BNP membership leaked online.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

CF, you should know a little better than to think all Muslims take the Qu'uran as inerrrant. Many moderate Muslims take interpret it rather differently. Some argue the bible tells all Christians that being gay is a mortal sin, that we should kill people who withdraw before ejaculation, but I'm pretty certain this isn't held against them. Yuo're brighter than making statements like the above. No-one is really persecuting them. They're free to their racist, ignorant beliefs. I'm entitled, in my turn, to think they are mostly a bunch of ignorant pathetic idiots with disgusting views, and am allowed to have a relatively harmless laugh at them. Many of them, however, would do a lot worse to people they disagree with, so I don't feel too bad about it.

 

Robsk, you and I find BNP views offensive and vile so we laugh at them. They, in turn, find yours and mine offensive and vile. That's where the similarity might well end because we'd be more than likely to suffer some sort of physical reprisal rather than a mocking laugh! Having said that I'm not intending to generalise on all BNP members here. I'm sure that the 'disgusted of Surbitons' of this world might well just write into the daily male (sic) and spout their views!

[CabbageFace]

CF, you should know a little better than to think all Muslims take the Qu'uran as inerrrant. Many moderate Muslims take interpret it rather differently. Some argue the bible tells all Christians that being gay is a mortal sin, that we should kill people who withdraw before ejaculation, but I'm pretty certain this isn't held against them. Yuo're brighter than making statements like the above. No-one is really persecuting them. They're free to their racist, ignorant beliefs. I'm entitled, in my turn, to think they are mostly a bunch of ignorant pathetic idiots with disgusting views, and am allowed to have a relatively harmless laugh at them. Many of them, however, would do a lot worse to people they disagree with, so I don't feel too bad about it.

 

These moderate "insert faith here/radical belief" would all do anything for their "faith" and that is a fact. But belittling the GNP for their beliefs makes you a bigot just like them. It is certainly not funny these people are losing thief jobs and lives due to what they believe in. I don't find them particually racist and they have some value policies, but as they upset the namby pambies of this world, I wouldn't worry, they will never get in power.

 

If a list of all the radical clerics personnal details got onto the public domain there would be uproar, shouldn't ever be one rule for one. Holier than thou springs to mind.

[Robsk II]

Sorry, but that's just a load of ****, simple as that.

 

Belittling the BNP for their beliefs - or the hardcore members - does nothing to make me like them. Deploring racism is much more acceptable than deploring other cultures and races based, generally, on very little, or sweeping assumptions at the very best. I simply don't see prejudice of any kind as a valid basis for belief, and that applies to Islamic extremism as much as anything else.

 

How the hell do you intend to back up your statement that any moderate religious people would do anything for their faith? What you apparently entirely fail to realise is that many of them see their faith as very different to what extremists do. Isn't that entirely evident just by existing on this planet for a few seconds? Some christians in time have felt it is god's work to kill heathens; should I assume that ALL modern day christians feel the same and shouldn't be trusted, ever? it's simply a stupid thing to say.

 

As it happens, I don't think people should lose their jobs for being in the BNP - unless they signed up to something in the first place saying they wouldn't be in it. Then it's their own fault, so why shouldn't I laugh? I also think 'outting' them was a bit harsh, as were some of the phone calls and intimidation they got. The fact is, though, that many of them would most likely have been the first to do this in another age with gays, blacks, etc, so it's hard to have too much sympathy. You say some are losing their 'lives' because of this, but I can't see any examples of that to date - but I can think of MILLIONS of lives lost due to persecution of minorities based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, intellectualism, political alignment etc. THAT is what these so called namby-pambies seek to avoid, and that is what I see the BNP as being a whole lot closer to than myself. Some of them are probably less extreme, I'm fully aware and I accept this - I moderate my opinions on them accordingly. This is something you would find useful to do yourself. You cannot label ANY group so casually, whether that's BNP members, Muslims, blacks, gays - whatever you want. You'll never be able to form a cohesive and compelling argument if you stick to over simplifications and sweeping statements if you don't consider the issues in depth and have the ability to back up your points.

[Mole]

Patriots (racists isn't an appropriate word to use to describe BNP supperts) were actively encouraged during both world wars and during the glorious era of British imperialism. Being patriotic made this country great. Now this is actively discouraged as it's not politically correct to be proud of our country and its illustrious history. What really annoys me (and the BNP have said they'd halt it) is us giving handouts to third world countries. Why should we pay taxes to support countries that can't run themselves? There's no excuse for any country to be poor. Take Zimbabwe (formerly souther rhodesia) it was thriving a few years back, but now thanks to poor governence the people are starving. They've made their bed like all the other poor countries so it's their problem - not ours. Of course you still get a few people blaming imperialism all these years later, but the fact is we left countries like india with a brilliant infrastructure and 50 years on they're still running with the same trains (now delapidated) on the same tracks. This simply shows that, contrary to the PC myth, the British empire was brilliant for the world and us leaving places like india was a disaster for them.

 

A question for those who blame the empire for certain countries poverty.

 

Why is Canada, the USA, Australia and new Zealand prosperous?

 

And why is Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ghana and Ethiopia relatively poor?

 

All of the countries listed above have good soil to grow food - the cornerstone of a sucessful civilisation, so there must be another reason why one set are rich and the other set are poor.

Edited 23 November, 2008 by Mole

[Saintandy666]

Patriots (racists isn't an appropriate word to use to describe BNP supperts) were actively encouraged during both world wars and during the glorious era of British imperialism. Being patriotic made this country great. Now this is actively discouraged as it's not politically correct to be proud of our country and its illustrious history. What really annoys me (and the BNP have said they'd halt it) is us giving handouts to third world countries. Why should we pay taxes to support countries that can't run themselves? There's no excuse for any country to be poor. Take Zimbabwe (formerly souther rhodesia) it was thriving a few years back, but now thanks to poor governence the people are starving. They've made their bed like all the other poor countries so it's their problem - not ours. Of course you still get a few people blaming imperialism all these years later, but the fact is we left countries like india with a brilliant infrastructure and 50 years on they're still running with the same trains (now delapidated) on the same tracks. This simply shows that, contrary to the PC myth, the British empire was brilliant for the world and us leaving places like india was a disaster for them.

 

A question for those who blame the empire for certain countries poverty.

 

Why is Canada, the USA, Australia and new Zealand prosperous?

 

And why is Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ghana and Ethiopia relatively poor?

 

All of the countries listed above have good soil to grow food - the cornerstone of a sucessful civilisation, so there must be another reason why one set are rich and the other set are poor.

 

Africa, they are all in Afruca, europe ****ted that continent up, but hey, in all fairness, Britain wouldn't be where we are if not for the empire, but just admit it, it's built on ****ting other people and countries up.

[Mole]

Africa, they are all in Afruca, europe ****ted that continent up, but hey, in all fairness, Britain wouldn't be where we are if not for the empire, but just admit it, it's built on ****ting other people and countries up.

 

How did Europe ruin Africa? This argument is just nonsense. Rhodesia under the great Ian Douglas Smith (my hero) was the bread basket of Africa. Now Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is third world. He inherritted a prosperous economy so let's have none of this crap about us abandoning them in the ****. The real problem is that they were not ready for self rule - that is the only thing you can criticise Britain for when it comes to granting countries independance and you can blame the left wing Labour lot for that.

 

P.S my avatar is of the great Cecil Rhodes. He did more for Africa than any man in history!

Edited 23 November, 2008 by Mole

[Robsk II]

I for one have no problem helping other people out if they cannot afford it and we can - which we can. we have a much higher standard of life than billions, and I for one care about my fellow human beings, black, white, yellow, whatever. We don't need our Wiis and DVDs and designer labels more than others need food and medicine, and frankly, if you really don't give a sh*t, then in my opinion, you're simply a bad person! I don't feel I have to give all my or the countries money away, but regardless of fault or blame (though I for one see that the West is directly responsbile for a lot of problems or exacerbating them), I would not idly stand by and not care at all if I saw someone dying in front of me if for even a years pay I could save them. Talk about Samaritans.

 

I think you're on pretty thin ice about racism - I am pretty sure you're implying that these countries fail because they are black dominated. You mention white countries, then black countres as failures. If there are poorer countries, it is do do with social, political, economic and possibly cultural factors. These have nothing - nothing at all - to do with race, as such.

 

Racist is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe many, if not all, BNP supporters. That is a fact, pure and simple, regardless of any other legitmacy or members who simply appreciate their policy making for other reasons. Many sympathise with the BNP on some issues, but still more veer clear of them because too many of the die-hards are quite unsavoury - despite the veneer of respectability and Griffin's attempts to moderate. Not wanting more migrants is not racist. Starting to hate people of other nationalities as a result is. Patriotism - well, we've discussed this. While rallying to flag and country were valid reasons that many fought for, even then, the government and media pushed the 'helping others' agenda. WW2 started because we said we'd defend Poland. Not because we'd profit from them, but because we recognised their sovereignity and had our honour to uphold after signing up to protect them from German aggression. Many so-called patriots would fight to protect their own land. I think a British person who truly takes pride in what this country used to represent would also fight to save anothers rights and life. I am proud of this country and to be British, but only the bits worth taking pride in, and always with an eye on common sense. Even exploitation and empire should be recalled with pride - but only in that context of the time, for now we are enabled to see clearly, to understand human cost and so on. Balanced view is always the key, but most people seem to be myopic beyond belief.

