Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Red Zeppelin]

If the BNP marched - I would be part of a counter-march (as I was when the English Defence League came to Peterborough in December and tried to spread their poison among our peaceful and very multi-cultural population).

Do you also march when these Islamic extremists try to spread their poison or do you only march against 'whitey'?

[Phil H]

I think it depends on the integrity of the government in question and the reason for the peopl marching. When I protested back in March - I did not do so to overthrow the government as such - but to protest at cuts to services that would harm many innocent people.

So how do you tell the difference. In the UK and USA and other democracies there is a PROCESS for changing governments called elections. So why should there EVER be a popular protest when the will of the people has been and can be expressed? I'm not sure that I even agree - in a modern democracy about protest marches, demonstrations etc - which seem to me to be more about intimidation and force than about expressing popular will. How does one express the views of the "silent majority"?

If the BNP marched - I would be part of a counter-march (as I was when the English Defence League came to Peterborough in December and tried to spread their poison among our peaceful and very multi-cultural population). I guess that would result in a clash between ideologies rather than direct pressure on a government to resign.

So why should there not be counter marches when "peace protesters" (Iraq), anti-cuts demonstrations etc take place? Are the BNP or right wing groups not allowed to demonstrate - is that a right only for "liberal" groups? Is that democratic? Indeed, is it not a form of "liberal fascism"?

I detect in the UK at least, a view that protest is OK for the left but not for the right - that there would be shock (outrage and protest indeed from the political Left) if there were pro-cuts marches, pro-war demonstrations, pro-poll tax protests, or against immigration policies, cultural policies or the European Union even though millions may believe in those approaches and support those views.

Phil

[Limehouse]

Do you also march when these Islamic extremists try to spread their poison or do you only march against 'whitey'?

I find your attitude offensive.

I am against any form of extremism and IF Islamic extremists march in my city I WOULD oppose them but so far they have not. I think you actually had to be present to hear the speeches made by the English Defence League to undertsand why they were so vigrously opposed when they came to our PEACEFUL city and degraded members of our community.

[Limehouse]

I think it depends on the integrity of the government in question and the reason for the peopl marching. When I protested back in March - I did not do so to overthrow the government as such - but to protest at cuts to services that would harm many innocent people.

So how do you tell the difference. In the UK and USA and other democracies there is a PROCESS for changing governments called elections. So why should there EVER be a popular protest when the will of the people has been and can be expressed? I'm not sure that I even agree - in a modern democracy about protest marches, demonstrations etc - which seem to me to be more about intimidation and force than about expressing popular will. How does one express the views of the "silent majority"?

If the BNP marched - I would be part of a counter-march (as I was when the English Defence League came to Peterborough in December and tried to spread their poison among our peaceful and very multi-cultural population). I guess that would result in a clash between ideologies rather than direct pressure on a government to resign.

So why should there not be counter marches when "peace protesters" (Iraq), anti-cuts demonstrations etc take place? Are the BNP or right wing groups not allowed to demonstrate - is that a right only for "liberal" groups? Is that democratic? Indeed, is it not a form of "liberal fascism"?

I detect in the UK at least, a view that protest is OK for the left but not for the right - that there would be shock (outrage and protest indeed from the political Left) if there were pro-cuts marches, pro-war demonstrations, pro-poll tax protests, or against immigration policies, cultural policies or the European Union even though millions may believe in those approaches and support those views.

Phil

I will reply to your post in due course. I am slightly taken aback by the aggressive tone I detect in your post but perhaps it is frustration. I am pushed for time right now but will reply to your interesting comments.

[Phil H]

...I am slightly taken aback by the aggressive tone I detect in your post

Then I apologise, as it was not intentioanl.

The questions are hard questions but genuine.

As a long-time political observer (of a non-party/non-partisan persuasion) I am concerned about what I perceive as a "liberal fascism" in society (I am thinking of the UK) in which left wing protest is perceived as right and good; right wing protest or even policies are seen as reprehensible and illegitimate and to be opposed. This is reflected in the media.

