Legitimate protest? Errrr....

[dune]

Absolutely. An internet forum is an extremely accurate tool to assess ones teaching abilities....

 

If we are going by that logic, I believe you're a parent? I wouldn't particularly fancy having to teach the children of today some of the warped views you hold. See Dune for the above too.

 

Which views expressed by me are wrong then?

[benjii]

I understood the point perfectly.

 

Quite simple really when it is the same point over and over in pretty much every single thread.

 

Person A says something. Person B - usually one of Deppo, Kadeem, Norway, Wiltshire etc etc - accuses person A of being a racist / sexist / homophobe. Person B then piles on the mock 'E-Outrage' quoting points of view usually made by person C a few days previously, in the hope of 'baiting' person A to respond and defend their original point of view, in the hope that person B can pile on some more mock 'E-Outrage', ad infinitum.

 

To be honest it all gets a bit boring after a while.

 

Bring back the humour I say, and get rid of the trolls.

 

Very good, except the point being made was actually being made by way of a quote from someone else, nothing to do with the forum, and was quite interesting. So to say it was trolling made it look like you didn't agree/understand and could think of nothing better to say.

[LGTL]

Which views expressed by me are wrong then?

 

Unlike some, I remember your postings under other alter egos. A change of Username doesn't change your deep, but now refrained views, no matter how much you try.

[dune]

Unlike some, I remember your postings under other alter egos. A change of Username doesn't change your deep, but now refrained views, no matter how much you try.

 

Sometimes the right view isn't the majority view. Winston Churchill one said that even if everyone else disagrees it doesn't mean you're wrong.

[LGTL]

Sometimes the right view isn't the majority view. Winston Churchill one said that even if everyone else disagrees it doesn't mean you're wrong.

 

You're absolutely right Dune, we would have infact been better off had the Nazi's won WW2. I'm sure your hero Churchill would agree.

 

Cue you denying you ever said this....

[dune]

You're absolutely right Dune, we would have infact been better off had the Nazi's won WW2. I'm sure your hero Churchill would agree.

 

Cue you denying you ever said this....

 

Of course I deny it because i never said that. I said that Britain 60 years later might have been a better country. I talked about the holocaust and how bad it was, but then explained the situation in kenya and the Mao Mao concentration camps of the 1950's, and suggested that we (the British) really were no better. The germans killed millions in camps, we killed thousands in camps. In your view does that make us better or less worse?

[dune]

Before you answer Le God - the Legend (and i'm expecting a typical repsonse like i'd get from the "compassionate" lefties who don't see highlighting the event condusive with their agenda) have a read of this account:

 

This was the way that the British colonial authorities ran Kenya. Leaders like Jomo Kenyatta, accused of being Mau Mau, spent many years in the camps which the British set up in what was known as the ‘pipeline’ – a set of concentration camps where mainly Kikuyu suspected of being Mau Mau were shuttled back and forth, depending on if they “confessed.” Torture by the British authorities of Mau Mau suspects included castration of young men; electric shock torture; denial of food and water which were especially harsh in hot, dry regions; burying victims in a vertical position so their exposed heads were bitten by scorpions placed by guards; beatings using rhino leather, which left victims near to death with the only relief a confession and a repudiation of the oath the Mau Mau all took and which bound them together. No newspapers, letters, visitors, radio and other forms of communication with the outside were permitted, and if there were any violations, the penalties were severe. Many Kikuyus who would not give in simply disappeared, never to be heard of again and there were many eyewitness accounts of prisoners shot dead and dumped into mass graves. There was widespread torture and rape of thousands of women who were suspected of helping Mau Mau .

 

 

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/opinion/letters/05/25/the-british-were-guilty-of-terrible-atrocities-during-the-mau-mau-uprising-in-kenya/

[LGTL]

Of course I deny it because i never said that. I said that Britain 60 years later might have been a better country. I talked about the holocaust and how bad it was, but then explained the situation in kenya and the Mao Mao concentration camps of the 1950's, and suggested that we (the British) really were no better. The germans killed millions in camps, we killed thousands in camps. In your view does that make us better or less worse?

