I spend a lot of time in England in connection with my business, and I went to school and university there way back when (from mid 50's to late 60's) and have spent time on assignment there when I was employed rather than today when I have my own business, hence my very good knowledge about the place, but I don't live in Britain and nor would I live in Britain.
vampress.rozz wrote: I happen to love my country sure we have our problems but so do most countries. Why do we have so many assylum seekers coming here if its so awful?
Because for some bizarre reasons your government have a virtual open door policy and there are so many state hand-outs. Britain must e unique in that not working and living (well) off state handouts is a career option and one chosen by so many.
vampress.rozz wrote: Why do you come here Golum? What brings you back? It really annoys me that people come here use which ever aspect of our country they like ( the education system for one thing) and then have the bare faced cheek to criticise it! If its so rubbish why didn't you use your own????.
I keep coming back in connection with my business. I'm a partner in an existing firm. As regards why in the UK, that is very soon likly to change with a move to Poland, a country that I have more connections with that the UK plus it is now in the EU so our sales market remains open. Wages will be considerably lower and the work ethic of the people is markedly superiour to the lazy British and sorry, but for the most part they are.
As regards my education, that was not state funded, it was paid for by my family. I took NOTHING from the British state.
Today in retirement I’m a partner in a business so I am also an employer.
As such I actually provide revenue INTO Britain as well as employment for 32 people in Manchester though as I wrote earlier that will soon change. The punitive taxation and other stupid legislation regarding a minimum wage that so many people seem to want for simply walking through the door has just about priced Britain out of the market for me and and many others and for me it has only been traditional connections and convenience that has kept us there.
vampress.rozz wrote: I love the fact that I am free to say what I like.
Free speech in Britain? Once, compared to the rest of the world, and compared to most of the world today maybe, but really free speech?
Adam Zapple wrote: It is really getting tiresome to get lectured about butting into another nations affairs by a Brit, a citizen of one of the most aggressively expansionist nations in the history of the world. The U.S. can't come close to match the tomfoolery of the British Empire.
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.
Don't get me wrong, 911 was a terrible event - but it was not the fault of any nation state, it was carried out by a worldwide terrorist organisation who cannot be attacked with tanks and warplanes.
Once we can agree on that basic fact we can move on to discussing why the Bush administration is using it to threaten and attack the countries in question and the effects of such actions.
And yes, Great Britain was imperialistic - openly so. We have a lot to answer for but that does not make the USAs actions now right.
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.
They don’t.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Don't get me wrong, 911 was a terrible event - but it was not the fault of any nation state, it was carried out by a worldwide terrorist organisation who cannot be attacked with tanks and warplanes.
Correct. The worldwide thing that you refer to is Islam and it is an Empire.
Attacking activist areas of that Empire are a good way of protecting those who do not live and do not want to live in that Empire. As with any Empore not all the population agree with what the government do and that must be remembered.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Once we can agree on that basic fact we can move on to discussing why the Bush administration is using it to threaten and attack the countries in question and the effects of such actions.
Your paradigm is faulty. We can’t agree. They're not countries, that’s a secular view. Empire strongholds is closer to reality.
Bryn Mawr wrote: And yes, Great Britain was imperialistic - openly so. We have a lot to answer for but that does not make the USAs actions now right.
The war that has started against the US and her allies does that.
golem wrote: Correct. The worldwide thing that you refer to is Islam and it is an Empire. You evidently don't consider that describing Islam as "a worldwide terrorist organisation" puts you onto the remote fringes of reality, when it comes to discussing world affairs. I'm quite happy to hear you say it, don't get me wrong. It's an interesting example of the way some people think.
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.
spot wrote: You evidently don't consider that describing Islam as "a worldwide terrorist organisation" puts you onto the remote fringes of reality, when it comes to discussing world affairs. I'm quite happy to hear you say it, don't get me wrong. It's an interesting example of the way some people think.
You’re right of course. Those of us who though still few in number see reality, who understand what’s involved, who don’t swallow the ‘religion of peace’ guff as meaning a religion of universal peace for those who do and those who don’t follow Islam, and those of us who have learned the background of the – I’ll call it an ideology rather than religion – DO recognise that the cutting edge of Islam IS based on terrorism.
