Ken Bigley.
Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 08 October 2004
Well, it looks like they went ahead and killed him anyway:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13228464,00.html
Tony
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13228464,00.html
Tony
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by Simon Perry
Matthew's right again. And Blair went along with it because he was intoxicated by proximity to the US presidency and because he shares some of this idealogue.
Simon
Simon
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Matthew's right again. And Blair went along with it because he was intoxicated by proximity to the US presidency and because he shares some of this idealogue.
Then why Iraq? Why not Sudan?
Steve M
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by pingu:
I guess my problem is with your use of the English language.
I know you believe you're clever, but in actual fact, being so pedantic over the meaning of the phrase 'back on track', only shows the opposite. Bandwagons spring to mind.
quote:
As regards your confirmation that its all about the oil, I do appreciate your honesty.
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by 7V
Returning to the topic of why Ken Bigley was murdered, I'd like to point you in the direction of article by Jason Burke in last Sunday's Observer.
We must ask why
Some may have already seen the article but, for those that haven't, I believe that the writer takes a mature approach that gives food for thought and is worth reading.
Steve M
We must ask why
Some may have already seen the article but, for those that haven't, I believe that the writer takes a mature approach that gives food for thought and is worth reading.
Steve M
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by pingu
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
I know you believe you're clever, but in actual fact, being so pedantic over the meaning of the phrase 'back on track', only shows the opposite. Bandwagons spring to mind.
Whether I think I am clever or not is not the point at issue. You have to explain what you mean by back on track. By selecting only part of my text and accusing me of being on a bandwagon is a) selective to the point of avoidance of the main argument and b) unsupported by reference to my full post.
IE, to repeat
Is back on track
1) back to British Rule
2) Back to Ba'ath party rule
3) back to some unspecified BrianD view of the world
Lets stick to the subject rather than each others opinion of the intelligence of the other, eh?
CJ
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by bigmick
quote:
The Iraqi people have an enormous amount to gain if they can achieve a free and democratic society.
I totally agree. However, IMO the caveat is expecting this to flow naturally from the elections which are currently set for next January. In spite of the glossy package being sold, I get the sense that behind the scenes at the Transitional Government, the US is only going to allow some Iraqis a level of freedom and a form of democracy that they countenance. I’m guessing that the anticipated fanfare will hide what will be, for the average Iraqi, a rather meagre and measured helping of freedom and democracy according to the direction of the government’s US sponsors.
The recent experience in Afghanistan is being lauded in certain quarters as a triumph and indeed the ousting of the Taliban was long overdue. However, with the help of the US, some of the most brutal warlords with 20 year records of indiscriminate mass rape and murder are being rearmed and eased back into power, on the pretext that these guys and their armies can be useful allies in the fight against Al-Queda! So the poor saps who queued for hours to cast their votes for what they were sold as a new democratic government are going to be greeted by the news that whilst their judges, their police chiefs and assorted government ministers aren’t Taliban, hurrah….they are in fact just all the other guys that have been terrorising and thieving from the Afghan people for the last twenty years.
Basically, I think that the notion of keeping schtum until elections to see what happens isn’t a great approach. I think things need to thrashed out now before screwing over of Iraq and it’s people becomes enshrined in some constitution which has already been knocked up back in the homeland under the guidance of Perl, Wolfowitz et al.
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Basically, I think that the notion of keeping schtum until elections to see what happens isn’t a great approach. I think things need to thrashed out now before screwing over of Iraq and it’s people becomes enshrined in some constitution which has already been knocked up back in the homeland under the guidance of Perl, Wolfowitz et al.
I guess that it would take about 20 years of regular elections before Iraq or Afghanistan become truly democratic to any reasonable extent. Hopefully, by that time, their constitutions would become their own rather than anything imposed upon them by any external powers.
I posted: "In terms of securing the supply of Iraqi oil to the West, I believe that it's too early to tell. After the elections have taken place we will be better able to judge whether the situation is likely to improve, remain as it is or deteriorate still further."
This doesn't imply we should keep schtum in the meantime. It would, no doubt, take more than the combined forces of Bush, Blair, Hussein and Bin Laden to silence us.
Steve M
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by BrianD
Pingu said......
I don't actually, but....
In the context of my post, what I mean by the commonly used phrase, 'back on track', is when Iraq has stability, when troops have left the country and it is being run successfully in some form or other by Iraqi's. 'Back on track' does not have to mean that something reverts to some previous state, as you mistakenly appear to believe.
In general terms, back on track can be taken as when something, or somebody suffering hard times comes through that period, things are improving or improved. This can be related to the conditions within a country, or a part of the world, this was obvious from the context of my post.
In my opinion, when this situation in Iraq is achieved, that will be the time to start the griping about what people see as the mess created by the politicians, their lying and any underhand dealings etc. If you don't agree with me on this point, that it is actually of benefit to Iraqi's that time be wasted moaning that 'x' company won a contract for work in Iraq that should have gone to 'y' company, but didn't because 'x' was American and 'y' was French, well that's upto you, but I don't think that is an important issue at this time.
