- Joined
- 6 Sep 2004
- Messages
- 1,069
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
Thermo said:
I share Thermo's "blindness"
The war on terrorism
- Thread starter pipme
- Start date
I share Thermo's "blindness"
Sponsored Links
Churchill? now theres a name to conjure with. He's the guy who condemned loads of Brits living in Coventry to having their city burnt down around their ears. Because, in the higher interest of beating the evil enemy, he could not let on that he knew what the germans were planning. But to even things up he did also allow the burning of dresden for no particular strategic reason. Full of refugees, at the time.
The difference between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that when legitimate governments go out and kill people they are much better at it. Blair has killed a lot more people than the IRA. But all in a good cause. Which deaths are unfortunate accidents and which are atrocities?
The difference between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that when legitimate governments go out and kill people they are much better at it. Blair has killed a lot more people than the IRA. But all in a good cause. Which deaths are unfortunate accidents and which are atrocities?
It's tough at the top ! and that is not a joke.
In Churchill's case, what was the alternative ? Some guy waving a piece of paper ? Nothing is perfect in this world, rightly or wrongly the strong survive and weak fall by the wayside, if there is any decency in the strong they care for their weak when able ...
I agree, the enormity of some war time decisions would have required an utterly ruthless approach, he had no hindsight just perhaps a terrific weight of history and unbelievable will to win - at all costs .. Not many of us would be up to that. (he had of course, endured active service himself)
There is a fear that when we 'fiddle' with the natural balance we create more problems than we solve, I suppose because we are not very good at it.
Some friends recently returned from hols in South Africa .. they have visited many times ... If it is any better for the poor, then they did not see it .. they did speak to people who told them that they no longer had any work because the african run farms they relied upon have just collapsed and failed .. They witnessed people waiting on street corners to be picked up by 'gang' bosses for a day or so's work - food and very low pay - ..... We need look no further than Zimbabwe .... ruined ?
I remember older guys ruminating over Africa in the past, the consensus was that the people there did not want 'fashionable interference', but enormous help after any big changes ... So look at what they got, not a lot.
P
In Churchill's case, what was the alternative ? Some guy waving a piece of paper ? Nothing is perfect in this world, rightly or wrongly the strong survive and weak fall by the wayside, if there is any decency in the strong they care for their weak when able ...
I agree, the enormity of some war time decisions would have required an utterly ruthless approach, he had no hindsight just perhaps a terrific weight of history and unbelievable will to win - at all costs .. Not many of us would be up to that. (he had of course, endured active service himself)
There is a fear that when we 'fiddle' with the natural balance we create more problems than we solve, I suppose because we are not very good at it.
Some friends recently returned from hols in South Africa .. they have visited many times ... If it is any better for the poor, then they did not see it .. they did speak to people who told them that they no longer had any work because the african run farms they relied upon have just collapsed and failed .. They witnessed people waiting on street corners to be picked up by 'gang' bosses for a day or so's work - food and very low pay - ..... We need look no further than Zimbabwe .... ruined ?
I remember older guys ruminating over Africa in the past, the consensus was that the people there did not want 'fashionable interference', but enormous help after any big changes ... So look at what they got, not a lot.
P
Sponsored Links
D
david and julie
You may disagree with Churchills actions but they have given you the freedom to voice your opinion. I thought he was a defender of this country rather than an aggressor.
I did not disagree with what Churchill did. He chose right. But he only just won. If Hitler had not become such a rabid nutter by the end, he might have won instead.
What Blair has been up to is completely different. Iraq is now a very weak, unstable state. It is divided internally between parties who are keen to fight for their rights. The Americans (principally) keep shooting people and making the locals more and more angry. Is this really better than the state as it was? I think not. It may get better, it may not.
Mr Blair is still asking us to trust him that it will all turn out ok. I might trust him a bit more if I thought there was anything within his power to influence the outcome. He has simply dragged us into a confllict where we have no control, precious few forseeable benefits, and terrorists who are now mad as hell at us.
What Blair has been up to is completely different. Iraq is now a very weak, unstable state. It is divided internally between parties who are keen to fight for their rights. The Americans (principally) keep shooting people and making the locals more and more angry. Is this really better than the state as it was? I think not. It may get better, it may not.
Mr Blair is still asking us to trust him that it will all turn out ok. I might trust him a bit more if I thought there was anything within his power to influence the outcome. He has simply dragged us into a confllict where we have no control, precious few forseeable benefits, and terrorists who are now mad as hell at us.
