This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

Which race is being degenerated? Now if you said I have a problem with certain religions, that could be true.........

Mainly because I am a true unbeliever.........black and non UK person..

Reason I am posting facts about who and which countries are causing strife in this world is to justify the right Tony/George have for waging war on these murderers and terrorists......Not as some on this thread believe that as per header! Is it time that Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

He should be congratulated for taking the war to the enemy even though many think it has lowered his popularity.. The silent majority in the UK did right to elect him three times.

TOM TEEPEN


But one thing is becoming clear: this terrorism won't end until Islam makes, and acts on, a decisive commitment to expunge violent religious extremists from its community and definitively disallows the twisted theology that provokes their violence.

Aggressive defenses, particularly determined intelligence at home and, crucially, unstinting intelligence sharing among nations, despite any other matters that estrange them from one another, can quash some attacks and sharply raise the costs for the ones that succeed.

But terrorism can last indefinitely when its own community is less than wholly intolerant of it. That is so far painfully the case with Islam.

Sure, most Muslims and their mainstream leadership now dutifully declare their opposition to, and disappointment with, each new outrage against the innocent. But that's usually only on a "since you asked ..." basis.

And it often comes with an ambivalence born of secret pleasure in seeing the big guys get it.

Terrorism can have a great future in such hesitations.

Or the condemnations come bearing caveats: "the Palestinians," you know, or "disrespect" or any of a sing-song of nurtured grievances. But even grave injustices - and aren't there always some laying to hand? - offer no brief to stint against mass murder after mass murder done in Allah's name.

Where is the fury that by now should have average Muslims competing to turn in the most suspects the fastest? A few imams here and there have spoken with convincing ardor against extremism and the violence that it claims as both its privilege and duty, but imams from Chicago, Kano and London to Jakarta and beyond should be straining like athletes to see who can write the most righteous and withering fatwa on Osama bin Laden and all the al Qaida leadership.

Why are Pakistanis and Saudis not demanding that their governments close the schools that tutor students in paranoia and hate and send them into the world with fuses primed for any spark? Where is the culture of rejection that Islam so needs?

The passivity, almost as much as the terrorists' savagery, threatens to make Islam a pariah faith, driving it into a deepening isolation and pulling its unoffending adherents in with it.

This country was built on immigration and was not just open to it but enticed it. Once we got over our lapse into bigoted immigration quotas in the early 20th century, we largely took up anew that welcoming heritage.

But so many nations - Holland, France, now England - have been abused by Muslim immigrants venomous to their new country that nowhere can Muslims any longer expect not to be examined closely on that point. Sorry, but it's Uncle Sam, not Uncle Sap.

If Islam would determine to be rid of the rationalizations underlying, and the excuses alibiing, terror, if it would expel its psychopaths posing as prophets, Islam could redeem itself and although the terror committed under its cover might not end quickly, it would end far faster than it ever will otherwise.

So basically what your saying is all the worlds major problems are the the muslims fault?
nettes, barwoni. Willkommen zum neuen Vorlagenrennen.

You'd think somebody would have learnt something from history.

I appreciate society needs someone to blame. for 50 years it was the evil eastern blok.
Now its the muslims/jews.
NEXT chinese?

If BRITAIN had actively dealt with the extremist arab nationals when they first came to uk 10-15 years ago, we would'nt be in this boat now.
It's because the gov't turned a blind eye, that we now find ourselves in this predicament.
(please -don't play the seeking asylum card- Most of them were terrorists wanted in their own countries- you can't take the moral high ground , then invade other countries on susp' of WMD's or seeking extremists).
Basically WE (myself included) could'nt be arsed and as long as they peddled their filth, lies and destruction abroad , we could'nt give a monkey's.
From speaking with people in the know, theres 10 years worth of work for the security services to do.. starting today.
Hows that for messed up policy.

edited to remove foul language (would/'nt want to offend anyone.)
Don't worry bamoani -won't post again. Your post below , summed it up.
"True colours?can't take the country out of the person?"- I'm white and English and proud of what this country was and has the potential to be again.
LOL

tweenie squelch.........True colours, abuse and profanity, you can take a boy out of the country, but you can not take the country out of the boy.......

i'll get me coat!