Let me ask you, pingu....If someone had used these words to you in person would you have told them, 'what complete crap', and then gone on to make an issue of a phrase that is in common use throughout the country, and which anyone would understand the meaning of from the context in which it was used?
How about this, will you be happier if I removed the 'back on track' bit and just say, "The griping can be left until later"? Or is that when you ask me exactly what I mean by later? When exactly is later? What date is later? Doh!
It never ceases to amaze me how pedantic some people can be on this forum, seemingly it's required that for some people everything is spelled out 'to the letter'. I read a similar comment from someone else the other day, I don't recall who made the post, but this does seem to be is a favourite pastime on this forum.
Cheers
quote:
You have to explain what you mean by back on track.
I don't actually, but....
In the context of my post, what I mean by the commonly used phrase, 'back on track', is when Iraq has stability, when troops have left the country and it is being run successfully in some form or other by Iraqi's. 'Back on track' does not have to mean that something reverts to some previous state, as you mistakenly appear to believe.
In general terms, back on track can be taken as when something, or somebody suffering hard times comes through that period, things are improving or improved. This can be related to the conditions within a country, or a part of the world, this was obvious from the context of my post.
In my opinion, when this situation in Iraq is achieved, that will be the time to start the griping about what people see as the mess created by the politicians, their lying and any underhand dealings etc. If you don't agree with me on this point, that it is actually of benefit to Iraqi's that time be wasted moaning that 'x' company won a contract for work in Iraq that should have gone to 'y' company, but didn't because 'x' was American and 'y' was French, well that's upto you, but I don't think that is an important issue at this time.
Let me ask you, pingu....If someone had used these words to you in person would you have told them, 'what complete crap', and then gone on to make an issue of a phrase that is in common use throughout the country, and which anyone would understand the meaning of from the context in which it was used?
How about this, will you be happier if I removed the 'back on track' bit and just say, "The griping can be left until later"? Or is that when you ask me exactly what I mean by later? When exactly is later? What date is later? Doh!
It never ceases to amaze me how pedantic some people can be on this forum, seemingly it's required that for some people everything is spelled out 'to the letter'. I read a similar comment from someone else the other day, I don't recall who made the post, but this does seem to be is a favourite pastime on this forum.
Cheers
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by bigmick
quote:
seemingly it's required that for some people everything is spelled out 'to the letter'
Probably me more than most to be honest. I've witnessed a great deal of time and money disappearing down the toilet because people didn't attach enough importance on spelling things out to the letter. Politics and discussion of politics requires similar attention. “Back on track” definitely implies that it was ever “on track”, which it patently hasn’t been for a very long time. I think "on track as accepted by the Iraqis and a truly international body" might do it.
As to “leave the griping until later”, as I mentioned in my last post, this risks playing right into the hands of those who want time to spread their tentacles through every potential revenue stream, business opportunity and political power base.
If you give these guys time, here’s how I see it playing out. Iraq is the organic host and the policy of the current US administration is to become so rapidly intertwined in the government, economic and social structures of this host that it becomes almost to see where Iraq ends and US influence begins. Thus any talk of the Iraqis truly controlling Iraq is wishful thinking as their politicians will need US approval and should they ever turn, they will never be allowed to establish a sufficiently strong power base from which to cut their ties from the US.
The country will be part of the global expansionist strategy, a military staging post for the Middle East; just as earlier this year they suggested a base in Northern Australian, ostensibly to acquire a strike capability along the Indonesian peninsula and through southern Asia.
Iraqis will increasingly be employed directly or indirectly by US conglomerates and they will be in turn become net consumers of goods originating from either the US or domestically produced in US owned concerns.
Once the reliance is established, Iraqis will be hooked, Iraqi values diluted by corporate America, sleepwalking through the death of their culture and the siphoning off of their country’s wealth. It’ll be nigh on impossible to break away and any group attempting to do so will be labelled as anarchists, radicals, insurgents, a pliant public will accept the government’s label and oddly enough the breakaway come to nothing.
In the meantime, while people say “what’s done is done, what’s the point in talking about it?”, which country is being lined up for when the business opportunities in Iraq have all been squeezed until the pips have squeaked? If Bush thinks that enough people are going roll over and sigh “oh well, it’s history now, what done is done, spilt milk and all that”, then why the bloody hell should he stop when all they’re going to be censured by is “oh well…we are where we are…no point in griping”. Have you noticed the discomfort that Blair and Bush are experiencing, how angry they’re getting when they are still getting grilled on this fiasco? If this pressure is kept up I’m guessing that in the near to middling future, it’s going to make any head of state think at least twice before taking his country into a pre-emptive military action against the advice of military and intelligence chiefs, the will of the people, the international community and international law. If going over very recent history, debating and griping about what took place and why, prevents a recurrence then it’s a very bloody good thing to do.
quote:
Hopefully, by that time, their constitutions would become their own rather than anything imposed upon them by any external powers.
