Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

It’s Abbott Time!

Fri 6 January 2012, 12:59am

Your captions please

Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Delicious Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Digg Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Facebook Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Google+ Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on LinkedIn Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Pinterest Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on reddit Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on StumbleUpon Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Twitter Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Add to Bookmarks Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Email Share 'It’s Abbott Time!' on Print Friendly

Comments (25)

  1. wee buns (profile) says:

    ‘Keep tweets skin deep or reap sheet”

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    In her most inflammatory message, posted after midnight, she added: “White people love playing ‘divide & rule’. We should not play their game,” appending the reference tag: “tacticasoldascolonialism”.

    Miss Abbott faced a barrage of criticism on Twitter and the airwaves. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, called on her to explain herself. “I think what Diane Abbott said was just stupid and crass generalization,” he said. (Telegraph)

    This cartoon itself manages to cross a ‘gender offensive’ boundary but this will probably go without comment, ‘political correctness’ and of course it’s far older ‘running dog’, political expedience will dictate what happens here.

    If the same Nick Clegg was cartooned with a rather well endowed, bulging pubic area with such a white splash prominently placed, then the focus of the debate by now would be on the cartoonist and the bad taste of the cartoon.

    However it is apparently totally acceptable to do a deliberately suggestive and subliminally linked ‘Page 3 Dolly Bird’ cartoon pose of a female elected political public representative with a splatter of bird droppings prominently placed on each ( snigger…..snigger, nudge, nudge, wink wink ) breast!

    The same credibility undermining, subliminal message is used in the ‘send after twelve’ comment which is common code for suggesting that Ms Abbott may have had more than a glass or two of wine etc. at the time.

    Substitute ‘Colonialism for ‘white’ and Ms Abbott has said nothing that the broad liberal and left has not being saying for decades and indeed centuries. The same terminology as Diane used is was probably spoken dozens of times in hundreds of lectures in history, post-colonial and other studies all over the UK last year without fuss or bother, as quite simply what she said is historical fact.

    The instictitve emotional reaction to Diane Abbots remarks from the White British Political and other establishment, may be ‘window dressed’ with the expediency and requirements of contemporary UK political correctness, but they the come from the distaste of the dominant white culture for reminders of their outrageous Colonial past and their need to control the historical narrative.

    Political correctness may rule the airwaves but not reality. The undercurrents are racial in that while minorities are allowed be part of ‘the club’ these days, they are there under sufferance and one of the rules is that they do not remind the ‘Whitey’ establishment of their bloody, barbaric past.

    May I remind everyone that Michele Obama faced a similar outpouring of politically correct outrage when she suggested that the US fell well short of the ideal in it’s treatment of Black US citizens. That is why this brilliant woman is now confined to using her high IQ and public offices to promote gardening and other such ‘safe’ issues!

    This is where the focus of the debate should be, not channeled into meaningless political platitudes. Right on Dianne, you tell it like it is lady!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. nwlad (profile) says:

    The problem with this twitter conversation is that not once was 19th century colonialism mentioned in the conversation. It was not about slavery or colonialism. It was 2 people discussing who represents the black community. I believe Diane took offence that women was discussing this in public. The words “slip of the tongue” and “unguarded” have been used. What Diane did was tell off another black woman for “washing dirty linen in public” concerning Black community issues. Then forgetting herself and then to make “white people” statement. Personally we have all had an insight into 2 black women having a discussion as if it was a private one sitting drinking tea in Diane’s living room. We all know what Diane says in public, We now know what type of conversations in private she has too.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. DoppiaVu (profile) says:

    What makes Dianne’s comment so utterly stupid is that anyone with any grasp of history can tell you how divide & rule is a classic tool of politics / statecraft that goes back as far as time.

    A common tool in any situation where someone needs to wield/retain/grasp power; from Greek politics back in the C5th BC right through to basic day to day office politics of today.

