Heartland

i bet the chinese (government/state) are rubbing their hands with patient anticipation. as when the middle-east-triggered east-west mutual-annhialation everyone-dies-special reaches it's horribly predictable and inevitable finale (this year,next year, sometime whenever) they'll be able to stroll into the ruins and help themselves to whatevers left, resources-wise and be as inscrutable as they like....what with there being no-one left to scrutinise them.

I know that the "defence" of 7/7 isn't genuinely tenable, chalk it up to devil's advocate again. To be honest, I don't think my knowledge of the Irish Troubles is up to the job of arguing about it. Not that that usually stops me...

As for China, they already own god knows how much of the West's foreign debt they needn't wait for physical destruction...

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: The British have never been squeamish about massacaring unarmed people, or indeed people who are considerably more lightly armed than themselves. Culloden springs to mind. Of the long list of things invented by the British (the steam engine, the postage system, and the welfare state) concentration camps are perhaps our most enduring and endearing gift to anyone wanting to subdue an enemy population. Makes yer proud, dunnit?

Culloden? Highland Scots fighting Highland and Lowland Scots commanded by a German?
And wasn't Kitchener Irish? So why the faux Cockney bit at the ending? Surely you should be affecting a charming burr of the Celtic fringes?

Culloden was simply one instance where the British Army took on a force that they outnumbered and outgunned, and subsequent to which an awesome volume of retribution was exacted on unarmed women and children - homes and farms were torched, speaking of a language and wearing of tartan was outlawed, families were driven from their homes and forced to live in the hills, their lands were taken and given to people favoured by the Crown - generally some fairly unpleasant, even uncivilised, behaviour, the hallmark of the projection of British Imperial Power.
Kitchener was born in Ireland but his parents were British (rather than Anglo-Irish) - makes him a Brit. Given that he was British, he was working for the British army when he came up with the idea of concentration camps, and that the idea was adopted by the British government, I'm claiming the invention as a British one.

EvilBastard wrote: Culloden was simply one instance where the British Army took on a force that they outnumbered and outgunned, and subsequent to which an awesome volume of retribution was exacted on unarmed women and children - homes and farms were torched, speaking of a language and wearing of tartan was outlawed, families were driven from their homes and forced to live in the hills, their lands were taken and given to people favoured by the Crown - generally some fairly unpleasant, even uncivilised, behaviour, the hallmark of the projection of British Imperial Power.
Kitchener was born in Ireland but his parents were British (rather than Anglo-Irish) - makes him a Brit. Given that he was British, he was working for the British army when he came up with the idea of concentration camps, and that the idea was adopted by the British government, I'm claiming the invention as a British one.

These the same Jacobites who forced their tenants to join by the threat of burning their cottages down over their heads? And you can't ban what didn't exist. Clan tartan was an invention of Victorian Balmoralism and has no historical basis. Oh, and who visited the harshest punishments on the Highlanders? Fellow Scots. I'm waiting to hear how "the British" are to blame for the Clearances. Point out it was Scottish landowners who booted out their own in favour of sheep and listen to the spluttering!

Nope. Born in Ireland, you're Irish. That's what being Irish is! And as the Irish like to deny any colonial wrong-doing, I'm claiming it as an Irish invention!

DeWinter wrote:Born in Ireland, you're Irish. That's what being Irish is! And as the Irish like to deny any colonial wrong-doing, I'm claiming it as an Irish invention!

Rubbish

DeWinter wrote:These the same Jacobites who forced their tenants to join by the threat of burning their cottages down over their heads?

Oh, and who visited the harshest punishments on the Highlanders? Fellow Scots. I'm waiting to hear how "the British" are to blame for the Clearances. Point out it was Scottish landowners who booted out their own in favour of sheep and listen to the spluttering!

I wouldn't claim that the Jacobites were peace-loving muesli weavers - merely that the earlier claim that the British were too civilised to send armed troops against women and children had no basis in fact.

DeWinter wrote:And you can't ban what didn't exist. Clan tartan was an invention of Victorian Balmoralism and has no historical basis.

So the Dress Act of 1746, which was passed in the wake of the Battle of Culloden, was enacted to ban something that didn't exist?

DeWinter wrote:Nope. Born in Ireland, you're Irish. That's what being Irish is!

Wow - I'm speechless. I take it that you don't practice immigration or naturalisation law on a professional basis, then?

EvilBastard wrote:

DeWinter wrote:And you can't ban what didn't exist. Clan tartan was an invention of Victorian Balmoralism and has no historical basis.

So the Dress Act of 1746, which was passed in the wake of the Battle of Culloden, was enacted to ban something that didn't exist?

Thank you, EvilBastard.

'Tartan' as a weaving pattern has been attested since at least the 16th century, and has been mentioned in descriptions of Scottish dress since at least the 17th. 'Clan' tartan as currently perceived is, in fact, a recent convention - but there's plenty of evidence even so that certain patterns were common in particular areas. Kind of like Arran knitting patterns.

For the record, I am a) a historical costumer of over 35 years standing (and I mean researched, theatrical costume, not LARP s**t), b) Scottish on my father's side, c) Irish on my mother's. So this particular tangent is bringing out my cranky side, in spades

The 7/7 bombers attacked Edgware Road in London. Have you walked down Edgware Road? You will hear more Arabic spoken than in Baghdad there.

Suleiman wrote:The 7/7 bombers attacked Edgware Road in London. Have you walked down Edgware Road? You will hear more Arabic spoken than in Baghdad there.

Wasn't there some attempt at justification along the lines that any Muslims killed would be martyrs?

markfiend wrote:

Suleiman wrote:The 7/7 bombers attacked Edgware Road in London. Have you walked down Edgware Road? You will hear more Arabic spoken than in Baghdad there.

Wasn't there some attempt at justification along the lines that any Muslims killed would be martyrs?

I don’t remember hearing that, but it reminds me of a tribe (the Ikhwan or the brotherhood) in the Arabian Peninsula who kidnapped some Kuwaitis in the 30’s (I could be wrong about the date). They were asked questions from the Quran. If they got them wrong they were executed because they were bad Muslims. If they answered correctly they were executed because they knew how they should behave but chose not to.

She’s a witch!

Very interesting news, at least I haven't heard it before:

Edit: the better (and original) link

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washi ... ml?_r=1&hp

EvilBastard wrote: I wouldn't claim that the Jacobites were peace-loving muesli weavers - merely that the earlier claim that the British were too civilised to send armed troops against women and children had no basis in fact.


So the Dress Act of 1746, which was passed in the wake of the Battle of Culloden, was enacted to ban something that didn't exist?


Wow - I'm speechless. I take it that you don't practice immigration or naturalisation law on a professional basis, then?

For three years I worked in what was then the IAA. And no, I wasn't fired, I got tired of what I saw and quit.
You're born and raised in one country, you'll have that country's experiences, and largely habits and culture too. I don't buy that two years residence and repeating an oath(via interpreter sometimes) changes anything. I suspect this country is already beginning to find that out to it's cost. I'd be very interested to know how many of those convicted of terrorist acts in this country were in possession of a bit of leather bound laminated card.

I fail to see why saying an Irishman did something not very nice is so horrifying. I'll happily(?) concede Amritzar or even Dresden.
Clan Tartan, look it up. Invented by the Victorians, along with most of the shortbread tin "Bonnie Scotland" junk. Much like "Merrie Englande", or "France Profonde".Largely Walter Scott's drippy romances fuelled it.

Some interesting information is presented in this article.

I do not, however, completely agree with the author's implied conclusions. Anyway, regardless of what I or the author think, it makes for some interesting facts that haven't been widely published in our (Western) MSM.

As per usual, I'm just presenting information and not opinion.

DeWinter wrote: Clan Tartan, look it up. Invented by the Victorians, along with most of the shortbread tin "Bonnie Scotland" junk. Much like "Merrie Englande", or "France Profonde".Largely Walter Scott's drippy romances fuelled it.

Abolition and Proscription of the Highland Dress 19 George II, Chap. 39, Sec. 17, 1746

"That from and after the first day of August, One thousand, seven hundred and forty-seven, no man or boy within that part of Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as Officers and Soldiers in His Majesty's Forces, shall, on any pretext whatever, wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland clothes (that is to say) the Plaid, Philabeg, or little Kilt, Trowse, Shoulder-belts, or any part whatever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland Garb; and that no tartan or party-coloured plaid of stuff shall be used for Great Coats or upper coats, and if any such person shall presume after the said first day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garment or any part of them, every such person so offending….shall be liable to be transported to any of His Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years."

