Accountable wrote: :yh_frustr
And neither are you!:wah:
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Bryn Mawr wrote: It's getting really tiresome to hear Americans saying that 911 gives the USA the rught to threaten and attack any country they take a dislike to.
Can you quote any Americans here at FG who have said such a thing?
Can you quote any Americans here at FG who have said such a thing?
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: iii) Conversely irregular forces may attack military targets with the intent of destroying the capability of the military force to undertake its missions and in so doing the irregular forces are not terrorists. It is this that gives the lie to the cliché that ‘One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter’.Purely for completeness, and not because I think there's the slightest relevance to it, I note that your third paragraph in your essay on terrorism excludes the attack on the USS Cole from terrorist activity. I suspect that would upset your friends at the Project for the New American Century.
The simple answer, when trying to understand what a word actually means, is to stick to vanilla unvarnished non-partisan historically accurate scholarly summaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary rather than to strain gnats through your own filter of prejudice and political feud. If the OED places American military strategy squarely in the frame of terrorism - and it does - then there are two ways of dealing with that. One is to bite the bullet and accept the fact. The other is to eschew Shock and Awe on the one hand, and arming murderous surrogates on the other, as a cheap means of victory. That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".
The simple answer, when trying to understand what a word actually means, is to stick to vanilla unvarnished non-partisan historically accurate scholarly summaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary rather than to strain gnats through your own filter of prejudice and political feud. If the OED places American military strategy squarely in the frame of terrorism - and it does - then there are two ways of dealing with that. One is to bite the bullet and accept the fact. The other is to eschew Shock and Awe on the one hand, and arming murderous surrogates on the other, as a cheap means of victory. That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Adam Zapple wrote: [QUOTE=Bryn Mawr]It's getting really tiresome to hear Americans saying that 911 gives the USA the rught to threaten and attack any country they take a dislike to.Can you quote any Americans here at FG who have said such a thing?Can you quote any Americans here at FG who have said such a thing?[/QUOTE]In the interests of fair play, might I point out two minor points? "Americans" does not equate to "Americans here at FG", and while you've been here for most of FG's existence, Adam, you might note that Bryn arrived some time in the last three months. How's he supposed to know historical detail like that?
As it happens, there are threads on Nationalism vs Patriotism that simply ooze "Americans here at FG who have said such a thing". I'll offer you one of our ex-member's fairly typical expressions whenever he got near the topic of US interference in other countries:
03-23-2006, 08:00 PM Far Rider
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
As it happens, there are threads on Nationalism vs Patriotism that simply ooze "Americans here at FG who have said such a thing". I'll offer you one of our ex-member's fairly typical expressions whenever he got near the topic of US interference in other countries:
03-23-2006, 08:00 PM Far Rider
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: The simple answer, when trying to understand what a word actually means, is to stick to vanilla unvarnished non-partisan historically accurate scholarly summaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary rather than to strain gnats through your own filter of prejudice and political feud.
Using existing definitions of terrorism is simply using sources in conjunction with what has taken place to establish if what has taken place is an act of terrorism or not.
If there is a perfect fit between an event and a standard definition then the title OF the standard definition is what that thing was.
Where you more than many fall down is deciding what you WANT a thing to be and then seeking for sources to support your desired result. In any case instead of using second hand opinion why not try some original thought?
spot wrote: If the OED places American military strategy squarely in the frame of terrorism - and it does - then there are two ways of dealing with that.
No it does not! Thereby lies one of your problems in dealing with this. Your base assumption is flawed and so all that follows is likewise flawed including your opinion and understanding of events.
spot wrote: One is to bite the bullet and accept the fact.
The other is to eschew Shock and Awe on the one hand, and arming murderous surrogates on the other, as a cheap means of victory.
You are trying to associate two different and unrelated things. The ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy was not aimed at the civilian population, it was aimed at the existing Iraqi forces.
The arming of opposition forces within a country is another thing altogether. There are times when it could amount to terrorism if the opposition forces engaged in terrorism, on the other hand if the opposition forces attacked the military forces and strategic targets within the country it would not.
spot wrote: That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".
Was his judgment a bankrupt moral judgment? That is a matter of opinion and root values. In any case the ‘contras’ were fighting against a government that had overthrown the existing government by force and although the contra attacks did include civilian OWNED targets this was in order to create financial instability and not as an attempt to create a state of terror as a deliberate strategy within the population as a whole.
Now the attack on the Cole, that particularly cowardly deed was conducted by irregular fighters who if found should be shot on site. Forget Guantanamo. To paraphrase the ANC, one irregular fighter, one bullet.
Was the attack on the Cole an act of terrorism in itself? No. Was it conducted by people who themselves are involved in terrorism elsewhere? Don’t know. Was it ordered by an organisation that uses terrorism as its stock in trade? Unquestionably YES.
Using existing definitions of terrorism is simply using sources in conjunction with what has taken place to establish if what has taken place is an act of terrorism or not.
If there is a perfect fit between an event and a standard definition then the title OF the standard definition is what that thing was.
Where you more than many fall down is deciding what you WANT a thing to be and then seeking for sources to support your desired result. In any case instead of using second hand opinion why not try some original thought?
spot wrote: If the OED places American military strategy squarely in the frame of terrorism - and it does - then there are two ways of dealing with that.
No it does not! Thereby lies one of your problems in dealing with this. Your base assumption is flawed and so all that follows is likewise flawed including your opinion and understanding of events.
spot wrote: One is to bite the bullet and accept the fact.
The other is to eschew Shock and Awe on the one hand, and arming murderous surrogates on the other, as a cheap means of victory.
You are trying to associate two different and unrelated things. The ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy was not aimed at the civilian population, it was aimed at the existing Iraqi forces.
The arming of opposition forces within a country is another thing altogether. There are times when it could amount to terrorism if the opposition forces engaged in terrorism, on the other hand if the opposition forces attacked the military forces and strategic targets within the country it would not.
spot wrote: That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".
Was his judgment a bankrupt moral judgment? That is a matter of opinion and root values. In any case the ‘contras’ were fighting against a government that had overthrown the existing government by force and although the contra attacks did include civilian OWNED targets this was in order to create financial instability and not as an attempt to create a state of terror as a deliberate strategy within the population as a whole.
Now the attack on the Cole, that particularly cowardly deed was conducted by irregular fighters who if found should be shot on site. Forget Guantanamo. To paraphrase the ANC, one irregular fighter, one bullet.
Was the attack on the Cole an act of terrorism in itself? No. Was it conducted by people who themselves are involved in terrorism elsewhere? Don’t know. Was it ordered by an organisation that uses terrorism as its stock in trade? Unquestionably YES.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: In the interests of fair play, might I point out two minor points? "Americans" does not equate to "Americans here at FG", and while you've been here for most of FG's existence, Adam, you might note that Bryn arrived some time in the last three months. How's he supposed to know historical detail like that?
