Bush's Security on visit to Buckingham Palace

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I never did. Someone asked for clarification.

YOu had said that the IRA received support from the USA. I guess we can say that the IRA got support from Britain - since private citiizens in your OWN country supported the IRA - right?

However, would it be more or less than the support that Al-Qaida got from Iraq?

It was the media who harpeed on the Al Qaeda - Iraq link more than the government. Bush several times and said there was no direct evidence of support. But there were training camps and so forth and these were facts.

Ireland was invaded by England and taken over - there is a difference between Texas and Northern Ireland. We did win Texas during a war - but they chose to become part of the US. Did Ireland ever have a choice to be part of Britain?

I find it rather distrubing the prejudice between catholics and protestants that still exists in Great Britain. And it DOES exist.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The thing is Gaffer - there are MANY countries at the UN only 40 miles from where I live who SUPPORT terrorism - but you don't see them being marched against. So I disagree. I
m referring to why don't these protesters march against the countries who support them. You might have heard of these countries Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

Isn't Libya the chair for the Human Rights committee, or some outrageous thing like that, lol, unreal...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Isn't Libya the chair for the Human Rights committee, or some outrageous thing like that, lol, unreal...

Yeah it is. And right before the war with Iraq - Iraq was elected to chair the Disarmament Committee.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Dwarven Sen
...i find it disappointing, not that your president was invited to our fair island (though i could point out 20 people right now who were), but that since his visit became iminent every political force tried to pass the blame along. As for the london mayor, he's just trying to keep his city running on schedule. have you ever been in london at rush hour, yeesh.

I don't understand. Blame for what?

The matter of bowing to her majesty is basic courtesy. When you go to someones home you are polite (at least you are meant to be). This is just on a more world-leader scale. The protocol involved would not make your president lessened or appear subject to Her. It's very convoluted and i think someones been twisting the facts. It's not like every citizen in england's expecting him to go down on one knee to her, mind you, if she's got to get double glazing just for him...

It's not basic courtesy. Not from our point of view.

As you have pointed out, "world-leader scale." As the leader of my nation, he better not bow to anyone! I don't care where he is. If it's a requirement, then they can come here. She's some figurehead that wasn't even elected by your people. It's been pointed out, she has no real power in your country. Give me a break. You bow to her if you feel it is a couresy, or show of respect. But I seriously doubt that you are the leader of a country. There's quite a difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dwarven Sen
As for the london mayor, he's just trying to keep his city running on schedule. have you ever been in london at rush hour, yeesh.

I have. But NY rush hour is just as bad - if not worse.

The matter of bowing to Her Majesty is basic courtesy. When you go to someones home you are polite (at least you are meant to be). This is just on a more world-leader scale. The protocol involved would not make your president lessened or appear subject to Her. It's very convoluted and i think someones been twisting the facts. It's not like every citizen in england's expecting him to go down on one knee to Her. mind you, if She's got to get double glazing just for him...

I agree with Ruinel. For one thing - if you are invited to someone else's house - usually it is as a friendship thing. I'm not going to go to someone's house - whether they invited me or not- to grovel at their feet. I'm sorry - but bowing is a subservient thing to do. That is why you bow to the royal family and they do NOT bow to you.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I have. But NY rush hour is just as bad - if not worse.

omg, DC traffic is horrible too, that's why I moved away from there

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
omg, DC traffic is horrible too, that's why I moved away from there

yeah - DC is terrible. It's a circle and it's just a mess. I "accidently" went down by the capitol on the way up from north Carolina - just thought I go in for a couple of minutes and take some pictures. With all the construction and everything - it took me about an hour and half just to figure out how to get out. There really wasn't any traffic - at least the time I was going - it was the damn construction. I would hate to see what it's like during rush hour.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
... We did win Texas during a war - but they chose to become part of the US.

Texas history
1772—San Antonio becomes the center of Spanish government for Texas
---(Spanish territories in North America)
time and history pass... territories change hands... lots of new countries pop up and expand... blablabla... (too much to put here, sorry)
1821—Texas becomes part of Mexico; Mexico has won it's independence from Spain; American citizens immigrate into Texas (becoming Texans). But they are under Mexico's flag now, and Mexico's law.
1835—The Texas Revolution begins! Yee haw!
--- (Battle of Gonzales on 10/3/1835, the Texans carried a white flag with a black canon on it with the words "COME AND TAKE IT" printed underneath. That did not later become the Republic of Texas' flag, though.)
1836—The Alamo falls to Mexican troops, despite a valiant and noble effort (this battle wins sympathy and support from the US, but the US did not fight Mexico); Mexico is defeated in the Battle of San Jacinto when Texans take Santa Anna by surprise, capturing him and defeating Mexico's troops; Texas becomes the independent Republic of Texas. They have their own goverment, laws, etc.
The US did not provide any aid or support for the Texans in their fight for independence from Mexico, but there was great public sympathy after the Alamo.

