# A Toast to Tony Benn



## Shaver

Probably the last truly great English politician - an intelligent, committed, 'proper' Socialist. 

First elected in 1950, in 2001 he famously advised that he was "leaving parliament in order to spend more time on politics". 

It is doubtful that we shall ever see his like again. RIP


----------



## justonemore

I can't say that I'm overly familiar with the gent but the term "proper socialist" has put him in my favour as have these:

https://imageshack.com/i/15nglvj

https://imageshack.com/i/0sw656j

https://imageshack.com/i/ghiljij

https://imageshack.com/i/13dhlfj

https://imageshack.com/i/nq0ggdj

https://imageshack.com/i/0ugtdoj


----------



## Shaver

^ He advocated Tony Blair being tried as a war criminal and was never shy of hands on, front-line, activism. He was also one of the few mainstream political figures to question the characterisation of Iraqi and Afghani insurgents as terrorists and to postulate that they were perhaps freedom fighters. justonemore, my friend, I suspect that he would have earned your vote!


----------



## Chouan

An honest, and very intelligent, man of principle, who, as far as I know, argued without using personal attacks. Derek Hatton said that, when arguing with him, he created a paradoxical situation where, although one knew that one's argument and viewpoint was right, Tony Benn's argument and viewpoint, although opposed to one's own, also appeared to be right! Malcolm Rifkind spoke of him this morning on the radio, saying that he met him on his (Tony Benn's) doorstep whilst canvassing for votes in an election, Tony Benn living in the constituency that Rifkind was standing for. He said that, after a discussion, he put him down as a "doubtful".....
I doubt we'll see his like again.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> ^ He advocated Tony Blair being tried as a war criminal and was never shy of hands on, front-line, activism. He was also one of the few mainstream political figures to question the characterisation of Iraqi and Afghani insurgents as terrorists and to postulate that they were perhaps freedom fighters. justonemore, my friend, I suspect that he would have earned your vote!


The more I research Mr. Benn, the more I get a feeling that he would indeed look at it as "earning" someone's vote versus "deserving it" (sans merit). I haven't voted for a politician (voting on issues is a different story) in about 20 years as votes show support and I support no one in the U.S. Having a Mr. Benn would most likely give cause to reconsider my position.


----------



## Shaver

"There are two things that motivate all of us in the fight from generation to generation - the flame of anger against injustice, and the flame of hope to build a better world. My job is to fan both flames." - Tony Benn

Pipe smoking, twinkly-eyed, possessed of surgical logic and dogged determination.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> The more I research Mr. Benn, the more I get a feeling that he would indeed look at it as "earning" someone's vote versus "deserving it" (sans merit). I haven't voted for a politician (voting on issues is a different story) in about 20 years as votes show support and I support no one in the U.S. Having a Mr. Benn would most likely give cause to reconsider my position.


Somehow I doubt whether Tony Benn's ideas would have won more than marginal support in the USA.

Personally I disagreed with most but not all of his ideas; nevertheless he was one of the few politicians one could respect, as he had great personal integrity.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> Somehow I doubt whether Tony Benn's ideas would have won more than marginal support in the USA.
> 
> Personally I disagreed with most but not all of his ideas; nevertheless he was one of the few politicians one could respect, as he had great personal integrity.


I doubt the guy would have lasted 5 days in U.S. politics. Any viewpoint considered anti-war is usually also seen as anti-American & The U.S. war lobby would be running negative ads every 5 minutes. Add into it the socialist viewpoint that Shaver mentioned and he'd be a goner before he started ($100 million to help fellow Americans is just too much becouse our freedom is obviously based on killing others overseas).

https://imageshack.com/i/n1lh7fj


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Just so long as he wasn't writing and singing songs about how great Stalin was, I'm sure he'd be OK with me.

https://api.viglink.com/api/click?f...hack.us/v2/640x480q90/854/0ggd.jpg" border=0>

After all, the above sentiment is especially true when single party Socialists have taken over.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> I doubt the guy would have lasted 5 days in U.S. politics. Any viewpoint considered anti-war is usually also seen as anti-American & The U.S. war lobby would be running negative ads every 5 minutes. Add into it the socialist viewpoint that Shaver mentioned and he'd be a goner before he started ($100 million to help fellow Americans is just too much becouse our freedom is obviously based on killing others overseas).


I just consider the simplistic hunger and peace pablum nieve.

Unfortunately it can also become harmful.


----------



## justonemore

WouldaShoulda said:


> I just consider the simplistic hunger and peace pablum nieve.
> 
> Unfortunately it can also become harmful.


I too prefer to go into each day thinking that the destruction of thousands is beneficial. How ignorant to think that society should try to better the world. As per your own example, I cannot think of peace when you are obviously thinking of war. There's a mental illness hidden somewhere in there but I'm not quite sure if it goes to the peace activists or the warmongers.

Harmful? Indeed. The thought of peace is much more harmful than dropping scatter bombs on civilians.

Still my favorite out of the U.S......

https://imageshack.com/i/mjs1i3j


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.
Frankly I prefer the words on one of my old unit patches, "For Country, not for self!"

Regarding the Honorable Tony Bern, while I may not agree with his politics, I certainly admire his sincerity and the dignity with which he comported himself! May he RIP.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> Frankly I prefer the words on one of my old unit patches, "For Country, not for self!"


Everyone loves peace.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> There's a mental illness hidden somewhere in there but I'm not quite sure if it goes to the peace activists or the warmongers.


I don't know any warmongers but I image thay may be ill.

I know many pragmatists however, and they appear perfectly normal.


----------



## justonemore

"When you plot revenge dig 2 graves"

I guess the meaning of such is a bit beyond most conservative Americans.

At least you're enabling the American war machine & allowing for the next generation of Americans to get killed in the name of your ideals. Happily my children are not Americans.

In my thoughts anyone that advocates spending trillions on war over education is a warmonger not a pragmatist. Same with those that hate to spend a bit of money on other American's health but enjoy spending billions to maime little Brown girls in haijibs overseas. The American economic sytem is tanked & 20% of people are living Under the poverty line... Food for American kids? Screw that, we need millions per bomb to go kill people overseas.

If you really believe in what you're doing, stop sending drones & bombers. Look at the "enemy" down the barrel of an m16, pull the trigger, and take them out. Only gutless cowards use bombs that kill without discretion on defenseless areas in the general population.

I took out the photo that showed just a few of the half a million cilivilan casulaties caused by the U.S. in the past few years. It was a group of 7 dead kids. Is there any wonder the U.S. is so hated in the middle-east and elsewhere? But.... At least they're not your white anglo saxon christian kids huh? Can you show me photos of American children as casualities on the home turf within the past 150 years? I didn't think so.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Eastern Europeans did not deserve the workers' paradise that Russia so kindly bestowed upon them. Yet there are times I am tempted to wish the US had allowed Stalin to extend his courtesy to central and western Europeans too.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> The Eastern Europeans did not deserve the regimes that Stalin gave them, but there are times I wish we had let the leader of the worker's paradise just roll right through central and western Europe.


Wasn't it the American's that handed over eastern europe to the commies?

Your post also assumes that only the Americans could stop "the leader of the worker's paradise". Somewhat arrogant, n'est-ce pas?

I guess Hero status from 80 years ago means that the world should accept whatever comes our way in regards to our american friends?

I'll admit that I am a bit biased. I wasn't around 80 years ago so the terror that Israel visits upon the world today is a bit more relevant to me than the nazis of the 1940s. While I'm sure that missles in cuba were disconcerning back in the day (thanks to American missles in Turkey), American plans to put missles in eastern Europe ( against the wishes of the local populace but hey as long as their government agrees right?) are much more relevant to me now. Why not stop pissing off the Russians to start with?


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Wasn't it the American's that handed over eastern europe to the commies?
> 
> Your post also assumes that only the Americans could stop "the leader of the worker's paradise". Somewhat arrogant, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> I guess Hero status from 80 years ago means that the world should accept whatever comes our way in regards to our american friends?


Americans did not hand Eastern Europe to the USSR; the USSR took it. Yes, FDR had no appetite to fight to take it away, but aside from Patton neither did anyone else. I'm pretty sure Switzerland never broached the subject, no doubt distracted by keeping proper bank records for Nazi diaspora. 
Yes, it was and still is only the Americans. That is just a fact. No knowledgeable person would suggest otherwise, which does indeed imply something.
No one has remotely suggested that US foreign policy is infallible and not open to criticism. But to suggest that our efforts in Asia and the middle east are grounded in racism is an ignorant calumny typical of cowards who post anonymously.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Americans did not hand Eastern Europe to the USSR; the USSR took it. Yes, FDR had no appetite to fight to take it away, but aside from Patton neither did anyone else. I'm pretty sure Switzerland never broached the subject, no doubt distracted by keeping proper bank records for Nazi diaspora.
> Yes, it was and still is only the Americans. That is just a fact. No knowledgeable person would suggest otherwise, which does indeed imply something.
> No one has remotely suggested that US foreign policy is infallible and not open to criticism. But to suggest that our efforts in Asia and the middle east are grounded in racism is an ignorant calumny typical of cowards who post anonymously.


I've posted photos of myself on this site several times & am more than willing to make any of my written statements in person. I am not afraid to admit to anyone that I prefer my money go to socialist causes to benefit my society versus bombs to destroy someone elses.

No one claimed racism versus superiority of attitude. A country that performs poorly in everything but war should not be considered as world leaders(let alone a place worthy of emulation). Happily your wars are based on oil, money & greed versus skin color. Who else but an unstable middle east will buy your weapons?

Oh. and thanks to American meddling there is no such thing as bank privacy anymore. This was the U.S. reaction to its own banks causing the latest global recession. Just another example of the U.S. sticking its nose into the Policy of other countries.


----------



## Mike Petrik

No one claimed racism?

"At least they're not your white anglo saxon christian kids huh?"

I have no problem with your socialist views -- I just disagree with them. But the above is unfair and beyond the pale.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> No one claimed racism?
> 
> "At least they're not your white anglo saxon christian kids huh?"
> 
> I have no problem with your socialist views -- I just disagree with them. But the above is unfair and beyond the pale.


Ok. Your bombs and policies aren't racist. It just happens that the vast majority of casualties don't share your color or your religious views. Perhaps we can put it a bit nicer and call it "Nationalistic"? Actually, let's call it what it is. A half a million dead is a half a million dead be they jew, christian, muslim, white, brown or red.

Oh. The Swiss vote on their laws....be they socialist or not, it is up to the citizens to decide versus the governement to command . When was the last time you voted on a national issue? Never? Must be the land of the free....


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> Who elsw but an unstable middle east will buy your weapons?


Oh, Dear...










The AN/ALR-67v3 is the standard Radar Warning Receiver system for Super Hornet family fighters, and also equips some F/A-18 Hornets: Canada and Switzerland both operate it on earlier-generation F/A-18 Hornets, and Australia operates both Hornets and Super Hornets. It's actually more like mission central for defensive systems. It doesn't just alert the pilot(s) that enemy radars are targeting the fighter; it provide accurate identification, lethality, and azimuth displays of both hostile and friendly emitters. In its spare time, it controls the electronic warfare data bus, and interfaces with electronic warfare systems, the onboard radar, the airborne mission computer, and the F/A-18 weapon systems. It's the first deployed radar warning receiver to combine a fully channelized digital receiver architecture with the power of dual processors.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerlands-hornet-upgrade-25-program-04471/


----------



## justonemore

Hmmm. Good try but the article seems to be 2 years too late. The Swiss are buying their fighters from the Swedes nowadays and the systems mentioned in the article seem to be specific to the hornet.

But...you could be correct in the end......Although they're scheduled to pick up around 23 Gripens, there's quite a controversy to the purchase and the issue is going to go to public referendum (try that in the U.S.).... https://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-...4---1/The-Referendum-is-Scheduled-for-18-May/

I do find it a bit funny that Switzerland comes under the scope in any discussions involving me. I don't hold a Swiss passport & would prefer to be stateless (which the U.S. doesn't allow & I'm therefore still considered as their property).


----------



## eagle2250

WouldaShoulda said:


> Everyone loves peace.


"Every one loves peace."
.....and no one, more than the warrior! Having spent close to a dozen years assigned to units with the late, great General Curtis LeMay's love child, the Strategic Air Command and having spent more than a few nights cuddled up with the B52 A/C silhouetted on the patch design in your illustration, I am reminded of the motto reflected on SAC's authorized command patch, "Peace Is Our Profession!"


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Eastern Europeans did not deserve the workers' paradise that Russia so kindly bestowed upon them. Yet there are times I am tempted to wish the US had allowed Stalin to extend his courtesy to central and western Europeans too.


I would be very pleased if you could clarify this statement, Mike. It is somewhat tempting to believe that you are expressing a very unpleasant sentiment but I hold you in some esteem and so presume that I must be misunderstanding your intent.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I would be very pleased if you could clarify this statement, Mike. It is somewhat tempting to believe that you are expressing a very unpleasant sentiment but I hold you in some esteem and so presume that I must be misunderstanding your intent.


The obnoxious ingratitude displayed in some of the foregoing posts is a bit much for a gentleman to take, especially when that gentleman has had friends and family who have been casualties of the the so-called cold war. The US paid a price in more than money to hold the line at Soviet aggression, and that line was not limited to protecting white anglo-saxons. Some folks here seem to think that the Soviet Union was not all that malignant, or that the aggression to which I refer was somehow a figment of anti-communist hysteria, but this is a noxious admixture of arrogance and naivety. Regarding Iraq, I was never an enthusiast of the invasion (or a critic, since I was genuinely uncertain), but the notion that this and other decisions were made indifferent to casualties, especially casualties who were not white, is offensive crap.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I doubt the guy would have lasted 5 days in U.S. politics. Any viewpoint considered anti-war is usually also seen as anti-American & The U.S. war lobby would be running negative ads every 5 minutes. Add into it the socialist viewpoint that Shaver mentioned and he'd be a goner before he started (*$100 million* to help fellow Americans is just too much becouse our freedom is obviously based on killing others overseas)


 The US ,combining Federal, State and local governments, spent over 1,000 times the amount in your quote above in 2012.


> https://imageshack.com/i/n1lh7fj


Odd isnt it that spending far more than that has not solved the problem of hunger?

If calling for Blair's prosecution as a War Criminal wasnt a personal attack, and a childish stunt, Larry Curly and Moe were Shakespearean masters.

Mike Petrik; PERF!


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> The US ,combining Federal, State and local governments, spent over 1,000 times the amount in your quote above in 2012.Odd isnt it that spending far more than that has not solved the problem of hunger?
> 
> If calling for Blair's prosecution as a War Criminal wasnt a personal attack, and a childish stunt, Larry Curly and Moe were Shakespearean masters.
> 
> Mike Petrik; PERF!


Blair and Bush have been shown to be involved in International War Crimes. They have even admitted as much. Perhaps you think that Americans and their Allies can ignore International Law but others most assuredly do not. Torture, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition are international war crimes(whether you like to admit it or not), and others calls for such crimes to prosecuted is valid (whether you like it or not). While I realize that the U.S. and their allies are immune from prosecution by the power of U.N. veto (Same game Russia and China plays) it makes it no less a crime.

I had used 100 million as only an example. Any amount of money to be spent on social causes in the U.S. is hotly contested. Are you denying this? Funds for the military on the other hand are hardly questioned.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> The obnoxious ingratitude displayed in some of the foregoing posts is a bit much for a gentleman to take, especially when that gentleman has had friends and family who have been casualties of the the so-called cold war. The US paid a price in more than money to hold the line at Soviet aggression, and that line was not limited to protecting white anglo-saxons. Some folks here seem to think that the Soviet Union was not all that malignant, or that the aggression to which I refer was somehow a figment of anti-communist hysteria, but this is a noxious admixture of arrogance and naivety. Regarding Iraq, I was never an enthusiast of the invasion (or a critic, since I was genuinely uncertain), but the notion that this and other decisions were made indifferent to casualties, especially casualties who were not white, is offensive crap.


I seem to recall a recent U.S. campaign that was based on misinformation and produced many casualties. Something about WMDs. A whole bunch of Propaganda went into stirring up things that continue to this day. . Much of the cold war was propaganda from both sides as well. We can decide to ignore this but it has been well documented that Russia had nowhere near the capabilities that the propaganda machine lead people to believe. Funny that in all this, many people in the U.S. take no responsibility for antagonizing Russia. The U.S. aggressively pushes its agenda on a global scale and continually wants to put missles all over eastern europe and then they think Russia will want to shake hands. No one is claiming Russia is/was innocent (they were and are a bunch of bastards in their own right), but why claim the U.S. is so guiltless in this whole escapade?

Many posts here seem to take a McCarthyist tone which is rather offensive when one thinks about all the damage that caused. After all, was McCarthy not working off of propaganda?

Comparing Putin to Stalin is like saying Obama believes in slavery because former U.S. leaders had slaves. It's not a realistic comparison, it's not fair, it's not constructive, it's not fanning the flames of freedom or making peace. The current situation in Russia is no where near the same.

The U.S. has a decided indifference to civilian casualties. The numbers speak for themselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they target civilians, but they sure don't seem to go too much out of the way to avoid them either. The sheer numbers of collateral damage is appalling and offensive. If they were all that concerned about civilians, the drone program would be stopped and their intel capabilities reassessed

The decades of interference by outside powers has given us the terrorists of today. I suppose we should all be grateful for past U.S. middle-east policies that provided training, weapons, & funding to the various "opposition groups"? For the placement of leaders in the middle-east? For the dethroning of leaders in the middle east? More weapons? Thanks to such astute clarity on the part of the u.s. and the many casualties that have come from it, we now have organized terroism as our current enemy. Sorry if I don't believe that U.S. policy is quite as innocent and effective as they like to make out to be and my apologies if I'm not quite ready to believe American propaganda making Russia out to be the boogie man (once again) (especially over an area that wishes to democratically free themselves from an illegal government in Kiev).

Oh by the way, I'm an American so I'm not sure why you'd wish anything that you'd see as negative on your European allies.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Blair and Bush have been shown to be involved in International War Crimes. They have even admitted as much.


 Bovine excrement


> Perhaps you think that Americans and their Allies can ignore International Law but others most assuredly do not. Torture, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition are international war crimes(whether you like to admit it or not), and others calls for such crimes to prosecuted is valid (whether you like it or not). While I realize that the U.S. and their allies are immune from prosecution by the power of U.N. veto (Same game Russia and China plays) it makes it no less a crime.


 see above


> I had used 100 million as only an example. Any amount of money to be spent on social causes in the U.S. is hotly contested. Are you denying this?


 LOL I trumped your imaginary figure with reality by a factor of 1,000.


> Funds for the military on the other hand are hardly questioned.


 Wow I just realized Switzerland in on another planet, that or you've been at the shrooms again. National defense is a 'social cause' mandated constitutionally, but thats no excuse for your disregard of reality.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Bovine excrement see above LOL I trumped your imaginary figure with reality by a factor of 1,000. Wow I just realized Switzerland in on another planet, that or you've been at the shrooms again. National defense is a 'social cause' mandated constitutionally, but thats no excuse for your disregard of reality.


The Spanish don't appear to entirely agree with the bovine thought.

"Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials"

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?th&emc=th&_r=0

As everyone else in the world has discovered, you can have a military for a fraction of current U.S. costs. For some reason I don't remember seeing anything in the constitution about spending $700 billion a year. My point however was more to the fact that military expenditures don't get anywhere near the attention of the costs related to obamacare, social security, welfare, food programs, etc. You see much more discussion on cutting social programs than you see on cutting military spending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> The obnoxious ingratitude displayed in some of the foregoing posts is a bit much for a gentleman to take, especially when that gentleman has had friends and family who have been casualties of the the so-called cold war. The US paid a price in more than money to hold the line at Soviet aggression, and that line was not limited to protecting white anglo-saxons. Some folks here seem to think that the Soviet Union was not all that malignant, or that the aggression to which I refer was somehow a figment of anti-communist hysteria, but this is a noxious admixture of arrogance and naivety. Regarding Iraq, I was never an enthusiast of the invasion (or a critic, since I was genuinely uncertain), but the notion that this and other decisions were made indifferent to casualties, especially casualties who were not white, is offensive crap.


Well, as I said previously Mike, I have a deal of respect for your opinions and moreover the fashion in which you choose to express them. However: 

Soviet aggression? Hmmmmm.......I see no polarity, rather sympathy, of motivation and activity between the cold-war super powers. One was much the same as the other. 

The attitudes, repeatedly revealed, of U.S. combatants in Middle Eastern incursions have been questionable, there are sufficient videos and mobile phone photos to illustrate this. Rock the Casbah, eh? Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster (responsible for training Iraqi security forces) was quoted in the Military Review* in 2005 accusing U.S troops i.e. "cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism" This is unfortunate, and I am convinced does not reflect the attitudes of the articulate, learned, American citizen, but does cast some doubt on the validity of your claim.

*full text here:


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Bovine excrement see above LOL I trumped your imaginary figure with reality by a factor of 1,000. Wow I just realized Switzerland in on another planet, that or you've been at the shrooms again. National defense is a 'social cause' mandated constitutionally, but thats no excuse for your disregard of reality.


What a dazzling rejoinder.

Today, Tomorrow and Forever?


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> The Spanish don't appear to entirely agree with the bovine thought.


 Well,,, the spaniards do know a thing or two about torture.


> "Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials"
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?th&emc=th&_r=0
> 
> As everyone else in the world has discovered, you can have a military for a fraction of current U.S. costs.


 Yawn,,, and who picks up most of the tab?


> For some reason I don't remember seeing anything in the constitution about spending $700 billion a year. My point however was more to the fact that military expenditures don't get anywhere near the attention of the costs related to obamacare, social security, welfare, food programs, etc. You see much more discussion on cutting social programs than you see on cutting military spending.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


What part of ' constitutionally mandated' is beyond your grasp? Hint nothing in your list *obamacare, social security, welfare, food programs* is so mandated and therefore not within the realm of the Federal Government .


----------



## Hitch

*Soviet aggression? Hmmmmm.......I see no polarity, rather sympathy, of motivation and activity between the cold-war super powers. One was much the same as the other.

*LMAO Shrillness is inevitable when the faithful's moral equivalency once again fails to find a footing.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I can't say that I'm overly familiar with the gent but the term "proper socialist" has put him in my favour as have these:
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/15nglvj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/0sw656j
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/ghiljij
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/13dhlfj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/nq0ggdj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/0ugtdoj


So this is the best you could dig up from this guy eh?


----------



## ErnstStavroBlofeld

Despite all the political arguments in this thread, Tony Benn might have had radically different political views then mine but I respect him for standing up for what he believed in.

RIP Mr. Benn


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> *Soviet aggression? Hmmmmm.......I see no polarity, rather sympathy, of motivation and activity between the cold-war super powers. One was much the same as the other.
> 
> *LMAO Shrillness is inevitable when the faithful's moral equivalency once again fails to find a footing.


Shrillness? Is that how you choose to interpret the opinion of those whose conclusions differ from your own?

Well, well, well...now _that_ explains a considerable deal. It is a confession of sorts, is it not? I am beginning to have a little more sympathy for you Hitch. Not for your nonsensical position, you understand, but sympathy for you personally.

Now, off you pop like a good chap and see if you can conjure up a better comeback. If you would like a little help with this task then please do not hesitate to PM me and I will happily provide you with a few pointers. No, no, please don't thank me. It's just that I find it rather unsporting to box with an opponent who has one hand tied behind his back.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> So this is the best you could dig up from this guy eh?


I admit that all of those quotes where from a 2 minute Google search. Perhaps you prefer American leaders:

https://imageshack.com/i/5g6g5hj

https://imageshack.com/i/0k4aavj

https://imageshack.com/i/nh0ocmj

https://imageshack.com/i/g4j1mdj

https://imageshack.com/i/jt4owrj

Here's an oldie but a goodie

https://imageshack.com/i/b5kz0xj


----------



## Shaver

^ Not forgetting a personal favourite of mine - whose hobbies included running around naked whilst babbling incoherently and brandishing a .45 pistol. What a guy!


----------



## Langham

Strange how this thread has departed somewhat from the original subject - nothing on the virtues of pipe-smoking and tea-drinking, and how one man single-handedly made Labour unelectable for over 10 years (I sometimes wondered whether he wasn't really working deep undercover - born into the upper class, after all). Ah well.


----------



## Shaver

Panem et circenses, the traditional fare for beguiling the ballot, was hardly Benn's metier.

Thatcher and her foul support, on the other hand, had so much of that and so very little else.

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Panem et circenses, the traditional fare for beguiling the ballot, was hardly Benn's metier.
> 
> ...
> 
> .
> .


Nor was economics, it seems. He was reported as saying something to the effect of: "If we managed to have full employment fighting the Germans, why can't we have it building the welfare state?" Conveniently for him, this overlooked the fact that after the war, Britain was bankrupt.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Nor was economics, it seems. He was reported as saying something to the effect of: "If we managed to have full employment fighting the Germans, why can't we have it building the welfare state?" Conveniently for him, this overlooked the fact that after the war, Britain was bankrupt.


Conveniently overlooking the fact that the Belgrano was sailing away?

Really Langham, old bean, if we are going to discuss the convenience of overlooking the facts then we have a much better target, do we not?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Conveniently overlooking the fact that the Belgrano was sailing away?
> 
> Really Langham, old bean, if we are going to discuss the convenience of overlooking the facts then we have a much better target, do we not?


The point, which I thought should have been obvious, was that Wedgie was rather deluded in various ways.

I'm a bit mystified by your reference to the Belgrano, although I am of course familiar with the controversy. I always thought the point of sinking it was to rub the Argies' noses in it a bit since they were getting so uppity (and in any case, we were at war).

Another thing, Shaver - let me ask you to kindly desist from the slight tone of condescension ('Old Bean' - I ask you!) that I have noticed, regretably, seems to be creeping into your postings to various members.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> The point, which I thought should have been obvious, was that Wedgie was rather deluded in various ways.
> 
> I'm a bit mystified by your reference to the Belgrano, although I am of course familiar with the controversy. I always thought the point of sinking it was to rub the Argies' noses in it a bit since they were getting so uppity (and in any case, we were at war).
> 
> Another thing, Shaver - let me ask you to kindly desist from the slight tone of condescension ('Old Bean' - I ask you!) that I have noticed, regretably, seems to be creeping into your postings to various members.


You are mystified? Oh, it was a point that I thought should have been obvious......

Another thing, Langham - let me ask you to kindly desist from choosing to confuse good natured camaraderie with condescension.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> You are mystified? Oh, it was a point that I thought should have been obvious......
> 
> Another thing, Langham - let me ask you to kindly desist from choosing to confuse good natured camaraderie with condescension.


No, I don't think I'm confused at all. I enjoy your postings, usually, but one or two of them reek of condescension, which - satisfying as it may be for you - I don't think is the best way of making a point. However, if that's how you want to come across, far be it from me...


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> No, I don't think I'm confused at all. I enjoy your postings, usually, but one or two of them reek of condescension, which - satisfying as it may be for you - I don't think is the best way of making a point. However, if that's how you want to come across, far be it from me...


I did not indicate that you were confused rather that you were choosing to confuse two distinct properties. You are able to appreciate this difference, I presume?

At any rate you really must resist the temptation to try and imagine my motivations, or, if you are very keen to do so, at least improve your capacity for accuracy.

If you are commited to continuing this personal dispute which you have engineered, I am not by the way, but if you are, then can we at least do it via PM so as not to bore the members?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Wasn't it the American's that handed over eastern europe to the commies?
> 
> Your post also assumes that only the Americans could stop "the leader of the worker's paradise". Somewhat arrogant, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> I guess Hero status from 80 years ago means that the world should accept whatever comes our way in regards to our american friends?
> 
> I'll admit that I am a bit biased. I wasn't around 80 years ago so the terror that Israel visits upon the world today is a bit more relevant to me than the nazis of the 1940s. While I'm sure that missles in cuba were disconcerning back in the day (thanks to American missles in Turkey), American plans to put missles in eastern Europe ( against the wishes of the local populace but hey as long as their government agrees right?) are much more relevant to me now. Why not stop pissing off the Russians to start with?


Oh, good. An anti-semite. I am so itching to ban you.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Oh, good. An anti-semite. I am so itching to ban you.


Anti-Israeli policy does not equal antisemitism. MOD or not, shame on you for saying so and creating problems that don't exist. you ignore the other mentioned countries & their religions be it muslim or Christian. Almost seems as if you're displaying some bias yourself as most of this thread has been less than flattering to the u.s., the u.k., & russia. the middle east has played heavily into it as well. Israel was mentioned once


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver, Benn sounds like a great man. I had never heard of him before reading of his death. I look forward to reading more.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Anti-Israeli policy does not equal antisemitism. MOD or not, shame on you for saying so and creating problems that don't exist. you ignore the other mentioned countries & their religions be it muslim or Christian. Almost seems as if you're displaying some bias yourself.


No, sir. You are an anti-semite. What you have written, besides being pure Goebbels, is outrageous and goes far beyond rational criticism of any particular nation. Wilhelm Marr smiles upon you.

But honestly, can we talk about the Belgrano?


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> No, sir. You are an anti-semite. What you have written, besides being pure Goebbels, is outrageous and goes far beyond rational criticism of any particular nation. Wilhelm Marr smiles upon you.


Once again......I've been much harsher on the U.S. E.U. and Russia. and as such Your bias is showing clearly showing.

It is simple fact that Israeli Policy affects me much more in this day and age than something that happened 80 years ago. I have constant news in todays world explaining the ills of Israel and the way they handle things. Running around with stolen passports killing people, building in zones where it is against international law, carrying out bombing missions without taking responsibility, killing palestinians at a rate of 200-1, raiding & killing members on ships that are there to carry out aid missions, building blockades that prevent necessities from getting through to large amounts of people, refusing to deny or acknowledge nuclear capability, hiding behind U.S. veto power at the U.N. etc. etc. etc. These are all recent issues that I have to read about constantly. Please note that all of that comes out of Israel and not from Judaism. There are many people of the Jewish faith that are against Israeli Policy as well but I suppose you think the anti-israeli jews are anti-semites too? Israel shouldn't be immune from critism just because you don't like it. We discuss many, many countries on this forum.

You are being racist and causing a racist issue where none exists. I would suggest perhaps a mod with less emotions and more logic on the issue take over as you're not capable of discussing the issue without calling names and threatening to ban people.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Benn sounds like a great man. I had never heard of him ...


He was a principled man. Unfortunately, like various other champagne socialists, he was also a highly impractical man and caused great harm to British industry. Nor was his 'man of the people' front entirely convincing (he was a patrician millionaire after all). On occasion he managed to cause great offence to many people, although I believe this may have been quite unintentional. Fortunately he never quite succeeded in becoming leader of the Labour Party.


----------



## Shaver

Where would we be without idealists, eh?


----------



## tocqueville

All this really affects you? You fear israeli hellfires crashing into your Swiss idyll?


----------



## Langham

> Where would we be without idealists, eh?


Indeed.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> He was a principled man. Unfortunately, like various other champagne socialists, he was also a highly impractical man and caused great harm to British industry. Nor was his 'man of the people' front entirely convincing (he was a patrician millionaire after all). On occasion he managed to cause great offence to many people, although I believe this may have been quite unintentional. Fortunately he never quite succeeded in becoming leader of the Labour Party.


Shaver, was there a middle ground between him and Thatcher? Or is that what Blair was trying for?


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> All this really affects you? You fear israeli hellfires crashing into your Swiss idyll?


Do I have to fear the Israelis or the Americans to not appreciate the violence they visit upon the world? I have constantly preached against the U.S. drone program yet I have no fear of the Americans using one on me.

If I have to constantly read about issues in the news, to a point that I am forced to make an ethical decision as to who may be considered right or wrong, then yes, it affects me.

Now keep this especially in mind..... I never said that Israel shouldn't defend itself or its citizens. I am arguing with the way they do it.


----------



## tocqueville

Let me rephrase: between thatcher and a defense of the status quo?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Do I have to fear the Israelis or the Americans to not appreciate the violence they visit upon the world? I have constantly preached against the U.S. drone program yet I have no fear of the Americans using one on me.
> 
> If I have to constantly read about issues in the news, to a point that I am forced to make an ethical decision as to who may be considered right or wrong, then yes, it affects me.


The world, huh? It's that bad?


----------



## Shaver

Dash it all! I have a pressing engagement. You boys play nice whilst I'm gone, ok?


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Let me rephrase: between thatcher and a defense of the status quo?


If you're equating Benn's policies with a defence of the status quo, you're way off beam. He wanted to change everything, even - God forbid - remove the Queen's image from our postage stamps.


----------



## tocqueville

We're good!


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> If you're equating Benn's policies with a defence of the status quo, you're way off beam. He wanted to change everything, even - God forbid - remove the Queen's image from our postage stamps.


What about his economics?


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> What about his economics?


He was a collectivist/socialist, a believer in state-controlled industries in some areas and workers' cooperatives in others. He always believed that capitalism would eventually implode and was quite jubilant in 2007/08 when this appeared, briefly, to have become the likely turn of events.

His well-intentioned policies while in power saw the near-death of the UK motor industry - also the building of Concorde, which was an achievement of sorts but not in financial terms.


----------



## tocqueville

For better or for worse, capitalism is amazingly resilliant. It surprises me that anyone would anticipate its demise.

Honestly, i envy you your leftists. We have few, and none of any prominence. Our "left" is well to the right of yours. It makes for poor debates and few real alternatives.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> The world, huh? It's that bad?


Perhaps "the world" is an exageration but 30 Mossad agents following a palestinian from Damascus to kill him in Dubai while carrying fake U.K. & Australian passports seems to be at least international & overseas of sorts. While I don't have a link, I'm guessing something like this is against International law.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Perhaps "the world" is an exageration but 30 Mossad agents following a palestinian from Damascus to kill him in Dubai while carrying fake U.K. & Australian passports seems to be at least international & overseas of sorts. While I don't have a link, I'm guessing something like this is against International law.


That is shocking. How dare they.

You are right.

Of all the illegal, immoral, or unethical deeds carried out in the world, you are right that israel's are worse than all other's, and worthy of being cited in an unrelated discussion, a propos of nothing, set on a parallel with those of a superpower, and highlighted as more outrageous than the crimes of the nazis. An interesting and revealing comparison, by the way.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> That is shocking. How dare they.
> 
> You are right.
> 
> Of all the illegal, immoral, or unethical deeds carried out in the world, you are right that israel's are worse than all other's, and worthy of being cited in an unrelated discussion, a propos of nothing, set on a parallel with those of a superpower, and highlighted as more outrageous than the crimes of the nazis. An interesting and revealing comparison, by the way.


I made no such statement and you know it. I will mention once again that I have been much more critical of the U.S. E.U. and Russia. Your support of International Crimes (no matter the nation committing them), is quite shocking and I'm not sorry at all to say that I hold the line at such.

As you have continued your unwarranted attack and twisted my words to suit your own point of view, I will once again clarify my position....

While I consider that everything out of nazi germany was quite heinous, it indeed happened 70 years ago and has no direct relation on modern global politics (nor is it commiting international crimes, RIGHT NOW, today).. The crimes of Israel today, affect modern life in a negative way, right now, today. We should of course take lessons from Germany's past but that doesn't mean that Germany is the same today (and indeed it isn't). If we were to take modern Germany and go 10 years back, I'd be willing to bet that they have commited less International crimes compared to Israel within the same time frame.

If you look back through the threads, you might notice that I made the reference in our discussion concerning the cold war and the current situation in Ukraine. My main point had been that the propaganda of the cold war should not influence the modern situation in Ukraine. .
The situation in Ukraine affects me actively today, the cold war not so much. Israel's crimes affect me actively today, Nazi Germany's not so much. No one denied history versus placing the focus on the problems of today. As such, my concern lies more towards current criminal activity versus historical criminal activity. The things that are happening now.

Now before you go on the inevitable "you support terrorists" rant....Let me clarify that I DO NOT support in any way palistinians shooting missiles into Israel. I DO NOT support suicide bombers, hijackers, terrorists, bomb makers, religious fanatics, violence, throwing bottles at cops, throwing bottles at miltary guards, bloody révolutions, forceful takeovers of land, landmines, scatterbombs, drones or any of that sh*t. From anyone, anywhere, anytime. I understand that it's the modern reality, but don't expect me to be happy that that's the way mankind has Evolved ( Although from my understanding 1/3 of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution anyways).

While I can condemn China, Germany, India, Israel, Palistine, Russia, The U.S. The E.U., Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. for their criminal activities individually and in regards to both their past and present, it appears that you can't (nor does it seem that you feel any one else should be allowed to either).

Again, you'd have to read through the threads and try to read everything versus just seeing what you want to see. The only religion I actually took a poke at was Christianity... in post #39 I quoted Sarah Palin wanting to change the first amendment to suit the Christian bible. Although I wasn't claiming that there were direct racist policies, I alluded to the fact that most civilian casulaties at the moment could be attributed to a Christian majority country going into a Muslim majority country. I also stated that modern organized terorrism is directly related to décades of failed mid-east policies by christian majority countries. I made a point that 2 former leaders of Christian majority countries should be tried for International War crimes. I've also claimed that a half a million civilian deaths are a half a million civilian deaths no matter the religious affiliation or skin color. I of course called these countries and people by their proper names (just as I did with Israel). At no point did I say anything against those of the Jewish faith and up until you had the nerve to call me an Anti-semite, I had mentioned Israel only once (as a reference and in context).

Continuing with your question as to how Israeli Policy affects me:

For the past 29 years, as an American, I & my family & my friends & my collègues, have helped foot a $5 billion per year welfare package for Israel (not including billions in loan guarantees & billions more in separate arms packages). If Israel is using my money to commit International crimes, then I darn well feel that I not only have a right, but an obligation, to speak out against such (just as I feel obligated to speak out against the U.S. using taxpayer money to commit warcrimes such as torture).

Oh. The millions Israel spends lobbying American politicians directly affects me and my fellow Americans as well. While I consider this more a problem of U.S. Policy allowing political funding from outside influences, it doesn't change the fact that a "we do whatever we please" type of country is basically buying politicians that are supposed to be representing the interests of myself and my fellow Americans.

All that said.. I will state that all religions are equally false to me & I begrudge no one their fantasy (or me mine) as long as said delusion doesn't interfere with my life. I don't preach athiesm. I don't start wars due to athiesm. And I expect others to do the same. If you want to tell me that someone deserves special treatment because they are christian, muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist, athiest, jedi, agnostic, or greek/Roman mythicists, I will make it a point to disagree.

Not that I think it will actually happen, but I seriously think you owe me an apology for calling me an Anti-semite and threatening to ban me (as a moderator and on the public forums no less). Just as you, I have been a member of this site for the past 5 years. While some of my posts on the interchange contain ideas that conflict with the ideas of others, none of them have shown me to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc and none of them could certainly be considered as Anti-semitic. While I have freely admitted in past posts to boycotting many Israeli and American products, I have never refused to purchase items from anyone based on faith. I do hope you can see the difference & perhaps admit the errors in your ways.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> For better or for worse, capitalism is amazingly resilliant. It surprises me that anyone would anticipate its demise.
> 
> Honestly, i envy you your leftists. We have few, and none of any prominence. Our "left" is well to the right of yours. It makes for poor debates and few real alternatives.


Sorry, I can't help laughing at that. We used to have some very colourful and amusing characters on the left here (yet equally capable of causing shock and outrage). Events may yet prove me quite wrong, but my assessment is that British socialism has been left behind by the tide of history.


