Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 7     «   Prev   4   5   6   7
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #91 
Then reread what I have already written.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Then reread what I have already written.

You wrote "as an Englishman I have a little bit of sore feeling towards the Zionist terrorists of the 30s and 40s, and sometimes it does occur to me that those like Netanyahu, who are so vociferous against the terrorism of Hamas, often turn a blind eye to the deeds of the Irgun and Stern Gang, who are far from universally condemned in modern Israel."
I agree, that deliberately attacking civilians is wrong, but subjects of British colonial rule attacking British armed forces is legitimate. The Zionist "terrorists" are heroes, like the Peshmerga and the Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of ANC). 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #93 
Why are you digging around in ancient threads to repost in this thread, ostensibly on a different topic? This is a very strange way to behave. I'm not going to discuss such a complex topic with you, one on which I haven't completely made up my own mind, as it would be an utterly pointless exercise. All I will say is that if civilians aren't targeted or recklessly endangered, I lean towards your view. But there are qualifications and conditions, like that terrorism is a last resort, has a reasonable hope of success, etc., that complicate the matter. And I can't think of a more complicated situation than the British mandate at that time point, and I am no expert on it (another reason for my reticence on the issue now). I will say no more.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #94 
I don't consider the legacy of the British Empire worse than the legacies of the other European colonial powers. British rule of India was benign compared to Spanish rule of Mexico and Peru. The British Raj tolerated Hinduism, and parts of India were allowed to remain independent states under British suzerainty (the princely states of India). British colonial rule in Africa was no worse than French colonial rule in Africa, and Israel and South Yemen are the only Middle Eastern countries, which have been subject to direct British rule. But Great Britain making Kurdistan part of Iraq and limiting Jewish immigration to Israel during the Nazi era were unacceptable crimes. Great Britain ought to repent for those crimes by supporting Kurdish independence from Iraq and recognizing East Jerusalem as part of Israel. 
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I don't consider the legacy of the British Empire worse than the legacies of the other European colonial powers. British rule of India was benign compared to Spanish rule of Mexico and Peru. The British Raj tolerated Hinduism, and parts of India were allowed to remain independent states under British suzerainty (the princely states of India). British colonial rule in Africa was no worse than French colonial rule in Africa, and Israel and South Yemen are the only Middle Eastern countries, which have been subject to direct British rule. But Great Britain making Kurdistan part of Iraq and limiting Jewish immigration to Israel during the Nazi era were unacceptable crimes. Great Britain ought to repent for those crimes by supporting Kurdish independence from Iraq and recognizing East Jerusalem as part of Israel. 

As you know I'm a Briton, and I'd be very happy to see an independent Kurdistan so long as it was not communist and the non-Kurds were treated well.
East Jerusalem is certainly Israeli in my eyes.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.