Even those who don’t have the in depth knowledge to refute the rubbish promoted by the people who, for a variety of reasons downplay what is taking place and why, can see with their own eyes what’s going on and more to the point who’s doing it and why and that number is on a roll and a good thing to. After all, the first stage in any victory is recognizing who and what you are fighting against.
I don’t know if in Britain you have heard about a very recent event in Turkey where a Moslem shot dead a judge who had ruled against the wearing of various items of traditional clothing by Turkish women?
Hardly an act inspired by anything being done elsewhere in the world and that’s only one of thousands of other terrorist attacks all of which have nothing at all to do with the what being waged by the west and everything to do with Islam on the march.
golem wrote: You’re right of course. Those of us who though still few in number see reality, who understand what’s involved, who don’t swallow the ‘religion of peace’ guff as meaning a religion of universal peace for those who do and those who don’t follow Islam...Hey! I've got a great idea! Instead of calling it "terrorism" - which after all has such a flexible and self-contradictory definition - let's call it a Crusade. The OED wording covers what you describe perfectly: Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’. I'd be so much happier with an uncontroversial label like that.
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.
Bryn Mawr wrote: For as long as America continues to stick their noses in where they don't belong (into the internal affairs of a soverign nation state) then she'll be blamed for many of the ills of the world.
I think america acts, simply because they are the only ones who will. I have noticed a certain penchant of the europeans to avoid conflict at all costs. They put the criminal before the victims using the the human rights act. It's gotten upside down somehow. They use the human rights act in place of good moral judgement. It doesnt work.
The problems we face are global. It's everybodies problem. But the blame and differences lie in the priorities of the nations trying to handle them. Europe is more concerned with global warming, while america deals with potential destruction of whole nations by petty despots.
spot wrote: Hey! I've got a great idea! Instead of calling it "terrorism" - which after all has such a flexible and self-contradictory definition - let's call it a Crusade. The OED wording covers what you describe perfectly: Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’. I'd be so much happier with an uncontroversial label like that.
I might be inclined to agree but a problem that I’ve got with that is that whereas the Christian church doesn’t have in its bible any direction to ‘kill and maim’ in the name of the religion / ideology the same is not true in Islam in the Qu’oran and the Hadiths where just the opposite applies!
After all, what took place during the Crusades was in contradiction top the words in the bible. What takes place by the Islam inspired and driven terrorists is directed by the Qu’oran!
So it turns out that we can’t do a one – for – one replacement.
I would be interested as to how you see the term terrorism being self-contradictory however.
Raven wrote: I think america acts, simply because they are the only ones who will. I have noticed a certain penchant of the europeans to avoid conflict at all costs. They put the criminal before the victims using the the human rights act. It's gotten upside down somehow. They use the human rights act in place of good moral judgement. It doesnt work.
The problems we face are global. It's everybodies problem. But the blame and differences lie in the priorities of the nations trying to handle them. Europe is more concerned with global warming, while america deals with potential destruction of whole nations by petty despots.You'd think, from this, that the United Nations had not been set up specifically to enable consensus decisions to be taken internationally rather than the imposition of unilateral force by whoever has the biggest weaponry in the area. It only becomes ineffective when the country with the biggest weaponry blocks debate and settlement by that route, as they did over Iraq and continue to do over Israel.
Where do we see any "potential destruction of whole nations by petty despots"? Iran's condition in the hands of President Ahmadinejad seems to be quite healthy. The universities are running smoothly, people have food, there's vigorous debate in the street cafes and in the national newspapers. I'd quite like to visit Tehran next time I take a holiday abroad. Neither petty nor despot fits his case at all.
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.
golem wrote: I keep coming back in connection with my business. I'm a partner in an existing firm. As regards why in the UK, that is very soon likly to change with a move to Poland, a country that I have more connections with that the UK plus it is now in the EU so our sales market remains open. Wages will be considerably lower and the work ethic of the people is markedly superiour to the lazy British and sorry, but for the most part they are.
I agree that the work ethic of the Polish People is superior to a small % of Brits. I have 7 that work for me...they are the most charming and hardworking people. ....but they have come here with their families because the wages in Poland leave them on the poverty line.
