 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / July 2005Very sorry to hear it
Just wanted to say how sorry we all are here that your country has again been the target of these scum. Steve > Just wanted to say how sorry we all are here that your country has again > been the target of these scum. That sentiment is heartily echoed by this US citizen. Seems to me that in both your country and mine, as well as anywhere else we can, we need to go after those fanatic clerics who preach this sort of violence.  SignatureBNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:42:37 -0700, message <MPG.1d36fb56a5ac89769897c9@news.sunsite.dk> was posted by lgb <lblanch@fastmail.fm>, including some, all or none of the following: >Seems to me that >in both your country and mine, as well as anywhere else we can, we need >to go after those fanatic clerics who preach this sort of violence. And how about the fanatic clerics who are responsible for preaching in favour of the invasion of Iraq, which has evidently stirred up the hornets' nest? Oh, wait, those are *our* fanatics. As you were, then. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:42:37 -0700, message > <MPG.1d36fb56a5ac89769897c9@news.sunsite.dk> was posted by lgb [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > favour of the invasion of Iraq, which has evidently stirred up the > hornets' nest? An Army colleague tells me things are gradually getting back to normal in Iraq. He's currently serving as a tail-gunner on a milk float. (kim) At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:41 +0100, message <dajpq2$ip2$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >An Army colleague tells me things are gradually getting back to normal in >Iraq. He's currently serving as a tail-gunner on a milk float. "Umm Qasr is a town similar to Southampton", UK Defence Minister Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons yesterday. "He's either never been to Southampton, or he's never been to Umm Qasr", said one British soldier, informed of this while on patrol in Umm Qasr. Another added: "There's no beer, no prostitutes, and people are shooting at us. It's more like Portsmouth." Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken >At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:41 +0100, message ><dajpq2$ip2$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"There's no beer, no prostitutes, and people are shooting at us. It's >more like Portsmouth." ROTFL From someone who used to live in Fareham that's extremely funny :-) Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. SignatureMike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England > Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if > we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. Well said! John. >> Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if >> we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. > > Well said! > > John. Don't give a rats if anyone likes Blair or not. But his response to these people should have been to stand in front of films of the blitz. That certainly didnt break the British, so unlikely these retards will. New York, Madrid, Bali, now London... I wonder. If it is ever established that another country is behind this, maybe the radioactive glassy slag option is called for. Steve > Don't give a rats if anyone likes Blair or not. But his response to these > people should have been to stand in front of films of the blitz. That > certainly didnt break the British, so unlikely these retards will. And he'd have been criticised by the media (and probably the Tories) for doing that. I think Blair handled himself and this issue extremely well. John. > Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if > we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. Well I'm "bloody angry" with Blair and his cronies for getting us into this. And when that police chap on telly was talking about terrorising innocent men women and children, was he referring to the RAF pilots in Iraq? Ken. >> "Umm Qasr is a town similar to Southampton", UK Defence Minister Geoff >> Hoon told the House of Commons yesterday. "He's either never been to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > From someone who used to live in Fareham that's extremely funny :-) As someone living in Fareham, born in Southampton and married to a girl from Portsmouth...Its spot on! One of my Scout leaders just texted me, she just managed to get on a train home... > >At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:41 +0100, message > ><dajpq2$ip2$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if > we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. You think "terrorists" who travel from the ME to London to blow up tube trains aren't angry? You need to put a bit more thought into the situation. .... > > Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if > > we're bloody angry underneath. That's what terrorists don't understand. > > You think "terrorists" who travel from the ME to London to blow up tube trains > aren't angry? You need to put a bit more thought into the situation. We've heard what terrorists don't understand well ... ... in all probability (baring in mind that at the moment it is only speculation that the murderers were indeed muslim terrorists) they were born here, raised here, educated here whilst their leaders sat protected by British laws that have made it unlawful to criticise people who espouse murder on racial or religious grounds. ... and that's what most Brits have difficulty understanding. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > .... > > > Isn't that just like the Brits, laugh in the face of adversity - even if [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > ... and that's what most Brits have difficulty understanding. I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military forces in the ME who are occupying and repressing the local population and who were, not so very long ago bombarding cities. BTW, it's quite likely that my sister, and separately my parents, are in London at this very moment. My sympathies are with all individuals caught up in these terrible actions, but certainly not with Britain as a whole. Regards, Greg.P. > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military forces in > the ME who are occupying and repressing the local population and who were, not > so very long ago bombarding cities. Some of the local population would probably prefer to be repressed by the previous administration (because they were part of it) but quite a few probably prefer the new lot. SignatureBruce Fletcher Stronsay, Orkney <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont> > > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military forces in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the previous administration (because they were part of it) but quite a > few probably prefer the new lot. Gee, what a choice; the devil or the deep blue sea/out of the frying pan into the fire etc. Has anyone actually asked them who they want blowing them up/shooting them today? > -- > Bruce Fletcher > Stronsay, Orkney > <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont> ... > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military forces in > the ME who are occupying and repressing the local population and who were, not > so very long ago bombarding cities. You appear to be under the misapprehension that they are in some way linked ... before jumping down my thought it may be worth remembering that in Iraq a progressive (for the region) secular leader was overthrown with the result that the religious fanatics are now in a position to take control. You may also care to remember that the attacks on the west began in quantity a considerable time before Iraq and it is also worth remembering that Saddam was an implacable enemy of the current Saudi backed terrorism. Not that any of this justifies the invasion of Iraq, they are though two entirely different subjects. The only reason that the UK has so far avoided 911/Bali/Somali style attacks is that the UK was and remains a safe haven for muslim terrorists, yet another law has only just been passed making muslims a protected group. The fact that the UK is now under attack simply illustrates that 30 years of appeasment hasn't worked and the muslims now feel strong enough to attack with impunity. Still that's all by the by ... shouldn't be posted here, I shall return to my usual haunts on the political newsgroups. > BTW, it's quite likely that my sister, and separately my parents, are in London > at this very moment. As it happens I'm inn a position to assist if you remain concerned about them overnight drop me a mail before you go to bed and I'll check with the CB for you. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You appear to be under the misapprehension that they are in some way linked Sure, it's an assumption, but, just how long is your list of people who want to blow you up? > ... before jumping down my thought it may be worth remembering that in Iraq > a progressive (for the region) secular leader was overthrown with the result > that the religious fanatics are now in a position to take control. Sure, but that was an obvious posibility at the start of your illegal invasion. > You may > also care to remember that the attacks on the west began in quantity a > considerable time before Iraq Do please check out when Britain first became embroiled in the ME (some time in the 1800s, from memory) - did the attacks on Britain predate that? > and it is also worth remembering that Saddam > was an implacable enemy of the current Saudi backed terrorism. Is that a pro or a con? > Not that any of this justifies the invasion of Iraq, they are though two > entirely different subjects. > > The only reason that the UK has so far avoided 911/Bali/Somali style attacks In my opinion that ended circa 24 hours ago. > is that the UK was and remains a safe haven for muslim terrorists, yet > another law has only just been passed making muslims a protected group. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > them overnight drop me a mail before you go to bed and I'll check with the > CB for you. Sister: Karin Challender. Due back in NZ 12/7, enroute from Greece, but I don't have an itinerary. I assume she will spend some days in London. Parents: Leslie Coor and (Gloria) June Procter.(aged 87 and 85) Due back in NZ 19/7, enroute from Greece, but I don't have an itinerary. I assume they will spend some days/weeks in London, Bradford etc. Date in Britain dependent on Greek weather. Many thanks, Greg.P. ... > Sure, but that was an obvious posibility at the start of your illegal invasion. ... Not mine, if you're *that* interested do a search on the various uk political groups esp uk.politics.misc (up until about 18 months ago) for "dormouse" and the legal groups esp uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated again for "dormouse" and later "Periander" > > As it happens I'm inn a position to assist if you remain concerned about > > them overnight drop me a mail before you go to bed and I'll check with the > > CB for you. > > Sister: ... No Probs, will be done about 10am GMT, does your email work? Same for any more of the *regulars* I'm more than happy to check the CB lists if you're worried, mail me, (and ail me again b4 9am if your worries are resolved in the meantime). SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > > Sure, but that was an obvious posibility at the start of your illegal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No Probs, will be done about 10am GMT, does your email work? Thanks very much, and yes, it works! > Same for any more of the *regulars* I'm more than happy to check the CB > lists if you're worried, mail me, (and ail me again b4 9am if your worries [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED ... > > No Probs, will be done about 10am GMT, does your email work? > > Thanks very much, and yes, it works! I'm hoping that about 12 hours ago you got an email from me. (If so I'd rather the *origin* wasn't shared with folks - cheers) SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > > > No Probs, will be done about 10am GMT, does your email work? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm hoping that about 12 hours ago you got an email from me. (If so I'd > rather the *origin* wasn't shared with folks - cheers) I just now got back to the computer and there it was! Some mental gymnastics with GMT and daylight saving and I figured you wouldn't be at your desk for a few hours! Thanks. > -- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > > ... > > > > No Probs, will be done about 10am GMT, does your email work? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks. Your welcome, hope it set your mind at ease. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military forces in > the ME who are occupying and repressing the local population and who were, not > so very long ago bombarding cities. Have you ever thought that we voted in a government (not a leader) because we believe that government will offer the best opportunity for social justice, good quality education and health care than the alternatives. The war in Iraq was only one issue. John. > > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > justice, good quality education and health care than the alternatives. The > war in Iraq was only one issue. It's an issue that has come back and bitten you, but sure, I understand what passes for "democracy" these days. Here in NZ I can still go and thump my MP's desk on Saturday mornings. :-) Regards, Greg.P. > It's an issue that has come back and bitten you, but sure, I understand what > passes for "democracy" these days. > Here in NZ I can still go and thump my MP's desk on Saturday mornings. :-) We've been bitten by terrorism for donkeys years (don't forget the IRA for starters) and it's very easy to sit and be critical from the other side of the world where politicians have little more to worry about other than outcome of this year's sheep shearing contests. ;-) Incidentally we can still get to meet our MPs (and bang on their desks not that such behaviour would be much use) - most hold regular surgeries in their constituencies. John. >> It's an issue that has come back and bitten you, but sure, I understand > what [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Cheers > 44211 > > It's an issue that has come back and bitten you, but sure, I understand > what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the world where politicians have little more to worry about other than > outcome of this year's sheep shearing contests. ;-) That's hardly fair - we may be on the other side of the world, but we survive mostly by exporting. That is something of a tightrope walking exercise, especially when countries like Britain and the US are busy stirring up terrorism around the world and then moralizing that we should be helping. > Incidentally we can still get to meet our MPs (and bang on their desks not > that such behaviour would be much use) - most hold regular surgeries in > their constituencies. > > John. >> I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to >> understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The > war in Iraq was only one issue. 'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the subject of Britain's membership of the EU but we didn't get one! (kim) >'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the subject >of Britain's membership of the EU but we didn't get one! > >(kim) That's because at the moment holding a referendum would be a complete waste of time, and therefore money. You can't be a very good businessman if you are so keen to waste money. SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html >>'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the >>subject [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's because at the moment holding a referendum would be a complete > waste of time, and therefore money. It would give the people of Britain an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject which they did not get in the general election. The only reason it is not now being held is because the pro-EU side know for absolute certain they are going to lose. You could just as equally argue that the general election was a complete waste of money. (kim) >>>'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the >>>subject [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >certain they are going to lose. You could just as equally argue that the >general election was a complete waste of money. I could, but I won't. By law we must have a general election in this country every five years or sooner, so that money would have had to be spent whether you like it or not. Actually, I thought the only referenda that were proposed were for membership of the Euro (notice, not the EU) and there's no point in doing that as Gordon Brown's (in)famous conditions still are not met, and for the European Constitution, and there's no point in that until they sort out the current mess with France and the Netherlands voting "No". >(kim) SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > 'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the subject > of Britain's membership of the EU but we didn't get one! I thought the promised referendum was on whether or not the proposed constitution for the EEC would be accepted. It didn't have anything to do with membership of the EEC as far as I'm aware. John. >> 'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the > subject [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > constitution for the EEC would be accepted. It didn't have anything to do > with membership of the EEC as far as I'm aware. It amounts to one and the same thing. If the new constitution is not approved by every single member state then the EU treaty is dead and buried. "In or out? That's the real question". [Tony Blair] kim > It amounts to one and the same thing. If the new constitution is not > approved by every single member state then the EU treaty is dead and buried. Well we've managed without a constitution since joining over 30 years ago so I don't expect it will make an ha'p'orth of difference. John. > >> I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > >> understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 'We' also voted for a government which promised a referendum on the subject > of Britain's membership of the EU but we didn't get one! Sounds like it's time you started a new party! > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military > forces in > the ME who are occupying and repressing the local population and who were, > not > so very long ago bombarding cities. With the greatest respect, the general election was not fought on the issue of the presence of British forces in the Middle East. If there had ben a separate referendum on the subject I have no doubt there would have been a huge majority in favour of a withdrawal of British forces from the area but that is not how British general elections are conducted. (kim) > > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem to > > understand well enough to vote back in a leader who has your military [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > (kim) When you stuff your ballot paper in the slot (or however you do it there) you are effectively accepting the outcome of the process. You've handed your say to your representative and thence to your government. Every bullet fired by a Brit soldier is done in your name, every car or house searched is done in your name. It's tough, but that's reality. It's also the same for me in NZ. Regards, Greg.P. >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem >> > to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > soldier is done in your name, every car or house searched is done in your > name. That's fine by me. I would rather they weren't there in the first place but while they are there they have my full support. As a result of Thursday's events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was before. It's what we call an 'own goal' by the enemy. (kim) > >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) seem > >> > to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That's fine by me. I would rather they weren't there in the first place but > while they are there they have my full support. Are you supporting them as individuals, or as a UK government force assisting the US to steal Iraq's oil? > As a result of Thursday's > events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was before. > It's what we call an 'own goal' by the enemy. Sure, we went through this sort of thing decades ago with Vietnam - the "home goals" are good for polarizing people's thoughts on why you're there. > (kim) >> >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) >> >> > seem [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > assisting > the US to steal Iraq's oil? I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay I support them too. I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless of whether I thought they were right or wrong. >> As a result of Thursday's >> events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "home > goals" are good for polarizing people's thoughts on why you're there. Many of those who would have preferred a withdrawal of British Forces will now be against as a result of yesterday's incident. That is not a 'polarizing' of people's attitudes, it is a root change. (kim) > I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay I > support them too. I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless of > whether I thought they were right or wrong. Agreed on both scores, Britain owes the ANZAC nations and many other countries from the former colonies a real debt of gratitude for their support in previous conflicts. John. > > I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay I > > support them too. I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > countries from the former colonies a real debt of gratitude for their > support in previous conflicts. I think the assumption was that you would reciprocate when the boogyman invaded Canada/Australia/New Zealand. The change that has come over NZers is that we no longer see your and the US's invasions of other nations as something we should support without good reason. Regards, Greg.P. >> > I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay >> > I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think the assumption was that you would reciprocate when the boogyman > invaded Canada/Australia/New Zealand. No. We are aware that New Zealand troops have intervened in the affairs of many islands in south-east asia (Papua New Gunea, Solomon Islands, countless small dependencies). We do not know if the intervention is justified or not but we still support the New Zealand government's policy. We know that New Zealander's are civilized people and assume that what they are doing is correct. (kim) > >> > I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay > >> > I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Zealander's are civilized people and assume that what they are doing is > correct. All our interventions, other than those assisting the UK, US or Australia, have either been at the request of democratic governments or under the UN. Regards, Greg.P. > All our interventions, other than those assisting the UK, US or Australia, > have > either been at the request of democratic governments or under the UN. No explanation is needed. If New Zealand troops are involved they are there for a good reason. (kim) > > All our interventions, other than those assisting the UK, US or Australia, > > have > > either been at the request of democratic governments or under the UN. > > No explanation is needed. If New Zealand troops are involved they are there > for a good reason. Yeah, we're perfect! (I wish) Regards, Greg.P. > >> >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) > >> >> > seem [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I would rather US Forces weren't there either but as long as they stay I > support them too. That's the bit I don't understand - why would anyone support warmongers if they're not making a buck from it? > I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless of > whether I thought they were right or wrong. New Zealanders did that from the Boer war through to Vietnam - it didn't do us much good. > >> As a result of Thursday's > >> events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > now be against as a result of yesterday's incident. That is not a > 'polarizing' of people's attitudes, it is a root change. So one small retaliation will justify your repression of the ME? > (kim) >> >> >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) >> >> >> > seem [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > That's the bit I don't understand - why would anyone support warmongers if > they're not making a buck from it? Every western nation has benefitted from the military alliance with the USA. >> I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless of >> whether I thought they were right or wrong. > > New Zealanders did that from the Boer war through to Vietnam - it didn't > do us > much good. On the contrary, New Zealand has earned the respect and admiration of freedom-loving nations throughout the world. >> >> As a result of Thursday's >> >> events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So one small retaliation will justify your repression of the ME? Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. (kim) > >> >> >> > I can understand the difficulty in understanding, but you (Brits) > >> >> >> > seem [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Every western nation has benefitted from the military alliance with the USA. You mean you've kept the price of crude oil down? > >> I would also sipport New Zealand in any war regardless of > >> whether I thought they were right or wrong. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > On the contrary, New Zealand has earned the respect and admiration of > freedom-loving nations throughout the world. It's hard work banking respect! ;-) > >> >> As a result of Thursday's > >> >> events there is now far less chance of a withdrawal than there was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. It's an ever intensifying circle which earns you hatred rather than respect. > (kim) >> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. > > It's an ever intensifying circle which earns you hatred rather than > respect. So Holland is respected for surrendering to Hitler without a fight while Britain is hated for refusing to surrender? (kim) >>> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >(kim) Hardly comparable. The Nazis were a recognisable enemy, who wore uniforms, could be identified as a people, and once we went out and defeated them, that was it. You can't say that for terrorists, they look like normal people, like you and me, who don't stand out from the crowd, and are a "group" who will go on and on. It's a 'war' that I doubt we'll ever see the end of, at least no in my lifetime. SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > Hardly comparable. The Nazis were a recognisable enemy, who wore > uniforms, could be identified as a people, and once we went out and > defeated them, that was it. So we're supposed to give in to terrorism because the protaganists do not wear uniforms? > You can't say that for terrorists, they look like normal people, like > you and me, who don't stand out from the crowd, and are a "group" who > will go on and on. It's a 'war' that I doubt we'll ever see the end of, > at least no in my lifetime. And you point is? John. >> Hardly comparable. The Nazis were a recognisable enemy, who wore >> uniforms, could be identified as a people, and once we went out and >> defeated them, that was it. > >So we're supposed to give in to terrorism because the protaganists do not >wear uniforms? No, I was making the point that there is no comparison with Big Mistake 2, in that was pretty much a conventional war (alright, I know it was unique, but I'm being pragmatic), compared to the one we're fighting now, where there is no clear cut target and no clear cut enemy. We don't know who they are or where they'll strike. We can't give in, there's too much at stake, but as to what we do to solve our current predicament, well, nobody has really come up with a good solution yet. > > You can't say that for terrorists, they look like normal people, like >> you and me, who don't stand out from the crowd, and are a "group" who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >John. As above. If only we still had Mad Mitch and his A&S Wanderers around. All the protection you'd ever need............ SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > >> Hardly comparable. The Nazis were a recognisable enemy, who wore > >> uniforms, could be identified as a people, and once we went out and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > much at stake, but as to what we do to solve our current predicament, > well, nobody has really come up with a good solution yet. There was an excellent solution to your predicament in 2002, which was mentioned by a good number of nations and individuals: "Don't do it because there's no way back once you open the can of worms". In fact, there is a way out; give the Kurds their homeland and divide the remaining part of Iraq into Sunni and Shi'ite nations. That way, within a few generations your forces will be able to go home knowing they did the right thing! > > > You can't say that for terrorists, they look like normal people, like > >> you and me, who don't stand out from the crowd, and are a "group" who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. > "Mind you, my first name is Bad." ... > In fact, there is a way out; give the Kurds their homeland and divide the > remaining part of Iraq into Sunni and Shi'ite nations. ... And the Persians and the Christians and the Marsh Arabs and the Jews and yes all the other dozen or so notable ethnic/religious groupings? I think perhaps before we start down that route we ought to perhaps test the theory, perhaps on a smaller nation where the consequences won't be so dire if we get it wrong. There a place in teh South Pacific I know, a couple of major island and a shed load of minor ones. About a centaury or so ago invaders from far of lands attempted to wipe out the indigenous population but they didn't quite succeed. The indigenous peoples are still regarded as second class citizens in their own homelands though (even if the law says differently). Perhaps we could try our experiment there. Firstly we could give each tribal grouping its own land back setting them up as wholly independent entities although of course they may wish to form a federation of some sort because of course we'd had to set aside some land for the descendants of the invaders to live in and some sort of federated approach to the reservations would make some sort of sense. The moral of the story is folks who live in glass houses shouldn't through bricks. ;-) SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And the Persians and the Christians and the Marsh Arabs and the Jews and yes > all the other dozen or so notable ethnic/religious groupings? Ok, but I guess that would make the atlas cartographers jobs rather busy - better to maintain the status quo and the repression of Iraq. > I think perhaps before we start down that route we ought to perhaps test the > theory, perhaps on a smaller nation where the consequences won't be so dire [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > second class citizens in their own homelands though (even if the law says > differently). You're confusing us with Australia. > Perhaps we could try our experiment there. Firstly we could give each tribal > grouping its own land back That's being done. > setting them up as wholly independent entities > although of course they may wish to form a federation of some sort because > of course we'd had to set aside some land for the descendants of the > invaders to live in and some sort of federated approach to the reservations > would make some sort of sense. I think you've been reading too much "Biggles". The point of the "Treaty of Waitangi" was that it gave Maori exactly the same rights as all British Subjects. Sure, there were a few disagreements over things like putting railway lines through sacred sites and the gifting of land for schools etc etc and currently some debate as to whether racial differences such as Maori being more liable to contract diabetes should result in extra health funding or not. (extra funding for need being seen as racism by some) > The moral of the story is folks who live in glass houses shouldn't through > bricks. ;-) I'm actually commenting on your brick throwing and your reaction to getting one thrown back. Regards, Greg.P. > You're confusing us with Australia. Isn't NZ an Australian protectorate? ;-) < VBG > John. > > You're confusing us with Australia. > > Isn't NZ an Australian protectorate? ;-) > > < VBG > It was until 1840 - we've moved on a little since then. Just how old are your history text books? ;-) Regards, Greg.P. > It was until 1840 - we've moved on a little since then. > Just how old are your history text books? ;-) Now I guess it just relies on Australia for its defence? ;-) John. > > It was until 1840 - we've moved on a little since then. > > Just how old are your history text books? ;-) > > Now I guess it just relies on Australia for its defence? ;-) We still defend Australia, the US and Britain, as well as having forces in 13 different peace-keeping roles under UN auspices. This stupid story about NZ not having any military comes about because we didn't buy a squadron of F15s that the US had mothballed after they got titchy with Pakistan. Just think about an Island nation surrounded by thousands of kilometers of sea in every direction having almost it's entire defense budget tied up in single engined supersonic fighter aircraft! They would be insufficient in numbers to defend our country and the only practical opposition would be an aircraft carrier, at which point they would be totally outnumbered. We're better off with three frigates, patrol aircraft and a usefully sized army. Regards, Greg.P. >> > You're confusing us with Australia. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It was until 1840 - we've moved on a little since then. > Just how old are your history text books? ;-) Tell me, when did New Zealand grant there imperial dependancy Western Samoa independance? Signatureestarriol > >> > You're confusing us with Australia. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Tell me, when did New Zealand grant there imperial dependancy Western Samoa > independance? Decades ago. > -- > estarriol >> >> > You're confusing us with Australia. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> -- >> estarriol > Decades ago. So how come natives from Western Samoa play rugby (league and union) for New Zealand? John. >>Decades ago. > > So how come natives from Western Samoa play rugby (league and union) for New > Zealand? The same reason that natives from Zimbabwe/Australia/etc play cricket for England. :-) R. > The same reason that natives from Zimbabwe/Australia/etc play cricket for > England. :-) If you mean the likes of Craig White he was borne in Scarborough, and Pieterson has an English mother. Graham Hick qualified after living and playing here for around 5 years. Can you think of any others? John. >>The same reason that natives from Zimbabwe/Australia/etc play cricket for >>England. :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you think of any others? Jason Gallian. Wasn't Geraint Jones born/raised somewhere downunda? R. >> The same reason that natives from Zimbabwe/Australia/etc play cricket for >> England. :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Can you think of any others? Allan Lamb? SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > Allan Lamb? Yis, a Sarf Afrikan who plied for Inglend when the RSA was excluded from world cricket. I think he qualified through length of UK residency. John. >>>Decades ago. >> So how come natives from Western Samoa play rugby (league and >>union) for New Zealand? > >The same reason that natives from Zimbabwe/Australia/etc play cricket >for England. :-) Surely players from French dependent territories play for France the same way? >R. SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > Surely players from French dependent territories play for France the same > way? I think France still has dependent territories, but not so sure that NZ has. John. > > Surely players from French dependent territories play for France the same > > way? > > I think France still has dependent territories, but not so sure that NZ has. We still have several - we keep kicking but they won't let go! >Surely players from French dependent territories play for France the >same way? I know nothing at all about sporting rules, but I think France treats its overseas territories as a _part of_ France, rather than using the arm's length approach Britain takes. The various French territories use Euros, send politicans to Paris, etc. There are no Falkland Islands or Bermudan MPs in Westminster, for example, but Reunion is represented in Paris. The Maps on Euro banknotes show French Guiana. Politically Reunion et al are more like (say) the Shetlands than like Pitcairn. BICBW! SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > > Decades ago. > > So how come natives from Western Samoa play rugby (league and union) for New > Zealand? It's somewhat like the UK's situation with people from your former colonies - every person from any of our ex-protectorates has the right to come to NZ and become an NZ citizen. Auckland is by far the largest Polynesian city. Regards, Greg.P. I was under the impression that in international sports, you can play for any country you like but once you play for that country then you can play for no other. You're locked in. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >I was under the impression that in international sports, you can play for > any country you like but once you play for that country then you can play > for no other. You're locked in. Not so. I think the classic proving example would be Keppler Wessels who played cricket for Australia and ended up captaining the South African team. John. ... > > I think perhaps before we start down that route we ought to perhaps test the > > theory, perhaps on a smaller nation where the consequences won't be so dire [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You're confusing us with Australia. I'm not good buddy, I'm thinking of the various Maori Wars ... quick reminder, they commenced 5 years *after* the treaty of Waitangi you later mentioned. ;-) SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > reminder, they commenced 5 years *after* the treaty of Waitangi you later > mentioned. ;-) Do you know why they were called the "Maori Wars"? They were mostly between Maori tribes. There was never any attempt to wipe out the indigenous peoples, although there was a period (1870s-1900) when it was expected that they would disappear through introduced diseases. > And the Persians and the Christians and the Marsh Arabs and the Jews and yes > all the other dozen or so notable ethnic/religious groupings? Why not? Countries are fairly arbitary things, and I don't recall Iraq being a particularly long-standing entity. Much of Africa, for example, would be far more sensibly divided along tribal lines, rather than the current national divisions which were made primarily to split up the continent between the colonial powers. And, shooting off at a tangent, wasn't Kuwait once part of was is now Iraq? John. > > And the Persians and the Christians and the Marsh Arabs and the Jews and > yes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And, shooting off at a tangent, wasn't Kuwait once part of was is now Iraq? Never has been, since they discovered the oil! Greg.P. >And, shooting off at a tangent, wasn't Kuwait once part of was is now Iraq? Well, there was a brief period in the 1990s... When I read u on it a while ago I didn't find much evidence of it being an integrated part of something equivalent to modern Iraq. It seems to depend on what the definition of "part of" is, and hoping to find a modern, well-defined western European style nation state in middle eastern history is probably futile. There is a discussion here: http://www.kuwait-info.org/Gulf_War/history_kuwait_iraq_border_dispute.html though it may not be free from bias :-) No trains in Kuwait (probably?) SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will go on and on. It's a 'war' that I doubt we'll ever see the end of, > at least no in my lifetime. Partisan resistance against powerful invaders has occurred regularly since the earliest written history. If they end up on the winning side (eg the French resistance) then they are remembered as brave, resourceful .... If they end up on the losing side then they are reviled. Regards, Greg.P. > >> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So Holland is respected for surrendering to Hitler without a fight while > Britain is hated for refusing to surrender? Hitler started his war. Britain started your war. The Netherlands was in the way of vast unstoppable forces. Regards, Greg.P. >> >> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Britain started your war. > The Netherlands was in the way of vast unstoppable forces. The Dutch government surrendered when Hitler merely *threatened* to bomb Rotterdam. The same threat was made against London but the British government refused to surrender. That's the difference between the Dutch and the British. Islamic extremists bombed Madrid and the Spanish government surrendered. The same extremists bombed London but the British government will not surrender. That is the difference between the Spanish and the British. (kim) > >> >> Britain cannot be seen to surrender to an act of terrorism.. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The Dutch government surrendered when Hitler merely *threatened* to bomb > Rotterdam. Fair enough - who actually likes being bombed? > The same threat was made against London but the British > government refused to surrender. That's the difference between the Dutch and > the British. No, the Channel is/was the difference. > Islamic extremists bombed Madrid and the Spanish government surrendered. The > same extremists bombed London but the British government will not surrender. > That is the difference between the Spanish and the British. The difference is your Prime Minister has his nose up GWBushes arse and the loss of face and oil would be more important that the loss of 50/500/... British subjects. Regards, Greg.P. >The Dutch government surrendered when Hitler merely *threatened* to bomb >Rotterdam. It must have been one heck of a strong wind wot did this then: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/51422.htm SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>The Dutch government surrendered when Hitler merely *threatened* to bomb >>Rotterdam. > > It must have been one heck of a strong wind wot did this then: > http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/51422.htm It's long time since I last read the details but the general principal is still the same. *After* Rotterdam was bombed on May14th, 1940, it was the *threat* to do the same to other Dutch cities which lead General Winkelman to order the Dutch army to stop fighting. http://www.godutch.com/windmill/newsitem.asp?id=295 The casualties from that particular raid were no greater than in Coventry on the night of November 14th. The difference was that Winston Churchill didn't surrender. (kim) "Arthur Figgis >>The Dutch government surrendered when Hitler merely *threatened* to bomb >>Rotterdam. > > It must have been one heck of a strong wind wot did this then: > http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/51422.htm But to be fair, the Luftwaffe did try to call off the attack. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ Greg, I heard that what provoked the US to invade Iraq was that Saddam threatened to sell Iraqi oil on the world market in Euros and not US dollars. Had he done this, it would have had a very serious negative impact on the US economy. 'The War on Terror' was used as the 'official' excuse to invade Iraq, but it was not the real reason. Graham Plowman, Australia > Greg, > > I heard that what provoked the US to invade Iraq was that Saddam > threatened to sell Iraqi oil on the world market in Euros and not US > dollars. Had he done this, it would have had a very serious negative > impact on the US economy. A crime like that should not go unpunished!!! > 'The War on Terror' was used as the 'official' excuse to invade Iraq, > but it was not the real reason. > > Graham Plowman, Australia >At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:41 +0100, message ><dajpq2$ip2$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Guy HAHA. LOL. Now that's a classic! SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." The message <dajpq2$ip2$1@domitilla.aioe.org> from "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> contains these words: > He's currently serving as a tail-gunner on a milk float. Did his basic training in Liverpool? SignatureDave, Frodsham > At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:42:37 -0700, message > <MPG.1d36fb56a5ac89769897c9@news.sunsite.dk> was posted by lgb [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > favour of the invasion of Iraq, which has evidently stirred up the > hornets' nest? I don't know why you got the idea I was in favor of the Iraq war, but you're wrong. I think it was one of the stupider things both our governments did. OTOH, I am/was heartily in favor of going after OBL and the Taliban, I just think the way we went about it was ineffective. As witness the fact that we are still there and OBL is still loose. SignatureBNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me point out that your two countries are occupying the homeland of those "scum". You've been a party to the bombing/bombardment of their homes, businesses, schools, hospitals etc etc and you're now into your third year of maintaining martial law under foreign occupation. OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this horrible warfare in London and the ME. Regards, Greg.P. > > Just wanted to say how sorry we all are here that your country has again > > been the target of these scum. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever "Greg Procter" <Procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this horrible warfare in London and the ME. Regards, Greg.P. As a Nottinghamshire resident for 28+ years.... Who or what is the ME ? This is a term I have not come across before but seem to be the only one (or first) that does not know what it means? Is it a shortening of the Metropolitan or summat? Andy > "Greg Procter" <Procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote > OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andy I think he means the Middle East. ROB "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > "Greg Procter" <Procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote > OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this horrible [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > first) that does not know what it means? Is it a shortening of the > Metropolitan or summat? ME = Middle East (from here in NZ it should be the Middle West, but never mind) > OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this horrible > warfare in London and the ME. ME = Middle East (from here in NZ it should be the Middle West, but never mind) Thanks Greg... It was with it being in the same term that I thought it may have been a wider reference to London's communing area - never thought of the Middle East ! (Doh!) I understand your other comments. Geoff Hoon (defence secretary at the time of the invasion) is my local MP - but not through my choice anymore ! (G.Hoon - Goon !) Andy "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > > OTOH, my condolences to those innocent people caught up in this horrible > > warfare in London and the ME. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have been a wider reference to London's communing area - never thought of > the Middle East ! (Doh!) We're all allowed a "Dohh!" a week without penalty ;-) (aside from on roadways, railway lines and while using machinery) > I understand your other comments. Geoff Hoon (defence secretary at the time > of the invasion) is my local MP - but not through my choice anymore ! > (G.Hoon - Goon !) > > Andy Ahh well, all Iraqis are terrorists - all Brits are GWB brown nosers! (no, I don't believe that at all) Regards, Greg.P. "Greg Procter" <Procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote Ahh well, all Iraqis are terrorists - all Brits are GWB brown nosers! (no, I don't believe that at all) Regards, Greg.P. Should I resemble that remark ? Oh the wonderful language barrier ! :-) What's GWB ? (Sorry, its been a long day in a Police communications room for me - and its now getting late in the UK - well, for some anyroad up!) Andy :-) "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > "Greg Procter" <Procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote > Ahh well, all Iraqis are terrorists - all Brits are GWB brown nosers! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What's GWB ? (Sorry, its been a long day in a Police communications room for > me - and its now getting late in the UK - well, for some anyroad up!) George W. Bush - the bloke in the brown suit and pale blue tie standing next to Blair. At least you Brits have a bit more colour sense!!!! ;-) "... anyroad up"? (that language barrier again!) Regards, Greg.P. "... anyroad up"? (that language barrier again!) Greg.P. Well, we all say "Ay up me duck" (how are you?) around here, so many people think - Anyroad up is a local slang(possibly originating from the coal miners talk etc) for "anyway". How about, "Ay up yoth, a wod in yer ear" ? As for colours, well, Gods wonderful railway gave us Brunswick green and BR gave us large logo blue.... Yeah, maybe GWB does lack some colour sense (or should that be color?) Andy :-) "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > "... anyroad up"? (that language barrier again!) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How about, "Ay up yoth, a wod in yer ear" ? No problem with that one - I went to school with many UK escapees so I'm reasonably cognisant with a number English dialects. :-) > As for colours, well, Gods wonderful railway gave us Brunswick green and BR > gave us large logo blue.... Yeah, maybe GWB does lack some colour sense (or > should that be color?) If he lacks it then it doesn't matter how it is spelt, he doesn't have it. Greg.P. NZ. > "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Blair. > At least you Brits have a bit more colour sense!!!! ;-) He managed to cycle into a policeman, and there was that infamous pretzel incident in 2002 - you can hardly expect him to co-ordinate his suit and tie. :-)) Signature*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ *** Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk) MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com > > "Andy Sollis- Churnet Valley model Railway Dept." wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > incident in 2002 - you can hardly expect him to co-ordinate his suit and > tie. :-)) I gather that there were a lot of policemen standing around waiting to be cycled into! :-) 10,000 odd. Can't he spend a few dollars to hire a "suit and tie co-ordinator"? Some of those "Intelligence" people who work for him would probably be capable of doing that job. Regards, Greg.P. > If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me point out that > your two countries are occupying the homeland of those "scum". Which homeland is that? A good number of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. How many of the terrorists are Iraqi? MBQ > > If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me point out that > > your two countries are occupying the homeland of those "scum". > > Which homeland is that? A good number of the 9/11 terrorists were > Saudi. How many of the terrorists are Iraqi? Try learning a bit of your own history! Britain (my ancestors were British so I'm not exempt) blundered around the ME region drawing random lines on blank maps. The resulting borders run across tribal, racial and religious groupings. If you go kicking an Iraqi you may well be kicking a Saudi family or an Iranian or ... I agree we don't know where the terrorists were from, but a lot of people have been upset by our British imperialisim, not to mention present day occupation and interference. > Try learning a bit of your own history! It's taboo to talk about the British imperial past in our schools today - the pc brigade have seen to that! > Britain (my ancestors were British so I'm not exempt) blundered around the ME > region drawing random lines on blank maps. The resulting borders run across > tribal, racial and religious groupings. If you go kicking an Iraqi you may well be > kicking a Saudi family or an Iranian or ... Funny though, isn't it, how they all flood to Britain to escape when their own regimes kick off. I didn't see many asylum-seekers from the former Yugoslavia queueing up for asylum in France, and we seem to have been inundated Iraqis in recent years. John. At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:24:49 +0100, message <dao50r$r7r$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net> was posted by "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid>, including some, all or none of the following: >Funny though, isn't it, how they all flood to Britain to escape when their >own regimes kick off. I didn't see many asylum-seekers from the former >Yugoslavia queueing up for asylum in France, and we seem to have been >inundated Iraqis in recent years. Yes, for some reason Britain has an international reputation for fairness and tolerance. Clearly not many expats take the Daily Mail... Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:24:49 +0100, message > <dao50r$r7r$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net> was posted by "John [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fairness and tolerance. Clearly not many expats take the Daily > Mail... I don't know what relevance this has. Are you saying that if we were to prominently display a copy of the Daily Mail at every British airport and seaport, then arriving asylum-seekers would take one look, gulp, turn round, and go back? Well, it's a plan of sorts, I suppose, and I shall certainly propose it to the Home Office ..... Cheers, Steve At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:05:25 +0100, message <42cfcbe6$0$22096$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net> was posted by "Steve W" <deadend@webhosting.plus.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >I don't know what relevance this has. Are you saying that if we were to >prominently display a copy of the Daily Mail at every British airport and >seaport, then arriving asylum-seekers would take one look, gulp, turn round, >and go back? Better still, ensure they read several issues before embarking, then they'd realise that we are capable of being every bit as racist and intolerant as the Belgians or French. I'm still content for them to come, but at least that way they won't get quite such a rude awakening when they arrive... Mind you, these days they'll be in like a shot if they can run 100m in under 10s ;-) Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:05:25 +0100, message > <42cfcbe6$0$22096$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net> was posted by [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm still content for them to come, but at least that way they won't > get quite such a rude awakening when they arrive... Yes, I see your point. Some of these people come from places where genocide is practised as a matter of state policy, and women have their breasts hacked off with machetes so they can't feed their children, and they arrive here where we have our more-or-less open entry borders, our state welfare systems, our laws and culture that criminalise intolerance and protect minority rights, our awareness programs that try to deal with even having racist thoughts, our (generally) unarmed police, our advertising campaigns exhorting victims to report racial harassment, our suppression of right-wing political movements, our international charity industries, and so on and on... Yes, I can see how they are in for a rude awakening, and must wish they'd stayed at home.... I really don't understand why people feel it so necessary to denigrate the achievements and aspirations of this country, and what is even more annoying, to understate the huge amount of goodwill and all-round humanity that prevails here. Cheers, Steve At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:11:44 +0100, message <42cfe027$0$2902$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net> was posted by "Steve W" <deadend@webhosting.plus.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >Yes, I see your point. [snip demonstration that you didn't see my point] >Yes, I can see how they are in for a rude awakening, and must wish they'd >stayed at home.... More that, having arrived here fro (as you correctly note) often appalling regimes, expecting to find the legendary British sense of fair play, they find instead that they are vilified as spongers. >I really don't understand why people feel it so necessary to denigrate the >achievements and aspirations of this country, and what is even more >annoying, to understate the huge amount of goodwill and all-round humanity >that prevails here. Quite. And I don't understand why some people think that the British tradition is better exemplified by racism than by fair play. But perhaps they are right. What would I know? I am partly of immigrant stock; some of my ancestors were Huguenots. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken >> Try learning a bit of your own history! > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >their token force from Iraq. Talk about being bitten on one's bum! >44211 > > Try learning a bit of your own history! > > It's taboo to talk about the British imperial past in our schools today - > the pc brigade have seen to that! Hmmm, that would put you in the same category as Japan and the US - everyone but you remembers your past! Ouch! > > Britain (my ancestors were British so I'm not exempt) blundered around the > ME [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yugoslavia queueing up for asylum in France, and we seem to have been > inundated Iraqis in recent years. There's a certain logic in going where the money is, and another in going where the people who are repressing you live - they're much less likely to kick your door in at 4am if you live next door to their grannies. Regards, Greg.P. >> > If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me point out >> > that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > occupation and > interference. I completely agree. When the bus exploded, it so happens that I was in the BMA building, working on a strategy to increase doctors' earnings while reducing the amount of medical treatment actually supplied. A bucketload of blood and other tissue came flying in through my window and spattered across the screen of my computer, making my work very difficult. I ran down to the street to make a complaint, and after wading through a pile of bus debris and severed limbs, oft times nearly slipping over on a sea of entrails, I finally found some people in the bus that I could complain to. They were mostly burned to a crisp, but I think they were still barely alive, and I know they were most grateful to have me shouting at them that it was entirely selfish and inconsiderate of them to get themselve blown up right outside my office. I must admit that I did get a little frustrated by their lack of response, and one or two of them I shook by the throat, screaming that it was all their own fault anyway, and they had to pay the price for British imperialism in the 19th century. A little later, the police arrived and took me away, and I personally feel they used unecessary force when flinging me in the back of the police van. I did hear a rumour that some of the crispies I'd been shouting at were New Zealanders, but I don't think that alters the principle, does it? We must ensure that these so-called bus and tube "victims" understand that they are GUILTY of kicking Iraqis and Saudis and Iranians and have been blundering and occupying and interfering and stealing their oil and .... Anyway, I have to go now; it's time for my brain scan. It's been most pleasant having this little chat, and it will sustain me through the days ahead to know that at least one wholly perfect New Zealander is out there lecturing us Brits on our own history. Cheers, Steve > I completely agree. When the bus exploded, it so happens that I was in the > BMA building, working on a strategy to increase doctors' earnings while [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > entirely selfish and inconsiderate of them to get themselve blown up right > outside my office. I'm sorry but I think that is in *extremely* bad taste. John. John, >I'm sorry but I think that is in *extremely* bad taste. I think Steve was making a valid point, albeit in a shocking manner, which was a response to other statements in this thread. Jim. > John, > > >I'm sorry but I think that is in *extremely* bad taste. > > I think Steve was making a valid point, albeit in a shocking manner, > which was a response to other statements in this thread. Couldn't agree more ... Here's an interesting little factoid though, during the Falklands War, New Zealand bless it's little cotton socks offered to send both of it's Frigates(*) to the North Atlantic in order to cover RN NATO duties so that more RN ships could be dispatched southwards. (*) IOW it's entire fleet at the time SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED >> John, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > (*) IOW it's entire fleet at the time Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies to commit actual forces to the conflict? (kim) > >> John, > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies > to commit actual forces to the conflict? Not quite, the NZ vessels didn't sail south or take any part in the war, they simply took up station around the GIUK gap so that RN frigates could be released. The US sent satellite imagery (against the wishes of Ronald the clown), they also supplied munitions and leased supply vessels (one of which was bombed by an Argentinean C130 via the simple expedient of rolling the bomb out of the tail doors ... bounced of the forecastle and failed to explode) ... also South Africa put it's Simonstown naval base (which he RN had built years ago prior to the rise of socialism) on to a war footing, cleared the docks and repair yards of it's own vessels and made the whole lot available to the RN FOC no strings attached ... HMGs Gvt declined it's kind offer and chose to scuttle damaged warships that couldn't make the run home rather than take SA up on their offer and tow the ships there for repair. I understand (but I haven't seen confirmation of this) offered to permit Nimrods and strike aircraft to base in SA (which would have much reduced the run from Ascention Island) SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED >>> John, >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called > allies to commit actual forces to the conflict? That's not exactly true. I was in the Air Force at the time and was deployed to the Falklands during the conflict. There were two Australians who were on exchange postings with my unit who took part in hostilities. And we won't mention the US "technical advisors" who assisted with the in-combat introduction of AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles. NZ did not commit combat forces to the conflict. Instead, as you mention, they offered the use of their Navy (which was not required - STANAVFORLANT took up the slack) and a squadron of transport aircraft (which was gratefully accepted. Kiwi aircraft took over milk runs in Europe freeing up RAF aircraft to supply Ascension). There were a lot of Commonwealth countries who provided logistical support, either in theatre or in Europe. We certainly found out who our friends are. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > That's not exactly true. I was in the Air Force at the time and was > deployed to the Falklands during the conflict. There were two Australians > who were on exchange postings with my unit who took part in hostilities. Yes, I have heard that foreign-exchange officers sometimes take part in hostilities despite the official position of their government but being a strictly neutral Dutchman I wouldn't know anything about that [cough] (kim) At the time the Falklands conflict broke out the Royal Australian Navy was negotiating - very seriously - to purchase the aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE, which Mr Nott had declared "surplus to RN requirements". Once it was clear that the RN needed the ship, the Aussies terminated negotiations. > >>> John, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > At the time the Falklands conflict broke out the Royal Australian Navy was > negotiating - very seriously - to purchase the aircraft carrier HMS > INVINCIBLE, which Mr Nott had declared "surplus to RN requirements". Once > it was clear that the RN needed the ship, the Aussies terminated > negotiations. Er not quite, HMG simply made it clear that it was no longer for sale. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > > At the time the Falklands conflict broke out the Royal Australian Navy was > > negotiating - very seriously - to purchase the aircraft carrier HMS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Er not quite, HMG simply made it clear that it was no longer for sale. And we flogged Hermes to the Indians after we decided she was no longer needed. What's the point here ? Cheers, Martyn At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:04:29 +0100, message <dape50$ge4$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies >to commit actual forces to the conflict? if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for you to follow suit? Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:04:29 +0100, message > <dape50$ge4$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for > you to follow suit? If he's trying to rescue his sister from the fire, then smart doesn't enter into it. There are things that just have to be done. The fact that some people (or even most people) just don't get it doesn't change anything for those who do. Cheers, Steve At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:51:11 +0100, message <42d046d5$0$6297$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net> was posted by "Steve W" <deadend@webhosting.plus.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >>>Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies >>>to commit actual forces to the conflict? >> if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for >> you to follow suit? >If he's trying to rescue his sister from the fire, then smart doesn't enter >into it. Funny how that justification was never mentioned until after all the others had been shown to be bogus, though, isn't it? When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after Rwanda? >There are things that just have to be done. The fact that some >people (or even most people) just don't get it doesn't change anything for >those who do. Funny how these things only *have* to be done when there's an oilfield or oil pipeline route involved, though, isn't it? Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after > Rwanda? Interesting question. Should the civilised world allow attrocities to continue in these two and other similar countries? Should we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons with its track record of supporting terrorism? If so what would be the reaction if they supplied terrorists with the technology to create a dirty (nuclear) bomb which they detonated in London's Underground? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they're worth asking. John. > > When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after > > Rwanda? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they're worth > asking. My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? Regards, Greg.P. > My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys > while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? That's a very narrow response, but at what stage do you believe there should be intervention in a country where a dictatorial regime is openly killing its citizens and practising genocide? John. > > My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys > > while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? > > That's a very narrow response, but at what stage do you believe there should > be intervention in a country where a dictatorial regime is openly killing > its citizens and practising genocide? Saddam was doing all that from 1978 until 2002 with the US's (and Britain's) blessing. The point of intervention should _not_ be the moment when oil supplies on the open market fall to the level where oil prices begin to rise, nor should they be _after_ the first two million innocent civilian casualties. Regards, Greg.P. > The point of intervention should _not_ be the moment when oil supplies on the > open market fall to the level where oil prices begin to rise, nor should they be > _after_ the first two million innocent civilian casualties. Now that is something we can agree on. John. > > The point of intervention should _not_ be the moment when oil supplies on > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now that is something we can agree on. I'm sure we agree on most things. >> > When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after >> > Rwanda? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys > while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? Because it's the term which causes the least offence to the fewest people in a UK newsgroup. (kim) > >> > When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after > >> > Rwanda? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Because it's the term which causes the least offence to the fewest people in > a UK newsgroup. Fair point, but for those of us who are from outside the UK, "terrorist" is ambiguous. > My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys > while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? Whether the powerful nations should be regarded as "the good guys" is a matter of opinion and I suspect opinions change depending on the circumstances however in my book a terrorist is someone who exploits a situation such as political history of how the middle east was divided up by politian's who are long dead or why a prime minister who was elected on a home agenda of education and health care should feel fit to lead his nations armed forces into a quagmire to target INNOCENT CIVILIANS in such a way as to deliberatly maim, kill and strike fear into the mass populus. I fear no matter how history of the middle east had evolved or whether george bush and his poodle felt it necessary to target a dictator who's influence stretched little outside the borders of his own nation there would still be angry young men and women driven by rage and manipulative elders who twist religion and history to cause mayhem and destruction. The Nazi's were terrorists, they targeted civilians in their ethnic cleansing and looting of occupied countries. Allied forces, be it Western Europe in 1944 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2002 to present are not terrorists as to my limited knowledge they have not deliberately targeted civilians but their target was the regime and the armed forces of the target regime. Unfortunately civilian casualties are a by-product of war despite best intentions however I fail to remember the last time Allied Forces deliberately targeted busy commuter trains or buses in Iraq or Afgansitan with the intention of nuking some of the locals. Terrorism has never worked, the IRA got nowhere by killing civilians in Northern Ireland or mainland Britain, any concessions republicans have won have come through the careful manipulation of the media and ultimately the political process by their political representatives. As a Briton who suffered from the almost daily bomb scares and disruption caused by the IRA's 1990's bombing campaign and having been too close for comfort at the Birmingham 2001 bombing I never felt it necessary to go and blow up a packed commuter bus or train in Dublin in retaliation of the latest IRA outrage... Its all too easy to gloat "you had it coming" from the other side of the world. Four bombs or a thousand bombs in London will not make a jot of difference to UK foreign policy, the terrorists ought to have researched the Blitz to find that out. I for one will carry on using the tube and London buses, I will carry on voting for the political party who I feel best suit my needs and I will continue to support the men and women of our armed forces whether their political masters may take them. As a public transport employee we are all aware of the significant risk these bastards pose and we are all determined to do our bit to thwart more attacks on the innocent. If the oppressed have an axe to grind against the oppressor then they should take it up with those doing the oppressing, the armed forces, in crude terms the military are paid to shoot and be shot at. However for everyone person who feels oppressed by the Allies in Iraq or Afganistan there are two people who feel liberated making the terrorists justifications for attacking the civilian populus of those who they perceive to be oppressors even more obscure and irrelevant. The terrorists may also use Britain's past actions in their particular corner of the world as justification for todays attrocities, sorry it doesn't wash, I'm not denying Britain (along with just about every other Western nation) has been awful to the "little guys" in many parts of the world as part of the quest for world domination however at what point do we make amends? Should we hoist the white flag over buck palace? Should all Briton's go and repent and seek forgiveness from those who feel hard done by by history? Do people seriously think whatever the modern Britain does now will make a jot of difference to the evil bastards who use history to justify current day attrocities? The terrorists shall not prevail and there shall never be justification of targeting civilians. Justice will be dealt on those who commit such crimes however a war on terror will probably never reach a natural conclusion. > > My question is: Why are powerful nations who bombard cities the good guys > > while the disgruntled little guys who bomb cities are called "terrorists"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > still be angry young men and women driven by rage and manipulative elders > who twist religion and history to cause mayhem and destruction. We would seem to have a lot more "muslim terrorism" today than we had when Hussein ruled Iraq. > The Nazi's were terrorists, they targeted civilians in their ethnic > cleansing and looting of occupied countries. Allied forces, be it Western > Europe in 1944 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2002 to present are not terrorists > as to my limited knowledge they have not deliberately targeted civilians You deliberately bombarded Basra while knowing there were civilans present and that the destruction of homes and businesses would turn large numbers of innocent civilians into dependant refugees. > but > their target was the regime and the armed forces of the target regime. The "regime" was eliminated in the first few weeks after your invasion. Every military action since has been an indication that you got it wrong. > Unfortunately civilian casualties are a by-product of war despite best > intentions The "war" was to remove Saddam - he's been in custody for over two years now. > however I fail to remember the last time Allied Forces > deliberately targeted busy commuter trains or buses in Iraq or Afgansitan > with the intention of nuking some of the locals. > > Terrorism has never worked, "Terrorism" is the use of fear/terror tactics to manipulate political ends - it doesn't matter whether the "terrorists" wear uniforms or not, whether they create terror with knapsacks of explosives or use the latest guided missile technology to create explosions in unexpected places. > the IRA got nowhere by killing civilians in > Northern Ireland or mainland Britain, any concessions republicans have won [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Birmingham 2001 bombing I never felt it necessary to go and blow up a packed > commuter bus or train in Dublin in retaliation of the latest IRA outrage... If bombs in buses is the only retaliation you've got against foreign occupation of your homeland, wouldn't you use it, or would you just roll over and die? > Its all too easy to gloat "you had it coming" from the other side of the > world. There's no gloating. > Four bombs or a thousand bombs in London will not make a jot of > difference to UK foreign policy, the terrorists ought to have researched the > Blitz to find that out. Perhaps you should do the same sort of research before invading other countries. British braveness is legendary, but that legend is largely in Britain. I'm sure Iraqis have similar legends. > I for one will carry on using the tube and London > buses, I will carry on voting for the political party who I feel best suit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > take it up with those doing the oppressing, the armed forces, in crude terms > the military are paid to shoot and be shot at. You're doing the paying of that military, and foreign occupation forces have never been particularly noted for being great listeners. > However for everyone person > who feels oppressed by the Allies in Iraq or Afganistan there are two people > who feel liberated making the terrorists justifications for attacking the > civilian populus of those who they perceive to be oppressors even more > obscure and irrelevant. Well, that's a great statistic, but I wonder where it comes from. If you were a "terrorist" in or from Iraq, exactly how would you know that 67% of the population was happy to have their country occupied by foreign armed forces, and how would that change your opinion? It's not exactly a democratically elected foreign occupation force. > The terrorists may also use Britain's past actions in their particular > corner of the world as justification for todays attrocities, sorry it > doesn't wash, I'm not denying Britain (along with just about every other > Western nation) has been awful to the "little guys" in many parts of the > world as part of the quest for world domination I think the terrorists are more likely using your actions today as justification for their actions. > however at what point do we > make amends? Any time would be good. Realistically, you can't make amends because Britain's past accendancy was based on taking other nation's assets and resources, and you've since lost/squandered all you stole. > Should we hoist the white flag over buck palace? Should all > Briton's go and repent and seek forgiveness from those who feel hard done by > by history? That's up to you - recognition is probably all that's required. > Do people seriously think whatever the modern Britain does now > will make a jot of difference to the evil bastards who use history to > justify current day attrocities? Which "evil bastards" are using history to justify present day attrocities? You're carrying out attrocities today to steal Iraq's resources. > The terrorists shall not prevail and there shall never be justification of > targeting civilians. I agree that nothing justifies targetting civilians. > Justice will be dealt on those who commit such crimes > however a war on terror will probably never reach a natural conclusion. I don't think you should hope for or wait for "Justice" - stopping your war of terrorism now would be much better! Greg, I and other UK citizens on this UK newsgroup are getting rather annoyed at your comments made regarding who is really at fault over the London bombing, I cannot be bothered to go through every single point you made and pick holes in your argument, however let me assure you that your argument is most unwelcome and inappropriate on this group, we are after all here to discuss model railways not discuss the finer points of middle east policy and the role British history has played in upsetting various corners of this globe we all share. However, there is never and never will be any justification for targeting innocent civilians, especially at soft targets such as tube trains or packed buses. No twisting history or using current events to justify such horrific attacks. Events of 50+ years ago commited by politians or military leaders in the name of Britain were horrific, whether they were necessary at the time is a matter of conjecture however hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do I have anything to appologise for? No, in the same way I would not expect my generation of Germans to appologise for attrocities commited by their elders 50+ years ago. As for whether Iraq was the justification for the attacks? I rather suspect the attacks would have happened anyway and severely doubt they were commited by Iraqis in revenge over the so called "occupation" of their country. Most attackers is the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia - a country that has benefitted enormously from its alliance with the West - both in terms of trade and military protection from aggressive neighbours. Most "Al Qaeda" attacks are motivated by theology based on a twisted interpretation of Islam, current political events are merely used to window dress their justifications. Now I would politely suggest that the minority avoid making insensitive "I told you so" comments on a UK based newsgroup after the UK has suffered an attrocity - I suggest they continue this thread elsewhere, somewhere more suitable such as alt.politics. >Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >attrocity - I suggest they continue this thread elsewhere, somewhere more >suitable such as alt.politics. I'm a UK citizen and I don't object to Gregs comments. We are in a democracy and everyone is allowed to say what they want, unless Tony and his mafia have used last week as an excuse to repeal that. SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > Greg, > > I and other UK citizens on this UK newsgroup are getting rather annoyed at > your comments made regarding who is really at fault over the London bombing, Of course, but my comments are intended to be positive. > I cannot be bothered to go through every single point you made and pick > holes in your argument, however let me assure you that your argument is most > unwelcome and inappropriate on this group, we are after all here to discuss > model railways not discuss the finer points of middle east policy and the > role British history has played in upsetting various corners of this globe > we all share. Certainly, but I _responded_, I did not start the discussion. > However, there is never and never will be any justification for targeting > innocent civilians, I fully agree. > especially at soft targets such as tube trains or packed > buses. Check out your actions in, for example, Basra, where you bombarded an entire city for several weeks from a safe distance. > No twisting history or using current events to justify such horrific > attacks. I agree. > Events of 50+ years ago commited by politians or military leaders > in the name of Britain were horrific, whether they were necessary at the > time is a matter of conjecture however hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do I > have anything to appologise for? No, in the same way I would not expect my > generation of Germans to appologise for attrocities commited by their elders > 50+ years ago. You are right now funding horrific actions in Iraq and grumbling about retaliation for the London attrocity. > As for whether Iraq was the justification for the attacks? I rather suspect > the attacks would have happened anyway and severely doubt they were commited > by Iraqis in