Yes hopefully, though getting an embedded power base with vested interest in the status quo to agree to constitutional change is IMO likely to be a fruitless pursuit. I think that they should do what Matthew suggested, do it soon and only then look to forming a real Iraqi government, of the people, for the people etc. Then they can address the matter of a constitution. Witness in the US the entirely valid criticism of the anachronistic function of the electoral college in electing the President, which so far as I’ve seen, is met with the response “go away, read the constitution and don’t bother me with this again”.
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Bigmick
Why should there be an attempt to differentiate morally between those killed by US/UK forces and by insurgents or resistance?
Mick, what I actually said is "There is a colossal difference between murder and the accidental loss of life."
Now, listen up, because the next bit is the important bit. If you can't differentiate between deliberate murder and accidental loss of life, you are not morally bankrupt, or morally destitute, you are worthless. Never mind a worthless bag of sh*te or any other pointless expletive, simply worthless.
Don’t you realize how morally destitute you are when you justify the killing of innocent people in this attack by the US/UK forces by saying that it pales into insignificance compared to the mass murder of Saddam’s regime?
Again, what I actually said is "You can debate as long as you like whether the coalition have taken enough care to minimise accidental loss of life, but that almost pales into insignificance alongside the deliberate mass murder of innocent poeple in Iraq". So, I am not justifying either deliberate attacks on innocent civilians, nor indiscriminate attacks.
You have hearsay evidence about one particular incident. Nobody doubts there have been deliberate attacks on innocent civilians by coalition forces, and indiscriminate attacks. Those found guilty of such crimes will be punished by us. The terrorists who perpetrate murder will not be punished by their leaders. Now, listen up again, because the next bit is also important. If you can't differentiate between those who punish crimes and those who perpetrate crimes, you are not morally bankrupt, or morally destitute, you are worthless. To describe such a person as a worthless bag of sh*te would provide such a person with far too much credability
Now, I have repeated the above quotations in two other posts in this thread with only slight amendment, to ensure that even the average bag of sh*te could see that my meaning was crystal clear. Whether you can elevate yourself to such dizzy heights of excellence remains to be seen.
Cheers
Don
Why should there be an attempt to differentiate morally between those killed by US/UK forces and by insurgents or resistance?
Mick, what I actually said is "There is a colossal difference between murder and the accidental loss of life."
Now, listen up, because the next bit is the important bit. If you can't differentiate between deliberate murder and accidental loss of life, you are not morally bankrupt, or morally destitute, you are worthless. Never mind a worthless bag of sh*te or any other pointless expletive, simply worthless.
Don’t you realize how morally destitute you are when you justify the killing of innocent people in this attack by the US/UK forces by saying that it pales into insignificance compared to the mass murder of Saddam’s regime?
Again, what I actually said is "You can debate as long as you like whether the coalition have taken enough care to minimise accidental loss of life, but that almost pales into insignificance alongside the deliberate mass murder of innocent poeple in Iraq". So, I am not justifying either deliberate attacks on innocent civilians, nor indiscriminate attacks.
You have hearsay evidence about one particular incident. Nobody doubts there have been deliberate attacks on innocent civilians by coalition forces, and indiscriminate attacks. Those found guilty of such crimes will be punished by us. The terrorists who perpetrate murder will not be punished by their leaders. Now, listen up again, because the next bit is also important. If you can't differentiate between those who punish crimes and those who perpetrate crimes, you are not morally bankrupt, or morally destitute, you are worthless. To describe such a person as a worthless bag of sh*te would provide such a person with far too much credability
Now, I have repeated the above quotations in two other posts in this thread with only slight amendment, to ensure that even the average bag of sh*te could see that my meaning was crystal clear. Whether you can elevate yourself to such dizzy heights of excellence remains to be seen.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Bigmick, Hi,
I don’t accept Don’s premise that innocent deaths arising from the actions of the US/UK forces are any more acceptable than those perpetrated by the Iraqi insurgents or resistance.
Don thinks that the acts of terror carried out under the US/UK are okay.
Well, of course, given the above, I anticipate you can't appreciate that I don't hold such premise or view.
Cheers
Don
I don’t accept Don’s premise that innocent deaths arising from the actions of the US/UK forces are any more acceptable than those perpetrated by the Iraqi insurgents or resistance.
Don thinks that the acts of terror carried out under the US/UK are okay.
Well, of course, given the above, I anticipate you can't appreciate that I don't hold such premise or view.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Bigmick,
Your forecast of future events in Iraq makes somewhat depressing reading.
Elections in January (or whenever) will only be a first step and the coalition must make it clear they are meaningful and then only remain at the continued invitation of the elected government.
Now the concept of an elected government in the middle east is novel. So don't be surprised if there are related problems.
The handing back of independence to the Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, all went fairly smoothly, with only a slight twitch whem Iran invaded a small offshore island.
They have remained stable and prospered for over 30 years.
Likewise the UK supported Oman overcome both internal and external problems in the early 70's so as to establish a stable country for over 30 years.
Different circumstances. But still possible that the outcome in Iraq could be good, particularly if Bush wasn't in charge in the USA.
