The uk is too small to exist without international law?
Communism preferable to fascism?
'Nationalists' (and I use the word advisedly) arguing in favour of interfering in the affairs of sovereign states?
Jesus, has everyone been smoking crack?
The uk is too small to exist without international law?
Communism preferable to fascism?
'Nationalists' (and I use the word advisedly) arguing in favour of interfering in the affairs of sovereign states?
Jesus, has everyone been smoking crack?
Sure. Can you really imagine the lil' ol' UK bullying anybody anymore ?The uk is too small to exist without international law?
668..the neighbor of the beast
http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm
I take that refers to my argument on the Griffin/Gaza thread?
Nationalism doesn't have a "Prime Directive" demanding none intervention in the affairs of other nations under all circumstances. For example would a future British Nationalist government be morally obliged to stand idle whilst a Dutch Islamic/Progressive/Communist/Nazi intifada fought it out with Dutch Nationalists?
immanentize the eschaton!
Arnt you a National Socialist?
Muslim I think, if they are indeed different things.
Let's ignore the usual extremist and xenophobic canards out of respect for those members of the BNP who might be bored with such associations and hold more progressive views concerned with protecting Britain's character and idiosyncracies graciously, rather than wishing to appoint a WogFinder General and making a bit on the side lobbying for the razorwire industry.
Any here ? I'm making assumptions concerning the grass-roots of a party I know next to nothing about.
668..the neighbor of the beast
http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm
In contrast with Mr. Griffin's, apparent, disinterest in the disappearance of an indigenous people the new US leader can find time to express concerns about their future even under the weight of the Israel Lobby and the precedents set by the previous , heavily pro-Zionist, incumbents;
He is right; a 'future without hope is intolerable' . Any foreign policy which does not offer hope to the Palestinians is worthless. And probably designed by the corrupt. Think again, Mr. Griffin.When he finally spoke on the Gaza War, Obama strongly took Israel's side, but he did express at least a little interest in the conditions under which Gazans live; he asked for an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza:
' "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats," he said.
"For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror."
He added, however, that, "Just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.
"I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.
"We must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime" and with the international community and the Palestinian Authority participating.'
Informed Comment
Last edited by moon; 23-01-2009 at 09:30 AM.
668..the neighbor of the beast
http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm
immanentize the eschaton!
You ought to amend that to 'perceived implicit racism' so as not to completely isolate yourself from the realities of anything I might write.Your implicit racism disgusts me
668..the neighbor of the beast
http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm
Bookmarks