Scottish Law Online > Discussion Forum Community Home | Search | Contact
 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
Visit Amazon.co.uk today Wink
Home Help Search Login Register



Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
UK foreign policies (Read 42555 times)
Joe the Doe
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 118
Scotland
Gender: male
Re: UK foreign policies
Reply #15 - Nov 23rd, 2006 at 12:19am
 
Grumpy Quote:
Similalry if a succession of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims can't we call them Muslim terrorists?


No. We can't. The point is grumpy, that such people that commit such atrocities are not muslims. How can they be when they believe what is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the faith? They do not represent the faith when they engage in such crimes. When someone of a Christian or Jewish background commits a horrendous crime, does faith come into it at all? No. It does not. In the media lime-light would your read or hear the phrase..."christian terrorist does this...jewish terrorist massacres palestinian innocents" etc? Hardly. It does not matter whether one be a muslim, christian, hindu, jew or whatever. It is the crime that matters and the person, themself, that matters. Not their faith. By attaching "muslim" to the word "terrorist" we create an oxymoron. It is a paradox. It does not make sense in the same way that "cold fire" does not make sense. We have become so used to seeing such phrases in the media that we fail to acknowledge such simple facts. Conclusively, the phrase or term is incorrect and highly inaccruate. We should refrain from using the language in such a way. Further debate is welcome.

How come the Jewish vote became so popular? Is it because there are Jews in abundance in America or is it because they hold high offices?
I have read numerous academics from top institutions in the States declare that America would benefit more from NOT sponsoring Israel: Israel being a burden to America.

In relation to the UK...why does it tag along to the US policies in favour of Israel? Do we have such a strong Jewish vote here? Indeed the UK suffers from supporting the rogue regime in Israel: the 7/7 attacks by extremists reflect this. So why does the UK follow such policies? Surely, it is in their favour not to.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joe the Doe
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 118
Scotland
Gender: male
Re: UK foreign policies
Reply #16 - Feb 28th, 2007 at 2:01am
 
Was on YouTube.com the other night and watched some very impressive George Galloway debates/lectures/interviews.

Theres a fairly recent one where he addresses the Westminster Parliament, I think it was at the end of January 2007. I would recommend it to anyone to watch it if they can!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joe the Doe
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 118
Scotland
Gender: male
Re: UK foreign policies
Reply #17 - May 16th, 2007 at 1:29pm
 
Check out:

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy . It is a working paper written by John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Simply excellent.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
grumpy
God Member
*****
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 756
Gender: male
Re: UK foreign policies
Reply #18 - May 29th, 2007 at 10:17am
 
Hi Simba,

as far as I'm concerned we and the western world carry an unnecessary guilt burden for the holocaust. We were not part of that and ended it's horrendous effects by defeating Germany. Understandably, the Jews vowed never again to be a patsy for anyone and developed a zero tolerance approach to aggressors which is fair enough. However, when they commit atrocities or breach human rights etc no one is prepared to criticise or take action for what i see as fear of anti-semitism coupled with fear of losing the important Jewish votes both here and in the US. If a Muslim or communist state were to act as Israel do you can be sure we would be vocal in condemning them and take action.

I believe that we as a nation should be consistent and apply the same standards across the world. We step in on a regular basis (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) but sit on our hands and keep quiet in relation to Israel. Silence is then easily interpreted by our critics as at best tacit support of Israel and we become targets. We should adopt a strong line against all oppression and use the UN as a means of stamping down on any country who acts unlawfully against another or who oppress their own citizens. We don't do that with Israel.

Returning to my point about labelling terrorists you may have misinterpreted my position. When someone carries out an act of terrorism and claims to be doing it to further a cause we are entitled to label them accordingly, regardless of whether they are really following the principles of the cause they promote. If a terrorist claims to be Muslim, appears to practise (albeit improperly) that faith and attacks a target identified by them in writing or video (as is common) as an enemy of Islam, then we can properly label them as a Muslim terrorist. This is different from labelling a terrorist as a Muslim simply because they are a Muslim. When was the last time you saw a terrorist who did not publish their motives, their cause  and therefore their ethos. to call such a person a Muslim terrorist is absolutely proper and we should avoid the fear of racism. This mirrors my point above about fear of criticising Israel. It's a bit like Ali G's catchphrase "Is it cos I is black?"

I call someone a Muslim terrorist such because that is what they set themselves up as. If I sack an blck employee for incompetence it is because they were incompetent, not because they are black. If I criticise Isarel, it is not because I am anti-semitic, it is because many of their actions are unlawful. I for one will not be afraid of the PC brigade or those who will try to deflect the truth by claiming racism, religious bias or anti-semitism.

However, unless you are consistent then you set yourself up as a target for such criticism. That is the key for the west- apply the same criteria to all nations and no one can say you are picking on any particular group.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mevbrown
Newbies
*
Offline


I Love YaBB 2!

Posts: 4
Edinburgh
Gender: male
Re: UK foreign policies
Reply #19 - Aug 5th, 2008 at 3:41pm
 
Firstly, as already indicated, the various peoples of the middle east have managed to live side-by-side in more-or-less peacefully for generations before modern-day politicians [foreign and domestic] threw the spanner in.

I'm sure, in due course, peace with justice will return.

Beyond that, Joe seems a bit confused about UK foreign policy. To save a lot of time and effort New Labour's policy seems to be to adopt US foreign policy.

"Navigating Through Turbulence", A report of the Presidential Study Group, published in January 2001 states: "Continue to press European Allies to anchor Turkey firmly in the West, eventually through EU membership".

Within days of Blair taking over the EU presidency, he opened talks with Turkey.

The was one of the more interesting US/UK policies I noticed.

Off course, it also mentions Iraq...
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderator: YaBB Administrator)



Scottish Law Online Scottish Law Online Quick links:
Scotland: Law Society - Scottish Courts - Scotland Legislation - Scottish Parliament
England: Law Society - Courtservice - DCA - Home Office - Law Commission
UK: BAILII - OPSI - Parliament - House of Lords - Direct Gov - Legal 500 - Chambers
Europe: Europa - ECJ - ECHR - Eur-Lex - Commission - Parliament - OEIL
World: WorldLII - AustLII - CornellLII - Findlaw - UN - ICJ - WTO - Lex Mercatoria
Best of the Web: Amazon - Google - Y!Music - IMDB - BBC News - Radio1 - TV - RoF
Shop Online with Amazon
Discussion Forum Kevin F Crombie 2009