Cheers
Don
Your forecast of future events in Iraq makes somewhat depressing reading.
Elections in January (or whenever) will only be a first step and the coalition must make it clear they are meaningful and then only remain at the continued invitation of the elected government.
Now the concept of an elected government in the middle east is novel. So don't be surprised if there are related problems.
The handing back of independence to the Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, all went fairly smoothly, with only a slight twitch whem Iran invaded a small offshore island.
They have remained stable and prospered for over 30 years.
Likewise the UK supported Oman overcome both internal and external problems in the early 70's so as to establish a stable country for over 30 years.
Different circumstances. But still possible that the outcome in Iraq could be good, particularly if Bush wasn't in charge in the USA.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by pingu
BrianD wrote "Let me ask you, pingu....If someone had used these words to you in person would you have told them, 'what complete crap', and then gone on to make an issue of a phrase that is in common use throughout the country, and which anyone would understand the meaning of from the context in which it was used?"
Listen BrianD, re-read what you wrote. You came in from left of field and demanded that I explain how I would have dealt with Iraq. If someone had started that in person in a pub, I would have reacted as I did here, and yes, I would have said "complete crap" to the phrase you used, because first of all you said you weren't going to say what you would have done, then you said you supported the invasion to secure Oil, then you used the meaningless phrase "back on track" without explaining what on earth you meant, and then tell me I AM BEING PEDANTIC.
Sorry mate you're being pedantic and you're supporting an insupportable war for purely economic reasons, and I guess your idea of "back on track" is to create another puppet state subject to the US of A and UK influence etc etc etc
in my experience on this forum the people accusing other people of being thick or pedantic are usually the most pedentic trolls themselves
good luck mate
btw its Chris, not Pingu if you wanna get personal
cj
Listen BrianD, re-read what you wrote. You came in from left of field and demanded that I explain how I would have dealt with Iraq. If someone had started that in person in a pub, I would have reacted as I did here, and yes, I would have said "complete crap" to the phrase you used, because first of all you said you weren't going to say what you would have done, then you said you supported the invasion to secure Oil, then you used the meaningless phrase "back on track" without explaining what on earth you meant, and then tell me I AM BEING PEDANTIC.
Sorry mate you're being pedantic and you're supporting an insupportable war for purely economic reasons, and I guess your idea of "back on track" is to create another puppet state subject to the US of A and UK influence etc etc etc
in my experience on this forum the people accusing other people of being thick or pedantic are usually the most pedentic trolls themselves
good luck mate
btw its Chris, not Pingu if you wanna get personal
cj
Posted on: 15 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
... If you give these guys time, here’s how I see it playing out. Iraq is the organic host and the policy of the current US administration is to become so rapidly intertwined in the government, economic and social structures of this host that it becomes almost to see where Iraq ends and US influence begins. Thus any talk of the Iraqis truly controlling Iraq is wishful thinking as their politicians will need US approval and should they ever turn, they will never be allowed to establish a sufficiently strong power base from which to cut their ties from the US.
The country will be part of the global expansionist strategy, a military staging post for the Middle East; just as earlier this year they suggested a base in Northern Australian, ostensibly to acquire a strike capability along the Indonesian peninsula and through southern Asia.
I don't think that the USA really has a 'global expansionist strategy'. It's far too isolationist by nature for that. Most of its citizens don't even have passports.
It seems that what you describe is far more in line with the British Empire, when we were the most powerful nation on Earth, or the Roman Empire in their time. The Brits were far more concerned with 'civilising' the natives; we even sent in missionaries along with our soldiers. And look what a mess we left behind with our 'divide and rule' philosophy.
I believe that the differences can be characterized as follows:
The Brits: go in - take over - rule - fuck up - get thrown out - leave a mess.
The USA: go in - fuck up - get out - leave a mess.
Indeed in some cases, Germany for example, they didn't even leave a mess (unless you count the EEC).
Come to think of it, in the history of civilisation, has there ever been a nation in the position of having the most powerful military and most successful economy on the planet which has done much better?
And if, as seems quite possible, it will soon be the turn of the Chinese to take the world's centre stage, will we look back with nostalgia at the days of the US Empire? I wonder.
Steve M
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by BrianD
Pingu
My first comment to you was :
So you think that was ‘demanding?’ I don’t think it was at all. This looks very much like an ordinary question to me, I'm surprised you took it as a 'demand'.
Your reply to this non aggressive question included the following:
Q. Are you sure you aren’t losing your rag with me because you’re generally pissed off at others on the forum? This is the first thread I’ve read any of your posts, so I’ve certainly not taken that stance with you before. You should stop being so sensitive, I was not attacking you with my question.
Not at all. What I actually said was … I haven't a clue. There is a large difference between refusing to say what I would have done, and not knowing what I would have done. The reason ‘I haven’t a clue’ is because I have no first hand knowledge of Iraq and no reliable source of information. It is only the sheer weight of reports over the years concerning the Saddam regime that convinced me in the end that the man was a tyrant. He did need to be removed and it is very doubtful that the Iraqi people could have done that themselves. So the coalition used force. As for how exactly that has worked out, well once again I am not in Iraq, I have no first hand knowledge and no reliable source of information. Every incident is reported in different ways. If I lean toward the coalition I might believe their version, if I lean away from the coalition I might believe the opposite. I recognise this, so in actual fact I don’t believe very much of what is reported.