----------



## Chouan

justonemore said:


> Anti-Israeli policy does not equal antisemitism. MOD or not, shame on you for saying so and creating problems that don't exist. you ignore the other mentioned countries & their religions be it muslim or Christian. Almost seems as if you're displaying some bias yourself as most of this thread has been less than flattering to the u.s., the u.k., & russia. the middle east has played heavily into it as well. Israel was mentioned once


I quite agree. There was nothing, nothing at all that was anti-semitic in that post, and Toqueville's comment was entirely unjustified, and rather provocative.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> If you're equating Benn's policies with a defence of the status quo, you're way off beam. He wanted to change everything, even - God forbid - remove the Queen's image from our postage stamps.


Our current shower have, instead, sold off the Royal Mail to private business. Is that better?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> That is shocking. How dare they.
> 
> You are right.
> 
> Of all the illegal, immoral, or unethical deeds carried out in the world, you are right that israel's are worse than all other's, and worthy of being cited in an unrelated discussion, a propos of nothing, set on a parallel with those of a superpower, and highlighted as more outrageous than the crimes of the nazis. An interesting and revealing comparison, by the way.


A rather sad example of a straw man being used here, indeed, several straw men being set up. Surely you can do better than this? (That isn't sarcasm, by the way).


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Our current shower have, instead, sold off the Royal Mail to private business. Is that better?


Privatisation of Royal Mail - why not? I was quite pleased to be granted some of the shares. I lost patience with a state-controlled postal system when they allowed posties out in shorts and gave up morning delivery.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I admit that all of those quotes where from a 2 minute Google search. Perhaps you prefer American leaders:
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/5g6g5hj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/0k4aavj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/nh0ocmj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/g4j1mdj
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/jt4owrj
> 
> Here's an oldie but a goodie
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/b5kz0xj


So that nonsense was the best you could find, at least the bit about the suicide bomber was worth a chuckle.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Shrillness? Is that how you choose to interpret the opinion of those whose conclusions differ from your own?


 see below, its just a quote ,I dont need to add a thing


> Well, well, well...now _that_ explains a considerable deal. It is a confession of sorts, is it not? I am beginning to have a little more sympathy for you Hitch. Not for your nonsensical position, you understand, but sympathy for you personally.
> 
> Now, off you pop like a good chap and see if you can conjure up a better comeback. If you would like a little help with this task then please do not hesitate to PM me and I will happily provide you with a few pointers. No, no, please don't thank me. It's just that I find it rather unsporting to box with an opponent who has one hand tied behind his back.


*Soviet aggression? Hmmmmm.......I see no polarity, rather sympathy, of motivation and activity between the cold-war super powers. One was much the same as the other. 
*


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> see below, its just a quote ,I dont need to add a thing


This pseudo-cryptic geegaw as counterfit for intercourse? Pabulum.

C'mon Hitch - up your game, old boy.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Privatisation of Royal Mail - why not? I was quite pleased to be granted some of the shares. I lost patience with a state-controlled postal system when they allowed posties out in shorts and gave up morning delivery.


An interesting example of the triumph of appearance over substance. You objected to the symbol of the Royal Mail, the Queen's head, being removed from the stamps, yet think it fine that the Royal Mail ceases to be a public service run by the Crown, and that it becomes a private business run for profit, as long as a now meaningless symbol is still present. Curious.

As far as your reasoning for losing patience, I can't see why postmen shouldn't wear shorts if they wish to, and the reduction in the postal service was brought about by the introduction of commercial imperatives by whichever Tory administration was in power at the time; again, profit before service every time.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> An interesting example of the triumph of appearance over substance. You objected to the symbol of the Royal Mail, the Queen's head, being removed from the stamps, yet think it fine that the Royal Mail ceases to be a public service run by the Crown, and that it becomes a private business run for profit, as long as a now meaningless symbol is still present. Curious.
> 
> As far as your reasoning for losing patience, I can't see why postmen shouldn't wear shorts if they wish to, and the reduction in the postal service was brought about by the introduction of commercial imperatives by whichever Tory administration was in power at the time; again, profit before service every time.


Actually I set great store by appearance.

I still see the Royal Mail as a public service. Why is that inconsistent with the injection of private capital and being run at a profit? (If it comes to that, the Royal Mail was being run at a profit before privatisation in any case, and quite rightly so.)

I don't think of the Queen's image as a 'meaningless symbol' however - in fact it's a very important symbol indeed, with no little significance for items entrusted to the post.

Now posties wearing shorts. Quite wrong in my view - all organised bodies of men should be smartly dressed in proper uniforms, but there seems to have been a gradual decline in standards everywhere, even (in fact particularly) the armed forces and police. Unless I am mistaken, this is not Florida or Cox's Bazaar, so there is really no excuse for grown men to be scampering around in shorts while they're at work.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Actually I set great store by appearance.
> 
> I still see the Royal Mail as a public service. Why is that inconsistent with the injection of private capital and being run at a profit? (If it comes to that, the Royal Mail was being run at a profit before privatisation in any case, and quite rightly so.)
> 
> I don't think of the Queen's image as a 'meaningless symbol' however - in fact it's a very important symbol indeed, with no little significance for items entrusted to the post.
> 
> Now posties wearing shorts. Quite wrong in my view - all organised bodies of men should be smartly dressed in proper uniforms, but there seems to have been a gradual decline in standards everywhere, even (in fact particularly) the armed forces and police. Unless I am mistaken, this is not Florida or Cox's Bazaar, so there is really no excuse for grown men to be scampering around in shorts while they're at work.


Of course it's meaningless. It is like a taxi company putting the Queen's head on it's taxis. However you may view the Royal Mail, it is a privately owned commercial business, whose purpose is profit to it's shareholders, like all commercial organisations, not a service to it's customers. It did make a profit when it was the Royal Mail, but that wasn't it's purpose then. It's purpose as a state controlled postal service was to serve it's customers and deliver the post, not to make profit. The second post was withdrawn under the Tory profit imperative, not to make the service more efficient.

I agree with your remarks about proper uniforms, but if other uniformed organisations are becoming more casual in their approach, actually, they seem more and more to be trying to look like Americans, for some reason that I don't understand, but if they are going in that direction, I don't see why postmen can't dress comfortably, as long as it can be seen that they are postmen.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Of course it's meaningless. It is like a taxi company putting the Queen's head on it's taxis. However you may view the Royal Mail, it is a privately owned commercial business, whose purpose is profit to it's shareholders, like all commercial organisations, not a service to it's customers. It did make a profit when it was the Royal Mail, but that wasn't it's purpose then. It's purpose as a state controlled postal service was to serve it's customers and deliver the post, not to make profit. The second post was withdrawn under the Tory profit imperative, not to make the service more efficient.
> 
> I agree with your remarks about proper uniforms, but if other uniformed organisations are becoming more casual in their approach, actually, they seem more and more to be trying to look like Americans, for some reason that I don't understand, but if they are going in that direction, I don't see why postmen can't dress comfortably, as long as it can be seen that they are postmen.


OK you interpret the symbol in a different way to me.

Just a minor point, but how do you imagine commercial organisations make a profit without also providing a satisfactory service to their customers? The two usually go together in some way but I would concede not always.

Another minor point, as I know you are a pedagogue - I must protest at your apostrophe abuse, although I'm sure it is a simple oversight on your part.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> I made no such statement and you know it. I will mention once again that I have been much more critical of the U.S. E.U. and Russia. Your support of International Crimes (no matter the nation committing them), is quite shocking and I'm not sorry at all to say that I hold the line at such.
> 
> As you have continued your unwarranted attack and twisted my words to suit your own point of view, I will once again clarify my position....
> 
> While I consider that everything out of nazi germany was quite heinous, it indeed happened 70 years ago and has no direct relation on modern global politics (nor is it commiting international crimes, RIGHT NOW, today).. The crimes of Israel today, affect modern life in a negative way, right now, today. We should of course take lessons from Germany's past but that doesn't mean that Germany is the same today (and indeed it isn't). If we were to take modern Germany and go 10 years back, I'd be willing to bet that they have commited less International crimes compared to Israel within the same time frame.
> 
> If you look back through the threads, you might notice that I made the reference in our discussion concerning the cold war and the current situation in Ukraine. My main point had been that the propaganda of the cold war should not influence the modern situation in Ukraine. .
> The situation in Ukraine affects me actively today, the cold war not so much. Israel's crimes affect me actively today, Nazi Germany's not so much. No one denied history versus placing the focus on the problems of today. As such, my concern lies more towards current criminal activity versus historical criminal activity. The things that are happening now.
> 
> Now before you go on the inevitable "you support terrorists" rant....Let me clarify that I DO NOT support in any way palistinians shooting missiles into Israel. I DO NOT support suicide bombers, hijackers, terrorists, bomb makers, religious fanatics, violence, throwing bottles at cops, throwing bottles at miltary guards, bloody révolutions, forceful takeovers of land, landmines, scatterbombs, drones or any of that sh*t. From anyone, anywhere, anytime. I understand that it's the modern reality, but don't expect me to be happy that that's the way mankind has Evolved ( Although from my understanding 1/3 of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution anyways).
> 
> While I can condemn China, Germany, India, Israel, Palistine, Russia, The U.S. The E.U., Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. for their criminal activities individually and in regards to both their past and present, it appears that you can't (nor does it seem that you feel any one else should be allowed to either).
> 
> Again, you'd have to read through the threads and try to read everything versus just seeing what you want to see. The only religion I actually took a poke at was Christianity... in post #39 I quoted Sarah Palin wanting to change the first amendment to suit the Christian bible. Although I wasn't claiming that there were direct racist policies, I alluded to the fact that most civilian casulaties at the moment could be attributed to a Christian majority country going into a Muslim majority country. I also stated that modern organized terorrism is directly related to décades of failed mid-east policies by christian majority countries. I made a point that 2 former leaders of Christian majority countries should be tried for International War crimes. I've also claimed that a half a million civilian deaths are a half a million civilian deaths no matter the religious affiliation or skin color. I of course called these countries and people by their proper names (just as I did with Israel). At no point did I say anything against those of the Jewish faith and up until you had the nerve to call me an Anti-semite, I had mentioned Israel only once (as a reference and in context).
> 
> Continuing with your question as to how Israeli Policy affects me:
> 
> For the past 29 years, as an American, I & my family & my friends & my collègues, have helped foot a $5 billion per year welfare package for Israel (not including billions in loan guarantees & billions more in separate arms packages). If Israel is using my money to commit International crimes, then I darn well feel that I not only have a right, but an obligation, to speak out against such (just as I feel obligated to speak out against the U.S. using taxpayer money to commit warcrimes such as torture).
> 
> Oh. The millions Israel spends lobbying American politicians directly affects me and my fellow Americans as well. While I consider this more a problem of U.S. Policy allowing political funding from outside influences, it doesn't change the fact that a "we do whatever we please" type of country is basically buying politicians that are supposed to be representing the interests of myself and my fellow Americans.
> 
> All that said.. I will state that all religions are equally false to me & I begrudge no one their fantasy (or me mine) as long as said delusion doesn't interfere with my life. I don't preach athiesm. I don't start wars due to athiesm. And I expect others to do the same. If you want to tell me that someone deserves special treatment because they are christian, muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist, athiest, jedi, agnostic, or greek/Roman mythicists, I will make it a point to disagree.
> 
> Not that I think it will actually happen, but I seriously think you owe me an apology for calling me an Anti-semite and threatening to ban me (as a moderator and on the public forums no less). Just as you, I have been a member of this site for the past 5 years. While some of my posts on the interchange contain ideas that conflict with the ideas of others, none of them have shown me to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc and none of them could certainly be considered as Anti-semitic. While I have freely admitted in past posts to boycotting many Israeli and American products, I have never refused to purchase items from anyone based on faith. I do hope you can see the difference & perhaps admit the errors in your ways.


Congratulations on your 1,000th post!

Which is longer than most people's 1,000 posts added together. :devil:


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> OK you interpret the symbol in a different way to me.
> 
> Just a minor point, but how do you imagine commercial organisations make a profit without also providing a satisfactory service to their customers? The two usually go together in some way but I would concede not always.
> 
> Another minor point, as I know you are a pedagogue - I must protest at your apostrophe abuse, although I'm sure it is a simple oversight on your part.


Mea culpa. My only excuse, feeble though it is, is that I don't teach English. Still must do better!


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Congratulations on your 1,000th post!
> 
> Which is longer than most people's 1,000 posts added together. :devil:


Ha. Thanks Shaver. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention to my postings. I was thinking of doing an alternate version of your shoe shebang for my 1,000th post & was planning to put in a few prime examples of "The more elaborate, decadent, shoes (e.g. double monks or tassle loafers etc.) no Englishman should wear". Oh well. Rebuking those that are quick to attach unfounded and inflammatory labels must be the first priority (lest the flames of idiocy be fanned by inaction). Besides, there's still hope for the 2'000th.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Just a minor point, but how do you imagine commercial organisations make a profit without also providing a satisfactory service to their customers? The two usually go together in some way but I would concede not always..


The question is concerning purpose, not efficiency. A commercial organisation needs to attract and keep customers, but needs to make a profit. Without a profit its purpose isn't fulfilled. However, a service, like the Royal Mail was, isn't dependent upon profit. If it makes a profit that's a good thing, clearly, but if it doesn't it doesn't matter, as its purpose is the service, not the profit. Any loss is covered by the taxes paid by the service users.


----------



## tocqueville

Forgive me, Shaver.



justonemore said:


> Rebuking those that are quick to attach unfounded and inflammatory labels must be the first priority (lest the flames of idiocy be fanned by inaction).


That's funny, I feel the same way.

Of course, I understand that you shrug off the tag I've dare toss at you. You are a man of the people. The good. The just. _Ecrasez l'infâme!_ That's what you tell your self when you look in a mirror. That's what you believe. Men of the left also cannot imagine themselves to be anti-Semites because it goes without saying that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the right. Thus the label cannot possibly stick. Of course, this ignores the long and storied history of leftist antisemitism, with its noble roots in Voltaire and even Marx. It has long been a potent force in France, although I don't know about your adoptive Switzerland. Now it's common coin particularly among European leftists (hi, Chouan!), the politically correct, or _les bien pensants_, as your Swiss friends might say. Everyone you know agrees with you, and all who disagree are one-sided, biased, or perhaps a little sensitive? How can you be accused of espousing something hurtful, something associated with fascism or medieval Christianity, when you know yourself to be an enemy of all that? That is a conundrum.

Perhaps we shall discuss further, although for Shaver's sake on another thread. I hate when threads get highjacked or pulled into unrelated tangents and regret my intervention only to the extent that I've done precisely that. If I have the energy I will make my case for the anti-Semitism of the left, and why statements to the effect that Israel's actions "affect modern life" and "bring terror to the world" cross a line from merely criticizing a state that certainly is not above criticism to something far more insidious. In the mean time, I shall chew over your outrage over the current casualty ratio and ponder how many casualties Israel must suffer for the ratio to be more to your liking.

ps. Tocqueville only mentions Jews once, in his letters on Algeria, although he did have unkind words regarding Crémieux, whose success owed a lot to French leftsts' better angels.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Forgive me, Shaver.
> 
> That's funny, I feel the same way.
> 
> Of course, I understand that you shrug off the tag I've dare toss at you. You are a man of the people. The good. The just. _Ecrasez l'infâme!_ That's what you tell your self when you look in a mirror. That's what you believe. Men of the left also cannot imagine themselves to be anti-Semites because it goes without saying that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the right. Thus the label cannot possibly stick. Of course, this ignores the long and storied history of leftist antisemitism, with its noble roots in Voltaire and even Marx. It has long been a potent force in France, although I don't know about your adoptive Switzerland. Now it's common coin particularly among European leftists (hi, Chouan!), the politically correct, or _les bien pensants_, as your Swiss friends might say. Everyone you know agrees with you, and all who disagree are one-sided, biased, or perhaps a little sensitive? How can you be accused of espousing something hurtful, something associated with fascism or medieval Christianity, when you know yourself to be an enemy of all that? That is a conundrum.
> 
> Perhaps we shall discuss further, although for Shaver's sake on another thread. *I hate when threads get highjacked or pulled into unrelated tangents and regret my intervention only to the extent that I've done precisely that.*


Quite. You brought anti-semitism into the thread. There was none before your interjection, and none in any of the posts after your rather bullying statement.



tocqueville said:


> If I have the energy I will make my case for the anti-Semitism of the left, and why statements to the effect that Israel's actions "affect modern life" and "bring terror to the world" cross a line from merely criticizing a state that certainly is not above criticism to something far more insidious. In the mean time, I shall chew over your outrage over the current casualty ratio and ponder how many casualties Israel must suffer for the ratio to be more to your liking.


I shall look forward to reading it. I'm keen to hear how disliking a country's illegal actions means that you necessarily dislike the population of that country, and its religion.


----------



## Shaver

^ Oh I don't mind a derail every now and then. Heaven knows I have been responsible for a few in my time. 

I decline to involve myself in this particular discussion though - I do not wish to damage my chances of an invite to the B'nai B'rith Girls Spring Break party.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ Oh I don't mind a derail every now and then. Heaven knows I have been responsible for a few in my time.
> 
> I decline to involve myself in this particular discussion though - I do not wish to damage my chances of an invite to the B'nai B'rith Girls Spring Break party.


I hear that is quite a bash!


----------



## Shaver

^I intend to appear as a guest lecturer, unveiling my revolutionary hi-tech Gematria derived approach to the Torah. I will outline my proposal that the Torah is a living organism which if translated into a four dimensional holograph will reveal itself as a prophetic mechanism and allow us access to Kether. 

Now, if that doesn't garner some enthusiastic groupies then my name is not Rabbi Shaver.


----------



## tocqueville

You have my support!


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Forgive me, Shaver.
> 
> That's funny, I feel the same way.
> 
> Of course, I understand that you shrug off the tag I've dare toss at you. You are a man of the people. The good. The just. _Ecrasez l'infâme!_ That's what you tell your self when you look in a mirror. That's what you believe. Men of the left also cannot imagine themselves to be anti-Semites because it goes without saying that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the right. Thus the label cannot possibly stick. Of course, this ignores the long and storied history of leftist antisemitism, with its noble roots in Voltaire and even Marx. It has long been a potent force in France, although I don't know about your adoptive Switzerland. Now it's common coin particularly among European leftists (hi, Chouan!), the politically correct, or _les bien pensants_, as your Swiss friends might say. Everyone you know agrees with you, and all who disagree are one-sided, biased, or perhaps a little sensitive? How can you be accused of espousing something hurtful, something associated with fascism or medieval Christianity, when you know yourself to be an enemy of all that? That is a conundrum.
> 
> Perhaps we shall discuss further, although for Shaver's sake on another thread. I hate when threads get highjacked or pulled into unrelated tangents and regret my intervention only to the extent that I've done precisely that. If I have the energy I will make my case for the anti-Semitism of the left, and why statements to the effect that Israel's actions "affect modern life" and "bring terror to the world" cross a line from merely criticizing a state that certainly is not above criticism to something far more insidious. In the mean time, I shall chew over your outrage over the current casualty ratio and ponder how many casualties Israel must suffer for the ratio to be more to your liking.
> 
> ps. Tocqueville only mentions Jews once, in his letters on Algeria, although he did have unkind words regarding Crémieux, whose success owed a lot to French leftsts' better angels.


While waiting for your justification for name calling of the worse sorts, a recent newsarticle seems to show that Israel has gone on ahead (on its own rights), to start another bombing campaign in another country's sovereign territory. The world should ignore this correct? Heck, it's only Syria. Who cares? ...Let's concentrate on the problems in Crimea...

The news article also mentions the 2006 "war" where there were 1'200 Lebanese civilians killed compared to 160 Israeli soldiers. I don't care what country you are or what religion you support, when it comes to killing almost 10 civilians for 1 soldier, it is nothing less than a massacre, and deserves the highest condemnation possible. I suppose this ratio is quite to your liking? If it had been soldiers I wouldn't give a darn (live by the sword, die by the sword), but civilians? at those rates? Please. I am waiting on pins and needles to see your justification for such actions along with justifications as to why anyone that finds the whole thing revolting would be considered anti-semite.

Would it be acceptable if the reverse were true? 1'200 Israeli citizens compared to 160 Lebanese soldiers? Please justify...

BTW: I have been highly critical of the U.S. for producing similiar civilian casualty numbers and have stated so in many threads. While some have painted me as anti-american (I'm not and never will be), no one has had the nerve to accuse me of being anti-christian in doing so (nor have you).

Another BTW...I am no more leftist than rightist. While It seems that you have a need to paint people into the smallest pigeon hole possible, I myself try to look at everything from the largest picture possible.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> European leftists (hi, Chouan!)


Curiously enough, my wife was amused by your suggestion that I'm a "leftist", she sees me as a conservative (note small c) traditionalist.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Curiously enough, my wife was amused by your suggestion that I'm a "leftist", she sees me as a conservative (note small c) traditionalist.


You might be right. Perhaps I need to read more of your posts. You have, after all, named yourself "Chouan." A reference to the royalist insurrection during the French Revolution?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> While waiting for your justification for name calling of the worse sorts, a recent newsarticle seems to show that Israel has gone on ahead (on its own rights), to start another bombing campaign in another country's sovereign territory. The world should ignore this correct? Heck, it's only Syria. Who cares? ...Let's concentrate on the problems in Crimea...
> 
> The news article also mentions the 2006 "war" where there were 1'200 Lebanese civilians killed compared to 160 Israeli soldiers. I don't care what country you are or what religion you support, when it comes to killing almost 10 civilians for 1 soldier, it is nothing less than a massacre, and deserves the highest condemnation possible. I suppose this ratio is quite to your liking? If it had been soldiers I wouldn't give a darn (live by the sword, die by the sword), but civilians? at those rates? Please. I am waiting on pins and needles to see your justification for such actions along with justifications as to why anyone that finds the whole thing revolting would be considered anti-semite.


Did you by any chance read that article long enough to see why Israel hit Syrian targets? Unprovoked aggression? Just Israelis doing their thing?


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Did you by any chance read that article long enough to see why Israel hit Syrian targets? Unprovoked aggression? Just Israelis doing their thing?


Nice. Use my example as to seeing Israel once again on page one as soon as I start looking at the news, and ignore the whole 10 civilians dead for every Israeli soldier (though I admit to a lack of clarity in context in my opening paragraph). It doesn't particularly matter. I get a feeling that you're incapable of saying, thinking, reading, seeing, or entertaining any idea that might be considered even remotely critical of Israel. Instead of saying that a 10-1 civilian casualty rate is an atrocity (which is is), you chose to ignore the whole point. For some reason you base all this eye turning on the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Thus...You are the one bringing religion into politics, not me. You are the one claiming that a country should have carte blanche over everyone else because of it's religious viewpoints. You are the one claiming that a country should have immunity from prosecution of International crimes based on its religious préférences. You are the one claiming that a country should be immune from critism because of its religious values. To you, Israel can do whatever the hell it wants (because of its religion) and the rest of us should not only ignore it, but fully support it, and if we don't, then we are anti-semites. This has been your whole arguement. It seems as if there are an aweful lot of bias in there...Is there a term for someone that believes as you do? If I stated that Germany should be immune from prosecution for all its warcrimes based on its religious beliefs you'd be outraged ...yet I'm supposed to sit here and be insulted by someone that is basically claiming the same. While not outraged, I still claim that Israel is open to critism on its actions, and that actions considered as against international law should be prosecuted as such (based on merit and not religious beliefs).


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> You might be right. Perhaps I need to read more of your posts. You have, after all, named yourself "Chouan." A reference to the royalist insurrection during the French Revolution?


Yes, my post-graduate area of specialisation. However, I could discuss at great length whether it was a Royalist insurrection, or simply a reaction to government interference, when the government happened to be Republican.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Yes, my post-graduate area of specialisation. However, I could discuss at great length whether it was a Royalist insurrection, or simply a reaction to government interference, when the government happened to be Republican.


It's been too long since my post-graduate work for me to remember the historiography of the rebellion, but I can easily imagine the kinds of debates it would generate, much like the debates around the later regional insurrections (does something about les demoiselles de l'ardeche ring any bells), such as the one that was in 1851 or 2 after Bonapart's coup. I remember reading a fascinating book linking the 1940s-era maquis in certain regions with the 1852 insurrection, and then that with the Cathars... was it ideological? Political in the Marxist sense? Or just a regional aversion to being messed with?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Nice. Use my example as to seeing Israel once again on page one as soon as I start looking at the news, and ignore the whole 10 civilians dead for every Israeli soldier. It doesn't particularly matter. I get feeling that you're incapable of saying, thinking, reading, seeing, or entertaining any idea that might be considered even remotely critical of Israel. Instead of saying that a 10-1 civilian casualty rate is an atrocity (which is is), you chose to ignore the whole point. For some reason you base all this eye turning on the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Thus...You are the one bringing religion into politics, not me. You are the one claiming that a country should have carte blanche over everyone else because of it's religious viewpoints. You are the one claiming that a country should have immunity from prosecution of International crimes based on its religious préférences. You are the one claiming that a country should be immune from critism because of its religious values. To you, Israel can do whatever the hell it wants (because of its religion) and the rest of us should not only ignore it, but fully support it, and if we don't, then we are anti-semites. This has been your whole arguement. It seems as if there are an aweful lot of bias in there...Is there a term for someone that believes as you do? If I stated that Germany should be immune from prosecution for all its warcrimes based on its religious beliefs you'd be outraged ...yet I'm supposed to sit here and be insulted by someone that is basically claiming the same. While not outraged, I still claim that Israel is open to critism on its actions, and that actions considered as against international law should be prosecuted as such (based on merit and not religious beliefs).


So far I've asserted nothing about Israel to indicate I have any particular views on its "crimes," other than that I do not find them nearly as outrageous as you do, so we can't yet establish my tolerance for criticism. But, you see, something tells me that had Israel not killed any civilians in its campaign against Hizbullah in 2006, you would still be up on your hind legs about it, shouting "war criminals" at the top of your lungs. Would it still be an atrocity of no civilians died? You're ok with wars so long as the combatants don't kill civilians? Oh, but no, you're upset about the recent strikes against Syrian military targets, and I'm not aware of any civilian casualties. So that's not quite what's bugging you, is it? I have a theory...but first let's explore some alternative explanations.

How do you understand conflict and what is acceptable to you? Are you a total pacifist? All conflicts, all recourse to violence are bad? All wars? Is it the principle of the thing that bothers you about, say, hitting the Syrian military (which these days doesn't inspire much sympathy among most)? When is retaliation appropriate? Pre-emption? Never?


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> So far I've asserted nothing about Israel to indicate I have any particular views on its "crimes," other than that I do not find them nearly as outrageous as you do, so we can't yet establish my tolerance for criticism. But, you see, something tells me that had Israel not killed any civilians in its campaign against Hizbullah in 2006, you would still be up on your hind legs about it, shouting "war criminals" at the top of your lungs. Would it still be an atrocity of no civilians died? You're ok with wars so long as the combatants don't kill civilians? Oh, but no, you're upset about the recent strikes against Syrian military targets, and I'm not aware of any civilian casualties. So that's not quite what's bugging you, is it? I have a theory...but first let's explore some alternative explanations.
> 
> How do you understand conflict and what is acceptable to you? Are you a total pacifist? All conflicts, all recourse to violence are bad? All wars? Is it the principle of the thing that bothers you about, say, hitting the Syrian military (which these days doesn't inspire much sympathy among most)? When is retaliation appropriate? Pre-emption? Never?


I don't believe that I ever stated personal opinion as the reason for my dislike of Israeli policies versus that of Israel ignoring its obligation to follow International law (should not everyone be seen as equal as to their rights and responsibilities Under International Law?). If you desire to inform yourself as to what constitutes an International crime, may I suggest starting at the various U.N websites? The International Criminal Court in den Hague might have some useful information as well.

If I can sum it up?

My stance is based on International Law, easily researchable & to be applied equally to all.

Your stance appears to allow for one particular country to be exempt from international law. You give absolutely no reason why this exemption should be accepted/granted by the International community. You in fact disallow anyone to question the means, methods, or reasoning for allowing such an exemption. Should anyone dare voice a strongly worded concern stating factual information about Israeli International Crimes, your way of dealing with it is to ignore the content/context and start namecalling as a way to distract from the actual arguement. To me this whole thing reeks of Orwell's Animal Farm.... "*All animals are equal*, *but some animals are more equal than others"*.

As It appears that it is you who wishes the International Community to make an exception for Israel, perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to answer some of the same questions you asked me? How far outside of accetable guidlines should a country be allowed to go in the name of retaliation and pre-emptive action, before the international community should be allowed to voice their dissatisfaction? How heineous does a crime have to be before the leadership of a country should see the inside of a Dutch courthouse?

I do find a trace of irony in the fact that while the traditional Orthodox Jews don't believe in wargames and prefer to pass the time studying their religion, the state of Israel has now made it clear that they are not exempt from military service. Last time I checked, Conscientious Objection is considered a human right under article 18 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". I do hope that I'm not being anti-semitic in standing up for the International rights of Israeli Orthodox Jews to not be conscripted into the military against their religious beliefs.


----------



## Shaver

All this talk of Israel puts me in mind of this beautiful song which is sung by the equally beautiful Siouxsie Sioux (a thrilling looking woman if ever there was- mmmmm)


----------



## Chouan

Curious how one's taste changes. I fancied her like mad then, but now I can't see why!


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Curious how one's taste changes. I fancied her like mad then, but now I can't see why!


You can't? Oh Chouan, the fire in your loins isn't petering out, is it? :devil:


----------



## tocqueville

In those days i only had eyes for Kate Bush.


----------



## Shaver

Brace yourself, Tocquers! This is enough to make any grown man weak at the knees:

*Babooshka, Babooshka, Babooshka-ya-ya*


----------



## tocqueville

Be still my heart! But seriously, that is an awful video!


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> You can't? Oh Chouan, the fire in your loins isn't petering out, is it? :devil:


No, just that my tastes have changed over time. I did have a brief thing for Pauline Murray of "Penetration", literally, in that we had a fairly brief relationship. But looking at pictures of her now, I'm not quite as disappointed as I once was. Not that I'm bitter.....


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Be still my heart! But seriously, that is an awful video!


You're joking! That video is seriously arousing.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> No, just that my tastes have changed over time. I did have a brief thing for Pauline Murray of "Penetration", literally, in that we had a fairly brief relationship. But looking at pictures of her now, I'm not quite as disappointed as I once was. Not that I'm bitter.....


You *ahem* 'penetrated' Pauline Murray? I salute you, Sir!

For the benefit of our American friends this is the little honey in question:


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> You *ahem* 'penetrated' Pauline Murray? I salute you, Sir!
> 
> For the benefit of our American friends this is the little honey in question:


A brief dalliance. We met in a pub in Jarrow, whilst she was touring. We were an item whilst I was there, but my ship departed, with me on it, and although we corresponded for some weeks, my trip to South Africa, Persian Gulf, the Indian sub-continent, East Africa, South Africa again, and then Canada, put me out of circulation a bit too long. Not surprising really!


----------



## Shaver

^ I've always meant to ask - what is your avatar? It appears to me as a figure in rubber-wear leaning against a drinking fountain......... :rolleyes2:


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ I've always meant to ask - what is your avatar? It appears to me as a figure in rubber-wear leaning against a drinking fountain......... :rolleyes2:


Me, whilst Second Mate of the LPG Tanker "Havdrott" in body armour (the only time I wore it!), leaning against the bridge wing gyro repeater, in the Persian Gulf during the "Tanker war" phase of the Iran/Iraq War, when both sides were attacking tankers in the Gulf. We were issued with body armour in case we were attacked. The Iraqis tended to use their Russian supplied jet aircraft, with bombs and missiles, the Iranians British supplied helicopters with missiles, or Swedish built fast attack craft with missiles. As you could imagine, if, whilst carrying a cargo of liquified Petroleum Gas we were hit, I don't think our body armour would have been of much use!


----------



## Langham

^^You would have drowned a bit faster. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)


----------



## Chouan

No worries!


----------



## tocqueville

Now that's talent! Move over, Susan Boyle!


----------



## Shaver

^ I should imagine that Pauline was perchance making an entirely different noise when Chouan got his hands on her! :thumbs-up:

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I love the 80s.

My guilty girl band pleasure.

The Go-Gos


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Me, whilst Second Mate of the LPG Tanker "Havdrott" in body armour (the only time I wore it!), leaning against the bridge wing gyro repeater, in the Persian Gulf during the "Tanker war" phase of the Iran/Iraq War, when both sides were attacking tankers in the Gulf. We were issued with body armour in case we were attacked. The Iraqis tended to use their Russian supplied jet aircraft, with bombs and missiles, the Iranians British supplied helicopters with missiles, or Swedish built fast attack craft with missiles. As you could imagine, if, whilst carrying a cargo of liquified Petroleum Gas we were hit, I don't think our body armour would have been of much use!


I suspected that it might be something similar, thank you for being such a good sport in the face of my teasing.

If you ever get chance, and if you don't mind, please upload a 'full' version of the image so that we can get a better look.


----------



## tocqueville

"Vacation" was the first pop album I ever bought. Before that, I bought "Sesame Street Fever."


----------



## Shaver

Well, obviously, Old Shaver is too cool for school and purchased this (with his allowance) back in '77 :cool2:


----------



## Chouan

Yes, they weren't terribly good, as a band, although she was very nice. I always found, and find, the various Co.Durham accents alluring in a girl...... even Mackems. She was from south western Co.Durham though, not far from Darlington.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Well, obviously, Old Shaver is too cool for school and purchased this (with his allowance) back in '77 :cool2:


I saw them at the Rock Garden in Middlesbrough; they'd been banned from many venues, so were billed as "Acne Rabble", but we cool cats who were in the know knew who they were. They were really very good live, and really could play. The filth were really heavy handed outside though, really disproportionately so, which I found quite disappointing.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> I suspected that it might be something similar, thank you for being such a good sport in the face of my teasing.
> 
> If you ever get chance, and if you don't mind, please upload a 'full' version of the image so that we can get a better look.


Best I can do for now.... Its a not very well scanned conventional photograph.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Best I can do for now.... Its a not very well scanned conventional photograph.
> View attachment 10741


No, that wouldn't do you any good whatsoever if your tanker were attacked. Good thing it wasn't.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> I saw them at the Rock Garden in Middlesbrough; they'd been banned from many venues, so were billed as "Acne Rabble", but we cool cats who were in the know knew who they were. They were really very good live, and really could play. The filth were really heavy handed outside though, really disproportionately so, which I found quite disappointing.


My next album after "Vacation" was Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman." Thank fully that phase didn't last long.

I've met Nancy's mother, by the way. She has an interesting take on all that.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Yes, they weren't terribly good, as a band, although she was very nice. I always found, and find, the various Co.Durham accents alluring in a girl...... even Mackems. She was from south western Co.Durham though, not far from Darlington.


She does have a lovely--and distinct--accent. I could imagine falling for her--and her accent--in a pub over drinks. The singing I could do without. We're talking about Pauline, still, right?


----------



## Chouan

Yes. Delightful; I was smitten. I got over it....


----------



## WouldaShoulda

That look is obviously a Chick Magnet!!


----------



## justonemore

Nice....They're pratically twins. lol. 
Also happy to see an enlarged photo of chouan.


----------



## Chouan

Thanks for doing that, I'm impressed by your technical and ICT skills!


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> My next album after "Vacation" was Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman." Thank fully that phase didn't last long.
> 
> I've met Nancy's mother, by the way. She has an interesting take on all that.


Nancy as in Spungen? That 'creature' really marked the end of the Pistols as a viable entity. The Sid & Nancy film is the most despicable and inaccurate load of old tripe ever committed to celluloid.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Best I can do for now.... Its a not very well scanned conventional photograph.


Thank you, fine fellow!


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Nancy as in Spungen? That 'creature' really marked the end of the Pistols as a viable entity. The Sid & Nancy film is the most despicable and inaccurate load of old tripe ever committed to celluloid.


Yes, her. From her mom's point of view, Sid murdered her. My mother befriended her mother after doing some work for an organization she created, Families of Murder Victims. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Spungen. Whatever happened, it was horrible.


----------



## tocqueville

And Jonny went on to form the execrable PIL. That was criminal.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Yes, her. From her mom's point of view, Sid murdered her. My mother befriended her mother after doing some work for an organization she created, Families of Murder Victims. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Spungen. Whatever happened, it was horrible.


We shall never know for certain what happened that night in the Chelsea hotel.

However, two drugged up junkies with a huge wad of cash (that it was well known they held in their room) would seem to be a prime target for other drugged up junkies.

The NYPD considered it an open and shut case - their prime suspect was called Vicious after all, what more proof would they need? - so no investigation whatsoever was carried out in the aftermath of the crime.

I have grave doubts that Sid was responsible, whatever his faults he would appear to have loved Nancy at the expense of all else.

If you will permit me to be callous, but candid, Nancy's trajectory was already in place long before she trapped Sid as her 'cash cow' and Nancy's parents need to take some repsonsibility for their own role in this tragedy.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> And Jonny went on to form the execrable PIL. That was criminal.


PIL contributed more to the cause of modern music than the Pistols. Musically the Pistols' regurgitated Chuck Berry/New York Dolls routine would have amounted to very little without the image, the graphics, the notoriety, the whole package. PIL, on the other hand, explored the medium with a fresh and invigourating approach (admittedly hit and miss) a genuinely original style. May the Road Rise With You!


----------



## tocqueville

Just saw this. She hasn't aged well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26679515


----------



## Chouan

I quite agree. Once the Malcolm Maclaren connection had been broken new stuff could appear, such as:


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Just saw this. She hasn't aged well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26679515


No indeed. Sad to see such declines.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> We shall never know for certain what happened that night in the Chelsea hotel.
> 
> However, two drugged up junkies with a huge wad of cash (that it was well known they held in their room) would seem to be a prime target for other drugged up junkies.
> 
> The NYPD considered it an open and shut case - their prime suspect was called Vicious after all, what more proof would they need? - so no investigation whatsoever was carried out in the aftermath of the crime.
> 
> I have grave doubts that Sid was responsible, whatever his faults he would appear to have loved Nancy at the expense of all else.
> 
> If you will permit me to be callous, but candid, Nancy's trajectory was already in place long before she trapped Sid as her 'cash cow' and Nancy's parents need to take some repsonsibility for their own role in this tragedy.


That is callous, but I can't say you're wrong.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> No indeed. Sad to see such declines.


It's an unfair comparison - I suspect many here may have looked better at 19 than they do now.


----------



## Chouan

As the old saying goes, "you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire".


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ I could squint. Or get tipsy. Or both. Either way it's an opportunity, if encountered, I wouldn't pass over.


Which post was that in reference to?


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Which post was that in reference to?


A rough looking Kate Bush. But then I thought better of it, so it's gone now.


----------



## tocqueville

Were any of you fans of Shelleyan Orphan?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> It's an unfair comparison - I suspect many here may have looked better at 19 than they do now.


I cerainly did.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> I cerainly did.


Adonis.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Adonis.


He looks better now, I think. Older ... but wiser.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> He looks better now, I think. Older ... but wiser.


I concur.


----------



## Chouan

"A sadder but wiser man...."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> That is callous, but I can't say you're wrong.


Sure, you can believe the obvious and probable, or blame the victim and ignore the facts!! 

Now, back to Kate Bush or Shaver.

If I saw them both at opposite ends of the bar at closing time, I'd leave alone and take matters into my own hands!!


----------



## tocqueville

This is the song I will always associate with Kate Bush, one of the finest songs of the 1980s. One of the greatest albums, and one of the few I still listen to. It's also the only album by Peter Gabriel that I care for.


