Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

Is slavery ok?

 

 

It's certainly true that our social  history syllabuses make much of Wilberforce and his campaign to emancipate slaves. Not quite as much about our enslaving them in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Not quite as much about our enslaving them in the first place.

So, based on this, if New Zealand they're going to bring back slavery we should keep our noses out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, based on this, if New Zealand they're going to bring back slavery we should keep our noses out.

 

If New Zealand did suggest this what should our reaction be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If New Zealand did suggest this what should our reaction be?

Could be wide ranging. Suggesting it should bring one reaction, actually going through with it then mass murdering the slaves who try and be free, another.

 

The point is, just because we've "aided" slavery in the past, do we forfeit the right to be outraged by it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point is, just because we've "aided" slavery in the past, do we forfeit the right to be outraged by it now?

 

Most people don't realise that, irrespective of colour or creed, they are descended from slaves. Again, English history perverts the truth by referring to our ancestors as "villeins" or "serfs".

 

The fact is, for any westerner in  the twentfirst century, the concept of slavery is abhorrent. Not so for those fundamental muslim groupings whose objective is to enslave non-moslems. That's why we should stay out of those organisations' campaigns in their own countries and wipe them out in ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slight tangent, has anyone else noticed how Shami Chakrarbarti has recently become quite a bit more conciliatory and (to my mind) reasonable in her views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slight tangent, has anyone else noticed how Shami Chakrarbarti has recently become quite a bit more conciliatory and (to my mind) reasonable in her views?

 

I think she's always been pretty reasonably but badly portrayed by a lot of the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she's always been pretty reasonably but badly portrayed by a lot of the media.

Yep, she's been the victim of some pretty cynical editing of her speeches and interviews over the years.  The greatest majority of the things she says are quite reasonable and far more restrained and rational than people give her credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Syria and iran's foreign minister supports Russia's plan of removing all of assad's chemical weapons out of Syria under international control, you'd have to expect that a guarantee from the US of not attacking Syria would also have to be on the table as this would leave Syria wide open for foreign military intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is becoming more and more apparent is that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

 

I think the motivation of the west now is to accelerate his retention in return for an amnesty for all Syrians. Then we will no longer have to pay the upkeep for a couple of million refugees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is becoming more and more apparent is that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

 

I think the motivation of the west now is to accelerate his retention in return for an amnesty for all Syrians. Then we will no longer have to pay the upkeep for a couple of million refugees

"Amnesty" - exactly how much do you think that would be worth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is becoming more and more apparent is that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

 

I think the motivation of the west now is to accelerate his retention in return for an amnesty for all Syrians. Then we will no longer have to pay the upkeep for a couple of million refugees

I think that's been apparent for some time.  There was a report on telly the other day about the rebels forcing Christian Syrians to convert to Islam then punishing them for their past sins.

 

I mentioned a few pages ago that I genuinely believe that without this civil war that Syria would be much like Turkey in a decade or so.  It's largely a secular country already where your religion isn't the most important qualifier for your continued survival.

 

On the handing over of the chemical weapons, unless he hands over the physical delivery components as well as the chemicals it's meaningless as they're so easy to replicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would leave Syria wide open for foreign military intervention.

 

There already is foreign military intervention in Syria. The Assad Regime is being kept afloat by the Iranians and Hezbollah plus with help from the Russians.

 

On the handing over of the chemical weapons, unless he hands over the physical delivery components as well as the chemicals it's meaningless as they're so easy to replicate.

 

I can't envisage that happening unless the Russians want to sell them some more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's been apparent for some time.  There was a report on telly the other day about the rebels forcing Christian Syrians to convert to Islam then punishing them for their past sins.

 

I mentioned a few pages ago that I genuinely believe that without this civil war that Syria would be much like Turkey in a decade or so.  It's largely a secular country already where your religion isn't the most important qualifier for your continued survival.

 

On the handing over of the chemical weapons, unless he hands over the physical delivery components as well as the chemicals it's meaningless as they're so easy to replicate.

Turkey is a country where almost everybody is Muslim and they elected an "moderate" Islamist as President. Their President now uses brutal police tactics (someone died yesterday) to clamp down on peaceful demonstrations, orders a media black-out and likens protesters to terrorists (oh and they are in the pay of foreigners). A government minister was good enough to dispel any doubts by blaming the Jews (yes he actually did say that). Meanwhile there are growing clampdowns on un-Islamic activities such as alcohol and the government building more and more mosques. Oh and they prosecute people for blasphemy.