As it happens, there are threads on Nationalism vs Patriotism that simply ooze "Americans here at FG who have said such a thing". I'll offer you one of our ex-member's fairly typical expressions whenever he got near the topic of US interference in other countries:
03-23-2006, 08:00 PM Far Rider
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
At the risk of interrupting a rather interesting discussion between you and golem, let me make a final point or two. I called Bryn on his statement because it seems to me that it is too easy to make generic statements about what certain people "always say" without backing it up with facts. My original comments in this thread were based on thread after thread on the various fora I visit and directed specifically at a comment made by someone on this forum. Bryn responds with a broad statement that has no basis in fact but rather is grounded in his perception, which is not in sync with reality. It was Bryn choice of the phrase "attack any country they take a dislike to." that prompted me to respond. It was extreme, provocative, and false. In all fairness, and I don't presume to speak for Far Rider, but he seemed to be saying that America has the right to defend itself against those who attack us or pose a threat to our security, not those we take a dislike to. Some may find that a minor distinction but it is a very important distinction. And while I may have been registered here longer than Bryn, he obviously spends much more time here than I do based on the number of posts, (BM 3.35 post/day: AZ 0.51 post/day) so he should have more historical detail than I not less.
I'll leave you with Victor David Hansen who brilliantly speaks to the issue in this thread:
So we know the symptoms of this one-sided anti-Americanism and its strange combination of hatred, envy, and yearningâ€but, so far, not its remedy. In the meantime, the global caricature of the United States, in the aftermath of Iraq, is proving near fatal to the Bush administration, whose idealism and sharp break with past cynical realpolitik have earned it outright disdain. Indeed, the more al Qaeda is scattered, and the more Iraq looks like it will eventually emerge as a constitutional government, the angrier the world seems to become at the United States. American success, it seems, is even worse than failure.
Some of the criticism is inevitable. America is in an unpopular reconstruction of Iraq that has cost lives and treasure. Observers looked only at the explosions, never what the sacrifice was forâ€especially when it is rare for an Afghan or Iraqi ever to visit the United States to express thanks for giving their peoples a reprieve from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
We should also accept that the United States, as the world’s policeman, always suffers the easy hatred of the cops, who are as ankle-bitten when things are calm as they are desperately sought when danger looms. America is the genitor and largest donor to the United Nations. Its military is the ultimate guarantor of free commerce by land and sea, and its wide-open market proves the catalyst of international trade. More immigrants seek its shores than all other designations combinedâ€especially from countries of Latin America, whose criticism of the United States is the loudest.
Nevertheless, while we cannot stop anti-Americanism, here (a consequence, in part, of a deep-seeded, irrational sense of inferiority) and abroad, we can adopt a wiser stance that puts the onus of responsibility more on our critics.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2 ... I0MjdjMDM=
Accountable, I think you'll like his solutions. It's a good article.
As it happens, there are threads on Nationalism vs Patriotism that simply ooze "Americans here at FG who have said such a thing". I'll offer you one of our ex-member's fairly typical expressions whenever he got near the topic of US interference in other countries:
03-23-2006, 08:00 PM Far Rider
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
At the risk of interrupting a rather interesting discussion between you and golem, let me make a final point or two. I called Bryn on his statement because it seems to me that it is too easy to make generic statements about what certain people "always say" without backing it up with facts. My original comments in this thread were based on thread after thread on the various fora I visit and directed specifically at a comment made by someone on this forum. Bryn responds with a broad statement that has no basis in fact but rather is grounded in his perception, which is not in sync with reality. It was Bryn choice of the phrase "attack any country they take a dislike to." that prompted me to respond. It was extreme, provocative, and false. In all fairness, and I don't presume to speak for Far Rider, but he seemed to be saying that America has the right to defend itself against those who attack us or pose a threat to our security, not those we take a dislike to. Some may find that a minor distinction but it is a very important distinction. And while I may have been registered here longer than Bryn, he obviously spends much more time here than I do based on the number of posts, (BM 3.35 post/day: AZ 0.51 post/day) so he should have more historical detail than I not less.
I'll leave you with Victor David Hansen who brilliantly speaks to the issue in this thread:
So we know the symptoms of this one-sided anti-Americanism and its strange combination of hatred, envy, and yearningâ€but, so far, not its remedy. In the meantime, the global caricature of the United States, in the aftermath of Iraq, is proving near fatal to the Bush administration, whose idealism and sharp break with past cynical realpolitik have earned it outright disdain. Indeed, the more al Qaeda is scattered, and the more Iraq looks like it will eventually emerge as a constitutional government, the angrier the world seems to become at the United States. American success, it seems, is even worse than failure.
Some of the criticism is inevitable. America is in an unpopular reconstruction of Iraq that has cost lives and treasure. Observers looked only at the explosions, never what the sacrifice was forâ€especially when it is rare for an Afghan or Iraqi ever to visit the United States to express thanks for giving their peoples a reprieve from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
We should also accept that the United States, as the world’s policeman, always suffers the easy hatred of the cops, who are as ankle-bitten when things are calm as they are desperately sought when danger looms. America is the genitor and largest donor to the United Nations. Its military is the ultimate guarantor of free commerce by land and sea, and its wide-open market proves the catalyst of international trade. More immigrants seek its shores than all other designations combinedâ€especially from countries of Latin America, whose criticism of the United States is the loudest.
Nevertheless, while we cannot stop anti-Americanism, here (a consequence, in part, of a deep-seeded, irrational sense of inferiority) and abroad, we can adopt a wiser stance that puts the onus of responsibility more on our critics.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2 ... I0MjdjMDM=
Accountable, I think you'll like his solutions. It's a good article.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Adam Zapple wrote: It was Bryn choice of the phrase "attack any country they take a dislike to." that prompted me to respond. It was extreme, provocative, and false.Let me explain "attack any country they take a dislike to" then. By 2.40pm on September 11th 2001, Rumsfeld had already ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. His aides' notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." That has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with expediency. This is the man you're eventually going to have to take to court to answer for his behaviour in office.
As for what Far Rider said, you needn't try to over-interpret him, not only are his words as clear as day but the sentiment is visible in more posts than just the one I dug out at random for you. He's one angry man, and he declares himself willing to lash out in whatever direction his government allows so long as he gets to kill himself some bad guys in the process.
How does Bryn's posting more frequently since his arrival two months ago give him a better historical perspective of FG than a regular visitor over the last ten months? He's only going to get that if he back-reads, which seems a rather dry and fruitless occupation.
As for what Far Rider said, you needn't try to over-interpret him, not only are his words as clear as day but the sentiment is visible in more posts than just the one I dug out at random for you. He's one angry man, and he declares himself willing to lash out in whatever direction his government allows so long as he gets to kill himself some bad guys in the process.
