Bush visit to anywhere in Europe

David Horne writes:

Whether that is the case or not, it's a non-sequitur in this
argument, I reckon.

Actually, it is highly relevant, but it is so embarrassing to people who
are pro-Israeli that they instantly attempt to discredit any such
references.

Whatever you think of Israeli policy (and there are plenty of
things to criticise about it) their interests, no matter the worldwide
consequences, tend to be relatively local.

Unfortunately, the local area in which they are interested is also an
area of interest to the Muslims who used to occupy it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Reid writes:

You think he could go amongst the anti war protesters and spread
the word of God?

The number of real threats is much smaller than the heavy security would
imply, and too small to justify it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Marie Lewis writes:

So why is he coming?

The people in power still like him. Apparently the rest of the country
doesn't matter.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mark Hewitt writes:

I don't care for the USA flag flying on British soil.

The U.K. is practically a U.S. territory, anyway. When the U.S.
President says "jump," the U.K. is the first to say "how high?"

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article , Donna Evleth
writes

Dans l'article , Marie Lewis
a écrit :



It is a mystery to almost everyone here why he is being allotted a
"state visit", even staying at Buckingham Palace.

The Mall is strung with Union Flags and the USA flag. A recent poll in
the Times revealed enormous dislike for the man, more by women than men
(about 74% of women are against him, but a slightly smaller percentage
of men.) This covers all political parties, right and left wing, with
almost no difference between them.

So why is he coming?
--
Marie Lewis

Because this party was scheduled 18 months ago, when the international scene
looked quite different, and calling it off now would mean losing face, for
both Bush and Blair.

Donna Evleth
I really would rather they lose face than expose Londoners to more
danger. They should feel that way, too.
--
Marie Lewis

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne writes:

Whether that is the case or not, it's a non-sequitur in this
argument, I reckon.

Actually, it is highly relevant, but it is so embarrassing to people who
are pro-Israeli that they instantly attempt to discredit any such
references.

Oh, well, that's that then. My, you've convinced me.

Whatever you think of Israeli policy (and there are plenty of
things to criticise about it) their interests, no matter the worldwide
consequences, tend to be relatively local.

Unfortunately, the local area in which they are interested is also an
area of interest to the Muslims who used to occupy it.

Oh, I see. I think that argument is ----- that way.

David


--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne writes:

How _do_ you rationalise with someone who thinks they will
go to heaven and have sex with multiple virgins if they
blow some people up alongside themselves?

The same way you rationalize with someone who thinks he is drinking the
blood and eating the flesh of his savior each week in church, and the
same way you deal with someone who thinks that driving a car on a
Saturday will cause him to be condemned to eternal hellfire after death.

Sigh, so religion is bad, end of argument. Not.

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In message , Mark Hewitt
writes

"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
...
In article et, Casey
writes

The Mall is strung with Union Flags and the USA flag. A recent poll in
the Times revealed enormous dislike for the man, more by women than men
(about 74% of women are against him, but a slightly smaller percentage
of men.) This covers all political parties, right and left wing, with
almost no difference between them.

Were there Union Flags down the Washington Mall when Tony Blair visited the
USA? Somehow I doubt it. I don't care for the USA flag flying on British
soil.

They damn well /shouldn't/ since Blair isn't Head of State. As for the
Mall being strung up with foreign flags this is normal for a State Visit
-- I was last in London the week before Putin's State Visit earlier this
year; I was walking down Horse Guards Parade where they have all the
flags of the Commonwealth flying, trying to identify each one as I went
(some of the islands are a bit obscure -- well can _you_ recognise the
Cook Islands flag?!), when I came to the end of the row and thought
"hang on, isn't that the Russian flag?", then I turned the corner into
the Mall... If you're observant you'll notice that every other flagpost
has a crown on the top, and they're the ones used to fly the Union Flag,
while opposite sides of the Mall match crowned and plain flagposts.

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Marie Lewis wrote:

I really would rather they lose face than expose Londoners to more
danger.

I honestly don't think that Londoners are in any less danger at the
moment.

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In article , Mxsmanic
writes
Marie Lewis writes:

I think, maybe, the extra security is not to protect Bush, but there
because, when he is here, there will be a greater risk of terrorism,
involving innocent people, as well as the guilty one.

The security forces never seem to care much about protecting anyone
other than him, though.

His security forces, maybe. I hope that ours will concentrate on the
British.
--
Marie Lewis