Armistace day protests

you guys get that that youtube vid was filmed by, uploaded + commented on by the english defense league right? "filmed behind EDL enclosure". its a propoganda vid regardless of whether a tiny minority of muslims were "protesting" or not. in fact the best thing the police could do there is leave so the edl + "evil muslim terrorists" can have a good scrap and hopefully all go meet the 70 virgins together or whatever it is. Both of these groups need each other to exist. 30 people burning some bits of paper cut into the shape of a poppy is not an earth shattering event whatever it symbolises, and by taking an interest youre giving all of them what they really want, which is your attention.

  On 11/13/2010 at 12:56 PM, Shit Attack said:

you guys get that that youtube vid was filmed by, uploaded + commented on by the english defense league right? "filmed behind EDL enclosure". its a propoganda vid regardless of whether a tiny minority of muslims were "protesting" or not. in fact the best thing the police could do there is leave so the edl + "evil muslim terrorists" can have a good scrap and hopefully all go meet the 70 virgins together or whatever it is. Both of these groups need each other to exist. 30 people burning some bits of paper cut into the shape of a poppy is not an earth shattering event whatever it symbolises, and by taking an interest youre giving all of them what they really want, which is your attention.

I do wish the media wouldnt give both these groups the amount of tv and print time they get, sometimes I feel like we're living in a cultural battlefield, then I have to slap myself and remember that these people are a tiny fraction of society. Neither of them should be given a platform, if your ultimate goal is to take away the rights of another, then I think its fair to preemptively take away yours.

  On 11/13/2010 at 8:05 AM, chunky said:

These particular anti-British protestors? Chuck 'em out

Why are they anti-British chunky?

  On 11/15/2010 at 6:38 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 8:05 AM, chunky said:

These particular anti-British protestors? Chuck 'em out

 

 

Why are they anti-British chunky?

er, listen to the video

"british soldiers burn in hell"

how anti-british can you get lol?

i saw a sticker on a ute (pick-up for the US peeps) in traffic a few days ago that said 'fit in or fuck off' which was printed over the top of a graphic of the australian continent. I thought as i was viewing it, well what do you mean ?

Later it dawned on me that given in my region 60% of the adult population is overweight or obese, i wondered just how exactly that man and his ute driving ilk and their carbo loaded families will be able to fit in. Perhaps they forsee a future where we're all fighting each other with poking sticks, hoping to roll one another's, by then bulbous mass, off the land into the ocean.

fit in or fuck off

fit in or fuck off-sounds like that could be interchangeable with the unofficial watmmotto 'read the rules'.

  On 11/15/2010 at 7:12 PM, chunky said:

  On 11/15/2010 at 6:38 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 8:05 AM, chunky said:

These particular anti-British protestors? Chuck 'em out

 

 

Why are they anti-British chunky?

 

er, listen to the video

"british soldiers burn in hell"

how anti-british can you get lol?

But I'm confused - didn't you say that WW2 was an unnecessary war? That seems very anti-British to me as well. Perhaps they should chuck you out? I mean disagreeing with official British policy and all. Or are you saying that this war is necessary but WW2 was unnecessary?

beware of the troll

"I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day. When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.

Armistice Day has become Veterans' Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans' Day is not.

So I will throw Veterans' Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don't want to throw away any sacred things.

What else is sacred? Oh, Romeo and Juliet, for instance.

And all music is."

- Kurt Vonnegut

ww2 was one of the only wars i can think of that had a clear cut bad guy good guy theme. Hitler. Bad. real bad

  On 11/16/2010 at 4:50 AM, marf said:

ww2 was one of the only wars i can think of that had a clear cut bad guy good guy theme. Hitler. Bad. real bad

yeah, but then you had stuff like the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. dropping the nukes was definitely in a grey area of morality. same with the firebombing in dresden. lots of civilian casualties. ww2 wasn't just killin' nazis.

Good point. Im sure books have been written on that subject. Still, it was a war worth fighting

  On 11/16/2010 at 3:43 AM, oscillik said:

beware of the troll

Oh I know.

  On 11/16/2010 at 2:02 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/15/2010 at 7:12 PM, chunky said:

  On 11/15/2010 at 6:38 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 8:05 AM, chunky said:

These particular anti-British protestors? Chuck 'em out

 

 

Why are they anti-British chunky?

 

er, listen to the video

"british soldiers burn in hell"

how anti-british can you get lol?

 

But I'm confused - didn't you say that WW2 was an unnecessary war? That seems very anti-British to me as well. Perhaps they should chuck you out? I mean disagreeing with official British policy and all. Or are you saying that this war is necessary but WW2 was unnecessary?

What a moronic non sequitir. Chengod you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping so low.

Yes I did recommend this well argued book by Patrick Buchanan, and there is a detailed summary of the arguments here for people who don't want to buy the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

How could you suggest that I'm a proponent of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I've stated before that I'm not. Patrick Buchanan was a supporter of George Bush during the cold war but afterwards disagreed with the Neocons about foreign intervention, which is why he stood for president himself for the Reform Party. Conservatives don't like pointless wars or pointless bloodshed. It's called liberal interventionism for a reason! Who are those guys who don't believe in borders and want the world to have one President to rule them all? The liberals. Why do you think Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen were for the Iraq war?