It is time to stop using Turkey as a model of how Islam could be pink and fluffy. It never was a model democracy and it certainly isn't now. It has had more than 50 years to comply with EU accession laws regarding human rights and democracy and hasn't managed to achieve even half of them, meanwhile former East European communist dictatorships managed in 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey is a country where almost everybody is Muslim and they elected an "moderate" Islamist as President. Their President now uses brutal police tactics (someone died yesterday) to clamp down on peaceful demonstrations, orders a media black-out and likens protesters to terrorists (oh and they are in the pay of foreigners). A government minister was good enough to dispel any doubts by blaming the Jews (yes he actually did say that). Meanwhile there are growing clampdowns on un-Islamic activities such as alcohol and the government building more and more mosques. Oh and they prosecute people for blasphemy.

It is time to stop using Turkey as a model of how Islam could be pink and fluffy. It never was a model democracy and it certainly isn't now. It has had more than 50 years to comply with EU accession laws regarding human rights and democracy and hasn't managed to achieve even half of them, meanwhile former East European communist dictatorships managed in 15 years.

Turkey isn't "pink and fluffy", I think their behaviour is quite unacceptable in many areas but then that's more a question of morals and ethics rather than genuine concern for the country.  On brutal police tactics, someone with a point to prove could easily get plenty of evidence of Britain's police not being too good at protests, it all depends what point you have to prove.  Ask many miners about their opinions of police tactics in the 1980s.  On your point about someone dying in a peaceful protest at police hands, Ian Tomlinson didn't fall down and die on his own.  It's all how you look at things and the vested interest of who is reporting it.

 

Turkey is a fully democratic country, an active member of NATO, a long-standing ally of the West and has a military that has a history and culture of stepping in to slap down elected wannabe extremists.  I read one quote from a current Turkish General about him being generally content with the current politicians as they'd stabilised the economy, made the country the 17th largest global economy, tripled per-capita income and made Turkey the genuine regional power BUT if they tried to make the state an Islamic Republic then the military were more than ready to step in to depose him.

 

So... where would you prefer Syria moving towards as a country?  Turkey or Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey isn't "pink and fluffy", I think their behaviour is quite unacceptable in many areas but then that's more a question of morals and ethics rather than genuine concern for the country.  On brutal police tactics, someone with a point to prove could easily get plenty of evidence of Britain's police not being too good at protests, it all depends what point you have to prove.  Ask many miners about their opinions of police tactics in the 1980s.  On your point about someone dying in a peaceful protest at police hands, Ian Tomlinson didn't fall down and die on his own.  It's all how you look at things and the vested interest of who is reporting it.

I think it is a case of Turkey not attracting much media attention in the UK and so people are unaware of what goes on there.

We're not talking about just the one death. There have been several. Don't expect any kind of investigation into the deaths either. The government has already declared that foreign backed terrorists are responsible for any deaths.

For the first few weeks of the protests whilst people were being beaten and killed (along with any journalists present) and lawyers were arrested for defending protesters, the Turkish TV channels were not showing any of the protests let alone the violence. They were too busy focusing on cooking programmes.

Hardly the same as 80s Britain let alone modern day Britain.

 

Turkey is a fully democratic country, an active member of NATO, a long-standing ally of the West and has a military that has a history and culture of stepping in to slap down elected wannabe extremists.  I read one quote from a current Turkish General about him being generally content with the current politicians as they'd stabilised the economy, made the country the 17th largest global economy, tripled per-capita income and made Turkey the genuine regional power BUT if they tried to make the state an Islamic Republic then the military were more than ready to step in to depose him.

 

So... where would you prefer Syria moving towards as a country?  Turkey or Iran?

Neither.

What you seem to have overlooked is the "fully democratic" country has a history of military coups. This is why the Islamist government purged its generals by arresting them on trumped up charges and sentenced them accordingly. I am amazed that a/ you think that a general threatening a military coup is something that happens in democratic states b/ you could find a current general who would say that after the purges.

The economic growth bit is true but the Islamisation and the political thuggery is also true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017