Wildcat Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 not that old chestnut again surely ,the jews were not terrorists they were just victims of a mad man with an agenda ,how long do you think a terrorist or a suspected one would have lasted in nazi germany ? less than a few minutes i would say, to compare jews in germany against todays terrorists is splitting hairs,churchill would not have put up with this nonsence we have today regarding human rights that actually defend those deemed to be harmfull to britain, he would have had them ousted and to hell with the consequences of some human rights lawyer,just as he did when he turned the troops on the striking welsh miners Churchill only reluctantly used the army against Welsh miner's, something I would disagree with he should have used them against the bosses, but I don't think his use of them in the circumstances so obviously makes the case you do for Churchill's views on human rights. It was afterall one of his appointee to Govt., David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir who was largely responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights, the document comes much more from a Conservative\Liberal tradition than it does a Socialist one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir who was largely responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights, the document comes much more from a Conservative\Liberal tradition than it does a Socialist one. Indeed so, the 'socialists' have always taken the reactionary standpoint, so much so that catholics in ireland always dreaded their election to westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Churchill only reluctantly used the army against Welsh miner's, something I would disagree with he should have used them against the bosses, but I don't think his use of them in the circumstances so obviously makes the case you do for Churchill's views on human rights. It was afterall one of his appointee to Govt., David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir who was largely responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights, the document comes much more from a Conservative\Liberal tradition than it does a Socialist one. never the less churchill gave the orders on that day,the troops were ordered to fix bayonets and advance if the miners refused to go down the pit,if that isnt abuse then i dont know what is ,forced labour forced bad living conditions and forced low wages did not earn churchill any respect from the working classes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 never the less churchill gave the orders on that day,the troops were ordered to fix bayonets and advance if the miners refused to go down the pit,if that isnt abuse then i dont know what is ,forced labour forced bad living conditions and forced low wages did not earn churchill any respect from the working classes I thought you were talking about the Tonypandy riot? http://libcom.org/history/1910-cambrian-combine-miners-strike-and-tonypandy-riot Your version of it, doesn't sound much like the version of events I am familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Indeed so, the 'socialists' have always taken the reactionary standpoint, so much so that catholics in ireland always dreaded their election to westminster. You do talk some rubbish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I thought you were talking about the Tonypandy riot? http://libcom.org/history/1910-cambrian-combine-miners-strike-and-tonypandy-riot Your version of it, doesn't sound much like the version of events I am familiar with. Churchill tried to get the troops out in 1926 as well, but didn't succeed in pursuading the prime minister that troops were the way to 'put down' the general strike. Of course I think he was a liberal then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 You do talk some rubbish.... Now now, do try to be civil, your true colours are showing again. Oh and how long did it take Stalin to overturn everything Lenin did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 Now now, do try to be civil, your true colours are showing again. I am being perfectly civil. Oh and how long did it take Stalin to overturn everything Lenin did. No idea, I could look it up but I can't see why I should bother. Stalin's reactionary policies have very little to do with Uk politics. Even the Uk Tankies only supported him by means of denial, and disbelief about what happened. Tankies in the Uk have had a mixed history one they can largely be proud of supporting the working classes, the poor, ethnic minorities, women and LGBT communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 INo idea, I could look it up but I can't see why I should bother. Stalin's reactionary policies have very little to do with Uk politics. Even the Uk Tankies only supported him by means of denial, and disbelief about what happened. Tankies in the Uk have had a mixed history one they can largely be proud of supporting the working classes, the poor, ethnic minorities, women and LGBT communities. So its safe to say you do know what the laws were like under uncle joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 So its safe to say you do know what the laws were like under uncle joe. In enough detail to know that they were a betrayal of the workers that overthrew the Imperial Tsarist regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.