 

We were absolutely no angels whatsoever, you only have to see the example you have provided, as well as our escapades in Ireland, to understand that. One of the National Curriculum's biggest errors in History is its near enough complete ignorance towards these types of situations. We do have a tendancy in this country to only highlight the good that we have done. While Churchill did an admirable job in WW2, his treatment towards the Irish in a similar period was far from rosy. You only have to see his suggestion to name a ship HMS Oliver Cromwell to see his thoughts on that matter.

 

I'm not one of these people who see this country as all seeing and all knowing. Does this mean I think we would have been better off in the present day had the Nazi's won WW2? Absolutely not. Comparing one crusade to another and asking which is worse is pointless as the contexts for every situation are totally different.

[dune]

We were absolutely no angels whatsoever, you only have to see the example you have provided, as well as our escapades in Ireland, to understand that. One of the National Curriculum's biggest errors in History is its near enough complete ignorance towards these types of situations. We do have a tendancy in this country to only highlight the good that we have done. While Churchill did an admirable job in WW2, his treatment towards the Irish in a similar period was far from rosy. You only have to see his suggestion to name a ship HMS Oliver Cromwell to see his thoughts on that matter.

 

I'm not one of these people who see this country as all seeing and all knowing. Does this mean I think we would have been better off in the present day had the Nazi's won WW2? Absolutely not. Comparing one crusade to another and asking which is worse is pointless as the contexts for every situation are totally different.

 

That's fair enough. Personally i'm unsure (which is the correct answer) whether Britain and the world would've been better off now had we sided with the axis powers then. You could argue that we'd still have our Empire (and you could argue whether that'd be a good or a bad thing) and that we would still govern Palestinians in Palestine. From that you could argue that half the problems in the middle east wouldn't exist today.

 

I appreciate your sensible debating btw.

[aintforever]

That's fair enough. Personally i'm unsure (which is the correct answer) whether Britain and the world would've been better off now had we sided with the axis powers then.

 

 

You are not quite sure wether we should have joined in the whole gassing of Jews, gypos and gays thing? Are you serious!?

[dune]

You are not quite sure wether we should have joined in the whole gassing of Jews, gypos and gays thing? Are you serious!?

 

And we murdered/tortured thousands of Mau Mau's post WW2. Both events were wrong, but i'm not talking about what hapened then, i'm talking about the here and now.

 

Read what is written.

[dune]

You are not quite sure wether we should have joined in the whole gassing of Jews, gypos and gays thing? Are you serious!?

 

BTW your term for gypsies is racist so don't get on your high horse.

[aintforever]

And we murdered/tortured thousands of Mau Mau's post WW2. Both events were wrong, but i'm not talking about what hapened then, i'm talking about the here and now.

 

Read what is written.

 

What happened in Kenya has no relevance at all, there is no way Britain or the World would be better off if we joined the nazis.

 

Unless you think a World without Jews, gays, Gypos etc would be a better place.

[dune]

What happened in Kenya has no relevance at all, there is no way Britain or the World would be better off if we joined the nazis.

 

Unless you think a World without Jews, gays, Gypos etc would be a better place.

 

Of course what happened in kenya has relevence and if you'd lost family then you wouldn't think it was an irrelevent chapter of history.

[aintforever]

Of course what happened in kenya has relevence and if you'd lost family then you wouldn't think it was an irrelevent chapter of history.

 

How does what we did in kenya effect who we sided on in WW2 then? please explain....

[dune]

How does what we did in kenya effect who we sided on in WW2 then? please explain....

 

You're the one who's highlighted the NAZI genocide. So tell me why their genocide was worse than our genocide?

[badgerx16]

You're the one who's highlighted the NAZI genocide. So tell me why their genocide was worse than our genocide?

Their's was worse because (1) we won WW2 and (2) we defeated the Mau Mau. As stated previously, history is written by the victors.

[aintforever]

You're the one who's highlighted the NAZI genocide. So tell me why their genocide was worse than our genocide?

