George Galloway blasts the Senate

Whooda you know nothing about terrorism. We have lived with American funded IRA freedom fighters turned terrorists turned gangsters turned politicians for 30+ years. You know what its like when you cant get an ambulance because every emergency vehicle in the vicinity has been diverted to (yet another) bomb scare?
When the Tube stops mid tunnel and no one seems to own that bag? When prominent figures are assasinated, and conversely when the SAS gun down an IRA sleeper cell and everyone is supposed to be pleased and you just feel sick but can't say so? It went on and on.
Now I'm saying no more on this but I expect no more patronising and frankly insulting comments from you about us living our cozy little lives over here.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

If you want to now argue that worse things than Gitmo happened during WWII, I'm not sure of the benefit of that. Should we be pleased?

It shows how far standards have dropped, doesn't it. Who would have thought, two years ago, we would be comparing the Bush administration with the Nazis, and the US Army with the Imperial Japanese Army, 1940 and looking for comfort in the comparison.

"At least we're not as bad as these guys" is morally bereft.

Standards have indeed dropped a great deal. Far more media and public attention is given to loud noise and the like inflicted on prisoners in Gitmo than on hostage decapitations published on the web, terror bombings of civilians in Iraq, etc. Just decades after themselves (in Northern Ireland) systematically employing far worse versions of the anti terror methods we are using now, some British figures (and posters) rise up in self-righteous and hypocritical indignation, and even have the blind audacity to compare us with the Nazi and Imperial Japanese forces - from which we rescued their miserable asses a generation ago.

I agree, standards have fallen very far.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Pic of Despres. Whatcha think Whooda? Alfalfa or Jennifer Wilbanks' brother?

He should have been arrested for that hair cut alone LOL.

What's sad is this doesn't surprise me. Doesn't surprise me at all.

JW: I think the final paragraph of that article might explain a lot:

"Fulton's friends in Minto, a village of 2,700 people, told the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal that he was a popular musician, a guitarist known as the "Chet Atkins of Minto" and a 2001 inductee in the Minto Country Music Wall of Fame."

Too bad Depres didn't just board a plane to Britain. From the sounds of things here, the Europeans would have been much more sensitive to his wants and needs ... maybe even help him embrace his inner chainsaw-massacring little boy.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

This argument has shifted a bit, has it not. I was commenting on the extreme tastelessness of comparing a detention camp to a boy's school. Not a very good joke.
If you want to now argue that worse things than Gitmo happened during WWII, I'm not sure of the benefit of that. Should we be pleased?

It shows how far standards have dropped, doesn't it. Who would have thought, two years ago, we would be comparing the Bush administration with the Nazis, and the US Army with the Imperial Japanese Army, 1940 and looking for comfort in the comparison.

"At least we're not as bad as these guys" is morally bereft.

Nice try at deflecting the glaring light, McTag, but it won't work. The spotlight's on you and those like you who maintain the "abuses" at Gitmo are heinous crimes. They're nothing of the kind and you know it. Guantanamo is not "the gulag of our time" no matter how many fictional Newsweek articles get written or how many drops of urine are alleged to have spattered on a book in the Caribbean.

What's truly "tasteless" is when armchair admirals such as yourself feign shock and dismay over that which you know is not true, at least not true to the extent you maintain.

Indeed, standards have fallen and they are on the floor about you.

Why is that, McTag?

0 Replies

Whooda - in fairness, Amnesty International withdrew the "gulag" analogy after it got swamped with testimonials from the real gulag under the communists; even the Russians admit they killed about 60 million people between 1917 and the late 1980s in those horrendous camps.

0 Replies

I don't think that "withdrawing" the analogy in any way absolves Amnest International from the contempt it has earned. NGOs are getting too big for their ovn good. It is time for people, and governments, to regognize NGOs are not elected by anyone. They are private associations, accountab;e only to themselves. They have no inherent moral or political authority. Certainly Amnesty International deserves nothing from us, though it presumes to speak for God.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Whooda - in fairness, Amnesty International withdrew the "gulag" analogy after it got swamped with testimonials from the real gulag under the communists; even the Russians admit they killed about 60 million people between 1917 and the late 1980s in those horrendous camps.

As they well should have, Helen.

But I'll wager the decision had less to do with changed minds at AI than it did with a close review of the nationality of its donor members.