These discussions are always interesting, but I do find it disappointing that we are bombarded with all the negative aspects of our homelands but few people have sensible ideas to change things. I guess that many of us feel powerless to 'change the world'. We can only 'do our best' in the environment we live in.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
golem wrote: So it turns out that we can’t do a one – for – one replacement.
I would be interested as to how you see the term terrorism being self-contradictory however.I gave you a word from the OED that fits your need. I don't see why you compare it to other instances of Crusade given the definition.
Might it be reasonable, since there are hundreds of definitions of "terrorism" out there, to ask you for your prefered wording? That way I don't have to put in work on an answer just for you to say "oh but that was a bad starting point".
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.
spot wrote: I gave you a word from the OED that fits your need. I don't see why you compare it to other instances of Crusade given the definition.
Might it be reasonable, since there are hundreds of definitions of "terrorism" out there, to ask you for your prefered wording? That way I don't have to put in work on an answer just for you to say "oh but that was a bad starting point".
I would be interested in how YOU see the term terrorism being self-contradictory.
Bez wrote: I agree that the work ethic of the Polish People is superior to a small % of Brits. I have 7 that work for me...they are the most charming and hardworking people. ....but they have come here with their families because the wages in Poland leave them on the poverty line.
These discussions are always interesting, but I do find it disappointing that we are bombarded with all the negative aspects of our homelands but few people have sensible ideas to change things. I guess that many of us feel powerless to 'change the world'. We can only 'do our best' in the environment we live in.
So change the environment. Start by getting rid of New Labour and replacing them with a Thatcher-ite government, make people WORK for state aid, and instill some rules and discipline into the present and previous generation of horrible kids that you have in Britain.
Sorry to offend as I know it will but ruight now most of Britain is like a Louisiana Traler Park with occupants to match.
golem wrote: I would be interested in how YOU see the term terrorism being self-contradictory.
Maybe just for once try being original?Boring, coming from a guy who floods threads with one-sided pastes from the hate-sites out there.
OK, here's the OED main head entry for "terrorism" - A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
May I take that and demonstrate the self-contradictions of current usage?
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.
golem wrote: Sorry to offend as I know it will but ruight now most of Britain is like a Louisiana Traler Park with occupants to match.What's such fun is that we've spent the last two weeks showing visitors to the UK around, and their observations have been read by everyone here. The more you bark, the more people see you're barking.
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.
spot wrote: Boring, coming from a guy who floods threads with one-sided pastes from the hate-sites out there.
OK, here's the OED main head entry for "terrorism" - A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
May I take that and demonstrate the self-contradictions of current usage?
spot wrote: What's such fun is that we've spent the last two weeks showing visitors to the UK around, and their observations have been read by everyone here. The more you bark, the more people see you're barking.
There's little doubt that if you stick to the tourist places and visit the nice places that do exist you come waway with a very different impression than if you actually get into the big cities and have to deal with the wortking class and the drinking class and the welfare witches and their usually illegitimate and always bad mannered and ill educated brats.
Parts of Britain are still very nice. many Brits are nice decent people, the majoritry are not.
spot wrote: You'd think, from this, that the United Nations had not been set up specifically to enable consensus decisions to be taken internationally rather than the imposition of unilateral force by whoever has the biggest weaponry in the area. It only becomes ineffective when the country with the biggest weaponry blocks debate and settlement by that route, as they did over Iraq and continue to do over Israel.
Where do we see any "potential destruction of whole nations by petty despots"? Iran's condition in the hands of President Ahmadinejad seems to be quite healthy. The universities are running smoothly, people have food, there's vigorous debate in the street cafes and in the national newspapers. I'd quite like to visit Tehran next time I take a holiday abroad. Neither petty nor despot fits his case at all.