How does Bryn's posting more frequently since his arrival two months ago give him a better historical perspective of FG than a regular visitor over the last ten months? He's only going to get that if he back-reads, which seems a rather dry and fruitless occupation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
I get the distinct impression that Spot has no real knowledge, let alone first hand experience, of war or the events, circumstances, situations, necessities and practicalities that prevail before, during, and after war has taken place.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: I get the distinct impression that Spot has no real knowledge, let alone first hand experience, of war or the events, circumstances, situations, necessities and practicalities that prevail before, during, and after war has taken place.
I think you are right.
P.S. I'm not a regular visitor, I'm an infrequent visitor. That explains why I always come in on conversations pages upon pages into the discussion.
I think you are right.
P.S. I'm not a regular visitor, I'm an infrequent visitor. That explains why I always come in on conversations pages upon pages into the discussion.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
We can at least agree, I hope, that "is, isn't, is, isn't" would be foolish waste of our time here. Discussions of the validity or otherwise of the Oxford English Dictionary in ascertaining the current and historical meaning of words in the English language can have a line drawn under them. Similarly I have already dealt with "The ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy was not aimed at the civilian population" by providing contradictory evidence (as opposed to a valueless statement of opinion).
golem wrote: [QUOTE=spot]That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".Was his judgment a bankrupt moral judgment? That is a matter of opinion and root values. In any case the ‘contras’ were fighting against a government that had overthrown the existing government by force and although the contra attacks did include civilian OWNED targets this was in order to create financial instability and not as an attempt to create a state of terror as a deliberate strategy within the population as a whole.Regarding Nicaragua, I refer readers back to the description of Contra atrocities in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=97 which differs wildly and uncontroversially from this sanitized and inaccurate opinion.
If golem wishes to rebut the overwhelming popularity of the Sandinista government (which survived a mere eleven years in the face of President Reagan's terrorist sponsorship) perhaps he can dismantle the content of this factual description of their coming to power and their popular mandate:
The US knew the Somozas were unpopular so they sought a policy of "Somocismo without Somoza." When this tactic failed, Somoza sought to maintain his influence through the National Guard. By June 1979, the National Guard was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua and killing thousands of people. At that point, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill-advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because such an action would help the Sandinistas gain power. When the National Guard executed ABC reporter Bill Stewart and graphic film of the execution was broadcast, the American public became more antipathetic to Somoza. In the end, President Jimmy Carter refused Somoza U.S. military aid, believing that the repressive nature of the government had led to popular support for the Sandinista uprising. As Somoza's government collapsed, the U.S. helped Somoza and National Guard commanders escape, Somoza fleeing to exile in Miami. The rebels advanced on the capital victoriously. On July 19, 1979 a new government was proclaimed under a provisional junta headed by Daniel Ortega [...] The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984. The election was certified as "free and fair" by international observers.Oh - an afterthought - in what way does "regular" contradict "infrequent" or vice versa?
golem wrote: [QUOTE=spot]That involves, among other things, apologizing for Ronald Reagan's bankrupt moral judgement in announcing that "The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".Was his judgment a bankrupt moral judgment? That is a matter of opinion and root values. In any case the ‘contras’ were fighting against a government that had overthrown the existing government by force and although the contra attacks did include civilian OWNED targets this was in order to create financial instability and not as an attempt to create a state of terror as a deliberate strategy within the population as a whole.Regarding Nicaragua, I refer readers back to the description of Contra atrocities in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=97 which differs wildly and uncontroversially from this sanitized and inaccurate opinion.
If golem wishes to rebut the overwhelming popularity of the Sandinista government (which survived a mere eleven years in the face of President Reagan's terrorist sponsorship) perhaps he can dismantle the content of this factual description of their coming to power and their popular mandate:
The US knew the Somozas were unpopular so they sought a policy of "Somocismo without Somoza." When this tactic failed, Somoza sought to maintain his influence through the National Guard. By June 1979, the National Guard was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua and killing thousands of people. At that point, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill-advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because such an action would help the Sandinistas gain power. When the National Guard executed ABC reporter Bill Stewart and graphic film of the execution was broadcast, the American public became more antipathetic to Somoza. In the end, President Jimmy Carter refused Somoza U.S. military aid, believing that the repressive nature of the government had led to popular support for the Sandinista uprising. As Somoza's government collapsed, the U.S. helped Somoza and National Guard commanders escape, Somoza fleeing to exile in Miami. The rebels advanced on the capital victoriously. On July 19, 1979 a new government was proclaimed under a provisional junta headed by Daniel Ortega [...] The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984. The election was certified as "free and fair" by international observers.Oh - an afterthought - in what way does "regular" contradict "infrequent" or vice versa?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: We can at least agree, I hope, that "is, isn't, is, isn't" would be foolish waste of our time here. Discussions of the validity or otherwise of the Oxford English Dictionary in ascertaining the current and historical meaning of words in the English language can have a line drawn under them. Similarly I have already dealt with "The ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy was not aimed at the civilian population" by providing contradictory evidence (as opposed to a valueless statement of opinion).
First off the issue isn’t the validity of the OED, it’s about if the word ‘terrorist’ is correct or otherwise in the way that it is used.
Next your interpretation of ‘shock and awe’ is flawed as your (wrong) assumption is that the target audience was the entire Iraqi people when the real target was the regular and irregular Iraqi fighters.
spot wrote: If golem wishes to rebut the overwhelming popularity of the Sandinista government (which survived a mere eleven years in the face of President Reagan's terrorist sponsorship) perhaps he can dismantle the content of this factual description of their coming to power and their popular mandate:
I didn’t comment one way or another about the popularity or otherwise of the revolutionary government that took over in Nicaragua. That’s just another of your red herrings, Spot.
First off the issue isn’t the validity of the OED, it’s about if the word ‘terrorist’ is correct or otherwise in the way that it is used.
Next your interpretation of ‘shock and awe’ is flawed as your (wrong) assumption is that the target audience was the entire Iraqi people when the real target was the regular and irregular Iraqi fighters.
spot wrote: If golem wishes to rebut the overwhelming popularity of the Sandinista government (which survived a mere eleven years in the face of President Reagan's terrorist sponsorship) perhaps he can dismantle the content of this factual description of their coming to power and their popular mandate:
I didn’t comment one way or another about the popularity or otherwise of the revolutionary government that took over in Nicaragua. That’s just another of your red herrings, Spot.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: Next your interpretation of ‘shock and awe’ is flawed as your (wrong) assumption is that the target audience was the entire Iraqi people when the real target was the regular and irregular Iraqi fighters.It wasn't a flawed - excuse me, wrong - assumption, it was an accurate quote:
In the run-up to Gulf 2, a Pentagon strategist declared in an interview with CBS News: "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before ... there will not be a safe place in Baghdad." - that, I think, is the part where "not deliberately aimed at so doing" falls down.