You make it sound as though I’m cast iron, 100% in the wrong for thinking this way. I’m entitled, just as you are entitled to not support any invasion to secure oil. The fact is, we rely on oil, to the benefit of the Middle East for many years, so the supply of the stuff needs to continue. Do you disagree with that?
Such a common phrase, used as part of a post, should need no explanation. However, I have explained it for you in my last post, I suggest you read what I said about it again. ‘Back on track’ is not a meaningless phrase. It’s meaning was, and still is, obvious.
Can you please explain to me what you mean by the phrase, ‘left of field?’ I really have no idea what you mean.
quote:
Listen BrianD, re-read what you wrote. You came in from left of field and demanded that I explain how I would have dealt with Iraq.
My first comment to you was :
quote:
Weren't "these guys out and off the leash" already? What do you think should have been done instead of what was done? Just curious.
So you think that was ‘demanding?’ I don’t think it was at all. This looks very much like an ordinary question to me, I'm surprised you took it as a 'demand'.
Your reply to this non aggressive question included the following:
quote:
As I am no expert on this forum, I have to say that I am puzzled by the fact that many people disagree with me by posting "what would you do then" type replies.
Q. Are you sure you aren’t losing your rag with me because you’re generally pissed off at others on the forum? This is the first thread I’ve read any of your posts, so I’ve certainly not taken that stance with you before. You should stop being so sensitive, I was not attacking you with my question.
quote:
……..first of all you said you weren't going to say what you would have done,
Not at all. What I actually said was … I haven't a clue. There is a large difference between refusing to say what I would have done, and not knowing what I would have done. The reason ‘I haven’t a clue’ is because I have no first hand knowledge of Iraq and no reliable source of information. It is only the sheer weight of reports over the years concerning the Saddam regime that convinced me in the end that the man was a tyrant. He did need to be removed and it is very doubtful that the Iraqi people could have done that themselves. So the coalition used force. As for how exactly that has worked out, well once again I am not in Iraq, I have no first hand knowledge and no reliable source of information. Every incident is reported in different ways. If I lean toward the coalition I might believe their version, if I lean away from the coalition I might believe the opposite. I recognise this, so in actual fact I don’t believe very much of what is reported.
quote:
then you said you supported the invasion to secure Oil
You make it sound as though I’m cast iron, 100% in the wrong for thinking this way. I’m entitled, just as you are entitled to not support any invasion to secure oil. The fact is, we rely on oil, to the benefit of the Middle East for many years, so the supply of the stuff needs to continue. Do you disagree with that?
quote:
then you used the meaningless phrase "back on track" without explaining what on earth you meant
Such a common phrase, used as part of a post, should need no explanation. However, I have explained it for you in my last post, I suggest you read what I said about it again. ‘Back on track’ is not a meaningless phrase. It’s meaning was, and still is, obvious.
quote:
You came in from left of field and
Can you please explain to me what you mean by the phrase, ‘left of field?’ I really have no idea what you mean.
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by bigmick
quote:
If you can't differentiate between deliberate murder and accidental loss of life
Don, a bloke repairing his guttering and falling off the ladder to his death, an old lady losing her footing and falling down the stairs, those are examples of accidental loss of life. Are you saying that’s the kind of thing that was happening in the examples I gave? Are you seriously saying that the nature of the incidents in which these thousands of Iraqis were killed was sheer bad luck, an accidental loss of life? Suicide car bombs for US convoys, anybody else killed, accidental loss of life. Shock and awe aerial assault on Iraqi cities, anyone killed, accidental loss of life? Let’s forget about strict legality and what charges would be brought. If someone were to drive a truck at high speed through a pedestrian precinct on a busy Saturday afternoon because they wanted to kill an individual or group of individuals who were sure were to be there at that time, do you view the death of the 30 or so other shoppers as simply accidental loss of life? Do you not think it’s safe to say that the driver clearly didn’t care whether or not he killed other people. Do you think that the action would be regarded as proportional and reasonable? I would say that the drive was reckless in every respect and that the entire enterprise was ill-conceived. The deaths subsequent to the action were clearly anticipated and really an accepted function of the action. If you still think that these deaths would be no more than an accidental loss of life then I am genuinely bewildered and as we clearly differ on this there’s no point in continuing to bore ourselves and everybody else to death.