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> Oh, good. An anti-semite. I am so itching to ban you.


Anti-semite?
That old chestnut.
Maybe it's not apparent within the confines of American media bubble, but outside of the US, Israel is rightfully regarded as a pariah state.
And criticism of the Israeli state is allowed to a degree you just don't get in the US.

Are people to be banned from AAAC for mentioning Israel now?



tocqueville said:


> No, sir. You are an anti-semite. What you have written, besides being pure Goebbels, is outrageous and goes far beyond rational criticism of any particular nation. Wilhelm Marr smiles upon you.


What exactly did he write that's caused such a Pavlovian response from you?



tocqueville said:


> Shaver, was there a middle ground between him and Thatcher? Or is that what Blair was trying for?


Like him or loathe him, Tony Benn was a man of some principle and honour, and a wonderful public speaker.
Being Irish, I was brought up, conditioned to hate Thatcher, but admit that she also was a woman of principle, and is unfairly demonised for a lot of things.
Tony Blair is just plain evil.


----------



## Shaver

^ re Tony Blair - It's the truth.


----------



## Shaver

^ Goddammit, that was my 5,000th post!

Quick, Shaver, think of something erudite that relates to 5,000. Oh, dash it all! My mind has gone blank.......errrm...

ah, ok. Here goes:

Eratosthenes (born 276bc) used his remarkable mind to devise an experiment that accurately calculated the circumference of planet Earth. Central to his calculation was the fact that he knew the distance between Alexandria and Syene to be 5,000 stades (Attic unit).


----------



## Chouan

Quite. He measured the lengths of the shadow of a stick in different places at noon as part of his calculations. The reason why the European monarchs wouldn't fund Columbus' voyage to the East by sailing west was that they all knew that it was too far, not that the world was flat......
Yes, I need to get out more and not be so much of an autistic pedant.......


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Quite. He measured the lengths of the shadow of a stick in different places at noon as part of his calculations. The reason why the European monarchs wouldn't fund Columbus' voyage to the East by sailing west was that they all knew that it was too far, not that the world was flat......
> Yes, I need to get out more and not be so much of an *autistic pedant*.......


So much so that you neglected to say 'Congratulations on your 5,000th post Shaver'.

Perhaps you *are* a bully, after all. :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Chouan

Odradek said:


> Like him or loathe him, Tony Benn was a man of some principle and honour, and a wonderful public speaker.
> Being Irish, I was brought up, conditioned to hate Thatcher, but admit that she also was a woman of principle, and is unfairly demonised for a lot of things.
> Tony Blair is just plain evil.


Except that she was essentially dishonest, and chose to ignore facts in order to further her ideologically driven agenda. I agree with you about Blair, a Tory who chose to make his career in Labour because he thought he'd get on further there rather than in the Tories.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> So much so that you neglected to say 'Congratulations on your 5,000th post Shaver'.
> 
> Perhaps you *are* a bully, after all. :icon_jokercolor:


Congratulations from Langham.



Chouan said:


> Except that she was essentially dishonest, and chose to ignore facts in order to further her ideologically driven agenda. I agree with you about Blair, a Tory who chose to make his career in Labour because he thought he'd get on further there rather than in the Tories.


Now that's just poppycock, Chouan. She was always quite honest, brutally so sometimes. I know from past correspondence that you will never share my own view of her; indeed I rejoice in the fact that even now she continues to divide opinion, yet I rest assured that the verdict of history will be that she was one of this country's very few great leaders, who followed her own vision regardless of anything else.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> So much so that you neglected to say 'Congratulations on your 5,000th post Shaver'.
> 
> Perhaps you *are* a bully, after all. :icon_jokercolor:


5'000 posts in less than 2 years. Congratulations Shaver.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> So much so that you neglected to say 'Congratulations on your 5,000th post Shaver'.
> 
> Perhaps you *are* a bully, after all. :icon_jokercolor:


yes, so let that be a lesson to you!

Long may they continue!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Congratulations from Langham.
> 
> Now that's just poppycock, Chouan. She was always quite honest, brutally so sometimes. I know from past correspondence that you will never share my own view of her; indeed I rejoice in the fact that even now she continues to divide opinion, yet I rest assured that the verdict of history will be that she was one of this country's very few great leaders, who followed her own vision regardless of anything else.


I know that our views of her will never coincide, but from an entirely personal view, that she once explained to a Merchant Navy (in which I had the honour to be a Second Mate) Master that her reason for allowing Britain's Merchant Navy to disappear was "the unions". That the MNAOA, the Merchant Navy Officers' Union had never taken industrial action of any kind had either escaped her, or didn't matter to her, suggests at least a certain level of dishonesty.


----------



## Chouan

I thought that Shaver would particularly appreciate this:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...eryone-she-now-looks-like-lemmy-2014032184900


----------



## Shaver

^ poor Kate, let's remember her this way:


----------



## Chouan

Yes indeed, let's!


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Yes indeed, let's!


Oh, yes!


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> I thought that Shaver would particularly appreciate this:
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...eryone-she-now-looks-like-lemmy-2014032184900


That's really funny! How apropos.


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> Anti-semite?
> That old chestnut.
> Maybe it's not apparent within the confines of American media bubble, but outside of the US, Israel is rightfully regarded as a pariah state.
> And criticism of the Israeli state is allowed to a degree you just don't get in the US.
> 
> Are people to be banned from AAAC for mentioning Israel now?
> 
> What exactly did he write that's caused such a Pavlovian response from you?


Oh, Odradek, it's older than you know.

I've put a lot of thought into if and how I should respond to you or to Justonemore--how he exposed himself each time he amended that last post of his!

On one hand, I can't think of many more stupid things to do with my time than fight with strangers on the internet about anything, and I am always amazed by people's willingness to spar on these boards. I have better things to do. Indeed, if you go through my 2,000+ posts, you find almost no instances of my quarreling with anyone. Plus, the nature of these things is such that I have zero chance of convincing any of you of anything other than reinforcing your own stereotypes about how "sensitive" or prone to "exaggeration" Jews might be. Paranoid lot. What I accuse Justonemore of is unwitting and probably unconscious. No right thinking person would ever admit to himself or others to being an anti-Semite. The Nazis gave it a very bad name. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Far from it. It just doesn't exist in that pseudo-scientific racialist form popular in Germany back in the day. For it's often not about the explicit substance of what one says, but the sub-text, the logical conclusions, or perhaps even the discourse--the language chosen such that written statements convey multiple meanings of which the author might be unaware. Such that while one might quite sincerely insist, for example, that one is merely responding to things Israel does, one is in fact doing nothing more than engaging in an up-dated form of the blood libel.

On the other hand, because I come to this forum for the pleasure of light banter, and because I've come to feel quite comfortable in what I regard as Andy's virtual salon, I object to hate speech just as I object to stepping in dog poop while on a pleasant stroll. It ruins the experience. That's what provoked my "pavlovian response." You do not see it as hate speech only because it is 'normal' to you, the way perhaps that jokes about the Irish or "Papists" no doubt were perfectly acceptable in polite English society not too long ago, or putting on black face and mimicking black people was once fashionable among polite white Americans. Maybe I can teach you something. Maybe. Or perhaps I can inform you as to how to talk about Israel. You all clearly don't know where the line is. Let me try to delineate it for you.

Because I have lots to do today, I shall proceed bit by bit and, in installments, although I eventually hope to lay out a good working definition of anti-Semitism. For civility's sake, I wish to minimize the "you" and "me" or "we." I also wish to avoid going after fellow forum members directly. I don't want to go after Justonemore or anyone else. It's not nice. I am sure that both of us would rather be talking about shoes.

So what we need is a good straw man I can attack, and I know just the one. I will go after&#8230; &#8230;.wait for it&#8230;Tony Benn. Won't that be fun?

For now, I will leave you with a preview of my arguments to come. Odradek, let's talk about the word you used, "pariah," which carries a great deal of baggage (you haven't been reading Hannah Arendt, have you?).

Israel is a pariah, you say. I can't think of a more revealing sentence. My response is that of course Israel is a pariah, as it has always been in the post-Roman Christian world. You will tell me that the one thing has nothing to do with the other. The animosity toward and libels heaped upon the modern State of Israel has nothing to do with the animosity toward and libels heaped upon the either the Jews of medieval Europe or the Jewish refugees and survivors who, having been chased out of Christian and Arab lands alike because they were pariahs, took refuge in their ancestral homeland. Contemporary Israel's pariah status results entirely from its actions, and the continuity of Israel's pariah status is a coincidence. One must not conflate Israel and "Israel."

So you might tell yourself, and so you might earnestly believe.

I don't buy it for a second.

For one thing-and I think Chouan must acknowledge this fact as someone with academic training in history-it is highly implausible that millennial patterns of thought, discourses, habits of mind, reflexes, ideologies, sentiments, etc., vanish from one day to the next and loose all potency just because advancing Allied armies revealed the horrors of the camps in 1944-45. Human civilization does not work that way. No, deeply engrained patterns of thought, discourses, etc., persist for a long, long time, though they evolve. In Israel's case, one finds new excuses, new crimes to allege. There is thus a thread connecting William of Norwich (more on him later) and the late Tony Benn.

On similar lines, Odradek, I am quite familiar with the differences in media coverage re: israel in European versus American media, having lived in Europe for years and being a regular consumer of European news media. You chalk it up to media bias, and many take the next step and speculate about the Jewish influence on the American media. I'm not saying you do, I'm just observing that many do.

This is my hypothesis, and I mean this in earnest: The bottom line is that most Europeans either dislike Jews or are indifferent to them. In contrast, most Americans either like Jews or are indifferent to them. There are reasons for these differences, namely a radically different history. For instance, there have never been organized Jewish communities in America there way there were for most of post-Roman European history up until roughly 1789. Pre-1793 French Jews, for example, constituted a legally defined political entity, referred to as a "nation." They were subject to particular laws, different tax schemes, etc. Similar patterns existed everywhere back then except, I think, Britain. But never in America. There was never an _ancien régime_ in America. Never an established Church. No guilds. No "corporations." I know of one and only one clear instance of an anti-Jewish measure enacted by the US Government (something General Grant did in occupied Tennessee, I think, but Lincoln overturned). George Washington explicitly welcomed Jews as part of the collective American family. And political anti-semitism, despite the best efforts of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin, never ever took root in America. On the flip side, whereas Jews in America feel completely safe, they feel safe no where in Europe. The surest way to locate a synagogue in Europe is to look for the police presence and security barricades. I saw one synagogue in Berlin that had an armored car parked in front of it.

Getting back to the media, all this means that American journalists and their audience tend to respond differently to events in the Middle East than Europeans.

So stay turned for the next installment, to be entitled, "The link between William of Norwich and Tony Benn."


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Oh, Odradek, it's older than you know.
> 
> I've put a lot of thought into if and how I should respond to you or to Justonemore--how he exposed himself each time he amended that last post of his!
> 
> On one hand, I can't think of many more stupid things to do with my time than fight with strangers on the internet about anything, and I am always amazed by people's willingness to spar on these boards. I have better things to do. Indeed, if you go through my 2,000+ posts, you find almost no instances of my quarreling with anyone. Plus, the nature of these things is such that I have zero chance of convincing any of you of anything other than reinforcing your own stereotypes about how "sensitive" or prone to "exaggeration" Jews might be. Paranoid lot. What I accuse Justonemore of is unwitting and probably unconscious. No right thinking person would ever admit to himself or others to being an anti-Semite. The Nazis gave it a very bad name. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Far from it. It just doesn't exist in that pseudo-scientific racialist form popular in Germany back in the day. For it's often not about the explicit substance of what one says, but the sub-text, the logical conclusions, or perhaps even the discourse--the language chosen such that written statements convey multiple meanings of which the author might be unaware. Such that while one might quite sincerely insist, for example, that one is merely responding to things Israel does, one is in fact doing nothing more than engaging in an up-dated form of the blood libel.
> 
> On the other hand, because I come to this forum for the pleasure of light banter, and because I've come to feel quite comfortable in what I regard as Andy's virtual salon, I object to hate speech just as I object to stepping in dog poop while on a pleasant stroll. It ruins the experience. That's what provoked my "pavlovian response." You do not see it as hate speech only because it is 'normal' to you, the way perhaps that jokes about the Irish or "Papists" no doubt were perfectly acceptable in polite English society not too long ago, or putting on black face and mimicking black people was once fashionable among polite white Americans. Maybe I can teach you something. Maybe. Or perhaps I can inform you as to how to talk about Israel. You all clearly don't know where the line is. Let me try to delineate it for you.
> 
> Because I have lots to do today, I shall proceed bit by bit and, in installments, although I eventually hope to lay out a good working definition of anti-Semitism. For civility's sake, I wish to minimize the "you" and "me" or "we." I also wish to avoid going after fellow forum members directly. I don't want to go after Justonemore or anyone else. It's not nice. I am sure that both of us would rather be talking about shoes.
> 
> So what we need is a good straw man I can attack, and I know just the one. I will go after&#8230; &#8230;.wait for it&#8230;Tony Benn. Won't that be fun?
> 
> For now, I will leave you with a preview of my arguments to come. Odradek, let's talk about the word you used, "pariah," which carries a great deal of baggage (you haven't been reading Hannah Arendt, have you?).
> 
> Israel is a pariah, you say. I can't think of a more revealing sentence. My response is that of course Israel is a pariah, as it has always been in the post-Roman Christian world. You will tell me that the one thing has nothing to do with the other. The animosity toward and libels heaped upon the modern State of Israel has nothing to do with the animosity toward and libels heaped upon the either the Jews of medieval Europe or the Jewish refugees and survivors who, having been chased out of Christian and Arab lands alike because they were pariahs, took refuge in their ancestral homeland. Contemporary Israel's pariah status results entirely from its actions, and the continuity of Israel's pariah status is a coincidence. One must not conflate Israel and "Israel."
> 
> So you might tell yourself, and so you might earnestly believe.
> 
> I don't buy it for a second.
> 
> For one thing-and I think Chouan must acknowledge this fact as someone with academic training in history-it is highly implausible that millennial patterns of thought, discourses, habits of mind, reflexes, ideologies, sentiments, etc., vanish from one day to the next and loose all potency just because advancing Allied armies revealed the horrors of the camps in 1944-45. Human civilization does not work that way. No, deeply engrained patterns of thought, discourses, etc., persist for a long, long time, though they evolve. In Israel's case, one finds new excuses, new crimes to allege. There is thus a thread connecting William of Norwich (more on him later) and the late Tony Benn.
> 
> On similar lines, Odradek, I am quite familiar with the differences in media coverage re: israel in European versus American media, having lived in Europe for years and being a regular consumer of European news media. You chalk it up to media bias, and many take the next step and speculate about the Jewish influence on the American media. I'm not saying you do, I'm just observing that many do.
> 
> This is my hypothesis, and I mean this in earnest: The bottom line is that most Europeans either dislike Jews or are indifferent to them. In contrast, most Americans either like Jews or are indifferent to them. There are reasons for these differences, namely a radically different history. For instance, there have never been organized Jewish communities in America there way there were for most of post-Roman European history up until roughly 1789. Pre-1793 French Jews, for example, constituted a legally defined political entity, referred to as a "nation." They were subject to particular laws, different tax schemes, etc. Similar patterns existed everywhere back then except, I think, Britain. But never in America. There was never an _ancien régime_ in America. Never an established Church. No guilds. No "corporations." I know of one and only one clear instance of an anti-Jewish measure enacted by the US Government (something General Grant did in occupied Tennessee, I think, but Lincoln overturned). George Washington explicitly welcomed Jews as part of the collective American family. And political anti-semitism, despite the best efforts of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin, never ever took root in America. On the flip side, whereas Jews in America feel completely safe, they feel safe no where in Europe. The surest way to locate a synagogue in Europe is to look for the police presence and security barricades. I saw one synagogue in Berlin that had an armored car parked in front of it.
> 
> Getting back to the media, all this means that American journalists and their audience tend to respond differently to events in the Middle East than Europeans.
> 
> So stay turned for the next installment, to be entitled, "The link between William of Norwich and Tony Benn."


I wrote a rather lengthy response to this but decided to delete it and sit this round out (I hope my editing it isn't too "telling"). As you mentioned inbetween your name calling, I'd rather be here discussing shoes or politics versus your définitions of anti-semitism (which are rather far reaching).

By the way....If you have any proof of what you've said against me several times now, please send the offending "Anti-semitic" comments to another moderator and have him contact me concerning the matter. No one else appears to have agreed with you turning this into a name calling contest versus debating the atrocities of modern society(including those of the U.S., the U.K., Russia, and yes, even Israel). No one else has come onto this thread and backed up your assertions that my comments were of the nature you mention. In fact, the reverse is true. Either provide actual proof that my post was Anti-sematic (versus far reaching theories that envelope all of europe), or refrain from calling me an Anti- semite on the public forums. I am getting tired of having to write a page reminding everyone of my point of views everytime you want to start name calling. I use U.N. figures. A war crime is a war crime. The facts are on my side.

One mention here... Your standpoint is much the same taken by supporters of reverse discrimination in the states. Group A has had problems in the past with group B, therefore group A must now be the dominant force and have every advantage offered to them. The past has now become a reason to discriminate against group B and offer every advantage (no matter how absurd) to group A.

While perhaps oversimplifying it. The arguement is.... someone cut in front of me in a line...therefore everybody must cut in line....therefore I can claim that I have the right to do so at my discretion & no one should dare be critical of me doing so.

As a confessed athiest, I do wonder why you feel that I have single out Judaism. As I've already mentioned. I consider all believers as incorrect in their thinking. If you want to believe whatever you want, well that's fine with me but I certainly don't believe Judaism to be any more false than I consider Christianity to be false, which is no more than I consider Hinduism to be false, which is no more than I consider the muslim faith to be false, etc. etc. etc. It's all B.S. to me. If I don't believe in a god, then it just follows that I don't believe in all the other hocus pocus that comes with it either.

P.S. As most of my posts are written on my cell phone, and I can't see everything written, I edit constantly. I post many things as drafts and work on them when I have time and energy. Your insinuation that I have ulterior motives in doing so is complete cr*p.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I know that our views of her will never coincide, but from an entirely personal view, that she once explained to a Merchant Navy (in which I had the honour to be a Second Mate) Master that her reason for allowing Britain's Merchant Navy to disappear was "the unions". That the MNAOA, the Merchant Navy Officers' Union had never taken industrial action of any kind had either escaped her, or didn't matter to her, suggests at least a certain level of dishonesty.


Perhaps on that occasion she was just misinformed, rather than 'dishonest'? Of course, her antipathy to the unions is notorious and possibly she was conflating the hard-line unionist dockers and shipyard workers with the seamen, in some way?

I would never claim she was infallible, but nevertheless I had become convinced by around 1977 that the UK was just about done for, due to the unions and industrial action (others may disagree on that point, but that was my conviction, and I am not alone), so her timely intervention proved a bit of a game-changer. As they say, vous ne pouvez pas faire une omelette sans casser des œufs.


----------



## Shaver

^ or in Thatcher's case - Vous ne pouvez pas faire une omelette sans casser quelques têtes :icon_pale:

.
.
.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Because I have lots to do today, I shall proceed bit by bit and, in installments, although I eventually hope to lay out a good working definition of anti-Semitism. For civility's sake, I wish to minimize the "you" and "me" or "we." I also wish to avoid going after fellow forum members directly. I don't want to go after Justonemore or anyone else. It's not nice. I am sure that both of us would rather be talking about shoes.
> 
> So what we need is a good straw man I can attack, and I know just the one. I will go after&#8230; &#8230;.wait for it&#8230;Tony Benn. Won't that be fun?
> 
> For now, I will leave you with a preview of my arguments to come. Odradek, let's talk about the word you used, "pariah," which carries a great deal of baggage (you haven't been reading Hannah Arendt, have you?).
> 
> Israel is a pariah, you say. I can't think of a more revealing sentence. My response is that of course Israel is a pariah, as it has always been in the post-Roman Christian world. You will tell me that the one thing has nothing to do with the other. The animosity toward and libels heaped upon the modern State of Israel has nothing to do with the animosity toward and libels heaped upon the either the Jews of medieval Europe or the Jewish refugees and survivors who, having been chased out of Christian and Arab lands alike because they were pariahs, took refuge in their ancestral homeland. Contemporary Israel's pariah status results entirely from its actions, and the continuity of Israel's pariah status is a coincidence. One must not conflate Israel and "Israel."
> 
> So you might tell yourself, and so you might earnestly believe.
> 
> I don't buy it for a second.
> 
> For one thing-and I think Chouan must acknowledge this fact as someone with academic training in history-it is highly implausible that millennial patterns of thought, discourses, habits of mind, reflexes, ideologies, sentiments, etc., vanish from one day to the next and loose all potency just because advancing Allied armies revealed the horrors of the camps in 1944-45. Human civilization does not work that way. No, deeply engrained patterns of thought, discourses, etc., persist for a long, long time, though they evolve. In Israel's case, one finds new excuses, new crimes to allege. There is thus a thread connecting William of Norwich (more on him later) and the late Tony Benn.


Your making some grossly sweeping generalisations here. That anti-semitism existed and was very strongly established across all sectors of society in Europe is true. That it still exists is also true, although no longer across all sectors of society. However, that anti-semitism existed does not mean that Europeans are inherently anti-semitic, or that Europeans are more likely to be anti-semitic than any other group. That you're apparently suggesting this is not only making a grotesque generalisation, it is also stereotyping, and is also anti-European and racist. You're implying that because Europe had been an anti-semitic region, that Europeans are therefore culturally anti-semitic, and that Justonmpore, for example, although an American living in Switzerland rather than a European, is now part of the European anti-semitic culture.
As I said originally, there is nothing in what Justonemore said that was anti-semitic, no matter how much you want there to have been. That he criticised the modern state of Israel, quite justifiably, in subsequent posts is no more anti-semitic than my criticism of the United States means that I am anti-American, although some members will disagree.



tocqueville said:


> On similar lines, Odradek, I am quite familiar with the differences in media coverage re: israel in European versus American media, having lived in Europe for years and being a regular consumer of European news media. You chalk it up to media bias, and many take the next step and speculate about the Jewish influence on the American media. I'm not saying you do, I'm just observing that many do.
> 
> This is my hypothesis, and I mean this in earnest: The bottom line is that most Europeans either dislike Jews or are indifferent to them. In contrast, most Americans either like Jews or are indifferent to them. There are reasons for these differences, namely a radically different history. For instance, there have never been organized Jewish communities in America there way there were for most of post-Roman European history up until roughly 1789. Pre-1793 French Jews, for example, constituted a legally defined political entity, referred to as a "nation." They were subject to particular laws, different tax schemes, etc. Similar patterns existed everywhere back then except, I think, Britain. But never in America. There was never an _ancien régime_ in America. Never an established Church. No guilds. No "corporations." I know of one and only one clear instance of an anti-Jewish measure enacted by the US Government (something General Grant did in occupied Tennessee, I think, but Lincoln overturned). George Washington explicitly welcomed Jews as part of the collective American family. And political anti-semitism, despite the best efforts of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin, never ever took root in America. On the flip side, whereas Jews in America feel completely safe, they feel safe no where in Europe. The surest way to locate a synagogue in Europe is to look for the police presence and security barricades. I saw one synagogue in Berlin that had an armored car parked in front of it.
> 
> Getting back to the media, all this means that American journalists and their audience tend to respond differently to events in the Middle East than Europeans.
> 
> So stay turned for the next installment, to be entitled, "The link between William of Norwich and Tony Benn."


Political anti-semitism may not have existed in a legally recognisable form in the US, but cultural anti-semitism, as well as anti-Irishism, and general anti-foreignerism, as well as anti-catholicism and especially anti-hispanism were and are well established, culturally. That there are right wing groups in Europe that are committed anti-semites is true, but that does not mean that anti-semitism is either reasonable nor acceptable in European society, and I for one, find your suggestion that it is both insulting and profoundly ignorant. Your, again grossly generalising, assertion that Europeans " either dislike Jews or are indifferent to them" is also insulting. I would suggest that most Europeans, who aren't involved in extremist right wing activities, are indifferent to Jews and Judaism, because they're not as inclined to identify people by confession. Whether a colleague is or isn't a Jew is of supreme indifference to them, because they're not inclined to like, or dislike, a person because of their religion.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ or in Thatcher's case - Vous ne pouvez pas faire une omelette sans casser quelques têtes. :icon_pale:


Quite right Shaver, she never did things by half-measures did she.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## tocqueville

Some good points, Chouan. I promise some responses tonight.


----------



## Hitch

*I would suggest that most Europeans, who aren't involved in extremist right wing activities, are indifferent to Jews and Judaism*

I take this to mean that the neo NAZIs, Greens, Green Left, Social Democrats, Workers party, Socialist, Communists, Anti-Capitalists, Liberal, Sinn Fien, etc making an apparent majority are in fact indifferent to Jews and Judaism. Communists and NAZIs have a well known history wrt Jews that couldnt be described as indifferent. So it is hardly a grossly sweeping generalisations here ; to say most of Europe is at best indifferent to Jews. But then the Left has been defined as the Right before.


----------



## tocqueville

Many commentators starting at least with Sartre have described distinct "anti-Semitism of the Left" and "anti-Semitism of the Right." That of the Right has certainly declined post-war, as most Europeans and all mainstream parties disavow it. That's a good thing. Contemporary anti-Semitism is more an affair of the Left. Hopefully I'll be able to unpack these things for y'all.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Political anti-semitism may not have existed in a legally recognisable form in the US, but cultural anti-semitism, as well as anti-Irishism, and general anti-foreignerism, as well as anti-catholicism and especially anti-hispanism were and are well established, culturally. That there are right wing groups in Europe that are committed anti-semites is true, but that does not mean that anti-semitism is either reasonable nor acceptable in European society, and I for one, find your suggestion that it is both insulting and profoundly ignorant. Your, again grossly generalising, assertion that Europeans " either dislike Jews or are indifferent to them" is also insulting. I would suggest that most Europeans, who aren't involved in extremist right wing activities, are indifferent to Jews and Judaism, because they're not as inclined to identify people by confession. Whether a colleague is or isn't a Jew is of supreme indifference to them, because they're not inclined to like, or dislike, a person because of their religion.


Your comments about the other "antiX-isms" in America are absolutely right. I'm always amazed by the virulence of anti-Catholic and above all anti-Irish sentiment in the US through the 19th century until relatively recently (remember that many apparently were uncomfortable with JFK being both Irish and Catholic). There were anti-Irish pogroms during the Civil War, IIRC. (question: has Britain had a Catholic PM? I don't know if modern France has had any Protestant leaders, but to its credit, it has had three Jewish ones if we include Crémieux's provisional leadership in 1848 and 1870-1). So no, America was/is not all peace, love and understanding. I have in fact read some histories of Jews in the American South that argue that one reason why they were left in peace was that their neighbors were too busy hating on blacks and Catholics to pay them any notice.

I also wish to state that by "indifference" i do not at all mean that in a negative way. Indifferent means, "I know you're Jewish, but that's neither here or there. I don't care. I like or dislike you for entirely unrelated reasons." That's a perfectly good state of affairs, as far as I'm concerned, and I believe that describes most people. When I meet Europeans, I assume they fall into that category. Proof that generally speaking Europeans get along well with Jews can be found in the high intermarriage rates.

I owe you all some more substantive posts, please be patient. These are not things I wish to dash off on the fly.


----------



## tocqueville

Justonemore, are you as outraged by this as you are about the Israeli strike a few days ago against Syrian military targets?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26706417


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> ... (question: has Britain had a Catholic PM?


Catholics were forbidden to hold public office until well in to the 19th century and I don't believe we have ever had a Catholic PM, unless Blair's crypto-Catholicism is counted. On the other hand, we had a Jewish PM in the 19th century.


----------



## tocqueville

Disraeli? I wonder how much it mattered at the time that he had converted.



Langham said:


> Catholics were forbidden to hold public office until well in to the 19th century and I don't believe we have ever had a Catholic PM, unless Blair's crypto-Catholicism is counted. On the other hand, we had a Jewish PM in the 19th century.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Justonemore, are you as outraged by this as you are about the Israeli strike a few days ago against Syrian military targets?
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26706417


I don't remember being "outraged" versus mentioning thst Israel was once again in the news for breaking International law. my outrage was directed at the 1'200 civilians annahilated by Israel in 2006(something you seem to be in favor of).

It seems as if U.N. observers are claiming that Turkey has violated Syria's sovereignty in shooting down a Syrian plane over Syrian territory. If Turkey's version of events is true, then the opposite applies. Whatever side is shown to have blatantly ignored international law should be held accountable for such. As an athiest I hold that there is no after life & we all get one go. While I consider all life to be precious, I must admit that the death of a military pilot doesn't quite bother me as much as the slaughter of 1,200 civilians. I believe I stated as much earlier by using the quote "live by the sword, die by the sword" when responding to one of your earlier posts.


----------



## tocqueville

Did the bombing that prompted the Israeli raid mean nothing to you?


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Did the bombing that prompted the Israeli raid mean nothing to you?


It might have meant more to me if Israel had come out to the International Community with some sort of proof compared to the standard rhetoric. Last time I checked, the Syrian-held side of Golan is mosty controled by rebels (or oppostion groups as the U.S. wants to call them) which have Al-Qaeda type groups that are hostile to Israel.. There was no proof given (other than Israel's word) that this was a Syrian sponsered attack (although I know you'd like us to assume so) versus an attack of opportunity for groups that have been armed and sponsored by the U.S. (and its allies). That Israel possibly maimed and killed people not actually associated with the bombing seems to have escaped your mind, but it seems as if you take an "anything goes" type of attitude when it comes to Israeli "defense". I will once again refer you the U.N. website which might be able to better explain the definition as to what is acceptable in the terms of agression/defense, warcrimes, respect/breach of a nation's sovereignty, etc.

You seem to ignore the fact that the world hasn't recognized the annexation of the Golan by Israel and that in reality, the Israelis were on Syrian territory. Don't worry, I looked this one up for you.....

_The Security Council_,

_Having considered_ the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,

_Reaffirming_ that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,


_Decides _that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
_Demands_ that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
_Determines_ that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
_Requests_ the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

I do wonder what your thoughts would be if the reverse were true. Let's pretend that the U.S. didn't channel $Trillions into the Israeli war machine & that Israel was the one that actually lost gound. Would it be ok for the Syrians to act the same way to Israel as Israel currently acts to Sryia? Would you support Syria occupying the area against U.N declaration? If a small group of extremist Israelis decided to set explosives against the occupying Syrians (in what is technically Israeli territory) would that be ok with you? Or would you think it justification for Syria to bomb Israeli military targets on Israeli territory? For some reason, I get the feeling that should such a scenario exist, you'd be a big supporter of the U.N..

I'm sorry to edit my post...but...It just occured to me that I wasn't at all sure of exactly what bombing or Israeli raid you were refering to. I answered the current one (as we were discussing in posts 179 & 182) but perhaps you meant one from the past?


----------



## Shaver

_First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist._ 
_Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--_ 
_Because I was not a Trade Unionist._ 
_Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--_ 
_Because I was not a Jew._ 
_Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me._

_- Martin Niemöller_



These words, which keep returning to my thoughts, have forced me to weigh in here - I can distinguish no anti-semitism (crypto or otherwise) within justonemore's posts.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Disraeli? I wonder how much it mattered at the time that he had converted.


Hard to say. In any case, I'm not sure that it is a reliable indicator of prejudice in society generally. Anti-Catholic and anti-semitic (not to mention racist) sentiment was not uncommon among all classes here at least until the 1940s or later.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I also wish to state that by "indifference" i do not at all mean that in a negative way. Indifferent means, "I know you're Jewish, but that's neither here or there. I don't care. I like or dislike you for entirely unrelated reasons." That's a perfectly good state of affairs, as far as I'm concerned, and I believe that describes most people. When I meet Europeans, I assume they fall into that category. Proof that generally speaking Europeans get along well with Jews can be found in the high intermarriage rates.


Quite. Liking a person because they're Jewish is almost as racist as disliking a person because they're Jewish. In both cases the person's race is seen over the person's personality.
Curiously enough I have two friends and colleagues whom I subsequently discovered to be Jewish, one after two years of friendship, the other after about 6 months. In both cases they mentioned it in passing conversation rather than identifying themselves as such as if it were important that I and others knew. I told the latter that I should have known all along as he's called Simon and supports Spurs!

Further to the earlier comment about Israel being a "pariah state", is there a state that has had more UN Resolutions issued against it through its flagrant ignoring of international law?


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Further to the earlier comment about Israel being a "pariah state", is there a state that has had more UN Resolutions issued against it through its flagrant ignoring of international law?


Chouan, if you are seeking evidence that Israeli is a pariah state, your point is well taken. I never disputed Israeli's pariah status, I merely question the reasons for it. In fact, your observation proves my argument. The UN is not the Vulcan High Council we wish it to be, but with regard to Israel has had all the impartiality of a mob. I can think of no better proof--other than the UN's peculiar insistence on scrutinizing Israeli's every breath and finding fault--than the fact that it--to paraphrase the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, elevated anti-Semitism to international law. Indeed, if you look closely at the substance and background to many anti-Israel resolutions one finds above all evidence of:
1. The intense hatred and often explicit anti-Semitism of the Arab and, sadly, Muslim, world.
2. The willingness of what was once called the "Third World" and the Non-Aligned Movement to swallow the Arabs' conflation of their effort to destroy Israel with the fight against colonialism and Imperialism (which provides the stuff of much of the leftist anti-Semitism one encounters today).
3. The interest of the Soviet Block in encouraging 1. and 2.

One of the interesting trends we see at work here is how the Arab and Muslim worlds have become the torch bearers of anti-Semitism, while it has declined greatly in Europe. The shift is a largely 20th century phenomenon.

Here, by the way, is Moynihan's great speech on the occasion of the UN's collective perfidy. An "obscenity," he called it:


----------



## tocqueville

Because my time is limited, I shall have to do this in parts. Here's Part 1.
------------------------------

What's been missing in this debate is a good definition of anti-Semitism. I want to address that before I turn to Tony Benn. I shall begin by describing the definitions of two rather different scholars who have come to remarkably similar arguments. I want two, rather than one, because they are two people with different interests and different areas of expertise yet end up in roughly the same place. The first is Bernard Lewis, who is an Ottomist and Middle East scholar. The second is Gavin Langmuir, a medievalist with a focus on England, and also young Tocqueville's teacher.

But first a point of fact: the term anti-Semitism has always been about Jews and never "Semites," an entirely fictitious category that includes Arabs. It was coined by a 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century German, Wilhelm Marr, who used "Semite" as a synonym for Jew, perhaps to lend his rants a pseudo-scientific air. Marr, by the way, is someone I believe we can all agree is, in fact an anti-Semite, even without agreeing on a precise definition of the term. He hated Jews.

Let's start with Lewis, who has published a few times on the subject. I refer you to this article here:
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-new-anti-semitism/#.UzA3Aq1dVXI

First discussing various forms of hatred and persecution and arguing that it's perfectly plausible that one can hate and even persecute Jews without being an anti-Semite, he asserts that:

"Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism."

"The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil. Complaints against people of other groups rarely include it. This accusation of cosmic, satanic evil attributed to Jews, in various parts of the world and in various forms, is what has come to be known in modern times as anti-Semitism."

There are two things I want to call attention to here:
1. The idea of different standards being applied
2. The element of some fantastic threat represented by Jews-it's an abstract threat rather than a specific, real problem.

Lewis also proceeds to lay out a history of anti-Jewish hatred, noting that there are various phases ranging from religion-inspired animosity to racial animosity, but also noting that is has taken various ideological forms. His main concern, however, is with the modern transference of anti-Semitic ideology to the Arab world. I could go on, but I urge you to read his entire article.

Next, Langmuir.

Toward the end of Langmuir's distinguished career, he set out to tackle some things he had been seeing in the historical records-namely various forms of hostility against Jews-and he wanted to describe what he came to see as an evolution from Christian anti-Judaism to what he chose to call anti-Semitism. What, he asked, was the difference? When did the former cross the line to become the latter?

Langmuir noticed trends. First, in early medieval Christendom, Jews were hated for religious reasons, largely because they were unbelievers. Then, things got worse, for a bunch of reasons. Still, the animosity remained either religious in nature or could be defined simply as xenophobia. There was also the fact that some of the accusations made against Jews had kernels of truth, although in unfair ways. The best example is money lending: Christian rulers imposed restrictions on Jews, forcing them to adopt trades such as money lending. Then they were vilified for it. Still, though unfair, the accusations were not fiction. Jews lent money, and in many parts of rural Europe, peasants and Jewish moneylenders were deeply entangled in some rather unfortunate ways. These are facts, acknowledged by all involved then and by all reputable scholars now.

But, said, Langmuir, we're still not talking about anti-Semitism. Yet.

Then, in the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] century, something happened. New stereotypes emerged that Langmuir described as "chimerical." They had no kernel of truth. They ascribed to Jews horrendous deeds imagined by Christians that Christians had never observed Jews doing. Langmuir said this started in England, by the way, with cult that grew up around the allegedly martyred William of Norwich.

Paraphrasing Langmuir: The 'Jews' were used as a symbol to express repressed fantasies about crucifixion and cannibalism, repressed doubts about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and unbearable doubts and fears about God's goodness and the bubonic bacillus that imperceptibly invaded people's bodies. By attacking "Jews," individuals who were poorly integrated in their societies and within themselves could express the tensions they felt as a conflict between good and bad people, between Christians and Jews. These psychologically troubled people discovered that they could even gain social approval for their struggle to support generally accepted values against hidden menaces by accusing and attacking Jews.

Langmuir noted that this phenomenon of hatred grounded in chimera, in fantastic projections, is-with one exception-largely unique to the persecution of Jews, which is why anti-Semitism is a distinct thing. The one exception is black people. Blacks share with Jews the distinction of being almost universally subject to entirely irrational hatred.

So let's sum up: Lewis distinguishes anti-Semitism from other more pedestrian forms of hatred by referring to two elements, the application of a different standard and the projection of Jews as representing some kind of cosmic threat. Langmuir defines anti-Semitism as a hatred based not on religious dogma or fear of the Other but on fantastic accusations, perhaps even projections of some turmoil within the collective or individual psyche of the accuser. This is how he distinguishes anti-Semitism from more "classical" religiously motivated hatred, xenophobia, or anti-Jewish sentiment that might have some basis in reality such as complaints about money lending.

OK, so we are up to William of Norwich. The next step is to trace the tread to Tony Benn. Stay tuned.


----------



## Chouan

You appear to have missed the anti-Semitic programme of Edward I, which had a significant influence on the perception of Jews, especially the fallacy of ritual sacrifice, as well as the pogroms in the Rhineland during the initial phase of the First Crusade.
However, although you've given an interesting view of anti-Semitism, there's nothing that you've written so far that supports your assertion that Justonemore is anti-semitic, or has written anything anti-semitic. The main thrust of your argument appears to be that anti-semitism is an irrational dislike of Jews and things Jewish and the belief that Jews are a special case to be viewed differently. You, however, seem to view any criticism of Israel as being based on anti-semitism. My view is that any state that is guilty of aggression, or war crimes, or terrorism, whether state sponsored or privately run, or state sponsored institutional racism is wrong and deserving of criticism. Israel is guilty of all of these things, so is deserving of criticism, and the children's favourite excuse of "they did it too" does not make Israel innocent of the odious acts mentioned.


----------



## tocqueville

I'll get there. Sorry I'm dragging it out. Job and all.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I'll get there. Sorry I'm dragging it out. Job and all.


Yes, what nuisance employment is; I'll be glad when I've had enough.


----------



## Kingstonian

justonemore said:


> Anti-Israeli policy does not equal antisemitism. MOD or not, shame on you for saying so and creating problems that don't exist. you ignore the other mentioned countries & their religions be it muslim or Christian. Almost seems as if you're displaying some bias yourself as most of this thread has been less than flattering to the u.s., the u.k., & russia. the middle east has played heavily into it as well. Israel was mentioned once


It is an old trick but the world is getting wise to it. Honest Israelis are giving the game away.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE


----------



## Kingstonian

Hasbara trolls are almost unavoidable. You just need to be aware they are around.

The Israel Lobby and Norman Finkelstein are useful reading. Look how Finkelstein got harassed and dismissed. That in itself is instructive.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby


----------



## tocqueville

Part 2.

I've been going through the comments posted here, testing my assertions. Have I exaggerated? Have I gone to far? Maybe.

What I reacted to are clichés, clichés with baggage. Arguably I read to much into Justonemore's comments, for I saw the baggage as well as the clichés. He may well be unaware of the baggage, although that does not mean they're not there. Language is funny that way.

Previously I presented the definitions of Lewis and Langmuir. Lewis's definition pointed to two qualities:
1. The application of a different standard.
2. The projection of Jews as representing some kind of cosmic threat.

Langmuir identified as a distinguishing characteristic the idea of fantastic allegations based on chimera, that were projects of some sort of collective or individual turmoil.

With regard to a different standard, this is notoriously difficult to assess (Lewis in fact warns of this). However, with respect to Israel, I want to amend Lewis' standard to state that often what one finds is the application of an impossible standard, one that implies a rejection of Israeli's right to exist and bespeaks a wish for Israel's destruction. This is something I see time and time again, and it is something that is peculiar to people's criticism of Israel and not to that of any other state. No one applies such a standard to anyone else, which leads me to believe that something else is at work. Basically, I find that often criticism of Israel's efforts to defend itself imply that Israel must not defend itself, for every act of self-defense is assessed to be a crime against humanity. Israel cannot fight, for that makes it criminal. And Israel should not fight because it is to blame for the conflict, meaning Israel is criminal whether or not it fights. It is criminal because it exists. This is the explicit argument of Israel's neighbors save Jordan and Egypt (although outside of their governments, those arguments are common), as well as Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, and the Arab League, who are all explicitly anti-Semitic in their arguments. It is the implicit argument among those who continuously brush off Israel's security concerns, leaving me to conclude that Israelis can only do right be letting themselves be martyred. So, Hamas bombs your buses and rains rockets upon your cities? Do nothing, because it's your fault. Never mind that Hamas is as anti-Semitic as the Nazi Party and seeks to destroy you.

Does this mean anything goes? No, and here I draw a distinction between Israel's struggles with its neighbors and the Palestinians under its control. With respect to the neighbors, screw them. The virulence of their hatred is profoundly racist and anti-Semitic, and I can only puzzle over how little the rest of the world could possibly see it any other way. There is no "other side" to Israel's conflict with Hizbullah, Iran, Syria, etc. Moreover, I know of no other conflicts in the world in which one side so steadfastly rejects not just the existence of their opponent but their very humanity.

As for the Palestinians, that's a whole different affair from a number of perspectives, and that's where I part company with the Israeli right wing, its settlement policy, etc. Israel has no choice but to attempt as many times as it takes to achieve an equitable settlement with its Palestinian subjects and treat them justly, although anyone who does not appreciate the significant risk Israel runs is at best naïve.

Now, let's get back to this question of Israel's essential criminality.

The anti-Semitism Lewis and Langmuir tracked often concerned the idea of Israel poisoning wells or representing some kind of existential threat to Christendom. More recently, a new form of the same kind of fantastical projection of a cosmic threat has emerged, one that draws its lineage not from William of Norwich but rather Voltaire's _Essaie sur les Mœurs_. This is what Sartre described as anti-Semitism of the left, and it has to do with the idea that Jews are somehow a threat to "Civilization" construed not in terms of Christendom but the Enlightenment. One form this has taken in recent decades is that Israel, by representing a nationalism grounded in ethno-religious particularism, runs counter to progress and the emergence of a post-national world, or perhaps a Kantian internationalist utopia of international law. It's not just the Left that dabbles in this kind of anti-Semitism, of course, but it is most associated with it. It helps that the Arab world successful defined for many its war against Israel as a campaign against imperialism and colonialism, as if it were no different from the campaign to eject the French from Algeria. That's how being anti-Israel became current among Third Worldists and goes a long way to explaining why the Third World in the UN consistently marched in step with the Arab bloc.

Let me explain some more. For better or for worse, I know the French literature on this stuff the best, so bear with me.

The French thinker Alain Finkielkraut argued that traditionally anti-Semites in France are "the French who worship a cult of their identity and who love each other in opposition to Jews." "Contemporary anti-Semitism," however, is the domain of the French who "do not love each other, who think in terms of a post-national future, who rid themselves of their Frenchness to better identify with the poor of the Earth, and who, through Israel, group Jews in the camp of the oppressors." There is, he continues, "a tacit accord between anti-Semitic Islamism and the progressivism of self-deprecation, of denegation and self-hatred." Finkielkraut similarly has observed that the anti-Jewish hatred of today comes not from those nostalgic for Pétain and Vichy but rather the activists of the anti-globalization and anti-racism movements. He explains that European unity is constructed around a series of 'never agains.' No more war, nor power, nor empire, nor nationalism. Progressive Europe has disavowed its embarrassing past. However this makes it all the more ill at ease with a state, Israel, that clings to its borders just as Europe renounces its own, that nurtures its army just as Europe demilitarizes, and that must combat implacable enemies when many idealists like to think that there is no such thing. There are no disputes that can't be overcome if one simply talks things over. Finkielkraut even argues that French have succeeded in transforming Palestinians into an ideal-type, an always perfect victim, and Jews into a similarly fantastic abstraction, monstrous and criminal torturers.

Pierre-Andre Taguieff (who prefers the term Judeophobia to avoid the association with racialist ideology) similarly argues that hatred of Jews is no longer grounded in race theory or articulated in terms of an opposition between Semites and Aryans. Instead, it is based on a "representation of Zionism as an incarnation of absolute evil." The new judeophobia originated in Islam and Arab nationalism, however it now extends to a movement consisting of "neo-Christian humanitarianism," "third-worldists," and anti-globalization activists. This movement "draws nourishment from a myth and feeds it in return." The myth "is constructed on the demonized figure of 'Jews-Israelis-Zionists' supported by the 'Americans' and in opposition to that, no less mythical, of the Palestinian Arab 'innocent victims.'" On one side stands the "cosmopolitan Satan," the unholy trinity 'United States/Israel/Occident.' On the other side stands the "dominated and the oppressed." Thus the new judeophobia recycles old stereotypes such as the rich Jew and the dominating Jew under the "varnish of progressivism." I would add that it elevates the "threat" represented by Israel to fantastical levels such that it meets Langmuir's and Lewis's defintions. Israel is more than just a threat to Palestinians (which would be true, just at it was true that Jews did engage in usury); Jews are a threat to the good, however that is construed.

Let's listen to the audio of a speech Tony Benn gave denouncing Israel and protesting its invasion of Gaza:






What's he saying? He is denouncing in one breath the brutality of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and the threat to Iran, which to him are all one and the same instance of unwarranted brutality that threaten humanity. (I guess the Taliban, Hamas, and a nuclear armed Iran are not threats.) He equates this threat with particularism, nationalism, religion, racism. To this he opposes a vision of the humanity as diverse, cosmopolitan, universalist, multicultural. Sing together, "We are the world." We are all cousins.

All of us except for Israel, which represents a profound threat to the family. Or at the very least it is symbolic of the threat. His objection to Israel' use of force in Gaza-the passion behind it-has little to do with reality. It is anti-Semitism, more specifically the post-Voltaire version of the medieval anti-Semitism described by Lewis and Lagnmuir.

Now, what triggered my knee jerk reaction to Justonemore?

_I wasn't around 80 years ago so the terror that Israel visits upon the world today is a bit more relevant to me than the nazis of the 1940s. _

First, there's the contention that Israel visits terror upon the world, a terror that he implies is similar to Nazi terror. I recognize that he disavows this comparison, but it is the comparison he made. Unwitting, perhaps, but not entirely without significance. But here's the more important thing: If Justonemore had spoken of the terror Israel visits upon Palestinians, I would argue that that's unfair and one-sided, but it is a fact that Israel is in conflict with Palestinians, and that conflict all too often is violent, with dreadful violence perpetrated by both sides. But that is not what he said. He said "the world." Israel thus is guilty of being something far worse than a belligerent in a regional dispute. It is a danger to the world. And I note the inversion: Israel is the terrorist. Which implies that the people Israel claims are the terrorists are the victims. Along with the rest of the world.

What follows are more complaints, which I understand to imply that Israel must not defend itself, for its efforts to defend itself render it a criminal, and there is no acknowledgement that Israel has any need to defend itself. The insistence on scrupulous conduct is an impossible standard; it is implausible that any other country would respond any differently to comparable threats. Moreover, there's this bizarre interest in casualty ratios. This is common in anti-Israel discussions. There is often talk of the need for "proportionality," although I have not heard the word being used in other contexts. No one criticizes other countries for their lack of proportionality in their military campaigns. Militaries, by the way, think about matters in terms of "overmatch." Good commanders do not go into the field unless they can assure themselves of overmatch, unless they are absolutely up against the wall.

I was reminded of the criticism made of Israel for its use of armor in Gaza. This was bad, and evidence of Israeli brutality. Now, if I recall, there was controversy in the UK because the vehicles it was using in Afghanistan, the "snatch," I think they were called, basically Mil-Spec Land Rovers, were too vulnerable to IEDs, and the UK government found itself obliged to spend gigantic sums of money on MRAPS better to protect its soldiers. Israel, however, if it choses to protect its soldiers by deploying armor-or precision stand-off weapons, as it favored in Gaza and Lebanon-is criticized. Israel must not avail itself of technologies that minimize its own casualties. Of course, the alternative to stand-off weapons in both cases is deploying larger ground forces and more close-quarter combat&#8230;.which would invariably cause greater casualties all around&#8230;but regardless, the very idea of Israel attacking Hizbullah or Hamas is unacceptable. The idea of these wars was unacceptable, no matter what the ratio might have been had Israel somehow conducted the entire campaign with paint ball guns.

I can't help but notice that the completely one-side aggression represented by Hamas and Hizbullah, their attacks on Israeli citizens, their explicit and vociferous anti-Semitism, is completely acceptable to all. For, to quote Mr. Benn, we are all cousins. Except for the Israeli kids who must sleep in shelters. Their plight is their own damned fault, so they should suck it up and suffer. I'm sure Tony would say, "no, no, I don't mean that, for I had go shelter in bunkers during the Blitz-which killed my brother-and I'm all against that." But he didn't protest against Hamas, did he? What is his message to the parents of the Israeli kids, and their elected representatives whom they expect to protect them? Perhaps if, before Israel attacked, he had condemned Hamas and positioned himself as a human shield in Sderot&#8230;

_Do I have to fear the Israelis or the Americans to not appreciate the violence they visit upon the world? _

The assertion that America visits violence upon the world has some validity, given global nature of American military operations (although I dare say Switzerland and the rest of Western Europe have benefitted tremendously from American military strength. 60 years of peace is nothing to sneeze at. But we can save that for another debate). But Israel? What violence does Israel visit upon the world?

_Perhaps "the world" is an exageration but 30 Mossad agents following a palestinian from Damascus to kill him in Dubai while carrying fake U.K. & Australian passports seems to be at least international & overseas of sorts. While I don't have a link, I'm guessing something like this is against International law._

Here he concedes the point, which I honor. Still, why are people so outraged over this incident? Emirates have good reason to be outraged. Sure. But "the world"? Of course, I see the above incident in an entirely different light from most here. I see it as criminal incompetence. Moreover, let's not lose sight of the fact that the target wasn't just "a Palestinian from Damascus." Killing Hamas officials may be objectionable on pragmatic grounds (i.e. it doesn't help, or it only encourages things, etc.), but spare me the moral outrage.

_The crimes of Israel today, affect modern life in a negative way, right now, today. _

So it's not the "world" that's threatened but "modern life." A cosmic threat.

_For the past 29 years, as an American, I & my family & my friends & my collègues, have helped foot a $5 billion per year welfare package for Israel (not including billions in loan guarantees & billions more in separate arms packages). _

Actually, I agree with this. US aid to Israel makes no sense, at least not in its current levels. I think the aid is really a subsidy for the arms industry. The US gives the money to Israel, which buys US arms, keeping US arms companies flush. Given their weirdness of American politics, throwing the weapons Israel's way is more acceptable that indulging many other countries. Everyone's happy. A cool-headed review of Israel's security needs and military requirements is in order, one that I am sure would yield a significant reduction in "aid" without jeopardizing Israel's security. And while we're at it, US aid to Egypt needs a serious rethink.

_Would it be acceptable if the reverse were true? 1'200 Israeli citizens compared to 160 Lebanese soldiers? Please justify..._

It would not be acceptable, which is why the IDF exists to prevent that from happening. The big bad "Israeli war machine" is what shields Israeli's population from slaughter. Isn't that obvious? Israel has never really had a quarrel with Lebanon. The problem is always the people who use Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel. How does one combat that?

Moreover, I still get the impression that there might be a "good" ratio, if the above one is unacceptable.

I sincerely regret the loss of life in Gaza and Lebanon, but I place the blame squarely at the feet of Hamas and Hizbullah, respectively (not to mention their Iranian sponsors). Israel had pulled out of Gaza, which was a brave act on the part of Sharon for political and security reason. Israel's reward came in the form of suicide bombers and then rockets, which still fall on Israeli towns. And abducted soldiers. I know Justonemore says he deplores these things, and I believe him, but how is it criminal to use force to try to stop them? Frankly, I find Benn's humanitarianism misplaced, for cleaning up the mess in Gaza just enables Hamas to keep up the fight. It saves Hamas from having to deal with the fact that its rocketing resulted in ruin. I feel the same way regarding the cease fire in Lebanon. As for Lebanon, how precisely does one fight an enemy that has dug in among civilians, deliberately? That's a military challenge that has no good solution, although I know the Israelis have done their best by deploying precision strike weapons and intense ISR. It made for poor military tactics, and it did little harm to Hizbullah, but the alternative of a proper ground invasion, which might have dealt more harm to Hizbullah, would have resulted in far more casualties all around.

Or, does one not fight? Is that the answer? Just turn the other cheek? That's at best naïve.

_I do find a trace of irony in the fact that while the traditional Orthodox Jews don't believe in wargames and prefer to pass the time studying their religion, the state of Israel has now made it clear that they are not exempt frommilitary service. Last time I checked, Conscientious Objection is considered a human right under article 18 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". I do hope that I'm not being anti-semitic in standing up for the International rights of Israeli Orthodox Jews to not be conscripted into the military against their religious beliefs._

Nonsense. There is no crime here, and it has nothing to do with conscientious objection as we know it in our countries. But don't worry, I'm sure one can find other international crimes.

Now, back to work.


----------



## Fiddlermatt

tocqueville said:


> . . .Nonsense. There is no crime here, and it has nothing to do with conscientious objection as we know it in our countries. But don't worry, I'm sure one can find other international crimes. . .


Would you mind elucidating on this point, or provide a source with more information? I admit my understanding of Jewish custom is rather limited and this intrigues me.


----------



## tocqueville

Fiddlermatt said:


> Would you mind elucidating on this point, or provide a source with more information? I admit my understanding of Jewish custom is rather limited and this intrigues me.


It is a seriously complex matter, not least because the myriad groups who dodge the draft for religious reasons have diverse reasons, and in some cases the issue has to do with centuries' old disputes. When i can get my hands on a proper key board vice my phone, i would be pleased to explain.


----------



## justonemore

_For the past 29 years, as an American, I & my family & my friends & my collègues, have helped foot a $5 billion per year welfare package for Israel (not including billions in loan guarantees & billions more in separate arms packages).

_ "Actually, I agree with this. US aid to Israel makes no sense, at least not in its current levels. I think the aid is really a subsidy for the arms industry. The US gives the money to Israel, which buys US arms, keeping US arms companies flush. Given their weirdness of American politics, throwing the weapons Israel's way is more acceptable that indulging many other countries. Everyone's happy. A cool-headed review of Israel's security needs and military requirements is in order, one that I am sure would yield a significant reduction in "aid" without jeopardizing Israel's security. And while we're at it, US aid to Egypt needs a serious rethink."

25% of direct monetary aid to the Israeli military machine is allowed to be invested directly into Israeli defense versus being reinvested into the U.S. weapons industry. Israel is the only country that is allowed to do so...Racist? Anti-whateverisms? Perhaps....


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> _For the past 29 years, as an American, I & my family & my friends & my collègues, have helped foot a $5 billion per year welfare package for Israel (not including billions in loan guarantees & billions more in separate arms packages).
> 
> _ "Actually, I agree with this. US aid to Israel makes no sense, at least not in its current levels. I think the aid is really a subsidy for the arms industry. The US gives the money to Israel, which buys US arms, keeping US arms companies flush. Given their weirdness of American politics, throwing the weapons Israel's way is more acceptable that indulging many other countries. Everyone's happy. A cool-headed review of Israel's security needs and military requirements is in order, one that I am sure would yield a significant reduction in "aid" without jeopardizing Israel's security. And while we're at it, US aid to Egypt needs a serious rethink."
> 
> 25% of direct monetary aid to the Israeli military machine is allowed to be invested directly into Israeli defense versus being reinvested into the U.S. weapons industry. Israel is the only country that is allowed to do so...Racist? Anti-whateverisms? Perhaps....


I think we agree on this. Moreover, US taxpayers have every right to question current spending, regardless of the motive.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> It is a seriously complex matter, not least because the myriad groups who dodge the draft for religious reasons have diverse reasons, and in some cases the issue has to do with centuries' old disputes. When i can get my hands on a proper key board vice my phone, i would be pleased to explain.


I look forward to seeing your logic here. To me, under what I understand to be international reasoning, it is not acceptable to force a person into military service when their religious/moral/ethical standards state that such is wrong. I agree with this on a personal level as well. Can we picture Mohandas Gandhi and Mother Teresa being forced to serve against their beliefs? The justification of doing so to orthodox jews must be quite compelling.


----------



## Shaver

Matthew chapter 24 verse 15 (NKJV)


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> I think we agree on this. Moreover, US taxpayers have every right to question current spending, regardless of the motive.


$500 in aid to Israel per man, woman, & child in the U.S. (per year) ....... I'm not in the lower ranks of the economic "class" but I do know that amount covers a 5 day vacation in a 5* London hotel (to include breakfast) for a family of 4. I may be a bit biased in saying so, but I do believe that Americans deserve that convenience over the Israeli's getting another warplane. I am glad we agree on their right to contest this however.


----------



## justonemore

"Moreover, I still get the impression that there might be a “good” ratio, if the above one is unacceptable."

Once again you are reading into a situation and making unjustified conclusions.....I have clearly stated that civilian casulaties are not acceptable. Should you desire "revenge" or "justice", be man enough to take a rifle and despose of your enemy down the sights of a barrel versus terrorizing (yes. the word terror is correct) civilian populations with bombs and strafing of cities. I live in the same building as jews, muslims, christians, and hindus (yes, my community is quite divers compared to the U.S.). I suppose my 2 & 6 year old daughters deserve to die by bombing because of such? Will "anit-semitism" come into play because I live with Jews or will the bombing be "just" because I live with Muslims/Christians?

Out of plain curiosity... I, the "anti-semite", live in a very diverse community. I get along with everyone. What type of community do you live in? Do you have actual "Africans" (not including those that have never seen Africa) running stores (first generation)? How about Indians (again first generation)? Actual Europeans (versus 5 générations back)? What is your claim to understanding diversity? Why, as an American, should the world allow for your point of view over that of others (less than 10% of Americans have passports and travel on a regular basis)?


----------



## justonemore

"So it’s not the “world” that’s threatened but “modern life.” A cosmic threat"

I mentioned 1 operation that involved multiple countries either explicitly of implicitly. It involved countries that are not involved in all with your arguements. This directly affects current policies on travel (hmmm....an Aussi passport. We need to look further into this). If I decide to trave top the mid-east, I will be affected by the Israelis because my passport will be looked upon with suspect.


----------



## justonemore

"Killing Hamas officials may be objectionable on pragmatic grounds (i.e. it doesn’t help, or it only encourages things, etc.), but spare me the moral outrage."

Would you think the same should someone take out Israeli politicians/scientists/businessmen/etc.?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> "Killing Hamas officials may be objectionable on pragmatic grounds (i.e. it doesn't help, or it only encourages things, etc.), but spare me the moral outrage."
> 
> Would you think the same should someone take out Israeli politicians/scientists/businessmen/etc.?


Do you know what Hamas is? Its goals? Its methods? It's track record in the 1990s when it was bombing the buses I rode every day, in its effort to derail the Oslo process, which it did successfully?


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> "So it's not the "world" that's threatened but "modern life." A cosmic threat"
> 
> I mentioned 1 operation that involved multiple countries either explicitly of implicitly. It involved countries that are not involved in all with your arguements. This directly affects current policies on travel (hmmm....an Aussi passport. We need to look further into this). If I decide to trave top the mid-east, I will be affected by the Israelis because my passport will be looked upon with suspect.


Such nonsense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> Would you think the same should someone take out Israeli politicians/scientists/businessmen/etc.?


That would depend on what crimes they committed before being taken out.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> "Moreover, I still get the impression that there might be a "good" ratio, if the above one is unacceptable."
> 
> Once again you are reading into a situation and making unjustified conclusions.....I have clearly stated that civilian casulaties are not acceptable. Should you desire "revenge" or "justice", be man enough to take a rifle and despose of your enemy down the sights of a barrel versus terrorizing (yes. the word terror is correct) civilian populations with bombs and strafing of cities. I live in the same building as jews, muslims, christians, and hindus (yes, my community is quite divers compared to the U.S.). I suppose my 2 & 6 year old daughters deserve to die by bombing because of such? Will "anit-semitism" come into play because I live with Jews or will the bombing be "just" because I live with Muslims/Christians?
> 
> Out of plain curiosity... I, the "anti-semite", live in a very diverse community. I get along with everyone. What type of community do you live in? Do you have actual "Africans" (not including those that have never seen Africa) running stores (first generation)? How about Indians (again first generation)? Actual Europeans (versus 5 générations back)? What is your claim to understanding diversity? Why, as an American, should the world allow for your point of view over that of others (less than 10% of Americans have passports and travel on a regular basis)?


You've never been to Washington, DC, have you.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Let's listen to the audio of a speech Tony Benn gave denouncing Israel and protesting its invasion of Gaza:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's he saying? He is denouncing in one breath the brutality of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and the threat to Iran, which to him are all one and the same instance of unwarranted brutality that threaten humanity. (I guess the Taliban, Hamas, and a nuclear armed Iran are not threats.) He equates this threat with particularism, nationalism, religion, racism. To this he opposes a vision of the humanity as diverse, cosmopolitan, universalist, multicultural. Sing together, "We are the world." We are all cousins.
> 
> All of us except for Israel, which represents a profound threat to the family. Or at the very least it is symbolic of the threat. His objection to Israel' use of force in Gaza-the passion behind it-has little to do with reality. It is anti-Semitism, more specifically the post-Voltaire version of the medieval anti-Semitism described by Lewis and Lagnmuir.
> 
> Now, what triggered my knee jerk reaction to Justonemore?
> 
> _I wasn't around 80 years ago so the terror that Israel visits upon the world today is a bit more relevant to me than the nazis of the 1940s. _
> 
> First, there's the contention that Israel visits terror upon the world, a terror that he implies is similar to Nazi terror. I recognize that he disavows this comparison, but it is the comparison he made. Unwitting, perhaps, but not entirely without significance. But here's the more important thing: If Justonemore had spoken of the terror Israel visits upon Palestinians, I would argue that that's unfair and one-sided, but it is a fact that Israel is in conflict with Palestinians, and that conflict all too often is violent, with dreadful violence perpetrated by both sides. But that is not what he said. He said "the world." Israel thus is guilty of being something far worse than a belligerent in a regional dispute. It is a danger to the world. And I note the inversion: Israel is the terrorist. Which implies that the people Israel claims are the terrorists are the victims. Along with the rest of the world.
> 
> What follows are more complaints, which I understand to imply that Israel must not defend itself, for its efforts to defend itself render it a criminal, and there is no acknowledgement that Israel has any need to defend itself. The insistence on scrupulous conduct is an impossible standard; it is implausible that any other country would respond any differently to comparable threats. Moreover, there's this bizarre interest in casualty ratios. This is common in anti-Israel discussions. There is often talk of the need for "proportionality," although I have not heard the word being used in other contexts. No one criticizes other countries for their lack of proportionality in their military campaigns. Militaries, by the way, think about matters in terms of "overmatch." Good commanders do not go into the field unless they can assure themselves of overmatch, unless they are absolutely up against the wall.


The once laughable proposition that all violence and killing is equal has gained traction.

Especially among the "you know who!!"


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Such nonsense.


Instead of having the balls to do it on their own, they snuck around with passports not of their own. If you're really justified in your actions why do so? It's gutless at the very least. Stand up. Be a man. State that you believe that because you're a "Jewish" state, that you can run around and do whatever you please. Let the International communtiy agree or disagree. I don't have to be antu-catholic to disagree with priests sexually abusing little boys. Sexual abuse by the "catholic" state is horrid but I'd rather that compared to the murder imposed by the "Jewish" state.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> You've never been to Washington, DC, have you.


D.C? Nope. I assumed that with some of worst crime rates in the U.S. that it must be rather segregated and racist (I'm just guessing that it's not the politicians that are being claimed as criminals). The International community surrounding in the area most likely agrees with me, while the U.S. political community in the same area will agree with you.


----------



## Chouan

_"What I reacted to are clichés, clichés with baggage. Arguably I read to much into Justonemore's comments, for I saw the baggage as well as the clichés. He may well be unaware of the baggage, although that does not mean they're not there. Language is funny that way."
_
I would suggest that the baggage is yours, not Justonemore's. I repeat, there was nothing anti-semitic in any of his posts.

"Previously I presented the definitions of Lewis and Langmuir. Lewis's definition pointed to two qualities:
1. The application of a different standard.
2. The projection of Jews as representing some kind of cosmic threat."

Again, there was nothing suggesting either of these ideas in any of Justonemore's posts.

"First, there's the contention that Israel visits terror upon the world, a terror that he implies is similar to Nazi terror. "

Israel does indeed visit terror on the world. In that Justonemore is correct. Terror is terror, targeting of civilians is targeting of civilians, disproportionate force ios disproportionate force, collective responsibility, although outlawed by the United Nations, is collective responsibility no matter who does it. Whilst one of your definitions of anti-semitism is the treating of Jews as a "special case", I would argue that the defence of Israel's terrorism is also making Jews a special case.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> D.C? Nope. I assumed that with some of worst crime rates in the U.S. that it must be rather segregated and racist (I'm just guessing that it's not the politicians that are being claimed as criminals). The International community surrounding in the area most likely agrees with me, while the U.S. political community in the same area will agree with you.


OK, I think we are all done here.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Instead of having the balls to do it on their own, they snuck around with passports not of their own. If you're really justified in your actions why do so? It's gutless at the very least. Stand up. Be a man. State that you believe that because you're a "Jewish" state, that you can run around and do whatever you please. Let the International communtiy agree or disagree. I don't have to be antu-catholic to disagree with priests sexually abusing little boys. Sexual abuse by the "catholic" state is horrid but I'd rather that compared to the murder imposed by the "Jewish" state.


Assassinating a Hamas leader his hardly comparable to abusing children.

By the way, Israelis can't enter Dubai or any Arab country save Jordan and Egypt with Israeli passports. Maybe Morocco. Americans are often hassled if they so much as have Israeli stamps on their passports.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Instead of having the balls to do it on their own, they snuck around with passports not of their own. If you're really justified in your actions why do so? It's gutless at the very least. Stand up. Be a man. State that you believe that because you're a "Jewish" state, that you can run around and do whatever you please. Let the International communtiy agree or disagree. I don't have to be antu-catholic to disagree with priests sexually abusing little boys. Sexual abuse by the "catholic" state is horrid but I'd rather that compared to the murder imposed by the "Jewish" state.


I love this language. They're sneaky. They're not men. They should man-up and face their enemies man to man. Cast away your armored vehicles, your artillery and aircraft. Stand up tall, walk into Gaza, and seek out Hamas leaders. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'll go tell the folks at the Pentagon to cut it out with their armor as well. They're a bunch of sissies. I'm sure the UK government will be relieved to know they can drop all their modernization programs.

But what's with rifles? Too much distance. Swords!


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> You've never been to Washington, DC, have you.


Ahhh the Cafe Milano.

I may have consumed too much liquor that evening. :redface:


----------



## justonemore

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK, I think we are all done here.


sarcasm is rarely appreciated. :rolleyes2:


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> I love this language. They're sneaky. They're not men. They should man-up and face their enemies man to man. Cast away your armored vehicles, your artillery and aircraft. Stand up tall, walk into Gaza, and seek out Hamas leaders. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'll go tell the folks at the Pentagon to cut it out with their armor as well. They're a bunch of sissies. I'm sure the UK government will be relieved to know they can drop all their modernization programs.
> 
> But what's with rifles? Too much distance. Swords!


I've disagreed with U.S. use of force much more than that of the Iraeli's. Soldiers are soldiers. They've agreed to fight and die for a cause (unless of course they've been conscripted against their will). The civilians affected by mass bombings have not. Rifles (or Swords) are much more personalized compared to scatter bombs(or as per Israeli preference phosphorus bombs). Like it or not, your friends in Israel, the U.S., Russia, etc. would have to choose their victims versus blanket (I don't give a sh*t") bombing. I love your language. Ignore the facts, be a "sissy", and deny all responsibility. Better to kill uninvolved civilians than to let a religious/political ideal be tested. There is a BIG difference in dropping bombs on the "unknown" versus pulling the trigger on a target. Instead of pushing a button in an aircraft, look into the eyes of the women & children as you're killing them. Go ahead, tell me there's no difference. Go ahead and try to justify it and then tell me how you're not a monster for advocating such. If someone is an anit-semite for disallowing such, then anyone with any amount of humanity will be an anti-semite. Fortunately, most people are capable of distinguishing the horrifying acts of Israel versus that of the Jewish faith. Stop preaching history unless you're actually willing to learn from it and live in the present.

I don't care whatsoever as to modern U.K. military thought. Sadly, at this point in history, it pretty much puppets that of the U.S. and repeats word for word whatever is said/thought out of the U.S. I do give credit to those U.K politicians/citizens (including the original topic of this thread) that are trying to divorce themselves from such International calamities & wish to represent the people of the U.K. over U.S. interests (as I've always mentioned, I am a fan of "direct" democracy over "representational" or "trusteeship" democracy [trusteeships being the worst of all democracies happens to be the main component of the U.S. system).

I am a well known critic of the U.S. war machine. I've mentioned it several times in this thread alone (let alone all the other threads where I've claimed the same). I consider the killing of civilians by U.S. drones no more justified than the actions of Israel. Please don't read into it...but... I actually consider the U.S. less justified in its actions compared to Israel...


----------



## tocqueville

Where do you live, anyway? There's some "pleasant living" going on here in DC.



WouldaShoulda said:


> OK, I think we are all done here.


----------



## Langham

*Report on Stop the War Coalition/Funeral of Tony Benn*

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10726205/Sketch-Tony-Benns-funeral.html


----------



## tocqueville

Fiddlermatt said:


> Would you mind elucidating on this point, or provide a source with more information? I admit my understanding of Jewish custom is rather limited and this intrigues me.


First some terminology. The US press usually refers to the communities in question not as "Orthodox" but "ultra-Orthodox." The Israeli press uses the term "_haredi_," which I think means something like "fearful ones" (fear of God). The point is that they are a subset of the broader class of what one might call "orthodox" or simply observant Jews. To complicate matters more, they are divided into countless factions and sub-communities&#8230;if one spends enough time among them, one learns to tell them apart by virtue of their hat styles or other sartorial clues invisible to the uninitiated. What they generally share is the conviction that to preserve their communities and their particular values, they have to erect walls and separate themselves as much as possible from outside influences. Thus one finds little in the way of secular education among them beyond what might be immediately necessary for making a living. Vocational training, not liberal arts. Accountants. Optometrists. Maybe some doctors and lawyers. You won't find literature professors. Mostly, they engage in business. Buying and selling. Don't need school for that. Not that these folks are illiterate. Far from it. But they only read religious texts.

Part of what makes the situation different from what happens in our countries regarding "conscientious objectors" is the numbers involved. With us, only a small number of people refuse to serve. In the Israeli case, the portion of the population concerned is large and growing, owing to a high birth rate relative to the rest of society. From the point of view of needing to maintain a military at a certain size, it's a significant concern. Arabs, also, aren't drafted, although Druze are, and Bedouin. I met an Arab who said he'd have no problem serving, so long as he served on the Syrian border to defend the country against Syria. He had no doubts about which side of the border he'd rather live. If I were writing the conscription law, I'd draft everyone, and make "national service" available to those who don't want to be in the military. National service is what many religious women who get drafted often do. They do social work. (Some, though serve, and the Army accommodates them by doing things like issuing them long skirts, ensuring they have women-only quarters, etc).

Here's an article written by one such young woman, who uses the term "frum," meaning pious:

But the problem is more complex than that, for it has to do with interpretations of the religion as well as each community's relationship with the State and the rest of Israeli society.

Here goes some radical oversimplification: For most of Jewish history, Jews were quietists, meaning, one doesn't rock the boat or fight. One prays to God and hopes for the best. At most, the leader of the community uses what clout he (and at least one she that I know of) has at Court to influence the policies of whoever is in power. When bad things happened, which they did, often, the assumption was that somehow people weren't pious enough, so the only response was to just try harder. After all, whatever happened was in the hands of God, and God will bring about the messianic age and bring everyone back to Israel when God sees fit to do so. Rabbinic literature is very ambivalent about the Jewish rebellions against Rome or even the war that provided the setting for Hanukkah, and there are only a few instances of Jews fighting back when they were getting attacked in medieval Europe or the Islamic world.

At some point beginning in the mid-18[SUP]th[/SUP] century, the consensus broke, largely because conditions got worse and worse in the Russian Empire, where most European Jews lived. Some decided to bet on the Enlightenment and acculturation. Some (a very small minority) decided to bet on radical politics and became socialists and communists, thinking that a post-capitalist society would treat them better. Some decided to double down on faith and ritual and take piety to whole new levels. Some decided to get the hell out and emigrate where they could, which for most turned out to be America (the vast majority of American Jews today are the descendants of refugees from the Russian Empire who came over from about 1860-1914). Some decided that the thing to do was to create a nation of one's own, just like all the other nationalist movements of the day (German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, etc. etc). Hence Zionism. Some of the Zionists thought being another nation would get them respect. Some figured that at least as a nation they could take their fate in their own hands. Leftists Zionists thought Jews needed their own proletariat. Etc-there are myriad zionisms, but that's another discussion.

Anyway, the really religious folks were of mixed opinions about the Zionist project, especially the whole "take one's fate in one's own hands" bit. Some embraced it. Some were indifferent. Some were against. It didn't help that many of the Zionists were secularists who advocated trading in the tired old religious identity for a modern Zionist one. And some of those who were against were down right hostile, to the point where a few leaders of that crew decided that the Holocaust was punishment for Zionism. They were upset because their old quietist approach basically meant that one waits for the Messiah. One doesn't hasten it. Or, one hastens it by fulfilling the commandments. Hastening it through political activism struck them as heretical. Some of those, by the way, already lived in "Palestine" and had been for centuries. For them it was a strictly religious thing.

Fast forward to WWII, and those super religious communities are slaughtered. A small number of survivors make their way to Palestine/Israel after the war, and, as the story goes, Ben Gurion wanted to help them, so he exempted them from conscription. It was part of a political deal, a way of coming to an understanding with communities that were at best ambivalent about the new State.

Looking at the communities that today take advantage of the religious exemption, it first needs to be said that there are plenty of very religious Jews who serve, including devout rabbis. There is one religious community that doesn't serve but makes a point of supporting those who do, mainly by providing services to soldiers and, for example, acting as a semi-official chaplaincy.

Of the communities that don't serve, they also don't go the "national service" route, and some do not hide their disdain for those who serve. Their motives vary and might include:
1. Hostility to the State, on doctrinal grounds, as discussed above.
2. Concern that the Army is simply not a good place to be for nice Jewish boys (too many bad influences, too hard to live a proper religious life)-the religious Jews who serve find this insulting
3. The belief that Torah study is what keeps Israel alive, making what they do at least as important as what the soldiers do. A variation of that theme is the idea of a spiritual division of labor, inspired by the different tasks that the different tribes had back in the day. So, this tribe fights. That tribe studies. In a way, Ben Gurion acknowledged this idea when he issued the draft exemption, the idea being that if no one's studying Torah, there is no Judaism, no Jewish people. He just didn't reckon on the birth rates.

I wouldn't say pacifism is a motive except for the ones who believe in passively putting their destiny in God's hands. There's one tiny group that actively agitates for Palestinian causes and prefers to revert to the way things were under the Ottomans. These are the guys who blame the Zionists for the Holocausts and show up at anti-Israel rallies. They're very unpopular. I think they're insane.

The rest of Israeli society generally does not like these communities for a host of reasons. The gist of it is the perception that they are freeloaders, not just because they don't put their own lives on the line and let others take all the risk, but also because many of them prefer to check out of the economy, largely because they disdain the secular education they would need to participate in it, and a surprising proportion of them do not work. Their cultural ideal is to do nothing but study, while some work and support the many. Or their wives work. Or, often, they live on the dole. The State not only protects them but feeds them, houses them, subsidizes their education, despite the lack of non-religious educational content, and provides health care. As far as I know, even the radicals who yearn for Palestinian rule do not say no to the Israeli healthcare system, Israeli municipal utilities, etc. So, for most Israelis, these communities are flouting the social contract. The word "parasite" comes up sometimes, but that's a dreadful word. It has baggage.

I should also add that before they all came to Israel, only a small proportion could study full time. Now in Israel they can, because of public subsidies. At least that is what I've heard. The point is that what these communities are doing now with respect to work and the economy is not what they did back in the Old Country or at any point in the past.

So, the fight over the conscription law is sort of a family feud. It's also a fight over religious interpretation. For some it's a fight about equity. Pulling one's weight. Contributing rather than just taking. For some it's about piety and obeying God's law, as they interpret it. For some, I have no doubt, it's about saving one's neck by not serving.


----------



## Shaver

All of this is shaping up to be a very impressive thesis Tocquers but could you précis the salient points which reveal your opponent in this discussion as being an anti-semite? Thanks!


----------



## Kingstonian

justonemore said:


> You are being racist and causing a racist issue where none exists. I would suggest perhaps a mod with less emotions and more logic on the issue take over as you're not capable of discussing the issue without calling names and threatening to ban people.


It is hard to disagree with this.


----------



## Langham

Tocqueville, I feel the history of Jews and anti-semitism perhaps should have its own thread. This thread was meant to be about Tony Benn, and although you seem to have identified some of his public comments regarding Israel and Palestine as revealing a latent anti-semitism, I don't think he was ever thought of in this country as anti-semitic.

Having said that, I find your history of the subject very interesting. Due to various circumstances I have recently spent some time in Stamford Hill/Stoke Newington, a part of London that is home to a large Hasidic community. While few of them have any formal educational qualifications at all (a surprising number are unemployed in consequence), and to a large extent they seem actively to avoid any interaction with the wider community - indeed they are possibly one of the most insular communities in the UK - they nevertheless seem generally quite well-liked. Their appearance could hardly be better calculated to attract attention, however. One of the streets in their area is called West Bank.

https://lostandfoundimages.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/stamford-hills-hasidic-jewish-community.html


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Where do you live, anyway? There's some "pleasant living" going on here in DC.












Southern Montgomery County Maryland.

Not exactly Charm City, but close enough!!


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> Tocqueville, I feel the history of Jews and anti-semitism perhaps should have its own thread. This thread was meant to be about Tony Benn, and although you seem to have identified some of his public comments regarding Israel and Palestine as revealing a latent anti-semitism, I don't think he was ever thought of in this country as anti-semitic.
> 
> Having said that, I find your history of the subject very interesting. Due to various circumstances I have recently spent some time in Stamford Hill/Stoke Newington, a part of London that is home to a large Hasidic community. While few of them have any formal educational qualifications at all (a surprising number are unemployed in consequence), and to a large extent they seem actively to avoid any interaction with the wider community - indeed they are possibly one of the most insular communities in the UK - they nevertheless seem generally quite well-liked. Their appearance could hardly be better calculated to attract attention, however. One of the streets in their area is called West Bank.
> 
> https://lostandfoundimages.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/stamford-hills-hasidic-jewish-community.html


Langham,

I sincerely regret derailing this thread. I have at several points considered transferring everything to a new, stand alone thread, but I've held off from doing so for fear of turning the debate into a general melee that encourages all sorts of crazies from all sides to come out of the woodwork. And that's precisely the sort of debate mods try to squelch, and with good reason.

I've also come to the conclusion that there's no point in further discussion, for the participants are only pushing one another deeper into their corners and confirming their own suspicions. What I see, from my perspective, is that what many here consider objective fact, I see as hate. Worse, an all too familiar hate. And then I am accused of being the hater. So I am done.

We have some options. We can let this thread go cold. We could close it. We could renew our discussion of Mr. Benn, if anyone here is still interested in talking about him. In my perusals I found a number of interesting things--the man was certainly interesting. Some I agree with and cheer. Some, not so much.


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> Southern Montgomery County Maryland.
> 
> Not exactly Charm City, but close enough!!


I'm sorry I missed the reference; last time I was at an O's game I treated myself to a Natty Bo, and, well, it was awful! Love that baseball park, though.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Langham,
> 
> I sincerely regret derailing this thread. I have at several points considered transferring everything to a new, stand alone thread, but I've held off from doing so for fear of turning the debate into a general melee that encourages all sorts of crazies from all sides to come out of the woodwork. And that's precisely the sort of debate mods try to squelch, and with good reason.
> 
> I've also come to the conclusion that there's no point in further discussion, for the participants are only pushing one another deeper into their corners and confirming their own suspicions. What I see, from my perspective, is that what many here consider objective fact, I see as hate. Worse, an all too familiar hate. And then I am accused of being the hater. So I am done.
> 
> We have some options. We can let this thread go cold. We could close it. We could renew our discussion of Mr. Benn, if anyone here is still interested in talking about him. In my perusals I found a number of interesting things--the man was certainly interesting. Some I agree with and cheer. Some, not so much.


Tony Benn:


----------



## Shaver

Tony Benn:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

More false equivalency rubbish passed off as brilliance.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Tocqueville, I feel the history of Jews and anti-semitism perhaps should have its own thread. This thread was meant to be about Tony Benn, and although you seem to have identified some of his public comments regarding Israel and Palestine as revealing a latent anti-semitism, I don't think he was ever thought of in this country as anti-semitic.
> 
> Having said that, I find your history of the subject very interesting. Due to various circumstances I have recently spent some time in Stamford Hill/Stoke Newington, a part of London that is home to a large Hasidic community. While few of them have any formal educational qualifications at all (a surprising number are unemployed in consequence), and to a large extent they seem actively to avoid any interaction with the wider community - indeed they are possibly one of the most insular communities in the UK - they nevertheless seem generally quite well-liked. Their appearance could hardly be better calculated to attract attention, however. One of the streets in their area is called West Bank.
> 
> https://lostandfoundimages.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/stamford-hills-hasidic-jewish-community.html


Quite. Tocqueville, you again seem to be suggesting that criticism of Israel's actions is necessarily anti-semitism, with the intellectual trick of calling it "latent anti-semitism" if there isn't any evidence of actual anti-semitism.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> More false equivalency rubbish passed off as brilliance.


Better than the false dichotomy often peddled by some contributors, eh?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Quite. Tocqueville, you again seem to be suggesting that criticism of Israel's actions is necessarily anti-semitism, with the intellectual trick of calling it "latent anti-semitism" if there isn't any evidence of actual anti-semitism.


You gotta watch those Zionists, they are tricky!!

And good with money.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Quite. Tocqueville, you again seem to be suggesting that criticism of Israel's actions is necessarily anti-semitism, with the intellectual trick of calling it "latent anti-semitism" if there isn't any evidence of actual anti-semitism.


True. I am not sure if it is also suggesting that the "latent" anti Semite is acting in good faith and without malice, they are just unaware of what they are doing. If this is the case, it is also a rather patronising stance.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> More false equivalency rubbish passed off as brilliance.


I agree. It is such a logically stupid statement that I am skeptical that Benn actually said it.


----------



## Shaver

"I was born about a quarter of a mile from where we are sitting now and I was here in London during the Blitz. And every night I went down into the shelter. 500 people killed, my brother was killed, my friends were killed. And when the Charter of the UN was read to me, I was a pilot coming home in a troop ship: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.' That was the pledge my generation gave to the younger generation and you tore it up. And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons."
From BBC1's political debate programme 'Question Time' broadcast live 22 March 2007


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> "I was born about a quarter of a mile from where we are sitting now and I was here in London during the Blitz. And every night I went down into the shelter. 500 people killed, my brother was killed, my friends were killed. And when the Charter of the UN was read to me, I was a pilot coming home in a troop ship: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.' That was the pledge my generation gave to the younger generation and you tore it up. And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons."
> From BBC1's political debate programme 'Question Time' broadcast live 22 March 2007


How sad. From all the accolades I had assumed him to be more intelligent.


----------



## Shaver

^ May I encourage you to advance your position here? I am forced to allow that, whilst it is admittedly a broad comparison, I believe it to be a statement highly suited to its purpose.


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> More false equivalency rubbish passed off as brilliance.


If one is killing for a political reason, and innocents are killed deliberately, it makes no difference as to whom is doing the killing, a State or terrorists, by stealth bomber (or drone) or by suicide bomber. 
Was the Irgun less of a terrorist organisation than the PLO? Both deliberately targeted civilians in acts of calculated terrorism in order to further a political aim. In N.Ireland there were two sets of terrorist organisations, the PIRA is an example of one the UDA is an example of the other. All four claimed to be "defending" their people, all four claimed to be "freedom fighters"; all were terrorists. That the Irgun was a Jewish terrorist organisation should make no difference.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> ^ May I encourage you to advance your position here? I am forced to allow that, whilst it is admittedly a broad comparison, I believe it to be a statement highly suited to its purpose.


That purpose being to oversimplify, obfuscate, misdirect and propagandize, I have to agree with you!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> If one is killing for a political reason, and innocents are killed deliberately, it makes no difference as to whom is doing the killing, a State or terrorists, by stealth bomber (or drone) or by suicide bomber.
> .


In that innocent are equally dead, again I have to agree!!

Whether they were targets themsevles or collateral damage may not matter to you, but it does to me.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> "I was born about a quarter of a mile from where we are sitting now and I was here in London during the Blitz. And every night I went down into the shelter. 500 people killed, my brother was killed, my friends were killed. And when the Charter of the UN was read to me, I was a pilot coming home in a troop ship: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.' That was the pledge my generation gave to the younger generation and you tore it up. And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons."
> From BBC1's political debate programme 'Question Time' broadcast live 22 March 2007


My problem with his evocation of his Blitz experience is that he leaves out the fact that the threat to his life posed by the Germans came to an end because Britain, the US, and above all the Soviet Union wreaked horrific violence upon Germany. If the air campaign against England was a war crime, for it killed innocent people for political reasons, so, too, by Benn's logic, was the killing of innocent people in northern France in preparation for D-Day and over the course of subsequent fighting, not to mention all the German civilians killed. Is there no moral difference between the bombing of Coventry and the bombing of Rouen? I argue that some political reasons are different from others, and thus there IS a moral difference.

A long time ago I found myself in Nuremberg, in the municipal museum, where they had exhibits about the rise of Nazism in the city (which was a hot bed of early Nazi activism) and the experience of the city over the course of the war, which brought about its near complete destruction at the hands of the RAF and USAAC. In the basement, nearly hidden in the shadows, was a big display that seemed to have been taken down and put aside. The display had two lists, one of all the big Luftwaffe raids against cities and all the big UK/US raids against German cities. The UK/US raid list was much greater. The point of the display was to argue that what the US/UK did was much, much worse, as if to say that the opprobrium about Coventry and Rotterdam and all that was unfair. I thought that if that was their argument, they had missed the point entirely. Or, perhaps that's why the display was taken down, because they knew better.

PS. Here's some info I found on the web regarding French civilian casualties in WWII thanks to Anglo-American bombing. I CANNOT vouch for information:

https://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week020105/france_050201_civilianskilledinwwII.htm


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I argue that some political reasons are different from others....


There you go.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> ^ May I encourage you to advance your position here? I am forced to allow that, whilst it is admittedly a broad comparison, I believe it to be a statement highly suited to its purpose.


Sure. 
Only a person with remarkably stunted moral reasoning would equate (i) an aircraft's bombing of legitimate military targets resulting in the accidental death of innocents with (ii) the a suicide bomber's intentional targeting and murder of innocents. It is widely acknowledged that the targeting of civilians in Germany, Britain and Japan during WW II was morally objectionable. Nonetheless, the episodes of such "terror bombing" by the Allies were not typical in WWII, especially by the US with the exception of the last months of the war in the Pacific theater. The vast majority of sorties limited bombing to military targets. Today all US military acadamies teach the importance not only of not targeting innocents but also of avoiding innocent casualties if at all possible. Finally, leaving aside that there is no record or accusation of any use of the Stealth Bomber incompatible with such instructions, Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Sure.
> Only a person with remarkably stunted moral reasoning would equate (i) an aircraft's bombing of legitimate military targets resulting in the accidental death of innocents with (ii) the a suicide bomber's intentional targeting and murder of innocents. It is widely acknowledged that the targeting of civilians in Germany, Britain and Japan during WW II was morally objectionable. Nonetheless, the episodes of such "terror bombing" by the Allies were not typical in WWII, especially by the US with the exception of the last months of the war in the Pacific theater. The vast majority of sorties limited bombing to military targets. Today all US military acadamies teach the importance not only of not targeting innocents but also of avoiding innocent casualties if at all possible. Finally, leaving aside that there is no record or accusation of any use of the Stealth Bomber incompatible with such instructions, Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.


when you kill an entire neighborhood to get one "bad guy" it is not an accident b
no matter how much you"d like to justify it as such.


----------



## tocqueville

Mike Petrik said:


> Sure.
> Only a person with remarkably stunted moral reasoning would equate (i) an aircraft's bombing of legitimate military targets resulting in the accidental death of innocents with (ii) the a suicide bomber's intentional targeting and murder of innocents. It is widely acknowledged that the targeting of civilians in Germany, Britain and Japan during WW II was morally objectionable. Nonetheless, the episodes of such "terror bombing" by the Allies were not typical in WWII, especially by the US with the exception of the last months of the war in the Pacific theater. The vast majority of sorties limited bombing to military targets. Today all US military acadamies teach the importance not only of not targeting innocents but also of avoiding innocent casualties if at all possible. Finally, leaving aside that there is no record or accusation of any use of the Stealth Bomber incompatible with such instructions, Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been typical, and falsely rendered them equivalent.


It's more than just a question of collateral damage versus targeted killing; it's also a question of the moral difference between the two sides of a dispute. Let's imagine that in a dispute, both sides are using the same tactics and killing equal numbers of the other's civilians. By Benn's standard, each side is morally deplorable and morally equal. But what about the political ends for the sake of which each is attacking the other? Are those ends equal? What if one side wins? What if the other? Returning to WWII, however much one might deplore the killing by the UK and US of European and Japanese civilians, I can't imagine arguing that we are morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. We killed for the sake of different political objectives, better political objectives. Besides, they were "our" political objectives (i.e. sometimes it is an us or them equation). Imagine if Hitler had won? Or Hirohito? The difference matters. This is why I don't buy the stealth bomber = suicide bomber argument. What if we win? What if the suicide bombers win? Which of those two futures is preferable?


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Sure.
> Only a person with remarkably stunted moral reasoning would equate (i) an aircraft's bombing of legitimate military targets resulting in the accidental death of innocents with (ii) the a suicide bomber's intentional targeting and murder of innocents. It is widely acknowledged that the targeting of civilians in Germany, Britain and Japan during WW II was morally objectionable. Nonetheless, the episodes of such "terror bombing" by the Allies were not typical in WWII, especially by the US with the exception of the last months of the war in the Pacific theater. The vast majority of sorties limited bombing to military targets. Today all US military acadamies teach the importance not only of not targeting innocents but also of avoiding innocent casualties if at all possible. Finally, leaving aside that there is no record or accusation of any use of the Stealth Bomber incompatible with such instructions, Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.


Here's to U.S. military targets...

https://imageshack.com/i/169fxzj

https://imageshack.com/i/0laiobj

Israel??? Why not??

https://imageshack.com/i/1xtfbmj

https://imageshack.com/i/0mpe0rj

Sorry for not buying into your BS. But... Once again... I'm sure you'd find it acceptable if the opposite were true.. Right? Right???


----------



## Hitch

* Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.*

That particular bit on nonsense ( the Benn quote) belongs on the editorial page of a second rate high school newspaper. The real shame here is that no one on the other side is ignorant of anything in your post. Your eloquence though will likely save you from Shaver's begging for PMs.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Here's to U.S. military targets...
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/169fxzj


 Odd it appears those GIs are not interested in what you disgustingly defined as US Military targets.


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> It's more than just a question of collateral damage versus targeted killing; it's also a question of the moral difference between the two sides of a dispute. Let's imagine that in a dispute, both sides are using the same tactics and killing equal numbers of the other's civilians. By Benn's standard, each side is morally deplorable and morally equal. But what about the political ends for the sake of which each is attacking the other? Are those ends equal? What if one side wins? What if the other? Returning to WWII, however much one might deplore the killing by the UK and US of European and Japanese civilians, I can't imagine arguing that we are morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. We killed for the sake of different political objectives, better political objectives. Besides, they were "our" political objectives (i.e. sometimes it is an us or them equation). Imagine if Hitler had won? Or Hirohito? The difference matters. This is why I don't buy the stealth bomber = suicide bomber argument. What if we win? What if the suicide bombers win? Which of those two futures is preferable?


I understand the distinction but cannot agree with it. Yes it is true that wars can be catagorized by their causes and objectives, and one cannot claim for instance that Poland and Germany were on equal moral footing in 1939. But individual acts during warfare can be independently judged as well, and the so-called "good-guys" do not have license by their status to make war on civilians. The arguments over Dresden and Hiroshima center not so much on the validity of that moral assertion, but on the factual questions surrounding whether the targets in question were military or civilian in nature. I have studied those arguments and have concluded that these bombings did target civilians for the purpose of terrorizing the enemy into a more expeditious defeat thereby saving lives. The motives were probably morally appropriate, but the means remain morally objectionable. Good people often do bad things for good reasons. Finally, I do acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion that the Allies actually targeted civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Odd it appears those GIs are not interested in what you disgustingly defined as US Military targets.


Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run going after what was defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?

If factual U.S. history disgusts you, then may I suggest taking a different tack in your political views versus denying the truth?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Hitch said:


> Odd it appears those GIs are not interested in what you disgustingly defined as US Military targets.


https://imageshack.com/i/0laiobj

Yes, and note this photo not only does not show a US soldier it conveniently lacks context.

The photo won Eddie Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted its impact. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning Loan and his famous photograph, Adams wrote in Time:

The general [Loan] killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, "What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?"


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?


Well as you say Just, its obvious the GI,s are rounding them up and were lucky enough to find a photographer to document the coup de gras, if you could only locate that picture,sigh.

Instead you have only been able to come up with GI's placing themselves between the action and the fleeing children.


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run going after what was defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?
> 
> If factual U.S. history disgusts you, then may I suggest taking a different tack in your political views versus denying the truth?


You sir, lie. The photo in question involved an accidental drop of napalm by a South Vietnamese aircraft.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run going after what was defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?
> 
> If factual U.S. history disgusts you, then may I suggest taking a different tack in your political views versus denying the truth?


LMAO I think I mentioned shrillness earlier. I do though appreciate the exposition of the ghoulish nature so common on the left.

Out here on the west coat we had a fair number of 'boat people' , talk to one sometime.


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> You sir, lie. The photo in question involved an accidental drop of napalm by a South Vietnamese aircraft.


Being misinformed is hardly considered the same as lying. I look forward to you providing the links to inform me of something that seems to have been mentioned otherwise.

I suppose the South Vietnamese were manufacturing their own napalm or was that a "gift" from the U.S.?


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> Being misinformed is hardly considered the same as lying. I look forward to you providing the links to inform me of something that seems to have been mentioned otherwise.
> 
> I suppose the South Vietnamese were manufacturing their own napalm or was that a "gift" from the U.S.?


https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headli...rl-pulitzer-image-marks-its-40th-anniversary/

Yours has been an impressive series of posts, having proven both your carelessness with the truth and your estrangement from logic.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> LMAO I think I mentioned shrillness earlier. I do though appreciate the exposition of the ghoulish nature so common on the left.
> 
> Out here on the west coat we had a fair number of 'boat people' , talk to one sometime.


again with the "leftist" nonsense. That might play in the U.S. but this forum is international. U.S. politicl leanings are hardly the concern of those not living in its daily nightmare of a society until we're forced to face the brtality of one of our "allies".


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headli...rl-pulitzer-image-marks-its-40th-anniversary/
> 
> Yours has been an impressive series of posts, having proven both your carelessness with the truth and your estrangement from logic.


yet you can claim only one misinformed statement. bravo. you sir, are still in the vast minority when it comes to the validity of your claims. I understand that you wish to justify the violence that has been visited up the world by the U.S ( some of it might actually be justifiable) but you still provide no point of "going too far".. Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong. Violence is good when the U.S. does it but wrong should others indulge in such.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

If the South had more men like General Loan, they wouldn't have lost!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

justonemore said:


> yet you can claim only one misinformed statement. bravo. you sir, are still in the vast minority when it comes to the validity of your claims. I understand that you wish to justify the violence that has been visited up the world by the U.S ( some of it might actually be justifiable) but you still provide no point of "going too far".. Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong. Violence is good when the U.S. does it but wrong should others indulge in such.


And you have now proven you cannot read either. See, e.g., # 251.


----------



## tocqueville

I believe the dude with the pistol was a Vietnamese cop shooting a VC informant, or something like that. For all we know, he was responsible for the death of many. Or maybe not.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> again with the "leftist" nonsense. That might play in the U.S. but this forum is international. U.S. politicl leanings are hardly the concern of those not living in its daily nightmare of a society until we're forced to face the brtality of one of our "allies".


I havent the foggiest.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> Violence is good when the U.S. does it but wrong should others indulge in such.


It all depends on the motive and outcome, and that not all motives and outcomes are equal.

That's our point.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> yet you can claim only one misinformed statement. bravo. you sir, are still in the vast minority when it comes to the validity of your claims. I understand that you wish to justify the violence that has been visited up the world by the U.S ( some of it might actually be justifiable) but you still provide no point of "going too far".. Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong. Violence is good when the U.S. does it but wrong should others indulge in such.


Get a grip Just. Your chosen examples are detrimental to your point. So you respond by manufacturing drivel;* Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong *

$100 says you cant quote any one here saying that, you on?


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Get a grip Just. Your chosen examples are detrimental to your point. So you respond by manufacturing drivel;* Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong *
> 
> $100 says you cant quote any one here saying that, you on?


thank you for pointing out my faulty logic. . i'll go to bed & try for better examples tomorrow.


----------



## tocqueville

The officers responsible for My Lai were put on trial. Besides, i don't know any Americans who defend that particular war.


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> thank you for pointing out my faulty logic. . i'll go to bed & try for better examples tomorrow.


 Not a problem, the shrillness is as common as fir needles in the grass and certainly with the US running rampant the world over you can find something better than a misused photo more than 50 years old.

But you still wont be able to quote anyone here saying ;*Anything is allowable for the U.S. They can do no wrong ** LOL*


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> If the South had more men like General Loan, they wouldn't have lost!!


Actually, the South had plenty of people like General Loan, what they didn't much of have was senior officers and politicians who weren't corrupt and self seeking.


----------



## tocqueville

Is Loan the guy with the gun?


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> Is Loan the guy with the gun?


That is correct.


----------



## justonemore

canceled


----------



## Hitch

Originally Posted by *justonemore* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1531504#post1531504
_Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run going after what was defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?

_
Quoted above you clearly state that the 'little children' were the target of the US military. Once again a simple case of wild leftist overstatement. The defense you offered was your own ignorance of the facts, that you were misinformed. I believe rather that you are used to getting away with such nonsense and like a schoolyard bully you scream bloody murder ( .F*rom what you've wrriten it appears that you prefer the murder of children over any type of critism of the U.S.... But...That's just what I've seen from your arguementation. Peace is to be ridiculed, war is to be promoted*) when called out. Typical ,leftist doggerel. Ho hum.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Originally Posted by *justonemore* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1531504#post1531504
> _Odd. It has been shown that Napalm was used against the little children in this village by a U.S. bombing run going after what was defined as a "military target". I understand that they're hardly the faceless victims you'd prefer but hey, I guess you can't vaporize them all, all the time, huh?
> 
> _
> Quoted above you clearly state that the 'little children' were the target of the US military. Once again a simple case of wild leftist overstatement. The defense you offered was your own ignorance of the facts, that you were misinformed. I believe rather that you are used to getting away with such nonsense and like a schoolyard bully you scream bloody murder ( .F*rom what you've wrriten it appears that you prefer the murder of children over any type of critism of the U.S.... But...That's just what I've seen from your arguementation. Peace is to be ridiculed, war is to be promoted*) when called out. Typical ,leftist doggerel. Ho hum.


I clearly said no such thing. It must be your rightest tendencies to ignore what words mean when put together into a sentence or paragraph.. I clearly stated that napalm was a weapon being used against women and children during a military raid that was against what was defined as a "military target". I believed it to be a U.S raid. MikeP pointed out I was incorrect. I admitted that I might be wrong. Would you do so? I bullied no one. These forums are open to anyone, and anyone is welcome to question whatever I put forth. If you haven't bothered to notice, I actually try to justify my reasoning (whether you agree with it or not). My posts are much longer than most and certainly go further into explainations compared to your one liners.

Yet my friend, you offer no alternate thought to violence. Indeed, it seems to be the only measure you understand. But....I'm the "bully". You take no position as to the civilians murdered yet are critical of those that do... What am I suppose to think of your position? Either come out and say that blowing the limbs off of children is fine, or say that it is unacceptable. There really is no middle ground whatsoever. If you have no objections to the thought, then why not say so? Because they are "enemies" of the U.S.? Israel? Democracy? Christianity? Judaism? I give up.. What is your justification (other than justonemore is leftist and therefore wrong)?

What ideals are you supporting (other than the murder of non-combatants)? Americans are about 10th- 20th globally in anything that matters versus the military.. Education? 16th...Heath care...23rd... Sure it dépends on who is rating who but the U.S. is never number 1.. Why??? No money??? Poor ideology??? I do understand that the U.S. is 3rd (behind China and Iran) in exécutions. You must be proud to keep such high company...


----------



## Kingstonian

Odradek said:


> Anti-semite?
> That old chestnut.
> Maybe it's not apparent within the confines of American media bubble, but outside of the US, Israel is rightfully regarded as a pariah state.
> And criticism of the Israeli state is allowed to a degree you just don't get in the US.
> 
> Are people to be banned from AAAC for mentioning Israel now?.


Posters are understandably angry about the way this thread has been hijacked.

It is bizarre - but maybe not surprising - that Tocqueville has not yet been relieved of further moderating responsibility.

So much for the bad old days of moderation on this site being behind us.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.
> 
> That particular bit on nonsense ( the Benn quote) belongs on the editorial page of a second rate high school newspaper. The real shame here is that no one on the other side is ignorant of anything in your post. *Your eloquence though will likely save you from Shaver's begging for PMs*.


I have come to acknowledge how futile it is to ever ask you to explain yourself Hitch but vainly I enquire, in the hope that you may on this occassion supplement your cryptic spiel with a measure of elucidation, what on Earth are you blabbering about here?

In fact, I throw the question open to anyone at all - if they grasp the sense here - to explain for me. Thank you.

.
.
.
.
.
.
..


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> That purpose being to oversimplify, obfuscate, misdirect and propagandize, I have to agree with you!!


If such a bald and simple statement has the power to obfuscate or misdirect anyone, then I pity their capacity for rational thought.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> My problem with his evocation of his Blitz experience is that he leaves out the fact that the threat to his life posed by the Germans came to an end because Britain, the US, and above all the Soviet Union wreaked horrific violence upon Germany. If the air campaign against England was a war crime, for it killed innocent people for political reasons, so, too, by Benn's logic, was the killing of innocent people in northern France in preparation for D-Day and over the course of subsequent fighting, not to mention all the German civilians killed. Is there no moral difference between the bombing of Coventry and the bombing of Rouen? *I argue that some political reasons are different from others, and thus there IS a moral difference.
> *
> A long time ago I found myself in Nuremberg, in the municipal museum, where they had exhibits about the rise of Nazism in the city (which was a hot bed of early Nazi activism) and the experience of the city over the course of the war, which brought about its near complete destruction at the hands of the RAF and USAAC. In the basement, nearly hidden in the shadows, was a big display that seemed to have been taken down and put aside. The display had two lists, one of all the big Luftwaffe raids against cities and all the big UK/US raids against German cities. The UK/US raid list was much greater. The point of the display was to argue that what the US/UK did was much, much worse, as if to say that the opprobrium about Coventry and Rotterdam and all that was unfair. I thought that if that was their argument, they had missed the point entirely. Or, perhaps that's why the display was taken down, because they knew better.
> 
> PS. Here's some info I found on the web regarding French civilian casualties in WWII thanks to Anglo-American bombing. I CANNOT vouch for information:
> 
> https://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week020105/france_050201_civilianskilledinwwII.htm


Is there a moral difference? I am not so sure. We were merely attempting to save our English race from extinction and preserve freedom* for the whole world, by any and all means neccessary.

*That's real freedom, by the by, not what passes for it once Homeland Security elected themselves to be the world police.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Sure.
> Only a person with remarkably stunted moral reasoning would equate (i) an aircraft's bombing of legitimate military targets resulting in the accidental death of innocents with (ii) the a suicide bomber's intentional targeting and murder of innocents. It is widely acknowledged that the targeting of civilians in Germany, Britain and Japan during WW II was morally objectionable. Nonetheless, the episodes of such "terror bombing" by the Allies were not typical in WWII, especially by the US with the exception of the last months of the war in the Pacific theater. The vast majority of sorties limited bombing to military targets. Today all US military acadamies teach the importance not only of not targeting innocents but also of avoiding innocent casualties if at all possible. Finally, leaving aside that there is no record or accusation of any use of the Stealth Bomber incompatible with such instructions, Benn compared aircraft bombers whose moral misuse has been exceptional with suicide bombers whose moral misuse has been virtually definitional, and stupidly rendered them equivalent.


As ever, thank you Mike for a courteous response. Initially, and to be clear, when Tony Benn spoke of 'suicide bombers' in this context he was specifically referring to those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, I believe, is some context which informs the morality - imagine that you are a goat herder whose land is invaded by the greatest military force in the world, an enemy with limitless fire power and resources, an enemy intent on obliterating your culture. How do you fight back?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> As ever, thank you Mike for a courteous response. Initially, and to be clear, when Tony Benn spoke of 'suicide bombers' in this context he was specifically referring to those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, I believe, is some context which informs the morality - imagine that you are a goat herder whose land is invaded by the greatest military force in the world, an enemy with limitless fire power and resources, an enemy intent on obliterating your culture. How do you fight back?


Fair enough, Shaver. I can appreciate the Taliban worrying about the threat to their culture, and I hope we are successful nonetheless in obliterating it.


----------



## Shaver

^ Me too, if I'm honest. I despise all cultures that subjugate women.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> ^ Me too, if I'm honest. I despise all cultures that subjugate women.


Yes, and "subjugate" is a charitable word choice in this case.,


----------



## justonemore

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Shaver. I can appreciate the Taliban worrying about the threat to their culture, and I hope we are successful nonetheless in obliterating it.


Ok. I'll agree... but is it really needed to drag the obliteration on for several générations? If we're going to admit that wiping everyone out is fine, can't we do it in one go? The pussyfooting around has just left us with future générations of these "terrorists". Doesn't the U.S. and its allies have the firepower to pretty much destroy miles at a time? It would probably be much cheaper to just send a a few nukes and have it done with.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I have come to acknowledge how futile it is to ever ask you to explain yourself Hitch but vainly I enquire, in the hope that you may on this occassion supplement your cryptic spiel with a measure of elucidation, what on Earth are you blabbering about here?
> 
> In fact, I throw the question open to anyone at all - if they grasp the sense here - to explain for me. Thank you.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ..


High school newspapers are known for their sophistry.


----------



## tocqueville

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lair-absolutely-capacity-deliver-promise.html

I love this bit:
Saturday, October 20
The Americans have sent troops into Afghanistan, and it's being presented as if it was a huge military triumph. Here's this pitifully poor country being savaged by the richest country in the world, which then speaks as if this was a tremendous military achievement! It's utterly revolting.

In my heart of hearts I believe Bush and Blair acted illegally and, if I am right, they have committed war crimes. I think I shall say that, but I've got to be careful I don't overdo it, wait till public opinion shifts.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> High school newspapers are known for their sophistry.


I prefer Sapphism to Sophism.

How do you like them apples?


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ I prefer Sapphism to Sophism.
> 
> How do you like them apples?


Well played


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> I prefer Sapphism to Sophism.
> 
> How do you like them apples?


^^^^+1


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> I clearly said no such thing. It must be your rightest tendencies to ignore what words mean when put together into a sentence or paragraph.. I clearly stated that napalm was a weapon being used against women and children during a military raid that was against what was defined as a "military target". I believed it to be a U.S raid. MikeP pointed out I was incorrect. I admitted that I might be wrong. Would you do so? I bullied no one. These forums are open to anyone, and anyone is welcome to question whatever I put forth. If you haven't bothered to notice, I actually try to justify my reasoning (whether you agree with it or not). My posts are much longer than most and certainly go further into explainations compared to your one liners.


 reminds of the mentally ill shouting one sided conversations in the park


> Yet my friend, you offer no alternate thought to violence. Indeed, it seems to be the only measure you understand. But....I'm the "bully". You take no position as to the civilians murdered


 LOL


> yet are critical of those that do... What am I suppose to think of your position?


 LOL Who cares?


> Either come out and say that blowing the limbs off of children is fine, or say that it is unacceptable. There really is no middle ground whatsoever. If you have no objections to the thought, then why not say so? Because they are "enemies" of the U.S.? Israel? Democracy? Christianity? Judaism? I give up.. What is your justification (other than justonemore is leftist and therefore wrong)?
> 
> What ideals are you supporting (other than the murder of non-combatants)? Americans are about 10th- 20th globally in anything that matters versus the military.. Education? 16th...Heath care...23rd... Sure it dépends on who is rating who but the U.S. is never number 1.. Why??? No money??? Poor ideology??? I do understand that the U.S. is 3rd (behind China and Iran) in exécutions. You must be proud to keep such high company...


Its much more fun to watch you wallow in the pig sty alone. I dont bother much with the ridiculous and irrational.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lair-absolutely-capacity-deliver-promise.html
> 
> I love this bit:
> Saturday, October 20
> The Americans have sent troops into Afghanistan, and it's being presented as if it was a huge military triumph. Here's this pitifully poor country being savaged by the richest country in the world, which then speaks as if this was a tremendous military achievement! It's utterly revolting.
> 
> In my heart of hearts I believe Bush and Blair acted illegally and, if I am right, they have committed war crimes. I think I shall say that, but I've got to be careful I don't overdo it, wait till public opinion shifts.


That was the segment I was about to highlight.

I am capable of a measure of jingoism myself, do not doubt it, but (for example) when we made 'war' upon some poorly trained, inadequately armed, teenage boys in the seas around the Falklands I was ashamed to be English.

I trust that you are able to agree with Benn's sentiments?


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I prefer Sapphism to Sophism.
> 
> How do you like them apples?


As though there were any doubt.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> That was the segment I was about to highlight.
> 
> I am capable of a measure of jingoism myself, do not doubt it, but (for example) when we made 'war' upon some poorly trained, inadequately armed, teenage boys in the seas around the Falklands I was ashamed to be English.
> 
> I trust that you are able to agree with Benn's sentiments?


Not at all.


----------



## Shaver

^ How so?

The short version, please. :devil:

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## tocqueville

Just because it was not a fair fight does not make the fight wrong. It is not, moreover, clear to me what course of acton Benn would have proposed the US taking.


----------



## tocqueville

The Falklands was different in two ways, by the way. 1. The justification was less clear, and 2. Notwithstanding your justifiable sympathy for Argentina's shivering conscripts, the war was far from being wholly one sided. The Argentina mil had some real strengths. The Brit mil some real weaknesses. The war was quite dicey. The British victory was not a forgone conclusion. Anway, Shaver, you can at least feel good that the war brought about the collapse of a truly odious regime, though that was not Thatcher's objective, as far as i know.


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> Just because it was not a fair fight does not make the fight wrong. It is not, moreover, clear to me what course of acton Benn would have proposed the US taking.


Hmmmm I reckon its fair to say Benn would have enjoyed seeing the US absorb losses to the point that leaves just enough to again bail out backstabbing infants.


----------



## Shaver

Tocqueville: sometimes a fight is so unfair that it can hardly be described as a fight at all. Especially if the aggressor has provoked his victim for so long and so viciously that, despite the obvious imbalance, a desperate act of retaliation is required and damn the consequences. Gust Avakotros predicted the dangers if the U.S. left Afghanistan 'high and dry' in the aftermath of the expulsion of the Soviets.



As an aside, Thatcher loved odious regimes. She ran one herself and also gave succor to Pinochet.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ...when we made 'war' upon some *poorly trained, inadequately armed, teenage boys* in the seas around the Falklands I was ashamed to be English...


I'm sorry you felt that way Shaver. I wonder what you think we might have done otherwise than eject them? Quietly concede abject defeat? For my part, I quite enjoyed the Falklands War, at least insofar as it is seemly to enjoy any war. As Tocqueville points out, the outcome was by no means a forgone conclusion. The Americans were quite keen for us to not make a fuss I believe.

A lot of our own side, in any case, could have been described in similar terms, the main difference was partly a question of national temperament.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Tocqueville: sometimes a fight is so unfair that it can hardly be described as a fight at all. Especially if the aggressor has provoked his victim for so long and so viciously that, despite the obvious imbalance, a desperate act of retaliation is required and damn the consequences. Gust Avakotros predicted the dangers if the U.S. left Afghanistan 'high and dry' in the aftermath of the expulsion of the Soviets.


I'm not at all sure I follow you with respect to the "aggressor," "his victim," and the "years of provocation," and I worry that you might be misreading the background and objectives of AQ, which I can assure you were and are far darker than that of any "freedom" fighter or "fedayeen." I acknowledge that the US had a hand in creating the mess in which Afghanistan found itself in 2001, but to argue that it should not attack in September is, at best, like arguing that Britain should not have retaliated against the Nazis in 1939-40 because of the UK's role in the Treaty of Versailles travesty. Or that the US should not respond with force to Pearl Harbor because of America's shabby handling of Japan in the 1930s, up to and including the oil embargo. I've certainly read that argument. Chomsky, for one, makes arguments of that sort.

If anything, the wretchedness of Afghanistan in 2001 underscores the villainy of AQ and its Taliban hosts as well as how little the welfare of the Afghan people mattered to them. To so expose their hosts to the wrath of a superpower! If they had cared at all about their people, inviting certain destruction is the last thing they would have done.


----------



## Hitch

Langham said:


> I'm sorry you felt that way Shaver. I wonder what you think we might have done otherwise than eject them? Quietly concede abject defeat? For my part, I quite enjoyed the Falklands War, at least insofar as it is seemly to enjoy any war. As Tocqueville points out, the outcome was by no means a forgone conclusion. The Americans were quite keen for us to not make a fuss I believe.
> 
> A lot of our own side, in any case, could have been described in similar terms, the main difference was partly a question of national temperament.


Correct me if Im wrong but it seems since the Falklands no one else has deemed it worthwhile to start shooting over any similar territorial dispute with the UK.


----------



## tocqueville

By the way, I highly recommend an Argentine film about the Falklands War that gives a very sympathetic view of the Argentine conscripts and the insanity of their commanders:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_by_Fire


----------



## Langham

Hitch said:


> Correct me if Im wrong but it seems since the Falklands no one else has deemed it worthwhile to start shooting over any similar territorial dispute with the UK.


You are quite correct, and it is a good point - although some may cavil that the UK now has few territories left to fight over (see post 305 below).


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> You are quite correct, and it is a good point - although some may cavil that the UK now has few territories left to fight over.


But much less ability to fight over them.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Correct me if Im wrong but it seems since the Falklands no one else has deemed it worthwhile to start shooting over any similar territorial dispute with the UK.


Yes, our overseas Empire, unlike that of the United States, has gone, so there isn't much chance, really, of any further disputes. Gibraltar, of course, is one territory where a dispute exists, but it's a very long time since Spain last tried military force, unsuccessfully, to get the place.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> But much less ability to fight over them.


Also true. Unfortunately the military has borne the brunt of the state's much-needed fiscal restraint.


----------



## Hitch

Langham said:


> You are quite correct, and it is a good point - although some may cavil that the UK now has few territories left to fight over (see post 305 below).


Chouan's reminder of the thousands, ,,rather millions, of abject colonials clamoring to be free of US tyranny gave me a chuckle.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> By the way, I highly recommend an Argentine film about the Falklands War that gives a very sympathetic view of the Argentine conscripts and the insanity of their commanders:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_by_Fire


We'll see. I've added it to my rental list.


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> Chouan's reminder of the thousands, ,,rather millions, of abject colonials clamoring to be free of US tyranny gave me a chuckle.


On a related notd, i remember that many of the anti-war protestors of the last decade were calling for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. My reaction was, "Haiti? occupied? They should be so lucky."


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> On a related notd, i remember that many of the anti-war protestors of the last decade were calling for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. My reaction was, "Haiti? occupied? They should be so lucky."


I think I remember some of those folks 'occupying' Wall Street , until the DNC's cash ran out.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Chouan's reminder of the thousands, ,,rather millions, of abject colonials clamoring to be free of US tyranny gave me a chuckle.


Just because people are subjects of a colonial Empire doesn't mean that they're "abject", or that they are "clamoring (sic) to be free of US tyranny", anymore than the subjects of Britain's colonial empire were necessarily abject or clamouring to be free of British tyranny. I'm sure that most of the US colonials are, most of the time, happy in their status. On the other hand, some aren't necessarily happy that they have no democratic rights, but I'm sure that you can chuckle about that too.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122776
That many ignorant Americans don't know, or refuse to know, that the US has an overseas colonial empire no longer surprises me. That some Americans, including otherwise intelligent and otherwise rational Americans, continue to deny the existence of their overseas empire still surprises me, although experience should inform me otherwise.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I'm not at all sure I follow you with respect to the "aggressor," "his victim," and the "years of provocation," and I worry that you might be misreading the background and objectives of AQ, which I can assure you were and are far darker than that of any "freedom" fighter or "fedayeen." I acknowledge that the US had a hand in creating the mess in which Afghanistan found itself in 2001, but to argue that it should not attack in September is, at best, like arguing that Britain should not have retaliated against the Nazis in 1939-40 because of the UK's role in the Treaty of Versailles travesty. Or that the US should not respond with force to Pearl Harbor because of America's shabby handling of Japan in the 1930s, up to and including the oil embargo. I've certainly read that argument. Chomsky, for one, makes arguments of that sort.
> 
> If anything, the wretchedness of Afghanistan in 2001 underscores the villainy of AQ and its Taliban hosts as well as how little the welfare of the Afghan people mattered to them. To so expose their hosts to the wrath of a superpower! If they had cared at all about their people, inviting certain destruction is the last thing they would have done.


On the other hand, neither the Taliban (nor Iraq) had anything to do with the attacks on the US; that the US and its puppets invaded Iraq, and that the US supported an Afghan warlord and moved troops in on their "invitation" was more to do with US intentions than retaliation. Retaliation usually means striking back at the people who have attacked you. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were responsible, or even involved in the attack of September 2001, so how was the US response retaliation? 
I'm not sure that "certain destruction" is what the US and their puppets have visited upon Afghanistan. Destruction, and enormously expensive, to the US, they have certainly wrought, but to what effect? Has their occupation of parts of Afghanistan won the war against terror? Are the people of Afghanistan better off because of it? Indeed, are the people of Iraq better off because of the US invasion? Are the people of the US safer because of the invasion of Iraq?


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Just because people are subjects of a colonial Empire doesn't mean that they're "abject", or that they are "clamoring (sic) to be free of US tyranny", anymore than the subjects of Britain's colonial empire were necessarily abject or clamouring to be free of British tyranny. I'm sure that most of the US colonials are, most of the time, happy in their status. On the other hand, some aren't necessarily happy that they have no democratic rights, but I'm sure that you can chuckle about that too.
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122776
> That many ignorant Americans don't know, or refuse to know, that the US has an overseas colonial empire no longer surprises me. That some Americans, including otherwise intelligent and otherwise rational Americans, continue to deny the existence of their overseas empire still surprises me, although experience should inform me otherwise.


In Reality Land aka Puerto Rico , citizens have the right and the freedom to vote, and they often do so. A far cry from having 'no democratic rights' ,have I mentioned shrillness? Any citizen is free to move anywhere in the United States and have his Presidential vote tallied. But thanx for yet another laughably pathetic example.:thumbs-up:



> *(CNN)* -- In an overshadowed Election Day contest, Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood in a nonbinding referendum, marking the first time such an initiative garnered a majority.
> Puerto Ricans were asked about their desires in two parts. First, by a 54% to 46% margin, voters rejected their current status as a U.S. commonwealth. In a separate question, 61% chose statehood as the alternative, compared with 33% for the semi-autonomous "sovereign free association" and 6% for outright independence.




CNN is obviously lying Puerto Ricans have no' democratic rights', there could not possibly have been any sort of vote, or at least this is what passes for truth in parts of England


----------



## justonemore

Wasn't Hawaii annexed by the U.S. at the urging of wealthy American plantation owners? The name Dole comes to mind. As he was also a politician, I'm sure there was no conflict of interest involved in the situation. There was no vote taken to see if the natives approved (they didn't). The "businessmen" simply overtook the Hawaiian governent. Many native Hawaiians still aren't at all happy about being part of the U.S. They even have a beat "haole" day (Haole is a racial slur against Americans in the Hawaiian language). There are still calls for sovereignty to this day (perhaps they should stage a bloody coup as was done in Ukraine?). I'm sure a mid-pacific strategic position is more important to the land of the free than the thoughts of a few islanders but this just seems to be a regular part of America's short history. I do have to wonder what type of idealism the U.S. is trying to push. Is it peace? Democracy (American "democracy" makes me laugh)? Religion ("In god we Trust")? International trade (give us your oïl and we'll give you some grain)?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> We'll see. I've added it to my rental list.


Me too.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I'm sorry you felt that way Shaver. I wonder what you think we might have done otherwise than eject them? Quietly concede abject defeat? For my part, I quite enjoyed the Falklands War, at least insofar as it is seemly to enjoy any war. As Tocqueville points out, the outcome was by no means a forgone conclusion. The Americans were quite keen for us to not make a fuss I believe.
> 
> A lot of our own side, in any case, could have been described in similar terms, the main difference was partly a question of national temperament.


The Falklands 'conflict' (it hardly deserves the term 'war') was a sorry affair.

If England lasts for a thousand years men will still say 'this was our most shameful hour' - with apologies to Winnie.


----------



## Langham

^ That's at least twice that you have paraphrased Sir W recently, Shaver. 

His views on the correct way to defend sovereignty against fascist aggressors were somewhat different to yours, it seems; you are right to offer him your apologies.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> I'm not at all sure I follow you with respect to the "aggressor," "his victim," and the "years of provocation," and I worry that you might be misreading the background and objectives of AQ, which I can assure you were and are far darker than that of any "freedom" fighter or "fedayeen." I acknowledge that the US had a hand in creating the mess in which Afghanistan found itself in 2001, but to argue that it should not attack in September is, at best, like arguing that Britain should not have retaliated against the Nazis in 1939-40 because of the UK's role in the Treaty of Versailles travesty. Or that the US should not respond with force to Pearl Harbor because of America's shabby handling of Japan in the 1930s, up to and including the oil embargo. I've certainly read that argument. Chomsky, for one, makes arguments of that sort.
> 
> If anything, the wretchedness of Afghanistan in 2001 underscores the villainy of AQ and its Taliban hosts as well as how little the welfare of the Afghan people mattered to them. To so expose their hosts to the wrath of a superpower! If they had cared at all about their people, inviting certain destruction is the last thing they would have done.


Are you genuinely comparing the American military response to 9/11 with the English nobly standing up to the Nazi terror that had over-run all of Europe?!! :crazy:


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> ^ That's at least twice that you have paraphrased Sir W recently, Shaver.
> 
> His views on the correct way to defend sovereignty against fascist aggressors were somewhat different to yours, it seems; you are right to offer him your apologies.


I am an enormous admirer of Sir W and stand by every act (no matter how barbaric) we committed in the Second World War.

If you will agree, my friend, we always fall out when the Falklands incident is mentioned - we perhaps require an acceptable exit strategy to remain in good humour, one to the other.

How about if I promise not to plant my flag on your island and you don't scuttle me when I am in retreat? 

Pax.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I am an enormous admirer of Sir W and stand by every act (no matter how barbaric) we committed in the Second World War.
> 
> If you will agree, my friend, we always fall out when the Falklands incident is mentioned - we perhaps require an acceptable exit strategy to remain in good humour, one to the other.
> 
> How about if I promise not to plant my flag on your island and you don't scuttle me when I am in retreat?
> 
> Pax.


It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even within the sanctity of my own home, I am frequently confronted by what I consider to be grotesque misinterpretations of the factual truth.


----------



## Shaver

^ Might I encourage you to elaborate?


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> In Reality Land aka Puerto Rico , citizens have the right and the freedom to vote, and they often do so. A far cry from having 'no democratic rights' ,have I mentioned shrillness? Any citizen is free to move anywhere in the United States and have his Presidential vote tallied. But thanx for yet another laughably pathetic example.:thumbs-up:


Interesting that you haven't actually replied to my post, just ridiculed one small part of it. Can I assume then that you otherwise accept my argument?





Hitch said:


> CNN is obviously lying Puerto Ricans have no' democratic rights', there could not possibly have been any sort of vote, or at least this is what passes for truth in parts of England


So citizens of Puerto Rico can, in fact, vote in Presidential elections in Puerto Rico? If so, does that make Puerto Rico not part of the US overseas colonial Empire?


----------



## Langham

^ (Reply to Shaver no 321) Yes, I just wondered how you balance your admiration for Sir W, whose approach to foreign aggressors was always notably pugnacious, with finding the Falklands War shameful in some way? We were the victims of unprovoked aggression, an unprincipled land-grab, carried out by an illegal regime. For all we knew, the next thing they would have demanded would have been the Isle of Wight.


----------



## Shaver

^And, they could have had it as far as I'm concerned. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan

justonemore said:


> Wasn't Hawaii annexed by the U.S. at the urging of wealthy American plantation owners? The name Dole comes to mind. As he was also a politician, I'm sure there was no conflict of interest involved in the situation. There was no vote taken to see if the natives approved (they didn't). The "businessmen" simply overtook the Hawaiian governent. Many native Hawaiians still aren't at all happy about being part of the U.S. They even have a beat "haole" day (Haole is a racial slur against Americans in the Hawaiian language). There are still calls for sovereignty to this day (perhaps they should stage a bloody coup as was done in Ukraine?). I'm sure a mid-pacific strategic position is more important to the land of the free than the thoughts of a few islanders but this just seems to be a regular part of America's short history. I do have to wonder what type of idealism the U.S. is trying to push. Is it peace? Democracy (American "democracy" makes me laugh)? Religion ("In god we Trust")? International trade (give us your oïl and we'll give you some grain)?


It was indeed. The inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands had no more say about their annexation than the inhabitants of Alaska, or Guam.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> The Falklands 'conflict' (it hardly deserves the term 'war') was a sorry affair.
> 
> If England lasts for a thousand years men will still say 'this was our most shameful hour' - with apologies to Winnie.


I have a correspondent who is an Argentinian, of French origin, who was a very junior infantry officer in the Falklands campaign, and who shares your view that it was a "sorry affair". However, his view is that it was a sorry affair that was entirely of Argentina's making, an attempt to distract the Argentine people from their economic problems and the horrors of the government's policy of "disappearing" political opponents and critics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
That we fought back was a necessary thing, in my opinion. Even though Thatcher's policies had created the impression in the Argentine government that we weren't interested in the region, and which continued despite her being warned of the consequences, it was direct aggression on the part of Argentina and on the part of a repressive and unpleasant regime. That she could have prevented the attack by a few simple steps doesn't mean that it wasn't blatant armed aggression.

It was by no means as one sided as the conflict appeared, and, although the Argentine troops were appallingly treated by their senior officers, and were in a very bad way by the time of their surrender, the campaign was quite a close run thing. That we won despite the odds and the conditions isn't, to me, something to be ashamed of.


----------



## Shaver

^ Well of course.

And we have all of us, I am certain, been "mouthed off at" by an inferior foe in our time. 

Cowardice informs the urge of superior force to respond to such provocation.


----------



## Langham

^ Invasion by foreign forces might be argued as going slightly beyond 'mouthing off'.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> It was indeed. The inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands had no more say about their annexation than the inhabitants of Alaska, or Guam.


The annexation of Hawaii was indeed a shameful thing. There's no denying it.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Are you genuinely comparing the American military response to 9/11 with the English nobly standing up to the Nazi terror that had over-run all of Europe?!! :crazy:


Shaver, you are quite the Romantic! I sense that what matters to you here is the gallantry of the brave English taking on a more powerful foe vice the ignominy of the US going after the rag tag Taliban and its AQ allies. It is certainly true that there was little gallantry in a war of JDAMs and B52s, although from what i read, there were some cavalry charges. Seriously though, the imbalance of forces does not in any way diminish the justness of knocking certain people in the head. At least those people at that time.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> ...the imbalance of forces does not in any way diminish the justness of knocking certain people in the head...


I agree. In fact the imperative is all the greater.


----------



## Shaver

^ My heart is filled with poetry. 

The people who perpetrated 9/11 died on the planes. The people who were 'knocked in the head' in futile retaliation had nothing to do with the attack. 

Bin laden, subjected to summary execution (despite being under indictment) without a shred of evidence to connect him to the event was, as you say, ignominous.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Shaver, you are quite the Romantic! I sense that what matters to you here is the gallantry of the brave English taking on a more powerful foe vice the ignominy of the US going after the rag tag Taliban and its AQ allies. It is certainly true that there was little gallantry in a war of JDAMs and B52s, although from what i read, there were some cavalry charges. Seriously though, the imbalance of forces does not in any way diminish the justness of knocking certain people in the head. At least those people at that time.


The problem with going after the Taliban and Iraq was that they weren't the people responsible for the attack on the US, indeed, AQ was seen as an enemy of Saddam Hussein's Iraq! 
AQ was clearly an enemy of the US and clearly needed to be sorted out, but the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were because the US wanted to do so, for their own reasons, not as retaliation. 
It would be as if the UK, in response to Germany's invasion of Poland, declared war on Italy and attacked Libya.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ My heart is filled with poetry.
> 
> The people who perpetrated 9/11 died on the planes. The people who were 'knocked in the head' in futile retaliation had nothing to do with the attack.
> 
> Bin laden, subjected to summary execution (despite being under indictment) without a shred of evidence to connect him to the event was, as you say, ignominous.


Quite. If the US was absolutely certain that Bin Laden was responsible, they should have brought him to the US for trial. After all they had him in their hands, with the means to extract him to the US. Carrying out his assassination was merely state sponsored terrorism.


----------



## Langham

^ Bin Laden was the acknowledged head of AQ, which had of course admitted/claimed responsibility for 9/11 and other terror attacks - besides which there is endless intelligence establishing the connection. Extrajudicial killing is certainly not the ideal way of bringing anyone to justice, but in his case, I wonder who really cared?


----------



## Shaver

^ Bin Laden sitting in his ultra high-tech, hollowed out science fiction style mountain, secret base like the ultimate James Bond villain? 

The 'intelligence' on Bin Laden was shall we say 'fanciful'?


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> ^ Bin Laden was the acknowledged head of AQ, which had of course admitted/claimed responsibility for 9/11 and other terror attacks - besides which there is endless intelligence establishing the connection. Extrajudicial killing is certainly not the ideal way of bringing anyone to justice, but in his case,* I wonder who really cared*?


Those concerned with the ideal of justice perhaps?

I hate to repeat myself...but...Would it be ok if someone decided U.S. and U.K. leaders were responsible for torture & therefore hunted them down and killed them?


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The 'intelligence' on Bin Laden was shall we say 'fanciful'?


No, Shaver. It wasn't.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> The problem with going after the Taliban and Iraq was that they weren't the people responsible for the attack on the US, indeed, AQ was seen as an enemy of Saddam Hussein's Iraq!
> AQ was clearly an enemy of the US and clearly needed to be sorted out, but the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were because the US wanted to do so, for their own reasons, not as retaliation.
> It would be as if the UK, in response to Germany's invasion of Poland, declared war on Italy and attacked Libya.


You are 100% correct with respect to Iraq. But not Afghanistan. There are some very sharp distinctions to be drawn between those wars.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> No, Shaver. It wasn't.


Obviously it was - I note that you have chosen to edit out an example of one of the more fanciful fragments of *ahem* intelligence, which was included in my original post.

Very telling.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> ^ Bin Laden sitting in his ultra high-tech, hollowed out science fiction style mountain, secret base like the ultimate James Bond villain?
> 
> The 'intelligence' on Bin Laden was shall we say 'fanciful'?


No more so than WMDs in Iraq. Why can't you just believe what you're told?



Shaver said:


> Obviously it was - I note that you have chosen to edit out an example of one of the more fanciful fragments of *ahem* intelligence, which was included in my original post.
> 
> Very telling.


You are debating with an American....Editing is only improper should others do it..


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> You are 100% correct with respect to Iraq. But not Afghanistan. There are some very sharp distinctions to be drawn between those wars.


The Taliban were not involved in 9/11, anymore than Iraq was. If we accept that Bin Laden planned the attack, of which I'm not certain, although he certainly accepted the credit, then it still doesn't justify US military intervention in Afghanistan, as Afghanistan wasn't involved in the attack on the US.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> No more so than WMDs in Iraq. Why can't you just believe what you're told..


Sigh. It is a sad fact that the US did much damage to its credibility with its claims against Iraq.

All i can say is this: All credible journalism and investigations have upheld the case against OBL and Aq. All serious well informed people i know believe it. It has held up to close scrutiny. The same cannot be said for the case against IRaq.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^ Bin Laden was the acknowledged head of AQ, which had of course admitted/claimed responsibility for 9/11 and other terror attacks - besides which there is endless intelligence establishing the connection. Extrajudicial killing is certainly not the ideal way of bringing anyone to justice, but in his case, I wonder who really cared?


But even if we accept that he was indeed responsible, does that justify US military intervention in a country that was not itself involved in 9/11?


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Those concerned with the ideal of justice perhaps?
> 
> I hate to repeat myself...but...Would it be ok if someone decided U.S. and U.K. leaders were responsible for torture & therefore hunted them down and killed them?


It wasn't quite a case of 'someone deciding' - the guilt was in effect self-acknowledged - besides all the intelligence (which some may dispute, but I feel that to do so may be bordering on belief in the various conspiracy theories that abound).

I think my post acknowledges that extrajudicial killing is not the ideal, but I would think many might argue that killing Bin Laden was an acceptable form of summary justice.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Sigh. It is a sad fact that the US did much damage to its credibility with its claims against Iraq.
> 
> All i can say is this: All credible journalism and investigations have upheld the case against OBL and Aq. All serious well informed people i know believe it. It has held up to close scrutiny. The same cannot be said for the case against IRaq.


Bah! Most people do not even know what Al-Qaeda means, let alone appreciate that the organisation was created from whole cloth by an informer (Jamal al-Fadl) who was paid handsomely for every report he fantasised.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> It wasn't quite a case of 'someone deciding' - the guilt was in effect self-acknowledged - besides all the intelligence (which some may dispute, but I feel that to do so may be bordering on belief in the various conspiracy theories that abound).
> 
> I think my post acknowledges that extrajudicial killing is not the ideal, but I would think many might argue that killing Bin Laden was an acceptable form of summary justice.


Come, come. Disagreeing with nonsense can hardly be characterised as subscribing to conspiracy theory.


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> Sigh. It is a sad fact that the US did much damage to its credibility with its claims against Iraq.
> .


Just curious.. How much credibility needs to be lost before the international community states thât no credibility remains? While others have been critical of my stance, how much BS should I swallow before stating that it's all BS? The lies have bled into the somewhat truth so much, that the difference (when told by the U.S. and its allies) has become indistiguishable.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> But even if we accept that he was indeed responsible, does that justify US military intervention in a country that was not itself involved in 9/11?


I did not say that - unless you are referring to the raid in Pakistan that led to his death. Not a very diplomatic way of doing things, and imagine the uproar if such a raid was mounted in Europe, but (a crude validation, I know) the end justified the means.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Come, come. Disagreeing with nonsense can hardly be characterised as subscribing to conspiracy theory.


Then you must believe that enormous resources have been devoted to compiling entirely fictitious dossiers in order to implicate a completely blameless individual in the commission of sophisticated acts of terror. But why? That raises too many questions involving irrational and unlikely circumstances - I have looked into some of the conspiracy theories, but none of them stand up, whereas the generally accepted version of events seems at least plausible.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> But even if we accept that he was indeed responsible, does that justify US military intervention in a country that was not itself involved in 9/11?


I think you overstate the distinction between AQ and the TB, sort of like saying the Wehrmacht was innocent, the problem was the SS or the Nazi Party. Certainly after AQ took down the two US embassies, the TB had no excuse for not knowing that their guest was keen on making war on the US. The US Tomahawk attack in retaliation should have dispelled any doubt, although I refuse to believe such doubt existed. The TB at that point had to have known what AQ was about. IIIRC, there were also opportunities for the TB to hand over AQ or expel it, as Sudan had done before when it figured out that it wasn't interested in that kind of trouble. Lastly, it quite simply isn't clear to me how one might have gone after the AQ without going after the TB, especially if the TB is insisting on its full support for AQ, and if the fighters of the two groups are intermingled on the battlefield. Imagine if the allies in WWII tried to single out the Nazi party members and the SS without harming the Wehrmacht or anyone else. How would one do that? How does one invade Afghanistan to fight AQ without having to fight the TB? Oh, pardon me, I hope you don't mind if I bomb the guy next to you. I do apologize for the inconvenience.

Remember, the US efforts prior to the invasion to strike at AQ without hurting anyone else had come to nothing. It's been well established that Clinton tried several times to target AQ in Afghanistan but would not pull the trigger for various reasons, among them the risk of collateral damage.

The bottom line is that I simply cannot comprehend why anyone might shed a tear for the Taliban.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ My heart is filled with poetry.


It is part of your charm!


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> It wasn't quite a case of 'someone deciding' - the guilt was in effect self-acknowledged - besides all the intelligence (which some may dispute, but I feel that to do so may be bordering on belief in the various conspiracy theories that abound).
> 
> I think my post acknowledges that extrajudicial killing is not the ideal, but I would think many might argue that killing Bin Laden was an acceptable form of summary justice.


Langham.. I love you my friend..... but...Both Blair and Bush have admitted to what comes down to International War Crimes (just as OBL). Would it be aceptable if say Switzerland assembled as SWAT team and killed off such bastards for committing torture and murder? Under your logic, would it not be an acceptable form of "summary justice" in such a case?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Then you must believe that *enormous resources have been devoted to compiling entirely fictitious dossiers *in order to implicate a completely blameless individual in the commission of sophisticated acts of terror. But why? That raises too many questions involving irrational and unlikely circumstances - I have looked into some of the conspiracy theories, but none of them stand up, whereas the generally accepted version of events seems at least plausible.


That seems like a fairly accurate description of a considerable amount of espionage and military intelligence to me.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> That seems like a fairly accurate description of a considerable amount of espionage and military intelligence to me.


Are we ignoring previous disussions concerning propaganda ? ooops... I suppose all that was just a theory proposed by the liberal leftist media.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Langham.. I love you my friend..... but...Both Blair and Bush have admitted to what comes down to International War Crimes (just as OBL). Would it be aceptable if say Switzerland assembled as SWAT team and killed off such bastards for committing torture and murder? Would it not be an acceptable form of summary justice in such a case?


I don't know about Bush, but Blair was always a devious **** and a clever lawyer too, so perhaps that would be his just desserts. But who would they send to do the job? The Vatican Guard?


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> That seems like a fairly accurate description of a considerable amount of espionage and military intelligence to me.


I feel very confident in saying that the US Government is incapable of keeping a lie that big a secret for any length of time. A very large number of people would have had to have been in on it. Just look at all the other stuff that's been leaked over the past ten decades, much of it truly awful. Plus half the UK government would have had to have been in on it, unless the US government had successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. I don't think it's even possible from a practical and technical standpoint for the US Government to lie to the UK Government at that scale. There are too many Brits running around in US government offices. They are quite at home.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> I don't know about Bush, but Blair was always a devious **** and a clever lawyer too, so perhaps that would be his just deserts. But who would they send to do the job? The Vatican Guard?


Ha...From I hear the vatican guard is actually quite professional (although I admit to never having dealt with them). Admittedly the spear like weapons they carry for "honor guard" duty probably won't go very far in real life battle but to my knowledge, the Swiss Guard (aka. the vatican army) also carries much more advanced weaponry.

Speaking of honor guards....Do the "beefeaters" carry loaded automatic weapons or are they just for show? I admit that I would never want to pull such duty (my version of hell I suppose). I respect those that have the fortitude to do so, but I'm not sure that the theatre actually equals "military"discipline..


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> I feel very confident in saying that the US Government is incapable of keeping a lie that big a secret for any length of time. A very large number of people would have had to have been in on it. Just look at all the other stuff that's been leaked over the past ten decades, much of it truly awful. Plus half the UK government would have had to have been in on it, unless the US government had successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. I don't think it's even possible from a practical and technical standpoint for the US Government to lie to the UK Government at that scale. There are too many Brits running around in US government offices. They are quite at home.


Is it that big of a secret? No evidence to link OBL & AQ to 9/11, except his own boasting. Doesn't seem to be a secret at all.......

I know we are all going at it hammer and tongs right now, and possibly posts have been missed, but AQ is a fiction (as per my post 346).

Apologies for editing but in my haste I omitted a significant segment. 

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## tocqueville

And so are the moon landings.


----------



## Shaver

^ Now, now. That's a response unbecoming of you.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Ha...From I hear the vatican guard is actually quite professional (although I admit to never having dealt with them). Admittedly the spear like weapons they carry for "honor guard" duty probably won't go very far in real life battle but to my knowledge, the Swiss Guard (aka. the vatican army) also carries much more advanced weaponry.
> 
> Speaking of honor guards....Do the "beefeaters" carry loaded automatic weapons or are they just for show? I admit that I would never want to pull such duty (my version of hell I suppose). I respect those that have the fortitude to do so, but I'm not sure that the theatre actually equals "military"discipline..


The only weapon the Beefeaters carry is a halbard - I believe their duties are entirely voluntary.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Is it that big of a secret? No evidence to link OBL & AQ to 9/11, except his own boasting. Doesn't seem to be a secret at all.......
> 
> I know we are all going at it hammer and tongs right now, and possibly posts have been missed, but AQ is a fiction (as per my post 346).
> 
> Apologies for editing but in my haste I omitted a significant segment.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


Quite. Perhaps AQ exists as a concept, but the misconception that it is an organisation of some kind, with structures and "membership" as it were is indeed a fiction. It is, at best, an expression describing various people or groups working around the world for similar ends. It is neither a Party nor a group or an affiliation. So describing it as if it were is simply wrong. Attributing planning or organisation or directives or indeed leadership to AQ is showing a misunderstanding of what it is.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> The only weapon the Beefeaters carry is a halbard - I believe their duties are entirely voluntary.


Halbard? Aren't Halbard's a combo of spear/sword? Is this a different "unit" or is it the "modern" version? I do admit that I'm not familiar with U.K. "military" units (no sarcasm meant).

https://imageshack.com/i/nlv582j

https://imageshack.com/i/npv896j

I'm no great fan of catholicism but the unifrms are a bit more colorful when compared to those of their U.K. bretheren:

https://imageshack.com/i/f18kybj

https://imageshack.com/i/n1c6g9j


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I think you overstate the distinction between AQ and the TB, sort of like saying the Wehrmacht was innocent, the problem was the SS or the Nazi Party. Certainly after AQ took down the two US embassies, the TB had no excuse for not knowing that their guest was keen on making war on the US. The US Tomahawk attack in retaliation should have dispelled any doubt, although I refuse to believe such doubt existed. The TB at that point had to have known what AQ was about. IIIRC, there were also opportunities for the TB to hand over AQ or expel it, as Sudan had done before when it figured out that it wasn't interested in that kind of trouble. Lastly, it quite simply isn't clear to me how one might have gone after the AQ without going after the TB, especially if the TB is insisting on its full support for AQ, and if the fighters of the two groups are intermingled on the battlefield. Imagine if the allies in WWII tried to single out the Nazi party members and the SS without harming the Wehrmacht or anyone else. How would one do that? How does one invade Afghanistan to fight AQ without having to fight the TB? Oh, pardon me, I hope you don't mind if I bomb the guy next to you. I do apologize for the inconvenience.
> 
> Remember, the US efforts prior to the invasion to strike at AQ without hurting anyone else had come to nothing. It's been well established that Clinton tried several times to target AQ in Afghanistan but would not pull the trigger for various reasons, among them the risk of collateral damage.
> 
> The bottom line is that I simply cannot comprehend why anyone might shed a tear for the Taliban.


You're suggesting here that AQ exists as an organisation rather than a simply a sentiment. AQ didn't take down any US embassies, as AQ, as an organisation doesn't exist. Seperate different individual terrorist organisations carried out all of the attacks, some of whom may have been funded by BL, others were financed by individuals in Qatar or Saudi Arabia. 
Curiously enough, countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, although funding Islamist and Wahhabist activists seem to be immune to US attack or pressure. Why is that?
On the other hand, the US has a curious attitude to terrorism any way. When the Taliban were fighting the Sovs in Afghanistan, the US supported their terrorism. When Iraq was fighting Iran, the US supported their aggression with weapons and other help. When the PIRA was bombing British civilians the US supported them financially through Noraid, and refused extradition of known terrorists. 
As I've indicated elsewhere, some organisations that some see as terrorists seem to be supported and tolerated by the US whilst other organisations, which may or may not be seen as terrorists are viewed as such by the US and are subject to military sanctions.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Halbard? Aren't Halbard's a combo of spear/sword? Is this a different "unit" or is it the "modern" version? I do admit that I'm not familiar with U.K. "military" units (no sarcasm meant).
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/nlv582j
> 
> https://imageshack.com/i/npv896j
> 
> I'm no great fan of catholicism but the unifrms are a bit more colorful when compared to those of their U.K. bretheren:


You've shown a Guardsman - different thing altogether to a Beefeater. As you can see, he's armed with an automatic rifle, not a halbard. Here is a Beefeater:


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> You've shown a Guardsman - different thing altogether to a Beefeater. As you can see, he's armed with an automatic rifle, not a halbard. Here is a Beefeater:


May I ask what the different duties and responibilities are of each? Are both considered as being so Professional that they won't move in the face of a "false Threat" (I.E. my daughter dancing in front of them as shown in the Clancy movie)? The last time I was in London (4-5 years ago), I allowed my daughter to do so. While I didn't consider it "polite", I thought it touristy enough to allow it . My excuse was that I could explain to my daughter that it was a soldier's "professionalism" that kept them from acknowledging us . Again, I'm no expert in U.K. matters & I give full credit to anyone that can put up with that nonsense (but it has become rather famous for tourists)...If I were to see a U.S. soldier in uniform, I wouldn't hesitate to go talk to them. They on the other hand would most likely join in the conversation... Again, no rudeness meant but the difference is? (I'd guess that one is symbolic and the other a serious soldier?)..


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> May I ask what the different duties and responibilities are of each? Are both considered as being so Professional that they won't move in the face of a "false Threat" (I.E. my daughter dancing in front of them as shown in the Clancy movie)? The last time I was in London (4-5 years ago), I allowed my daughter to do so. While I didn't consider it "polite", I thought it touristy enough to allow it . My excuse was that I could explain to my daughter that it was a soldiers "professionalism" that kept them from acknowledging us . Again, I'm no expert in U.K. matters & I give full credit to anyone that can put up with that nonsense.


Guardsmen are full-time soldiers who happen to be assigned, on rotation, to largely ceremonial duties guarding Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, and Whitehall. Otherwise, they may be on active service. I very much doubt whether anything your daughter might do (perhaps an unsafe assumption) would disturb a Guardsman. I have to say it makes me cringe when tourists try to distract the Guardsmen, or pose next to them, it's all a bit improper.

The Beefeaters are (I think) only on duty at the Tower of London to guard the crown jewels and look after things - and they perhaps also have duties at one or two royal palaces. I believe they are retired military personnel. They are face to face with tourists the whole time.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> Guardsmen are full-time soldiers who happen to be assigned, on rotation, to largely ceremonial duties guarding Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, and Whitehall. Otherwise, they may be on active service. I very much doubt whether anything your daughter might do (perhaps an unsafe assumption) would disturb a Guardsman. I have to say it makes me cringe when tourists try to distract the Guardsmen, or pose next to them, it's all a bit improper.
> 
> The Beefeaters are (I think) only on duty at the Tower of London to guard the crown jewels and look after things - and they perhaps also have duties at one or two royal palaces. I believe they are retired military personnel. They are face to face with tourists the whole time.


Given your reply, I will avoid doing so on our approaching vacation. I admit to wrongly assuming that it was a bit of a "game". As I mentioned, U.S. soldiers are much more apt to interact with others (a plus in my thoughts) but of course I have no real right in assuming anything in any culture that I have limited experience with.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Given your reply, I will avoid doing so on our approaching vacation. I admit to wrongly assuming that it was a bit of a "game". As I mentioned, U.S. soldiers are much more apt to interact with others (a plus in my thoughts) but of course I have no real right in assuming anything in any culture that I have limited experience with.


For all I know, some of the Guardsmen might enjoy the attention; others perhaps feel otherwise. Tourism has this effect of objectifying everything.


----------



## Chouan

justonemore said:


> Given your reply, I will avoid doing so on our approaching vacation. I admit to wrongly assuming that it was a bit of a "game". As I mentioned, U.S. soldiers are much more apt to interact with others (a plus in my thoughts) but of course I have no real right in assuming anything in any culture that I have limited experience with.


As Langham has pointed out, the Brigade of Guards are proper soldiers who occasionally have a tour of guard duty at the Royal Palaces. There are 5 battalions, the Grenadiers, formerly the 1st Foot Guards, the Coldstream Guards, so called from the regiment raised in Coldstream, in Northumberland in the 17th Century by Charles II on his way to London, the battalion still recruits in that region, then the Scots, Irish and Welsh Guards, recruited in those countries, including the Republic. The Beefeaters are, again as Langham (who ought to know) pointed out are retired senior NCOs in the main, who are the linear descendents of Henry VII's and Henry VIII's personal bodyguards, hence the Tudor dress and the partisans, the bladed weapon shown.
The Guards, whether Foot or Horse behave in the original 18th century style as human automata, and are forbidden to interact in any way. All of their movements are strictly controlled and are supposed to be entirely mechanical. Look out for the Household Cavalry at Whitehall when you go to London.


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> As Langham has pointed out, the Brigade of Guards are proper soldiers who occasionally have a tour of guard duty at the Royal Palaces. There are 5 battalions, the Grenadiers, formerly the 1st Foot Guards, the Coldstream Guards, so called from the regiment raised in Coldstream, in Northumberland in the 17th Century by Charles II on his way to London, the battalion still recruits in that region, then the Scots, Irish and Welsh Guards, recruited in those countries, including the Republic. The Beefeaters are, again as Langham (who ought to know) pointed out are retired senior NCOs in the main, who are the linear descendents of Henry VII's and Henry VIII's personal bodyguards, hence the Tudor dress and the partisans, the bladed weapon shown.
> The Guards, whether Foot or Horse behave in the original 18th century style as human automata, and are forbidden to interact in any way. All of their movements are strictly controlled and are supposed to be entirely mechanical. Look out for the Household Cavalry at Whitehall when you go to London.


Thank you gents for the pre-trip lesson. Would it be possible to have you a tour guides (again no sarcasim).


----------



## Langham

^ It would indeed be a pleasure if only I could get away. The frequency of my posts to AAAC might suggest I have time on my hands but I am actually (even now, as I tap away) 'working'. Any free time I might occasionally enjoy is taken up by horses or family responsibilities I'm afraid.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> ^ It would indeed be a pleasure if only I could get away. The frequency of my posts to AAAC might suggest I have time on my hands but I am actually (even now, as I tap away) 'working'. Any free time I might occasionally enjoy is taken up by horses or family responsibilities I'm afraid.


Ha. Mobile phones do indeed have the tendency to allow an illusion of free time(as do computers at work). While I meant the last post as being somewhat of a joke, I would of course enjoy having a beer with any of my AAAC collègues during my visit. Unfortunate (or not depending on viewpoint), I doubt many people here would be able to avoid their work responsibilities to visit London and do so... (I did think about trying to organizie an AAAC tour of the Northhampton shoe area but decided against it).


----------



## Hitch

justonemore said:


> Wasn't Hawaii annexed by the U.S. at the urging of wealthy American plantation owners? The name Dole comes to mind. As he was also a politician, I'm sure there was no conflict of interest involved in the situation. There was no vote taken to see if the natives approved (they didn't). The "businessmen" simply overtook the Hawaiian governent. Many native Hawaiians still aren't at all happy about being part of the U.S. They even have a beat "haole" day (Haole is a racial slur against Americans in the Hawaiian language). There are still calls for sovereignty to this day (perhaps they should stage a bloody coup as was done in Ukraine?). I'm sure a mid-pacific strategic position is more important to the land of the free than the thoughts of a few islanders but this just seems to be a regular part of America's short history. I do have to wonder what type of idealism the U.S. is trying to push. Is it peace? Democracy (American "democracy" makes me laugh)? Religion ("In god we Trust")? International trade (give us your oïl and we'll give you some grain)?


Personally I'd love to see a vote. So far I cant recall a vote in Hawaii to secede , can you? Doesnt matter if there were a vote and it didnt turn out the way you want it to you would cry foul. Just like some folks hold it against us that Puerto Rico has voted against statehood , seems its 'colonial' to allow them such democratic rights. 
But it certainly was a take over, and do we really need to think it was only a matter of the US or Japan controlling the islands? I know you have never even heard of expansionism on any nations part aside from the US , so never mind.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you haven't actually replied to my post, just ridiculed one small part of it. Can I assume then that you otherwise accept my argument?


 Actually I pointed out that you have neither concern nor command of the facts, regarding the example you brought up . And feel free to assume anything you like, I dont believe I've seen anything but assumptions in your posts, well, except for a few outright fabrications


> So citizens of Puerto Rico can, in fact, vote in Presidential elections in Puerto Rico? If so, does that make Puerto Rico not part of the US overseas colonial Empire?


 Citizens can vote for any manner of things any one living in a territory of the US can. But I like this particular example. The Puerto Ricans have in the past voted against statehood, it seems you dont approve. And the most recent votes show indicate the islanders are happy to join the ranks of states. How the votes turn out will decide the matter. It takes an idiot to define that as colonial. Of course it requires the same idiocy to maintain that any one with 'no democratic ' rights can vote at all.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> It was indeed. The inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islandshad no more say about their annexation than the inhabitants of Alaska, or Guam.


I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England? It certainly was not the work of the locals.


----------



## Langham

Hitch said:


> I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England? It certainly was not the work of the locals.


The locals are still fighting a determined rearguard action in various parts of the British Isles.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Actually I pointed out that you have neither concern nor command of the facts, regarding the example you brought up . And feel free to assume anything you like, I dont believe I've seen anything but assumptions in your posts, well, except for a few outright fabrications Citizens can vote for any manner of things any one living in a territory of the US can.


Nothing you have said has argued against my "assumption". Let me clarify things for you. Is Puerto Rico a contiguous part of the United States? Did Puerto Rico choose to become part of the US? Was Puerto Rico annexed by the US? The answers are no, no and yes. This means that PR is not a contiguous part of the US, therefore it is an overseas territory. PR didn't choose to become US territory, it was annexed after the military defeat of its previous colonial owner, thus PR became a colonial possession of the US. It is still a colonial possession of the US, therefore, the US has a colonial overseas Empire. No assumptions there, no fabrications, just facts. Opinions are yours, facts are not.
That's just one example. As I pointed out to another member some time ago, the overseas and non-contiguous possessions of the US, which may or may not include territories that have statehood, were all gained without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants, and are therefore colonies, in the same way that Algeria was a Department of Metropolitan France, voting in French elections, but was still a French colony and part of France's overseas colonial Empire. That you may not agree that they are colonies is neither here nor there. That you may not want to think of the US having a colonial Empire is again, neither here nor there, but by any definition of what a colonial empire is, the US has one.
Apart from Puerto Rico, there's Alaska, Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas Islands, US Samoa. Please note that I haven't included US territories that the US acquired by force, or without the indigenous population's consent, like most States outside the original thirteen.
Whether or not the current inhabitants of the US overseas Empire can vote isn't really relevant, as the question is how they became part of the US colonial Empire, not whether they want to be.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England? It certainly was not the work of the locals.