In the run-up to Gulf 2, a Pentagon strategist declared in an interview with CBS News: "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before ... there will not be a safe place in Baghdad." - that, I think, is the part where "not deliberately aimed at so doing" falls down.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: It wasn't a flawed - excuse me, wrong - assumption, it was an accurate quote:
In the run-up to Gulf 2, a Pentagon strategist declared in an interview with CBS News: "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before ... there will not be a safe place in Baghdad." - that, I think, is the part where "not deliberately aimed at so doing" falls down.
The quote may be verbatim but the interpretation is flawed.
There may not have been a SAFE PLACE in Baghdad but that is not the same as saying that the civilian population of the city were the targets.
The city and its military units were there. That they had put themselves in amongst civilians is their irresponsibility and the fate of people and property lost as collateral damage is not the fault of the attacking force.
Sorry, Spot, spin as you will you can’t work your wordsmithing to classify the actions of the Allies as terrorism.
In any case as I recall great care was taken and continues to be taken to choose targets so as to avoid injury to civilians and damage to places of religious significance.
Tell me, Is English your first language? It isn't mine so I do appreciate the difficulty it can cause.
In the run-up to Gulf 2, a Pentagon strategist declared in an interview with CBS News: "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before ... there will not be a safe place in Baghdad." - that, I think, is the part where "not deliberately aimed at so doing" falls down.
The quote may be verbatim but the interpretation is flawed.
There may not have been a SAFE PLACE in Baghdad but that is not the same as saying that the civilian population of the city were the targets.
The city and its military units were there. That they had put themselves in amongst civilians is their irresponsibility and the fate of people and property lost as collateral damage is not the fault of the attacking force.
Sorry, Spot, spin as you will you can’t work your wordsmithing to classify the actions of the Allies as terrorism.
In any case as I recall great care was taken and continues to be taken to choose targets so as to avoid injury to civilians and damage to places of religious significance.
Tell me, Is English your first language? It isn't mine so I do appreciate the difficulty it can cause.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Adam Zapple wrote: Examples of that famous British snobbery?
You may resent it but I notice you don't take issue with any of the factual content. It gets a bit wearing putting up with america's inferiority complex. People may indeed be snobbish but it is only an issue if you actually feel inferior and believe they have something to be snobbish about in the first place.
from the article quoted by adam zapple
Nevertheless, while we cannot stop anti-Americanism, here (a consequence, in part, of a deep-seeded, irrational sense of inferiority) and abroad, we can adopt a wiser stance that puts the onus of responsibility more on our critics.
I think the cry of cheap anti americanism is a simplistic cop out and a way of avoiding analysing the very real concerns being raised about American foreign policy. The same concerns are not just being raised abroad but increasingly amongst Americans opposed to the war and those who have for many years spoken out against the policies of their own government not only in the middle east but in South America. It's easier to put down and dismiss their points of view by labelling them as anti american than it is to answer them, especially when they do have a point.
Liked the comment about an irrational sense of inferiority abroad. The idea that at as a British person I or anyone else in the UK for that matter would feel inferior to an American is hilarious. Has he ever met a Frenchman or a German or an Italian? smug B^&&%S the lot of them.
posted by Golem
I do understand your point re the cold war but right now we’re in the early phase of a very HOT war.
Also unlike the Cold war where the two parties had markedly different ideologies they shared common fears and desires specifically to avoid being killed. Today that basic balance simply doesn’t exist as the enemy we face welcomes death if that death comes as a martyrs death.
Then there is the changes in the global balance of wealth and that shouldn’t be limited to thinking ‘money’. Today the balance of real power is vested in those who have the universal wealth of energy resources in their control as they can and do use that wealth to make the smaller nations dance to their tune and usually to the disadvantage of the US and her allies.
We are only likely to have a hot war if we are daft enough to allow it to go that way. One thing that is certain to make it happen is if only those who see problem solving only in terms of beating the other guy to a pulp first are the ones that get to set the pace.
From the statement of principles of theProject for the New American century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
Now the US is a liberal democracy. Who gets to determine what American principles and interests are? In theory the opinion of the trailer trash and single parent mom matter just as much as the oil barons and their ilk. So who calls the tune?
realpolitik
n : politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations [syn: practical politics]
So which do you prefer for US foreign policy in the 21st century realpolitik as per the PNAC or moral and idealogical considerations or a bastardised version of both?
I would argue that the world is such a small place nowadays that fighting over resources may or may not be inevitable but warfare is only invitable if all sides want a war or one usually weaker side feels it has no choice but to stand up for itself. That what the middle east has always been about, controlling resources.
If it's not all America's fault then why not learn from the mistakes of others as well as your own.
posted by Golem
i) Terrorism is the practice of deliberately instilling a state of terror into a civilian population by the intentional attacking a civilian population in order to get them to either capitulate in spite of the civilian authorities instructions not to do so or to motivate a civilian population to depose their existing government by democratic or other means.
In essence I agree with you but by that definition all sides in ww2 were terrorists. US bombers deliberately started fire storms in Japanese cities using techniques they learmed from the british-indeed more people were killed in one nights firebombinng of Tokyo that at hiroshima
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM
-WW2 was all out total war there is nothing romantic about it everybody was out to kill everybody else revisionist history is all very well but warfare is just that. warfare.
The terror bombing didn't work, all it did was strengthen resolve in the civilian population. The recent crop of terrorist terrorist attacks in the UK and US won't work either-unless the US population is very different in spirit from the UK and europe where all terrorist attacks do is annoy people and make them less than sympathetic to the aims of the bombers.
Perhaps a slight change of wording to a
terrorist is someone who murders completely innocent people to try and achieve their political ends through fear in a situation where war has not been openly declared between nation states.
All sides use terror one way or another, arguing about fine lines can be a bit pointless. You're bad I'm not.
posted by Golem
I did visit Scotland last year to see if we could do business there but decided not, it was very picturesque but from a people perspective I found Glasgow and Dundee awful places.
:yh_rotfl Actually I would agree with you about Dundee-I had the great misfortune to work there for a number of years-after being unemployed fpr two years it was where I finally got a job. It's so bad the local asda-walmart doesn't have a greeter at the door on the grounds that there are enough greeting faces inside. ( In scot's dialect greet also means to cry)
You may resent it but I notice you don't take issue with any of the factual content. It gets a bit wearing putting up with america's inferiority complex. People may indeed be snobbish but it is only an issue if you actually feel inferior and believe they have something to be snobbish about in the first place.
from the article quoted by adam zapple
Nevertheless, while we cannot stop anti-Americanism, here (a consequence, in part, of a deep-seeded, irrational sense of inferiority) and abroad, we can adopt a wiser stance that puts the onus of responsibility more on our critics.
I think the cry of cheap anti americanism is a simplistic cop out and a way of avoiding analysing the very real concerns being raised about American foreign policy. The same concerns are not just being raised abroad but increasingly amongst Americans opposed to the war and those who have for many years spoken out against the policies of their own government not only in the middle east but in South America. It's easier to put down and dismiss their points of view by labelling them as anti american than it is to answer them, especially when they do have a point.
Liked the comment about an irrational sense of inferiority abroad. The idea that at as a British person I or anyone else in the UK for that matter would feel inferior to an American is hilarious. Has he ever met a Frenchman or a German or an Italian? smug B^&&%S the lot of them.
posted by Golem
I do understand your point re the cold war but right now we’re in the early phase of a very HOT war.
Also unlike the Cold war where the two parties had markedly different ideologies they shared common fears and desires specifically to avoid being killed. Today that basic balance simply doesn’t exist as the enemy we face welcomes death if that death comes as a martyrs death.
Then there is the changes in the global balance of wealth and that shouldn’t be limited to thinking ‘money’. Today the balance of real power is vested in those who have the universal wealth of energy resources in their control as they can and do use that wealth to make the smaller nations dance to their tune and usually to the disadvantage of the US and her allies.
We are only likely to have a hot war if we are daft enough to allow it to go that way. One thing that is certain to make it happen is if only those who see problem solving only in terms of beating the other guy to a pulp first are the ones that get to set the pace.
From the statement of principles of theProject for the New American century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
Now the US is a liberal democracy. Who gets to determine what American principles and interests are? In theory the opinion of the trailer trash and single parent mom matter just as much as the oil barons and their ilk. So who calls the tune?
realpolitik
n : politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations [syn: practical politics]
So which do you prefer for US foreign policy in the 21st century realpolitik as per the PNAC or moral and idealogical considerations or a bastardised version of both?
I would argue that the world is such a small place nowadays that fighting over resources may or may not be inevitable but warfare is only invitable if all sides want a war or one usually weaker side feels it has no choice but to stand up for itself. That what the middle east has always been about, controlling resources.
If it's not all America's fault then why not learn from the mistakes of others as well as your own.
posted by Golem
i) Terrorism is the practice of deliberately instilling a state of terror into a civilian population by the intentional attacking a civilian population in order to get them to either capitulate in spite of the civilian authorities instructions not to do so or to motivate a civilian population to depose their existing government by democratic or other means.
In essence I agree with you but by that definition all sides in ww2 were terrorists. US bombers deliberately started fire storms in Japanese cities using techniques they learmed from the british-indeed more people were killed in one nights firebombinng of Tokyo that at hiroshima
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM
-WW2 was all out total war there is nothing romantic about it everybody was out to kill everybody else revisionist history is all very well but warfare is just that. warfare.
The terror bombing didn't work, all it did was strengthen resolve in the civilian population. The recent crop of terrorist terrorist attacks in the UK and US won't work either-unless the US population is very different in spirit from the UK and europe where all terrorist attacks do is annoy people and make them less than sympathetic to the aims of the bombers.
Perhaps a slight change of wording to a
terrorist is someone who murders completely innocent people to try and achieve their political ends through fear in a situation where war has not been openly declared between nation states.
All sides use terror one way or another, arguing about fine lines can be a bit pointless. You're bad I'm not.
posted by Golem
I did visit Scotland last year to see if we could do business there but decided not, it was very picturesque but from a people perspective I found Glasgow and Dundee awful places.
:yh_rotfl Actually I would agree with you about Dundee-I had the great misfortune to work there for a number of years-after being unemployed fpr two years it was where I finally got a job. It's so bad the local asda-walmart doesn't have a greeter at the door on the grounds that there are enough greeting faces inside. ( In scot's dialect greet also means to cry)
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
gmc wrote:
In essence I agree with you but by that definition all sides in ww2 were terrorists.
Yes, by todays standards in my view that woud be the case.
But standards change. The terms of engagement that the Allies military must adhere to are light-years away from the terms of engagement that the Allied forces had in WW2 and the decisions reached by the national leaders during WW2 are again poles apart from those reached by the leaders today. That is why it is so dangerous to condemn today what was done 60 years ago.
I sometimes wonder how many Brits realise that Concentration camps were, if not invented, then certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines by the Brits during the Boar war.
As to the antipathy towards American foreign policy and a perception that the US is a warmongering nation, here again I wonder to what extent that is a natural reaction that any sane person has to war. They see the US as the prime mover when in fact it is leading the defence.
Look at the EU and it’s creeping conversion to Eurabia along with the general acceptance that Islam is not a real and present danger. People in much of the EU simply are blind to what is at stake.
Compare that to the recognition of reality by the Bush administration and a willingness to do something positive about it rather than continue to practice appeasement and it is clear why so many people dislike and even hate the US. They simply don’t understand why what must be done must be done.
Maybe if more people were able to understand that there are worse things than war, and that confronting evil is not a bad thing, the perception of the US would be far more favorable and many more people rather than being critical would even be grateful for what the US are doing for the Free World.
In essence I agree with you but by that definition all sides in ww2 were terrorists.
Yes, by todays standards in my view that woud be the case.
But standards change. The terms of engagement that the Allies military must adhere to are light-years away from the terms of engagement that the Allied forces had in WW2 and the decisions reached by the national leaders during WW2 are again poles apart from those reached by the leaders today. That is why it is so dangerous to condemn today what was done 60 years ago.
I sometimes wonder how many Brits realise that Concentration camps were, if not invented, then certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines by the Brits during the Boar war.
As to the antipathy towards American foreign policy and a perception that the US is a warmongering nation, here again I wonder to what extent that is a natural reaction that any sane person has to war. They see the US as the prime mover when in fact it is leading the defence.
Look at the EU and it’s creeping conversion to Eurabia along with the general acceptance that Islam is not a real and present danger. People in much of the EU simply are blind to what is at stake.
Compare that to the recognition of reality by the Bush administration and a willingness to do something positive about it rather than continue to practice appeasement and it is clear why so many people dislike and even hate the US. They simply don’t understand why what must be done must be done.
Maybe if more people were able to understand that there are worse things than war, and that confronting evil is not a bad thing, the perception of the US would be far more favorable and many more people rather than being critical would even be grateful for what the US are doing for the Free World.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: I sometimes wonder how many Brits realise that Concentration camps were, if not invented, then certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines by the Brits during the Boar war.That really is the most unmitigated hatemail I've seen in some while, but I could have guessed who'd write it.
I'd hope that you know perfectly well that it's an unjustified interpretation of real history, as opposed to hate-invective, and that you'll say so and apologise.
I'd hope that you know perfectly well that it's an unjustified interpretation of real history, as opposed to hate-invective, and that you'll say so and apologise.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: That really is the most unmitigated hatemail I've seen in some while, but I could have guessed who'd write it.
I'd hope that you know perfectly well that it's an unjustified interpretation of real history, as opposed to hate-invective, and that you'll say so and apologise.
No. It's a recorded fact.
I'd hope that you know perfectly well that it's an unjustified interpretation of real history, as opposed to hate-invective, and that you'll say so and apologise.
No. It's a recorded fact.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
And to add to that check out ---
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/africa/boers.html
“Originally called re-education centres the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) soon began describing them as concentration camps. They were called this because they were "concentrating" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler argued that the camps were modeled on those used by the British during the Boer War.â€
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GE ... ration.htm
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/angloboerwar/
QED.