Yet it is interesting to see a referendum seeking proportional representation HEAVILY defeated; continuing opposition to Europe; concerns about immigration policy and ethic minority policies (multiculturalism).

Coverage of the French laws about burkhas and head-coverings in the british press was interesting for its tone.

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

...I think we should not get involved in the situation.Its not our business-so hands off.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee....

No man is an island...

Wisdom over centuries would suggest that non-intervention is not always a good thing. Sometimes security, wider interests or even national self-interest can dictate that intervention is very sensible.

Had the western powers (France and britain) intervened earlier in Hitler's career - Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, the extent of the later war might have been averted.

Similarly - difficult though it would have been diplomatically - invading Iraq after freeing Kuwait in the early 90s might have been preferable to how things have turned out.

Phil

Well quite frankly since everything is arse over tit in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I wonder what good has, is or can be done ? Hundreds of thousands dead and for what? Two thoroughly corrupt governments so far and tens of thousands of lives lost .
What's more the action seems to be all going on in Pakistan .So what now? Are we supposed to invade that country too?
The Queen has done more good in the past few days in Ireland than ever was done by British soldiers occupying Irish soil---in my view.
Norma

[Phil H]

Same could have been said of World War Two (WW2) in Europe - Hitler replaced by a Soviet occupied eastern Europe; 40 odd years of cold-war and the threat of nuclear holocaust; millions dead; half-Europe in ruins.

Yet I think most would say that WW2 was "worth" fighting - to remove a horrible and genocidal regime.

Saddam Hussein used awful weapons on his own people and invaded neighbouring countries (Iran and Kuwait).

At what stage do you seek to try to stop a problem regime? As I have said above, had we tried to oppose Hitler in 1936 or 1939 we might have got rid of him (though probably not the Nazi regime) at less cost in men or "treasure".

But 1914-18 had left Britain and France scarred and wary of entering a new war (which they imagined would be like the trench war). So public opinion had to be educated - anti-war in 1938 at Munich, pro-war (largely) in 1939 (Polish crisis). But that delay, in my view cost more horror - THAT was the result of good intentions, believing the people can be reasoned with and are reasonable, seeking to appease rather than oppose etc.

Phil

Phil

[jason_c]

Thanks Bob and Phil.
I don't like the fact that a Saudi supported country such as Bahrain where they are also killing their own people and /or calling in the Saudi's to assist in brutal crackdowns are getting away with it by being largely ignored.Same issue-its about preveninhgt their kingdom becoming a democracy.Why,exactly, are they getting away with murdering their own people? Very selective this support for interpreting people's rights to overthrow brutal dictatorships as far as I can see.One rule for the dictatorship in Libya ,quite another for the one in Bahrain.
Norma

Sorry to pick on you again Natalie, but i just realised Syria does not seem to come up on your indignation radar.

As far as I can tell Bahrain has been a cake walk compared to Syria. Yet not one word from you on this. It seems as if your feelings run higher towards the actions of our allies than to actual human suffering in the region.

Of course I may be wrong. Your continued omission of the crackdown in Syria may simply be an oversight. Or does Syria get a free pass?

[Limehouse]

...I am slightly taken aback by the aggressive tone I detect in your post

Then I apologise, as it was not intentioanl.

The questions are hard questions but genuine.

As a long-time political observer (of a non-party/non-partisan persuasion) I am concerned about what I perceive as a "liberal fascism" in society (I am thinking of the UK) in which left wing protest is perceived as right and good; right wing protest or even policies are seen as reprehensible and illegitimate and to be opposed. This is reflected in the media.

Yet it is interesting to see a referendum seeking proportional representation HEAVILY defeated; continuing opposition to Europe; concerns about immigration policy and ethic minority policies (multiculturalism).

Coverage of the French laws about burkhas and head-coverings in the british press was interesting for its tone.

Phil

Hello again Phil

I'm back for a quick burst before I go off to watch Peterborough United battle for their promotion bid to the Championship League.

Ok - thanks - you were not being agressive. I didn't think so because I have enjoyed your previous posts. I think I was smarting a bit from Red's comment.