The united nations was a good idea. Once. The last time the united nations really did the world a favor was way back in 1962. Sept/Oct if I'm not mistaken. I agree with the concept, but political solutions are only as good as the people who argue them. With all the political correctness going on in politics today, right and wrong have been thrown out the window by a utopian idealism that doesnt work. Peoples are different. And peace cannot be sustained between nations. It's the hunger for power. The typical 'king of the hill' syndrome. Throw in your need for fuel and the fuse is lit. China is watching. It's a big beast that needs alot of fuel. It is not going to stand by and watch a bunch of Arabians set lite all the oil supply simply because they think it's the best way to cripple america. Israel alone has the capability of taking down the whole middle east. (herself along with them) It's called the samson plan.
I would love to be able to visit Iran myself, but alas I cannot right now. Their president is good for their own economy but really bad for world rhetoric. So was Hitler.
Raven wrote: Their president is good for their own economy but really bad for world rhetoric. So was Hitler.The British have put up with far worse for decades from Ian Paisley and his Ulster Unionist intransigent rhetoric. He's caused rather more deaths than President Ahmadinejad has, too.
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.
Raven wrote: The united nations was a good idea. Once. The last time the united nations really did the world a favor was way back in 1962. Sept/Oct if I'm not mistaken. I agree with the concept, but political solutions are only as good as the people who argue them. With all the political correctness going on in politics today, right and wrong have been thrown out the window by a utopian idealism that doesnt work. Peoples are different. And peace cannot be sustained between nations. It's the hunger for power. The typical 'king of the hill' syndrome. Throw in your need for fuel and the fuse is lit. China is watching. It's a big beast that needs alot of fuel. It is not going to stand by and watch a bunch of Arabians set lite all the oil supply simply because they think it's the best way to cripple america. Israel alone has the capability of taking down the whole middle east. (herself along with them) It's called the samson plan.
I would love to be able to visit Iran myself, but alas I cannot right now. Their president is good for their own economy but really bad for world rhetoric. So was Hitler.
I totally agree.
The UN should be dismantled and replaced with some form of League of Aligned Nations – a group of nations with common interests, values, and purpose along the lines of NATO though with more than just a defence role.
The UN today has an inbuilt majority of nations whose votes get traded like stocks and who in any case have interests that mostly run counter to the UN paymasters who also happen to be the world biggest aid providers.
It’s a foul place that has long past its sell-by date and should be done away with.
golem wrote: I would be interested in how YOU see the term terrorism being self-contradictory.
Maybe just for once try being original?You don't recall Blitzkreig? That's where the "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale." My quote is from Ullman and Wade, the designers of Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe at the United States' National Defense University, who aimed to "paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels". You don't regard that as "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted" or "the employment of methods of intimidation"?
The self-contradiction of current usage is, of course, that if "they" do it it's dishonorable terrorism but if "we" do it it's honorable warfare. If "we" do it from 30,000 feet then it's "clean" but if "they" do it with the only available delivery systems left to them in the only part of town they can still reach it's "dirty". Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.
You may now quibble over the OED's definition of terrorism.
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.
The UN should be dismantledThat sounds very much like "taken apart from the outside". What's wrong with simply resigning from it?
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.
golem wrote: There's little doubt that if you stick to the tourist places and visit the nice places that do exist you come waway with a very different impression than if you actually get into the big cities and have to deal with the wortking class and the drinking class and the welfare witches and their usually illegitimate and always bad mannered and ill educated brats.
Parts of Britain are still very nice. many Brits are nice decent people, the majoritry are not.
Ouch, ouch , ouch....The majority are nice people, the minority are not would be a more accurate statement. I'm starting to take this a bit personally.
I have my eyes wide open. I know what is happening in this country AND the rest of the world.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I agree that the city bombing undertaken in WW2 by todays standards would be wrong but by the standards of the time it was both right and proper.
As for the bombing from 10,000 meters, if it is terrorism or not must surely depend on the motive and objective of the bombing.
To deliberately bomb a civilian population with the deliberate intent to kill and injure civilians I would unhesitatingly condemn as an act of terrorism whereas on the other hand to bomb an area in which terrorists or fighters had deliberately placed themselves IN a civilian occupied area I would not.
Using their own people and worse yet even their children as shields is nothing new from our experiences in fighting the palest terrorists as that is a common practice they employ, and then squeal like pigs when there is collateral damage.
