Originally Posted by ANGLO-STAFFS

SilverFalcon. I do not view and have not viewed you as an idiot. I was referring to one point of your post and I still hold that view.
I can see some of your points, florid and emotive though they may be, and in my original post (no8 on this thread) I say that we do not need to follow the USA blindly.
But my main, and still unanswered, point is that Mr Constantine states that we will be safer if a FEP government works closely with Bin Laden, Al Quaida and the Taliban.
Is he saying that if they bomb England we will roll over?????????????????
He states that the FEP will not get involved in military action against them.
I hope that Mr Constantine answers my points

Silver Falcon, you write, "The so-called terrorist attacks in London".
Why so-called? What would you call them? Freedom attacks? Liberation attacks? Friendly fire? Accidents?

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon

I saw Mr Constantine's answers as rational, sane and well within moral limits, if any of today's politicians would care to step into that arena without wearing asbestos boxer shorts. They and their forebears placed maverick socialist and communist governments complete with life long dictators in many former colonial possessions in Africa and to this day never turn a hair at the atrocities or economic disaster witnessed by this sheer folly. Anyone who mentions this is called a racist by default and this is to defuse what is a very nasty bit of explosive material in the history of these so called lovers of democracy and bleeding hearts for all of mankind.

Mr Constantine's answer and views are a refreshing and courageous departure from policies that have caused more misery and conflict than anything else. And it's good to hear someone sounding like a real Englishman for a change. Haven't heard that kind of thing from a politician in decades.

One of the greatest boons to contemporary fringe groups has been the Islamic Jihad movement borne of the needs of an aspiring American empire and the deteriorating situation in Palestine. None of these factors have been addressed and yet America and the rest of the world still trade arms, oil, narcotics and now also indulge in people trafficking under the moral umbrella terms of "refugee" and "immigration" at random and with whomever they please without ever asking their electorates whether they still want to do these things with these people. Plus, they now also embroil populations in unnecessary and costly warfare to keep their dying ideologies in place. The sons and daughters of the nations are apparently still a good price to pay for this indulgence and on these whims. The new free parties and movements think otherwise and are not afraid of religions, people or threats.

If Free England had been in power the bus bombs would probably never have occurred. The idea that under a Free England government these incidents would increase is a false idea inculcated by religious fear mongering about Islam on the part of modern evangelical America and degenerate Nu Labour who clings to some excuse for a special relationship with America. It is so ridiculous you may as well say France has a special relationship with Canada, but of course you don't hear the French say this. They're far too astute.

England needs astute politicians of her own who can broker the best deals for England and the English in a world rapidly being dominated by the new eastern economies and manufacturers. You don't hear the Chinese basing their policies on any fear, imagined or otherwise, of Islam. One shouldn't hear this from England either.

Playing at being the world's moral voice is imperious enough but when a debauched country like America starts doing it you know it's time to say ta-ta to any kind of special relationship unless this is one where you try and keep as far away from that element in American society as possible. To encourage it is to snuff out the chances of rebels in the American system who could put their country on a better footing and bring America back to earth by forcing her to act alone on certain powerful issues, the most complex of which is her special relationship with a country that isn't Britain but that draws the western imagination into conflagration simply by some non-existent but immensely powerful psychological bond.

People forget how easily other European countries get by without being dragged into America's net. England can do the same. How can a country that had an empire upon which the sun never set need a country like America to survive? Besides chewing gum, political correctness and pornography what is it that America is going to give those with a special relationship, other than a body bag to come home in, a nasty social disease or a bad taste in their mouth?

There's oil under the melting ice cap. There is a race on as to who will get it and with whom special relationships will be forged among those who do get it. Global warming is going to play its part in future political relationships. If you look at the current American election campaigns you feel quite ill at the prospect of either McCain or that strange woman who sees herself as a pit bull with lipstick. You get less of this feeling with Obama. That shows just how America has changed and just how the neocons have eroded their credibility by consorting with religious fanatics that are the western equivalent of radical Islam.

No, I see Mr Constantine's voice as rational but firm, and I do not hear any egomania in it. He sounds like an Englishman. If this is true then other English patriots will hear this note too and respond to it. We are a people who have been bred into a standing and fighting position and not a cowering and running one. We were once warriors, not flunkies. Kowtowing to the likes of America is about as far from being English as we can get. Don't do it. Follow the road that leads home to a free England and forget about America for the moment, she is presently indisposed by madness and we don't help Americans who would be free of it by promoting it.

Originally Posted by Gregory Lauder-Frost

Could you possibly outline to us how the 'special relationship' with the USA has been beneficial to Great Britain. Don't forget to throw in the American Revolution, the 1812 War, their support for Napoleon, their unannounced war on Spain and annexation of their colonies, their deliberate staying out of The Great War until everyone else was bled dry, their deliberate undermining of the Imperial Russian Government who were our allies in that war, and covert support of the Bolsheviks, their disastrous amateurish intervention in the Versailles Treaty and Wilson's comment that he refused to treat with any crowned heads of Europe. They had to be bombed into WWII and thereafter fleeced us mercilessly, their anti-colonial policies aimed specifically against us and our Empire, and, of course, Suez. I commend to you John Biggs-Davison's excellent book The Uncertain Ally as well as David Reynolds' Rich Relations - The American Occupation of Britain 1942-1945.

We have been used as a doormat by the Americans and dragged into situations which we would otherwise have avoided. Their 100% support for Israel, a thorn in the side to the Muslim World, should have been left to them. Now we have made ourselves and our people targets.

Look at the Afghanistan business. The Russians had over 100,000 men in Afghanistan. they lost. Now our own generals are telling us we cannot win either. Over 100 of our men killed, for what? Everywhere the Americans go is disaster and destruction. They think the world is an extension of the Wild West.

We no longer have an empire. We are a tiny country. We cannot afford adventures abroad unless there is very clear irrefutable evidence that it will be in Britain's best interests - and that we can and must win.

It is time to disengage with the cowboys. The USA is a country whose history is actually been one of serious opposition to Britain.

Originally Posted by cassie

A 'groupie's post' lacking references to any particular facts and relying upon mere generalised assertion!

_______________

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon

I'm actually neither florid nor emotive when I am involved in a serious fight, but as I am merely writing on a rather dubiously just forum my alias is as she is. I am not my alias, so please be assured that you aren't speaking to some wildly dotty hippy.

I called the attacks "so called terrorist" not because they weren't terrorist attacks but because the entire "war on terror" was invented by Bush and his cronies to make of the twin tower catastrophe an excuse to set in motion a protracted period of conflict whereby the west, or those who were going to be talked into standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush, were sucked into something that was unnecessary and hopeless and that no matter what one called the actions of Muslim radicals the solution to the problem was not to throw more bad blood after it.

Terrorism has been with Israel since its inception. It has the unfortunate situation of having been made the scapegoat for it by religious fanatics on both sides of the argument. The twin towers were merely a slow continuance of the tower bombings previous to this and the myriad of attacks at rather long intervals over a period of years in connection with the Great and Little Satans of Islamic popular revolutionary parlance.

Terrorism is a difficult term to apply to the actions of mass murderers. What they do is a crime against humanity and there is no excuse for it. Period. They find excuses. They aren't fighting for freedom they are being sucked into religious mania. It happens to small groups of loopy folk who think they must kill before a space ship comes to fetch them to a better life as much as it happens to large groups brainwashed, or rather cultwashed, into ideas of noble sacrifice. Terrorism is terrorism and there is no excuse for it per se. It is murder and it is often mass murder to gain the greatest influence over the minds of people who are frightened of the shadows their governments throw on the wall rather than of their governments.

And terrorism grows of its own accord and surpasses the original revolutionary goal of change, becoming a thing unto itself that is centred often on some belief system, whether this be Aryan supremacy in the case of a deranged individual like Hitler, or evangelical supremacy in the case of religious fanatics. Either way people start killing for reasons other than the political and for goals other than freedom. Both domino and snowball effects cause incidents like the twin towers, Bali bombings, Madrid train station or London bombings to take on holy significance, instead of remaining the nasty vicious acts that they are against civilians.

Because of the attacks and because the of so called "War on terror" (which is unfocused and has no momentum other than that of imperial supremacy) individuals become fixated on ideas associated with the attacks and the beliefs of the attackers. This causes them to stop taking cognizance of the many law abiding ordinary people on both sides who are netted into the prejudice harvest. A whole new atmosphere of us and them is initiated and grows. This isn't freedom fighting, it is something else and it has a mind of its own and a motivation outside of rational consideration. The west and the Islamic terror troops are now in this position of unfocused onslaught and the individual in the street has no idea what is going on (if anything) or what to do about it (if there is anything one can do about a situation that has so many loose ends and so little hope of tying them up).

What I meant by the London bombings possibly having been avoided altogether is that the kind of security a Free England would necessitate and the sort of immigration control and citizen awareness that would be the natural focus of such a government and its family of citizens would make attacks like these almost impossible. Nu Labour, especially under Blair, created a regime that fastidiously oppressed its natives and followed a policy of open house to the very people it knew full well were the source of Jihad attacks on citizens through the world.

Exactly who are the terrorists in such a scenario?

Free England would never "roll over" for anyone and it would start this refusal to play poodle by applying it to the present shower in power who are asking this very thing of the citizens they also blithely send off to get slaughtered in the Middle East, when there are other ways of solving the problem.

Originally Posted by the englishman

Mr Constantine, if the FEP were in government and making moral decisions - let's take gay rights as an example - how would they take any moral authority? People would immediately point to the fact that we trade with some of the most despicable countries purely for material benefit.

Whilst I appreciate we should put our own citizens first, I still see us ALL as humans and we should never trade with immoral countries more than we have to.