 

I can't be ****ed to answer all this properly now Stanley, but it is so, so flawed in so many ways. Using logic can get you from A to B, but if you've got lots of letters in the middle you miss the meaning.

 

In short, there are hundreds of reasons why other countries are less rich and so on - an awful lot is to do with our continued and historical exploitation of them. I can back that up entirely; if you read any genuine study or literature on this area at all you'd have a far more informed basis upon which to comment. Western companies own a whole lot of production means etc - unlike in the West, virtually all profit flows straight out of most African nations. How the hell are they to be expected to develop further, economically and politically, in a climate like that? I can't believe you know words such as infrastructure and yet totally ignore fact. Totally. A few individuals often hold most of the power in African nations, and multi-nationals hold the rest. Usually the two are in cahoots for a mutual benefit. Corruption etc is rife, but it's not because the Brits aren't there. It's because we've imposed systems on countries and cultures that haven't naturally developed them, and so when we left, shoehorning went awry. It was down to us, not down to them left now. Mugabe is not a **** because he's black, Mugabe is a **** because he's a ****. Even here, I can be objective. By some measures, empire did directly impact positively on native populations, raising life expectancy, literay, numeracy, etc - India has been a good example of this over time, generally. Yet the damage we have done is huge - though I'm not one to believe in all this apologising for the past business. I do think we have a duty to the rest of the globe to do better in the future though, to learn the lessons of the past.

 

I could write a damn essay on this, but to be honest, nothing I could say will sway you, even though my comments on this are not 'liberal clap trap'. The things above are pretty much agreed on by academics from both sides of the political spectrum. It can all be backed up pretty well, and no, it's not a communist conspiracy. You cannot claim to be objective if you see this evidence and shun it anyway. If only more people bothered to be at least vaguely informed on real issues with a bit of depth before wading in with over-strong views. This is the thing about respecting other peoples views, even the BNPs - everyone does have a right to a view, but frankly, 90% of this country has the view of a total braindead idiot, ill informed, ignorant, lazy of thought, prejudicial - in short, retarded. Everyone has a right to a view, but I sure as hell won't respect or give the time of day to those without basis, whether that's the BNP's thinly-veiled dubius hyperbole or brainwashed Islamic fundamentalism. Feel free to continue to resort to you 'loonie-leftie' and 'PC gone mad' sureties if it makes you feel superior. The thing is, I know the above is true, because I care enough to try to understand it fully. If you wish to argue it, I suggest you get informed or don't bother.

Edited 23 November, 2008 by Robsk II

[tpbury]

How did Europe ruin Africa? This argument is just nonsense. Rhodesia under the great Ian Douglas Smith (my hero) was the bread basket of Africa. Now Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is third world. He inherritted a prosperous economy so let's have none of this crap about us abandoning them in the ****. The real problem is that they were not ready for self rule - that is the only thing you can criticise Britain for when it comes to granting countries independance and you can blame the left wing Labour lot for that.

 

P.S my avatar is of the great Cecil Rhodes. He did more for Africa than any man in history!

 

Are you happy that UK is self ruling with a Labour government? Are we ready for it? If not, who should invade us?

[spain saint]

But it is a well known fact that Brits emigrating to Spain are ruining their healthcare system. They are taking from it and not contributing a penny. It's not "signing-on", but it's the same difference.

 

 

I would like to see some evidence of this bold statement!

I dont know any ex/pats here where i live that dont work!!

[Saint in Paradise]

I would like to see some evidence of this bold statement!

I dont know any ex/pats here where i live that dont work!!

 

 

I suspect you will wait a long time then, Bungle is very closely

involved with a political party IIRC

[bridge too far]

I would like to see some evidence of this bold statement!

I dont know any ex/pats here where i live that dont work!!

