Israel is deeply humiliated by Erdogan at Davos

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

My "unsubstantiated totally false claim" about English culture has been backed up by ISP members who have lived in English society for years. I'll wait for them to chime in if they want to.

You knew what I was referring to when I said your unsubstantiated totally false claim; I had your exact quotation above my statement, how could you miss? Your claim that the British government has repented about its past colonial misdeeds, that is not true, based on BBC here is your exact quote:

If the English were just as unrepentant about colonialism and equally unjust to their minorities, I would have condemned them just as strongly.

The English goverment has not repented and apologized for its colonial misdeeds as the BBC article said. In fact the statment that time has passed for the apology has come from none other than the current PM, Gordon Brown. It does not hurt to read it. So if you want to deny BBC report and rely on ISP members who live in England that is your choice, but I relying on what Gordon Brown has said and BBC has reported.

[IranZamin]

Since you insist, this is from the article you linked to:

"The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.

The chancellor, speaking during a week-long tour of Africa, said it was time to talk about enduring British values of liberty and tolerance."

That's not being unrepentant. Not even close. He's not saying colonialism was ok or denying that it happened; he's echoing exactly what I said earlier, that a country that has admitted its past and made changes to its outlook shouldn't have to keep apologizing.

In fact, the first sentence from your own article proves that

A)England has acknowledged its wrongful past,

B) has previously apologized for it, and now wishes to move on and focus on its current record of tolerance and liberalism.

Now, anything else I can help you with?

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

Since you insist, this is from the article you linked to:

"The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.

The chancellor, speaking during a week-long tour of Africa, said it was time to talk about enduring British values of liberty and tolerance."

That's not being unrepentant. Not even close. He's not saying colonialism was ok or denying that it happened; he's echoing exactly what I said earlier, that a country that has admitted its past and made changes to its outlook shouldn't have to keep apologizing.

In fact, the first sentence from your own article proves that

A)England has acknowledged its wrongful past,

B) has previously apologized for it, and now wishes to move on and focus on its current record of tolerance and liberalism.

Now, anything else I can help you with?

'No UK apology' for colonial past


Mr Brown is on a six-day tour of Africa
The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.



In your school of thought "NO UK apology for colonial past" means that the British government has already apologized and has acknowelged its past colonial misdeeds. In your logic, Gordon Brown by not saying coloniasm was OK, has infact apologyized . That is amazing, how could I miss that point.

And perhaps Gordon Brown was apologizing even more in his unique way, when he was so outspoken in defending Britain's past history in this piece in the same article. I am really impressed with your logic and rationalization.

BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4176805.stm

[The_Referee]

Here is what a native English thought of Gordon Brown's words:

BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history".

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Yeah sure, I save my BBC link and will take your unsubstantiated totally false claim. Great logic!

Glad my misspelling caused you to LOL, you sure needed. Again could not back up your false statement that I supported Erdogan, now your referring to my attitude. Great come back. When short on facts and reason resort to bogus statemetn such as my attitude. Only coming from you with your attitude, is a bit strange.
Go ahead and come up with more falsehood. And run another spell check on my post for another LOL while you are at it.

I didn't wish to jump in this, but even the link you just provided shows that the English have already repented and apologised about their past. The statement:

"the days of Britain having to apologise for its coloianl past are over Gordon Brown has said."

highlights that it did indeed exist and it has been apologised for; even if that is no longer the case.

IZ's points are pretty clear and I don't see why they are continually refurbished into something they never were. So far, civil or not, all his points stand. And that is all that should matter to those after logic instead of mannerisms - no need to create a side debate.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by Kaz

I didn't wish to jump in this, but even the link you just provided shows that the English have already repented and apologised about their past. The statement:

"the days of Britain having to apologise for its coloianl past are over Gordon Brown has said."

highlights that it did indeed exist and it has been apologised for; even if that is no longer the case.

IZ's points are pretty clear and I don't see why they are continually refurbished into something they never were. So far, civil or not, all his points stand. And that is all that should matter to those after logic instead of mannerisms - no need to create a side debate.

Dear Kaz,

Lets leave that judgment to the BBC political analyst and editors of BBC who are far more knowledgeable than us in English interpretations. The analysis says Brown "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history"?

However, if anyone has any notion of Britain's apology in the past, he/she is welcome to bring it up here. Not saying there was not any. But I have not heard of any official apology from Britain in that matter. In fact, for the matter at hand in Israel, Britain was also in charge when theygave AZ KISEYE KHALIFEH to the Jews.

Anyhow, any proof of a formal or even informal apology by Britain for Colonialism etc.?

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by The_Referee

Dear Kaz,

Lets leave that judgment to the BBC political analyst and editors of BBC who are far more knowledgeable than us in English interpretations. The analysis says Brown "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history"?

However, if anyone has any notion of Britain's apology in the past, he/she is welcome to bring it up here. Not saying there was not any. But I have not heard of any official apology from Britain in that matter. In fact, for the matter at hand in Israel, Britain was also in charge when theygave AZ KISEYE KHALIFEH to the Jews.

Anyhow, any proof of a formal or even informal apology by Britain for Colonialism etc.?

Dear Ref, the fact that you refer to a BBC article, which if anything disputes your prime contention, instead of actually knowing about English popular culture (it's literature, etc) would mean you don't have the proper judgment and should leave it to others. Other people don't have to rely on your interpretation of one BBC article. People familiar with the English know well enough.

Again, the sentence Gordon Brown utters himself highlights exactly what the English have been doing. Regardless if a Prime Minister came out and actually made a point of it.

This is really not a trivial matter.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by The_Referee

Here is what a native English thought of Gordon Brown's words:

BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history".

Here's what Gordon Brown himself said: "The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said."

P.S. when was the last time the British denied Colonialism/Imperialism existed...and when have they last been proud of it?

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by Kaz

Dear Ref, the fact that you refer to a BBC article, which if anything disputes your prime contention, instead of actually knowing about English popular culture (it's literature, etc) would mean you don't have the proper judgment and should leave it to others. Other people don't have to rely on your interpretation of one BBC article. People familiar with the English know well enough.

Again, the sentence Gordon Brown utters himself highlights exactly what the English have been doing. Regardless if a Prime Minister came out and actually made a point of it.

This is really not a trivial matter.

That is exactly why I say refer to the words of BBC political analyst there. He knows English culture in and out and far better than you and I and his conclusion is that Brown is actually defending British past colonialism!
My guess is that Brown was actually answering the attack of president Mbeki in those words and that is why BBC analyst find Brown's words actually defending British colonialism and not apologizing for it:


South African president Thabo Mbeki has attacked British imperialists, saying they treated Africans like savages.
Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.
He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country.

Those words are hardly apologetic!!!

As for our experience here in Australia, do you remember the saga about saying a simple sorry to aboriginal Australians and how John Howard avoided doing so, even if he acknowledged their sufferings? It is a big deal to say officially sorry and Britain has never done it. If you remember them or know of anything explicit, please let us know.

[The_Referee]

By the way, regardless of past history of a country, my stand is that the British in the other thread had all the rights to be so critic of Saudi Arabia and radical Islam and I actually like him for doing so. The same here, regardless of Turkish denial of Armenian genocide and their bad treatment of Kurds, I still think their PM had every right to walk out of that meeting for a two very valid reasons:

- He was not given equal opportunity to point out his views when the other party was given so.
- Simon Peres, as a Nobel prize winner, behaved in an utterly bad manners and used a loud voice in defense of murdering innocent children. That in itself is shameless and despicable.

[The_Referee]

Originally Posted by Kaz

P.S. when was the last time the British denied Colonialism/Imperialism existed...and when have they last been proud of it?

Here:

Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.
He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by The_Referee

That is exactly why I say refer to the words of BBC political analyst there. He knows English culture in and out and far better than you and I and his conclusion is that Brown is actually defending British past colonialism!
My guess is that Brown was actually answering the attack of president Mbeki in those words and that is why BBC analyst find Brown's words actually defending British colonialism and not apologizing for it:


South African president Thabo Mbeki has attacked British imperialists, saying they treated Africans like savages.
Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.
He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country.

Those words are hardly apologetic!!!

It doesn't have to be apologetic. Remember, we are not discussing what BROWN thinks of colonialism but what ENGLAND or BRITAIN has been thinking of it in the recent past. And BROWN'S own statement already illuminates the fact that many British people ARE apologetic - hence Brown's OWN change of thought on the matter.

This is not really debatable if all you're going by is the article.

As for our experience here in Australia, do you remember the saga about saying a simple sorry to aboriginal Australians and how John Howard avoided doing so, even if he acknowledged their sufferings? It is a big deal to say officially sorry and Britain has never done it. If you remember them or know of anything explicit, please let us know.

Er, so what if Howard didn't do it? Rudd did, didn't he? Australians have little hang-ups about the stolen generation. Remember, 200,000 people walked across the Sydney Harbour bridge in memory and apology of what happened

The reason Howard's refusal was a big deal...was...um...because everyone thought it was right and proper that he do it. So the Australianss (not just one Australian who happened to be the Prime Minister) are irrelevant to this example. Much like the British example.

Face it, your examples are irrelevant and IZ's points on Turkey stand.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by The_Referee

Here:

Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.
He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country.

I am not talking about ONE person, I am talking about Britain as a collective.

When IZ says the Turkish (not just 1-2 in government) don't even like discussing the subject and deny what happened, it is quite different to the British who not only acknowledge their imperialist past but don't take pride in a lot of what happened because of it. The two don't equate, try to get a better example.

[Motori]

TURKEY-ISRAEL TRADE VOLUME RISES BY 135% UNDER AKP
(ANSAmed) - ANKARA, FEBRUARY 2 - The trade volume between Turkey and Israel has reached to 3.3 billion dollars in 2008 from 1.4 billion dollars in 2002 when the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development came to power, daily Hurriyet reports. The official data showed that Turkey's exports reached 1.9 billion dollars in 2008 from 1.6 billion dollars in 2007. Turkey's imports from Israel rose 36% in 2008 to 1.4 billion dollars. One of the main trade items between two countries is the defense industry. Turkey had auctioned the modernization of the M-60 tanks to the Israel Military Industries (IMI) for 668 million dollars. The IMI also won the modernization of the 300 military helicopters for 57 million dollars. Turkey signed three other deals with Israel for the modernization of war jets. The financial amount of these agreements is 850 million dollars. The tension rose between Turkey and Israel after Ankara harshly criticized the Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip which left more than 1,300 people killed. The Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's reaction to storm out of the Gaza session in Davos is unlikely to effect the mutual relations, experts say. (ANSAmed).
2009-02-02 13:48

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME02.@AM31806.html

[DireStraits]

Thank you. How many times should I tell you it is pure policy.