    To say that it is/was exclusively used by one racial group (whites) during one particular historic period is beyond dumb. Very disappointed in Dianne, always had a lot of respect for her.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. unicorn (profile) says:

    The instictitve emotional reaction to Diane Abbots remarks from the White British Political and other establishment, may be ‘window dressed’ with the expediency and requirements of contemporary UK political correctness, but they the come from the distaste of the dominant white culture for reminders of their outrageous Colonial past and their need to control the historical narrative.

    Is that a bit like Jews have tried to control the historical narrative concerning the fact that “they” killed Jesus?

    If your agenda is not to create present day injustice and unfairness then what business have you bringing up injustice and unfairness committed by someone else’s biological ancestors in a present day political context? The whole point can only be to establish that you have a right or privilege that they do not have surely.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  6. Brian Spencer (profile) says:

    Or you could have this by Steve Barker of the Guardian…..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/jan/05/diane-abbott-twitter-spotlight-lawrence

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  7. Catherine Couvert (profile) says:

    Yes, I prefer the Guardian cartoon, Brian. OK, it was a pretty sh1t tweet, but you have to admit your first offering was a bit sh1t too ;)

    As for ‘colonial past’, isn’t the point that echoes of it are still in the present, and that, whether we like it or not, a lot of the white establishment still uses the same tactics? (admitedly not because of being white, but because they can, having most of the power and all that).

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 1
  8. Drumlins Rock (profile) says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

    Try this cartoon by Matt in the Telegraph, bit more tasteful, and unfortunately I have to agree with Munsterview that Brian’s crapped on boobs are rather tasteless, but certainly not newsworthy as you suggest must. As for the original tweet, personally as a white person I don’t think I have ever tried to divide and rule any black people so it is an inaccurate accusation and personally offensive, in a very minor way. More importantly like DV it has lowered my opinion of Ms Abbott whom I normally disagreed with but enjoyed her commentry on the politics show and the like.
    Finally a word to all current or wannabe politicians

    DONT TWEET !!!!!!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  9. Mickhall (profile) says:

    Abbot had nothing to apologies for, but being a politicians I suppose she felt obliged to, she only knows why.

    This brouhaha tells one all we need to know about just how racist the English political and media elite are. Since the ‘Lawrence’ trial concluded, they have been desperate to move the debate away from the racism and corruption at the Met, and society at large. How have they managed to do this, by putting a black woman through the ringer, which just about sums them up perfectly.

    I wrote more on the aftermath of the trial here. http://is.gd/mo03Tc

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  10. DoppiaVu (profile) says:

    @Mickhall

    I like the way you’ve managed to slip your own little xenophobic anti-English rant into a post of this nature.

    Oh yes and with regards to the English media elite, if you care to actually look at any of the English papers – the London editions certainly – they’ve had wall to wall coverage of the Lawrence trial. From the Mirror to the Mail, Guardian to the Telegraph. All expressing universal disgust at what happened to this poor man, and all expressing clear delight that there have been convictions. Almost all covered this on the front page with several further pages devoted to it within the main paper. Over several days.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  11. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    Unicorn : “….Is that a bit like Jews have tried to control the historical narrative concerning the fact that “they” killed Jesus?….”

    Sorry unicorn, cannot possibly comment on this for a number of reasons.

    First of Jesus Ben Joseph, if we are discussing the same person, was as far as the poplar narrative go, of Jewish race and belief. Because of this and mindful of past attempted anti semitic smears when I commented in Jewish related areas, I must respectfully decline to engage on this topic for that reason.

    So, given that Jesus Ben Joseph was Jewish, rather than give any hostages to fortune here to the waiting ‘ anti-semitic’ lobby, I have no comment to make on who was responsible for the death of Jesus,

    Second if you care to quote directly from gospels or sayings of Jesus Ben Joseph, I may be able to engage. The death of Jesus Ben Joseph arose from, as I understand it, a political threat he posed to the Roman Occupation Establishment and their local collaborators.