Oh, the classic schoolboy defence of "he/you did it too!" when caught dead to rights!


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England? It certainly was not the work of the locals.


British History isn't your strong point, is it!


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> The Puerto Ricans have in the past voted against statehood, it seems _*you dont approve*_. And the most recent votes show indicate the islanders are happy to join the ranks of states. How the votes turn out will decide the matter. It takes an idiot to define that as colonial. Of course it requires the same idiocy to maintain that any one with 'no democratic ' rights can vote at all.


A curious assumption. Apart from the fact that I haven't anywhere suggested my approval or otherwise of such a vote, the ability to vote, or not, is irrelevant to whether or not a territory is a colony. As I've pointed out the inhabitants of Algeria, when a French colony, were entitled to vote, and did so, but Algeria was still a colony, seized without the consent of the inhabitants.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> A curious assumption. Apart from the fact that I haven't anywhere suggested my approval or otherwise of such a vote, the ability to vote, or not, is irrelevant to whether or not a territory is a colony. As I've pointed out the inhabitants of Algeria, when a French colony, were entitled to vote, and did so, but Algeria was still a colony, seized without the consent of the inhabitants.


 None of which has any effect on the claim you made that Puerto Ricans have no 'democratic rights' . Your changethefocus tactics are as old as they are boring but then originality isnt a leftists thing is it?
It is evidenced by your complaint wrt Puerto Ricans inability to vote for POTUS and the connection you made with that fact to colonialism . Im not surprized to see you backtrack, still its is your chosen example and like it or not Puerto Ricans are not allowed to vote for POTUS by their own choice in voting to remain a territory. So its plain, you dont care for Puerto Ricans or their political choices. 
Im still wondering how any group or nation with 'no democratic rights' can vote at all, LMAO .


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> British History isn't your strong point, is it!


_I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England? 
_
Well?


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Nothing you have said has argued against my "assumption". Let me clarify things for you. Is Puerto Rico a contiguous part of the United States? Did Puerto Rico choose to become part of the US? Was Puerto Rico annexed by the US? The answers are no, no and yes. This means that PR is not a contiguous part of the US, therefore it is an overseas territory. PR didn't choose to become US territory, it was annexed after the military defeat of its previous colonial owner, thus PR became a colonial possession of the US. It is still a colonial possession of the US, therefore, the US has a colonial overseas Empire. No assumptions there, no fabrications, just facts. Opinions are yours, facts are not.
> That's just one example. As I pointed out to another member some time ago, the overseas and non-contiguous possessions of the US, which may or may not include territories that have statehood, were all gained without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants, and are therefore colonies, in the same way that Algeria was a Department of Metropolitan France, voting in French elections, but was still a French colony and part of France's overseas colonial Empire. That you may not agree that they are colonies is neither here nor there. That you may not want to think of the US having a colonial Empire is again, neither here nor there, but by any definition of what a colonial empire is, the US has one.
> Apart from Puerto Rico, there's Alaska, Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas Islands, US Samoa. Please note that I haven't included US territories that the US acquired by force, or without the indigenous population's consent, like most States outside the original thirteen.
> Whether or not the current inhabitants of the US overseas Empire can vote isn't really relevant, as the question is how they became part of the US colonial Empire, not whether they want to be.


*Whether or not the current inhabitants of the US overseas Empire can vote isn't really relevant, as the question is how they became part of the US colonial Empire, not whether they want to be.*

LOL Well Chouan that was your example, and when it didnt work out the way you wanted you decided after the fact that it is not relevant. To prove the old adage about the clock let me quote 'Opinions are yours, facts are not.'

You're certainly not the first lefty caught talking out of both side side of his mouth. However I'm certain your definition of 'no democratic rights' is every bit as accurate and politically based as your definition of colonial.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> *Whether or not the current inhabitants of the US overseas Empire can vote isn't really relevant, as the question is how they became part of the US colonial Empire, not whether they want to be.*
> 
> LOL Well Chouan that was your example, and when it didnt work out the way you wanted you decided after the fact that it is not relevant. To prove the old adage about the clock let me quote 'Opinions are yours, facts are not.'
> 
> You're certainly not the first lefty caught talking out of both side side of his mouth. However I'm certain your definition of 'no democratic rights' is every bit as accurate and politically based as your definition of colonial.


No, its an example of your, I hope, deliberate and willful misreading of what I wrote, if it isn't deliberate misreading it is evidence of a significant inability to read, or comprehend, on your part. I gave Puerto Rico as an example of a colonial possession of the US. I also gave you an example of how the inhabitants of Puerto Rico can't vote in US national elections, which means that their democracy is limited. Actually, that they have no say in national elections, and thus no say in legislation is pretty much "no democratic rights". However, that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico had no say, no democratic involvement, in their annexation by the US also suggests that they became "Americans" without their consent, which, again, suggests that they were allowed "no democratic rights" by the state that ceded their former colony, or the state that annexed it. The extent to which Puerto Rico is democratic now, is open to opinion and discussion. However, splitting hairs about shades of meaning about one aspect of what I said about Puerto Rico's status as a colony is merely obfuscating, not arguing. Of course, if one has no arguments concerning the US colonial Empire, as appears to be your case, then obfuscating and pedantry is a useful, if temporary refuge. That and flippancy, of course.
You have, again I charitably assume willfully, chosen to ignore everything else I've shown you that proves the existence of US colonial possessions. By focusing on one small aspect of my original post you appear to have convinced yourself that I have no argument. I would suggest, if you don't wish to make yourself look foolish, and come across as being of limited comprehension and intellectual capacity that you address the rest of the evidence.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Apart from Puerto Rico, there's Alaska, Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas Islands, US Samoa. Please note that I haven't included US territories that the US acquired by force, or without the indigenous population's consent,* like most States outside the original thirteen.
> *


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> None of which has any effect on the claim you made that Puerto Ricans have no 'democratic rights' . Your changethefocus tactics are as old as they are boring but then originality isnt a leftists thing is it?
> It is evidenced by your complaint wrt Puerto Ricans inability to vote for POTUS and the connection you made with that fact to colonialism . Im not surprized to see you backtrack, still its is your chosen example and like it or not Puerto Ricans are not allowed to vote for POTUS by their own choice in voting to remain a territory. *So its plain, you dont care for Puerto Ricans or their political choices.*
> Im still wondering how any group or nation with 'no democratic rights' can vote at all, LMAO .


Why are you persisting with this straw man? I've never expressed any opinion about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico, or the correctness or otherwise of their choices; this invention of yours that I don't care for them is a curious one! It does, I suppose, enable you to ignore the main point, which I would guess is your purpose.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> _I wonder who invited the Anglo-Saxons to England?
> _
> Well?


Seeing as you're content to have your ignorance corrected by another member, it was the Romans. Having given you the answer that you were unable to provide for yourself, would you now explain what relevance it has to the current discussion?


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Seeing as you're content to have your ignorance corrected by another member, it was the Romans. Having given you the answer that you were unable to provide for yourself, would you now explain what relevance it has to the current discussion?


Is that true? The Romans invited them? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity. I'm not well versed in what happened at the tail end of Roman Britain and the transition to Anglo-Saxon Britain. I just know it was all very violent.

I always thought it was a "fun fact" that at one point England, or at least part of it, was a Danish colony.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Is that true? The Romans invited them? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity. I'm not well versed in what happened at the tail end of Roman Britain and the transition to Anglo-Saxon Britain. I just know it was all very violent.
> 
> I always thought it was a "fun fact" that at one point England, or at least part of it, was a Danish colony.


I'm slightly hesitant to contradict Chouan, as I have a feeling he may be a history teacher, but I'm not entirely sure it was the Romans. In fact I think Chouan was speaking tongue-in-cheek. I believe there was an interval of 150 years or so between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Of course, by then the 'native' Britons had been extensively romanised, but Britain was no longer functionally a part of the Roman Empire.

Your 'fun fact' I think relates to a slightly later point in English history, when the Danes had occupied parts of East Anglia, and demanded Danegeld from the Anglo-Saxons, as a tribute payment (otherwise they would clobber us). Danegeld was in fact a forerunner of the more recent and very similar arrangement that we now have with mainland Europe.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Seeing as you're content to have your ignorance corrected by another member, it was the Romans. Having given you the answer that you were unable to provide for yourself, would you now explain what relevance it has to the current discussion?


Try again.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Why are you persisting with this straw man? *I've never expressed any opinion about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico,* or the correctness or otherwise of their choices; this invention of yours that I don't care for them is a curious one! It does, I suppose, enable you to ignore the main point, which I would guess is your purpose.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/member.php?82914-ChouanChouan 
*Super Member*
J


> ust because people are subjects of a colonial Empire doesn't mean that they're "abject", or that they are "clamoring (sic) to be free of US tyranny", anymore than the subjects of Britain's colonial empire were necessarily abject or clamouring to be free of British tyranny. I'm sure that most of the US colonials are, most of the time, happy in their status. On the other hand*, some aren't necessarily happy that they have no democratic rights*, but I'm sure that you can chuckle about that too.
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122776
> That many ignorant Americans don't know, or refuse to know, that the US has an overseas colonial empire no longer surprises me. That some Americans, including otherwise intelligent and otherwise rational Americans, continue to deny the existence of their overseas empire still surprises me, although experience should inform me otherwise.


No democratic rights,,, must have been that other Chouan.

Note both links are to articles about Puerto Rico, so is the opinion expressed edited to bold above.

Sorry missed this one ;



> No, its an example of your, I hope, deliberate and willful misreading of what I wrote, if it isn't deliberate misreading it is evidence of a significant inability to read, or comprehend, on your part. I gave Puerto Rico as an example of a colonial possession of the US. I also gave you an example of how the inhabitants of Puerto Rico can't vote in US national elections, which means that their democracy is limited. Actually, that they have no say in national elections, and thus no say in legislation is pretty much "no democratic rights". However, that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico had no say, no democratic involvement, in their annexation by the US also suggests that they became "Americans" without their consent, which, again, suggests that they were allowed "no democratic rights" by the state that ceded their former colony, or the state that annexed it. The extent to which Puerto Rico is democratic now, is open to opinion and discussion. However, splitting hairs about shades of meaning about one aspect of what I said about Pu


 Hmmm the post say Chouan but Chouan says; *I've never expressed any opinion about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico,

*There's an imposter about!


----------



## Hitch

Langham said:


> I'm slightly hesitant to contradict Chouan, as I have a feeling he may be a history teacher, but I'm not entirely sure it was the Romans. In fact I think Chouan was speaking tongue-in-cheek. I believe there was an interval of 150 years or so between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Of course, by then the 'native' Britons had been extensively romanised, but Britain was no longer functionally a part of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Your 'fun fact' I think relates to a slightly later point in English history, when the Danes had occupied parts of East Anglia, and demanded Danegeld from the Anglo-Saxons, as a tribute payment (otherwise they would clobber us). Danegeld was in fact a forerunner of the more recent and very similar arrangement that we now have with mainland Europe.


Chouan handles his own contradictions.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/member.php?82914-ChouanChouan
> *Super Member*
> JNo democratic rights,,, must have been that other Chouan.
> 
> Note both links are to articles about Puerto Rico, so is the opinion expressed edited to bold above.
> 
> Sorry missed this one ;
> ​ Hmmm the post say Chouan but Chouan says; *I've never expressed any opinion about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico,
> 
> *There's an imposter about!


I, myself, haven't expressed any personal opinions about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. I'd be interested to see the post in which I expressed a personal opinion. On the other hand, you still haven't responded to the main point about Puert Rico, and the other places listed, being parts of the US colonial Empire.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Is that true? The Romans invited them? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity. I'm not well versed in what happened at the tail end of Roman Britain and the transition to Anglo-Saxon Britain. I just know it was all very violent.


Angles and Saxons were indeed invited to Britain by Rome. The Romans recruited barbarians (peoples from outside of the Empire, not necessarily barbarians in our popular sense. Civilised Persians were barbarians to the Romans) as Foederates in the Roman Army. Foederates were barbarians in their own units with their own officers but paid by Rome. There was one of these units stationed on Hadrian's Wall long before the collapse of Roman Britain. The Foederates were rewarded for long service in the same way as other Roman soldiers, with grants of land. As these Anglo-Saxons were serving in Britain their land grants were in Britain. This process had gone on for about, probably, four generations before the end of Roman Britain. The Anglo-Saxons continued to migrate to Britain after this. They were helped by depopulation in Britain and the Western empire caused by an epidemic of plague, so there was plenty of unoccupied farm land. The period is in many ways confusing to study; that there was some violence is true, but archaeology has only found evidence of one major settlement being destroyed by violence, others seem to be gradually abandoned. Again, archaeology shows very little difference between "British" settlements and burials and "Saxon" settlements and burials, which suggests a gradual assimilation of Anglo-Saxons and Britons. The only "History" of warfare in this era between the Saxons and the Romano Britons is the oral traditions and poems of Nennius and Gildas who were writing a hundred years, at least, later. At least some of the conflicts that Gildas, the earlier writer describes could just as easily be between Romano-British successor kingdoms. An example of the confusion and uncertainty is the Saxon kingdom of Wessex. The first King of Wessex, Cerdic, has a British name, not a Saxon one.



tocqueville said:


> I always thought it was a "fun fact" that at one point England, or at least part of it, was a Danish colony.


Cnut, King of Denmark and Norway indeed became King of England on the defeat of Edmund, son of Ethelred, so England certainly became part of Cnut's empire.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Angles and Saxons were indeed invited to Britain by Rome. The Romans recruited barbarians (peoples from outside of the Empire, not necessarily barbarians in our popular sense. Civilised Persians were barbarians to the Romans) as Foederates in the Roman Army. Foederates were barbarians in their own units with their own officers but paid by Rome. There was one of these units stationed on Hadrian's Wall long before the collapse of Roman Britain. The Foederates were rewarded for long service in the same way as other Roman soldiers, with grants of land. As these Anglo-Saxons were serving in Britain their land grants were in Britain. This process had gone on for about, probably, four generations before the end of Roman Britain. The Anglo-Saxons continued to migrate to Britain after this. They were helped by depopulation in Britain and the Western empire caused by an epidemic of plague, so there was plenty of unoccupied farm land. The period is in many ways confusing to study; that there was some violence is true, but archaeology has only found evidence of one major settlement being destroyed by violence, others seem to be gradually abandoned. Again, archaeology shows very little difference between "British" settlements and burials and "Saxon" settlements and burials, which suggests a gradual assimilation of Anglo-Saxons and Britons. The only "History" of warfare in this era between the Saxons and the Romano Britons is the oral traditions and poems of Nennius and Gildas who were writing a hundred years, at least, later. At least some of the conflicts that Gildas, the earlier writer describes could just as easily be between Romano-British successor kingdoms. An example of the confusion and uncertainty is the Saxon kingdom of Wessex. The first King of Wessex, Cerdic, has a British name, not a Saxon one.
> 
> Cnut, King of Denmark and Norway indeed became King of England on the defeat of Edmund, son of Ethelred, so England certainly became part of Cnut's empire.


There's at least one cnut posting elsewhere in this thread. :devil:


----------



## Chouan

I always tell the kids to be careful with their spelling when they're doing work about pre-Conquest England........ Mind you, they love being allowed to write William's original nickname!


----------



## Shaver

^ Oh, please do go on. I am uncertain that I follow your meaning..........


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ Oh, please do go on. I am uncertain that I follow your meaning..........


_"*William I (Old Norman: Williame I; c. 1028 - 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,"*_


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> There's at least one *cnut* posting elsewhere in this thread. :devil:


Good think I'm not dyslexic.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> I, myself, haven't expressed any personal opinions about the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. I'd be interested to see the post in which I expressed a personal opinion. On the other hand, you still haven't responded to the main point about Puert Rico, and the other places listed, being parts of the US colonial Empire.


LOL You have claimed they are colonist and that they have no democratic rights. You're not being truthful Chouan.

If you want to say yo stole er borrowed that nonsense from Pravda UK you should have done so at the start.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> LOL You have claimed they are colonist and that they have no democratic rights. You're not being truthful Chouan.
> 
> If you want to say yo stole er borrowed that nonsense from Pravda UK you should have done so at the start.


I said that Puerto Rico is a US colony, not that the inhabitants are colonists. Any chance of you responding to any of the other points?


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> I said that Puerto Rico is a US colony, not that the inhabitants are colonists. Any chance of you responding to any of the other points?


Give it up Chouan. The guy finds a few words that sound a bit similiar to ones on the talking point sheet the righties sent him & ignores everything else. He's probably like his hero bushy & thinks there's devine intervention when it comes to U.S. hegemony. If U.S. politics has shown us anything it's that the opposing side will take 10 words out 50'000 and bastardize them. Both sides are guilty as hell in doing so but Hitch provided a good example in his posting "Harry we hardly knew ye". Take everything out of context and expoloit it through $millions in advertisements and free press. It's disgusting and one of the reasons I fled the U.S. Who can spend the most? Who can spin the most? Who can lie the most? But... What else can the world really expect from the home of Hollywood? Hitch, like the politicians, hasn't written a single paragraph in response to your pages of logical arguements. Quick one liners is all he seems to have. Has he ever explained his position? Nope. He's only questioned yours.

Just curious Hitch.. Are you among the proud Americans that deny that evolution is real?


----------



## Chouan

I'm inclined to think that you're right. Unfortunately, people like him and his ilk create a very poor impression of Americans elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Give it up Chouan. The guy finds a few words that sound a bit similiar to ones on the talking point sheet the righties sent him & ignores everything else. He's probably like his hero bushy & thinks there's devine intervention when it comes to U.S. hegemony. If U.S. politics has shown us anything it's that the opposing side will take 10 words out 50'000 and bastardize them. Both sides are guilty as hell in doing so but Hitch provided a good example in his posting "Harry we hardly knew ye". Take everything out of context and expoloit it through $millions in advertisements and free press. It's disgusting and one of the reasons I fled the U.S. Who can spend the most? Who can spin the most? Who can lie the most? But... What else can the world really expect from the home of Hollywood? Hitch, like the politicians, hasn't written a single paragraph in response to your pages of logical arguements. Quick one liners is all he seems to have. Has he ever explained his position? Nope. He's only questioned yours.
> 
> *Just curious Hitch.. Are you among the proud Americans that deny that evolution is real?*


The Argument from Intelligent Design? If I were a betting man.........................


----------



## Shaver

Returning to an earlier theme - I have the 'Blessed By Fire' dvd to watch this evening.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Returning to an earlier theme - I have the 'Blessed By Fire' dvd to watch this evening.


The argentine movie? Excellent.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> The argentine movie? Excellent.


Very enjoyable and thank you for the recommendation, it serves to reinforce my view that it was a shameful period in English history.

How about this, though? Watching the 'extras' there was a premiere, with the director in attendance, at my favourite independant cinema - the Cornerhouse in Manchester.


----------



## Langham

^ My copy of Blessed by Fire is in the post to me now. I wonder whether it will make me feel the same way? I very much doubt it, but we'll see.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> ^ My copy of Blessed by Fire is in the post to me now. I wonder whether it will make me feel the same way? I very much doubt it, but we'll see.


Obviously I didn't see the movie through English eyes, but what I got out of it, besides a sense of pity for the Argentines, was an enhanced feeling that the people who should feel ashamed are those who ran Argentina's government and military and put their people in harm's way like that. I thought the movie was angrier at the Argentine regime than the British.

While you're at it, watch this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Story

And read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Prisoner-wit...IES_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396889837&sr=1-1

ps. Argentine cinema is excellent.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> ps. Argentine cinema is excellent.


I have only seen a few Argentine films, but I enjoyed them all and in their various ways they reflected well upon the Argentine people, I thought. Various members of my family have spent a lot of time in South America and speak highly of the people.


----------



## tocqueville

This one is particularly lovely:
https://www.foreignfilms.com/film.php?id=60027729&t=Valentin


----------



## tocqueville

By the way, lest anyone think that the poor conscripts portrayed in the movie were representative of the Argentine military effort (confirming the perception that it was a horribly one-sided war), the Argentine Navy and aviation elements did quite well and came shockingly close to doing grievous damage to the the Royal Navy and perhaps winning the war. Case in point: As many as 13 unexploded bombs that damaged RN ships. Had they exploded, the Task Force might not have survived. Some did not go off apparently because the Argentine pilots bravely flew at a lower altitude than was the normal protocol in order to evade British anti-aircraft defenses. So they reached their targets and hit their targets (which takes guts and real skill)...but the bombs were fused for higher altitudes and thus did not arm.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> By the way, lest anyone think that the poor conscripts portrayed in the movie were representative of the Argentine military effort (confirming the perception that it was a horribly one-sided war), the Argentine Navy and aviation elements did quite well and came shockingly close to doing grievous damage to the the Royal Navy and perhaps winning the war. Case in point: As many as 13 unexploded bombs that damaged RN ships. Had they exploded, the Task Force might not have survived. Some did not go off apparently because the Argentine pilots bravely flew at a lower altitude than was the normal protocol in order to evade British anti-aircraft defenses. So they reached their targets and hit their targets (which takes guts and real skill)...but the bombs were fused for higher altitudes and thus did not arm.


Yes, I was told that by friends who were there. Civilians all but one.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Obviously I didn't see the movie through English eyes, but what I got out of it, besides a sense of pity for the Argentines, was an enhanced feeling that the people who should feel ashamed are those who ran Argentina's government and military and put their people in harm's way like that. I thought the movie was angrier at the Argentine regime than the British.
> 
> While you're at it, watch this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Story
> 
> And read this:
> https://www.amazon.com/Prisoner-wit...IES_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396889837&sr=1-1
> 
> ps. Argentine cinema is excellent.


1) Mr Langham and I will never budge from our respective positions on this matter. Which is our right as Englishmen.

2) Clearly the Argentine government were shameful. However, there were two despots pathetically attempting to shore up there crumbling political credibility with the bodies of dead teenagers - Thatcher and Galtieri.

3) Gotcha! Any attempt to insinuate that the 'conflict' was not a foregone conclusion is quite simply silly.


----------



## Chouan

One of my friends present with the task force told me that the Argentine Skyhawks were flying so low that he was looking down at them from the bridge wing of his vessel. If the bombs had been armed there would have been severe casualties, not only in personnel and ships, but in stores and supplies. Given the extremity of our supply line, if this had been interdicted more effectively we couldn't have won. The only "service" person whom I knew who was present was at Bluff Cove, and suggested that things could have gone even worse there than they did!


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> 1) Mr Langham and I will never budge from our respective positions on this matter. Which is our right as Englishmen.
> 
> 2) Clearly the Argentine government were shameful. However, there were two despots pathetically attempting to shore up there crumbling political credibility with the bodies of dead teenagers - Thatcher and Galtieri.
> 
> 3) Gotcha! *Any attempt to insinuate that the 'conflict' was not a foregone conclusion is quite simply silly*.


Are you saying that Galtieri and Lady T got together over a table and agreed the course of events?


----------



## Shaver

^ Our nuclear subs could easily have 'interfered' with Argentinian re-supply had the battle escalated. How many subs did the Argies have again? Two - and antiques at that.

Our Harriers had the advantage over their planes in every single respect (not the least of which radar and also vertical take off capability).

The Royal Navy excells at electronic warfare, interception and decoding of their transmissions and jamming them outright.

This conflict was never going to last long enough for our resupply to be an issue.

Never forgetting that it's also a 1,000 miles from Buenos Aires to Port Stanley - hardly a short hop.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Are you saying that Galtieri and Lady T got together over a table and agreed the course of events?


No, of course not. You are being mischievous to even pretend that you might take that from my comment, you old rogue.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ Our nuclear subs could easily have 'interfered' with Argentinian re-supply had the battle escalated. How many subs did the Argies have again? Two - and antiques at that.
> 
> Our Harriers had the advantage over their planes in every single respect (not the least of which radar and also vertical take off capability).
> 
> *The Royal Navy excells at electronic warfare, interception and decoding of their transmissions and jamming them outright. *
> 
> This conflict was never going to last long enough for our resupply to be an issue.
> 
> Never forgetting that it's also a 1,000 miles from Buenos Aires to Port Stanley - hardly a short hop.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .


Only they didn't do terribly well at jamming Exocets and Super Etendards. The loss of the "Atlantic Conveyor", carrying the expeditionary force's helicopters to Exocets was a bit of an error. To be blunt, a classic RN mistake. Incoming Exocet is identified, RN escort to the "Atlantic Conveyor" (whose purpose was to protect the "Atlantic Conveyor") fires off it's chaff *towards* the "Atlantic Conveyor", not deliberately, but not terribly carefully, so that the Exocet is successfully diverted from HMS Alacrity but, instead of going harmlessly into the distance, diverts towards the "Atlantic Conveyor"....... The result being that she was hit by two of them thus effectively destroying her and her essential cargo.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/


----------



## Shaver

^ Dreadful mistakes on both sides notwithstanding, I maintain that this was a battle we could not lose. And history, is squarely on my side - for we did not lose it.

.
.
.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ Dreadful mistakes on both sides notwithstanding, I maintain that this was a battle we could not lose. And history, is squarely on my side - for we did not lose it.
> .


I think history shows there have been few battles whose victory was a foregone conclusion, and many whose outcome was quite unexpected - such as in 1905, when Russia and Japan fought a naval war which went disastrously wrong for Russia.

Anyway, even if - just supposing - there was some reason why we were sure to have beaten the Argies, the battle still had to be fought. There was really no other way to have sent them packing. Diplomacy was just a dead duck.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> I think history shows there have been few battles whose victory was a foregone conclusion, and many whose outcome was quite unexpected - such as in 1905, when Russia and Japan fought a naval war which went disastrously wrong for Russia.
> 
> Anyway, even if - just supposing - there was some reason why we were sure to have beaten the Argies, the battle still had to be fought. There was really no other way to have sent them packing. Diplomacy was just a dead duck.


I'm intrigued by the question of what would have happened had Argentina been able to cripple the Task Force and perhaps even destroy it while it was all bottled up, which was certainly plausible. What then?


----------



## Shaver

Polaris:


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> I think history shows there have been few battles whose victory was a foregone conclusion, and many whose outcome was quite unexpected - such as in 1905, when Russia and Japan fought a naval war which went disastrously wrong for Russia.


I think that's right. I can think of few completely one-sided wars in which victory was a forgone conclusion.

I recently read a superb history of Midway ("Shattered Sword") that carefully went through every aspect of the battle and the surrounding campaign looking for "decisive moments" or "decisive advantages," things that would have made the one-sided American victory assured. Victory, it seemed, stemmed from the combined affect of an unforeseeable combination of factors and luck. Although the authors also contend that ultimately the outcome of the war was determined on 7 December 1941, because the Japanese strike was too great for the US ever to settle for anything less than victory, and industrial capacity alone meant that the US was going to win sooner or later, even if the US had lost at Midway.

One thing I don't understand is Shaver (and others') profound antipathy toward Thatcher, such that they would group her with Argentina's despots. I count myself among those Americans who think ill of Ronald Reagan, but he was no despot. I'm not as anti-Reagan as some of you Brits seem to be anti-Thatcher. Similarly, my antipathy toward Bush seems to pale in comparison towards some of your expressions of antipathy toward Blair.


----------



## Shaver

^ You should have lived in England during her reign, then you would know. It was akin to experiencing a particularly bizarre (and seemingly endless) nightmare. All the worst aspects of humanity were encouraged to flourish and to prosper. Grim times for anyone with a conscience.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> Polaris:


That's a strategic weapon for taking out existential threats. I find it implausible that the UK would have ever fired such a thing at Argentina.


----------



## Shaver

^ Thatcher would have.

Believe it.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> One thing I don't understand is Shaver (and others') profound antipathy toward Thatcher, such that they would group her with Argentina's despots.


She had an almost unique ability (for British leaders) to polarise opinion - people tended to be either for her or against her, there was no middle ground. One thing her detractors always seem to overlook was the awful mess she inherited in 1978. 15 years of socialism, broken only by the disastrous lickspittle crypto-socialism of the Heath government, had reduced the country to a state of abject poverty, kept afloat by injections of money from the IMF. Had it not been for Thatcher, this country would rapidly have descended into anarchy and civil war, possibly even military rule (there are indications of planning for this in 1975).



Shaver said:


> ^ You should have lived in England during her reign, then you would know. It was akin to experiencing a particularly bizarre (and seemingly endless) nightmare. All the worst aspects of humanity were encouraged to flourish and to prosper. Grim times for anyone with a conscience.


The worst aspects of humanity? I have to say Shaver, I quite enjoyed England at that time - in fact I enjoyed it very much. I saw no instances of cannibalism, or throwing litter out of car windows, or whatever the worst aspects of humanity might be. AND I have a conscience, too.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ Thatcher would have.
> 
> Believe it.


Yes, quite right, she would have done - no question.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> She had an almost unique ability (for British leaders) to polarise opinion - people tended to be either for her or against her, there was no middle ground. One thing her detractors always seem to overlook was the awful mess she inherited in 1978. 15 years of socialism, broken only by the disastrous lickspittle crypto-socialism of the Heath government, had reduced the country to a state of abject poverty, kept afloat by injections of money from the IMF. Had it not been for Thatcher, this country would rapidly have descended into anarchy and civil war, possibly even military rule (there are indications of planning for this in 1975).
> 
> The worst aspects of humanity? I have to say Shaver, I quite enjoyed England at that time - in fact I enjoyed it very much. I saw no instances of cannibalism, or throwing litter out of car windows, or whatever the worst aspects of humanity might be. AND I have a conscience, too.


What are the worst aspects of humanity? The seven deadly sins would seem to sum that up quite adequately or even en precis: Mammon.

Might I enquire as to your definition of a conscience? Assuredly not a trick question and with no intention to pursue ad hominen.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> What are the worst aspects of humanity? The seven deadly sins would seem to sum that up quite adequately or even en precis: Mammon.
> 
> Might I enquire as to your definition of a conscience? Assuredly not a trick question and with no intention to pursue ad hominen.


Shaver, were you brought up by Methodists by any chance? They always seem to conflate Mammon and evil with Conservative policies, for some reason.

I think we all know what a conscience is - I won't go into it just now because it's moving rather off-topic, but it might make for an interesting discussion some other time.


----------



## Shaver

^ How dare you Sir! :mad2: 

Have I not made it abundantly clear I was brought up by the Catholics?

Conscience though, agreed - an interesting discussion for another day, for I do not believe that we all know what one is.


----------



## Langham

^ Sorry Shaver, I was being flippant. I have nothing at all against Methodists, or Catholics either.


----------



## Shaver

^Please, I was merely being flippant myself.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> One thing I don't understand is Shaver (and others') profound antipathy toward Thatcher, such that they would group her with Argentina's despots. I count myself among those Americans who think ill of Ronald Reagan, but he was no despot. I'm not as anti-Reagan as some of you Brits seem to be anti-Thatcher. Similarly, my antipathy toward Bush seems to pale in comparison towards some of your expressions of antipathy toward Blair.


Though maybe not to the extent as Italians, those UK boys can be rather more passionate than they are often given credit for!!


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> One thing I don't understand is Shaver (and others') profound antipathy toward Thatcher, such that they would group her with Argentina's despots. I count myself among those Americans who think ill of Ronald Reagan, but he was no despot. I'm not as anti-Reagan as some of you Brits seem to be anti-Thatcher. Similarly, my antipathy toward Bush seems to pale in comparison towards some of your expressions of antipathy toward Blair.


I suppose that one of the problems that we have with our democracy is that it is a kind of elected and temporary dictatorship. The Party that wins is in power, with no effective limit to their legislation except for the consciences of the MPs. Thus when Thatcher's Party won the elections there was no limit on her government in carrying out its ideologically driven actions. Sufficient people believed in their rhetoric to support these actions. People tended to believe that Britain was in a mess; it wasn't, at least no more of a mess than usual, and certainly not in the mess that the Tories of the time said it was. Her government's actions destroyed social cohesion, destroyed a political consensus that had moderated governmental actions for 20-30 years, destroyed our domestic heavy industry and destroyed our ability to carry out an independent strategic and foreign policy. By the end of her reign, for example, the Royal Navy was chartering Polish ships as logistical support vessels, as Britain had no suitable vessels left under the Red Ensign. Can you imagine, Communist Polish ships (pre collapse of the USSR) on NATO exercises with the RN!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> ... People tended to believe that Britain was in a mess; it wasn't, at least no more of a mess than usual, and certainly not in the mess that the Tories of the time said it was. Her government's actions destroyed social cohesion, destroyed a political consensus that had moderated governmental actions for 20-30 years, destroyed our domestic heavy industry and destroyed our ability to carry out an independent strategic and foreign policy. ...


Social cohesion and political consensus? I find that a strange description of the 1960s/70s. I remember (statistics will support me here) endless strikes - our elected government being pushed around by extremist militants, striking miners, car-workers, power workers, in fact by any Tom Dick and Harry who happened to belong to a strong trade union. Everyone else could p*** off. What do you call this situation, together with 25% inflation, three-day weeks, power blackouts, a mainland bombing campaign, and plots within the military and intelligence establishments to bring down the government, if it wasn't a mess?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Langham said:


> Social cohesion and political consensus? I find that a strange description of the 1960s/70s. I remember (statistics will support me here) endless strikes - our elected government being pushed around by extremist militants, striking miners, car-workers, power workers, in fact by any Tom Dick and Harry who happened to belong to a strong trade union. Everyone else could p*** off. What do you call this situation, together with 25% inflation, three-day weeks, power blackouts, a mainland bombing campaign, and plots within the military and intelligence establishments to bring down the government, if it wasn't a mess?


The Good Old Days!!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Social cohesion and political consensus? I find that a strange description of the 1960s/70s. I remember (statistics will support me here) endless strikes - our elected government being pushed around by extremist militants, striking miners, car-workers, power workers, in fact by any Tom Dick and Harry who happened to belong to a strong trade union. Everyone else could p*** off. What do you call this situation, together with 25% inflation, three-day weeks, power blackouts, a mainland bombing campaign, and plots within the military and intelligence establishments to bring down the government, if it wasn't a mess?


I didn't say that there weren't problems, there always are. However, I don't agree that things were as bad as you and the Tories at the time made out. I'm not sure how the mainland bombing campaign was the fault of our then elected government, neither do I accept that the plots within the military and intelligence establishment were also the fault of the elected government. That some right wing elements within a traditionally conservative military establishment were unhappy is hardly surprising. On the other hand, I doubt that the military establishment were particularly happy with Thatcher's defense policy either. Mind you, as part of the Tory establishment they were unlikely to plot against her, were they? Whereas those dreadful socialists were fair game to people of that kind.
There were indeed extremist militants and excessive union power needed to be controlled, but those things could have been done without destroying the industries as well! Her policies were carried out with the aim of breaking the unions, no matter what the cost. Her policies also certainly created an entirely self-centred, money orientated culture, with her deregulation of the banks, the consequences of which we have recently suffered. It could be reasonably argued that our current housing crisis was caused by her government's selling off of Council Housing, leading to many seeing housing as a means of profit rather than a means of providing accommodation.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> ....leading to many seeing housing as a means of profit rather than a means of providing accommodation.


Building wealth thru real estate??

What a dirty, dirty business!!


----------



## Langham

^^ This argument is giving me a real sense of deja-vu - I'm sure we need only refer back to the Lady T funeral thread.

Anyway, I've just finished viewing Blessed by Fire, about the Falklands War from the perspective of Argentinean conscripts. I saw nothing there to make one feel ashamed, just sorry for the Argentineans who (we knew this already) were poorly trained and very poorly led. Galtieri was in the film for about 5 seconds, but that was enough to know him for a double-dyed s-h-i-t of the purest sort.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> ^ You should have lived in England during her reign, then you would know. It was akin to experiencing a particularly bizarre (and seemingly endless) nightmare. All the worst aspects of humanity were encouraged to flourish and to prosper. Grim times for anyone with a conscience.


Did she open up new brothels? How many people ,organizations and ethnic groups did she prohibit from giving to charities?


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Building wealth thru real estate??
> 
> What a dirty, dirty business!!


Yes. A state created and state run housing system, designed to provide affordable housing for the maximum number of the population was sold off to private enterprise. Now we have a housing shortage and house prices that are beyond the means of most of the population. You think that's a good thing?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^^ This argument is giving me a real sense of deja-vu - I'm sure we need only refer back to the Lady T funeral thread.


Yes. We were answering Toqueville's question.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Did she open up new brothels? How many people ,organizations and ethnic groups did she prohibit from giving to charities?


Yes, the kind of pointless smartar$e comment about something of which you're ignorant and of which you have no understanding that we should really have come to expect from you. No chance of an intelligent response then?


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> Yes. A state created and state run housing system, designed to provide affordable housing for the maximum number of the population was sold off to private enterprise. Now we have a housing shortage and house prices that are beyond the means of most of the population. You think that's a good thing?


Of course it is. A lack of affordable housing provides ample opportunity for people to give to those previously mentioned charities. It will also help in the opening of those brothels as well. It's a free market thing. You know? Democracy and all? We got ours, who cares about you?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Yes. A state created and state run housing system, designed to provide affordable housing for the maximum number of the population was sold off to private enterprise. Now we have a housing shortage and house prices that are beyond the means of most of the population. You think that's a good thing?


There is a housing shortage, but not because of a change from state ownership to private ownership of some of the housing stock. People are still living in those houses, it's not as if they were knocked down, having been sold off. One cause is the excessive immigration of recent times - 1 million Poles have to live somewhere too.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Did she open up new brothels? How many people ,organizations and ethnic groups did she prohibit from giving to charities?


Funnily enough Hitch, yes she did.

Run down this article to the section on 'Thatcher's Girls' https://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/ar-tha1.htm

EDIT: in fact allow me to save you the bother, here's the excerpt:

*[The term] Thatcher's girls briefly appeared around 1985 to mean prostitutes, applied - so it was asserted - because her policies had driven many women to the only way left for them to earn money.*


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> There is a housing shortage, but not because of a change from state ownership to private ownership of some of the housing stock. People are still living in those houses, it's not as if they were knocked down, having been sold off. One cause is the excessive immigration of recent times - 1 million Poles have to live somewhere too.


To which I will add that the excessive domestic population explosion is not helping either.

The self-serving vanity of those clots who believe their dreary genetic code to be so essential, so important, that it must be propogated at all costs, even the destruction of the environment.

- Sponsored by Thomas Malthus.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> There is a housing shortage, but not because of a change from state ownership to private ownership of some of the housing stock. People are still living in those houses, it's not as if they were knocked down, having been sold off. One cause is the excessive immigration of recent times - 1 million Poles have to live somewhere too.


However, the Local Authorities had responsibility for housing stock, construction as well as maintenance, so were able to build the housing necessary for the local population. Instead, housing became yet another means by which rich people could become richer at the expense of the poor. Rather than Local Authorities building suitable housing, private companies and private individuals bought up much of the social housing, driving up prices, and driving up rents. New housing estates, rather than being built by Local Authorities to serve the needs of the local population are built as profit making schemes by businesses, and are at rentals, or purchase prices, that are beyond the means of most. The housing shortage I was referring to is the shortage of housing that ordinary people, with ordinary incomes, can afford. 
To put this into perspective, I own my own house, including the freehold, outright. However, even on my income and that of my wife, we wouldn't be able to buy our house if we were starting on the housing ladder now. We who own our houses, or have reasonable mortgages based on realistic prices, are safe, but our children are going to find it very hard. Not because of market forces, they've always been there, but because of the withdrawal of affordable social housing, and because of the profiteering of the "buy to let" people.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Yes. We were answering Toqueville's question.