The highest of principles seem to ebb and flow with the current of money.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Whooda you know nothing about terrorism. We have lived with American funded IRA freedom fighters turned terrorists turned gangsters turned politicians for 30+ years. You know what its like when you cant get an ambulance because every emergency vehicle in the vicinity has been diverted to (yet another) bomb scare?
When the Tube stops mid tunnel and no one seems to own that bag? When prominent figures are assasinated, and conversely when the SAS gun down an IRA sleeper cell and everyone is supposed to be pleased and you just feel sick but can't say so? It went on and on.
Now I'm saying no more on this but I expect no more patronising and frankly insulting comments from you about us living our cozy little lives over here.

Steve (as41oo):

As you know, I rarely dignify your goading come-on's ("... Give us you pearls of wisdom on this point") with a reply and the few posts I send your way are usually gasps of exasperation such as when you and your cohorts engage in the evisceration of A2K newcomers who break from the liberal lockstep:
( http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1400394#1400394 ).

But in this case I'll make an exception.

Let me begin by saying that until the regrettable day on which I become your sniveling manservant, I shall continue to post my opinions on any variety of subjects regardless of whether you consider them "patronising and frankly insulting" or not. The fact remains you have no authority in that realm and even less credibility when it comes to the subject of what is and is not patronizing and insulting. Having said that, please cease and desist and stop wasting valuable internet ether in the process.

Moving on ...

At another point, possibly another thread, in which someone was disparaging the Bush administration over the Patriot Act, I asked the Brits on the thread (you, McT, JTT, whoever ... all you white Christian Brits are beginning to blur :wink: ) what measures were taken to thwart the activities of the IRA in the UK in past decades. I was assured that any legislative actions were minimal, that those which were implemented were quickly dropped, and the overall impression was that life continued quite smoothly despite the IRA threat. Now, you make it sound as if you were living in Tora Bora. Which is it? Or does it depend on the tone of the conversation to properly jog one's memory?

Regardless ...

The point is that the passion is evident in your recollections of those years, and unless Irish Republicans or Islamic Fundamentalists are currently expressing even passing interest in your bridges, dams, nuclear facilities, and malls, then ... yes ... you are living cozy, insulated lives and have no business criticizing the actions of another government which has been forced to take extreme measures to protect its citizens. It would be my opinion that your government failed you miserably if it did little or nothing to defend you in the situations you describe simply in the interest of not compromising civil liberties.

Extreme times require extreme measures, and few here are happy about the steps we have been forced to implement in this country to protect ourselves against those who would maim or kill us.

Certainly, the Guantanamo detainees and their lack of creature comforts are at the bottom of my list of reasons to lose sleep.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

... We have lived with American funded IRA freedom fighters turned terrorists turned gangsters turned politicians for 30+ years...

And Steve ... one final point ... as you have gone so far as to note the IRA terrorists were "American-funded," why not be even more specific and mention the lurid rumor of which prominent Boston liberal political dynasty has contributed to that funding? Embarrassed

Isn't it getting mighty drafty in that glass house of yours?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think that "withdrawing" the analogy in any way absolves Amnest International from the contempt it has earned. NGOs are getting too big for their ovn good. It is time for people, and governments, to regognize NGOs are not elected by anyone. They are private associations, accountab;e only to themselves. They have no inherent moral or political authority. Certainly Amnesty International deserves nothing from us, though it presumes to speak for God.

To be accurate here (if changing the existing tenor doesn't violate a thread rule) it is really Pat Robertson, the Pope, Osama bin Laden, James Dobson, the Dalai Lama, the guy with those really big eyes yelling on the corner of Lexington and 73rd, and President Bush who presume to speak for god (who shall remain uncapitalized until he joins the navy).

As to 'earned contempt'

Quote:

In the past week, traffic on Amnesty's Web site has gone up sixfold, donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled.

link

True, NGOs are not elected by anyone (other than officials by their members). But of course, neither are the military, business entities, almost everyone who works in your President's staff, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, the police, the fire department, anyone and everyone in the American Enterprise Institute, Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill O'Reilly, oil industry waterboy Scott McCallum, Desmund Tutu, and the grocer who supplied the fruit assortments for Carmen Miranda's hats.

As to 'no inherent moral authority', that's true too. Which makes Amnesty International, you, me, and everyone else under the sun, moon, and stars all members of the same club.

0 Replies

I have to object to your accusation that the Dalai Lama presumes to speak for god.

0 Replies

LOL...sharp boy. Your objections is really quite valid but I figured it would slip by in this neighborhood. Let's replace the good fellow with, say, Jerry Falwell.

0 Replies

"Let me begin by saying that until the regrettable day on which I become your sniveling manservant,"

Are you not confusing me with my good friend the Hon. Lord Ellpus? My senior butler informs me we are in no need of further household staff at the moment, and I hardly think you would be suitable for the position.
------------------------------------------------

"you and your cohorts engage in the evisceration of A2K newcomers who break from the liberal lockstep: "

Setanta did a splendid job of taking apart The Golden Phallanx's silly arguments, which besides being full of factual error and appalling grammar contained numerous direct insults which were unbecoming from someone who had only just joined a2k. On re reading his posts I agreed with Setanta that this young man was probably spouting forth from neo-nazi propaganda. Setanta wanted to poke him a bit more, but now you mention it evisceration isnt a bad idea.
-------------------------------------------------

"the overall impression was that life continued quite smoothly despite the IRA threat. Now, you make it sound as if you were living in Tora Bora."

It was a constant low level back ground threat with occasional sharp spikes but which went on for many years. Most of the time you just forgot about it until something happened. It was much much worse in N Ireland itself. I took exception to your comments about us Europeans living cozy little lives thousands of miles away from the US threatened by Islamist extremists.
---------------------------------------------------

"The point is that the passion is evident in your recollections of those years, and unless Irish Republicans or Islamic Fundamentalists are currently expressing even passing interest in your bridges, dams, nuclear facilities, and malls, then ... yes ... you are living cozy, insulated lives and have no business criticizing the actions of another government which has been forced to take extreme measures to protect its citizens. It would be my opinion that your government failed you miserably if it did little or nothing to defend you in the situations you describe simply in the interest of not compromising civil liberties. "

This just illustrates that imo, you have no idea about urban terrorism, its causes, affects, political dimension nor how to counter it.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, are rallying calls for bin Laden. You're making the situation it worse. Why?

Kennedy dynasty? Are you seriously suggesting that because they were Democrats, and you put me in the same category of "liberal" then well then what? No idea what you are on about.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

True, NGOs are not elected by anyone (other than officials by their members). But of course, neither are the military, business entities, almost everyone who works in your President's staff, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, the police, the fire department, anyone and everyone in the American Enterprise Institute, Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill O'Reilly, oil industry waterboy Scott McCallum, Desmund Tutu, and the grocer who supplied the fruit assortments for Carmen Miranda's hats.

As to 'no inherent moral authority', that's true too. Which makes Amnesty International, you, me, and everyone else under the sun, moon, and stars all members of the same club.

An ordinary guy would simply say "I agree". Blatham. however tags on enough qualifiers to drain all the satisfaction out of it . I will qualify that anyone in a position of dorect accountability to elected officials does indeed have more right to speak with publicly-conferred authority than the rest of us slobs. The essential point remains - Amnesty international speaks with no more authority than (say) Bill O'Reilly.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
If you want to now argue that worse things than Gitmo happened during WWII, I'm not sure of the benefit of that. Should we be pleased?

It shows how far standards have dropped, doesn't it. Who would have thought, two years ago, we would be comparing the Bush administration with the Nazis, and the US Army with the Imperial Japanese Army, 1940 and looking for comfort in the comparison.

"At least we're not as bad as these guys" is morally bereft.

Standards have indeed dropped a great deal. Far more media and public attention is given to loud noise and the like inflicted on prisoners in Gitmo than on hostage decapitations published on the web, terror bombings of civilians in Iraq, etc. Just decades after themselves (in Northern Ireland) systematically employing far worse versions of the anti terror methods we are using now, some British figures (and posters) rise up in self-righteous and hypocritical indignation, and even have the blind audacity to compare us with the Nazi and Imperial Japanese forces - from which we rescued their miserable asses a generation ago.

I agree, standards have fallen very far.

My ass is not miserable, my ass is quite happy thanks.

I know I have made a telling point when George starts bringing up the big favour the US did us a generation ago.

Altruism there certainly played a part, and I have no wish to decry any of the good done then, but if we had not bled our country white waiting for you guys to arrive, and boldly embarked from a disadvantageous position on a war which rescued the American economy, the outcome would have been different. The landings would have been very tricky, probably not attempted at all. I am reluctant to allow Gen Eisenhower all the credit. I know most Americans are unaware there was anyone else in the war.