Because Texas was it's own independent nation, we can fly our flag at the same level as the US flag.

Texas became concerned that Mexico would attempt another war with Texas. The population of former Americans pushes the idea of joining the US, which was more acceptable to being taken back by Mexico in another bloody and costly war. The Republic of Texas petitions the US for statehood.
12/29/1845- Texas became the 28th state in the United States of America. A provision in the agreement is that Texas can leave statehood anytime it wished.

One year later, the US sends troops to defend the border between Mexico and the new state of Texas, as Mexico tries to push the border back and take part of the land back.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
YOu had said that the IRA received support from the USA. I guess we can say that the IRA got support from Britain - since private citiizens in your OWN country supported the IRA - right?

Yes. But not money. Money to buy guns and semtex. Money which they got from the US.

Originally posted by jerseydevil It was the media who harpeed on the Al Qaeda - Iraq link more than the government. Bush several times and said there was no direct evidence of support.
[/B]

So, you admit that this support was greater than the support which Iraq was giving to Al-Qaida?

Originally posted by jerseydevil

The thing is Gaffer - there are MANY countries at the UN only 40 miles from where I live who SUPPORT terrorism - but you don't see them being marched against. So I disagree. I
m referring to why don't these protesters march against the countries who support them. You might have heard of these countries Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

You're not listening. These are not my government so it's not my responsibility to tell them when they're wrong. And, frankly, I don't fancy a trip to Tripoli with a F*ck Gaddafi banner.

Yes, it is bizarre having these states in those positions. However, taking Libya as an example, here we have a country which used to sponsor terrorism (including the IRA) which is now being rehabilitated into the international community. I would've thought that was an improvement.

I never knew that Texas was part of Mexico once upon a time.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Ruinel
1835—The Texas Revolution begins! Yee haw!
--- (Battle of Gonzales on 10/3/1835, the Texans carried a white flag with a black canon on it with the words "COME AND TAKE IT" printed underneath. That did not later become the Republic of Texas' flag, though.)

Too bad it didn't become the Republic's flag. It would have been such a great idea.

Thanks for the info, I had heard about Alamo but I never knew the whole context. Interesting.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes. But not money. Money to buy guns and semtex. Money which they got from the US.

You need to specify that the money came from fake-charity organizations in the US, not the US itself. It sounds like you are saying that the US government was sending the IRA money, which you know to be false.

I never knew that Texas was part of Mexico once upon a time.

Yes, once upon a time in Mexico, it was.

Originally posted by Eärniel
Too bad it didn't become the Republic's flag. It would have been such a great idea.

Thanks for the info, I had heard about Alamo but I never knew the whole context. Interesting.

That was the highly condensed version.

I liked the "Come and take it" logo.

That isn't even part of the story of the Alamo. You can find out more online. I'd post it here, but I'm afraid I'm boring everyone with the history of Texas.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes. But not money. Money to buy guns and semtex. Money which they got from the US.

As Ruinel has piointed - it was not coming from the US government - as you are trying to imply.

So, you admit that this support was greater than the support which Iraq was giving to Al-Qaida?

NO I don't - because the the US gave no support to the IRA. We did not fund the IRA in any way, shape or form. We did not let them into this country to set up training camps either.

You're not listening. These are not my government so it's not my responsibility to tell them when they're wrong. And, frankly, I don't fancy a trip to Tripoli with a F*ck Gaddafi banner.

Good to know. So since when is the United States of America a Briton's country or a Frenchman's? You guys in good old Europe seem to have no problems demonstrating against us or telling us when we are wrong. Now that you have publicly announced that you see no reason to demonstrate against supporters of terrorism becauser they are not your country - I would hope that you will tell people that they should not demonstrate againt the good'ol US of A because it's not your country either.

Yes, it is bizarre having these states in those positions. However, taking Libya as an example, here we have a country which used to sponsor terrorism (including the IRA) which is now being rehabilitated into the international community. I would've thought that was an improvement.

It is an improvement - but it doesn't mean they have improved enough to be in that position.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As Ruinel has piointed - it was not coming from the US government - as you are trying to imply.

That is not what I am implying, that's what you're reading into it. But the fact is that Noraid was able to operate fundraising activities for the IRA in the US, principally because there were enough sympathetic people there who had the will and the means to donate money. Now, does that or does that not mean that the money came from the US? Or did the donors only use funds from their Swiss bank accounts?

As for demonstrating, as I said, we were primarily demonstrating against and because of the UK government's policy.

Demonstrating has, of course, a perfectly legitimate secondary focus, which is to express the views of the mass.

FYI, when the Chinese leader visited several years ago, there were demonstrations in London which were similarly managed by the authorities (so that the visitors did not become aware of any dissent).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
That is not what I am implying, that's what you're reading into it. But the fact is that Noraid was able to operate fundraising activities for the IRA in the US, principally because there were enough sympathetic people there who had the will and the means to donate money. Now, does that or does that not mean that the money came from the US? Or did the donors only use funds from their Swiss bank accounts?