The incidents were reported by the national networks and confirmed by responses from the US and Israeli government. I’ve just had a quick check and both incidents I recounted are documented on the BBC and Channel4 news websites. Can you specify why you believe them to be hearsay?
quote:
The terrorists who perpetrate murder will not be punished by their leaders.
quote:
If you can't differentiate between those who punish crimes and those who perpetrate crimes, you are not morally bankrupt, or morally destitute, you are worthless. To describe such a person as a worthless bag of sh*te would provide such a person with far too much credability
Listen up? What, are you kidding me with this? Generally people say that before making a pronouncement of substance, of some intellectual worth, not this kind of vacuous nonsense. Are you trying to claim some upper ground by saying that US/UK military discipline is more rigorous than that of al-zarqawi? Well done. Both sides have massacred thousands of innocent Iraqis and I whilst I very much doubt that any terrorists have been punished for their actions, I also haven’t heard of any punishment being meted out to any pilots, commanders, or politicians who are responsible for reckless actions and the thousands of deaths.
As I remarked earlier Don, if you don’t even know what credibility is, or even how it’s spelt, you recently shouldn’t be trying to pass judgement.
To answer your last supposition, no Don, I don’t see me elevating myself to the dizzy heights of a bag of shite. I’m afraid that you’ve got me well beaten there old man. I suspect that somewhere you have a role that doesn’t require an analytical competence, a grasp of facts, an ability to sustain a cogent argument, the requirement to actually substantiate fanciful claims.
On that last note you’ve still not come up with the list of my misleading and selective claims OR who the “we” is that knows of my vested interest OR indeed what my vested interest is? So now YOU listen up! You made these statements loud and clear with a huge dramatic flourish so if you’ve nothing to support these statements then do a passing impersonation of a man and admit as much. How you have the gall to question anyone’s credibility, however you’re spelling it, is frankly beyond me.
Re. my forecast of events in Iraq, yes it’s very depressing but it’s only my take on the matter. Very little I’ve read or seen makes me think that I’m hugely wide of the mark, but I’d be very happy to be proved wrong. I’m familiar with the other examples you gave and as you rightly say there are different circumstances and of course the motivations and MO of the US are quite distinct. If you read Matthew’s Guardian link on I think the Al-Queda thread, and the other story’s from yesterday in the Guardian sidebar, you’ll see that my fears of US plans rather chime with the views of the majority of people sampled.
Again Steve I’m almost entirely with you on your assessment of Empire. I agree that many Americans couldn’t care less about the outside world, as is their prerogative. The expansionist policy I’m thinking of is entirely on the military and commercial level. Secure political power bases and strategic military control, get them reliant/dependent on your weaponry, then you have control of the country’s infrastructure and utilities, and behind this vanguard big business can roll in, leaving no stone unturned, no domestic industry left untouched or market untapped. They can then build the business with loss leaders, avail of preferential tax breaks, minimal overheads, low labour costs, dominate the market, drive out, buy out or market out domestic producers and products. Why would the youth want to drink chai or a lassi when the kids in the advert are sipping a Coke, and it’s cheaper.
Yep, China within 50 years. I can tell you from first hand that a lot of people of all ages are still pissed at the British, the US and the French for what happened during the opium Wars and the ‘unequal treaties’ and that’s where the deep suspicion and coldness stems from even today. Once that Empire cranks up I think that the boot may well be on the other foot and our kids and grandkids are going to be getting a taste of the shitty stick, hopefully not as brutal as what some of our brethren in the Middle East are currently suffering, but it won’t be pretty. I’d dearly love to way off on this last one.
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by matthewr
Steve,
"I don't think that the USA really has a 'global expansionist strategy'"
The neocon foreign policy is to aim for "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the globe. That is to be militarily, economically and politically the single, overwhleming most dominant force in all strategicly releveant areas.
"far more in line with the British Empire, when we were the most powerful nation on Earth"
American Imperialism is *very* like British Imperialism in a) the initial economic dominance is soon indistinguishable and entwined with the military dominance that preserves it and b) both the Brits and America believe they were chosen by God and have some kind of special role in ruling and keeping order and enforcing morality in the world.
Of course America doesn't do quite so much actual explicit military conquering as the British Empire did, but if you look at how it's influence and control extends, how many military bases it has got and where it soon becomes obvious that depite the parochial outlook of most American citizens, the US is anything but isolationist.
Matthew
"I don't think that the USA really has a 'global expansionist strategy'"
The neocon foreign policy is to aim for "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the globe. That is to be militarily, economically and politically the single, overwhleming most dominant force in all strategicly releveant areas.
"far more in line with the British Empire, when we were the most powerful nation on Earth"
American Imperialism is *very* like British Imperialism in a) the initial economic dominance is soon indistinguishable and entwined with the military dominance that preserves it and b) both the Brits and America believe they were chosen by God and have some kind of special role in ruling and keeping order and enforcing morality in the world.
Of course America doesn't do quite so much actual explicit military conquering as the British Empire did, but if you look at how it's influence and control extends, how many military bases it has got and where it soon becomes obvious that depite the parochial outlook of most American citizens, the US is anything but isolationist.
Matthew
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Pathetic, I've been thinking about that little girl from Nottingham and her parents for the last few days, this thread is well over it's sell by date or was yer man a serious Mason, or WOT ? Cos I really cannie think of any other bloody treason fuckin air time,²simple iouit.
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by pingu
BrianD wrote "Can you please explain to me what you mean by the phrase, ‘left of field?’ I really have no idea what you mean."
