If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Where would you have sent the 7/7 bombers "home" to? Leeds?
ETA: I don't actually think that by C19th standards, Lincoln was racist. The comment was made to be arguememtative (sarky mood) and because of the irony in quoting Mr ship-em-back Lincoln in counter to Rolly's leaky-boat comment.
There is really some fucking nasty shit and vibes going on at the moment isn't it? The beginning of the 21st century will not exactly be remember as a time of enlightment and tolerance...
Also, as someone from Leeds, the 7/7 bombers in my opinion, didnt deserve to be here. If they hated this country so much, they should fuck off somewhere they like. Same goes for anyone else...regardless of your skin colour! White people who rave about france and say britain is shit should fuck off to live in France!
In case of Muslim who hate England but rave about Saudi Arabia or Syria, then they should go there if they liek it so much!
to answer the question, there will never ever be a black flag of Islam over downing street. Only if the elect a muslim extremist into power, which is highly unlikley if nigh impossible.
I think they are trying to stir up a race war. I would hope that it wouldnt be follwed but if it did......................................I'm sorry but I would back the whites. Its not racist. I'm just saying if it ever got so bad that ever muslim decide to try an doverthow the west, then the west would equally rise with more resources, mor emoney, more abilities and would crush any kind of race uprising. So for their sake they shouldn't even try.
the whole reason for this debate is that on the nesw last night, some muslim protester dude said that one day th ebalck flag of Islam would fly over downing street.
The western press have been so so evil haven't they?
theres a lot of very extreme ...ly ...small minded bigots and idiots out there who are now ...killing ...EACH OTHER! ...burning buildings down etc etc.
...and the western press are to blame?
pull the other one.
in the west we poke fun at any and all gods ...any and all politicians ...it's what we do ...it's who we are.
the fact these morons can't comprehend that is their fucking problem.
hysteria ...they are now fighting amongst themselves in their own towns and countries ...for some none event that happened in some small corner of europe. lets remember again ...these pictures are from last year ...your average muslim may not have liked them but guess what ...it didn't effect their lives one fucking jot.
then ...the muslim nut jobs decided they could get some violent mileage out of it ...the blame does not lie with us.
But what I was really referring to was the demonisation of the entire Muslim community. I had hope mankind had moved away from typecasting entire peoples but it's the 1930s all over again...
You're playing right into their hands by ranting about race wars.
That’s complete rubbish.
That line of argument inevitably produces the kind of mindset that says we should allow the threat of terrorism – the intimidation in other words of violent extreme Islam to shape our foreign policy. I reject that.
I also dispute the belief that there is anything in British foreign policy towards the Arabs that could possibly render Britain ‘partly responsible’ for the actions of extreme fundamentalist Muslims. Let's not forget that Britain independently as well as through the European Union gives gigantic sums of money to the Palestinians, additionally through our influence in the United Nations Britain also supports the disproportionate UN aid given to the Palestinians. With regard to international aid to the developing world too huge amounts of money from Britain helps Muslims – compare the aid given by Britain to the rich Arab states following the tsunami.
And Britain’s foreign policy towards the Middle East has been consistently balanced, if not somewhat pro-Arab; and were it not for the gigantic oil reserves of certain Arab states I do not think certain countries would have been able to act in the way they have without serious repercussions.
Or that the West could have done far more to end the Middle East conflict but hasn't.
That doesn't justify anyone strapping themselves with bombs and blowing themselves up in a crowded tube passage of course, but there is a lot of resenment towards the West nonetheless, and not without cause.
Except Palestine wasn’t a country. And the 1947 UN Partition Plan divided the territory into two states – a Jewish one and an Arab one. (And Britain also abstained on that UN vote) While the Jews accepted the two-state solution, the Arabs didn't - instead choosing war. Interestingly the 1937 Peel Commission Partition Plan that was very generous to the Arabs was also rejected by the Palestinians (yet accepted by the Zionists). Interesting too how you forget that Arab landowners prior to the creation of Israel sold huge amounts of land to Zionist organisations.
I don’t know the mindset of the 7/7, 3/11 or 9/11 terrorists but I don’t think the Middle East conflict was their primary influence; I also don’t see how say a Palestinian state will satisfy the demands of extreme Islam. (Please tell me exactly how the Muslims that wish to see sharia law apply in the United Kingdom will be placated by a Palestinian state. Or the Muslims that wish to kill Salmon Rushdie. Or burn the Danish embassy. Or behead gays). Also – if we are partially responsible for the extremist Muslims why are there many other moderate Muslims that reject extremism?
people are just getting more and more angry every time they see yet another war mongering group of twats chanting hateful and threatening stuff directed at the west...it will all end in bloodshed imo.
>cough< Legally, there are no countries in existence anywhere in the world.
Legally, a country or nation state is a "body politic that grants protection to it's members (called citizens) in exchange for their allegience." (Black's law dictionary.)
i.e. we protect you, you have to obey our rules. in the absence of protection, there is no agreement and therefore no country.