Damocles said:
'Only just' is all it needed ... If you blessed Vikings or Normo-Viks hadn't interfered in the first place we may not have succumbed to the 'Scottish Raj' now running the country, ( Jerry Paxman the newsnight 'anchor'(
), who last week clashed with a Glaswegian minister on the programme, has compared the dominance of Scots at Westminster to India's British imperialist rulers.) .. your ancestors are to blame for our current problems, 'sword of..D''If' the old Vikings hadn't come raping and pillaging ... we may not be in the state we find ourselves today ...Damocles said:
D
david and julie
Damocles, You are chasing about from pillar to post and drifting into other areas. These new laws have nothing to do with WW2, Russia or Iraq. It is about terrorists and not just Muslim ones either.
As regards the possible persecution and locking up of our own, ordinary innocent people, we have the European court of human rights to deal with that.
In an ideal world, you are right we shouldn't interfere in other countries, but our forefathers did and we can't change that now. Your not being held responsible for what your grandparents did and likewise we as a country shouldn't be either.
We all know that Blair was wrong and is trying to cover his back, but what else do you suggest the Goverment does if there is a genuine threat. We all know they tell lies but what if their telling the truth this time?
As regards the possible persecution and locking up of our own, ordinary innocent people, we have the European court of human rights to deal with that.
In an ideal world, you are right we shouldn't interfere in other countries, but our forefathers did and we can't change that now. Your not being held responsible for what your grandparents did and likewise we as a country shouldn't be either.
We all know that Blair was wrong and is trying to cover his back, but what else do you suggest the Goverment does if there is a genuine threat. We all know they tell lies but what if their telling the truth this time?
by the way hitler would not have won in the end, when it comes down to it war is a simple (but complex) game of economics, dependent on resources, raw materials, science and manpower. Germany fortunatley had very few of these and with the enormity of powers such as russia and america it was only a matter of time.
Thermo said:
Enormity=wickedness, it has nothing to do with size. (Though in the case of the USA it is most apt).
Don't know where you get the idea that Germany was so impoverished and lacking. It had some of the most advanced technology available at the time. If it wasn't for them, the efforts of the USA and Russia to get into space would have much further behind, not to mention nuclear weapons.
Germany short of manpower? Did I see something that said whereas british women were drafted into factories to make up for the missing men, German ladies stayed at home. Instead Hitler relied upon slave labour. A mistake. That embarassing business of insisting on invading russia, and then not having any winter equipment when it took him too long? Killing or exiling to America all his atomic scientists? It was by no means guaranteed America would join that war at all.
The war has quite a lot to do with WW2. The current government is behaving exactly as if Hitler and 1,000,000 men are just landing on our beaches. In reality hardly anything has happened here. That is the point. That it is a huge unwarranted over reaction. We are nowhere near in that kind of emergency.
European court might strike the law down, or might not. Why should we rely on them to do the right thing for us?
You are saying that because our forefathers went round killing innocent people we should too?
Um, you say:
'we all know Blair was wrong and is trying to cover his back, but what else should the government do if their is a genuine threat...'
Don't you notice a certain illogic in that sentence? If we all know Blair got it wrong, why on earth should we believe he has got it right now? Seems unlikely. But it is quite amazing to watch him saying exactly the same things despite the number of times he has been proved to be wrong. Should have been a lawyer. Oops, he was.
The war has quite a lot to do with WW2. The current government is behaving exactly as if Hitler and 1,000,000 men are just landing on our beaches. In reality hardly anything has happened here. That is the point. That it is a huge unwarranted over reaction. We are nowhere near in that kind of emergency.
European court might strike the law down, or might not. Why should we rely on them to do the right thing for us?
You are saying that because our forefathers went round killing innocent people we should too?
Um, you say:
'we all know Blair was wrong and is trying to cover his back, but what else should the government do if their is a genuine threat...'
Don't you notice a certain illogic in that sentence? If we all know Blair got it wrong, why on earth should we believe he has got it right now? Seems unlikely. But it is quite amazing to watch him saying exactly the same things despite the number of times he has been proved to be wrong. Should have been a lawyer. Oops, he was.
Ah but, Lawyers see no black and white truth only shades of grey .. That is perhaps why Tone appears perlexed at best, baffled at worst, as to why people do not really believe him. ... We do not forget as easily as he appears to think .. WMD are not gone like the sound bite, but remain like a sore thumb .... Will it matter ? WIM and really WGAF ?
D
david and julie
Damocles I said.
I am clearly talking about the individual and not government legislation.
So you are saying governments have to wait until something serious happens before they act? and also that we are not at that stage yet, even though many military and high ranking police officers say we are.
Tell me Damocles what do you know that they don't and why do you consider the bombing of say Manchester or Warrington as hardly anything
Do you consider this legislation to be aimed at Muslims rather than all terrorists, is that what bothers you?
your reply doesn't make sense.
I am clearly talking about the individual and not government legislation.
So you are saying governments have to wait until something serious happens before they act? and also that we are not at that stage yet, even though many military and high ranking police officers say we are.
Tell me Damocles what do you know that they don't and why do you consider the bombing of say Manchester or Warrington as hardly anything
Do you consider this legislation to be aimed at Muslims rather than all terrorists, is that what bothers you?