The point Buchanan has is that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And we didn't go to war to stop the holocaust or do anything about it. We gave a weak and pointless guarantee that we would defend Poland from a German attempt to take back some land that was lost to them after the First World War. Our guarantee was worthless and Poland fell regardless. We had no effect. By 1941 Britain was bankrupt and humiliated. Dunkirk was a complete and utter disaster for Britain. The USA which had resolved firmly to stay out of the war, then stepped in with humiliating terms for loans and few smelly old junky boats, which we had no choice but to agree to. We were still paying back that debt until only very recently. I believe that Canada waived our debt though (thank you Canada).

"That seems very anti-British to me as well."

Sorry, this just doesn't follow at all.

Your logic is that "british soldiers burn in hell" is equivalent of "we should have copied the USA's approach to the second world war". They're not equivalent, your logic is clearly a non-sequitir.

Here you go Chengod, by your womanish logic, clearly a pro-British website:-

http://muslimsagainstcrusades.com/breaking-the-silence-part2.html

Chuck these fuckers out of Britain now!

  On 11/16/2010 at 5:48 AM, Hoodie said:

same with the firebombing in dresden. lots of civilian casualties. ww2 wasn't just killin' nazis.

aye many of the people in dresden weren't even hitler supporters

we did nothing to stop the holocaust but firebombed many innocents

  Quote

The dust jacket summary asks,

"Were World Wars I and II — which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction — inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen — Winston Churchill first among them — the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France

• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler

• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest

• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler

• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939 — that guaranteed the Second World War

• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned."[1]

I've already clearly stated my views about the revisionist piece of tripe that Buchanan is peddling. Christopher Hitchens (hardly a bastion of left-wing ideology) sums it up quite succinctly:

  Quote

"In his [buchanan's] view, after all, Germany had been terribly wronged by Versailles and it would have been correct to redraw the frontiers in Germany's favor and soothe its hurt feelings (which is what the word "appeasement" originally meant). Meanwhile we should have encouraged Hitler's hostility to Bolshevism and discreetly rearmed in case he should also need to be contained. This might perhaps have worked if Germany had been governed by a right-wing nationalist party that had won a democratic vote. However, in point of fact Germany was then governed by an ultra-rightist, homicidal, paranoid maniac who had begun by demolishing democracy in Germany itself, who believed that his fellow countrymen were a superior race and who attributed all the evils in the world to a Jewish conspiracy. It is possible to read whole chapters of Buchanan's book without having to bear these salient points in mind."

Also the bit at the end of the dust jacket commentary about "centuries of European rule" is hysterical.

Back on topic - my comment was hardly illogical - you question the validity of British intervention, they question the validity of British intervention. The difference is in the level of rhetoric employed. Note that I'm not saying they are pro-British. What I am saying is that if, as you assert, they (the handful of radicals) are anti-British because they disagree with British intervention, then surely you must be anti-British by also disagreeing with British intervention.

  On 11/16/2010 at 9:32 PM, chenGOD said:

I've already clearly stated my views about the revisionist piece of tripe that Buchanan is peddling.

Nothing wrong with revisionism by an intelligent lover of truth, hater of lies. George W. Bush and Tony Blair saw themselves as the sons of Winston Churchill for a reason, and this book is the best attack on that reason. The Stop The War coalition is a poor joke compared to this book.

  On 11/16/2010 at 9:32 PM, chenGOD said:

Also the bit at the end of the dust jacket commentary about "centuries of European rule" is hysterical.

British Empire... Napoleon... the Dutch...

  On 11/16/2010 at 9:32 PM, chenGOD said:

Back on topic - my comment was hardly illogical -

Yes, yes it was, it was a non sequitir, which is a logical fallacy.

"you question the validity of British intervention, they question the validity of British intervention. The difference is in the level of rhetoric employed."

'british troops burn in hell' is not rhetoric. These people actually believe in a hell where these soldiers will burn. They're not much different to the Pashtuns that are getting blown up in Afghanistan. They need to get the fuck out of Britain right now before they start attacking us physically like the Pashtuns are doing to British soldiers in Afghanistan.

"Note that I'm not saying they are pro-British."

They'd be happy for British soldiers to die so they can get the fuck out now.

"What I am saying is that if, as you assert, they (the handful of radicals)"

September 11th 2001, 3000 people killed by 19 hijackers. You say handful of radicals as if they were powerless to kill, murder, and maim us. All it took was four bombers to kill 52 innocent people. Handful of radicals, my fucking pussy!

"are anti-British because they disagree with British intervention"

anti-British because they'd happily see British soldiers die and feel proud of it. anti-British because they shit on the one day where we remember over a million men who died for our freedom in two stupid pointless wars, men who were the same age as we are now that were conscripted.

"then surely you must be anti-British by also disagreeing with British intervention."

No, no, no. It doesn't follow. Non sequitir. I wouldn't be happy to see British soldiers die, I didn't shit on the most sombre day of the year for any decent British person, I am not a terrorist threat, I pose no violent threat to anyone, I am not causing riots in the streets. These are the same people who want Shariah law installed in Britain. That you can't tell the difference is shameful.

These terrorists are all fucking cowards anyways.. what kind of hero are they for strapping bombs to themselves and walking into public places with a lot of people in them? Like good fucking job at life.. fucking egotistical extremists.. they come to Britain and take our jobs and then kill us.. WTF?

The policies which Buchanan put forth in the book in question would have done nothing to stop the Second World War, merely stop Western involvement in it. Additionally, it's difficult to call the book a history book when he's done no original research.

Buchanan is an isolationist, and as such should be against empire.

The British empire at its height controlled about a quarter of the world's population. The Mongol empire and subsequent Chinese dynasties controlled at least that much of the population. The Dutch, English, Portuguese, Spanish and French tried in vain for years to enter the most lucrative market: East Asia. They were allowed a small concession in Nagasaki, and for most of their interaction with China, they were confined to Macao, Hong Kong or Guangzhou. The European trade imbalance with Asia was significant, as their was little demand for the low quality goods coming out of Europe at the time. Fittingly of course, when the West couldn't stand to think of those dirty Asians not trading and continuing their profits, they forced them open with gunboat diplomacy (not to mention the illegal exportation of opium into China to try and fix the blance of trade).

Anyhow, it is unbelievable in this day and age that isolationism could be taken seriously in any way shape or form. Although I often wish they would take all the isolationists, give them most of the "conservative" states in the middle of America and see how well they do following a policy of autarky.

The handful of protesters I was referring to were of course the ones chanting to get British soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan (which I would think you would want, being an isolationist). Not the deluded group of nutjobs who crashed the planes on September 11, 2001.

They believe in a hell where soldiers will burn, and what pray tell do "good honest Christians" or "decent British persons" believe about infidels? Are they going up to the pearly gates or the lake of fire?

Nowhere on their website do they mention installing Shariah law.

Again, note: I am not saying you want British soldiers to die, but since you and the handful of radicals both have the same goal (British troops out of the Middle East), then you must also be anti-british. (there is a serious logical fallacy there, but its not a non sequitur, it also pales in comparison with the number of fallacies you commit in your arguments but I suppose that's neither here nor there).

That you don't believe in their right to speech (however distasteful) speaks volumes about your personal beliefs.

That you say "died for our freedom in two stupid pointless wars" speaks volumes about your ability to think critically.

That I am spending any time at all on this speaks volumes about the depths to which I will sink to put off doing my homework.

Sorry Chengod, you are full of shit. You said they are not anti-British but I emailed them last night and awoke to this response:

"Are you anti-British?

Muslims are anti-nationalism in all forms, we believe in no borders. So yes because as Muslims we are Muslims First and Last. We don't add nationalism to it.

You must admit that this creates a greater bond worldwide to other Human Beings. We think about the plight of Africa and Nigeria as our own, they are some of the richest lands in the world but yet struggling in poverty, When Islam was in power these lands where rich and beautiful, and supplied the Islamic State without poverty to them.

This in turn is something that the non-Muslims can't understand ... look at Hajj and the Muslims are united worldwide regardless because nationalism is no longer there."

I'm not going to respond to you any further if you continue to deny that they are anti-British, even after they have personally agreed with me.

  On 11/16/2010 at 10:27 AM, chunky said:

Here you go Chengod, by your womanish logic

But hasn't Chunky revealed himself in this sentence?

  On 11/17/2010 at 8:58 AM, Lascaille said:

  On 11/16/2010 at 10:27 AM, chunky said:

Here you go Chengod, by your womanish logic

 

But hasn't Chunky revealed himself in this sentence?

Yes, a follower of Aristotle's teachings, a lover of truth, hater of lies.

  On 11/17/2010 at 8:45 AM, chunky said:

Sorry Chengod, you are full of shit. You said they are not anti-British but I emailed them last night and awoke to this response:

 

"Are you anti-British?

 

Muslims are anti-nationalism in all forms, we believe in no borders. So yes because as Muslims we are Muslims First and Last. We don't add nationalism to it.

 

You must admit that this creates a greater bond worldwide to other Human Beings. We think about the plight of Africa and Nigeria as our own, they are some of the richest lands in the world but yet struggling in poverty, When Islam was in power these lands where rich and beautiful, and supplied the Islamic State without poverty to them.

 

This in turn is something that the non-Muslims can't understand ... look at Hajj and the Muslims are united worldwide regardless because nationalism is no longer there."

 

I'm not going to respond to you any further if you continue to deny that they are anti-British, even after they have personally agreed with me.

I'm chatting with them right now and they said they're not anti-British.

There's nothing anti-British about that post.