The Prince, The Paki and The Apology...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Dante, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    What is it with people? Prince Harry is obviously joking around and being one of the guys and all hell breaks loose? Do you think Pakistani's have a chip on their shoulder? Have you ever known or worked around or with Pakistani's...especially the upper class ones? Do you think the British Pakistani people on tv crying racism is too much to do about nothing?

    And what's*up with the British PM? He calls the Prince's words racist but then goes on to say the apology clears things. Is he working all sides?


    I say context...Harry was in the military recording a personal diary.
    The outrage? He was going to war. Give me a break, many people say or do stupid things that have a different more sinister meaning when taken out of context.

     
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    There's a bit of history to the term "Paki". Go back to the, I think, late 1970s, early 1980s. "Paki-bashing" was sport for young British Anglo-Saxon lads. Young men of South Asian background were easy sport for a few reasons. They tend to be relatively physically slight when put up against the average "Lager lout". They also tend not to roam in bands monstering people. They are quiet and family-oriented and not into getting pissed off their faces in pubs and glassing the first poor innnocent bastard who comes along. So, they suffered. In silence. The term "Paki" was applied to anyone who was anywhere near that profile, just about anyone from the sub-continent got the label and the treatment from the louts. It was a term of the deepest derision. It implied cowardice, softness and unwillingness to resist and to fight back. All that which is know to the Brits simply by living in their culture. Harry may have been pulling his mate's leg but it would have stung I think. That's probably why some Brits are bloody annoyed at him.

    And just on an associated point, people wonder why the London bombers were British-born young men of families originally from the sub-continent?
     
  3. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    thanks for the background, Di. i didn't understand why paki was considered derisive. makes sense to me, now.
     
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    You're welcome del - I might be corrected by our Brit members on this but I'm pretty sure I'm somewhere near the truth anyway.
     
  5. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    damn pommies. i'll stick with your version.
    :lol:
     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    they need to grow a thicker skin. they become bombers because they suffer the indignities of life as outsiders with odd customs and a chip on their shoulders?


    I know they suffered racism, but so does everyone else. Fuk Paki bombers..

    please do not misconstrue my hate for bombers with all Pakistanis. I am not anti-Paki, but I am anti the shitty attitude of many of them
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    I understood. I don't care. They need to stop the wallowing in victim-hood.

    Shit!
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  8. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    It's speculation in my part, that's all, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that goes to proving it. In fact my speculation could be trashed because while "Paki-bashing" was going on for years and one would think there were many, many victims, that there should have been a lot more bombings or at least conspiracies to bomb. There have been a few prosecutions of conspirators that probably didn't hit world headlines in a big way because police and security were able to grab them before they could do anything, but not in the numbers you'd expect even if 1 in 2 victims turned radical bomber. So, there must be other reasons for some South Asian young men to become radicalised.
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    culture, religion and insecurities...some of the 911 terrorists were not uneducated poor people. fed a constant diet of inferiority and a culture with a chip on the shoulder and you get a class of misanthropic losers.
     
  10. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I don't now much about the 9/11 terrorists, I thought though they were Saudis primarily and some of them well educated and privileged. I don't know where their fanaticism came from but perhaps it was from their religion rather than from their politics, but not sure.

    The London bombers, I don't know much about their antecedents either (I don't much about stuff do I? :lol:) but I suspect they might well come under the theory I've so cheekily sought to advance.
     

Share This Page