OT-Lawrence in Arabia

[Symon]

Wdolson - Bill would you please kill this thread? Thank you very much.

J

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/U ... kshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

warspite1

Innocent until proven guilty? Nice one.... Let's ignore the facts of the case eh?

So you think newspapers are suitable judges of guilt in a court of law? Let's just change juries in to boards of newspaper editors then, shall we?

It was the 1930's????? I can't get my head around that level of stupidity. You quote a paper from the 1930's??? Right so by that reckoning, every German living now is a Nazi??

No, just pointing out that the Daily Mail has a history of far-right opinions.

Opposing the Arms embargo? We seem to be a little selective in what we are posting. Was a boycott the right way to go or the wrong way to go? Who knows? History shows the evil apartheid regime was eventually overthrown, but whether that could have been achieved earlier/later, better/worse is now immaterial. WHAT IS NOT immaterial is the idea that someone is racist because they have a different view on how to achieve it.

So, the UN decided that an arms embargo was the best course of action. The Daily Mail disagreed.

I know who's judgement I'd trust in matters of international relations.

I still don't see how you can redeem opposition to arms sales to a racist state.

[USSAmerica]

Too late, John. It's already died a horrible death. [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/U ... kshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.



So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

warspite1

Innocent until proven guilty? Nice one.... Let's ignore the facts of the case eh?

So you think newspapers are suitable judges of guilt in a court of law? Let's just change juries in to boards of newspaper editors then, shall we?

It was the 1930's????? I can't get my head around that level of stupidity. You quote a paper from the 1930's??? Right so by that reckoning, every German living now is a Nazi??

No, just pointing out that the Daily Mail has a history of far-right opinions.

Opposing the Arms embargo? We seem to be a little selective in what we are posting. Was a boycott the right way to go or the wrong way to go? Who knows? History shows the evil apartheid regime was eventually overthrown, but whether that could have been achieved earlier/later, better/worse is now immaterial. WHAT IS NOT immaterial is the idea that someone is racist because they have a different view on how to achieve it.

So, the UN decided that an arms embargo was the best course of action. The Daily Mail disagreed.

I know who's judgement I'd trust in matters of international relations.

I still don't see how you can redeem opposition to arms sales to a racist state.

warspite1

By any stretch of the imagination, the Lawrence case (and even more so because of what we know subsequently) was a special case.

What a newspaper did in the 1930's - different owners, different personnel, different times - has nothing to do with the present. Another cheap shot there but no - in no way shape or form can the Mail OBJECTIVELY be described as far-right.

I am not saying I personally supported that policy. I AM saying the Mail are not necessarily racist for taking their course of action.

[warspite1]

The guys are right - this is waaaaaaaay off topic - apologies to the OP and others.

Happy to take off-line.

[mind_messing]

By any stretch of the imagination, the Lawrence case (and even more so because of what we know subsequently) was a special case.

Sure, I'll accept that.

But you understand that newspapers and the popular media play judge and jury is bad and that they shouldn't do it, right?

What a newspaper did in the 1930's - different owners, different personnel, different times - has nothing to do with the present. Another cheap shot there but no - in no way shape or form can the Mail OBJECTIVELY be described as far-right.

I agree, but newspapers rarely shift political alignment, and with a paper like the Daily Mail (ownership of which has been kept within a single family) that's even less likely.

I am not saying I personally supported that policy. I AM saying the Mail are not necessarily racist for taking their course of action.

Please explain.

They opposed the arms embargo based on what logic?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

By any stretch of the imagination, the Lawrence case (and even more so because of what we know subsequently) was a special case.

Sure, I'll accept that.

But you understand that newspapers and the popular media play judge and jury is bad and that they shouldn't do it, right?

What a newspaper did in the 1930's - different owners, different personnel, different times - has nothing to do with the present. Another cheap shot there but no - in no way shape or form can the Mail OBJECTIVELY be described as far-right.

I agree, but newspapers rarely shift political alignment, and with a paper like the Daily Mail (ownership of which has been kept within a single family) that's even less likely.

I am not saying I personally supported that policy. I AM saying the Mail are not necessarily racist for taking their course of action.

Please explain.

They opposed the arms embargo based on what logic?

warspite1

No - see post 45 - happy for you to have the last word. Fun debate though [:)]

[jcjordan]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Hellooooooo....T. E. Lawrence![:-]

But it's so much more fun watching Warspite & MM battle each other that I had to stop my tape of Sexy Jello Wrestling [:D][:'(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Hellooooooo....T. E. Lawrence![:-]

But it's so much more fun watching Warspite & MM battle each other that I had to stop my tape of Sexy Jello Wrestling [:D][:'(]

warspite1

[:D]

[Toro12]

Robert Pattinson will be TE. Naomi Watts, too. I think my stomach is turning...

https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-ta ... 52694.html

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: cassmj

Robert Pattinson will be TE. Naomi Watts, too. I think my stomach is turning...

https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-ta ... 52694.html

warspite1

To be fair, if it has Naomi Watts in it it can't be that bad can it? Oh yes...I just remembered, TFTSNBN had Kate Beckinsale in it......

[Feltan]

Thanks for the entertainment!

Almost as good as yesterday at the office, when two folks got into it over Obamacare.

I actually had to pull rank to get them to shut-up -- at least our colleagues here are self-policing.

Regards,
Feltan

[DSwain]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Our US colleagues may not know of this fine analysis of the papers from Yes Prime Minister

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

Warspite, respectfully I disagree on several points (but not about Polly Toynbee, who deserves a damned good shoeing). Out of courtesy to the OP though, no more here.

The only additional comment I shall make is that I'd forgotten this exchange between Hacker and Sir Humphrey, thanks for the reminder. My other favourite is when Sir Humphrey explains Britain's nuclear deterrent as a device not against the Warsaw Pact but to keep the French in check: great stuff!

[crsutton]

Sigh....I have created a monster.[8|]

[warspite1]

Having read the reviews on Amazon, I now have this book on order. Hope its as good as advertised.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having read the reviews on Amazon, I now have this book on order. Hope its as good as advertised.

I don't think you will be disappointed. One really needs to know about colonialism and the break up of the Ottoman empire to even come close to understanding the Middle East today. This book simply does an excellent job. It is not just about Lawrence although he is a key player.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Having read the reviews on Amazon, I now have this book on order. Hope its as good as advertised.

I don't think you will be disappointed. One really needs to know about colonialism and the break up of the Ottoman empire to even come close to understanding the Middle East today. This book simply does an excellent job. It is not just about Lawrence although he is a key player.

warspite1

To be honest, when reading the reviews, it was this aspect that was the decider in going for the book. I am interested in TE Lawrence's exploits (and the First World War generally (having bought CTGW)), but this was what tipped the scales. Thank's for the tip.