 

There's been a lot about in the press recently:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/spain

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0466621420080704

[spain saint]

There's been a lot about in the press recently:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/spain

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0466621420080704

 

 

Thankyou for that! Some very informative reading but I still dont see any evidence of expats ruining the Spanish healthcare system! As it said in those articles, the people over 60 are getting their healthcare paid by the UK, along with people who have taken early retirement. I suspect that a lot of expats over here under 60 pay into the system by the way of working and alot of these articles or statistics dont take into account the thousands of businesses own by expats and employing Spanish which also pay their taxes.

[Mole]

I for one have no problem helping other people out if they cannot afford it and we can - which we can. we have a much higher standard of life than billions, and I for one care about my fellow human beings, black, white, yellow, whatever. We don't need our Wiis and DVDs and designer labels more than others need food and medicine, and frankly, if you really don't give a sh*t, then in my opinion, you're simply a bad person! I don't feel I have to give all my or the countries money away, but regardless of fault or blame (though I for one see that the West is directly responsbile for a lot of problems or exacerbating them), I would not idly stand by and not care at all if I saw someone dying in front of me if for even a years pay I could save them. Talk about Samaritans.

 

I think you're on pretty thin ice about racism - I am pretty sure you're implying that these countries fail because they are black dominated. You mention white countries, then black countres as failures. If there are poorer countries, it is do do with social, political, economic and possibly cultural factors. These have nothing - nothing at all - to do with race, as such.

 

Racist is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe many, if not all, BNP supporters. That is a fact, pure and simple, regardless of any other legitmacy or members who simply appreciate their policy making for other reasons. Many sympathise with the BNP on some issues, but still more veer clear of them because too many of the die-hards are quite unsavoury - despite the veneer of respectability and Griffin's attempts to moderate. Not wanting more migrants is not racist. Starting to hate people of other nationalities as a result is. Patriotism - well, we've discussed this. While rallying to flag and country were valid reasons that many fought for, even then, the government and media pushed the 'helping others' agenda. WW2 started because we said we'd defend Poland. Not because we'd profit from them, but because we recognised their sovereignity and had our honour to uphold after signing up to protect them from German aggression. Many so-called patriots would fight to protect their own land. I think a British person who truly takes pride in what this country used to represent would also fight to save anothers rights and life. I am proud of this country and to be British, but only the bits worth taking pride in, and always with an eye on common sense. Even exploitation and empire should be recalled with pride - but only in that context of the time, for now we are enabled to see clearly, to understand human cost and so on. Balanced view is always the key, but most people seem to be myopic beyond belief.

 

I can't be ****ed to answer all this properly now Stanley, but it is so, so flawed in so many ways. Using logic can get you from A to B, but if you've got lots of letters in the middle you miss the meaning.

 

In short, there are hundreds of reasons why other countries are less rich and so on - an awful lot is to do with our continued and historical exploitation of them. I can back that up entirely; if you read any genuine study or literature on this area at all you'd have a far more informed basis upon which to comment. Western companies own a whole lot of production means etc - unlike in the West, virtually all profit flows straight out of most African nations. How the hell are they to be expected to develop further, economically and politically, in a climate like that? I can't believe you know words such as infrastructure and yet totally ignore fact. Totally. A few individuals often hold most of the power in African nations, and multi-nationals hold the rest. Usually the two are in cahoots for a mutual benefit. Corruption etc is rife, but it's not because the Brits aren't there. It's because we've imposed systems on countries and cultures that haven't naturally developed them, and so when we left, shoehorning went awry. It was down to us, not down to them left now. Mugabe is not a **** because he's black, Mugabe is a **** because he's a ****. Even here, I can be objective. By some measures, empire did directly impact positively on native populations, raising life expectancy, literay, numeracy, etc - India has been a good example of this over time, generally. Yet the damage we have done is huge - though I'm not one to believe in all this apologising for the past business. I do think we have a duty to the rest of the globe to do better in the future though, to learn the lessons of the past.

 

I could write a damn essay on this, but to be honest, nothing I could say will sway you, even though my comments on this are not 'liberal clap trap'. The things above are pretty much agreed on by academics from both sides of the political spectrum. It can all be backed up pretty well, and no, it's not a communist conspiracy. You cannot claim to be objective if you see this evidence and shun it anyway. If only more people bothered to be at least vaguely informed on real issues with a bit of depth before wading in with over-strong views. This is the thing about respecting other peoples views, even the BNPs - everyone does have a right to a view, but frankly, 90% of this country has the view of a total braindead idiot, ill informed, ignorant, lazy of thought, prejudicial - in short, retarded. Everyone has a right to a view, but I sure as hell won't respect or give the time of day to those without basis, whether that's the BNP's thinly-veiled dubius hyperbole or brainwashed Islamic fundamentalism. Feel free to continue to resort to you 'loonie-leftie' and 'PC gone mad' sureties if it makes you feel superior. The thing is, I know the above is true, because I care enough to try to understand it fully. If you wish to argue it, I suggest you get informed or don't bother.