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/africa/boers.html
“Originally called re-education centres the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) soon began describing them as concentration camps. They were called this because they were "concentrating" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler argued that the camps were modeled on those used by the British during the Boer War.â€
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GE ... ration.htm
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/angloboerwar/
QED.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
posted by golem
I sometimes wonder how many Brits realise that Concentration camps were, if not invented, then certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines by the Brits during the Boar war.
I think you would be surprised at the level of knowledge most people have of their history. Try asking a Liverpool fan about the boer war. Many for instance will also know about the public outcry when coditions in the camp became known. It was also a British military theorists that were the genesis for Blitzkrieg warfare except it was Rommel and Guderian who took it to heart rather than the British establishment.
posted by golem
As to the antipathy towards American foreign policy and a perception that the US is a warmongering nation, here again I wonder to what extent that is a natural reaction that any sane person has to war. They see the US as the prime mover when in fact it is leading the defence.
A valid point perhaps. As to whether the US is a prime mover or not is rather a moot point. I would not say americans per se, but rather some of the leadership at the moment seem to believe they can make war with impunity and how the rest of the world will react doesn't matter. Like it or not you are on the same planet as the rest of us.
posted by golem
Compare that to the recognition of reality by the Bush administration and a willingness to do something positive about it rather than continue to practice appeasement and it is clear why so many people dislike and even hate the US. They simply don’t understand why what must be done must be done.
They see the reality they want to see and believe only what suits their world view. -either that or the intelligence used to justify the gulf war really was cynically manipulated to fool the US public in to going along with the invasion. What is really depressing is the number of idiots in the UK that really believed Saddam had WMD's ready to use on the UK. (idiot is a synonym for a British MP, numpty is a Scottish one)
posted by spot
That really is the most unmitigated hatemail I've seen in some while, but I could have guessed who'd write it.
Actually we did invent them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/513944.stm
posted by golem
Maybe if more people were able to understand that there are worse things than war, and that confronting evil is not a bad thing, the perception of the US would be far more favorable and many more people rather than being critical would even be grateful for what the US are doing for the Free World.
Evil be he who always sees evil. Religon causes enbough problem without bringimng the devil in it as well.
I sometimes wonder how many Brits realise that Concentration camps were, if not invented, then certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines by the Brits during the Boar war.
I think you would be surprised at the level of knowledge most people have of their history. Try asking a Liverpool fan about the boer war. Many for instance will also know about the public outcry when coditions in the camp became known. It was also a British military theorists that were the genesis for Blitzkrieg warfare except it was Rommel and Guderian who took it to heart rather than the British establishment.
posted by golem
As to the antipathy towards American foreign policy and a perception that the US is a warmongering nation, here again I wonder to what extent that is a natural reaction that any sane person has to war. They see the US as the prime mover when in fact it is leading the defence.
A valid point perhaps. As to whether the US is a prime mover or not is rather a moot point. I would not say americans per se, but rather some of the leadership at the moment seem to believe they can make war with impunity and how the rest of the world will react doesn't matter. Like it or not you are on the same planet as the rest of us.
posted by golem
Compare that to the recognition of reality by the Bush administration and a willingness to do something positive about it rather than continue to practice appeasement and it is clear why so many people dislike and even hate the US. They simply don’t understand why what must be done must be done.
They see the reality they want to see and believe only what suits their world view. -either that or the intelligence used to justify the gulf war really was cynically manipulated to fool the US public in to going along with the invasion. What is really depressing is the number of idiots in the UK that really believed Saddam had WMD's ready to use on the UK. (idiot is a synonym for a British MP, numpty is a Scottish one)
posted by spot
That really is the most unmitigated hatemail I've seen in some while, but I could have guessed who'd write it.
Actually we did invent them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/513944.stm
posted by golem
Maybe if more people were able to understand that there are worse things than war, and that confronting evil is not a bad thing, the perception of the US would be far more favorable and many more people rather than being critical would even be grateful for what the US are doing for the Free World.
Evil be he who always sees evil. Religon causes enbough problem without bringimng the devil in it as well.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
gmc wrote:
They see the reality they want to see and believe only what suits their world view. -either that or the intelligence used to justify the gulf war really was cynically manipulated to fool the US public in to going along with the invasion. What is really depressing is the number of idiots in the UK that really believed Saddam had WMD's ready to use on the UK. (idiot is a synonym for a British MP, numpty is a Scottish one)
Looking back to the extent that we can it would seem that there was a great deal of credence given to ex-part Iraqis without much though about how much they were telling was true and how much was intended to get the US involved.
Then again, if the US though that Iraq had these things and Saddam wasn’t cooperating which he wasn’t and more importantly those who saw Iraq as the big guy who would come to their aid thought that Iraq had them, the picture becomes complicated by the psychology of war and conflict, and the influence of a perceived credible strength. After all, perception is reality to the observer.
The actual possession or otherwise is secondary up to the point when they are actually needed by which time all sorts of damage can have been done.
My own belief is that the most manipulation was done by Blair by presenting the ‘real and present danger’ argument as an excuse to do what he wanted whereas if he had simply bitten the bullet and gone in on the basis of being an ally of the US and to hell with keeping the most of the electorate that he could ‘on song’ he might actually have had a far less damaging ride.
From what I see of Blair he is actually a far worse leader than Bush as whereas Bush does have the interests of the US at heart all Blair has at heart is his own interest of retaining power.
It looks to me from where I sit that he and his government are far more interested in managing the News Media than the country in the belief that the creation of a perception in the public is far more important than creating a reality that the public will approve of.
They see the reality they want to see and believe only what suits their world view. -either that or the intelligence used to justify the gulf war really was cynically manipulated to fool the US public in to going along with the invasion. What is really depressing is the number of idiots in the UK that really believed Saddam had WMD's ready to use on the UK. (idiot is a synonym for a British MP, numpty is a Scottish one)
Looking back to the extent that we can it would seem that there was a great deal of credence given to ex-part Iraqis without much though about how much they were telling was true and how much was intended to get the US involved.
Then again, if the US though that Iraq had these things and Saddam wasn’t cooperating which he wasn’t and more importantly those who saw Iraq as the big guy who would come to their aid thought that Iraq had them, the picture becomes complicated by the psychology of war and conflict, and the influence of a perceived credible strength. After all, perception is reality to the observer.
The actual possession or otherwise is secondary up to the point when they are actually needed by which time all sorts of damage can have been done.
My own belief is that the most manipulation was done by Blair by presenting the ‘real and present danger’ argument as an excuse to do what he wanted whereas if he had simply bitten the bullet and gone in on the basis of being an ally of the US and to hell with keeping the most of the electorate that he could ‘on song’ he might actually have had a far less damaging ride.