Bez wrote: Ouch, ouch , ouch....The majority are nice people, the minority are not would be a more accurate statement. I'm starting to take this a bit personally.
I have my eyes wide open. I know what is happening in this country AND the rest of the world.
Sorry, Bez, no hurt intended but we can all only call it as we see it.
spot wrote: That sounds very much like "taken apart from the outside". What's wrong with simply resigning from it?
Because the whole stinking thing should be destroyed. A 'rump' UN should not be left.
There may be value in a whole-world forum with a brief limited to considering and addressing welfare, medicine, emergency aid, and so forth but that should be all.
The UN should be dismantled and replaced with some form of League of Aligned Nations – a group of nations with common interests, values, and purpose along the lines of NATO though with more than just a defence role.
Then we would have another cold war situation again. With even the prospects of small groups able to obtain nuclear weapons,(dirty bombs) we have to really be able to think out of the box. Why do we have so many groups of people willing to annhilate each other, just to push forward their own agenda? Human life has no longer any value! It's become a commodity to buy or sell. Europe for example, has become a typical 'cookie cutter' society! Even Turkey wants in! And if you leave individual countries alone to slug it out within their own borders, (yugoslavia for example) Then you get genocide and civil wars. It takes great thinkers to solve these problems, and sadly we seem to be short of those at the moment.
Raven wrote: Then we would have another cold war situation again. With even the prospects of small groups able to obtain nuclear weapons,(dirty bombs) we have to really be able to think out of the box. Why do we have so many groups of people willing to annhilate each other, just to push forward their own agenda? Human life has no longer any value! It's become a commodity to buy or sell. Europe for example, has become a typical 'cookie cutter' society! Even Turkey wants in! And if you leave individual countries alone to slug it out within their own borders, (yugoslavia for example) Then you get genocide and civil wars. It takes great thinkers to solve these problems, and sadly we seem to be short of those at the moment.
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.
Let’s assume that the Cold War had turned into a hot war, how long would the UN have stood? Just as the League of Nations before it it would have toppled and been replaced by a band of allies on the one hand and the axis powers on the other. So it should now as the equivalent of the axis is well on the way to becoming finalised and they’ve started shelling.
golem wrote: Because the whole stinking thing should be destroyed. A 'rump' UN should not be left.And how many nations would need to resign for the remainder to be described accurately as a "rump", in your opinion?
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.
golem wrote: Probably not more than a dozen if they were the right ones.So two resignations would not leave a rump UN, in your opinion?
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.
golem wrote: To deliberately bomb a civilian population with the deliberate intent to kill and injure civilians I would unhesitatingly condemn as an act of terrorism whereas on the other hand to bomb an area in which terrorists or fighters had deliberately placed themselves IN a civilian occupied area I would not.You know, I asked you to provide the definition for terrorism in the first place to avoid this weaseling around afterwards. When you wouldn't, I asked whether the standard OED definition, which I quoted, would suffice and you accepted it. And yet here you are still weaseling.
The only reason I mentioned Blitzkreig is that Ullman and Wade, the designers of Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe at the United States' National Defense University, brought it up as a precedent for their proposed "Shock and Awe" strategy.
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.
golem wrote: Sorry to offend as I know it will but ruight now most of Britain is like a Louisiana Traler Park with occupants to match.
Note to those who need a frame of reference. I was an occupant of a Louisiana Traler Park, except in our ignorance we spelled it "trailer". Other occupants were much like me.
Just so you can know whether you should take offense.
Accountable wrote: Note to those who need a frame of reference. I was an occupant of a Louisiana Traler Park, except in our ignorance we spelled it "trailer". Other occupants were much like me.
Just so you can know whether you should take offense.
spot wrote: You know, I asked you to provide the definition for terrorism in the first place to avoid this weaseling around afterwards. When you wouldn't, I asked whether the standard OED definition, which I quoted, would suffice and you accepted it. And yet here you are still weaseling.
Not weaseling at all. Being precise.
spot wrote: The only reason I mentioned Blitzkreig is that Ullman and Wade, the designers of Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe at the United States' National Defense University, brought it up as a precedent for their proposed "Shock and Awe" strategy.