And by the way, the comparison you are complaining about here was not made by me, but was implied in that scurrilous article which Whooda posted, if memory serves correctly.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

What's truly "tasteless" is when armchair admirals such as yourself feign shock and dismay over that which you know is not true, at least not true to the extent you maintain.

Indeed, standards have fallen and they are on the floor about you.

Why is that, McTag?

There's so much blustering right-wing bollocks on this page I don't know where to start. I have neither the time nor the patience to start to unpick it.

Taking one point: I think, contrary to the statement above, things (conditions and behaviour of gaolers in detention facilities, behaviour of troops on the ground, outrages against civilians etc) are much worse than we can know here...we get very filtered, one-sided, managed news.

Only GIs who were dumb enough to photograph what they were doing, hit the headlines and received the censure they deserved.
You assume everyone else is behaving properly.
I assume something different.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

[
Altruism there certainly played a part, and I have no wish to decry any of the good done then, but if we had not bled our country white waiting for you guys to arrive, and boldly embarked from a disadvantageous position on a war which rescued the American economy, the outcome would have been different. The landings would have been very tricky, probably not attempted at all. I am reluctant to allow Gen Eisenhower all the credit. I know most Americans are unaware there was anyone else in the war.

Not true. The "smart' strategic play for the United States in 1941 would have been to focus on Japan and let Europe go. We are more a Pacific power than an Atlantic one anyway. Certainly by the time Hitler attacked the USSR it was possible to conclude that he would ultimately lose. England would have survived (but with difficulty) and the continental tyrants could waste themselves fighting each other to exhaustion, while the United States lifted its economy in an all-out war against Japan, both across the pacific island chains and in China. This strategy was seriously advocated then by the "America First" organization. Roosevelt chose to subordinate our natural interests to the bonds of a relationship with the UK. This story is well documented in the historical record

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

What's truly "tasteless" is when armchair admirals such as yourself feign shock and dismay over that which you know is not true, at least not true to the extent you maintain.

Indeed, standards have fallen and they are on the floor about you.

Why is that, McTag?

There's so much blustering right-wing bollocks on this page I don't know where to start. I have neither the time nor the patience to start to unpick it.

Taking one point: I think, contrary to the statement above, things (conditions and behaviour of gaolers in detention facilities, behaviour of troops on the ground, outrages against civilians etc) are much worse than we can know here...we get very filtered, one-sided, managed news.

Only GIs who were dumb enough to photograph what they were doing, hit the headlines and received the censure they deserved.
You assume everyone else is behaving properly.
I assume something different.

Your stock reply, McTag, when confronted with reality: things are much worse than we know, your media twist the facts, anyone who disagrees with me is morally bereft. Rolling Eyes

Baloney.

As for the "dumb GI's" you mention, sure, they made mistakes and paid the price, but at least they have the bollocks to perform a thankless job despite the constant carping of bollock-less armchair admirals here and in the cozy, safe confines of far-off countries.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Your objections is really quite valid but I figured it would slip by in this neighborhood.

Yet another legend in his own mind.

0 Replies

Quote:

...anyone in a position of direct accountability to elected officials does indeed have more right to speak with publicly-conferred authority than the rest of us slobs.

george

I'm not sure this is coherent. Perhaps there's a bit of a mix here in different species of 'authority'...political authority, moral authority and authority in the sense of possessing knowledge. And you also bring in the aspect of speech 'right(s)', perhaps not the best word.

Surely, the only senior 'authority' an elected official (or his agents) might validly claim would be legislative - laws, procedures, etc. - dominance in bossness, if you will. But the other species of 'authority' don't arise here. An elected official has no particular moral authority simply as a consequence of his election, nor is he likely to become any smarter or more knowledeable except in specific, limited ways (he learns about foreign affairs, say, or he gains uniquely priviledged information).

Even in this last instance, we cannot validly grant (nor can he claim) to have authority such that his statements ought to be given more credence than others who aren't elected. Nixon, Meese, Liddy, and Chuck Coulson versus The Washington Post, to take a case near and dear. Credibility doesn't blossom from out of an election result (even if the fertilizing agent is abundant).

And adding in the notion of speech 'right(s)' here gets close to some claim that elected politicians and their agents somehow possess more 'right' to talk to citizens than those who are unelected. There's a downright naughty idea.

0 Replies

George Galloway blasts the Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know