revenge over the so called "occupation" of their country. Most > attackers is the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia - a country that has > benefitted enormously from its alliance with the West You really should look more closely at Saudi Arabia - a limited percentage of the population is fabulously wealthy but a very high proportion of the population is unemployed and poor. You support a feudal monarchy there that gives the majority no say in their country and very few opportunities in life. The rulers would rather employ foreigners than train their own population to do any more than menial work. You look at the map, neatly divided into separate countries, and then wonder why "Saudis" would support "Iraqis" or "Iranians". Those map divisions are wonderful for dividing up the region into appreciable oppressable segments, but the divisions aren't those of the population. > - both in terms of > trade and military protection from aggressive neighbours. Most "Al Qaeda" > attacks are motivated by theology based on a twisted interpretation of > Islam, current political events are merely used to window dress their > justifications. Don't make the stupid assumption that I support al Qaeda, I'm against all terrorism, both by political organisations and powerful nations. > Now I would politely suggest that the minority avoid making insensitive "I > told you so" comments on a UK based newsgroup after the UK has suffered an > attrocity - I suggest they continue this thread elsewhere, somewhere more > suitable such as alt.politics. >> - both in terms of >> trade and military protection from aggressive neighbours. Most "Al Qaeda" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Don't make the stupid assumption that I support al Qaeda, I'm against all > terrorism, both by political organisations and powerful nations. I fail to find where I made that stupid assumption - I have made no such assumption therefore to suggest otherwise would be stupid of you. In what category does the terrorists otherwise loosly called Al-qaeda fall into? Its not a politcal organisation nor is it a powerful nation and it pretends to represent neither - should we wish a peaceful settlement to this "war" then who do we negotiate with? The collective "we" is of course the British government. "I" am of course personally responsible for anarchy and death in Iraq. Al-qaeda is more a collection of terrorist cells who follow a broadly similar theology they are not connected by a defined organisational, communications or supply structure although no doubt do communicate with contacts in other cells from time to time to share knowledge and draw strength from each others successes. Their goals of ending Christian occupation of Muslim countries and the destruction of the Israeli state are neither practical nor likely in our lifetime. The extreem Islam that they practice does not follow the mainstream Islam followed by the vast majority of Muslims throughout the globe and is most unwelcome by mainstream Muslim leaders. If we wish to end this war of terror by peaceful means then how do we negotiate with a collection of terrorists with no defined structure? You have assumed that the London bombings are in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and you continue to quote Britain's role in the liberation of Basra, a mainly Shite city who largely welcomed the overthrow of Saddam as they had suffered greatly under his reign, as the likely justification for the bombings. There has yet to be any official identification of who was responsible for the London attack, to speculate otherwise is probably not helpful in your arguments. It is suggested by people with far greater knowledge of these things than you or I that those responsible were probably British by nationality. Terrorism in Iraq has been committed by largely non-Iraqi's. If Iraq was the powder keg for the London bombings then what was the powder keg for the Bali bombings? Iraq is just a convenient excuse for those who wish to justify their own political viewpoint, i.e. that despicable excuse for an MP - Galloway is one. > >> - both in terms of > >> trade and military protection from aggressive neighbours. Most "Al Qaeda" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I fail to find where I made that stupid assumption - I have made no such > assumption therefore to suggest otherwise would be stupid of you. No, I requested that you don't make such an assumption. It's something I frequently get accused of by people less intelligent than yourself. > In what category does the terrorists otherwise loosly called Al-qaeda fall > into? "Terrorist". > Its not a politcal organisation I thought it was! > nor is it a powerful nation and it > pretends to represent neither - should we wish a peaceful settlement to this > "war" then who do we negotiate with? I imagine the view of al Qaeda leaders is that if they make themselves known, as in being available for negotiations, they will become targets. That would be something of a disincentive. OTOH, who should al Qaeda negotiate with to get you to stop interfering in their region? What are their chances of a successful outcome? (nil?) > The collective "we" is of course the British government. "I" am of course > personally responsible for anarchy and death in Iraq. Britain is a democracy - your representatives are pursuing this course of interference in the ME - you pay taxes to fund the war. > Al-qaeda is more a collection of terrorist cells who follow a broadly > similar theology they are not connected by a defined organisational, > communications or supply structure although no doubt do communicate with > contacts in other cells from time to time to share knowledge and draw > strength from each others successes. Sure, that's all assumption but I'll go along with it for now. > Their goals of ending Christian > occupation of Muslim countries That sounds reasonable. > and the destruction of the Israeli state are > neither practical nor likely in our lifetime. Ending foreign occupation of Muslim countries could be achieved in a matter of weeks, all it needs is for you to pack your bags and go. > The extreem Islam that they > practice does not follow the mainstream Islam followed by the vast majority > of Muslims throughout the globe and is most unwelcome by mainstream Muslim > leaders. Sure. > If we wish to end this war of terror by peaceful means then how do > we negotiate with a collection of terrorists with no defined structure? The terrorists are there as a reaction to your occupation of their lands. Certainly the terrorism needs to end, but the situation is the proverbial can of worms - you've opened the can and you're continually trying to get them all back in, you can't succeed. > You have assumed that the London bombings are in retaliation for Britain's > involvement in Iraq and you continue to quote Britain's role in the > liberation of Basra, a mainly Shite city who largely welcomed the overthrow > of Saddam as they had suffered greatly under his reign, as the likely > justification for the bombings. I mentioned Basra as an example of the British actions likely to create terrorism, not as _the_ specific cause. > There has yet to be any official > identification of who was responsible for the London attack, to speculate > otherwise is probably not helpful in your arguments. The attack has been claimed by people claiming to be associated with al Qaeda . Your government has an agenda of it's own and may well lay the blame where it does them the most good. As I commented elsewhere (with tongue firmly in cheek) "just how many enemies who want to kill you do you have?" > It is suggested by > people with far greater knowledge of these things than you or I that those > responsible were probably British by nationality. ok. > Terrorism in Iraq has been > committed by largely non-Iraqi's. Exactly where do you get that "fact" from? > If Iraq was the powder keg for the London > bombings then what was the powder keg for the Bali bombings? Australia's involvement in Iraq. That's now fairly well accepted. > Iraq is just a > convenient excuse for those who wish to justify their own political > viewpoint, i.e. that despicable excuse for an MP - Galloway is one. Why would you think you can illegally invade a sovereign nation, occupy and repress it's population, steal their oil and _not_ upset it's population? Regards, Greg.P. > Why would you think you can illegally invade a sovereign nation, occupy > and > repress it's population, steal their oil and _not_ upset it's population? It would now appear that those responsible were not brought up on the mean streets of Basra but rather the mean streets of Bradford / Leeds / Aylesbury and Jamaica and none of the bombers would appear to have any connection to Iraq other than sharing a religion with many in the Middle East. It would appear they were angry young men manipulated by elders, hmm typed that somewhere before... Some Muslims blame the West's politics in Muslim countries but in carrying out an attack on the West they killed their own people, other devout Muslims. As Charles Clark said on Channel4 news last night, these attacks have been going on throughout Europe and the World for decades, long before Iraq and Afganistan. Yes Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afganistan could have provoked these attacks, would these attacks not have happened if Britain hadn't been involved in the US alliance? Probably not. > Yes Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afganistan could have provoked these > attacks, would these attacks not have happened if Britain hadn't been > involved in the US alliance? Probably not. Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened BEFORE the war in Iraq? John. >> Yes Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afganistan could have provoked >> these attacks, would these attacks not have happened if Britain hadn't >> been involved in the US alliance? Probably not. > > Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened BEFORE the war in Iraq? Exactly my point, a couple of people on here jumping up and down quoting Iraq or Afganistan as the reasons for the attack, perhaps your question should be directed to them. As I said (and you deleted) it was quoted a few days back that these kind of attacks have been going on around the world, including Europe for many many years. > > Yes Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afganistan could have provoked these > > attacks, would these attacks not have happened if Britain hadn't been > > involved in the US alliance? Probably not. > > Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened BEFORE the war in Iraq? Do you know how long it has been since the US and Britain began interfering in the ME? > John. > Do you know how long it has been since the US and Britain began > interfering in > the ME? Yes, but we also messed around in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many parts of Africa, not to mention China and other parts of the Far East, the Caribbean, parts of South America ................... the list goes on. How many of these places have bombed the USA, Spain, the UK and many other places. Apologies for any I've missed. There seems to be a particularly evil mindset in some parts of the world. John. >> Do you know how long it has been since the US and Britain began >> interfering in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > John. Hasn't the bell rung on this one yet? Do you know how long it has been since a New Zealander began interfering in the UK and haranguing us about how evil we are? Not to mention that tourism is seen by many as an evil interference that destroys local cultures, and of course all international trade is an evil interference that exploits the third world and depletes their resources, and where I used to live I went next door to complain about the noise of a party at 4.00 a.m. and the householder told me I was interfering in his affairs in an evil manner and he had no choice but to kill me with a bomb to maintain his cultural integrity, and some indigenous cultures don't see why they have to tolerate an influx of outsiders that turns their society upside down and they would naturally resent the invaders and in their desperation to recover control of their own affairs might have to resort to....hang on, I've just realised... that applies to us here in England! Can we use our nukes now, please? Leeds would be a good target. Doom! Doom! We're all doomed I tell you! <cackle> .. and anyone else spot what a key role the railways played in facilitating these murders? Scrap the railways now! Cheers, Steve > Can we use our nukes now, please? Leeds would be a good target. Fine, but can you avoid the area around Elland Road please - I've a sneaking feeling that United will have a reasonable team next season. ;-) John. John Turner banged on his/her/it's keyboard in uk.rec.models.rail and came up with this: >> Can we use our nukes now, please? Leeds would be a good target. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John. You should get Lee Bowyer back. He's more dangerous than any nuke. Sure to be welcomed by the local Asian community. :-) > You should get Lee Bowyer back. He's more dangerous than any nuke. > Sure to be welcomed by the local Asian community. :-) I never thought of that! ;-) Bit of a thug though! John. > Fine, but can you avoid the area around Elland Road please - I've a sneaking > feeling that United will have a reasonable team next season. ;-) > > John. Nice to see that good old, backs to the wall, stiff upper lip, smile in the face of impossible odds, British sense of humour still prevails. You thinking of exhuming Don Revie & some of his lads then John? Norman > You thinking of exhuming Don Revie & some of his lads then John? 1. Sprake 2. Reaney 3. Cooper 4. Bremner 5. Charlton 6. Hunter 7. Lorrimer 8. Clarke 9. Jones (M) 10. Giles 11. Johanneson would do me! ;-) John. >>You thinking of exhuming Don Revie & some of his lads then John? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John. Then they could be beaten again by Chelsea, just like the old days :-) Kevin Martin > Then they could be beaten again by Chelsea, just like the old days :-) Didn't happen too often. I remember standing behind the goal at the kop end when Leeds beat Chelsea 7-1 and Bremner scored a fantastic goal with an overhead 'bicycle' kick, but on the down side was a Villa Park when Leeds lost 0-1 to Chelsea in an FA Cup semi - and the ref disallowed a Lorrimer 'hot shot' in the 88th minute which nearly bust the back of the net - disallowed because Chelsea encroached within 10yards! ;-) John. >> You thinking of exhuming Don Revie & some of his lads then John? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John. But they let the biggest jewel of all slip through their fingers, Brian Clough OBE R.I.P. How he wasn't knighted during his lifetime rremains a mystery and a scandal when you consider the quality of some of the people who have been. ROB (A very disgruntled Forest fan) > Hasn't the bell rung on this one yet? Do you know how long it has been > since a New Zealander began interfering in the UK and haranguing us about > how evil we are? I'm surprised the Argentineans, Spanish, French (well Normans) and many others haven't thought about blowing themselves up on the London tube in retaliation for how nasty we are at persisting to suppress part of their Sovereign land? The Irish have already done it (well a London bus) and now the suppressed Muslim minority of this island of ours. Meanwhile as "I" am directly responsible for invading all these countries I have a suggestion for my mate TB in No10: "Dear Tony, Have you ever thought of invading New Zealand? They might not have any oil but I'm partial to a lamb chop so if you would be so kind as to send in a regiment or two to invade the islands and suppress the pesky locals in order to maintain the availability of such Sunday lunch delights. Ta very much, A.N.Other-Voter" > > Hasn't the bell rung on this one yet? Do you know how long it has been > > since a New Zealander began interfering in the UK and haranguing us about [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Have you ever thought of invading New Zealand? They might not have any oil Actually we have quite a lot of oil! <shhh!> > but I'm partial to a lamb chop so if you would be so kind as to send in a > regiment or two to invade the islands and suppress the pesky locals in order > to maintain the availability of such Sunday lunch delights. All you have to do is order some lamb chops - we would gladly supply - you have, via the EU, set very low limits on the quantity of lamb chops we can send you, to the point where in the 1970s/80s we were forced to trade sheep for oil with Saddam and since then have both diversified our markets and reduced production of lamb/sheep products to about 1/3rd of the level when we used to sell such things to you. To be honest, you've rather pissed us off, especially as you keep invading/bombing/marginalizing our alternative markets. Regards, Greg.P. > > Do you know how long it has been since the US and Britain began > > interfering in > > the ME? > > Yes, but we also messed around in Australia, New Zealand, Canada Sure, but you went away! > and many > parts of Africa, not to mention China and other parts of the Far East, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There seems to be a particularly evil mindset in some parts of the world. So how come the US and the UK keep messing in the ME? > John. > The Nazi's were terrorists, they targeted civilians in their ethnic > cleansing and looting of occupied countries. Allied forces, be it Western > Europe in 1944 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2002 to present are not terrorists > as to my limited knowledge they have not deliberately targeted civilians but > their target was the regime and the armed forces of the target regime. Dresden? Hiroshima? SignatureBNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:19:18 GMT, message <qhgAe.6603$184.4055@newsfe2-win.ntli.net> was posted by "Lost Control" <crazy.4754@lotsofspam.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >The Nazi's were terrorists, they targeted civilians in their ethnic >cleansing and looting of occupied countries. Allied forces, be it Western >Europe in 1944 or Afganistan or Iraq in 2002 to present are not terrorists >as to my limited knowledge they have not deliberately targeted civilians but >their target was the regime and the armed forces of the target regime. Is this a Godwin post? I hope so. If not a Godwin post it displays a fine ignorance of history. The Hiroshima bomb might be argued to have been militarily justifiable, but the Nagasaki bomb was undoubtedly an atrocity, dropped mainly out of technical curiosity. Gassing the Kurds? Churchill got there first. And the British invented the concentration camp as well. The old saw that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has always been true. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > The old saw that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom > fighter" has always been true. A rather predictably boring post, its amazing how many trolls trot out on a UK newsgroup when such attrocities occur in the UK to tell the UK they had it coming - I rather suspect these trolls live in rather safe parts of the world which has never achieved anything and never likely to. i would suggest such trolls go and find a more suitable group to spout their cr*p, alt.politics perhaps? Yes Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all believed to be necessary at the time in order to defeat a dangerous evil - hindsight however is a wonderful thing however I'm not sure with hindsight anything would have been different. Those who have replied to my original post siting previous British attrocities appear to have forgotten that the world has moved on by several many decades since these attrocities were commited, there isn't a Western nation who has a dark murky past many would rather didn't happen however nothing is justification for targeting innocent civilians. "Lost Control" < > Yes Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all believed to be necessary at > the time in order to defeat a dangerous evil - hindsight however is a > wonderful thing however I'm not sure with hindsight anything would have > been different. RAF night-time "area bombing" directed solely at civilians? -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > "Lost Control" < > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > RAF night-time "area bombing" directed solely at civilians? You only have to look at the accuracy of bombing available during WWII to realize why cities were targetted - they were counted in percentages of bombs dropped within 5-10-20 mile radiuses of the intended target centers and the actual percentages were low. > You only have to look at the accuracy of bombing available during WWII to > realize why cities were targetted - they were counted in percentages of > bombs > dropped within 5-10-20 mile radiuses of the intended target centers and > the > actual percentages were low. Let's be clear though that both allied and axis powers in WWII resorted to carpet bombing of cities. I've no idea which did it first. John. >> You only have to look at the accuracy of bombing available during WWII to >> realize why cities were targetted - they were counted in percentages of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John. Thats easy, Germany, 1938, a small town in Spain called Guernica, some painter or other did a picture about it. Signatureestarriol > > "Lost Control" < > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > dropped within 5-10-20 mile radiuses of the intended target centers and the > actual percentages were low. In 1942 yes, by the late war period RAF strategic bombing was the most accurate in the world, night time bombing included, surprisingly enough even bettering US day time attacks even thought they used the Norton bomb sight with the famous "Pickle Barrel" accuracy. And while I have to confess to being *far more interested in the L&Y High Flyer* in the other thread and would love to see some piccies when it's done I'm curious (for the sake of argument) as to how civilians are defined and exactly what's wrong with targeting them? SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED "Chris Wilson" < > In 1942 yes, by the late war period RAF strategic bombing was the most > accurate in the world, night time bombing included, surprisingly enough > even > bettering US day time attacks even thought they used the Norton bomb sight > with the famous "Pickle Barrel" accuracy. In the vast majority of cases, especially in high level bombing, the U.S's poor bombing accuracy was, I believe, due to them relying on the squadron bombardier. All the aircraft followed the slight leader, they turned when he turned, climbed when he turned, open their Bomb bay doors when he did and, dropped their bombs when he did. U.S. bombers relied on the flight lead not only for navigation but also for bombing. They may have had the "World's most accurate bombsight" but each individual bombardier just watched the lead aircraft and dropped when they did. I'm subject to correction on any or all of the above. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > "Chris Wilson" < > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'm subject to correction on any or all of the above. You need you are absolutely correct. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > > > "Lost Control" < > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > bettering US day time attacks even thought they used the Norton bomb sight > with the famous "Pickle Barrel" accuracy. The "best in the world" was still something like a 5 mile radius - that's not in any way a put-down. (My uncle was an RAF bomber pilot) > And while I have to confess to being *far more interested in the L&Y High > Flyer* in the other thread and would love to see some piccies when it's done > I'm curious (for the sake of argument) as to how civilians are defined Anyone not involved in the military. (I guess) > and > exactly what's wrong with targeting them? They tend to go all squishy or turn into crisps. In the last year or so, the US (and Britain?) have claimed private contractors in Iraq doing such jobs as driving supply trucks carrying munitions etc to the military and others building fortifications in Bagdad are "civilians" and are therefore not legitimate targets for the "terrorists". Regards, Greg.P. ...> > > The "best in the world" was still something like a 5 mile radius - that's not in > any way a put-down. Appreciated, however by late war the old "5 mile" thing is way off using such devices as "Gee", "Oboe" and "H2S" was a thing of the dim and distant past. Likewise day time raids, nowadays we talk of the pin-point accuracy of modern guided weapons however even back then exact accuracy could be achieved ... Amiens Prison for example. > (My uncle was an RAF bomber pilot) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > military and others building fortifications in Bagdad are "civilians" and are > therefore not legitimate targets for the "terrorists". That's the sort of point I was thinking of making, remembering that a war is a conflict between nations who is a legitimate target? The soldier in the field, the one carrying him supplies, the train driver bringing the food and munitions to the rail head, the farmers producing the food for the soldiers, the nurse that gets the wounded soldier back in to the fight, the schoolteacher that indoctrinates the young men in to joining the fray etc etc etc ... I'd argue that in war there is no such thing as a "civilian". SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ...> > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > modern guided weapons however even back then exact accuracy could be > achieved ... Amiens Prison for example. There's a big difference between a Mosquito dropping a single bomb from 50 feet up and 1000 Lancasters dropping loads of bombs from 30,000 feet. At (say) 240mph and 30 seconds to unload the bomb bay, the single aircraft has travelled 2 miles and therefore the bombs will be trailed in a two mile line. If the 1000 aircraft travelled in single file 30 seconds apart and dropped on the same marker they would take 8 hours 20 minutes to unload and in doing so would make an easy target for anti aircraft guns. In reality they flew clumped together - not too close and not one above the other, so my "5 mile radius" actually starts to look a bit small, even with _pinpoint_ accuracy! > > (My uncle was an RAF bomber pilot) > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > schoolteacher that indoctrinates the young men in to joining the fray etc > etc etc ... I'd argue that in war there is no such thing as a "civilian". I'd argue for "front line", "supply", and "munitions/weapons manufacturing" as legitimate targets., but that would be because I'd prefer not to be a target. We're still a bit close to last Thursday for "taxpayers" to be considered. Regards, Greg.P. >> ...> > >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > radius" > actually starts to look a bit small, even with _pinpoint_ accuracy! By 1944, the RAF when it required precision acheived it, note the bombing of the V1 bunkers from 30,000ft, these were small targets carefully camouflaged but were hit regularly. The bombing of german cites was a different style of warfare altogether, although for its military effectiveness ask the Americans how much resistance was put up in Cologne when they took it. And city fighting was always a dangerous and expensive business. Signatureestarriol > By 1944, the RAF when it required precision acheived it, note the bombing > of the V1 bunkers from 30,000ft, these were small targets carefully > camouflaged but were hit regularly. The bombing of german cites was a > different style of warfare altogether, although for its military > effectiveness ask the Americans how much resistance was put up in Cologne > when they took it. Ask the Russians how much resistance was put up in Berlin before they took it. The monastery at Monte Casino was also massively bombed so there wouldn't be much resistance there either. (kim) > Ask the Russians how much resistance was put up in Berlin before they took > it. The monastery at Monte Casino was also massively bombed so there > wouldn't be much resistance there either. Except that prior to the bombing, the Germans kept their word and did not fortify or use the monastery for any military use. After the bombing, they then used the wreckage as fortifications. And why not, the allies bombing it made it a military target. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > > By 1944, the RAF when it required precision acheived it, note the bombing > > of the V1 bunkers from 30,000ft, these were small targets carefully [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it. The monastery at Monte Casino was also massively bombed so there > wouldn't be much resistance there either. HEY!!!! On behalf of the NZ contingent! Greg.P. "estarriol" < > Americans how much resistance was put up in Cologne when they took it. And > city fighting was always a dangerous and expensive business. The population of Cologne when from several hundred thousand (I forget the exact figure) in 1940 to 40,000 by 1945. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ > >> ...> > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the V1 bunkers from 30,000ft, these were small targets carefully camouflaged > but were hit regularly. That, and similar attacks, were a different style of operation with specially trained teams using the best equipment available. > The bombing of german cites was a different style of > warfare altogether, although for its military effectiveness ask the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > estarriol At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:16:54 GMT, message <aQxAe.512$322.222@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> was posted by "Lost Control" <crazy.4754@lotsofspam.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >> The old saw that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom >> fighter" has always been true. >A rather predictably boring post, its amazing how many trolls trot out on a >UK newsgroup when such attrocities occur in the UK to tell the UK they had >it coming - I rather suspect these trolls live in rather safe parts of the >world which has never achieved anything and never likely to. i would suggest >such trolls go and find a more suitable group to spout their cr*p, >alt.politics perhaps? You seem to be using the word troll in the sense of "person who disagrees" and suggesting that off-topic posting is only appropriate when you do it. I am sure this is not your real position, but that's how it looks. >Yes Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all believed to be necessary at the >time in order to defeat a dangerous evil - hindsight however is a wonderful [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Western nation who has a dark murky past many would rather didn't happen >however nothing is justification for targeting innocent civilians. It was you who brought up British history, claiming that we have not deliberately targeted civilians. As stated, you display an ignorance of history. We have committed more and bloodier atrocities in the name of Queen and country than you apparently realise. You know the Hogwarts motto? Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus? Shrub has been aggressively poking dragons which were only pretending to be asleep in the first place. Shrub has an excuse: he is venal and stupid. Blair is not stupid and claims not to be venal. Overall, I think this country would be safer if we did not help the US with their oil-driven foreign policy; I may be wrong in this. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > You seem to be using the word troll in the sense of "person who > disagrees" and suggesting that off-topic posting is only appropriate > when you do it. I am sure this is not your real position, but that's > how it looks. We are fortunate to live in a country where we are allowed to disagree with each other, unlike of course some of the countries that have bred the hatred towards our nation that will probably be used as the justification for the attacks. You obviously feel it is necessary to reply to my off topic post just as I feel it is necessary to reply to yours. > It was you who brought up British history, claiming that we have not > deliberately targeted civilians. As stated, you display an ignorance > of history. We have committed more and bloodier atrocities in the > name of Queen and country than you apparently realise. Without wishing to go into great detail of British history I do recognise that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden are not the only civilian attacks that Britain has played a part in however I would not expect a German of my generation appologise for the attrocity commited in the name of his/her nation in Coventry, just the same as I would not expect to be asked to appologise for the attrocity of Dresden. Same argument goes for Nagasaki/Hiroshima and the Japanese attrocities towards Allied PoW's - many women and children. I do not feel it necessary to go and bomb German or Japanese cities in revenge for attrocities commited by their nations towards mine in past decades. The use of history to justify such horrors is quite frankly stupid. > You know the Hogwarts motto? Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus? > Shrub has been aggressively poking dragons which were only pretending > to be asleep in the first place. Shrub has an excuse: he is venal and > stupid. Blair is not stupid and claims not to be venal. The dragon made the first move by flying planes into civilian and military targets in the U.S. You cannot expect to punch a grissly bear between the eyes and not think it won't retaliate. It is also rather stupid to bite the hand that fed it. Whether the US should have ever fed the dragon in the first place is something a debate that will no doubt rumble on for longer than I care so don't wish to go there... > Overall, I think this country would be safer if we did not help the US > with their oil-driven foreign policy; I may be wrong in this. There will always be angry young men or women who are manipulated by elders who wish to use history or twisted religion to justify current day attrocities. Britain's influence in the world will always mean we are a target. If you don't like it then move somewhere safe like New Zealand. At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:19:56 GMT, message <gLyAe.1872$yk6.1637@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net> was posted by "Lost Control" <crazy.4754@lotsofspam.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >> You seem to be using the word troll in the sense of "person who >> disagrees" and suggesting that off-topic posting is only appropriate >> when you do it. I am sure this is not your real position, but that's >> how it looks. >We are fortunate to live in a country where we are allowed to disagree with >each other, unlike of course some of the countries that have bred the hatred >towards our nation that will probably be used as the justification for the >attacks. That is sanctimonious bullshit. The 9/11 bombers were mainly Saudis, a country with which we do a vast amount of business. The Bin Laden family have been friends of the Bushes for years. We do nothing about Zimbawe (no oil) but we invade Iraq (oil) on the pretext that they still have the nebulously-defined "weapons of mass destruction" which, it turns out, we (the West) sold them in the first place. The Middle East has always been a powder keg. American foreign policy (especially support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine) has made powerful enemies. My sister has a friend who is currently doing 12 years for possession with intent to supply. He was brought up in council care, was abused as a child, and spent a year on remand after finding his wife's murdered body in their shop. He was innocent of her murder. I can understand absolutely what motivated him to get into the sleazy world of drugs and drug trafficking. He is absolutely wrong to have done so, and is paying the price, but there is a feeling of inevitability about the whole thing. Ditto militant Islamist terrorism. Their interest in the West as targets is entirely contingent on Western interest in the politics of their region. If the Middle East had no oil they would be of no interest to us. >You obviously feel it is necessary to reply to my off topic post >just as I feel it is necessary to reply to yours. But I wasn't complaining that OT posts should be taken elsewhere. >> It was you who brought up British history, claiming that we have not >> deliberately targeted civilians. As stated, you display an ignorance >> of history. We have committed more and bloodier atrocities in the >> name of Queen and country than you apparently realise. >I do not feel it necessary to go and bomb German or >Japanese cities in revenge for attrocities commited by their nations towards >mine in past decades. No, because it was a long time ago. But you can see, I'm sure, that at the time it felt very differently. Hitler bombed London; once the genie was out of the bottle, escalation was inevitable. Current US and British foreign policy looks a lot like pouring petrol on the flames. >The use of history to justify such horrors is quite frankly stupid. The pretence that history had no role in their commission is similarly stupid. >> You know the Hogwarts motto? Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus? >> Shrub has been aggressively poking dragons which were only pretending >> to be asleep in the first place. Shrub has an excuse: he is venal and >> stupid. Blair is not stupid and claims not to be venal. >The dragon made the first move by flying planes into civilian and military >targets in the U.S. You cannot expect to punch a grissly bear between the >eyes and not think it won't retaliate. It is also rather stupid to bite the >hand that fed it. Whether the US should have ever fed the dragon in the >first place is something a debate that will no doubt rumble on for longer >than I care so don't wish to go there... Nobody would go to the trouble of planning that attack - or indeed of killing themselves in its execution - if they did not feel an acute grievance against the target. And remember that we are still actively trading with the country of origin of most of those bombers; Shrub and his cronies (including Blair) used that attack as an excuse to invade a country which the evidence shows had nothing significant to do with it. Remember, too, that it was the CIA who trained Al-Quaeda, for use as a "deniable" tool. So, who did take the first action? Was it really 9/11? Or was it the invasion of Afghanistan? Or funding the Taleban to fight against the Russians in the first place? Maybe we can trace it all back to the butterfly. You know the history of the first war: it wasn't really the shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand that started it, that was just the torch which set off the powder keg. If it had not been that, it would have been something else. The war of Jenkins' Ear - do you really think it was solely about the Spanish injuring one man? History is /never/ that convenient; you can rarely say that this one event started a war or stopped one. But look at two other long-running conflicts: South Africa and Northern Ireland. What stopped the fighting in both these cases was brave leaders who said enough was enough. Rather than continuing to excuse the atrocities by reference to those committed by the other side, they went to their own side and said: stop. OK, that's a bit over-simplistic, but it is still fundamentally true. Brave leaders are not just those who take the country to war. So, would the London bomb have been less likely or more likely if Bush had gone to Israel five years ago and told them he was not going to make excuses for them any more? Or if we'd set up a truth and reconciliation commission in the Balkans instead of a witch hunt? >> Overall, I think this country would be safer if we did not help the US >> with their oil-driven foreign policy; I may be wrong in this. >There will always be angry young men or women who are manipulated by elders >who wish to use history or twisted religion to justify current day >attrocities. Britain's influence in the world will always mean we are a >target. If you don't like it then move somewhere safe like New Zealand. You sound like the man who is attacked by a dog he has been baiting, and reacts with wounded innocence. Do you see no parallel in Blair and Bush's twisting and misrepresenting of the intelligence reports to justify invading an unrelated country, with your angry young men "manipulated by elders?" And to be honest, in a world with nuclear weapons, nowhere is safe. Better all round to tread softly. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > That is sanctimonious bullshit. Sanctimonious bullshit are those who spout that we "had it coming", no one has yet provided any reasoned justification for the attacks on London - of course terrorists are not reasonable by definition (they wouldn't be terrorists if they were reasonable) so should we bargain or worse surrender to those who are unreasonable? Those who suggest that Britain should withdraw its military, politcal and trade influence from the Middle East and cut ties with the US are fools - it ain't gonna happen. > The Middle East has always been a powder keg. American foreign policy > (especially support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine) has made > powerful enemies. Indeed and Europe/Britain has a place to mediate between US/Israel and the Arab world, after all we "caused it". > No, because it was a long time ago. But you can see, I'm sure, that > at the time it felt very differently. Hitler bombed London; once the > genie was out of the bottle, escalation was inevitable. Hitler didn't start a war by bombing London, the escalation of war started way before that. The incentive of bombing London came about to try and weaken Britain's resolve following the Luftwaffe's attempt for air domination in the Battle of Britain. Bombing London failed to break Britain's resolve, I very much doubt bombing Dresden did much to significantly influence the German public into considering surrender. With the obvious exception of Japan, bombing civilians has never done much to significantly change the outcome of a war in recent years. Politcal or military strokes of genius are how wars are won and lost, both on and off the battlefield. >>The use of history to justify such horrors is quite frankly stupid. > > The pretence that history had no role in their commission is similarly > stupid. Never said that - history books do not justify current day attrocities - quite simple really??!! > Remember, too, that it was the CIA who trained Al-Quaeda, for use as a > "deniable" tool. Indeed but I doubt the CIA considered what Al-Qaeda would become. > So, who did take the first action? Was it really 9/11? Or was it the > invasion of Afghanistan? Or funding the Taleban to fight against the > Russians in the first place? Maybe we can trace it all back to the > butterfly. Probably, what came first the chicken or the egg? > But look at two other long-running conflicts: South Africa and > Northern Ireland. What stopped the fighting in both these cases was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK, that's a bit over-simplistic, but it is still fundamentally true. > Brave leaders are not just those who take the country to war. Indeed, but who leads the loose collection of fundamentalists who are given the label of Al-Qaeda by the media? Perhaps greater engagement of the Muslim states would solve this? I for one would support greater political engagement with states such as Iran and more time spent trying to achieve reconcilliation with Israel and its neighbours however Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and the rest deny all connections with Al-Qaeda. But remember despite brave politians in Northern Ireland saying enough is enough as you put it lead to the majority of terrorist groups ceasing active missions there are still the marginal groups who will never surrender because they will never compromise? What do we do with them? Give more concessions until ultimately they win? Retaliate with a wipe out strike or live with the fact that one day they may strike despite the best intentions of the security services. > So, would the London bomb have been less likely or more likely if Bush > had gone to Israel five years ago and told them he was not going to > make excuses for them any more? Or if we'd set up a truth and > reconciliation commission in the Balkans instead of a witch hunt? I don't believe it would, there will always be fundamentalists who will find a justification for their attacks. >>> Overall, I think this country would be safer if we did not help the US >>> with their oil-driven foreign policy; I may be wrong in this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You sound like the man who is attacked by a dog he has been baiting, > and reacts with wounded innocence. How can you bait a dog that lives in the shadows and won't show itself? At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:59:29 GMT, message <BcAAe.66$O12.15@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net> was posted by "Lost Control" <crazy.4754@lotsofspam.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >> That is sanctimonious bullshit. >Sanctimonious bullshit are those who spout that we "had it coming" SO you say. But you appear determined to deny that we bear any responsibility whatsoever for provoking these attacks. >> The Middle East has always been a powder keg. American foreign policy >> (especially support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine) has made >> powerful enemies. >Indeed and Europe/Britain has a place to mediate between US/Israel and the >Arab world, after all we "caused it". Correct. Mediate, not go in there with guns blazing. >> No, because it was a long time ago. But you can see, I'm sure, that >> at the time it felt very differently. Hitler bombed London; once the >> genie was out of the bottle, escalation was inevitable. >Hitler didn't start a war by bombing London, the escalation of war started >way before that. Which was very much my point. What we have in the attacks on London is the entirely predictable escalation of a failure of diplomacy with respect to two very unstable regions. >>>The use of history to justify such horrors is quite frankly stupid. >> The pretence that history had no role in their commission is similarly >> stupid. >Never said that - history books do not justify current day attrocities - >quite simple really??!! And yet you appear to want to divorce our previous actions from the acts which clearly follow them. >> Remember, too, that it was the CIA who trained Al-Quaeda, for use as a >> "deniable" tool. >Indeed but I doubt the CIA considered what Al-Qaeda would become. Quite. Further evidence, if it were needed, that politics is complex, and the path of arms is apt to get out of control. >> So, who did take the first action? Was it really 9/11? Or was it the >> invasion of Afghanistan? Or funding the Taleban to fight against the >> Russians in the first place? Maybe we can trace it all back to the >> butterfly. >Probably, what came first the chicken or the egg? Exactly. We bear a responsibility. We are continuing to inflame passions by current actions (less so than the USA, but still). >> But look at two other long-running conflicts: South Africa and >> Northern Ireland. What stopped the fighting in both these cases was >> brave leaders who said enough was enough. Rather than continuing to >> excuse the atrocities by reference to those committed by the other >> side, they went to their own side and said: stop. >Indeed, but who leads the loose collection of fundamentalists who are given >the label of Al-Qaeda by the media? Perhaps greater engagement of the Muslim >states would solve this? I for one would support greater political >engagement with states such as Iran and more time spent trying to achieve >reconcilliation with Israel and its neighbours however Iran, Saudi Arabia, >Syria, Lebanon and the rest deny all connections with Al-Qaeda. Absolutely. Engagement is crucial. As it stands what we have is Shrub sitting over there in his oval office apparently deciding who to invade next. >But remember despite brave politians in Northern Ireland saying enough is >enough as you put it lead to the majority of terrorist groups ceasing active >missions there are still the marginal groups who will never surrender >because they will never compromise? What do we do with them? Isolate them. Now that the IRA have lost their funding from America they are a good deal less dangerous. I believe the reason the Continuity IRA have failed to make an impact is that they lack both resources and significant support. The same is likely to apply to more militant Islamist groups if their cause is manifestly receiving a fair and sympathetic hearing from the international community. >> So, would the London bomb have been less likely or more likely if Bush >> had gone to Israel five years ago and told them he was not going to >> make excuses for them any more? Or if we'd set up a truth and >> reconciliation commission in the Balkans instead of a witch hunt? >I don't believe it would, there will always be fundamentalists who will find >a justification for their attacks. But in order to mount a major attack in a major city they need much more than just justification. They need resources: money, high explosive, safe houses, a pool of willing volunteers, all sorts. If they are lone and isolated zealots, these things will not come. And if their grievance is with their own leaders for parleying with the West rather than with the West for wading in, they are rather less likely to blow up our cities. >> You sound like the man who is attacked by a dog he has been baiting, >> and reacts with wounded innocence. >How can you bait a dog that lives in the shadows and won't show itself? The bombers are the tip of the iceberg. I suggest we melt the rest of it and see how we get on. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken >>The old saw that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom >>fighter" has always been true. > > A rather predictably boring post, its amazing how many trolls trot out on a Just zis Guy is many things, but a troll is not one of them. I find almost all his posts [1] thoughtful and informative. > Those who have replied to my original post siting previous > British attrocities appear to have forgotten that the world has moved on by > several many decades since these attrocities were commited, there isn't a > Western nation who has a dark murky past many would rather didn't happen > however nothing is justification for targeting innocent civilians. If you prefer atrocities to be more recent, then perhaps you've missed the reporting of the ceremonies marking the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre of innocent civilians. R. [1] except for the pun wars, and they are thoughtful and amusing. > Just zis Guy is many things, but a troll is not one of them. Yes, Guy's a long-standing poster to this Group, which is more than can be said of 'Lost Control' who seems to have just appeared from the woodwork. John. >> Just zis Guy is many things, but a troll is not one of them. > > Yes, Guy's a long-standing poster to this Group, which is more than can be > said of 'Lost Control' who seems to have just appeared from the woodwork. Without going into great detail I choose to use alias'es that change every few months. Why? I've been a newsgroup user since 1998ish, I subscribe and contribute to many groups including this one for the past few years however I have been quiet recently due to commitments elsewhere but do nether-the-less enjoy reading about a hobby of mine, railways and models in particular. I believe I last posted under another alias, probably a loco number but as I don't keep records of my alias's I couldn't tell you exactly. I use alias'es for many reasons, however we have had regular communication with you each other in the past John and even been a mail order customer of yours. Obviously on many of those occasions I have used my true id. Because of the job I do I do not wish to be known by my true id on open groups such as this. At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:44:18 GMT, message <m4VAe.847$si5.129@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net> was posted by "Lost Control" <crazy.4754@lotsofspam.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >Without going into great detail I choose to use alias'es that change every >few months. Why? Yes, why? You didn't answer that. Using aliases is one thing, nym-shifting is another. It's usually a characteristic of those who tend to end up in a lot of killfiles. Do you find that? Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > Yes, why? You didn't answer that. Using aliases is one thing, > nym-shifting is another. It's usually a characteristic of those who > tend to end up in a lot of killfiles. Do you find that? Nope. At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:21:59 +0100, message <davuj8$1na$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk> was posted by Richard <richard@nomail.percival.nothanks.demon.novalid.co.address.uk>, including some, all or none of the following: >Just zis Guy is many things, but a troll is not one of them. I find >almost all his posts [1] thoughtful and informative. Thanks - opinions differ on that when you stray onto my pet hobby-horses, of course :-) Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > And the British invented the concentration camp as well. Good Afrikaaner propaganda but not historically correct. Nor were these camps you refer to intended or used for the torture or extermination of their occupants as were Hitlers. Hamba kahle, lo inja bamba wena. Norman >> And the British invented the concentration camp as well. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hamba kahle, lo inja bamba wena. From the Wikipedia:- "Originally conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were later used to confine and control large numbers of civilians in areas of Boer guerilla activity. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians, and black workers from their farms, died as a result of diseases developed due to overcrowding, inadequate diets and poor sanitation. " (kim) > >> And the British invented the concentration camp as well. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > farms, died as a result of diseases developed due to overcrowding, > inadequate diets and poor sanitation. " Just goes to show that you can't believe all you read in books. I'm not willing to debate this with you kim as I don't consider this ng a suitable venue. Suffice it to say that you really should read some more on the subject not some brief & jaundiced entry in an encyclopaedia. Tot Siens Norman >Gassing the Kurds? Churchill got there first. This is frequently claimed, yet AFAICT no-one seems to have found any evidence, other than a memo where he suggested discomfort and illness from gas would be better than using explosives to kill people outright. I'd be genuinely interested to see any evidence that gassing was carried out on Churchill's orders in that area. Anyone built any models of Mesopotamian railways? :-) SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > Anyone built any models of Mesopotamian railways? :-) Yes, me! Er... no! Sorry, thought you said "Metropolitan" railways. Steve >> Anyone built any models of Mesopotamian railways? :-) > >Yes, me! Er... no! Sorry, thought you said "Metropolitan" railways. A while ago I met someone at a model railway show who imported fairly cheap HO resin kits for Czechoslovakian locos, made by a Czech cottage industry somewhere (the kits, not the real locos). Having left the show I realised I'd quite fancy one, but I'd forgotten to take any contact details... SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > A while ago I met someone at a model railway show who imported fairly > cheap HO resin kits for Czechoslovakian locos, made by a Czech cottage > industry somewhere (the kits, not the real locos). Having left the > show I realised I'd quite fancy one, but I'd forgotten to take any > contact details... Possibly? AIRES HOBBY MODELS Resin Model Kits made in Czech Republic Distributed by M&G Hobbies Inc. 2902 Rte 130 North, Tenby Plaza, Delran, NJ 08075, Phone: (856) 461-3553, FAX: (856) 461-3886 ..or possibly not, but perhaps worth a fax. Cheers, Steve >> Anyone built any models of Mesopotamian railways? :-) > >Yes, me! Er... no! Sorry, thought you said "Metropolitan" railways. A while ago I met someone at a model railway show who imported fairly cheap HO resin kits for Czechoslovakian locos which were used in Iraq, made by a Czech cottage industry somewhere (the kits, not the real locos). Having left the show I realised I'd quite fancy one, but I'd forgotten to take any contact details... SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:44:41 +0100, message <dapnd1$hqn$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net> was posted by "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid>, including some, all or none of the following: >> When's the invasion of Zimbabwe scheduled? Is it before or after >> Rwanda? >Interesting question. Should the civilised world allow attrocities to >continue in these two and other similar countries? I'd say not, but my preferred model for change is that which achieved a virtually bloodless handover in South Africa, rather than the model exemplified in Operation Oily Residue. To prevent rogue states going off and invading anyone they like to further the commercial interests of their leaders we could conceive an international oversight body, which considers the conditions in various countries and approves appropriate action based on criteria like the threats to neighbouring countries. >Should we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons with its track record of >supporting terrorism? If so what would be the reaction if they supplied >terrorists with the technology to create a dirty (nuclear) bomb which they >detonated in London's Underground? >I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they're worth >asking. Indeed. In terms of nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle. The best bet is probably to ensure that governments of all nuclear or potential nuclear powers are integrated into the international community. Embrace and extend, as it were. Waving big sticks strikes me as a dangerous game when some of them have nuclear warheads. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:04:29 +0100, message > <dape50$ge4$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for > you to follow suit? If you are dependent on Britain for your peace and security as many countries in europe were at the time, yes. (kim) At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:54:42 +0100, message <daph35$kc9$1@domitilla.aioe.org> was posted by "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >>>Yes, I remember. I think NZ was the only one of Britain's so-called allies >>>to commit actual forces to the conflict? >> if little Jimmy puts his hand in the fire, does that make it smart for >> you to follow suit? >If you are dependent on Britain for your peace and security as many >countries in europe were at the time, yes. If the Argies had waited a bit the islands would have been handed over nice and peaceful like. They were stupid. Brezhnev took Afghanistan And Begin took Beirut Galtieri took the Union Jack And Maggie, over lunch one day, Took a cruiser with all hands Apparently to make him give it back "Get your filthy hands off my desert", from Pink Floyd's The Final Cut. There's nowt new under the sun. Guy Signaturehttp://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken > > John, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > (*) IOW it's entire fleet at the time Just remember, that would have left our entire coastline open to attack by nuclear submarines and inflatable dingies for the entire duration of your war!!! We did have a third frigate, but the captain wasn't game to take it beyond the harbour entrance due to reliability concerns over the Lucas electrics. ;-) Regards, Greg.P. > I think Steve was making a valid point, albeit in a shocking manner, > which was a response to other statements in this thread. I'm sorry, but I still think it was in extremely bad taste. John. >> I think Steve was making a valid point, albeit in a shocking manner, >> which was a response to other statements in this thread. > > I'm sorry, but I still think it was in extremely bad taste. > > John. No John, bad taste is if I were to ask this group which Railmatch or Precision paint would most closely match the effect of human blood splashes colliding with a tube tunnel lining at several thousand feet per second. Whereas, *extremely* bad taste would be if I gathered up some body parts and offered them on eBay as "London Underground Souvenirs" *only for you*, and worst of all, not even specified the postage. For all you know, I had bad taste before the outrage. If I start acting all tasteful now, then I will have changed my way of life and the terrorists will have won. Ne c'est pas? Cheers, Steve > > I completely agree. When the bus exploded, it so happens that I was in the > > BMA building, working on a strategy to increase doctors' earnings while [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'm sorry but I think that is in *extremely* bad taste. Don't worry about it, the whole subject is in bad taste but it's probably better out than in! Then we can get back to trains. Regards, Greg.P. >>>> If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me >>>> point out that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > earnings while reducing the amount of medical treatment actually > supplied. Please Steve, don't joke about this. My brother *was* in the BMA building. He *did* rush out to render assistance. Luckily he was uninjured, but his friend and colleague - a Muslim - was slightly injured by flying glass, yet despite his own injuries still gave assistance to the casualties. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >> I completely agree. When the bus exploded, it so happens that I was >> in the BMA building, working on a strategy to increase doctors' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yet > despite his own injuries still gave assistance to the casualties. John and Enzo... p..leeease! Sorry if anyone's sensitivities is offended, but down here in London, where it actually happened (and has happened before, and undoubtedly will, again and again), how do you think we actually talk? Forget the sanitised, reverential tones of the BBC, it's the gallows humour that allows us to face reality, gets us past the horror, and most importantly, enables us to get on a tube or bus to go to work next week..... which I will have to do myself, so I don't care to be lectured by anyone about matters of geopolitics, taste, or indeed, anything to do with this matter. That's all I have to say on this topic. Cheers, Stever > >> > If you're going to introduce politics to this ng, then let me point out > >> > that [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > ahead to know that at least one wholly perfect New Zealander is out there > lecturing us Brits on our own history. A: it's also my history. B: I tried to make it clear earlier that my comments are about Britain's actions. I have every sympathy for the individuals caught up in the terrorism, particularly as I have 4 family members wandering around that region about now. C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with tonnes of shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb of explosives in one of yours? D: if they are terrorists then so are you. Regards, Greg.P. > C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with tonnes of > shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb of explosives in one of > yours? > D: if they are terrorists then so are you. So you would happily have left Saddam Hussein to continue with his ethnic cleansing and arbitrary mass-murder of Iraqis? John. >> C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with tonnes of >> shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb of explosives in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >John. But John, the often unknown thing about Iraq, was that it was a secular society, quite similar to the UK. Granted, tribes like the Kurds were looked down upon, but that's no different to the caste system in India, a system many centuries old and still in wide use today, where your status depends on how dark your skin is. Indeed, there was a large Christian community in Iraq, and there still is, the country has its own Anglican Archbishop. But one thing is for certain, Iraqis are NOT safer with us in their country. Since we invaded Iraq the average Iraqi is FIFTY EIGHT times MORE likely to be killed than when Saddam was in power. WE created the current security nightmare in Iraq, WE are responsible for the massive infiltration of Islamic extremists, something which was NOT an issue when Saddam was in power, as both sides hated each other, and there was of course, nothing to be gained by Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. Unlike today. If we really care about humanitarianism, (which I don't think either the US or UK do, except when it meets their own ends), then why oh why oh why have we not intervened in the Sudan? A civil war has been going on there for 30 years, and left 2 million dead. We've done NOTHING there. We also done nothing in the Congo, again, millions dead, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Uganda, Rwanda, we did NOTHING to help these people. SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." >>> C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with >>> tonnes of shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But John, the often unknown thing about Iraq, was that it was a > secular society, quite similar to the UK. Don't be so silly, James. It was *nothing* like the UK. The society was secular because Saddam *imposed* secularism (or more accurately Ba'athism) on the country in an attempt to prevent religious leaders from challenging his rule. It should also be noted that Saddam became noticeably more devout in his last five years in power. With the rise in Islamist militancy, he tried to present himself as a holy warrior. His speeches became composed of Islamist rhetoric and he even started to rename his military forces with Islamic names. He was a hypocrite, attempting to manipulate the militants for his own ends and the militants were too blinded by their own hatred to see through him. > Since we invaded Iraq the average Iraqi is FIFTY EIGHT times MORE > likely to be killed than when Saddam was in power. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other, and there was of course, nothing to be gained by Al Qaeda > operating in Iraq. Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist organisation affiliated to Al Qaeda, openly claimed to have been funded by Saddam. The fact that the families of Palestinian suicide bombers gained a pension from Saddam has long been public knowledge. Sadaam's regime supported terrorism - end of story. The available evidence pointing to Saddam's guilt in *directly* supporting Al Qaeda may well be circumstantial and might not stand up in a criminal court, but it would certainly be enough to convict him in a civil suit. The simple fact of the matter is that the coalition countries acted in their own self interest in invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. And I would like to ask, what is wrong with that? I have *no* doubts whatsoever that had the invasion not occurred, then terrorist attacks would have occurred in London two years ago, except they would have been carried out with nerve gas or a radiological device. And before you come back with that old chestnut about "there were no WMDs found in Iraq", let me point out that there *were* quantities of nerve gas found. Some of it was even used by the "insurgents" against Coalition forces, although it seems that they didn't actually know what they were using. Admittedly there were no huge stocks of battlefield ready nerve gas found, as the media were expecting, but there were appreciable amounts of degraded nerve gas freely available. This may have been useless on the battlefield, but a jam-jar of the stuff poured onto the platform of a London tube station would have caused hundreds of horrific casualties. As far as I am concerned, that was more than enough justification for the invasion. > Unlike today. > If we really care about humanitarianism, (which I don't think either > the US or UK do, except when it meets their own ends), then why oh > why oh why have we not intervened in the Sudan? The second that a Western military force set foot on African soil to attempt to oust a native dictator, every country opposed to the West would be screaming about "Imperialist aggression" and "the return of Colonialism". Robert Mugabe would be the first to cry this and I have no doubts that Thabo Mbeki and Kofi Annan would support him. > A civil war has been > going on there for 30 years, and left 2 million dead. We've done > NOTHING there. We also done nothing in the Congo, again, millions > dead, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Uganda, Rwanda, we did NOTHING to help > these people. You are wrong! We *did* help them. I personally took part in UN peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda. The problem is that these people enjoy killing each other and they don't want to stop. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >Don't be so silly, James. It was *nothing* like the UK. The society was >secular because Saddam *imposed* secularism (or more accurately Ba'athism) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >for his own ends and the militants were too blinded by their own hatred to >see through him. So you don't think his imposition of secularism actually helped to keep peace and avoid civil war in Iraq? So nothing like TB and GB playing to the gallery, playing on peoples fears as an excuse for war? If Saddam was a hypocrite, so what, most politicians are. >Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist organisation affiliated to Al Qaeda, openly >claimed to have been funded by Saddam. The fact that the families of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >ago, except they would have been carried out with nerve gas or a >radiological device. The US supported Terrorism, as did the UK, in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation, and we supported Iran and Iraq all through the 80s, switching sides whenever it best suited us. The US supported Chile when Pinochet kidnapped and killed thousands of his own people. The US supported terrorism in Vietnam in it's latter days as a French colony. The IRA had many benefactors in the US. From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair. I'm not pinning the blame on the US here, as I'm bloody sure MI6 (as well as others higher up the food chain) had their hand in it, or at least knew about it and supported it. So what's the difference between us and them? Some reading for you: http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm And was there a threat? Our own intelligence prior to the Iraq war has subsequently been shown to be utter bollocks. The fact is, we've created such a dire security situation in Iraq, that to do anything other than stay there and hope it'll all be alright in the end is the only thing we can do. The whole thing has been a shambles from the start. Even the US admitted whilst the war was ongoing that they had no real plans for the aftermath. I take it you don't deny that Iraq is a much more dangerous place now than it was pre war? If countries just continually act in their own self interest then that is a recipe for disaster, anarchy and war. You get nowhere in this world without co-operation. >And before you come back with that old chestnut about "there were no WMDs >found in Iraq", let me point out that there *were* quantities of nerve gas [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tube station would have caused hundreds of horrific casualties. As far as I >am concerned, that was more than enough justification for the invasion. Is there any evidence for this? Or is this just a flagrant assumption or paranoia? >The second that a Western military force set foot on African soil to attempt >to oust a native dictator, every country opposed to the West would be >screaming about "Imperialist aggression" and "the return of Colonialism". >Robert Mugabe would be the first to cry this and I have no doubts that Thabo >Mbeki and Kofi Annan would support him. And of course Mugabe is the voice of reason in Africa, isn't he? The only reason Thabo Mbeki supports him is out of some sense of daft loyalty for the black man against the white. Kofi Annan is a reasonable and intelligent man, and if there were solid grounds for an intervention, then he would support it. >You are wrong! We *did* help them. I personally took part in UN >peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda. The problem is that these people enjoy >killing each other and they don't want to stop. We helped them? When? When UN soldiers drove out from a village, which was surrounded on all sides by Hutus waiting to come in and kill everyone? When, as the UN trucks left, people were begging to be taken with them, holding their children up, pleading with those soldiers to take them to safety? Were we helping them when as the trucks drove away the sound of gunfire and screams from people being hacked to death could be clearly heard? Were we helping them then? A scene repeated all over Rwanda, and the overspill into Burundi. Did we go in and evacuate non combatants? Did we stop Hutu soldiers from massacring civilians? No. We drove away and left them to it. See no evil, hear no evil. You must have a different definition of help than I do. And Rwanda is one example. What did help did we provide in the Sudan, Uganda, or the Congo? SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > We helped them? When? When UN soldiers drove out from a village, which was > surrounded on all sides by Hutus waiting to come in and kill everyone? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And Rwanda is one example. What did help did we provide in the Sudan, > Uganda, or the Congo? Hi James, a very good analysis, but you don't answer the key question - why didn't you *personally* intervene in these matters? I expect you know how to get on an aeroplane. I mean, who is this "we"? And do "we" intervene or don't "we"? Seems to me like a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Ultimately, the whole of society has to ask all these questions, as well as : which course of action is most likely to keep the price of petrol down, so that on a sunny day like this, Steve can afford to cruise up and down Wimbledon Broadway in his Merc with the top down, looking and feeling gooood. And not having to think about getting on that tube train tomorrow. Because feeling goood is just about all that is attainable. All the rest was always so, and always will be. You and I are just cannon fodder in whatever war happens to be going on. I've spent over 50 years thinking about world issues, and I've come to one firm conclusion: come the year 2012, and the opening day of the Olympics, I plan to spend the day in Hull browsing round John's shop, hopefully well outside of the blast radius of the inevitable nuclear device in London, just like the government will have to be in Gleneagles or somewhere and the Mayor in Singapore.... oh, sorry, wasn't supposed to let that particular cat out of the bag just yet! Cheers, Steve >Hi James, a very good analysis, but you don't answer the key question - why >didn't you *personally* intervene in these matters? I expect you know how to >get on an aeroplane. I mean, who is this "we"? And do "we" intervene or >don't "we"? Seems to me like a case of "damned if we do and damned if we >don't". I like to think I make a small contribution, not with the Army, but in supporting the RN, as a Merchant Seaman supplying them with fuel and other essentials. >Ultimately, the whole of society has to ask all these questions, as well as >: which course of action is most likely to keep the price of petrol down, so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >always so, and always will be. You and I are just cannon fodder in whatever >war happens to be going on. Indeed. I tend to think that in the comfortable country that we live in, we tend not to think as much of those who don't have access to the luxuries we do. SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > I like to think I make a small contribution, not with the Army, but in > supporting the RN, as a Merchant Seaman supplying them with fuel and > other essentials. I take it that you go in for minimum-space shunting layouts? ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >> I like to think I make a small contribution, not with the Army, but in >> supporting the RN, as a Merchant Seaman supplying them with fuel and >> other essentials. > >I take it that you go in for minimum-space shunting layouts? ;-) LOL :-) SignatureRegards, James Christie "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." > So you don't think his imposition of secularism actually helped to keep > peace and avoid civil war in Iraq? I suppose you could say the same when he gassed the Kurds, but that doesn't excuse his barbaric behaviour. John. > > So you don't think his imposition of secularism actually helped to keep > > peace and avoid civil war in Iraq? > > I suppose you could say the same when he gassed the Kurds, but that doesn't > excuse his barbaric behaviour. Pre war the CIA were saying that it could just have easily have been the Iranians, they didn't become certain until some time *after* the war ... once the non existent womd couldn't be found. It might also interest you to know that around 1/3 of the heroin imported to the UK to poison our young people is kindly provided by the Kurds. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > Pre war the CIA were saying that it could just have easily have been the > Iranians, they didn't become certain until some time *after* the war ... > once the non existent womd couldn't be found. So then maybe we should be sorting out the Iranians too, and they've got some oil to boot! ;-) > It might also interest you to know that around 1/3 of the heroin imported to > the UK to poison our young people is kindly provided by the Kurds. And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take drugs, and maybe we should be suppressing demand by banging drug dealers away for life. Draconian I know, but not as bad as gassing entire Kurdish villages - whoever did it! John. >So then maybe we should be sorting out the Iranians too, and they've got >some oil to boot! ;-) Having sold them some Class 141s, would it really be a surprise if the Iranians had a grudge against us...? I think uk.current-events.terrorism is ^^^ that way (on my screen, anyway) SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK ... > And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take drugs, and > maybe we should be suppressing demand by banging drug dealers away for life. You're far more tolerant than me ... > Draconian I know, but not as bad as gassing entire Kurdish villages - > whoever did it! ... because I would have no qualms whatsoever in bombing villages and the like concerned in the production of drugs for export to the UK and hanging anyone concerned in the supply of the same. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > ... > > And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take drugs, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > like concerned in the production of drugs for export to the UK and hanging > anyone concerned in the supply of the same. The Taliban had almost eliminated drug production in Afghanistan - thanks to the current "intervention" that drug production is now higher than it was under Russian intervention! IMHO you're pointing your bombers 180 degrees in the wrong direction! > -- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > The Taliban had almost eliminated drug production in Afghanistan Along with most human rights, including virtually all those for women. John. > > The Taliban had almost eliminated drug production in Afghanistan > > Along with most human rights, including virtually all those for women. Certainly - but what's not often commented on these days is that 90% of Afghanistan today is ruled by other than the official Afghan Government and the majority of Afghans are worse off under feudal warlords that they were under the Taliban. Regards, Greg.P. > Certainly - but what's not often commented on these days is that 90% of > Afghanistan today is ruled by other than the official Afghan Government > and the majority of Afghans are worse off under feudal warlords that they > were under the Taliban. Well I can't comment on that I'm afraid, but seems there are very few answers to the third world's problems. John. > > Certainly - but what's not often commented on these days is that 90% of > > Afghanistan today is ruled by other than the official Afghan Government [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well I can't comment on that I'm afraid, but seems there are very few > answers to the third world's problems. There are (long term) answers to their problems, but one needs to consider who is asking the questions and who is defining the problems. While the West defines the problems there never will be any answer, because the West is in part the cause of the problems. So long as the US and UK continue to support dictatorships, feudal monarchies and the like, the problems will only get worse. Regards, Greg.P. > > ... > > > And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take drugs, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the current "intervention" that drug production is now higher than it was > under Russian intervention! If you wish to maintain price you limit supply, over production in the 80s and early 90s lead to a glut. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > > > ... > > > > And much of the rest by the Afghans. It's not obligatory to take [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you wish to maintain price you limit supply, over production in the 80s > and early 90s lead to a glut. It depends at what point in the supply chain you're at! The primary producers, like most, have to produce huge amounts just to earn enough to eat. > >Don't be so silly, James. It was *nothing* like the UK. The society was > >secular because Saddam *imposed* secularism (or more accurately Ba'athism) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fears as an excuse for war? > If Saddam was a hypocrite, so what, most politicians are. He was a nasty, murdering hypocrite - at least Blair smiles on TV. > >Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist organisation affiliated to Al Qaeda, openly > >claimed to have been funded by Saddam. The fact that the families of [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > "Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly. > "Mind you, my first name is Bad." ... > > But John, the often unknown thing about Iraq, was that it was a > > secular society, quite similar to the UK. > > Don't be so silly, James. It was *nothing* like the UK. ... Quite right, after all being the tyrannical despot he surely was, when invasion became an imminent reality he opened the arsenals and armed the general population whereas in the UK we prosecute people who defend themselves. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED > > C: If you go blasting the hell out of other people's cities with tonnes of > > shells why would you be surprised when they explode 40lb of explosives in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you would happily have left Saddam Hussein to continue with his ethnic > cleansing and arbitrary mass-murder of Iraqis? With all the advantage of hind-sight :^( one has to question why the main protagonists _supported_ Hussein through his first million or so mass murders. Regards, Greg.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.