    It has sadly been my my personal experience in this arena that when it comes to a Foreign people and government occupying another country, against the majority wish of that Nation and people, then there is always a vociferous minority of collaborators or collaborator decent who will defy all logic and reason in their attempts to justify the collaboration and occupation forces, rendering rational debate impossible.

    Third and by no means last, I do not think that it is possible to really discuss the story of Jesus Ben Joseph without looking at some of his associates, his beliefs and general activities.
    Unfortunately under Mick’s rules of engagement as I understand them following my last red card, I am only allowed to comment on what Jesus Ben Joseph actually said or is reputed to have said in gospel sources.

    There cannot be a real discussion on the views of Jesus Ben Joseph, no matter how well presented or written, without also looking at his associates, supporters and his wider activity in the Jewish Homeland and diaspora, but as under Mick’s rules of engagement, any reference to Jesus Ben Joseph or indeed to any ‘Alias’ such as the ‘The Son Of Man’ in this regard outside of the gospels, would constitute ‘man play’ on Jesus and merit a ‘red card’, there cannot be an informed debate here to set his activities and views in the wider Jewish context, and therefore I must respectfully decline to comment on this too for the reasons outlined.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  12. babyface finlayson (profile) says:

    How cunning of the English media elite to trick Dianne Abbott into making this remark!
    The fact is she made a crass generalisation, not about ruling elites or Western governments, but an entire racial group.
    It was stupid of her (not for the first time) , hence the apology.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  13. Mickhall (profile) says:

    “I like the way you’ve managed to slip your own little xenophobic anti-English rant into a post of this nature.”

    Doppia
    Sorry to disappoint, but I’m English old bean. Yes the English newspapers gave blanket coverage to this trial, but a good many of them failed to step up to the plate when it could have done some good, and when the Lawrence’s needed support. True the Mail eventually played a positive role, but that alone does not lesson the institutional racism which is prevalent through out British society.

    Name me a black editor of a ‘fleet street’ newspaper, past or present, name me a black general in the British army, past or present, name me a black chief constable, indeed there are fewer senior black and Asian police officers today than there was eight years ago.

    I could go on but readers will get my gist. For example if you look at the ethnic make up of the senior ranks of the US armed forces and police, and compare them with the British, we are still in the dark ages. Sadly today, it is not only race which stops people reaching their true potential, but also class.

    None of this race and class prejudice is sustained by accident, but by a conscious effort on the part of the upper middle classes to ring-fence their positions and privileges.

    Unless we recognise this fact, as a nation things will not change permanently, as all we are doing is making two steps forward and then three back. Having a hereditary monarchy hardly helps, as it enshrines class and race prejudice in law.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  14. sliabhluachra (profile) black spot says:

    Mick Hall: Should the SAS, MI5, the FRU, HM Prison Service etc all have a quorum of blacks, blacks being perhaps more progressive than the rest of us as they seem to vote the “right” way?
    The Labour Party in Norway is complaining because immigrants there just vote for their own, not for their white Norwegian “protectors”. I guess the US Wasps had the same problem with conniving Irish types like Joe Kennedy in times gone by.
    The Tories have Baronness Warsi. When debating with Nick Griffin on BBC, (where Griffin pointed out to Jack Straw that Straw’s father had been a conscientious objector against Hitler but that Griffin’s old man had fought the good fight), Warsi argued her father had also fought for Britain in WW2 and for the right of people like herself to prosper in Britain.
    But surely many (British) Indian troops fought for a wage and/or Indian/Pakistani independence?. And, as for poncing off one’s father to bolster one’s own arguments…

    People like Warsi and Abott are only more (or less) colourful examples of British and/or Irish politicians. They are opportunists and nothing more.
    The days are gone when the black squaddie was the radio operator and last man on the duck patrol and thus most likely to get the OBE.

    I see a Nepalese Gurkha mercenary has just succumbed to his Afghan war wounds. Minorities are still disproportionarely over represented in the lower ranks of the US and British military. Poor sods hoping to get a passport/PR status, just as in Roman times when a life time of service could give citizenship (Civis Romanus sum )
    And, to say on the Latin: divide et impera
    was a tactic widely used by the original Romans

    But hey, whatever makes our rich overlords sound radical. Does the British Labour party still sing the Red Flag once a year and have many ex squaddies got long sentences for hate crimes in South Armagh or Basra?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  15. Mickhall (profile) says:

    “Mick Hall: Should the SAS, MI5, the FRU, HM Prison Service etc all have a quorum of blacks, blacks being perhaps more progressive than the rest of us as they seem to vote the “right” way?”

    You have lost me here mate, what you seem to be saying is working for, and defending civil rights, is a pointless task, If so I am presuming you believe only a revolution would achieve such things. Good luck with that, if that is your belief, apologies if not.

    Political minnows like Diane and Mrs Warsi is nether here nor there as far as I am concerned, how the political and business elites maintain themselves in power and at whose expense does.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  16. Alias (profile) says:

    any reference to Jesus Ben Joseph or indeed to any ‘Alias’ such as the ‘The Son Of Man’

    Thank you for your expression of reverence and grant of divine status but modesty compels me to feel that it is misplaced.

    Incidentally, how often does the word ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinian’ appear in the bible? Not once. That’s a bit odd for such an ancient ‘nation’ and state, isn’t it? You’d almost think that no Palestinian nation or state existed.

    There is, however, a Hebrew word ‘Pelesheth’ which is used in the Old Testament (no mention at all in the New Testament) to refer to a small region of Israel along its southwestern coast, and this is the word from which the word ‘Palestine’ is derived. This area was more commonly known as Philistia, and occupied by a group known as Philistines.

    It’s ironic that philistines is a pretty good description of those who have been led to think that a Palestinian nation isn’t a 20th century invention…

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  17. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    All my references on this thread in the above post referred to Jesus ben Joseph in reply to ‘Unicorn’ Would Mick and editorial please note that if other posters have a ‘ Missiah Complex’ and consider it as appling to themselves, I cannot be held responsible or carded for their delusions !

    As a matter of historical note the Emperor Hadrian, the same gent that undertook a bit of wall building during his time in the our next door, as then, Roman occupied, sister Celtic Isle, was in Judea in 133 AD. dealing with a spot of local trouble in that neck of the woods at that time.

    To quote Michael Baignet in the ‘ The Jesus Papers’ ( Harper-element, hb ed, 2006) page 61,
    ” Hadrian wanting to eradicate Judea from memory, changed the name of Judea to ‘Palaestinia’ ( now Palestine )………. which information Michael has cited as from Gichon, ‘The Bar Kochba War’ p 97.

    In these circumstances it would be rather difficult for Old Testament writers of BC to anticipate the mind of a Roman Emperor of 133 AD, and his decision to rename a region, so it is not particularly suprising that there is no mention of ‘Palastinia’ in the Old Testament, in fact it would be most remarkable if there was!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  18. DoppiaVu (profile) says:

    Mickhall

    In your original post, you clearly stated that the English press were attempting to move away from the Lawrence case. Which is demonstrably incorrect. I mean, even the Mail has fallen into line, ffs.

    I can’t dispute much in your latter post, in particular your point about class being another barrier.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  19. sliabhluachra (profile) black spot says:

    Palestine non issue: Wikipedia’s Palestine and Palestinian people entries are informative and claim long lineage back to the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians (and let’s not go down Voltaire’s slur on the Jews or ask whether reperations have been paid to Egypt for nation wrecking by Moses et al).

    Mick Hall: Warsi, Abbott are central to the game. They are the establishment. Just as Ireland continues to have its fair share of Crown Catholics, so also do other countries have their legions of Uncle and Auntie Toms. One of the duble sided contributions of SFWP was to point out that many Irish RCs did well during Penal Laws times.

    There have been appalling racist attacks on whites by non whites in England (Charlene Downes, kebab fodder) and Scotland (Kriss Donald). Child grooming seems to be a particular issue.
    I can also throw in the attacks by Irish itinerants in Ireland to help make my point: there is a large, cossetted industry stretching all the way up to the UN and Mary Robinson types built around painting al these “minority” people as victims.
    Many of them are not victims but perpetrators. England has the situation where young, under age English girls allow themselves to be sexually abused to show they are not racist; there are parellel cases in Ireland.
    Exploitation is widespread and predator and prey cannot be as easily separated as the social snob Karl Marx believed.
    The system co-opts people like Dianne Abbott and many of her radical chic type want to be coopted anyway and thus the hypocrisy about private schools, the average industrial wage and so on.

    HM The Queen gave out a load of gongs to mark the new year. She should have given bucket fulls of them to thise Birmingham Muslims, who exercised such restraint and humanity when their kids were killed by whites during the riots. Those Muslims are a much better candle of hope than Dianne Abbott types who jump up on the news with their hollow sound bites.

    .

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  20. Alias (profile) says:

    sliabhluachra, the issue isn’t whether or not people can trace their ancesters back a thousand or ten thousand years, since, rather obviously, everyone alive today has a lineage that goes back to Adam & Eve or apes. The issue is whether or not a nation existed back then. It didn’t, being a 20th century invention – and even your prized Wiki says that “the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the twentieth century.”

    To repost: “Now let’s get back to the facts rather than your emotional imaginings, In 1920 when the British took control of the territory from the Ottoman Turks there were less than 10,000 Muslim Arabs in it. In 1914, the population was 40,000 Jews, 10,900 Christian Arabs, and a mere 8,000 Muslim Arabs (Jerusalem: Illustrated History Atlas by Martin Gilbert). There were, of course, no Palestinians since that is a word that was invented by the British. By 1940, the number of Muslim Arabs had spiked to 40,000. These were economic immigrants who came in search of employment created by the British and Muslims who came out of a religious duty stipulated in the Quran that compels Muslims to seize land from non-Muslims.

    ‘Palestinians’ – an entirely bogus nation – have no Palestinian language, culture, art, science, literature or any other hallmark of nation to unite them, just as they had no historical homeland to unite them. The reason for that is simply that the ‘nation’ is entirely ficticious, being comprised of other Muslim Arab nations from which those now designated as ‘Palestinian’ actually belong.

    They have grown from less than 8,000 to over 4 million in less than a century not because of an extraordinary feat of breeding but simply because those other Arab nations make up their numbers. They only exist because of UN and other subsidies that attract them but also, ironically, because Israel has created millions of jobs in the region that did not exist before its creation.

    These Muslim Arabs, of course, already have a validated right to self-determination as members of the various nations that they originated from.”

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  21. sliabhluachra (profile) black spot says:

    Alias: I hope, in the fullness of time, you wil have a long and hard look at your 2.25pm post.
    Most Arabs speak Arabic, it being the language of thier main religion.
    I really doubt your Jewish numbers and I imagine they grew quickly after the Zionist moves of the late 19th century.
    You speak of other Arab nations? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait: all inventions of colonialists. Palestine is as much a nation as any of them or of the sectarian state of Israel for that matter.

    Be all of that as it may, I am interested to hear other views of Dianne Abbott and her opportunist type.
    Watching the BBC’s 1pm news today. Stephen Lawrence’s father was back on, saying how he was afraid in Britain. But surely that is yesterday’s news and pompous BNBC interviewers of any hue don’t really care.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  22. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    For those interested our old friend, Mark McGregor, late of this parish has a few things of interest to say about the use of slugger for attempted media manipulation, which is a matter I have frequently referred to here.

    http://heartsofoakandsteel.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/ciaran-barnes-journalistic-ethics-on-a-par/

    Perhaps the same Mark could do us all a favor and also ‘out’ a few of the ‘double, ( or in some instances even more) jobbers’ on this site?