 

Wether their genocide is worse or not (It was) is completely irrelevant. If you dig back through history far enough I expect ever country on the planet has done bad stuff.

[dune]

Their's was worse because (1) we won WW2 and (2) we defeated the Mau Mau. As stated previously, history is written by the victors.

 

That's a feeble response nowadays. History has no need to be like that anymore with a mine of information a few clicks away. I notice that no-body on the left has EVER had the balls to answer the question and that kind of shows them up for being fake.

[rocknrollman no2]

We did very bad things against the Boars in the South African war,in fact we made the first concentration camps.We used to have an empire,made up from countries around the world,most of which we used force against.It stands to reason we commited crimes against the native people we ruled.

As a socialist im ashamed of our empire and what we have done to the world,but hopefully we have learnt from our mistakes and we can move on and try to make this world a better place without using force.

[dune]

Wether their genocide is worse or not (It was) is completely irrelevant. If you dig back through history far enough I expect ever country on the planet has done bad stuff.

 

1) how can you say murdering a few thousand is worse than murdering a few million. That's like saying a serial killer that killed 20 is worse than a serial killer that killed 10. In terms terms of numbers there's a difference, but if you'd lost a family member in the "lesser" of the genocides i'm not sure you'd say the other was worse. The correct answer imo is that both genocides were as bad as each other, although you could argue that ours was worse because it was perpetrated after we all knew about the NAZI death camps. Basically we highlighted how bad places like Auswich were (ad they were) and then we went on to do the same thing.

 

2) It is relevent because you have made a point of highlighting the NAZI holocaust. You can't say one instance f genocide is relevent and another isn't simply to aid you win an argument. You're just contradicting yourself.

 

3) As i mentioned in point 1 we carried out our genocide in kenya post 45 after we had made a point of highlighting how bad the NAZI genocide was. You cannot consign our concentration camps to history as an irrelevence, and in the same breath cite the NAZI camps as rellevent.

[aintforever]

So Dune, you are basically saying that because we have done some dodgy stuff in the past we had might as well have joined in the Nazi's mass murder of Jews to help keep our empire going?

 

 

****ing lunatic.

[badgerx16]

That's a feeble response nowadays. History has no need to be like that anymore with a mine of information a few clicks away. I notice that no-body on the left has EVER had the balls to answer the question and that kind of shows them up for being fake.

OK. Clearly, and concisely, what is the question ?

[dune]

So Dune, you are basically saying that because we have done some dodgy stuff in the past we had might as well have joined in the Nazi's mass murder of Jews to help keep our empire going?

 

 

****ing lunatic.

 

You're not very bright are you?

 

That is not what i'm saying. I am saying that what we did in Kenya post 45 (that means after the war - are you still following?) was genocide. And i'm also saying that we did it in full knowledge of what happened in places like Auswitz after we'd condemned what the NAZI's did. With this is mind I think that what we did was equally as bad. Therefore I put it to you that you cannot say we were any better than them.

[aintforever]

1) how can you say murdering a few thousand is worse than murdering a few million. That's like saying a serial killer that killed 20 is worse than a serial killer that killed 10. In terms terms of numbers there's a difference, but if you'd lost a family member in the "lesser" of the genocides i'm not sure you'd say the other was worse. The correct answer imo is that both genocides were as bad as each other, although you could argue that ours was worse because it was perpetrated after we all knew about the NAZI death camps. Basically we highlighted how bad places like Auswich were (ad they were) and then we went on to do the same thing.

 

2) It is relevent because you have made a point of highlighting the NAZI holocaust. You can't say one instance f genocide is relevent and another isn't simply to aid you win an argument. You're just contradicting yourself.

 

3) As i mentioned in point 1 we carried out our genocide in kenya post 45 after we had made a point of highlighting how bad the NAZI genocide was. You cannot consign our concentration camps to history as an irrelevence, and in the same breath cite the NAZI camps as rellevent.

 

I don't know much about the kenya thing but reading that link it sounds very very bad but it wasn't building factories of death to wipe a whole race of the face of the planet.

 

I still don't see it's relevance in relation to our decision to fight the Nazis. That was right regardless of what happened in Africa.

[dune]

Badger I posed the question earlier:

 

Of course I deny it because i never said that. I said that Britain 60 years later might have been a better country. I talked about the holocaust and how bad it was, but then explained the situation in kenya and the Mao Mao concentration camps of the 1950's, and suggested that we (the British) really were no better. The germans killed millions in camps, we killed thousands in camps. In your view does that make us better or less worse?

[aintforever]

You're not very bright are you?

 

That is not what i'm saying. I am saying that what we did in Kenya post 45 (that means after the war - are you still following?) was genocide. And i'm also saying that we did it in full knowledge of what happened in places like Auswitz after we'd condemned what the NAZI's did. With this is mind I think that what we did was equally as bad. Therefore I put it to you that you cannot say we were any better than them.

 

I'm not saying we are any better than them - just saying it was 100% right to fight what they were doing.

[dune]

I don't know much about the kenya thing but reading that link it sounds very very bad but it wasn't building factories of death to wipe a whole race of the face of the planet.

 

I still don't see it's relevance in relation to our decision to fight the Nazis. That was right regardless of what happened in Africa.

 

Our decision to fight the NAZI's had nothing to do with their policy against the Jews etc. It was a political decision. Interestingly had Lord Halifax been PM we would have sided with them.

[dune]

I'm not saying we are any better than them - just saying it was 100% right to fight what they were doing.

 

We didn't know what they were doing!!!

[aintforever]

We didn't know what they were doing!!!

 

We knew they were murdering Nazi ****s rampaging through Europe. A clear case of good vs evil.

[dune]

We knew they were murdering Nazi ****s rampaging through Europe. A clear case of good vs evil.

 

You're ignoring the fact that we had an Empire. Do you think we got that by offering them a cup of tea?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

It's a perfectly reasonable basis for an assessment, it's personal experience

 

I think there is a time and a place for anecdotal evidence. Basing an assessment on the total number of immigrants in a country as big as the UK on a stint working in a takeaway is just a little bit stupid. Their are no "non-natives" in my street. I therefore conclude that there are no non-natives in England. Thankfully there is a thing called the internet which is full of facts and figures, a little research might prove a little more accurate.

 

It's a wonderful device you employ there; if an opinion based on personal observation or experience doesn't meet with your approval, it's dismissed as prejudice. Typical leftie rhetoric.

 

Not really, there was no personal observation. The point I commented upon was an imagined scenario which implied that a workplace with increasing "non-natives" would be an unpleasant place to be. It's prejudice.

 

I also experience life in other cities and indeed other countries. And it is fair to say that in the vast majority of other countries, nobody would dare to take part in a protest such as this, for fear of the retribution that would be meted out on them, including in some cases them losing their lives or being thrown in prison indefinitely. In many countries, the reprisals would come from an angry mob on the spot.

 

So are you dissapointed that we don't have mob violence on our streets? Personally I enjoy the fact that this country is a bit more civilised than those that you refer to.

 

But you seem to be pretty tolerant of the reactionary protests of religious zealots inciting racial hatred against the soldiers who protect us.

 

Not really, as you note elsewhere I've agreed that these people should be prosecuted for incitement.

 

Most of the immigrant community in this country comprises law-abiding and respectable citizens who add positive things. But when extremist elements like these surfce, it is as acceptable that their actions are condemned both by their own ethnic group and also the indigenous population, without others throwing about accusations of racism.

 

How do you explain that threads that discuss white scumbags (paedos etc) never include comments like "kick them out"? Is it because these scumbags happened to be brown?

[aintforever]

You're ignoring the fact that we had an Empire. Do you think we got that by offering them a cup of tea?

 

We've done some bad stuff like any country, still has no relevance to our decision to beat the **** out of the Germans.

[badgerx16]

We didn't know what they were doing!!!

So they sneaked into Czechoslovakia and Poland without us noticing ?

 

And to answer THE question, they were worse. Whether you accept my justification for this opinion or not is up to you, but I am entitled to it, and here it is :

 

The Germans, and their fascist allies, engaged themselves in an industrialised effort to eradicate an entire religion/race from Europe, and if unchecked would have tried to extend this across the globe. Alongside this they wiped out huge numbers of eastern european civilians in a lust for 'Lebensraum', and took slave labourers from all the occupied countries to maintain their war effort.

The British, probably misguidedly, viewed themselves as benevolent rulers of the Imperial territories, and after the war tried to re-establish the status-quo of dominion over the Empire. As a result of this, they viewed independence movements, such as the Mau Mau, as terrorists, and as in so many other examples in the last 100 or so years, once you take the standpoint that you are fighting such a group, common sense and 'reasonable force' go out of the window. Not ideal, not acceptable, and historically not justifiable, but in no way anywhere near what the Nazis were doing.

[dune]

So they sneaked into Czechoslovakia and Poland without us noticing ?

 

And to answer THE question, they were worse. Whether you accept my justification for this opinion or not is up to you, but I am entitled to it, and here it is :

 

The Germans, and their fascist allies, engaged themselves in an industrialised effort to eradicate an entire religion/race from Europe, and if unchecked would have tried to extend this across the globe. Alongside this they wiped out huge numbers of eastern european civilians in a lust for 'Lebensraum', and took slave labourers from all the occupied countries to maintain their war effort.

The British, probably misguidedly, viewed themselves as benevolent rulers of the Imperial territories, and after the war tried to re-establish the status-quo of dominion over the Empire. As a result of this, they viewed independence movements, such as the Mau Mau, as terrorists, and as in so many other examples in the last 100 or so years, once you take the standpoint that you are fighting such a group, common sense and 'reasonable force' go out of the window. Not ideal, not acceptable, and historically not justifiable, but in no way anywhere near what the Nazis were doing.

 

Fair enough. You're slightly lacking in your knowledge of the event, which was post war white settles throwing the Mau Mau off their land, but the genocide was for land and wealth and not for idealogical reasons. That said i'm not entirely covinced the NAZI's anti Jew sentiment was totally about race especially given that recent discovery that plundered Jewish wealth funded 30% plus of Hitlers empire building. No doubt there were anti semitists though, it'd be wrong to deny this.

[aintforever]

It's nuts to suggest what happened in Kenya was as bad as this (from Wiki)....

 

The Holocaust was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany. Two-thirds of the population of nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust were killed.

 

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred irrespective of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin. By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.

[badgerx16]

That said i'm not entirely covinced the NAZI's anti Jew sentiment was totally about race....

Some quotes from that missing National Curricullum set text we discussed elsewhere :

"The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland with the ultimate idea of bastardising the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate."

"The Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end...spying on the unsuspicious German girl he plans to seduce.....he wants to contaminate her blood and remove her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew hates the white race and wants to lower its cultural level so that the Jews might dominate."

"The longer I lived in Vienna, the stronger became my hatred for the promiscuous swarm of foreign peoples which began to batten on that old nursery ground of German culture." (A reference to East Europeans)

"When you tell a lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility......"

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

"...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broke"

"

"Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."

"The ignorance of the broad masses about the inner nature of the Jew, the lack of instinct and narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make the people an easy victim for this Jewish campaign of lies."

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

FFS, there is a massive difference between some of the worst aspects of the British empire and what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII. It was racially motivated extermination on an industrial scale. To give it moral equivalence is to denigrate the holocaust, not surprising from some characters on here.

[Bath Saint]

Dune and David Irving

up a tree

K I S S I N G

[Vershinin]

I have nothing against Muslims and the people that protested were SCUM, utter ****s. I think u can hold both these opinions without being racist or xenaphobic, although apparently not according to the boring PC brigade.

[Deppo]

I have nothing against Muslims and the people that protested were SCUM, utter ****s. I think u can hold both these opinions without being racist or xenaphobic, although apparently not according to the boring PC brigade.

 

Find one post on this thread where that view is expressed.

[St Chalet]

The thread seems to have moved significantly off-topic.