Friday, 23 June 2006

Apologising for Britain’s past

On 5 April 2011, The Telegraph reported thus:

"The Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over the disputed territory, as well as other global conflicts. His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir.

He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, saying: ‘I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place'.

His remarks about Kashmir were greeted warmly by the audience of Pakistani students and academics, but drew accusations from historians that the Prime Minister was wrongly apologising for Britain’s past.

Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said… ‘The UK should stop being embarrassed about its colonial past and they should work with other countries to help improve their human rights’."
I agree, Daisy. The society that the indigenous Briton built if you strip out the animals at the top of the tree, is, and always has been, kinder, more tolerant, more fair-minded and less corrupt than its Pakistani counterpart. And, if you recall, the Hindus and the Muslims did begin slaughtering each other en masse as soon as we left them to it in 1948.

Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP, historian and former television presenter, said:

"To say that Britain is a cause of many of the world’s ills is naïve… David Cameron has a tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear, whether it is in Israel, Turkey, India and Pakistan."
Yes, Tristram, Cameron is your archtypical greasy politician. But naïve? Oh no. Economical with the truth but rarely naïve. The Telegraph continued:

"Mr Cameron’s apparent willingness to accept historic responsibility for the Kashmir dispute has echoes of public apologies issued by his Labour predecessors. In 1997, Tony Blair apologised to the Irish people for the famine the country suffered in the mid-19th century."
Yes it was terrible. And the Tony Blairs of the day, in Ireland as well as England, did little to help. But apologising on behalf of whom? Creeps like him? We don’t think so, do we? The modus operandi of your Tony Blair type, in this PC day and age, would have been to get the English majority feeling guilty about things they never did, much less had any control over.

"And in 2006, he spoke of his ‘deep sorrow’ at Britain’s historic role in the African slave trade."
Ditto. And you won’t ever get the African chieftains apologising to their racial brethren for selling their captives AND their own kinfolk and to us in the first place.

"In 2009, Gordon Brown issued a formal Government apology to tens of thousands of British children shipped to Australia and other Commonwealth countries between the 1920s and 1960s."
One of the few things he ever got right.
"Sean Gabb, of the campaign group Libertarian Alliance, said… ‘Some of these problems came about because these countries decided they did not want to be part of the British Empire. They wanted independence. They got it. They should sort out their problems instead of looking to us’."
Well said, Sean.
"Mr Cameron’s remark is striking because he has previously spoken of his pride in Britain’s past and named Viscount Palmerston as one of his historical inspirations. As foreign secretary and later prime minister in the mid-19th century, Palmerston was popular for his brazenly interventionist foreign policy, an approach that later became known as ‘gunboat diplomacy’."
So that’s why he went to war in Libya. That and the oil and the further depletion of the wealth we no longer have.
"Mr Cameron was in Pakistan to make amends for any offence he caused last year by accusing the country of ‘exporting’ terrorism."
In other words, he was over there 'making amends' for telling the truth.
"While some historians say… Britain (was) responsible for the dispute, others point to Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir in 1947. Despite an expectation that Muslim areas of the subcontinent would become part of Pakistan, he decided that Muslim-majority Kashmir should be part of India."
The Hindu ruler of a primarily Muslim state hands over his country to the Indians next door? Sounds like a globalist despot who cared more for his own elite crew than the subject multitudes. Bit like Cameron, Clegg, Brown, Blair, Heath and co. taking sweet b***er all notice of what we want, doesn’t it?

Let’s have a look at what Wikipedia says about Maharah Hari Singh:

"During the Second World War, from 1944-1946 Sir Hari Singh was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet."
Like I said, your certifiably 'elite' sort.

Wikipedia continues:

"In 1947... Jammu and Kashmir had the option to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent. He originally maneuvered to maintain his independence by playing off India and Pakistan. The Redcliff award stipulated that all the states of the Subcontinent had either to join India or Pakistan, according to the wishes of population. Jammu and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state, and a mutiny of muslim regiments in Gilgit followed in October 1947."
One presumes the Muslim regiments were mutinying because they and the Muslim majority wanted to join with Pakistan and not to remain independent.

"Hari Singh appealed to India for help.[1] India refused to come to his aid unless he acceded to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) on October 26, 1947, acceding the Jammu and Kashmir princely state… to the Dominion of India. These events triggered the first Indo-Pakistan War."
So here we discover that, not only did an elite (minority) self-server go against the wishes of the majority of the Kashmiri population, his dishonourable behaviour triggered a conflagration in which around a million people died soon afterwards and tens of thousand have perished subsequently.

No need to apologise, Dave! Hari Singh was mostly to blame! Give his relatives a call and get them to say sorry!

No? Thought not. The Telegraph adds:

"Pakistan and India have fought three wars over Kashmir since partition, and the dispute continues to strain their relationship. On a visit to India last year, Mr Cameron was criticised when he said Britain should approach its former imperial possession ‘in a spirit of humility’. As well as Kashmir, some historians say Britain bears historic responsibility for other international disputes. Many trace the Israel-Palestine dispute back to Britain’s decision in 1917 to establish a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in the territory then known as Palestine."
Can’t argue with the 'many' here. We’ve had some turds at the the top over the course of the last thousand years. If anyone wants to know why we knifed Lawrence of Arabia’s Arabs in the back in 1917, we had wanted the American’s to enter the war on our side for some time. The top Jews said they would bring this about if we promised to establish a 'national home for the Jewish people' in the Palestinians’ back yard. Thus the Balfour agreement, thus, ninety-four years of ever-increasing turmoil, nastiness, bloodshed and hatred. And, of course, the hatred that the Palestinian and the rest of the Muslim world feel because of their historic dispossession isn’t just aimed at the Jew and the political class who disenfranchised them, it’s aimed at all of us.

"The borders of many Middle Eastern states were also drawn by Britain."

"The badly-defined and highly unstable border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was also largely defined by Britain in the late 19th century."
No big deal as regards theose who live along the border. They’re all related anyway and the 'border' makes it more difficult for us to pursue the Afghan when he wants a break from blowing up our soldiers.

Here’s THE thing. Ladies and gentlemen: iF 'Britain is responsible for the world’s historic problems', Cameron's class of elite self-servers are wholly to blame! The poor and working-class communities of the UK (the vast majority of British folk) never had any say in the matter.

Cameron came to the land where the London bombers learned their craft bearing gifts. Prior to his departure, he announced that he would be giving the Pakistani government £650million in aid 'to help support Pakistan's education system'. Thus, at THIS time, when The Daily Mail has just announced that our banker-created debt is now costing each and every family in Britain 'a staggering £138,360', he is doling out OUR money to yet another country that has the A-Bomb! A country that, it must be presumed, must have the financial wherewithal to develop such a weapon.

Now if, as Cameron seems to want us to believe, the money is being offered partly because of our responsibility for 'the world’s historic problems', then shouldn’t it be Cameron's class that forks out, as it was them who were 'responsible'? AND NOT US! For that matter, as THEY were also responsible for the 'historic problems' of the poor and working class communities of the UK, shouldn't his class be offering us a handout as well?

And, whilst we’re on the subject, seeing as it was the politicans’ best pals, whose insane greed and ineptitude, saw us all saddled with £138,360 of debt, shouldn’t it be the bankers who created sub-prime and caused the world wide recession who pay the bills? AND NOT US!

Hey, Dave!

Internationalise the wealth of the Rothschilds! Suck the juice out of the greediest of the bloated bloodsuckers and bung us aching billions what the bankers owe us.

You do that my son, and, trust me, no further apologies will be necessary.

No comments:

Post a Comment