 

A well written piece and i can see what you're getting at, but i think you are misguided with your views. The problem with Africa is tribalism, not foreign multinationals or the legacy of empire. They could have products to sell and we will buy their products - this makes them no different to Canada. They have areas of highly fertile land - this makes many nations far better on paper than Australia. But still they are poor. Like it or not Africa is poor because of the indiginous people - using empire as excuse is just a cop-out. If we'd still been running Rhodesia, Kenya, Zambia, Sudan that continent would be as affluent as North America or Australasia for the simple reason we would have managed the land properly. You could argue that we'd have acted superiously to the indiginous people but overall they would have had a far better standard of living than they'll ever get under self rule because tribal divisions makes a functional government impossible. I suggest you read Ian Douglas Smiths autobiography and you will learn something. He was fully prepared to gradually transfer rule in Rhodesia to the blacks, but the Labour lot in Britain thought we could just throw them the country and they'd be able to run it. It's because of people like you, Robsk II, that Rhodesia is in the mess it's in. Yes you mean well, but frankly your views are not workable in the real world.

[Robsk II]

Stanley, I would never conteend the fact that in part, traditional cultural configurations and values play and have played a part in some of the problems in some parts of the world. Any 'loony left' would be stupid to deny this categorically. The thing is, this would never have been an issue had other factors not impacted. Take Congo, Rwanda - Left to develop 'naturally' - by a slow osmosis etc, perhaps - tribal patterns would probably have developed the nations. As it is, colonial powers did, they drew the boundaries. This has always been a problem - the Belgians simply decided that the Tutsis were more beutiful to behold, more 'evolved' and so on than the hutus, and decided they were the upper caste. As such, they were allowed more roles even when Belgium was a colonial overlord, and when they left, Tutsis were given the priviledged positions. It is partly due directly to this colonial god-playing that tribal tension and resentment grew to breaking point in Rwanda in 1994.

 

The thing about multinationals getting all a country's assets is huge, seriously - I suggest you do have a read into that one, because whatever else may be going on or have gone on in the past, it's been something that's kept countries poor. Some of it is just down to the timeline of history. In an age of global capitalism, it was always going to be hard for anyone to jump on board without a head start. China will be OK because they were protected by their political system and isolation, largely. They are integrating slowly and did also develop, even if it was state controlled at the time. In Africa, conversely, all the biggest companies are Western because they were free to come in and buy out any profitable fledglings - this is because any loans the African nations have got from the world bank have been coupled with "hmm, yes, ok, we will bail you out - IF you privatise your national assets.". It's appalling, honestly have a read about it.

 

In hindsight, we should have given back empire countries in a much better way - more slowly, controlled, considered - but it's too easy to say that. What was done, was done. Our intent may have been good, but being there at all and doing what we did had already impacted. I'm not even blaming us, really, because that was the way the world was then, and at that time, we did bloody well. Yet we should try to understand the lessons. Look at Iraq. I believe in democracy, but forcing it upon people used to different ways of doing things - whether they would eventually believe it is the best or not - is a minefield. many Iraqis are probably moderate, and advocate peace, democracy etc. After a brutal dictatorship, and in a highly charged religioudly-divided tribal climate - there are always going to be those left who A) think theocracy is better, the 'right way' and B) those who got so used to looking out for themselves under Saddam. Ultimately, even if our sole goal was to bring peace and deomcracy etc to the world, without any agenda, it would ebe damn hard to do, especially when many of our targetted converts would simply not believe our way was right.

[CabbageFace]

Sorry, but that's just a load of ****, simple as that.

 

Belittling the BNP for their beliefs - or the hardcore members - does nothing to make me like them. Deploring racism is much more acceptable than deploring other cultures and races based, generally, on very little, or sweeping assumptions at the very best. I simply don't see prejudice of any kind as a valid basis for belief, and that applies to Islamic extremism as much as anything else.

 

How the hell do you intend to back up your statement that any moderate religious people would do anything for their faith? What you apparently entirely fail to realise is that many of them see their faith as very different to what extremists do. Isn't that entirely evident just by existing on this planet for a few seconds? Some christians in time have felt it is god's work to kill heathens; should I assume that ALL modern day christians feel the same and shouldn't be trusted, ever? it's simply a stupid thing to say.