Its a common expression often used in sports reporting for someone coming in from an unexpected angle.
On the other hand I interpret "Back on Track" as being from the same philosophical position as John Major's back to basics - ie people think they know what John Major meant because it sounded good, but it didn't actually mean anything without reference to what the "basics" were.
If we were talking about a derailed train I would know what you meant by "track". Since we're talking about a former British protectorate that has been run by a dictatorship for most of its independence I presume you mean - back to being a protectorate or back to being under Ba'ath party rule, since these are the only points in Iraq's "track" in living memory.
As regards your point about oil. Yes we use oil, but there is a difference between using oil and stealing oil. Or perhaps you think the purpose of being a super power is only to secure oil for the Super Power and its allies.
By they way its not just me that thinks this way. Having been on the march against the war I am aware that the majority of British people were against the war, and everyone on the security council was against the war except UK and USA governments, so I think your view is rather in the minority.
Cheers
cj
Its a common expression often used in sports reporting for someone coming in from an unexpected angle.
On the other hand I interpret "Back on Track" as being from the same philosophical position as John Major's back to basics - ie people think they know what John Major meant because it sounded good, but it didn't actually mean anything without reference to what the "basics" were.
If we were talking about a derailed train I would know what you meant by "track". Since we're talking about a former British protectorate that has been run by a dictatorship for most of its independence I presume you mean - back to being a protectorate or back to being under Ba'ath party rule, since these are the only points in Iraq's "track" in living memory.
As regards your point about oil. Yes we use oil, but there is a difference between using oil and stealing oil. Or perhaps you think the purpose of being a super power is only to secure oil for the Super Power and its allies.
By they way its not just me that thinks this way. Having been on the march against the war I am aware that the majority of British people were against the war, and everyone on the security council was against the war except UK and USA governments, so I think your view is rather in the minority.
Cheers
cj
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
... Come to think of it, in the history of civilisation, has there ever been a nation in the position of having the most powerful military and most successful economy on the planet which has done much better?
Matthew, bigmick, et al,
Now admittedly my last post was made late on a Friday and was, to an extent, oiled by alcohol. However, I believe that the question above is relevant. I'm not a historian but does anyone have an answer to this?
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Pathetic, I've been thinking about that little girl from Nottingham and her parents for the last few days, this thread is well over it's sell by date or was yer man a serious Mason, or WOT ? Cos I really cannie think of any other bloody treason fuckin air time,²simple iouit.
Fritz,
The Ken Bigley thread is still active because of the interest in the issues surrounding his murder. The continuation of the discussion does not diminish the tragedy of the, apparently motiveless, shooting of Danielle Beccan or her memory.
Steve M
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by BrianD
Mick
Here's a question for you that will help me understand your position on what you and Don are bickering over.
Here's a scenario....
A pilot of an aircraft has a *legitimate* target (*See end of post for definition), attacks this legitimate target but misses, hitting a school instead. Consequently lots of innocent children are killed accidentally. Are you saying that this is no different to a terrorist blowing up dozens of people (children too) in a busy shopping centre in a carefully calculated, deliberate act? I really hope you are not saying this because there is a quite massive difference imo.
However, if said pilot was found to have deliberately 'missed' his/her target, hitting the school deliberately, I would expect him/her to be charged with murder. Plain and simple as that. In the case of the terrorist in the shopping centre, if this was a remote bomb and not a suicide effort, they'd be applauded for their efforts at killing a group of innocent people deliberately.
*Legitimate*
I am speaking generally here, not in particular about Iraq. What I mean by legitimate is where a conflict is underway and there is a building known to be a terrorist hideout or whatever, hence it is a legitmate military target, whereas a hospital full of children is not a legitimate target of any kind and never would be. I hope that's clear to everyone and that people don't make an issue of whether the activities in Iraq are 'legitimate' or not. In the context of my question I shouldn't have to write all this, but somehow I feel I must.
Here's a question for you that will help me understand your position on what you and Don are bickering over.
Here's a scenario....
A pilot of an aircraft has a *legitimate* target (*See end of post for definition), attacks this legitimate target but misses, hitting a school instead. Consequently lots of innocent children are killed accidentally. Are you saying that this is no different to a terrorist blowing up dozens of people (children too) in a busy shopping centre in a carefully calculated, deliberate act? I really hope you are not saying this because there is a quite massive difference imo.
However, if said pilot was found to have deliberately 'missed' his/her target, hitting the school deliberately, I would expect him/her to be charged with murder. Plain and simple as that. In the case of the terrorist in the shopping centre, if this was a remote bomb and not a suicide effort, they'd be applauded for their efforts at killing a group of innocent people deliberately.
*Legitimate*
I am speaking generally here, not in particular about Iraq. What I mean by legitimate is where a conflict is underway and there is a building known to be a terrorist hideout or whatever, hence it is a legitmate military target, whereas a hospital full of children is not a legitimate target of any kind and never would be. I hope that's clear to everyone and that people don't make an issue of whether the activities in Iraq are 'legitimate' or not. In the context of my question I shouldn't have to write all this, but somehow I feel I must.