Ok - I am a veteran of left-wing issues from CND to March For Jobs (1980s) to the current anti-racism campaigns. I am a very peaceful protestor and I supplement marching with writing to my MP etc.

I think you make a good point but I think the difference between left-wing and right-wing issues is often one of language. For example - when I marched against the EDL we were calling for peace in our peaceful community. The EDL however were chanting 'keep paedo Islamic scum out' Now I know a lot of non-political people who would not dream of marching or protesting but they were very offended by those remarks.

Take the phelps family in America. No body minds them saying 'homosexuality and war are wrong and we should strive to avoid them'. But they choose the much more virulent 'God hates Fags' and 'Fag Soldiers Go To Hell'.

That is why left-wing protest seems to project itself as 'more worthy'.

I'll be back !

PS - if you want another example of how agressive seemingly right-wing language can be - read Red Zepplin's post to me and his references to 'whitey'.

[Phil H]

Take the phelps family in America. No body minds them saying 'homosexuality and war are wrong and we should strive to avoid them'. But they choose the much more virulent 'God hates Fags' and 'Fag Soldiers Go To Hell'.

I know nothing of these people, but isn't the incendiary (can one say that of a slogan including the word "fags - cigarettes in English english?) wording simply about sound-bites?

Opposing sides often characterise each other as using "insulting" language, and seek to cast the other in a bad light.

Because they are often marginalised in "liberal" democracies, I think the extremes - such as the BNP tend to become mouthpieces for the rhetoric of their "side" and are speaking the those who are relatively ill-educated, on the margins, feel excluded by society, and threatened by ethnic minorities. these "outsiders" (NOT the ethnic minorities) relate to simple language, crude slogans and stock terminology.

But many of the issues they feel strongly about are of deep-rooted concern to them

I have no truck with ant-gay views, but I do appreciate that many feel strongly and morally that the liberal views are not "right" based on their philosophy. But they are being denied real opportunities to debate those issues - as with ethnic questions - in the UK there are laws that prevent such discussion in large measure (or at least seriously inhibit it). That is dd in countries that value "free" speech and wish to be inclusive. But I believe the "liberal" (probably minority in terms of total population but) majority active groups may fear what would occur if free speech was allowed.

In the Uk I suspect the death penalty would be brought back were it ever debated and voted upon - but liberals will never allow that to happen.

NOTE: This post is about issues and ideas - NOT my views. Most of the above I abominate, but as a student of politics the issues fascinate me.

Phil

[Phil H]

I have enjoyed your previous posts.

Thank you Limehouse.

[Natalie Severn]

Sorry to pick on you again Natalie, but i just realised Syria does not seem to come up on your indignation radar.

As far as I can tell Bahrain has been a cake walk compared to Syria. Yet not one word from you on this. It seems as if your feelings run higher towards the actions of our allies than to actual human suffering in the region.

Of course I may be wrong. Your continued omission of the crackdown in Syria may simply be an oversight. Or does Syria get a free pass?

I don't like the way they go for public beheadings in Saudi countries.Osama Bin laden was a Saudi don't forget.And no,absolute nonsense to say the people of Bahrain were treated any differently from the Libyan people.They were murdered during public protests by their government for crying out loud.With guns.
Same for Syria and Yemen.
Why then are we just concentrating on Gadaffi?
Why did we concentrate on Iraq?
The answer is so simple: Oil. Nothing to do with protecting the 'rebels' in Libya achieve a democratic society.
Who are these 'rebels ' anyway?
Most of the leaders of the 'rebels ' were on Gadaffi's side until he looked like losing.Complete opportunists mostly[and much worse ofcourse].

[Limehouse]

Take the phelps family in America. No body minds them saying 'homosexuality and war are wrong and we should strive to avoid them'. But they choose the much more virulent 'God hates Fags' and 'Fag Soldiers Go To Hell'.

I know nothing of these people, but isn't the incendiary (can one say that of a slogan including the word "fags - cigarettes in English english?) wording simply about sound-bites?

Opposing sides often characterise each other as using "insulting" language, and seek to cast the other in a bad light.