 

As it happens, I don't think people should lose their jobs for being in the BNP - unless they signed up to something in the first place saying they wouldn't be in it. Then it's their own fault, so why shouldn't I laugh? I also think 'outting' them was a bit harsh, as were some of the phone calls and intimidation they got. The fact is, though, that many of them would most likely have been the first to do this in another age with gays, blacks, etc, so it's hard to have too much sympathy. You say some are losing their 'lives' because of this, but I can't see any examples of that to date - but I can think of MILLIONS of lives lost due to persecution of minorities based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, intellectualism, political alignment etc. THAT is what these so called namby-pambies seek to avoid, and that is what I see the BNP as being a whole lot closer to than myself. Some of them are probably less extreme, I'm fully aware and I accept this - I moderate my opinions on them accordingly. This is something you would find useful to do yourself. You cannot label ANY group so casually, whether that's BNP members, Muslims, blacks, gays - whatever you want. You'll never be able to form a cohesive and compelling argument if you stick to over simplifications and sweeping statements if you don't consider the issues in depth and have the ability to back up your points.

 

 

I hate men

[Robsk II]

I'm a misanthrope too. At least we agree on that.

[CabbageFace]

[Robsk II]

Lol

[Saintandy666]

How did Europe ruin Africa? This argument is just nonsense. Rhodesia under the great Ian Douglas Smith (my hero) was the bread basket of Africa. Now Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is third world. He inherritted a prosperous economy so let's have none of this crap about us abandoning them in the ****. The real problem is that they were not ready for self rule - that is the only thing you can criticise Britain for when it comes to granting countries independance and you can blame the left wing Labour lot for that.

 

P.S my avatar is of the great Cecil Rhodes. He did more for Africa than any man in history!

 

Ian Smith was a racist who ruled on the back of fear and on a mandate of the minority. It would be like every white british person in this country not being allowed to vote, have rights, and so on...How would that make you and your bnp mates feel, eh?

 

To be honest, it is probably his brutal rule of zimbabwe which meant only someone just as bent, evil and useless as him could gain power.

 

Segregation doesn't work, everyone should be given a chance regardless of what they are or where they come from.

[Essruu]

I, for one, am enjoying watching Robsk flounder in this debate with Stanley. If there were Olympic events in Backtracking and Changing Your Opinion When Someone More Knowledgeable Is Right But Continuing To Argue Anyway, then he'd be the gold medalist in both.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I, for one, am enjoying watching Robsk flounder in this debate with Stanley. If there were Olympic events in Backtracking and Changing Your Opinion When Someone More Knowledgeable Is Right But Continuing To Argue Anyway, then he'd be the gold medalist in both.

 

Why am I not surprised by your reply?

 

Sieg Heil!

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

I, for one, am enjoying watching Robsk flounder in this debate with Stanley. If there were Olympic events in Backtracking and Changing Your Opinion When Someone More Knowledgeable Is Right But Continuing To Argue Anyway, then he'd be the gold medalist in both.

 

You come up with some right old rubbish normally, but this really takes the biscuit.

How you can be so idiotic to believe that a) Robsk has lost the argument and b) Stanley is more knowledgeable is amazing.

 

Maybe your BNP spectacles aren't as rose-tinted as you think and you are just incapable of reading the posts correctly and making sense of them.

[Robsk II]

He's just trying to get a rise. Won't happen, because he's entirely false on both counts.

[View From The Top]

Whilst there is a myriad of reasons why, some touched upon in previous posts, it cannot be denied that those "white" countries of the former Empire have prospered and developed whilst the majority of "black" or "brown" countries have struggled to.

[Robsk II]

No one is denying it.

[Mole]

No one is denying it.

 

So what's the explanation?

 

Rhodesia was prosperous 20 years ago and is third world today. You like to blame the colonial borders but they worked alright 20 years ago. You like to blame the multinationals but they were there 20 years ago. The multinationals iinvested under white rule, but with Mugabe in situ that investment dried up - this was not because they were all nasty BNP members, it was because the country wasn't a stable place to invest in. You can go all over Africa from Kenya to Uganda and at best these counries have stood still since the British left (let's not talk about Idi Amin ) so i'm failing to see any logic to your arguments.

[Ludwig]

So what's the explanation?