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by pingu:
... By they way its not just me that thinks this way. Having been on the march against the war I am aware that the majority of British people were against the war, and everyone on the security council was against the war except UK and USA governments, so I think your view is rather in the minority.
Chris,
I would like to take issue with your statement above. Just because a view is in the minority does not necessarily make it wrong, either factually, ethically or morally. This is not to say that the war was either justified or unjustified.
Does anyone remember that American television programme of many years ago which started by saying that democracy was a terrible form of government but that the others were far worse (or something like that)? I agree with that. The 'will of the people' may often be the most reliable guide to the rights and wrongs of an action. Sometimes, however, it's just plain wrong.
'Left of field', 'right of field', 'on track', 'off track' - shouldn't you boys take this discussion to the 'Beckham' thread?
Steve M
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by BrianD
Pingu
So, you don't agree that 'back on track' means...
"In general terms, back on track can be taken as when something, or somebody suffering hard times comes through that period, things are improving or improved."
...I think this is a valid meaning and can be understood by everyone. You think it means something to do with trains and John Major. Fine.
Are we stealing oil? I thought the price of oil had gone up lately, and that since there has been an impact from this price rise, I had the idea we were buying the stuff.
How arrogant. Just because YOU were on a march does not mean that the majority of British people were against the war. I don't know a single individual who was against the removal of Saddam Hussein, that does not make me arrogant enough to believe that everyone wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein. You go on a march and somehow you believe that because there were a lot of other people on this march that this means the majority agree with you. How do you work that out?
Even IF this was the majority thought, so what? Are you telling me I am not entitled to a different opinion to that of the majority?
So, you don't agree that 'back on track' means...
"In general terms, back on track can be taken as when something, or somebody suffering hard times comes through that period, things are improving or improved."
...I think this is a valid meaning and can be understood by everyone. You think it means something to do with trains and John Major. Fine.
quote:
As regards your point about oil. Yes we use oil, but there is a difference between using oil and stealing oil.
Are we stealing oil? I thought the price of oil had gone up lately, and that since there has been an impact from this price rise, I had the idea we were buying the stuff.
quote:
By they way its not just me that thinks this way. Having been on the march against the war I am aware that the majority of British people were against the war, and everyone on the security council was against the war except UK and USA governments, so I think your view is rather in the minority.
How arrogant. Just because YOU were on a march does not mean that the majority of British people were against the war. I don't know a single individual who was against the removal of Saddam Hussein, that does not make me arrogant enough to believe that everyone wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein. You go on a march and somehow you believe that because there were a lot of other people on this march that this means the majority agree with you. How do you work that out?
Even IF this was the majority thought, so what? Are you telling me I am not entitled to a different opinion to that of the majority?
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by pingu
BrianD wrote this "How arrogant. Just because YOU were on a march does not mean that the majority of British people were against the war. I don't know a single individual who was against the removal of Saddam Hussein, that does not make me arrogant enough to believe that everyone wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein. You go on a march and somehow you believe that because there were a lot of other people on this march that this means the majority agree with you. How do you work that out?"
I think you're being disingenuous here. At no stage have I said that the majority of British people didn't want the removal of Saddam Hussain. The majority of people (from polls taken at the time of the march in London that 1 million people went on) were against a war with Iraq. I presume you can name at least one person that you know or have heard speak with the same view as me. Robin Cook for instance.
I think you're being disingenuous here. At no stage have I said that the majority of British people didn't want the removal of Saddam Hussain. The majority of people (from polls taken at the time of the march in London that 1 million people went on) were against a war with Iraq. I presume you can name at least one person that you know or have heard speak with the same view as me. Robin Cook for instance.
Posted on: 16 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
... Come to think of it, in the history of civilisation, has there ever been a nation in the position of having the most powerful military and most successful economy on the planet which has done much better?
Matthew, bigmick, et al,
Now admittedly my last post was made late on a Friday and was, to an extent, oiled by alcohol. However, I believe that the question above is relevant. I'm not a historian but does anyone have an answer to this?quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Pathetic, I've been thinking about that little girl from Nottingham and her parents for the last few days, this thread is well over it's sell by date or was yer man a serious Mason, or WOT ? Cos I really cannie think of any other bloody treason fuckin air time,²simple iouit.
Fritz,
The Ken Bigley thread is still active because of the interest in the issues surrounding his murder. The continuation of the discussion does not diminish the tragedy of the, apparently motiveless, shooting of Danielle Beccan or her memory.
Steve M
I'm now very well used to the Robinson/Parry-esque Patronising menatality thank you very much if indeed you are not he ? The issues surrounding this case are in your head and the imaginings of this forum, you associate situations that are totally devoid of logic and in reality The Black Watch will carry out the Prime Ministers desires & whims in Iraq not you or I.
G.G.v. Bewgginyourhumbleguvnorduffinmycap² Get real
N.B. Without an EGO you're never born and subsequently can never die, innit !