Well then would you admit that money came from Britain? You did start out by implying that the US funded these terrorist groups.

As for demonstrating, as I said, we were primarily demonstrating against and because of the UK government's policy.

Funny - I didn't see the burning of British flags, nor Blair's effigy toppled over. There might have been some british flag burning - but nothing compared to the US flag burning I saw. If they were demonstrating against your policies - why do it when Bush is there - just do it. Why burn our flag - burn your own. YOu're really stretching it on your defense of who the demonstrators were demonstrating against. Europe will demonstrate against the US at the drop of a hat.

Demonstrating has, of course, a perfectly legitimate secondary focus, which is to express the views of the mass.

Yes it does, which goes back to my original statement - why not demonstrated against the countries who support terrorism? Why aren't there outrages against the UN that they voted Iraq to chair the Disarmament Committee? WHY? Becuase most of the people demonstrating just seem to be anti-American. If they wanted peace - they would demonstrate against the real terrorists and the real evil in the world.

FYI, when the Chinese leader visited several years ago, there were demonstrations in London which were similarly managed by the authorities (so that the visitors did not become aware of any dissent).

I'm not sure if you are implying that Bush wasn't aware of the demonstrations or not - but he was. The reason the demonstrators were kept back from the President was becuase of fear of an assination attempt - either by a demonstrator or by the act of terrorism.

By the way - great that the demonstrators managed to come out for the Chinese leader. But I think in Europe we're viewed lower than China so I don't think it attracted as many demonstrators as our president did.

[The Gaffer]

Thanks for responding.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then would you admit that money came from Britain? You did start out by implying that the US funded these terrorist groups.

Yes, of course.

My point is that it's not enough to point the finger at a state and hold its entire population responsible for terrorist activities.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Funny - I didn't see the burning of British flags, nor Blair's effigy toppled over.

I believe it is the British policy of supporting Bush that is at issue. What better time to protest than on a state visit?

There's also the point that many people regard Bush as a warmonger and environmental assassin. More reasons to demonstrate, this time directed towards him.

Originally posted by jerseydevil why not demonstrated against the countries who support terrorism?

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
My point is that it's not enough to point the finger at a state and hold its entire population responsible for terrorist activities.

Who was holding an entire population responsible for a terrorism act?

I believe it is the British policy of supporting Bush that is at issue. What better time to protest than on a state visit?

There's also the point that many people regard Bush as a warmonger and environmental assassin. More reasons to demonstrate, this time directed towards him.

Why direct it at HIM. Just a few posts before you said that you wouldn't demonstrate against Lybia or other countries because they were NOT your government. Since when does Bush represent your government?

Let me remind you what youy said regarding demonstrating against the terrorists and governments who support them...

You're not listening. These are not my government so it's not my responsibility to tell them when they're wrong.

Yet you just said that because you feel our President - or we are wrong - you should demonstrate against OUR government.

You seem to have a double standard here - as does most of Europe.

Let me point you to your statement to refresh your memory...

Post 305739

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer

I see that you said this there...

I'm surprised you hadn't worked it out, but the reason people are demonstrating against OUR government's policy is that it's OUR government, and it's our responsibility as democratic citizens to make a stink when that government is wrong.

The terrorists are not our terrorists, no matter how much you would like to depict us as being "on their side" (which I find offensive in the extreme and wilfully ignorant). That's why we don't demonstrate against them.

Again you state that you don't demonstrate against the terrorists because they aren't your country's terrorists also you demonstrate againt YOUR government. Again I ask- since when is the United Stated of AMERICA your government?

[Hemel]

Again I ask- since when is the United Stated of AMERICA your government?

Ever since Blair decided to become a lapdog ...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hemel
Ever since Blair decided to become a lapdog ...

That's your own problem if you think that - not America's fault. Demostrate against your PM - not against OUR government. We have nothing to do with whether your PM is a lapdog or not. I personally don't think he is. He sees that action must be taken - and he took it.

[Hemel]

*sigh*

May I offer you a top-up spoonful of sense of humour with your morning coffee, JD?



Now in seriousness, my last two remarks were made with tongue firmly in cheek, and I hope that no one will misconstrue ...

However, the response here concerns me a little

Demostrate against your PM - not against OUR government.

Hmmmm ... but surely those who did demonstrate were just using their right for free expression? Isn't that a central tenet of what both we here in the UK and you there in the US believe? Isn't that something that we also would wish to defend, that right?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Again you state that you don't demonstrate against the terrorists because they aren't your country's terrorists also you demonstrate againt YOUR government.

The answer to your question is in the text you quoted from my post. We were just discussing protests against Chinese state visits. I don't know how to make it clearer for you, JD.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Who was holding an entire population responsible for a terrorism act?

Hmm. Let me think. Now which world leader/s would go around indulging in that sort of behaviour?