Europen court has no power in britain. All it can do is tell the british government to do something. The British Government has been notoriously slow to do things when asked. But my point was, why do we not do the same as most countries? Write law compatible with the human rights law in the first place. And more, arrest without trial is unconstitutional in America. Which means an extraordinary political consensus would be required to change it. It should be here, too. Human rights may apply to individuals, but they must be explicitly expressed in laws to have any power.
The prime minister told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and sadam intended to use them against Britain. He could not show us the evidence for this, but the security services had shown this evidence to him and it was truly compelling. Only two years down the line we find that there never were any weapons. It all only existed in someones overpaid imagination. Any public figures who stood up and challenged the PMs view were publicly trashed by the government. Now tell me, what has happened that should convince me to believe the PM this time?
Did no one ever tell the PM what happens to the boy who cries 'wolf'? No one ever believes him again. The PM claims that he has never lied to the country. Fine, but then what does that say about the quality of this intelligence?
Just checked, and it says 1996 IRA bomb in the centre of manchester. Strangely, the government did not react to this by locking up people without trial. Well ok, they are generally quite effective at convicting innocent people for terrorist acts even when they are obliged to have a trial. But my point really would be that security forces should be chasing people and finding evidence. Continuing to follow people untill they find enough evidence to convict and dismantle the terrorist organisation.
I have posted elsewhere that we have had two IRA bombs where I live in London. It has not changed my view on whether I wish to live in a police state. But I would draw your attention to the surprisingly large number of people who die in police custody. A quick google produced the statistic that 67 people died in police custody in 98/99. Now, does this mean we should lock up members of the organisation causing these deaths? i.e. all police officers should be summarily arrested without trial? no? ridiculous idea? why ridiculous? Police seem to be as effective as the so called 'terrorists' at causing deaths.
If my child dies, it is a tragedy. If 100,000 starve to death in Africa it is a statistic. If some people are blown up by terrorists it lies somewhere in between. If you really want to save lives ban tobacco, not terrorists.
I understand that terrorists are a very serious problem. But I see the consequences of their actions on our society as much more dangerous than the acts themselves. I see a terrible danger of politicians becoming rabidly obsessed with a few deaths but losing sight of what they are supposed to be protecting.
Do you remember a man called Guy Fawks? Famous plotter, blowing up parliament? The authorities knew all about what he was doing, but let him get on with it. Then created the biggest witch hunt against Catholic terrorists you could imagine. Funny how nothing changes.
What makes you think the terrorists are Muslims? Or that even if they are, this has anything to do with them wanting to be terrorists?
The prime minister told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and sadam intended to use them against Britain. He could not show us the evidence for this, but the security services had shown this evidence to him and it was truly compelling. Only two years down the line we find that there never were any weapons. It all only existed in someones overpaid imagination. Any public figures who stood up and challenged the PMs view were publicly trashed by the government. Now tell me, what has happened that should convince me to believe the PM this time?
Did no one ever tell the PM what happens to the boy who cries 'wolf'? No one ever believes him again. The PM claims that he has never lied to the country. Fine, but then what does that say about the quality of this intelligence?
Just checked, and it says 1996 IRA bomb in the centre of manchester. Strangely, the government did not react to this by locking up people without trial. Well ok, they are generally quite effective at convicting innocent people for terrorist acts even when they are obliged to have a trial. But my point really would be that security forces should be chasing people and finding evidence. Continuing to follow people untill they find enough evidence to convict and dismantle the terrorist organisation.
I have posted elsewhere that we have had two IRA bombs where I live in London. It has not changed my view on whether I wish to live in a police state. But I would draw your attention to the surprisingly large number of people who die in police custody. A quick google produced the statistic that 67 people died in police custody in 98/99. Now, does this mean we should lock up members of the organisation causing these deaths? i.e. all police officers should be summarily arrested without trial? no? ridiculous idea? why ridiculous? Police seem to be as effective as the so called 'terrorists' at causing deaths.
If my child dies, it is a tragedy. If 100,000 starve to death in Africa it is a statistic. If some people are blown up by terrorists it lies somewhere in between. If you really want to save lives ban tobacco, not terrorists.
I understand that terrorists are a very serious problem. But I see the consequences of their actions on our society as much more dangerous than the acts themselves. I see a terrible danger of politicians becoming rabidly obsessed with a few deaths but losing sight of what they are supposed to be protecting.
Do you remember a man called Guy Fawks? Famous plotter, blowing up parliament? The authorities knew all about what he was doing, but let him get on with it. Then created the biggest witch hunt against Catholic terrorists you could imagine. Funny how nothing changes.
What makes you think the terrorists are Muslims? Or that even if they are, this has anything to do with them wanting to be terrorists?
Sponsored Links
