Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: it's only unacceptable if someone is 3rd in-line to the throne and you want to get rid of the throne. | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:06:48 01/14/05 Fri In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "I once dressed up as a nun, so I guess I should apologise for the inquisition, the witch-burning craze and rampant pedophilia" on 11:39:28 01/14/05 Fri [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Would there be the same outcry if he wore a Che Guevara t-shirt? I suspect not | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:05:13 01/14/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:45:56 01/14/05 Fri If you want to gauge whether this furor about morals, ethics and responsibility, or whether it is about politics, motivated by republicanism or class hatred, you only need to read the comments on the BBC News "Have Your Say" page. The usual rhetoric about privilege, insensitivity and aloofness are once again conspicuous. Some are even suggesting that he should not be allowed to go to Sandhurst! I would tell them to take a chill-pill and stop their politically motivated hysteria, but my comments are never published anyway: no doubt due to the BBC’s right-of-centre spam filter. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Media mayhem | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:24:10 01/15/05 Sat Have you noticed how hard the media are pushing this? If I didn't know better I'd begin to think that they had an agenda ;-) 24 hours after the story broke, it seemed like a very minor thing, since he had apologised, the Jewish Council of GB had accepted his apology on the grounds that it was a poor choice of costume and not an explicit statement of his political principles. 48 hours afterwards, the BBC had been calling up anyone and everyone who might make a slightly stricter comment, and came up with that deranged Labour MP who thought that he should be disqualified from going to Sandhurst (which wouldn't happen in the case of any other Sandhurst applicant). Now, 72 hours later, there are three page spreads in all the papers as more and more 'public figures' and rent-a-quote dinosaurs begin to realise the potential for just a few more column inches in the twilight of their careers. All of them seem terribly offended that we were not more offended. I even saw in a newspaper today one of those "for" and "against" pages, where two blokes are found to argue one side each: in this case, is Harry a spiteful and offensive young hooligan who would have been a BNP skinhead had his pater not been HRH the P of W, or is he just a party animal with a wry sense of humour which occasionally goes beyond the usual boundaries of good taste? This is not in itself surprising; but the fact that they managed to dig up two El Alamein veterans for the article (of which there can't be more than a dozen left) and pay them to have their say rather suggests and extraordinary amount of effort to 'keep the story going'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Guevara never managed to kill six million in his whole career | |
|
Author: Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna Lynch [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:12:05 01/15/05 Sat Hasta la victoria sempre! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I rather suspect that Rommel didn't either, but that's hardly the point, is it? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:41 01/15/05 Sat My gripe is that someone like Che Guevara can make a career out of commiting murder and help set up a dictatorship that continues to commit murder, yet somehow be seen as chic. Rank hypocrisy. A murderous thug is a murderous thug, whatever colour his flag is. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's sickening you know... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:23:50 01/15/05 Sat There is a restaurant in a fashionable part of Glasgow called Mao, where people go to enjoy lunch over the watchful gaze of the "chairman". It seems that it is acceptable to theme an eatery as a monument to one of the worst periods of Chinese history. What utter hypocrisy! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Aye, dinnae git me startit | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:26 01/15/05 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But then Rommel was never a Nazi | |
|
Author: Ein european [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:05:19 01/16/05 Sun In fact he was forced to commit suicide for his alleged involvement in Hitler's attempted assassination in 1944. He probably never wore a Swastika armband, because only the SS would wear armbands and Rommel was in the Wehrmacht. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Nice Nazi? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:40:10 01/16/05 Sun Here, I'm all for standing up for Harry on the grounds that he's not evil but just a bit of a twit, but to suggest that there is a qualitative, rather than quantitative, difference between Rommel and Hitler is absurd. So was less mad than Hitler. So were Mussolini and Franco. Doesn't make them nice chaps. He fought for National Socialist Germany for years, and helped to roll the allies back to the Egyptian border. I doubt that any of his private papers say, "Ach, I am so unhappy because of all the successes which I have won for the Third Reich. I wish that the British would fight me better so my conscience were at rest." Also bear in mind the fact that many of those who wrote the anti-Jewish legislation did not approve of the Holocaust. Frankly, I do not think that these people were nice chaps because they thought that mass extermination was going a bit far, and that the Reich should stick at putting the Jews in ghettos and making them wear stars and so forth, which was comparatively moderate. These things are all relative, and while Rommel may have been nice compared to, say, Hitler, he was quite nasty compared to, say, Neville Chamberlain. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not all Germans were bad... | |
|
Author: Ein European [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:34:35 01/16/05 Sun No, he was never a Nazi. He lived in a Nazi state and he was a professional soldier, and a damn good one as well. THe fact that he was a professional soldier fighting for Germany between 1939-1944 doesn't qualify him automatically as good or bad. Prussian soldiers didn't question the motives, they just acted to the better of their abilities. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:54:21 01/16/05 Sun So he was just following orders, was he? Well, that's fine then. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Probably would be. Guevara was anti-Royal. | |
|
Author: Harry Hewitt [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:32:03 01/15/05 Sat Don't I look like my father? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |