Thread: BNP Chairman´s statement on the Gaza incident

Originally Posted by London Orbital

Who cares - things change.

What on earth would have been the point of being opposed to Islam 20 years ago. Griffin is entitled to change his views.

The main problem is uncontrolled mass immigration.

If the Chairman´s utterances happen to chime with the mood of the British public to the point where we can actually do something about it - this is all that matters.

Griffin´s trimming or changing his views over the course of a great many years does not matter.

Exactly. He isnt the only one either virtually every Nationalist leader in Europe has done the same over the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by Adrian Davies

Worse still is to begin to believe a party line that was initiated as a tactical ploy!

So dont you think the Jews should have a homeland?

Originally Posted by david H

Adrian, you musn't let your hatred of Griffin cause you to act against nationalism as a whole.

A message here many could learn from.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

Seen in these limited terms, not interfering in the crusade against Communism would have cost the UK precisely nothing.

On the other hand, assisting the Communists in their great crusade against fascism cost the UK millions of lives, as well as - arguably - its empire.

Was the latter result - seen purely from the UK´s point of view - so much more desirable than the former that it was actually worth such an enormous sacrifice.

Of course, I ought to have mentioned that the Russians were not really engaged in a crusade at all as they were merely defending themselves against an invading force - which the UK was not, at least at the outset.

The Russians had no choice but to be involved; the UK might have chosen differently.

Anyone who reads anything about Stalin and the USSR will realise till Germany attacked the USSR the USSR was very much an allie of Germany against the British Empire.

BC & WOW, I think that you miss understand my point.

I was trying to say that it is all well and good taking the stance that we are an isolated island and that we can let everyone else get on with what they want to do so long as it doesn't affect us, but that is a little short sighted, don't you think? (Rhetorical question as you obviously don't think so). I do agree that on the face of it that it is not good to waste our troops lives and also a huge amount of money on local disputes but I do believe that occasionally we have a moral duty to try and help. I think too often the Western powers intervene when neither side wants any help and that leads nowhere.

My point about speaking Russian from East to West was taken from a post WWII perspective. Should we and the Americans have abandoned Berlin to Russian invasion? And then let them roll across Europe spreading communism until they reached our shores? And once they reached our shores then what? We defend ourselves against them, as obviously no one is going to help us because it doesn't affect them?

Originally Posted by angelman

Quite right. The Germans exterminating the Jews was nothing to do with Britain. The Tutsis being massacred by the Hutu was nothing to do with Britain. The Genocide in Darfur has nothing to do with Britain.

Quite correct, as you point out. Nothing whatsoever to do with Britain at all.

Originally Posted by angelman

OK fine. All these international incidents do not directly affect us. If we all took the view of sticking our heads up our backsides to try and find our brains, then they would be speaking Russian from Tokyo to Calais.

What garbage. You are obviously an internationalist and believe is some sort of world government or the wild west approach of the USA.

This is what Griffin said: "One of the core tenets of our nationalist philosophy is that Britain should keep completely out of other people’s quarrels and wars unless there are clear issues of our own national interest to give us the right, and our government the duty, to interfere."

It is as clear as day.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

Surely we assisted Russia in this enterprise by aiding them when they were invaded by the Germans in WWII. As a result they were speaking Russian (as a second language at least) for the next 40 years from the Baltic to the Adriatic.

Brilliant point! Moreover, whilst declaring war on Germany for invading Poland from the west, we failed at the same time to declare war on the Soviet Union who were invading from the East. In addition, the latter were attacking Finland, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania, and also annexed a province of Romania. All the populations of these places ended up have to compulsorily learn Russian.

I think the phrase we are seeking here is 'double standards'.