Blitzkrieg both literally as well as figuratively translates to ‘lightning war’ The term was coined to describe an intense attack aimed at knocking out the opposition.
Nothing at all wrong in that.
It worked well for the Germans during their invasion and occupation of number of countries and probably minimized civilian casualties as a result.
Bez wrote: Could you tell us what parts of the UK you have visited Golem. It will give us a better insight into your assessment of our country.
Mostly Manchester these days flying in through London but also Birmingham and Chester on ocasions to meet with our suppliers.
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.
Belfast on the other hand was one of the better cities but the transport costs are a problem.
I have friends in Bath and drop by once or twice a year, nice place, shame about the drug scene. Similarly Nottingham, again nice in parts but the local thugs and drugs are awful.
In a typical year I will spend around eight to ten weeks in the UK so I’m not unacquainted with the place. For what it’s worth fifteen years ago I would never have expected the place to become what it has.
Maybe living there all the time means that you don’t see the step changes that you see when you make a series of visits just as you don’t notice a relative get older when you live with them but do when you see them every few months.
golem wrote: Not weaseling at all. Being precise. Rubbish, you were changing the OED definition of terrorism that we'd agreed to use, while refusing to provide a revised definition of your own in which I could re-state my position. It's called weaseling.
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.
golem wrote: Blitzkrieg both literally as well as figuratively translates to ‘lightning war’ The term was coined to describe an intense attack aimed at knocking out the opposition.
Nothing at all wrong in that.
It worked well for the Germans during their invasion and occupation of number of countries and probably minimized civilian casualties as a result.On the assumption that there might be one or two schoolchildren reading this thread who haven't reached this story in their history books yet, I'd like you all to turn to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica and then consider the extreme views adopted by some posters when they get to too defensive about their position. I'm quite sure there are very few Israelis who would support this approach to minimizing civilian casualties, and that golem is atypical in this as in many other opinions that he advocates on ForumGarden.
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.
spot wrote: Rubbish, you were changing the OED definition of terrorism that we'd agreed to use, while refusing to provide a revised definition of your own in which I could re-state my position. It's called weaseling.
Even if the OED definition IS used if the intent of a bombing campaign is to strike at military targets then the bombing is not a terrorist act.
If the bombing is a deliberate strike at civilians then that’s another matter.
golem wrote: Even if the OED definition IS used if the intent of a bombing campaign is to strike at military targets then the bombing is not a terrorist act.Perhaps you forgot the words used by the OED, says he charitably...
A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
Where exactly is that qualification in the OED? The whole point of the OED is that it makes no such distinction. That's because it's a dictionary and not a partisan in favour of killing large numbers of unprotected people with heavy-duty ordnance.
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.
spot wrote: Perhaps you forgot the words used by the OED, says he charitably...
A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
Where exactly is that qualification in the OED? The whole point of the OED is that it makes no such distinction. That's because it's a dictionary and not a partisan in favour of killing large numbers of unprotected people with heavy-duty ordnance.
Where did I agree to use the OED definition?
My response of “Go ahead!†was in reply to your asking permission to YOUR request to use it for YOU to demonstrate the self-contradictions of current usage, not that I agreed with the definition.
Perhapse you're out of your depth.
Anyway, dinner is on the table, O'll have to go or face the wrath of my wife.
golem wrote: Where did I agree to use the OED definition?... Perhapse you're out of your depth.Oh yes. Very telling. Good answer, golem. I suppose you'd not like to provide a definition of terrorism that you feel suits your case better, just as a favour to the rest of us?
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.
spot wrote: Oh yes. Very telling. Good answer, golem. I suppose you'd not like to provide a definition of terrorism that you feel suits your case better, just as a favour to the rest of us?
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.
ii) A military force may as an indirect result of their acts create a state of terror in a civilian population but whilst the actions of such a military force are not deliberately aimed at so doing then the military forces are by definition not terrorists.
Note --- An irregular force is not subject to military discipline not identifiable by a form of uniform so setting them aside from being members of a civilian population. For these reasons alone a person taken during an attack by irregular forces is not protected by either The Geneva Convention nor by the Hague conventions of war both of which constrain the acts of a person under military discipline.