From what I see of Blair he is actually a far worse leader than Bush as whereas Bush does have the interests of the US at heart all Blair has at heart is his own interest of retaining power.
It looks to me from where I sit that he and his government are far more interested in managing the News Media than the country in the belief that the creation of a perception in the public is far more important than creating a reality that the public will approve of.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: And to add to that check out ---
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/africa/boers.html
“Originally called re-education centres the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) soon began describing them as concentration camps. They were called this because they were "concentrating" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler argued that the camps were modeled on those used by the British during the Boer War.â€
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GE ... ration.htm
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/angloboerwar/
QED.I do wish you'd stop shouting, I can read perfectly well without.
Your fourth reference says of your first "An impassioned article on the 31 British concentration camps from a extremely patriotic Boer." - I think if anyone actually troubles to click on it, they can form their own opinion of the likely accuracy of the analysis. For "impassioned" read "rather more biased than useful".
Your second citation is exemplary, your third is a fine description of the Third Reich's practice and I'm very pleased that you included it for comparison.
I didn't challenge the existence of the concentration camps, nor the numbers who died there. I challenged your hate-statement "certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines". So, if you read it, does your second reference. So, if you compare that with the third, does the third. So, throughout, does Thomas Packenham in "Scramble for Africa", whose views are extensively quoted in your reference 2 and whose own bibliography supplied most of the quotes in the article. Your Reference 2 makes it perfectly clear that the camps were not "refined to a fine art as killing machines". I'm more than content that people should read it, compare it with reference 3, shudder at the inanity of reference 1 and form their own view on the basis of what you've put forward as background to your untrue claim.
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/africa/boers.html
“Originally called re-education centres the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) soon began describing them as concentration camps. They were called this because they were "concentrating" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler argued that the camps were modeled on those used by the British during the Boer War.â€
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GE ... ration.htm
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/angloboerwar/
QED.I do wish you'd stop shouting, I can read perfectly well without.
Your fourth reference says of your first "An impassioned article on the 31 British concentration camps from a extremely patriotic Boer." - I think if anyone actually troubles to click on it, they can form their own opinion of the likely accuracy of the analysis. For "impassioned" read "rather more biased than useful".
Your second citation is exemplary, your third is a fine description of the Third Reich's practice and I'm very pleased that you included it for comparison.
I didn't challenge the existence of the concentration camps, nor the numbers who died there. I challenged your hate-statement "certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines". So, if you read it, does your second reference. So, if you compare that with the third, does the third. So, throughout, does Thomas Packenham in "Scramble for Africa", whose views are extensively quoted in your reference 2 and whose own bibliography supplied most of the quotes in the article. Your Reference 2 makes it perfectly clear that the camps were not "refined to a fine art as killing machines". I'm more than content that people should read it, compare it with reference 3, shudder at the inanity of reference 1 and form their own view on the basis of what you've put forward as background to your untrue claim.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
spot wrote: I do wish you'd stop shouting, I can read perfectly well without.
Your fourth reference says of your first "An impassioned article on the 31 British concentration camps from a extremely patriotic Boer." - I think if anyone actually troubles to click on it, they can form their own opinion of the likely accuracy of the analysis. For "impassioned" read "rather more biased than useful".
Your second citation is exemplary, your third is a fine description of the Third Reich's practice and I'm very pleased that you included it for comparison.
I didn't challenge the existence of the concentration camps, nor the numbers who died there. I challenged your hate-statement "certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines". So, if you read it, does your second reference. So, if you compare that with the third, does the third. So, throughout, does Thomas Packenham in "Scramble for Africa", whose views are extensively quoted in your reference 2 and whose own bibliography supplied most of the quotes in the article. Your Reference 2 makes it perfectly clear that the camps were not "refined to a fine art as killing machines". I'm more than content that people should read it, compare it with reference 3, shudder at the inanity of reference 1 and form their own view on the basis of what you've put forward as background to your untrue claim.
IS English your first language?
Your fourth reference says of your first "An impassioned article on the 31 British concentration camps from a extremely patriotic Boer." - I think if anyone actually troubles to click on it, they can form their own opinion of the likely accuracy of the analysis. For "impassioned" read "rather more biased than useful".
Your second citation is exemplary, your third is a fine description of the Third Reich's practice and I'm very pleased that you included it for comparison.
I didn't challenge the existence of the concentration camps, nor the numbers who died there. I challenged your hate-statement "certainly refined to a fine art as killing machines". So, if you read it, does your second reference. So, if you compare that with the third, does the third. So, throughout, does Thomas Packenham in "Scramble for Africa", whose views are extensively quoted in your reference 2 and whose own bibliography supplied most of the quotes in the article. Your Reference 2 makes it perfectly clear that the camps were not "refined to a fine art as killing machines". I'm more than content that people should read it, compare it with reference 3, shudder at the inanity of reference 1 and form their own view on the basis of what you've put forward as background to your untrue claim.
IS English your first language?
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
posted by golem
My own belief is that the most manipulation was done by Blair by presenting the ‘real and present danger’ argument as an excuse to do what he wanted whereas if he had simply bitten the bullet and gone in on the basis of being an ally of the US and to hell with keeping the most of the electorate that he could ‘on song’ he might actually have had a far less damaging ride.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the PM's authority. This being the UK and him not having presidential authority he has to get the agreement of parliament saying to hell with keeping the electorate on song is a pretty good way to get you unelected. We actually need a good reason to go to war just backing up america right or wrong is not it. We are only too well aware that if push came to shove the US would not help the UK in a conflict unless it was in their interests to do so. Watching the debate on in parliament TV I got the sense that most were not fooled but could not bring themselves to believe that TB was a liar. Bit like the king's new clothes-nobody wanted to shout rubbish.
You are right though the intelligence was manipulated and most now accept that as fact except the labour cabinet who can't admit they are lying B*&^^S. If Robin Cook was still alive he would be a prime candidate for the new leader of the Labour party I reckon not Gordon Brown.
posted by Golem
From what I see of Blair he is actually a far worse leader than Bush as whereas Bush does have the interests of the US at heart all Blair has at heart is his own interest of retaining power.
Good grief I actuallly agree with you (falls off chair)
It looks to me from where I sit that he and his government are far more interested in managing the News Media than the country in the belief that the creation of a perception in the public is far more important than creating a reality that the public will approve of.
And again, it's not working though and his days are numbered. Sadly if he sticks around he might to to Labour what Maggie Thatcher did to the Tories and wreck them as a political force.
My apologies to Spot by the way, I misread his post. Yes we did invent concentration camps but they were not set up as death camps. Actually with the Nazis the death camps only came along later. initially they were detention centres for political dissidents and many were were released after a year or so. The nazis got their grip on the german people very gradually. Ironically germany was one of the least anti-semitic countries in Europe until Hitler came along the first detainees were political opponents.