(Emphasis mine).

Syberberg wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. After all, if they don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, they are free to protest the government's actions, and if that won't work, they can leave Israel; most Jewish Israelis have dual nationality with somewhere else anyway.

That being the case, under the principle that "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem", each and every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target for retaliation from Hamas.
</devils_advocate>

FYI, Muslims can and do vote in Israeli elections, and hold positions in the Knesset.

If memory serves, I think there are 12 current Arab members of the Knesset, one of whom is the Minister for Science, Culture and Sport.

But for how much longer..?

"The measure was proposed by the National Union and Israel Beiteinu, two ultra-nationalist parties.

The motion claimed the two Arab parties supported terrorism and "did not recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state", Knesset spokesman Giora Pordis told the AFP news agency."

Could be tough to reconcile the idea of a "democratic Jewish state" - definite undertones of "you can only vote if you're Jewish". Slippery slope time.

Did anyone see this today?
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp? ... 1050wmv&ak

Grab it quick before someone pulls it off the air.

Brave lady.

Pista wrote:Did anyone see this today?
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp? ... 1050wmv&ak

Grab it quick before someone pulls it off the air.

Brave lady.

No one's going to "Pull it off the air" it's pretty old, well known, and also the kind of discussion that goes on regularly throughout the Arab World and the Arab media. Western impressions of the lack of this kind of opinion being aired in the ME are almost totally based on lack of Arabic speakers.

Arabic media agencies, especially the independent ones, are chock ful of dissenting voices, especially papers based outside the region like Al Quds Al Arabi. There are regions where acess to this kind of media is difficult (Saudi and Iran being ovious but wildly differing examples) but if you spend two hours in cafe almost anywhere in the ME and listen to people around you, you'll hear governments slagged off, aspects of Islam pilloried, people on both sides of the Palestine debate etc etc etc.

RobF wrote: you'll hear governments slagged off, aspects of Islam pilloried, people on both sides of the Palestine debate etc etc etc.

I've visited Egypt a few times and heard (as far as the locals have been able to speak english) LOTS of slagging-off-government, some aspects of Islam being critizised (like the view of alcohol), but never heard anyone defend Israel. Maybe just bad luck. Also, that the views are told by a woman is at least exotic to me, or rather to the impressions I got from Egypt.

I can imagine things are much more liberal in Beirut, but that's hardly a representative city for the muslim world is it?

I've seen both sides in Jordan - I was there during Ramadan, and while on the one hand there was an element of "it's not Ramadan up here!" among some of the Arab tribes, there were small relatively isolated villages along the desert highway where the attitude was very traditional.

EvilBastard wrote:

Syberberg wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

FYI, Muslims can and do vote in Israeli elections, and hold positions in the Knesset.

If memory serves, I think there are 12 current Arab members of the Knesset, one of whom is the Minister for Science, Culture and Sport.

But for how much longer..?

"The measure was proposed by the National Union and Israel Beiteinu, two ultra-nationalist parties.

The motion claimed the two Arab parties supported terrorism and "did not recognise Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state", Knesset spokesman Giora Pordis told the AFP news agency."

Could be tough to reconcile the idea of a "democratic Jewish state" - definite undertones of "you can only vote if you're Jewish". Slippery slope time.

From the article wrote:The 30-member panel voted 26-3 with one abstention to disqualify Balad, and voted 21-3 with eight abstentions to disqualify UAL-Ta'al.

Slippery slope indeed. This is the last thing Israel needs if she wants to gain any kind of wider support in the ME by claiming to be democratic. FFS

Even though it would be nice to ban the likes of the B(loody) N(asty) P(arty) here in the UK, it would be grossly undemocratic to do so.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063339.html

The next Israeli government could be a right-to-extreme-right coalition led by warmonger Netanyahu. Is this a straight road to hell, or could it create a real change as to how Israel is viewed in Washington?

I doubt people in the 80s would have believed people in 2009 wish Ariel Sharon back in order to get a real peace process going