    Contrary what some others have said…… for whatever reasons, ‘slugger’ is considered by some as more than a medium of exchange of views, it is also a platform for disinformation and misinformation. What Mark have brought to light is very serious indeed and it call into question the whole integrity and purpose of slugger.

    Contrary to what some others would also imply, slugger is probably required reading for quite a few politicians and others in public life on this Island. This is certainly so as far as the serious heavyweights in all parties go. If these people find that they are having their tits pulled by pseudo slugger contributors, then credibility will very quickly indeed evaporate !

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  23. Alias (profile) says:

    sliabhluachra, on the contrary, it is a profoundly anti-Zionist agenda for folks to have expediently invented a nation for the express purpose of attempting to deny Jews ownership of their homeland. As to whether it is also an anti-Semitic agenda, that depends on whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism by covert means.

    Folks have a very simple view that leaves them susceptible to propaganda that these Muslim Arabs must have been Palestinian because they lived in a place called Palestine, as if this was a state rather than a British designation. In Gaza, for example, there were 550 people living there in 1918 according to British records – half of them were Jews and other half were Christians, with no Muslims at all. You can argue with facts all you like, and you’ll find them in Martin Gilbert’s research. It’s like claiming that Bertie Ahern must have been a Drumcondraoian, denied national self-determination, because he lived in Drumcondra…

    I don’t have anything to add to the debate (such as it is) regarding Ms Abbot’s comment, other than it isn’t surprising that she should try to shift the media focus from black-on-black racism (Asians vs. Africans) to white racism. Inter-Arab discord is also common in the UK, with most of those Arab nations detesting each other. Because ‘Palestinians’ are a mix of other Arab nations, that inter-Arab discord makes for a ‘nation’ at constant war with itself. These low-rent Labour types have a tendency to see themselves Malcolm X disguised as Martin Luther King.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  24. Alias (profile) says:

    “If these people find that they are having their tits pulled by pseudo slugger contributors, then credibility will very quickly indeed evaporate !”

    That’s a risky image for Ms Abbot’s thread. I doubt anyone of authority gives much credence to a website, and I seriously doubt if any of NI’s political agenda is set by any party other than the NIO/British government.

    The reality of how little infleunce non-state actors have is clear enough from Mark’s post: a story that the NIO wanted to be ignored by the mainstream was duly ignored by them.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  25. sliabhluachra (profile) black spot says:

    Alexa.com profile, rightly or wrongly, those who read Slugger. Fantacists and Walter Mitty types would be very disappointed by those descriptions of middle class family types, not really the revolutionary and reactionary vanguards the Walter Mittys might hope for.
    Jews do not own Palestine except in the sense a (nuclear armed) bully “owns” anyone. Israel is a sectarian bullying state and no one deserves what the Palestinians get. It is no wonder that Israel was such a close ally of apartheid South Africa. Just look at their ongoing ethnic cleansing.
    Jews were booted out of Palestine 2000 years ago and they sing about it every year: nxt year in east Jerusalem, which is one of the holiest cities in Islam, the culture which controlled the gaffe for many years and which ensured Muslims ruled ok and Orthodox Christians and a handfull of Jews were tolerated under licence. To say that these people of the book were a majority under the Ottoman empire is daft.

    Alias’ comments on intra Arab discord in Britian is of interest. Leaving Shia-Sunni splits out if it, we would still have various other splits: rich/poor, educated/uneducated on top of the gang culture a lot of immigrant children go into.
    Singling out Arabs in Britain (not eg Sydey) is also of interest. Nothing should be read into it except the need to split amnd splinter which is., of course, a charge often raised in debates on uncontrolled mass immigration.

    My own ideas are not written in stone but I increasingly see Diane Abbott and her type (white Labour Party members included) through the same cynical glasses I see Joe Kennedy, Mayor Daley and the worst Irish Americans. Users.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
181 queries. 0.980 seconds.