Because they are often marginalised in "liberal" democracies, I think the extremes - such as the BNP tend to become mouthpieces for the rhetoric of their "side" and are speaking the those who are relatively ill-educated, on the margins, feel excluded by society, and threatened by ethnic minorities. these "outsiders" (NOT the ethnic minorities) relate to simple language, crude slogans and stock terminology.

But many of the issues they feel strongly about are of deep-rooted concern to them

I have no truck with ant-gay views, but I do appreciate that many feel strongly and morally that the liberal views are not "right" based on their philosophy. But they are being denied real opportunities to debate those issues - as with ethnic questions - in the UK there are laws that prevent such discussion in large measure (or at least seriously inhibit it). That is dd in countries that value "free" speech and wish to be inclusive. But I believe the "liberal" (probably minority in terms of total population but) majority active groups may fear what would occur if free speech was allowed.

In the Uk I suspect the death penalty would be brought back were it ever debated and voted upon - but liberals will never allow that to happen.

NOTE: This post is about issues and ideas - NOT my views. Most of the above I abominate, but as a student of politics the issues fascinate me.

Phil

Hi Phil - I agree with a great deal of what you say - especially the points about the membership of the BNP and how many of its membership feel marginalised. It is absolutely true that the people with the lowest incomes and poor opportunities are often drawn to such organisations because they seem to represent their views and understand their frustrations. I have seen it with my own eyes with some of the young people I work with. However - it is also true that many of the people they most oppose - such as immigrants - have more in common with thm they they have in opposition. For example - they are all relatively poor people seeking the same pot of meagre resources. If they could only unite against poverty instead of being divided and in opposition - their lioves would improve. That is what I strive for - unity is strength!

Must go now - kick off in one hour!

[Phil H]

Why then are we just concentrating on Gadaffi?...Why did we concentrate on Iraq?...The answer is so simple: Oil.

Actually too simplistic I think.

If one reads the accounts of the Bush Whitehouse it was Runsfeld and Chaney who began to contemplate an attack on Iraq from the first moments after 9/11.

Who were they - members of the 1st Bush administration. So I think a case at least can be made for inferring that they had unfinished business from the 1st Gulf War.

Secondly, the case of Gadaffi - at least in the Uk public opinion seemed to me to be well ahead of the politicians in calling for action. Surprisingly, given the strong opposition to the war in Iraq.

So while oil may have some strategic and long-term involvement in planning, I see no immediate cause in that.

Mind you, if America can secure supplies of oil for 50 years hence, its people may well bless the administrations that did so.

Phil

[Derrick]

Hi Julie and Phil

I think that you have both made really good points in your arguments and I commend the both of you.

The point I would like to pick up on is one of Left protest.

In the past couple of decade how many really major demo's in this country have been "left" based.

Lets pick a few.

The Poll Tax demo in the early 1990's was supported by many who would not actually call themselves left wing...they just thought it unfair.

The Iraqi War demo in 2003 was certainly not a leftist event but was a broad alliance of ordinary people.

The Countryside Alliance demo was most certainly not a leftist demo.

Many factions of the recent demo's against the rise in student fees were from well to do and rich families. The Floyd's Dave Gilmour's son was arrested for making a complete arse of himself. Hardly a lefty from the local estate is he?

The only consistent thing about all of these events (bar Iraq in 2003) was the police's willingness to start a fight and the media's slavish desire to slur any good intentions by only reporting the fighting.

One can not blame so-called leftist agitators for all the violence as the Countryside Alliance demo proved, when a few landed gentry types went over the top.

The police may now get their cumuppance over Ian Tomlinson's death after the G20 demo in 2009. Their use of kettling is also something that must give a lot of cause for concern when many thousands of law abiding citizens are restricted from going about their business.

What if a diabetic or disabled person were to be caught up and denied the right to treatment or fair access?

Finally that karate kid Sgt Delroy Smellie should have been kicked off the force. But even after being filmed slapping and then batoning a women he was exonerated with the IPCC saying that there was not a case to answer.

Good grief.

Derrick