The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Condoleezza Rice: Blackburn visit

Home Forums Lounge Condoleezza Rice: Blackburn visit

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4192
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Did those people protesting about the war in Iraq during Condoleezza (who gives a daughter a christian name like that??) Rice’s visit protest just as vehemently outside the Iraqi embassy over the murder of muslims when Saddam Hussein was in power?<br> Can’t recall seeing footage of hordes of British muslims demanding justice for their fellow muslims in Iraq back then.<br> They might do well to ponder that they can (for the time being at least) protest freely in the UK – not a luxury too many Iraqis are familiar with and never would be under Hussein. (Although it has to be said things aint going too well for our "liberation" forces either.)  

    #99379
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Per GH

    The State now dictates the extent to which you can "protest freely", something which has been creeping in ever since the Miners Strike in the eighties.

    For sure, we don’t live in a Totalitarian State, but we do live in one which uses every trick at its disposal, to stupify and decieve the populace. Their secret is that they do this under the cloak of ‘democracy’, letting just enough crumbs fall from the table, to keep a majority hoodwinked, in order that they can continue their nefarious game.

    Some of the people in this country are no less brain-washed than the citizens of North Korea – they just have access to better toys, and therefore really couldn’t give a monkeys.

    <br>Actually, I think you’re spot on there. I don’t like the way things are going in this country with regards to civil liberties etc.     <br>Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Iraqi invasion and of G.W.Bush’s place in history were today’s protesters hypocrites?  It might have been better had I asked something like "If Saddam Hussein had visited Blackburn at the height of his tyranny, would these Muslims have been out in protest then?"<br>Perhaps the answer to that would be "yes" – in which case they wouldn’t be hypocrites. It’s a pity there aren’t a few Muslim forum members. If the answer was "no" – then – in my book – they’re hypocrites.<br>

    #99381
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2163

    Insomniac

    IMO the problem with labelling someone a hypocrite is the same as with labelling them a liar – the one may be putting forward a position of virtue or religion that makes no sense, just as the other may be speaking an untruth, but in each case to justify the description you’d have to be able to show that there was in their own mind an awareness of the falsehood of their position.    Quite difficult to do when you can’t get into another’s head.

    That said, I would venture that a true Muslim would have nothing to do with these gobby demonstrator types, or with the so-called "Muslim leaders" in the UK feted by New Labour.

    Islam means submission to the will of God.  It does not mean presuming to speak for God , making judgments over other human beings, mouthing off against another,  or even engaging in ghibba (gossip) in respect of them.

    So much I have learned over the years from the overwhelmingly thoughtful, gentle Muslims I have met in the Middle East.

    Example: one of them said to me when Sharon first lapsed into a coma:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Every part of me wants to say "may he rot in hell".   But that’s not my place to say.  The most I can say is "may God give him what he deserves".   If God thinks he should go to hell, so be it.  If God thinks he should go to heaven, so be it.  Its just not for me to presume to say, however strongly I may feel or think I know.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That’s a level of religious commitment that I can respect.

    Measured against it, all the mouthy Muslim types (whether in the UK or elsewhere) are IMO  at the minimum sadly ignorant of the real nature of their faith.   At the worst they are deliberately using the language of faith to cloak non-faith motivations.

    Similarly IMO as regards mouthy Christian types.

    I venture that the world would be a lot better place if every religious person took the same view of their relationship with their God as my above-quoted friend.   Sure, oppose by not supporting and shunning, but he don’t get into bad-mouthing or anything worse.

    best regards

    wit<br>

    #99383
    Meshaheer
    Member
    • Total Posts 486

    Couldn’t have put it better wit. I don’t have any time for religious fanatacism, or the mouthy sorts you refer to.

    #99385
    rory
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2685

    Quote: from wit on 7:07 am on April 1, 2006[br]

    Example: one of them said to me when Sharon first lapsed into a coma:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>best regards

    wit

    I’d love to comment, but I haven’t really been keeping up with Eastenders recently. It just goes to show that people take these soaps far too seriously.

    Forgive me, for I know not what I say :saint:

    #99387
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    There are a lot of people who have profited personally from the War and subsequent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. These mainly being those who are connected to the Oil Industry, involved in the logistical support and supply of the Armed Forces and Civilian Contract Companies awarded reconstruction contracts paid for by International Aid.<br>A Tanker<br>This Chevron Tanker was re-named in 2001. MsRice has her own agenda I think.

    What I really liked best of all about her response to the demonstrations was thet she thought it was good to see democracy at work, etc .. great coming from someone who was elected by … err !!<br>

    #99389
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    to suggest that George Bush is a bigger "terrorist" or danger than saddam hussein is absolutely naive IMO

    Given that, prior to the invasion, Saddam effectively had no weapons and, due to western pressure, no opportunity to buy either WMD or the materials to create WMD, who was he a "danger" to?  

    We had his balls in a vice.

    Ok, he could push around his own people, but, on the international stage, he had no military capacity to attack anyone.

    Steve

    #99390
    graysonscolumn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 6965

    Quote: from wit on 6:07 am on April 1, 2006[br]I venture that the world would be a lot better place if every religious person took the same view of their relationship with their God as my above-quoted friend.   Sure, oppose by not supporting and shunning, but he don’t get into bad-mouthing or anything worse.

    best regards

    wit

    <br>The last I checked, that was one of the edicts in my copy of the Pantheist credo. Do / think as you will but harm none, or similar.

    <br>Very, very good post by Wit, I thought.

    The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.

    #99391
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    Of course a cracking post by wit as usual, but it begs the question ‘when do you stop sitting on the fence and actually do something .. when you see an injustice?’

    #99393
    Kifill
    Participant
    • Total Posts 142

    Can’t recall seeing footage of hordes of British muslims demanding justice for their fellow muslims in Iraq back then.  

    There were Iraqi exiles of my acquaintance who did just that, back in the 1980s.  They were largely ignored by the media at the time, as it risked annoying an ally who was a very profitable source of weapons sales.

    #99394
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2163

    hi dave

    For the religious, I don’t think its the "when" that’s difficult (the answer is "always" ), but the "what" should be done in the kind of situation you outline.

    Gandhi saw non-violent, non-co-operation as the essence of true religion, and the only effective way to defeat "violence":

    http://www.mkgandhi.org/epigrams/v.htm  

    http://www.mahatma.org.in/quotes/quotes.jsp?link=qt

    <br>While I don’t know his thoughts well enough to reconcile his

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I suffer snakes to be killed in the ashram when it is impossible to catch them and put them out of harm’s way.<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    with his

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I do not want to live at the cost of the life even of a snake. I should let him bite me to death rather than kill him. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    and while he acknowledges that his ideas are more of the soul than of the body, there is no denying that those ideas have been used to great practical effect.

    <br>IMO they’re worth more than a second look, even by those possibly more motivated by what happens today and tomorrow, rather than what happens come judgment day.

    best regards

    wit<br>

    #99395
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    Interesting wit, not a view I agree with though.

    Tony Blairs latest revelations about his relationship with God and how he sought advice during the run up to the War and then saying later on that he would be judged by God himself for what he had done .. I want to see him punished in the now-now and not the never-never .. my own religious convictions make me feel like this, non-co-operation and non-participation will never bring about any sort of justice. Although it may shape things, as with the Gandhi.

    I also think that many people who critise those who do demonstrate against people like Condoleeza don’t understand that the people who demonstrate actually feel as though they are under attack themselves .. lets face it 99% of the casualties have been the enemy, so far.

    #99396
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Some interesting and thought provoking replies – much as I expected.<br>Kifill: You make a valid point. Those who protested against Hussein’s regime were not given the prominence they deserved by the media. (Did these friends of yours approve of the invasion by the way?)

    One could argue that the biggest hypocrites  here are the USA (and UK) administrations; happy enough to trade with an evil regime when it suited them (i.e. during the Iraq / Iran) war.  But maybe that’s just politics – and that sort of "hypocrisy" (if you can call it that) is practised by all major powers – not just the US).

    Regarding Ms Rice’s visit.   I have no way of knowing if my suspicion is correct but I’ll posit it anyway. I reckon that a large proportion of the bile directed at this visit (especially by the non-muslim protesters) was simply anti-Americanism, a trait I detest (unless of course it’s because the USA were to beat England in the World Cup this year:biggrin: ).  Any stick to beat the yanks with is what some people look for. <br>Had it been say, the Russians that had invaded and occupied Iraq, would there have been so many (especially non-muslim) protesters if a Russian big-wig had been the visitor? I think not.  Some of you may disagree.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.