And i thank you.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> However, the Local Authorities had responsibility for housing stock, construction as well as maintenance, so were able to build the housing necessary for the local population. Instead, housing became yet another means by which rich people could become richer at the expense of the poor. Rather than Local Authorities building suitable housing, private companies and private individuals bought up much of the social housing, driving up prices, and driving up rents. New housing estates, rather than being built by Local Authorities to serve the needs of the local population are built as profit making schemes by businesses, and are at rentals, or purchase prices, that are beyond the means of most. The housing shortage I was referring to is the shortage of housing that ordinary people, with ordinary incomes, can afford.
> To put this into perspective, I own my own house, including the freehold, outright. However, even on my income and that of my wife, we wouldn't be able to buy our house if we were starting on the housing ladder now. We who own our houses, or have reasonable mortgages based on realistic prices, are safe, but our children are going to find it very hard. Not because of market forces, they've always been there, but because of the withdrawal of affordable social housing, and because of the profiteering of the "buy to let" people.


It's very old school of you to have this attachment to the idea that only the state is able to look after us. House prices are what they are purely as a result of the balance between supply and demand. Builders are encouraged to build more houses when prices offer them an incentive to do so. The price of building land is higher because there is demand for housing. You are implicitly suggesting that local authority housing was below the market rent - which in fact it was. But why was that a good thing? Good for the tenants, of course, assuming they could get on the housing list, but the rents were kept low only because they were being subsidised by council taxpayers. Why should that be the arrangement? If other people were to subsidise my way of life in some way - perhaps pay for my food and drink, or pay for me to enjoy hunting - that would be quite acceptable, but I don't see why they should have that expense and they might object anyway. The good thing about market forces is that prices in the long run are what people can afford. You may be living in a home that is beyond your level of pay - I am too, if it comes to that - but it's no good wringing our hands about these misfortunes in life, or bleating about buy-to-let people who are merely taking up some of the slack in the market, or making provision for their old age.


----------



## Shaver

^ Conscience?


----------



## tocqueville

It might be worth noting--and I address this to Hitch and Wouldashoulda as well--that there's a profound difference between our society and the Europeans' (I'm over-generalizing, of course) with regard to the role and importance of real estate and housing in our societies and economies that has little to do with a right/left split. For all sorts of reasons, the housing industry is at the heart of our economy and is protected and subsidized in various ways (look at our tax code and our whole banking industry). We collectively have decided that private home ownership is/should be a primary motor for upward mobility, so our government tries to encourage it. For example, we lavishly subsidize mortgages, while at the same time are often unwilling to support social welfare programs. It all works differently in Europe, or at least so I believe.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ Conscience?


Meaning what?

Life should follow a supervening and impassive logic, not be pushed off course by sentimental attachments to dubious socialistic dogma.

As you will have gathered, I am opposed to the welfare state. I'm not against compassionate and caring arrangements being made for those who suffer misfortunes in life, in fact I support such efforts however I can, but the danger is always that these arrangements are open to abuse.


----------



## Shaver

^ It's easy to oppose the welfare state when one is doing well out of life. 

If, whilst maintaining the provision of adequate support for those less fortunate than ourselves, we must tolerate a modicum of abuse - so what? Better than the abuse of cabinet members, eh?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> It's very old school of you to have this attachment to the idea that only the state is able to look after us.


I didn't say that, actually, but on the other hand, with the "me generation" created by Thatcherite policies, nobody else will!



Langham said:


> House prices are what they are purely as a result of the balance between supply and demand. Builders are encouraged to build more houses when prices offer them an incentive to do so. The price of building land is higher because there is demand for housing. You are implicitly suggesting that local authority housing was below the market rent - which in fact it was. But why was that a good thing? Good for the tenants, of course, assuming they could get on the housing list, but the rents were kept low only because they were being subsidised by council taxpayers. Why should that be the arrangement?


Yes. And the balance between supply and demand was distorted by the compulsory selling off of local authority's housing stock. Local authority housing was indeed subsidised, so that the lowest earners could be adequately housed. That was the kind of thing that the Tories had developed in the 1930's under people like Chamberlain. That housing for the poor should be subsidised strikes me as the kind of thing that we should be content to pay taxes for. I'd prefer my taxes to go towards helping the poor towards an adequate standard of housing, rather than going towards paying state-owned bank employees bonuses for losing money. In any case, to compel local authorities to sell housing stock at bargain rates to wealthy speculators isn't "market forces", it was deliberate ideologically driven government policy.



Langham said:


> If other people were to subsidise my way of life in some way - perhaps pay for my food and drink, or pay for me to enjoy hunting - that would be quite acceptable, but I don't see why they should have that expense and they might object anyway. The good thing about market forces is that prices in the long run are what people can afford. You may be living in a home that is beyond your level of pay - I am too, if it comes to that - but it's no good wringing our hands about these misfortunes in life, or bleating about buy-to-let people who are merely taking up some of the slack in the market, or making provision for their old age.


But people do subsidise, at least potentially, your way of life. Farmers are subsidised to encourage them to maintain the countryside in a form that you're happy with. The Arts are subsidised so that people can enjoy seeing the ballet, or the opera. Covent Garden may be expensive, but the cost of the tickets doesn't cover the costs involved. We all subsidise London Transport, even if we don't live there. We're all subsidising these idiot vanity projects of railway developments of Cross-Rail and HS2, that most of us will never use. I'm not "wringing my hands" or "bleating", just pointing out that it wasn't "market forces" that allowed these profiteers to make money out of the poor, but deliberate government policy. It wasn't "misfortunes of life" that created this situation, it was deliberately created by the government of the time. If housing costs are far beyond what ordinary people in employment can afford then, clearly, market forces aren't working.


----------



## tocqueville

What do you gents think of NHS?


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> What do you gents think of NHS?


It's generally considered pretty poor, but better in most respects than the arrangements you have in the USA where health insurance is (I am told) cripplingly expensive. My wife was travelling in Ecuador recently and came across a colony of retired US teachers who said they could no longer afford in the USA on their pensions because of the cost of medical care there.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> That housing for the poor should be subsidised strikes me as the kind of thing that we should be content to pay taxes for. ... In any case, to compel local authorities to sell housing stock at bargain rates to wealthy speculators isn't "market forces", it was deliberate ideologically driven government policy.


I disagree - it's patronising in the extreme to allow the state to meddle in people's lives to that extent, on the pretext that 'the poor' are otherwise incapable of running their own lives. The system was never run fairly in any case. Also, local authority housing was not sold off to 'wealthy speculators', but rather to the existing tenants, who then had to live there for some time or forfeit the subsidy if they sold at a profit.



> But people do subsidise, at least potentially, your way of life. Farmers are subsidised to encourage them to maintain the countryside in a form that you're happy with. The Arts are subsidised so that people can enjoy seeing the ballet, or the opera. Covent Garden may be expensive, but the cost of the tickets doesn't cover the costs involved. We all subsidise London Transport, even if we don't live there. We're all subsidising these idiot vanity projects of railway developments of Cross-Rail and HS2, that most of us will never use.


I wasn't saying that other forms of subsidy don't exist, I was saying that it is inherently wrong and unfair. All the instances you quote, I agree, are unfair as they confer advantages on a few at the expense of the many.



> If housing costs are far beyond what ordinary people in employment can afford then, clearly, market forces aren't working.


There are other options, like renting. It's not imperative to own property, in order to have somewhere to live.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ It's easy to oppose the welfare state when one is doing well out of life.
> 
> If, whilst maintaining the provision of adequate support for those less fortunate than ourselves, we must tolerate a modicum of abuse - so what? Better than the abuse of cabinet members, eh?


I would hope my argument has nothing to do with my personal circumstances but in any case allow me to correct any misapprehension you may have that I am particularly well off; I'm not.


----------



## Chouan

There are two things that a man will never admit to, being asleep, and being wealthy.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> I disagree - it's patronising in the extreme to allow the state to meddle in people's lives to that extent, on the pretext that 'the poor' are otherwise incapable of running their own lives. The system was never run fairly in any case. Also, local authority housing was not sold off to 'wealthy speculators', but rather to the existing tenants, who then had to live there for some time or forfeit the subsidy if they sold at a profit.
> 
> I wasn't saying that other forms of subsidy don't exist, I was saying that it is inherently wrong and unfair. All the instances you quote, I agree, are unfair as they confer advantages on a few at the expense of the many.
> 
> There are other options, like renting. It's not imperative to own property, in order to have somewhere to live.


So why not go back to the days where the lords owned all the property & allowed the common man a hovel in which to sleep after working the fields? It's pretty much what you're doing when you allow the international jet set to snatch up the prime property to the burden of those that actually have to live/work ib the society. Owning all the land goes even further than that doesn't it?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> There are other options, like renting. It's not imperative to own property, in order to have somewhere to live.


Rents are so high that, again, ordinary people with ordinary jobs can't afford them, especially in areas where work is available. I've mentioned before that my niece manages a winter sports shop in London. Despite being the shop's manager she can't afford to rent even a room in the area. She lives with her parents instead, who subsidise her living and travel costs.


----------



## justonemore

Let's not forget "corporations are people too" and are in desperate need of housing/supplementing their retirement.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I would hope my argument has nothing to do with my personal circumstances but in any case allow me to correct any misapprehension you may have that I am particularly well off; I'm not.


I do not have any misapprehension. We are discussing the welfare state, currently. Both of us are considerably better off (and have access to better opportunities in life) than those on welfare.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> So why not go back to the days where the lords owned all the property & allowed the common man a hovel in which to sleep after working the fields? It's pretty much what you're doing when you allow the international jet set to snatch up the prime property to the burden of those that actually have to live/work ib the society. Owning all the land goes even further than that doesn't it?


I will admit I do feel an attachment to the feudal system. I love the English countryside, and have come to understand that it is the way it is largely because of our historic social and economic arrangements. In effect, all that most people need or desire is somewhere relatively modest to sleep at the end of the working day.

The international jet set are only interested in parts of London, they are of no consequence generally.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Rents are so high that, again, ordinary people with ordinary jobs can't afford them, especially in areas where work is available. I've mentioned before that my niece manages a winter sports shop in London. Despite being the shop's manager she can't afford to rent even a room in the area. She lives with her parents instead, who subsidise her living and travel costs.


I know London rents are high, but they are driven by the market - what people are willing or able to pay.


----------



## Chouan

An illustration.. My Tutor, the supervisor of my post graduate research, when he first arrived in York as a junior lecturer with a young family, was able to get a mortgage on a house in York, in a pleasant area, Fulford. The last time we met we discussed our children's prospects, among other things (Man.City's prospects, for example). He told me that not only would a junior lecturer at York not be in a position to get a mortgage on a house like his, a junior lecturer would not be able to get a mortgage on any house in York, not even a single room apartment. We're not just talking about those on Benefits, or those in traditionally low paid jobs, but a lecturer, with tenure, at a good University in the provinces. They wouldn't even be able to rent what I would describe as a "family home". We're not talking London or Home Counties, but N.Yorkshire.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> However, the Local Authorities had responsibility for housing stock, construction as well as maintenance, so were able to build the housing necessary for the local population. Instead, housing became yet another means by which rich people could become richer at the expense of the poor. Rather than Local Authorities building suitable housing, private companies and private individuals bought up much of the social housing, driving up prices, and driving up rents. New housing estates, rather than being built by Local Authorities to serve the needs of the local population are built as profit making schemes by businesses, and are at rentals, or purchase prices, that are beyond the means of most. The housing shortage I was referring to is the shortage of housing that ordinary people, with ordinary incomes, can afford.
> To put this into perspective, I own my own house, including the freehold, outright. However, even on my income and that of my wife, we wouldn't be able to buy our house if we were starting on the housing ladder now. We who own our houses, or have reasonable mortgages based on realistic prices, are safe, but our children are going to find it very hard. Not because of market forces, they've always been there, but because of the withdrawal of affordable social housing, and because of the profiteering of the "buy to let" people.


So it's a local issue, not a Thatcher issue.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> It might be worth noting--and I address this to Hitch and Wouldashoulda as well--that there's a profound difference between our society and the Europeans' (I'm over-generalizing, of course) with regard to the role and importance of real estate and housing in our societies and economies that has little to do with a right/left split. For all sorts of reasons, the housing industry is at the heart of our economy and is protected and subsidized in various ways (look at our tax code and our whole banking industry). We collectively have decided that private home ownership is/should be a primary motor for upward mobility, so our government tries to encourage it. For example, we lavishly subsidize mortgages, while at the same time are often unwilling to support social welfare programs. It all works differently in Europe, or at least so I believe.


Indeed.

One would think the Clods would look beyond their own borders for solutions to difficult questions, wouldn't one??


----------



## Shaver

^ Remind me, how did the sub-prime mortgages that the Americans dished out affect the global economy?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> An illustration.. My Tutor, the supervisor of my post graduate research, when he first arrived in York as a junior lecturer with a young family, was able to get a mortgage on a house in York, in a pleasant area, Fulford. The last time we met we discussed our children's prospects, among other things (Man.City's prospects, for example). He told me that not only would a junior lecturer at York not be in a position to get a mortgage on a house like his, a junior lecturer would not be able to get a mortgage on any house in York, not even a single room apartment. We're not just talking about those on Benefits, or those in traditionally low paid jobs, but a lecturer, with tenure, at a good University in the provinces. They wouldn't even be able to rent what I would describe as a "family home". We're not talking London or Home Counties, but N.Yorkshire.


What of it? York is an extremely pleasant city, your tutor seems to have the unattractive ability of turning his own good fortune into an opportunity for moaning. The junior lecturers there will just have to find less desirable towns in the area and travel to work on mopeds.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Rents are so high that, again, ordinary people with ordinary jobs can't afford them, especially in areas where work is available. I've mentioned before that my niece manages a winter sports shop in London. Despite being the shop's manager she can't afford to rent even a room in the area. She lives with her parents instead, who subsidise her living and travel costs.


I know I would feel better if society were responsible for the dear child instead of her parents!!


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> What of it? York is an extremely pleasant city, your tutor seems to have the unattractive ability of turning his own good fortune into an opportunity for moaning. The junior lecturers there will just have to find less desirable towns in the area and travel to work on mopeds.


Get on their bikes, eh? :rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> ^ Remind me, how did the sub-prime mortgages that the Americans dished out affect the global economy?


Excellent example.

From that one would learn not to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them, and not to invest in complicated investments one doesn't understand.


----------



## Langham

^^ Why not? Or they could walk, or cadge lifts. People seem to love finding problems rather than looking for solutions.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Excellent example.
> 
> From that one would learn not to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them, and not to invest in complicated investments one doesn't understand.


Indeed. The bankers seem not to be able to understand, still as long as we continue to reward their failure they have no incentive to learn.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> ^^ Why not? Or they could walk, or cadge lifts. People seem to love finding problems rather than looking for solutions.


This post sponsored by Norman Tebbit.

Do a lot of cadging lifts yourself do we, my friend? When your horse is lame, perhaps? :devil:


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I will admit I do feel an attachment to the feudal system. I love the English countryside, and have come to understand that it is the way it is largely because of our historic social and economic arrangements. In effect, all that most people need or desire is somewhere relatively modest to sleep at the end of the working day.
> 
> The international jet set are only interested in parts of London, they are of no consequence generally.


In my experience, those who express a yearning for, or an attachment to the feudal system usually cast themselves in the role of squire rather than that of serf. I doubt that many serfs enjoyed the concept of feudalism.


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> So it's a local issue, not a Thatcher issue.


I suggest that you reread the post. It was Thatcher's government that changed the law that made Local Authorities responsible for housing in their locale. Instead they were compelled to sell their housing stock at below market prices. To clarify, the national government compelled local government to sell housing stock. A national issue brought about by the national government.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> In my experience, those who express a yearning for, or an attachment to the feudal system usually cast themselves in the role of squire rather than that of serf. I doubt that many serfs enjoyed the concept of feudalism.


Who knows whether they did or not? A serf might well have thought himself comparatively fortunate. I certainly wasn't casting myself in any particular role, that would be ridiculous - my thoughts on feudalism are entirely abstract. I also think it's slightly ridiculous to judge systems like feudalism from the safety of a present-day perspective.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Who knows whether they did or not? A serf might well have thought himself comparatively fortunate. I certainly wasn't casting myself in any particular role, that would be ridiculous - my thoughts on feudalism are entirely abstract. I also think it's slightly ridiculous to judge systems like feudalism from the safety of a present-day perspective.


I would suggest that, as Peasant Revolts were endemic throughout Europe that the serfs weren't particularly happy with their lot.


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that, as Peasant Revolts were endemic throughout Europe that the serfs weren't particularly happy with their lot.


Perhaps our friend is suggesting that we need to try a modern peasant revolt? Révolutions are part of the global free market after all. Should we storm the homes of the wealthy and take over their land/possessions? It seems just as justifiable today. I wonder what that would look like these days. We'd most likely have soldiers shooting down the masses with machine guns and the state prosecuting the survivors.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that, as Peasant Revolts were endemic throughout Europe that the serfs weren't particularly happy with their lot.


Granted life was borderline for them when the crops failed. However, there were few alternatives - not many job vacancies for junior lecturers then, I imagine.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> I suggest that you reread the post. It was Thatcher's government that changed the law that made Local Authorities responsible for housing in their locale. Instead they were compelled to sell their housing stock at below market prices. To clarify, the national government compelled local government to sell housing stock. A national issue brought about by the national government.


...the implementation of which failed (in your opinion) at the local level.

If they sold the homes to the tenents at "below market prices" didn't that help the former tenents, now homeowners??


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...the implementation of which failed (in your opinion) at the local level.


Not at all. The implementation was entirely successful, from the Tory viewpoint. Council housing was decimated, and the "for profit" private sector took off, which was what the Thatcherite Tories wanted. There was political success as well, the former Council tenants, now home owners, became Tory voters. Trebles all round!



WouldaShoulda said:


> If they sold the homes to the tenents at "below market prices" didn't that help the former tenents, now homeowners??


It would have done, of course, but at the same time removed the Local Authorities Capital, which meant that they couldn't replace the housing stock, so the next generation, who would have been accommodated in Council (local authority) run Social Housing were left without housing. Because national legislation prevented Councils from building new housing, the next generation of home seekers were thrown onto the mercies of the private sector, where profit, not "service", is the motor. Many of the former council houses were bought by the grown up children of the elderly tenants, who sold them on the elderly parent's death, frequently to the buy to let people, the private landlords, who are now the main beneficiaries of the process.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Many of the former council houses were bought by the grown up children of the elderly tenants, who sold them on the elderly parent's death, frequently to the buy to let people, the private landlords, who are now the main beneficiaries of the process.


Why is it better to have the former and future occupants of the dwellings be forever at the mercy of the Government for rental housing and not profit from the benefits of ownership??


----------



## justonemore

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why is it better to have the former and future occupants of the dwellings be forever at the mercy of the Government for rental housing and not profit from the benefits of ownership??


Why is it better to be certain that your current and future population is properly housed at an affordable price compared to allowing generations of homelessness, due to others profiteering? Realy? Was that your question? I suppose education and health play no role in how society runs as well?

A stable rent of x amount that allows stable housing and stable food budgets to stable workers is to be ridiculed? I suppose that when the private sector sucks the individual dry, then we as society should be happy to give out food stamps, housing payments, etc to other private sector businesses?

Just curious.....What benefits do you see in ownership? High insurance rates? High maintenance costs/times? Uncomplete ownership (your property is easily taken by the govenment Under a wide variety of "statutes and reasons). Are your kids really going to need it or will it become an emotional burden? Perhaps it made sense back in the good ole days when the constitution was written but today? Is it not more of a Financial burden? The amount most people pay in interest alone to fullfill the American dream is absurd.


----------



## Langham

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why is it better to have the former and future occupants of the dwellings be forever at the mercy of the Government for rental housing and not profit from the benefits of ownership??


That was one of the reasons for allowing them to buy their homes - to create a property-owning society. It hasn't quite gone to plan, but the idea is that eventually we will all own a home, having paid off the mortgage (like Chuan in fact), and wealth will then be passed down from generation to generation. Since this ideal is not shared universally, others are buying several at a time, to let out (the buy-to-letters, whom Chuan seems to dislike).


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> That was one of the reasons for allowing them to buy their homes - to create a property-owning society. It hasn't quite gone to plan, but the idea is that eventually we will all own a home, having paid off the mortgage (like Chuan in fact), and wealth will then be passed down from generation to generation. Since this ideal is not shared universally, others are buying several at a time, to let out (the buy-to-letters, whom Chuan seems to dislike).


You are a tinker! An ideal not universally shared - aye, right. That is, of course, the reason many do not own homes.

I genuinely hope that you do not believe this and that you are merely playing Devil's advocate here.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> You are a tinker! An ideal not universally shared - aye, right. That is, of course, the reason many do not own homes.
> 
> I genuinely hope that you do not believe this and that you are merely playing Devil's advocate here.


I see your objection, but there is very little preventing anyone really wishing to own property from doing so. All a question of adjusting one's aspirations (I'm being quite serious in fact - owning property is an excellent thing). Perhaps not for everyone though. Stop paying into pension schemes, buy houses instead and let them out is my advice.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I'm being quite serious in fact - owning property is an excellent thing. Perhaps not for everyone though. Stop paying into pension schemes, buy houses instead and let them out is my advice.


Yes perhaps not for poor people, eh? Still as long as they can cadge lifts into work, mustn't grumble. Bloody scroungers.

Are we ready for the conversation about conscience yet?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Yes perhaps not for poor people, eh? Still as long as they can cadge lifts into work, mustn't grumble. Bloody scroungers.
> 
> Are we ready for the conversation about conscience yet?


The poor just have to scrimp and save a bit harder than everyone else.

My conscience is just as clear as it was yesterday, that's all I can say.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> The poor just have to scrimp and save a bit harder than everyone else.
> 
> My conscience is just as clear as it was yesterday, that's all I can say.


Just a bit of course. Shall we celebrate the week with a mince meat pie or have another package of dried noodles? Fresh fruits and vegetables? Let's ignore health services so we can skrimp and save a bit more for reasonable housing..

When almost 25% of the U.K. poulation is below the poverty line, you must have a rather loose definition of "everyone else". Perhpas you were refering to "the poor" as those that are at the poverty line or a bit above?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> The poor just have to scrimp and save a bit harder than everyone else.
> 
> *My conscience is just as clear as it was yesterday, that's all I can say.*


Of that I have no doubt. :icon_pale:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

justonemore said:


> When almost 25% of the U.K. poulation is below the poverty line, you must have a rather loose definition of "everyone else". Perhpas you were refering to "the poor" as those that are at the poverty line or a bit above?


If poverty is defined as the lowest 25th percentile of a given population,

won't poverty always be 25%??


----------



## Shaver

^eh? 

Poverty has no such definition. 

A society without poverty is entirely possible. Civilisation demands it, in fact.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> Just a bit of course. Shall we celebrate the week with a mince meat pie or have another package of dried noodles? Fresh fruits and vegetables? Let's ignore health services so we can skrimp and save a bit more for reasonable housing..
> 
> *When almost 25% of the U.K. poulation is below the poverty line*, you must have a rather loose definition of "everyone else". Perhpas you were refering to "the poor" as those that are at the poverty line or a bit above?


Where are these statistics from by the way? The Labour Party? I think you have to travel beyond Europe, these days, to find poverty.

I had one period in my life of being extremely poor, so it is something I know a lot about. I also feel - as a consequence - that it is something to be made rather light of.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> What do you gents think of NHS?


Free at point of use health care is a wonderful thing.

God knows I've been in A&E often enough over the years - they simply stitch you back together and send you on your way, no questions asked and no wallet biopsy required.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Where are these statistics from by the way? The Labour Party? I* think you have to travel beyond Europe, these days, to find poverty.*
> 
> I had one period in my life of being extremely poor, so it is something I know a lot about. I also feel - as a consequence - that it is something to be made rather light of.


Meanwhile back in the real world.......

https://www.foodpoverty.org.uk/2013/


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Where are these statistics from by the way? The Labour Party? I think you have to travel beyond Europe, these days, to find poverty.
> 
> *I had one period in my life of being extremely poor, so it is something I know a lot about. *I also feel - as a consequence - that it is something to be made rather light of.


Did you live like Common People? :devil:


----------



## Langham

^ You have a song for every occasion.

I wouldn't say common, but very poor certainly, although I was never homeless, which would have been the next level down.


----------



## tocqueville

Hunger is shockingly common in my country. I find it inexcusable.


----------



## Shaver

^ Considering the amount of food that is wasted in the UK it is repulsive. 

I am proud to announce that I have not discarded a single comestible in decades. Sell-by-dates are for wimps.


----------



## Hitch

WouldaShoulda said:


> Excellent example.
> 
> From that one would learn not to give mortgages to people that cannot afford them, and not to invest in complicated investments one doesn't understand.


Interesting how the government involvement ,read that Slick Willy and Bxxxxxxxx Barney, in strong arming those loans is so often overlooked. Back in Reality Land the sub-prime mortgage bubble is a perfect example of government intrusion and distortion of the market, with all the predictable results.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Funnily enough Hitch, yes she did.
> 
> Run down this article to the section on 'Thatcher's Girls' https://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/ar-tha1.htm
> 
> EDIT: in fact allow me to save you the bother, here's the excerpt:
> 
> *[The term] Thatcher's girls briefly appeared around 1985 to mean prostitutes, applied - so it was asserted - because her policies had driven many women to the only way left for them to earn money.*


Truly pathetic by your usual standards Shaver. But its right up there with 'stealing school children's milk'.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Yes, the kind of pointless smartar$e comment about something of which you're ignorant and of which you have no understanding that we should really have come to expect from you. No chance of an intelligent response then?


Show some anatomy Chouan put on a brave face and answer the question. I know you're afraid but force yourself ,it will do you good.

_Did she open up new brothels? How many people ,organizations and ethnic groups did she prohibit from giving to charities?

_Its comical. You have one real complaint against Thatcher. She refused, in a relatively few instances, to continue to force English taxpayers to support your favored organizations. This is the cause of all the shrill and silly demonization , reminds me of bunch of spoiled heirs at the reading of the will.


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> Interesting how the government involvement ,read that Slick Willy and ButtBuddy Barney, in strong arming those loans is so often overlooked. Back in Reality Land the sub-prime mortgage bubble is a perfect example of government intrusion and distortion of the market, with all the predictable results.


Hey, Hitch, can you please delete your reference to Barney Franks here. It seems I don't in fact have mod rights on this thread, otherwise I'd do it myself.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Show some anatomy Chouan put on a brave face and answer the question. I know you're afraid but force yourself ,it will do you good.
> 
> _Did she open up new brothels? How many people ,organizations and ethnic groups did she prohibit from giving to charities?
> 
> _Its comical. You have one real complaint against Thatcher. She refused, in a relatively few instances, to continue to force English taxpayers to support your favored organizations. This is the cause of all the shrill and silly demonization , reminds me of bunch of spoiled heirs at the reading of the will.


When you respond to the arguments I presented to you a couple of days ago, which you have steadfastly ignored, I may consider taking your posts seriously enough to think about them


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Hey, Hitch, can you please delete your reference to Barney Franks here. It seems I don't in fact have mod rights on this thread, otherwise I'd do it myself.


No, no, please let it stand. It's all good. True colours and whatnot. The man reveals himeslf for that which he is.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Hunger is shockingly common in my country. I find it inexcusable.


And in mine. It is shameful and horrifying. A few months ago some people were arrested and were going to be charged with theft for taking condemned food from a skip! I have never seen so many beggars on British streets as I have in this past year. I don't mean the usual alcoholic/drug addict derelicts, or Roma going about their usual business, but homeless beggars huddled in doorways. More here about the level of arrogant unconcern of our current government for the unfortunate https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/20...fter-being-judged-fit-for-work_n_3346582.html . Truly a return to Victorian Values. The final paragraph of this report says it all:


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Meanwhile back in the real world.......
> 
> https://www.foodpoverty.org.uk/2013/


Thanks Shaver, but personally I cannot put much trust in reports such as these.

They all seem to be written by organisations with vested interests in talking up poverty - poverty is their raison d'etre. Secondly, their definitions of poverty seem to use a questionable methodology - anything below 60% of median household income, it seems. So it's just a measure of relative wealth, rather arbitrarily termed 'poverty' without any absolute indicators other than missing out on school trips (lots of children do, including my own on occasion, when they were younger) and anecdotal references to 'cutting back on food' (which might not be a bad thing, with our current obesity epidemic).

It's almost an insult to those people who really are experiencing poverty, which I take to mean starvation, unemployment, sickness and homelessness, to see the term being used in such an unsatisfactory way. In those terms, it is largely a phenomenon of parts of the developing world, although I'm sure there are isolated instances even in this country.


----------



## Shaver

^ You do realise that much of modern obesity is resultant of the low quality cheap food that poverty makes inevitable?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/obesity-diabetes-cheap-food-poverty

Perhaps we should take a day trip and visit the inner city slums of England and see whether you might deny the evidence of your own eyes. Let me know when you might be free, we can make a day of it. My treat. 

.
.
.
.

.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ You do realise that much of modern obesity is resultant of the low quality cheap food that poverty makes inevitable?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/obesity-diabetes-cheap-food-poverty
> 
> Perhaps we should take a day trip and visit the inner city slums of England and see whether you might deny the evidence of your own eyes. Let me know when you might be free, we can make a day of it. My treat.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .


Yes, I realise that obesity is often the result of unwise eating choices, not to mention greed and gluttony, but it is not the same thing as starvation.

Thank you for the kind invitation, I would be very happy to accompany you on this tour of inner city slums. Where did you have in mind? Just so long as there is a decent Michelin restaurant nearby. I'm sure I could find time before the autumn.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> ^ You do realise that much of modern obesity is resultant of the low quality cheap food that poverty makes inevitable?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/obesity-diabetes-cheap-food-poverty
> 
> Perhaps we should take a day trip and visit the inner city slums of England and see whether you might deny the evidence of your own eyes. Let me know when you might be free, we can make a day of it. My treat.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .


Rural poverty, because it is so unobtrusive and is invisible to most of us, is even worse.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Yes, I realise that obesity is often the result of unwise eating choices, not to mention greed and gluttony, but it is not the same thing as starvation.
> 
> Thank you for the kind invitation, I would be very happy to accompany you on this tour of inner city slums. Where did you have in mind? Just so long as there is a decent Michelin restaurant nearby. I'm sure I could find time before the autumn.


Moss Side is quite handy for me. As ex-Army you won't be intimidated by the gun play. We shall cut quite the dash I imagine, two healthy wealthy white fellows strutting through the gang turf in our tweeds and cravats.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Moss Side is quite handy for me. As ex-Army you won't be intimidated by the gun play. We shall cut quite the dash I imagine, two healthy wealthy white fellows strutting through the gang turf.


Shaver, that would make my day. I have long wanted to visit Moss Side - my great grandmother was born and lived there. There is also a brewery in the area that my family owned many years ago - we could visit that too perhaps? I will follow your guidance on how to dress - green tweed suit with a maroon overcheck OK?


----------



## Chouan

An example. No judgments made or political commentary added by me.
The elderly widowed near neighbour of a friend who lives in a cottage on several acres near Ely was admitted to hospital seriously unwell with what turned out to be a serious heart condition. The hospital can't discharge him because they consider his house isn't fit for human habitation. Government regulations disagree. The house, which he owns outright, has no running water (served by an outside tap) the sewage system has collapsed so effluent comes up into the yard when it rains. No lighting, because rats have eaten through the wires, a leaking roof, the floor is flags upon earth, damp in all of the walls, no heating beyond a fire in his living room, upon which he also cooks with firewood supplied by his neighbours, the electric heating and cooker has failed for the same reason as the lighting, and being dependent solely on the state pension, not enough money to repair any of those things. He isn't a car owner, as he can neither afford to buy or run one, even if he was physically able to, no telephone, no public transport nearer than 2 miles away, which distance he can't walk. As a home owner he has no entitlement to any benefits, yet his house is unsaleable because of it's condition. The Local Authority, constrained by government regulation can't do anything to assist.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Shaver, that would make my day. I have long wanted to visit Moss Side - my great grandmother was born and lived there. There is also a brewery in the area that my family owned many years ago - we could visit that too perhaps? I will follow your guidance on how to dress - green tweed suit with a maroon overcheck OK?


Hydes or the Royal Brewery? Hydes is closed now but the building is listed, so remains. The Royal is still producing, I pass it daily.

I do walk through Moss Side occasionally (that's just the kind of guy I am) I presume that the locals generously consider me to be some type of 'care in the community' chap and so leave me be. Two of us might be pushing it but, what the heck, I'm game if you are.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Hydes or the Royal Brewery? Hydes is closed now but the building is listed, so remains. The Royal is still producing, I pass it daily.
> 
> I do walk through Moss Side occasionally (that's just the kind of guy I am) I presume that the locals generously consider me to be some type of 'care in the community' chap and so leave me be. Two of us might be pushing it but, what the heck, I'm game if you are.


They will take one look and leave us well alone.

I believe it was simply called the Moss Side Brewery, but it could have become one of the two you mentioned, when it was sold. I have a photo somewhere, which might help identification.


----------



## Shaver

^ Ahh that's the Royal then, it has changed hands over the years. To the best of my knowledge it occupies the original site, though much modernised and developed.


----------



## Langham

^ I've checked - it was known as Lees Moss Side Brewery, taken over by Davies in 1915. Here is an etching of it:


----------



## Shaver

Here it is today:


----------



## Langham

Thank you. It's a pity we no longer own one.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> An example. No judgments made or political commentary added by me.
> The elderly widowed near neighbour of a friend who lives in a cottage on several acres near Ely was admitted to hospital seriously unwell with what turned out to be a serious heart condition. The hospital can't discharge him because they consider his house isn't fit for human habitation. Government regulations disagree. The house, which he owns outright, has no running water (served by an outside tap) the sewage system has collapsed so effluent comes up into the yard when it rains. No lighting, because rats have eaten through the wires, a leaking roof, the floor is flags upon earth, damp in all of the walls, no heating beyond a fire in his living room, upon which he also cooks with firewood supplied by his neighbours, the electric heating and cooker has failed for the same reason as the lighting, and being dependent solely on the state pension, not enough money to repair any of those things. He isn't a car owner, as he can neither afford to buy or run one, even if he was physically able to, no telephone, no public transport nearer than 2 miles away, which distance he can't walk. As a home owner he has no entitlement to any benefits, yet his house is unsaleable because of it's condition. The Local Authority, constrained by government regulation can't do anything to assist.


If the poor dear has children, how did they let that happen to him??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Hunger is shockingly common in my country. I find it inexcusable.


And yet, the only thing in greater abundance than affordable, healthy food in the US, are excuses!!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> An example. No judgments made or political commentary added by me.
> The elderly widowed near neighbour of a friend who lives in a cottage on several acres near Ely was admitted to hospital seriously unwell with what turned out to be a serious heart condition. The hospital can't discharge him because they consider his house isn't fit for human habitation. Government regulations disagree. The house, which he owns outright, has no running water (served by an outside tap) the sewage system has collapsed so effluent comes up into the yard when it rains. No lighting, because rats have eaten through the wires, a leaking roof, the floor is flags upon earth, damp in all of the walls, no heating beyond a fire in his living room, upon which he also cooks with firewood supplied by his neighbours, the electric heating and cooker has failed for the same reason as the lighting, and being dependent solely on the state pension, not enough money to repair any of those things. He isn't a car owner, as he can neither afford to buy or run one, even if he was physically able to, no telephone, no public transport nearer than 2 miles away, which distance he can't walk. As a home owner he has no entitlement to any benefits, yet his house is unsaleable because of it's condition. The Local Authority, constrained by government regulation can't do anything to assist.


I've occasionally stayed in similar places. Perhaps he liked it that way? If he didn't, I wonder why he didn't try to fix it up a little? Plumbing and electric wiring are cheap and easy to put right, assuming you aren't completely impractical.


----------



## Shaver

^ Crow Crag?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> ^ Crow Crag?


My favourite holiday destination.


----------



## Shaver

I actually went on a 'pilgrimage' a few years back. Did all of the locations no matter how trivial. Even re-enacted the shooting for fish in the same stream. Sadly the photographic evidence was held to randsome by an ex I am no longer in contact with.


----------



## Langham

The tea rooms ('We want the finest wines known to humanity...'), which I had imagined were in Keswick, turned out to be near where I live, in a place called Stony Stratford, so I paid a visit. Disappointingly, they are now a pharmacist's shop.


----------



## Shaver

I'm going to be a STAR!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Langham said:


> I've occasionally stayed in similar places. Perhaps he liked it that way? If he didn't, I wonder why he didn't try to fix it up a little? Plumbing and electric wiring are cheap and easy to put right, assuming you aren't completely impractical.


Digging up a collapsed sewer costs a-plenty and beyond the scope of a novice.

Still, no home is unsellable.

Even if it has to be razed.


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> If the poor dear has children, how did they let that happen to him??


No children living. No grandchildren.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> No children living. No grandchildren.


Around here, an MSW at the hospital can contact his Church, Community Senior Center or Habitat for Humanity to help with a cleanup or arrange alternative living arrangements.

Are you implying there are no such services in the UK??


----------



## Hyacinth

Shaver said:


> I am proud to announce that I have not discarded a single comestible in decades. Sell-by-dates are for wimps.


Ah, this is my small way of "living on the edge." Just but a guideline really.


----------



## Langham

^ The hospital might contact the social services here. In some cases they might arrange something. If a property is deemed uninhabitable I believe the local authority has powers to do something, but it's never very straightforward. I hear of similar cases quite often of old people living in what many would consider unfit accommodation. My great aunt lived in a tumbledown place which should have been either pulled down or gutted, but she was happy there as it was.


----------



## Shaver

Hyacinth said:


> Ah, this is my small way of "living on the edge." Just but a guideline really.


Oh, I do so enjoy living on the edge. I have damn well fallen off a few times as well.


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Around here, an MSW at the hospital can contact his Church, Community Senior Center or Habitat for Humanity to help with a cleanup or arrange alternative living arrangements.
> 
> Are you implying there are no such services in the UK??


As I indicated above, such services are available through the local Council, but are subject to government imposed restrictions on who is eligible. As a house-owner, his entitlements are very limited. Also, budgetary restrictions on local Councils, imposed by central government, mean that, as they are the people who assess need, they are increasingly inclined to decide that the situation is less bad than the reality, in order to reduce their potential expenditure.

In any case, I gave this simply as an example of apparently invisible rural poverty.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I am proud to announce that I have not discarded a single comestible in decades. Sell-by-dates are for wimps.





Hyacinth said:


> Ah, this is my small way of "living on the edge." Just but a guideline really.





Shaver said:


> Oh, I do so enjoy living on the edge. I have damn well fallen off a few times as well.


Is this all about sell-by dates?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Is this all about sell-by dates?


I'm not entirely certain, truth be told.

Ask Hyacinth.


----------



## Langham

^ I never actually look at sell-by dates personally.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> As I indicated above, such services are available through the local Council, but are subject to government imposed restrictions on who is eligible. As a house-owner, his entitlements are very limited. Also, budgetary restrictions on local Councils, imposed by central government, mean that, as they are the people who assess need, they are increasingly inclined to decide that the situation is less bad than the reality, in order to reduce their potential expenditure.
> 
> In any case, I gave this simply as an example of apparently invisible rural poverty.


When seen, does our conscience call us to do something??

Or to call on others to do something??


----------

