibbons is described as "a talented and able teacher "
A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam's Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Colleagues of Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, said she made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.

Ms Gibbons was arrested after several parents made complaints.

The BBC has learned the charge could lead to six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.

 

[harry]

So glad I started this thread.
Only good thing to come out of Saudi?
BA planes !!! :clap: