Gordon Brown is a typical Scotsman... hard(tough). His reputation in the UK, is that he is "dour, sturdy and robust". Certainly not " PC pantywaist" or "bleeding heart" This is an outline of Brown's character http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6268466.stm
Your kidding right, so whats Brown been doing for the past 10 years? He was a key player and decision maker in the blair administration. He should fuck off back to scotland in my view
Aye, the Scots are a hardy breed. No argument from me. But then my comment didn't mention the Scots. I haven't been to the UK since 1991 or even heard of Brown until he replaced Blair, so I'll be happy to take your word for his reputation. My comment was based not on what he's done to establish such a reputation. But on what he's doing now. Specifically cowering to the terrorists by refusing to utter the words "war on terror" and instructing his administration to say nothing that might offend the terrorists. Where I come from that behavior would be described as neither tough nor robust. That's all I meant.
I should think this has a bit to do with Brown putting some space between himself and Bush and his neocon mates by refusing to use the same language as the Washington propaganda machine. And by the way most of the world recognizes the "war on terror" as being the sham that it is - a very thin cover for naked use of US military power to achieve economic and political objectives whenever the current admin feels like it. Whether the term "war on terror" offends the "terrorists" is a moot point - they probably couldn't care less - but it most certainly offends a awful lot of other people. What do you think Brown is supposed to do ? Send the tanks to Heathrow like Blair did ? That was one of the silliest things I saw when I was living there. What were these tanks suppost to do - lob a few rounds into Terminal 4 ? Many people in London thought it ridiculous.
2 of those guys in the terror plot were from India 'First, do no harm, unless it's for Jihad' a job 'brits wont do'? if doctors from india will conduct terrorism, anyone think h-1bs from India in America wont? any idea how much damage an IT guy working in a muslim conspiracy could do? anti-H-1b people have been reluctant to play the '911 card', because it could have been seen as attempting to cover legitimate self interest - but the issue has always been there, and it's always been real now we have proof
Except hes a politician, guaranteed to do the exact opposite of what he says. So i guess thats a good sign?
I understand and appreciate that you will see things differently. I was involved with an American lady for 3yrs and spent time in the US. Our cultures are very different. What you see as cowering, I see as good, for want of a better word, "counterinsurgency" tactics. This is less about the terrorists and more about the population theyre trying to win the favour of. I couldnt give two hoots about the terrorists, the terrorists shall be put to the sword. These terrorists are attempting to radicalise a section of our(UK) society, but they will fail. We will not allow terrorists to cleave to, to inflame to our people. Now is the time for soothing words, and for calming fears. It is sound practise to not alienate a population group, in which a terrorist group is attempting to hide in and find succour,support and comfort. This worked in Malaysia in the 50s, and would have worked in Northern Ireland in the 70s, if the horror of Bloody Sunday hadnt happened. Before Bloody Sunday, the Northern Irish Catholic population welcomed British troops as their defenders. However they were radicalised by the Bloody Sunday disaster, and driven into the arms of terrorists. Creating a 30yr armed conflict, that otherwise would have been, most likely, a 5to10 year period of nonarmed-conflict ethnic tension. As to not using the phrase, "War on Terror". That always struck me as being better suited for a Hollywood movie, with jangly 80s rock music and Arnie festooned with bullet belts, hacking off his Uzi-9mm babieee What is more interesting for me, is that apparently Brown is following guidelines from the EU!!That is more disturbing, as it demonstrates the everincreasing intrusive power of the EU, into areas that were traditionally responsibilities of each country. How soon before the EU feels it can tell a member country, it cant declare war. There's a coming war in Europe over this, between those who want a strong centralised federated state like the USA, and those happy with just confederation( the current setup) "Gordon Brown's ban on the word "Muslim" in relation to terrorism can be blamed on the EU. The prime minister has told Cabinet members not to mention "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same breath. It comes after the European Commission issued a guide for government spokesmen to avoid offence by ruling out the words such as "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist" in statements about terrorist attacks. It has been working with governments to make sure "non-offensive" phrases are used when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=466130&in_page_id=1811 The daily mail is by our standard a center-to- hard rightwing paper for middle class people, who hold "middle england" values. "Middle england" values are similar to midwest values, without the religiosity