 

Rhodesia was prosperous 20 years ago and is third world today. You like to blame the colonial borders but they worked alright 20 years ago. You like to blame the multinationals but they were there 20 years ago. The multinationals iinvested under white rule, but with Mugabe in situ that investment dried up - this was not because they were all nasty BNP members, it was because the country wasn't a stable place to invest in. You can go all over Africa from Kenya to Uganda and at best these counries have stood still since the British left (let's not talk about Idi Amin ) so i'm failing to see any logic to your arguments.

 

You were a bit ****ed up when you were SF76 and you still remain ****ed up now. Seriously, there is some utterly ridiculous conjecture there.

[Robsk II]

Corruption and poor government play a big part, as do tribalistic mentalities amonsgt some of the population in some cases. it does all go back to factors and foundations laid long ago.

[Mole]

You were a bit ****ed up when you were SF76 and you still remain ****ed up now. Seriously' date=' there is some utterly ridiculous conjecture there.[/quote']

 

So riduculous you couldn't think of a counter argument or explanation to fit your agenda.

[Thedelldays]

but sooner or later we (as in the UK) will have to stop apologising or feeling like we have to etc...

 

some of these countries are a complete mess and we left them decades ago...

 

 

it is a bit similar to pople still blaming maggie for the wrongs in this country..depsite labour being in power longer (or close to it) than she was

[saint_stevo]

is the list still online?

 

PM me a link if so

[Robsk II]

TDD, I have said elsewhere in this thread that apologising now is fairly irrelevent and pointless. History is history, the individuals at wrong are gone. I for one don't think the Germans should apologise for the war any more, and the same applies to us. I think both nations should learn and make sure they never do the bad sies again, but that's what learning is. Apologise at the time, but then move on.

[Mole]

but sooner or later we (as in the UK) will have to stop apologising or feeling like we have to etc...

 

some of these countries are a complete mess and we left them decades ago...

 

 

it is a bit similar to pople still blaming maggie for the wrongs in this country..depsite labour being in power longer (or close to it) than she was

 

Why should we apologise. What should not be forgotton is that the countries we took under our wing that were in the dark ages before we arrived. Take India - thanks to British heros such as Clive of India - we left them with a fantastic infrastructure on which they could build. It's so sad that some people have to blame us for Indias third world status today when they were just as well placed as Canada and Australia to move forward.

[Robsk II]

just as well placed as Canada and Australia to move forward.

 

[Ludwig]

Why should we apologise. What should not be forgotton is that the countries we took under our wing that were in the dark ages before we arrived. Take India - thanks to British heros such as Clive of India - we left them with a fantastic infrastructure on which they could build. It's so sad that some people have to blame us for Indias third world status today when they were just as well placed as Canada and Australia to move forward.

 

F*ck off. They were perhaps well placed, but did Briitain partition Canada and Australia in a way that led to massacres and complete destabilisation in a way that would prevent development for a long time? F*ck right off.

[Thedelldays]

F*ck off. They were perhaps well placed' date=' but did Briitain partition Canada and Australia in a way that led to massacres and complete destabilisation in a way that would prevent development for a long time? F*ck right off.[/quote']

britain did to canada and australia what they did with everywhere else...

 

drew straight lines as borders and ignoring cultural differences...

 

take the middle east...the straight lines hat divide countries were drew by the UK in the 20's

 

if anything, we were consistant..

 

still, these countries have had many decades to be civilised yet, some cant manage it

[Mole]

F*ck off. They were perhaps well placed' date=' but did Briitain partition Canada and Australia in a way that led to massacres and complete destabilisation in a way that would prevent development for a long time? F*ck right off.[/quote']

 

India is very much like Africa with it's tribal differences. Even before the British brought order squabbles were the norm. This is why many Indian rulers welcomed the British as it gave them an advantage over their foes. Similarly many Indian rulers sided with the French. The Muslim "issue" was there long before we arrived.

 

Also i think you need to take a closer look at Indian history. I think you will find India fully deserves to have been passified in the 18th century. Many Indian rulers naively sided with the French during the war of the Austrian sucession and therefore only have themselves to blame for falling to the British. At this time in world history France (supported by India) would have loved to rule Great Britain. However the might and bravery of the British defeated the French and India was rightly subjugated for it's insolence.

[hamster]

One day all these countries, nations and people who have benefited so much by our intrusion, will undoubtedly reap the rewards of capitalism too. Blaming each other for all the problems in the world, when the only real problem is the dissolution of their communities. We **** up our own communities and project the frustration onto others, ignoring the fact that we have **** on our own doorstep. Lucky bastards! I bet that they can't wait to know what it's like to be greedy selfish arseholes like we are. Why the hell do we feel that our way of living is so superior to theirs? We 'aint that bleedin' clever, we just think that we are. FFS why can't people mind they're own business and just be content with travelling through life at a nice slow enjoyable pace, rather than telling others how they should go about it. Makes me seethe, it really does! Racism just ain't Saintly H

[Guest Hacienda]

F*ck off. They were perhaps well placed' date=' but did Briitain partition Canada and Australia in a way that led to massacres and complete destabilisation in a way that would prevent development for a long time? F*ck right off.[/quote']

 

I'm not a student of Indian history so forgive me if this is a somewhat naive question, but was it the partition that caused the issues or the underlying racial hatred between the Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on another or just one of those unfortunate combination of both?

[Robsk II]

I'm no scholar in that regard either, but I'd imagine it's a combination. Quite often, the partitions get it wrong, and only serve to exacerbate existing tribal hatreds.

[Mole]

I'm no scholar in that regard either, but I'd imagine it's a combination. Quite often, the partitions get it wrong, and only serve to exacerbate existing tribal hatreds.

 

I'll grant you that a similar comparison can be drawn between the tootsies and the hootoos that you gave. Indias rival tribes either sided with the English or the French during the war of the Austrian sucession. Those who backed the losers - the French - undoubtedly came out far worse when British supremecy prevailed.

 

The situtaion in India is further complexed by the caste system. I'm not aware of Buzzins Orns caste or whether his tribe was historically loyal to the British or the French, but depending on his tribes early allegiances and his caste one could better understand his resentment towards imperial rule.

[Franny's Tash]

It's so sad that some people have to blame us for Indias third world status today when they were just as well placed as Canada and Australia to move forward.

I guess the (remaining) indigenous populations of Canada and Australia might have something to say about that view.

 

If you want a sensible (ie non-racial) discussion of the divergent fates of countries and continents I suggest you read this book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[Robsk II]

Thanks for making that point, FT. I was going to say something about that earlier but didn't bother.

 

the fact that we have 'colonised' the American continent and Australasia does mean the situations are entirely different, in short.

[Guest Hacienda]

I guess the (remaining) indigenous populations of Canada and Australia might have something to say about that view.

 

If you want a sensible (ie non-racial) discussion of the divergent fates of countries and continents I suggest you read this book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

I'm going to assume that we all understand that the fate of the indigenous peoples was a crime against mankind, especially in Australia but that doesn't alter the fact that those nominally "white" outposts of The Empire have fared better than the majority of "brown" or "black" nations since independence.

 

As I've never really looked into this I'm intrigued as to why?

 

Could be as simple as tribes & lines on a map and if it is wouldn't the answer be to simply redraw the maps to reflect this?

[Dicko]

Some very interesting viewpoints on here

 

My missus has just been reading it

She concluded she could never find spineless men like Robsk and ESB attractive

 

That was good enough for me

[bridge too far]

Some very interesting viewpoints on here

 

My missus has just been reading it

She concluded she could never find spineless men like Robsk and ESB attractive

 

That was good enough for me

 

Whereas I could never, ever consider Robsk and ESB to be spineless - far from it. They're kind, intelligent men and there are many women (me included) who find men like that far more attractive than bullet-headed xenophobics who have no tolerance for people of different races.

[Weston Super Saint]

Whereas I could never, ever consider Robsk and ESB to be spineless - far from it. They're kind, intelligent men and there are many women (me included) who find men like that far more attractive than bullet-headed xenophobics who have no tolerance for people of different races.

 

To be fair, you can't be sure they're kind.

 

They might go home and drown kittens in black bin liners or something :shock:

[Junction 9]

What we need Is a great big melting pot

Big enough to take the world

And all it's got

Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more

Turning out coffee colored people by the score

[Dicko]

Whereas I could never, ever consider Robsk and ESB to be spineless - far from it. They're kind, intelligent men and there are many women (me included) who find men like that far more attractive than bullet-headed xenophobics who have no tolerance for people of different races.

 

Another interesting viewpoint -You obviously dislike most Asians then

 

Perhaps you should join the BNP

[bridge too far]

Another interesting viewpoint -You obviously dislike most Asians then

 

Perhaps you should join the BNP

 

I suggest you re-read my post and reconsider your reply. The bullet-headed (i.e. not very intelligent) xenophobics (look it up in the dictionary) are the ones who have no tolerance of other races. Not people like Robsk and ESB.

 

I don't find bullet-headed xenophobic racists attractive at all. As an aside, I have just spent an enjoyable afternoon working with a kind, courteous (oh and Asian) man who makes my job so much more pleasant.