As no government on earth is currently engaged in the protection of it's "citizens" the legal position is quite clear. Countries are unfullfilled contracts, the party that is in default is the government side.
Imagine if you're living in your 4 bedroom house and one day the police come and say excuse mate, we're going to take 3 of the bedrooms of the house, brick them over and give them to these people who have had a really bad time elsewhere. We propose the house is from now on two separate properties- your one-bedroom studio, and the other people's 3-bedroom house. I trust you'll have no problem with that, it's a very fair settlement I'm sure you'll agree. There's a good boy.
I mean, who would be unhappy with that? :rolleyes:
The 1937 Peel Commission proposal would have created a significantly larger Arab state than Jewish btw.
You’re analogy is simplistic anyway. You’re ignoring the fact that many Palestinians moved to the region from neighbouring Arab countries at a similar time to, if not after there had been some Zionist settlement. You’re also forgetting that Arab landowners (most of them admittedly living in Damascus and elsewhere) actually willingly sold vast amounts of land to Zionist organisations. Your suggestion that Palestinians have a superior if not exclusive right to the land that is now Israel over the Jews is as extreme as the most fringe fundamentalist ideology of some Jewish settlers.
Meanwhile focusing on the historical intricacies of this conflict and twisting them is not going to provide a solution to this conflict; namely the materialisation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have suffered unduly; this largely due to poor leadership with an acute short-sightedness, with the actions of Arab states too and Israeli mistakes over the years. Undoubtedly had the Palestinians accepted the deal on the table in 1937 or the later 1947 proposal everyone would be better off; and still used as a political pawn by the Arabs decades on justice for the Palestinians will finally be achieved with the creation of a Palestinian state.
Please do not try to distort the picture. Apart from a very very small proportion of other groups practically all residents of Palestine were Arab Palestinians who had been living there for thousands of years.
The taking of Palestine and its division into two States was daylight robbery and one of the biggest historical injustices in the history of mankind. Nothing more, nothing less.
As it happens I believe Israel should have a right to exist (so long as it stop taking the piss and wanting to keep even more land that never belonged to it) but you cannot exactly blame those Palestinians and Arabs who still think the land was unfairly taken from them and who aren't too pleased about it.
I geddit, take three bedrooms of that house but offer one back and "we'll all be better off". It's alright because the people who have taken over the house were originally tenants, so obviously that makes it ok for them to shoot the landlord. :rolleyes:
The Ashkenazis from amongst whom the vanguard of the militant and terroristic Zionist invasion and ethnocidal land clearances originated, let alone the founding precepts of the movment itself, were never originally "tenants" of that land, Klint. They and their fathers and fathers before them ever were of Khazari origin, that is Turko-Slavic, and in no way related (culturally, linguistically or genetically) to the Hebraic people of biblical times any more than an American Catholic could claim absolute right to a parcel of land in Rome even though his forebears came from Guatemala.
This was every bit akin in its principle and practice to the invasion by 19th century Dutch settlers of South Africa with the same colonialistic era apartheid suppression and brutality of the natives of each respective land from the outset. That the former has not ceased to be, nor ceased to be home to peoples of mixed ethnic origins, after having eschewed its formerly oppressive ruling ideology, is a clear lesson of the falsehood of the Zionist claim that a non particularist Jewish state would equal non-existence.
Al has touched on a key aspect which extremist anti-democratic ideologues like Dis and those he unquestionably heeds seek to bury and ignore, namely that from the Balfour Declaration through to the UN recognition of the modern state of Israel at no time did the colonial powers give more than passing consideration to the will and aspirations of those peoples already resident in the land for many hundreds of years (overly-inflated Zionist caveats of willful sale of land and voluntary transfers notwithstanding).
The conflict arose precisely because those who began moving to British Mandate Palestine from Europe in ever increasing numbers did so with an intent fully known to the indigenous Arab Muslim and miniscule minority Arab Jewish population of the day. This intent showed its true colours decades before the realisation of the state in the form of the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang terrorism which drove out the British and subsequent hundreds of thousands of rightful landowners and residents and slaughtered many others. The people had also long aspired for the realisation of their own nationhood, which Balfour and subsequent Western powers completely negated.
Rabid Zionists proclaiming any affinity with liberal pluralistic democratic precepts make mockery of the concept.
The strong came in and fucked the weak over, took their land and now the land belongs to the strong! The questions of who it really belongs to and who it once belonged to, so they have more legal claim is mute/moot is it not, as that land has now changed hands...in a way that means it is unlikely ever to be returned, at least not to any meaningful degree.
or else it is merely a post you made in anger ove rmy accurate statement of how things how.
But not much you can do when the police is corrputed and/or has little power to overrule the people who really pull the strings.
Still, the UN has called repeteatedly for the Palestinians to be given back the extra land they have had stolen in 1967, which would mean the Palestinians forever renouncing to more than 70% of their historic homeland, but apparently not even this is enough for the people who took the extra land.