If you want to start claiming the moral high ground over the British you have a problem on your hands. Have a look at US treatment of the native Americans for instance. at least we never got around to declaring the natives of a country illegal aliens in their own land-of the some 298 treaties made between native anerican people and the US govt every single one was broken. You might have to go a long way to beat the "tomfoolery" of the British but you have had a fair go at it.
Tit for tat comparisaons from the past while fun and give the more erudite a chance to show off also raise the question. Is it still morally acceptable for more powerful nations to interfere in the running of other countries, and if necessary overthrow governments, in pursuit of their own interests.
I would say no but it's going to happen anyway it's human nature. But condemning a country for doing what most of them have and would do again given half a chance won't achieve very much.
But also, in the 21st century is such activity always going to be in the best interests of the people whose governments do these things in their name? At the end of the day it is those who vote in those govts that need to call them to account.
The situation in the middle east, 911, did not arise out of nowhere. The Who, what, why, and when is an endless loop. Simply to dismiss it as caused by a bunch of religious nutters is dodging the issue and just going to war will not solve things. Fighting terror with terror hands victory to terrorists, so does bombing everything in sight.
Is it all america's fault? Not entirely.
Have they done anything to help? No they joined in and became a major player.
Are they helping now? Not if warfare is the only choice made. Going in to Iraq has made things far worse and made it easier fpor the fundamentalists to get support and harder for moderates to have any influence.
My own belief is that the most manipulation was done by Blair by presenting the ‘real and present danger’ argument as an excuse to do what he wanted whereas if he had simply bitten the bullet and gone in on the basis of being an ally of the US and to hell with keeping the most of the electorate that he could ‘on song’ he might actually have had a far less damaging ride.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the PM's authority. This being the UK and him not having presidential authority he has to get the agreement of parliament saying to hell with keeping the electorate on song is a pretty good way to get you unelected. We actually need a good reason to go to war just backing up america right or wrong is not it. We are only too well aware that if push came to shove the US would not help the UK in a conflict unless it was in their interests to do so. Watching the debate on in parliament TV I got the sense that most were not fooled but could not bring themselves to believe that TB was a liar. Bit like the king's new clothes-nobody wanted to shout rubbish.
You are right though the intelligence was manipulated and most now accept that as fact except the labour cabinet who can't admit they are lying B*&^^S. If Robin Cook was still alive he would be a prime candidate for the new leader of the Labour party I reckon not Gordon Brown.
posted by Golem
From what I see of Blair he is actually a far worse leader than Bush as whereas Bush does have the interests of the US at heart all Blair has at heart is his own interest of retaining power.
Good grief I actuallly agree with you (falls off chair)
It looks to me from where I sit that he and his government are far more interested in managing the News Media than the country in the belief that the creation of a perception in the public is far more important than creating a reality that the public will approve of.
And again, it's not working though and his days are numbered. Sadly if he sticks around he might to to Labour what Maggie Thatcher did to the Tories and wreck them as a political force.
My apologies to Spot by the way, I misread his post. Yes we did invent concentration camps but they were not set up as death camps. Actually with the Nazis the death camps only came along later. initially they were detention centres for political dissidents and many were were released after a year or so. The nazis got their grip on the german people very gradually. Ironically germany was one of the least anti-semitic countries in Europe until Hitler came along the first detainees were political opponents.
If you want to start claiming the moral high ground over the British you have a problem on your hands. Have a look at US treatment of the native Americans for instance. at least we never got around to declaring the natives of a country illegal aliens in their own land-of the some 298 treaties made between native anerican people and the US govt every single one was broken. You might have to go a long way to beat the "tomfoolery" of the British but you have had a fair go at it.
Tit for tat comparisaons from the past while fun and give the more erudite a chance to show off also raise the question. Is it still morally acceptable for more powerful nations to interfere in the running of other countries, and if necessary overthrow governments, in pursuit of their own interests.
I would say no but it's going to happen anyway it's human nature. But condemning a country for doing what most of them have and would do again given half a chance won't achieve very much.
But also, in the 21st century is such activity always going to be in the best interests of the people whose governments do these things in their name? At the end of the day it is those who vote in those govts that need to call them to account.
The situation in the middle east, 911, did not arise out of nowhere. The Who, what, why, and when is an endless loop. Simply to dismiss it as caused by a bunch of religious nutters is dodging the issue and just going to war will not solve things. Fighting terror with terror hands victory to terrorists, so does bombing everything in sight.
Is it all america's fault? Not entirely.
Have they done anything to help? No they joined in and became a major player.
Are they helping now? Not if warfare is the only choice made. Going in to Iraq has made things far worse and made it easier fpor the fundamentalists to get support and harder for moderates to have any influence.
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Adam Zapple wrote: Can you quote any Americans here at FG who have said such a thing?
Try :-
Originally Posted by Jives
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us.
There are many more
Try :-
Originally Posted by Jives
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us.
There are many more
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Good points well raised and well presented Bryn Mawr.
AAAGH!
NOT Bryn Mawr ---
I meant GMC!
AAAGH!
NOT Bryn Mawr ---
I meant GMC!
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
golem wrote: Good points well raised and well presented Bryn Mawr.Hear, hear. I've enjoyed reading his contributions both in this thread and elsewhere.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Bryn Mawr wrote: Try :-
Originally Posted by Jives
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us.
There are many more
Very well, this is getting nowhere so I won't argue this anymore. I'll concede that you are correct, us here Ahmuricans think we should bomb anybody we don't like. Satisfied? But work harder next time, "not ignoring" countries that are anti-American in policy and that support international terrorism is not the same thing as "attacking" anybody we don't like. There is a substantial difference between what you claimed and the evidence you provided. :-5 But if it makes you feel better.......:rolleyes:
Originally Posted by Jives
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us.
There are many more
Very well, this is getting nowhere so I won't argue this anymore. I'll concede that you are correct, us here Ahmuricans think we should bomb anybody we don't like. Satisfied? But work harder next time, "not ignoring" countries that are anti-American in policy and that support international terrorism is not the same thing as "attacking" anybody we don't like. There is a substantial difference between what you claimed and the evidence you provided. :-5 But if it makes you feel better.......:rolleyes:
Yes, it'a all America's fault,
Adam Zapple wrote: Very well, this is getting nowhere so I won't argue this anymore. I'll concede that you are correct, us here Ahmuricans think we should bomb anybody we don't like. Satisfied? But work harder next time, "not ignoring" countries that are anti-American in policy and that support international terrorism is not the same thing as "attacking" anybody we don't like. There is a substantial difference between what you claimed and the evidence you provided. :-5 But if it makes you feel better.......:rolleyes:
True, this is getting nowhere. You asked for an example and I spent 10 seconds finding the first that came to hand.
The fact that the countries named in that example have all been attacked or heavily threatened by the USA was entirely fortuitous.
True, this is getting nowhere. You asked for an example and I spent 10 seconds finding the first that came to hand.
The fact that the countries named in that example have all been attacked or heavily threatened by the USA was entirely fortuitous.