Bawoni, I think you have well and truly been "Hoisted by his own petard".

I believe that 'this terrorism' will not cease until long after the western countries have stopped their terrorist activities in the middle east and remember that 1 Arab life is worth as much as 1 US (or GB) life. The recent tactics used in Lebanon, to wantonly bomb civilians and the nations infrastructure in such a disproportionate way is testament to how US and UK condone the killing of innocents.

Just think how the US would have reacted if the UK military bombed the hell out of Northern Ireland in response to the numerous IRA bombings in the UK? They certainly wouldn't have backed the UK military to do this.

The military need these escapades to test their new weapons. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for an insight into who and how the US benefit from military activities abroad.

When all civilian lives are guaranteed protection, then we shall be able to walk safely in the UK, without fear of retalitory suicide bombings.

REF 637 - I couldnt agree more.
We should do our bit and accept immigrants as should all developed countires. Bending over backwards and getting fu***d, however is going a little to far.
If they are not happy here and do not with to meld with the locals, then there is a perfectly good plane and the airport heading home.
This whole situation has gone beyond a joke, the politicians who have always been to scared to make a decision, are now so paranoid, its bordering on the ridiculous.

It seems everyone is to scared to be honest in case they are percieved as racist.

Aye, won't be long before Rumsfeld and the hawks have their way - a US friendly dictator in Iraq. Seen it all before, the Shah in Iran etc etc.

The door is open for anyone to leave the country if they don't like conditions in UK. Otherwise vote for change.

Vote for someone that can think for themselves and doesn't agree to anything the US says or does.

Long live the military. Fund israel, but only for them to buy US arms.

Above all else ensure oil supplies for the US, and make sure military contracts go to companies that will line the pockets of the ruling party.

Yes, we've seen it all before.

Who are you going to vote for? Cameron was in favour of the war in Iraq and still is as was much of the Conservative party (Ken Carke was opposed to it).

It appears to me they are all the same. Say anything to get elected, promise the earth, then go off and do their own thing. But, somehow they all get an invite to have poodle lessons over the pond!

Who could we really vote for?
Is there really anyone who could get into power and would then make a decision. based on whats right and not on what politically correct?
I'd love to hear if there is one.

Me too...

The whole racism thing from a few posts ago leads to a very interesting debate.
If a club that is solely to promote white people is racist, then why is the black police officers association not so?
If I say that my friend is a jock, or a taff, or a paddy, yank,etc.etc. am I likely to offend anyone and be called racist? I doubt it, as it is usually taken in exactly the vein it was said.
Why should I complete forms that ask me if I am white. Surely I am coloured. If I was white I would be an albino!! What is racist about the term black and not about the term white?
Why can I say that certain religions are barking mad (moonies), a pain in the arse (witnesses who knock on my door twice a week), or suspect in some other way, yet other religions I have to avoid any questioning of lest I be branded racist (and probably banned from these boards).
Why can the newspapers print stories and derogatory items about "Brits abroad" or "Brit lager louts", yet be shut down for ever if they used a shortened version of the countries name to discuss cheating in the cricket by Pakistani players (alleged).
I can hear the cries now of certain terms being derogatory. But brit, to me, conjours up images of moaning people complaining that the fish and chips in benidorm are not like they are in scarborough, or drunken 19 year olds vomitting outside a club in ibiza. To then call me a brit is somewhat derogatory.
I can here the defence of black only organisations coming out as positive discrimination, but all discrimination is negative to someone!!
So here is the problem. Barwoni, for instance, may be the least racist guy in the world, but since his views are considered unkind or impolite, he can be safely labelled as racist. how then do the concerns of many, about the perception of Britain slowly losing any identity, and becoming a joke state that has no convistions, lest it upsets another race, get addressed.
I might wish to say (though lets be clear - its not my view), that the UK would be better off if we stopped any immigration and rounded up everyone with no right to be here and sent them packing. This might be a valid concern of 10's of thousand of people, but if every time someone says it they are roundly abused and shunned from society, how will their concerns be expressed. They have a right to an opinion, however distasteful.
I believe, very firmly in democracy. For democracy to work, all views must be aired, right or wrong, in order that issues may be addressed fully, for the benefit of the majority. To silence people because their views are distasteful is the bigger crime, yet we embrace it daily. We marginalise them and force them into violence to be heard. This is the argument put forward by those seeking to understand the terrorists, why does it not fit the BNP?
I know this post will attract venomous responses, i am ready for it, but I am so concerned that we are sleepwalking to disaster.
Discussing the war, I had the "might is Right" argument thrown at me. Just because we are stronger does not give us the right to dictate to anyone else. It is a pity the middle class PC brigade do not live much closer to their own dictat.
Of you go, guys, abuse me as a racist.
Alan

Austin,

I think if for the last 12mths if the electorate were able to vote Blair in himself out of power they would have done so. I am not sure whether he is soiling the patch for Brown or has been a Tory mole or plant since he was elected to parliament.

Why he isn't ostracised from the labour party sooner than later I do not know.

H6,

I must start taking my tablets again as I tend to agree with the sentiments in the first 2-3 paragraphs.

I see nothing wrong and I think it is sensible to discuss racism, racial differences, Gender differences etc.. But not in order to value one more than the other but to recognise there are differences. It is done in medicine where certain "disorders" or "differences" are found in one race or gender and not in another.

I think it is reasonable for a group to form on what ever bases they wish to and to congregate on those bases as long as their actions do not lead to harm or abuse of themselves or others.

But when it comes to the Term British, personally I baulk at it and refer to my nationality.

Looking dodgy, Fred. we agree on something!!
Of course there are differences between races. Much of the problems in modern society are down to a very strange habit of trying to disguise this fact.
Thinking about it, locally we seem to have a dual approach to this. The differences shown by being White and british are looked on as an embarassment. Christmas is played down, St. Georges day is unheard of and English and British flags are almost banned!! This never stops our council sponsoring events to celebrate various hindu, muslim or seikh festivals to embrace diversity.
Very strange.
alan

If the BNP did not have leaders and members who are anti -semitic, and whose members were responsible for unprovoked attacks on people of NON WHITE SKIN.
( see channel 4 documentary or type bnp into google)
If they were able to prove that their policies and views were not responsible for actions taken by the brixton nail bomber or others into committing acts of terror.
If their leadership did'nt flaunt with groups like the KKK.
If they actively sought to tackle social disharmony instead of seeking to inflame it in areas such as bradford and oldham.
if they did any of these things , they yes, i'd happily welcome open debate about them and their policies.
Somehow I think it'll be a cold day in hell, before any of that happens.
They are and have always been nothing more than thugs in suits.

And theres the problem, WD.
We have a Muslim parliament and Muslim groups but we can copy and paste any of your accusations against the BNP onto their name, yet still we listen to them and give them a voice.
I do not support the BNP, but if we listen to and debate with one set of extremists, then surely sauce for the goose...................
If Muslim groups had leaders and members who were not anti christian and jew, whose members were not responsible for unprovoked attacks on non-muslims (bradford race riots)
If they were able to prove their policies and views were not responsible for actions taken by July 7th terrorists or others in comitting acts of terror
If their leadership didn't flaunt with the likes of the Taliban
If they actively sought to tackle social disharmony instead of seeking to inflame it in areas such as Bradford or Oldham (or that mosque in London where the guy with the hook preached), then yes I would happily welcome open debate about them and their policies.
Somehow I think the same.
I am not brandishing a magic wand that makes all muslims terrorists and racist. But neither am I saying those who support the BNP because they see it as the only way to redress a balance they percieve as swinging wildly away from their interests are all racist thugs.
As I said, sauce for the goose......................
Alan