Like I said, Spot, you’re out of your depth.
golem wrote: Like I said, Spot, you’re out of your depth.That's screamingly funny - you have to go into that much miniscule detail-biting trouble to worm the US and the IDF out from under a charge of waging terrorism while leaving all your bêtes noires out in the cold? That's not a definition of terrorism, that's an essay.
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.
golem wrote: 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.Thank you for your "definition of terrorism". This following brief passage encapsulates perfectly the sense of outrage still felt by Harold Pinter in his Nobel Lecture last year, shortly before his death. It relates to deliberate terrorism by the USA "to motivate a civilian population to depose their existing government".
The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.
I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.
The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'
Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.
Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.
Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people†were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'
Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.
Terrorism is the practice of deliberately instilling a state of terror into a civilian population by the intentional attacking a civilian population? You're not joking. How much more scandalously and cynically deliberate can a country get?
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.
golem wrote: ii) A military force may as an indirect result of their acts create a state of terror in a civilian population but whilst the actions of such a military force are not deliberately aimed at so doing then the military forces are by definition not terrorists.Thank you for your "definition of terrorism". Sometimes the mask slips and the deliberation shows through. 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. There's a double-speak involved, and the military planners are obviously "deliberately aimed at so doing" even though they may subsequently claim otherwise. The reduction of Baghdad's defenses was "a devastating premeditated attack on a civilian urban population." Shock and Awe's expressed goal was simple: in the words of Harlan Ullman, to destroy the Iraqi people "physically, emotionally and psychologically."
The concept of Shock and Awe enables its designers to reconcile two contradictory ideas. On the one hand, military planners use the term to design massive uses of deadly force on civilian centres of population - that notion of "Blitzkrieg" which you supported earlier. On the other hand, "its focus on the psychological effects of that force makes it possible to use the term while distancing audiences from direct contemplation of the human suffering which that force entails."
If it's a state of terror in a civilian population created as an indirect result of their acts, it still needs to be deliberately avoided to the fullest extent. You watched Gulf 2, so did the rest of us. The deliberate vamping up of psychological terror on the civilian population was palpable. Are you going to pretend that none died during the attacks? The strategy requires deaths to back up the threat of death. The deaths are an intrinsic requirement of the whole approach. If a civilian population finds itself surrounded by loud bangs and they all survive, this terrorism loses its terror. Of course the deaths are a built-in and required part of the Shock and Awe strategy.
So, what were your words in your "definition of terrorism"? "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 ... capitulate"? How can anyone come to any other conclusion than that terrorism was employed in Gulf 2, using your own definition?
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.
Or put another way --- OOOPS! :-3
I'm going to insert MY take on the British here.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on most points in this regard. It has been my experience with them and amongst them that I'm going to draw upon.
There are none more compassionate and giving than the English. They give more of their time and money to charities than any I have seen.
Yes they have plenty of young unmarried mothers, but so do the states.
But whereas in the states they are hardley ever seen with their babies, here they take them everywhere!
These are not trailer trash people. You are sorely maligning them. They love their football, pubs and generally anything that makes them laugh. They are a hardy people. They are cheerful and jolly, and their wit is razor sharp. They dont carry guns for they have no need of them. And the ones lucky enough to be cambridge, oxford or eton educated are the most brilliant minds in the world. They have such wonderful state benefits because they believe in taking care of their own. They dont let their nans and grandads rot in nursing homes. Life isnt easy over here. They deal with a myriad of problems, but the most wonderful thing that I have found is their attitude in dealing with them. They 'just get on with it.'
They have the most rigorous economy in Europe. The pound is doing just fine thanks. And it's British.
The english have something that alot of people cant grasp. The fortitude to carry on despite their surroundings. Remember they stood alone in ww2. They endured. Without help.
These ARE hard working people. You obviously havent visited the mines, and other industry they work in. Me, I work in the NHS. I live here, I work alongside of them, and I laugh with them and cry with them. I love these people. They have done nothing but welcome me amongst them, even though they dont themselves understand why I like it here so much. It's because of them that I do. I will take care of their hurts and illness till I die. My roots are here. My family line came from here. And this is one american thats dang proud to live amongst a great people.
