Why I would be pleased to see the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square pulled down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/04/boris-johnson-book-winston-churchill

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.

Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.

1. Why did Britain enter WW1?
2. Was Belgian neutrality worth the sacrifice of so many British lives?
3. What document provided for Belgian neutrality?
4. Are you aware of the contents of the Treaty of London 1839?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
5. Can you discern from its contents what it was that was so important about Belgian neutrality to Britain that made its leaders sacrifice so much over it to so little effect?
6. Were you aware that the German Ambassador in London was aghast at the British for going to war over what they called "a scrap of paper"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#.22Scrap_of_paper.22
7. Are you aware that the British went to war in 1914 over a document signed 78 years before that?
8. Was Britain the most militaristic nation in Europe?  (A militaristic nation goes to war at the drop of a hat and over scraps of paper.  It is understandable that Germany would go to the aid of Austria if it was being threatened by Russia, if it had recently agreed to do so.  It is understandable that the Russians who are Slavs would go to the aid of the Serbs who are also Slavs if they were being threatened by their Austrian overlords, but what the fuck had Belgian neutrality to do with the British??)
9. Could it be said that British foreign policy at the time before WW1 and WW2 consisted of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans?
10. Could it be said that the British policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans ended up in the disintegration of the British empire?
11. Why couldn't Germany have Poland when Britain had its world empire since Germany had completely missed out in the scramble for Africa?
12. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon ie German king as recently as the 1600s?
13. Did you know that Germany regarded Poland as its backyard in the same way that Britain regards Ireland as its backyard?
14. Could it be said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1?
15. But for WW2, would Britain have lost its world empire?
16. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and Britain lost its world empire as a result of WW2, could it be said that Britain lost its empire over "a scrap of paper"?
17. Was Hitler's greatest mistake his belief that the British would be reasonable about Poland (which was outside their sphere of influence anyway) when they had already gone to war over the scrap of paper that was Belgian neutrality?
18. How rational do you think British foreign policy is?
19. How rational do you think British foreign policy has been in the last hundred years or so?
20. Did you know that Hitler liked children, was an animal-lover, a vegetarian and was kind to his servants, while Churchill was a drunkard, a depressive and was rude to his servants?
21. While Hitler was an infamous antisemite, did you know that Churchill thought "Keep England White" was a good slogan?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Return_to_power
22. If you have gone to the trouble of acquiring an empire, shouldn't you at least try to hang on to it for as long as you can?
23. Could it be said that Churchill gambled away the empire the British, acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in a roll of dice?  (What is war but a speculative gamble?)
24. Are the British fools or knaves for overlooking the enormity of Churchill's folly?
25. Could British foreign policy be better conducted by Claire Khaw who takes a Palmerstonian view of British interests?  (Palmerston would have taken a dim view of the Special Relationship.  "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.")
26. Is it time for the British to stop being the poodle of America and instead become the Pekingese of the Chinese, which would mean shutting up about Tibet?
27. Do you think British MPs ever discuss foreign policy in an honest or reasoned way?
28. Are you are of any serious and detailed discussion taking place as regards UK foreign policy?
29. If you were a Muslim terrorist committing terrorist atrocities to make the British re-examine their foreign policy, do you think you have done enough?
30. Do you think the Germans are on the whole quite decent forbearing people considering what they have had to put up with from Hitler and the British?
31. While Churchill was not the one who in fact declared war on Germany, do you think he more or less bounced Chamberlain into declaring war on Germany?
32. Do you think Churchill fancied himself as war leader?
33. Are you aware that tinpot dictators like starting wars so that they can strut around being war leaders?  

OK for Buddhists and Hindus to be theocratic but not Muslims?

This was found at http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2008/04/08/the_torchs_progress

The poster was someone called "whatever" with no further details. His thoughtful comments follow.

The granting of the Olympics to the Chinese must have been a God-send to the "civilised" world. It was a passport to "western civilisation" to penetrate the Great Wall of China and inflict some "civilised" damage.
Because of this, the Olympics have been hijacked by the US and other “civilised” nations. The Olympics are no longer anything to do with sport and competition anymore.

Thanks to the “civilised world” the Olympic Torch now burns hatred, scores political goals and encourages terrorism in China.

In all this, as a Muslim, I notice that the Tibetan fanatic terrorists burnt a mosque in the recent rioting. It was an article posted by few news sites.

I also note that the US, Britain and Europe is encouraging the Tibetan fanatic Papal human God Dalai Lama to spread discontent, riots and even terrorism in China and Chinese territories. This method of attacking China through dissident groups by financial and logistical US (British and European) support surely has not gone unnoticed by those little people in China.

So there is one thing that doesn't quite make sense. The US, Britain and Europe complain of a terrorism that is linked to the religion of Islam in the respective countries yet promote and condone terrorism in China and Chinese territories through a so called human god???

Which brings me back to another point that links in with Tibet/China. If what is happening there is due to the territorial ambitions and national identity of Tibetan Exiles, then is it not possible that the terrorism in Britain, US and Europe (Br,US,E) is equally being orchestrated by foreign powers who have been interfered with by Br,US,E. The point being that we are not seeing Islamic Terrorism here in the "civilised world" but rather a new form of warfare between nations.

The classification of the warfare/terrorism taking place in Br,US,E is conveniently classified as Islamic Terrorism so that it calls for vigilance against 80% of nations with a grudge against Br,US,E.

Will the Chinese now retaliate with this new kind of warfare and use the fact that the US and Britain have no respect for human rights (water-boarding, detention of suspects on whims for as long as is deemed fit, demonisation of minorities, killing prisoners of war etc, etc.) to say that Br,US,E should shut up and respect their own people and human rights before they feel the need to criticize others.

Fantasy Statement by Chinese Government on Tibet

"While the Chinese government is aware that Western nations are concerned about their ability to maintain their economic dominance of the world and feel threatened and resentful of China's economic success, it is nevertheless taken aback by the hypocrisy, hostility and malice that has emanated from the forces of disorder in their societies, and their opportunistic denunciations of the Chinese government by their political leaders.

The Chinese government will continue to receive critical comments from certain Western nations about its human rights record with forbearance, while remaining silent about the human rights of those in Iraq, to go about their day-to-day affairs without fear of death, which have been virtually extinguished through a regrettable and now generally regretted invasion. China, despite its so-called "humans rights abuses", has invaded no foreign country and imposed no "regime change" on the leaders of sovereign nations it disapproves of.

It seems that many of those who are violently demonstrating are not Tibetans but troublemakers not in paid employment relying on state benefits to fund their attendance at weekday demonstrations against the progress of the Olympic torch.

Many are in complete ignorance of the issues involved and see it as an opportunity to disrupt a soft target for their own amusement, with little likelihood of condign punishment by the police, who will only detain them briefly before sending them on their way.

The Chinese government concedes that how other nations wish to govern their increasingly disorderly populace is a matter for them, and only wishes others would allow China the same right to run its own affairs, particularly when it does not affect them and when they do not understand and cannot be bothered to digest the details of a long and complicated history of Chinese-Tibetan relations.

Perhaps if doing so were a condition of participation in these disruptive acts, these anti-China demonstrations would just melt away like snow in summer?

That the Dalai Lama is not in Tibet to represent the Tibetans is the greatest part of the problem. The Chinese government unequivocably declares its intention to guarantee the Dalai Lama's safety in Tibet and his right to select his successor in accordance with both the best interests of -

(1) the Tibetans whom he represents; and
(2) the Chinese people on whose behalf he would be guiding Tibet,

to be given equal consideration.

The Buddhist equivalent of the Vatican City is being considered to accommodate him on his return. It is envisaged that the Dalai Lama will have spiritual authority while allowing the Chinese government to deal with the day-to-day administration of Tibet.

It seems that such an accommodation would be the fairest and most workable solution.

Perhaps the reason he will not return is simply this: he will be expected to deal with resident Tibetans and their grievances on his return. Remaining in exile undoubtedly lends him the distance with which to appear wise, moderate and glamorous to his supporters while discharging him of the responsibility of dealing with the real problems of governing a mutinous people who are having difficulties coming to terms with the modern world, because of their less advanced cultural traditions and their primitive superstitions.

It is the stated intention of the Chinese government to deal honourably and more effectively with the grievances of the Tibetans, with the co-operation and assistance of the Dalai Lama, and for this reason he is asked to now return to his people and be accountable both to them and the government of China.

If anything good should come out of these disruptions, let the return of the Dalai Lama to his homeland be the surprising and glad outcome.

Let it not be said and seen that the government of a progressive and modern China cannot be constructive and conciliatory!

The world now awaits the response of the Dalai Lama."

What are the Tibetans for?

I am still unclear about the Tibetan contribution towards world civilisation. So: they pray, whinge about oppression by the Chinese (though previously they must have been complaining about their previous colonial masters - the British), make a tourist industry out of their religion and rituals and last but not least, take the toddler son off any Tibetan if they think he is Dalai Lama material.

Nice, that. The cleverer and more promising your son is, the more likely he is to be taken into "care" when the priests come round, disguised, for their, er, milk round. (The present Dalai Lama was "recruited" when he was two.) Bear in mind that if that were to happen, you won't be having any grandchildren if he is your only son. Dalai Lamas are like Catholic priests - condemned to a life of celibacy, and possibly paedophilia or at the very least homosexuality, when normal sexuality is forbidden expression .... Are the Tibetans now to be regarded as some sort of protected species, like Aborigines in Australia, the Red Indians, Eskimoes and the Pitcairn people?

Why don't we leave them alone and let them fade away, if their culture no longer equips them to deal with modern life? It might really be kindest thing to do.


http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/sghd/t416831.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7279789.stm

http://www.freetibet.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama