Some might point out (not me) that the policies are different, but the result is the same.
It is a fair argument.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
It does not ignore the intent of the actor. "...policies are different..." means that there is an understanding that the intent of each actor is different.
Just because the argument is fair, does not mean we need to embrace it, or even that the point is correct.
I can agree with that. But strictly focusing on intent, IMO, is some dangerous shit ("the means justify the end"). As an innocent civilian will you take solace in the fact that the rocket that destroyed you was, in fact, aimed at the bad guys? In one way, the end result is all that matters.
And Bon Vivant, you just compared killing people with moving people out of a village. That is, as rootless would point out, absurd.
Nah dude, there is a new updated Blair version on the Atlantic label....gives a shout out to all the countries that have Brit soldiers on the ground.
b/w
I have heard Lil' Kim Jong Ill is a big Man U fan
Just wanted to say I've been unable to listen to this yet! Poor bandwidth at home issues...
But your point about Blair having commisioned a UK version is totally valid. Not sure it would be as triumphant in tone - it might ditch guitars and vocals altogether for the latest 'bass music' sounds that the kids are down with.
Blair having commisioned a UK version is totally valid. Not sure it would be as triumphant in tone - it might ditch guitars and vocals altogether for the latest 'bass music' sounds that the kids are down with.
I have it on a picture disc, done as an RAF Roundel. It has a spoken-word intro by Liam Gallagher over the Thunderbirds march, namechecking British institutions such as "ahRrrry-beee-noh" and "Thee Aven-jozzz" before merging into a pounding house tune made from out-takes from "Born Slippy" w. piano from Jools Holland (featuring rappse from So Solid Crew members, talmbout "We red white and blue but nevah f*ckin' yellow, Gylles Brandreth kick your head in, Jamie Oliver salmo-nellaaahhh") fading out with the maniacal laughter of Joanna Lumley in an echo chamber.
I have seen the enemy. And it is dangerously facile comparisons..
[z_illa]I would not beat back an attacking horde of five year olds. Responding to brutality with brutality is barbaric.[/z_illa]
Great argument dude.
Just busting your balls. Despite out recent dust up, you seem like a good enough guy. A bit too idealistic, but so were most of us at some point.
Just so we're clear here i wouldn't hesitate for a second to kick the shit out of you and a hoard of your friends. There is a huge difference to me between what a government does and what an individual does. I think it is right to hold government to a much higher standard. Or at least the well documented standard of our laws and treaties.
Way to slap the hand that holds the olive branch. Just to be clear: fuck you. Making physical threats on the internet is the height of softbatch bullshit. If you want to take a real-life poke at me, I live on the corner of Ditmars Boulevard and 37th Street in Astoria, Queens. I will gladly receive you.
[strike]I'd heard that hackey-sack was a dangerous sport, but I thought this was an exaggeration.[/strike]
Sorry for the attempted humour. But seriously, stay away from Hackey Sack.
Do you guys have dirty hippies who play hackeysack in the UK? I always thought of it as a quintessentially American follishness.
It's definitely played by 'alternative' types. I guess it appeals to those that don't go in for football (soccer), but want to be able to do something on a University campus/park that is vaguely showing off physical prowess to the opposite sex. Takraw on the other hand really does look hardcore.
Some might point out (not me) that the policies are different, but the result is the same.
It is a fair argument.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
It does not ignore the intent of the actor. "...policies are different..." means that there is an understanding that the intent of each actor is different.
Just because the argument is fair, does not mean we need to embrace it, or even that the point is correct.
I can agree with that. But strictly focusing on intent, IMO, is some dangerous shit ("the means justify the end"). As an innocent civilian will you take solace in the fact that the rocket that destroyed you was, in fact, aimed at the bad guys? In one way, the end result is all that matters.
And Bon Vivant, you just compared killing people with moving people out of a village. That is, as rootless would point out, absurd.
I was just fleshing out dude's "policies are different/ results are the same" argument. Maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought?
Also, I never said focus "only" on intent. But you can't ignore it. As to your innocent cilvian scenario, as rootless would point out, that's absurd. Dead civilians don't have feelings to enable them to find "solace" in anything. They're dead. The family members that are alive may take solace in the fact the person died accidentally and wasn't murdered, yes. If you don't think that losing someone accidentally is different than losing someone by cold blooded murder at the hands of another, I don't know what to tell you.
Some might point out (not me) that the policies are different, but the result is the same.
It is a fair argument.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
It does not ignore the intent of the actor. "...policies are different..." means that there is an understanding that the intent of each actor is different.
Just because the argument is fair, does not mean we need to embrace it, or even that the point is correct.
I can agree with that. But strictly focusing on intent, IMO, is some dangerous shit ("the means justify the end"). As an innocent civilian will you take solace in the fact that the rocket that destroyed you was, in fact, aimed at the bad guys? In one way, the end result is all that matters.
And Bon Vivant, you just compared killing people with moving people out of a village. That is, as rootless would point out, absurd.
I was just fleshing out dude's "policies are different/ results are the same" argument. Maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought?
Also, I never said focus "only" on intent. But you can't ignore it. As to your innocent cilvian scenario, as rootless would point out, that's absurd. Dead civilians don't have feelings to enable them to find "solace" in anything. They're dead. The family members that are alive may take solace in the fact the person died accidentally and wasn't murdered, yes. If you don't think that losing someone accidentally is different than losing someone by cold blooded murder at the hands of another, I don't know what to tell you.
No.
I suggest you consider there is nothing "accidental" about foreign invasions/occupations. What the US, Canada, Britain, etc., etc,. are doing in the Middle East is very much murder.
If it's war, all the fighters are soldiers.
If it's unreasonable acts of aggression, all the fighters are terrorists.
I am not a fan of the double standard or the blind acceptance.
Just because one relates more to one side than the other doesn't make it unquestionably right or forgivable.
As to your innocent cilvian scenario, as rootless would point out, that's absurd. Dead civilians don't have feelings to enable them to find "solace" in anything. They're dead.
That was my point, actually. A dead person doesn't care about supposedly noble "intent."
ever read an interview with osama? (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to me, thanks)
ever read an interview with osama? (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to me, thanks)
1st there is a video where bin Laden does say he helped plan the 9/11 attack
2nd root in that piece bin Laden said that the US was indifferent in Bosnia. He probabaly meant that the US stood by during much of the ethnic cleansing there.
the US saved countless muslims through its aid to bosnian forces, its negotiation of the dayton accords, and then thru NATO's bombing the shit out of the serb forces in kosovo. bin laden on some BS as usual.
the US saved countless muslims through its aid to bosnian forces, its negotiation of the dayton accords, and then thru NATO's bombing the shit out of the serb forces in kosovo. bin laden on some BS as usual.
The US had to be dragged into that conflict. It was only when Tony Blair said that the UK would go it alone if Clinton wasn't interested (and I guess the idea of being out 'world-policed' by some Euromang) that the US got involved.
the US saved countless muslims through its aid to bosnian forces, its negotiation of the dayton accords, and then thru NATO's bombing the shit out of the serb forces in kosovo. bin laden on some BS as usual.
The US had to be dragged into that conflict. It was only when Tony Blair said that the UK would go it alone if Clinton wasn't interested (and I guess the idea of being out 'world-policed' by some Euromang) that the US got involved.
All the NATO countries held back longer than they should have in Bosnia. Although the US didn't rush to intervene that was a political decision - US military advisers on the ground urged action fairly early on, I seem to recall.
the US saved countless muslims through its aid to bosnian forces, its negotiation of the dayton accords, and then thru NATO's bombing the shit out of the serb forces in kosovo. bin laden on some BS as usual.
The US had to be dragged into that conflict. It was only when Tony Blair said that the UK would go it alone if Clinton wasn't interested (and I guess the idea of being out 'world-policed' by some Euromang) that the US got involved.
All the NATO countries held back longer than they should have in Bosnia. Although the US didn't rush to intervene that was a political decision - US military advisers on the ground urged action fairly early on, I seem to recall.
There was a recent documentary on Briddish tv about Tony Blair. The main topic was about whether or not he should be tried in the UK for war crimes, or for lying to the public, and his piss-poor legacy regarding the erosion of civil rights (War-On-Terror-R), economic problems etc.
This wasn't a fawning piece by any means.
However, one thing even his harshest detractors (and they had interviews with lots of top bods from both sides of the Atlantic) were happy to agree on was that with Bosnia he did get it right, and from the start it was Blair that pushed for action. Clinton had no interest in it. Not many European countries did. The doc rightly questioned the motive. Did Blair merely see this as his first chance to get stuck in? Was this about bolstering public opinion? At that time, before Iraq, he was still a media darling, and saviour of the country from the evil Tory scum, so his motives were probably fairly honest; a destabilising conflict with massive civilian casualties on Europe's doorstep couldn't be allowed to continue.
I'm not saying any of this as some kind of UK-is-better-than-US thing, or because I'm trying to weigh in on whatever argument OBL was making (haven't and won't read that article). I don't think any hesitation from the US would've been based on religious grounds or location of the conflict - Clinton's America just didn't throw troops around as much as the George Dubya Bush regime(s) did.
EDIT: if there was much more to why the US hesitated, this doc didn't mention it. Paging Motown67?
Comments
I can agree with that. But strictly focusing on intent, IMO, is some dangerous shit ("the means justify the end"). As an innocent civilian will you take solace in the fact that the rocket that destroyed you was, in fact, aimed at the bad guys? In one way, the end result is all that matters.
And Bon Vivant, you just compared killing people with moving people out of a village. That is, as rootless would point out, absurd.
Depleted Uranium. It's not just for X-Mas.
Just wanted to say I've been unable to listen to this yet! Poor bandwidth at home issues...
But your point about Blair having commisioned a UK version is totally valid. Not sure it would be as triumphant in tone - it might ditch guitars and vocals altogether for the latest 'bass music' sounds that the kids are down with.
I have it on a picture disc, done as an RAF Roundel. It has a spoken-word intro by Liam Gallagher over the Thunderbirds march, namechecking British institutions such as "ahRrrry-beee-noh" and "Thee Aven-jozzz" before merging into a pounding house tune made from out-takes from "Born Slippy" w. piano from Jools Holland (featuring rappse from So Solid Crew members, talmbout "We red white and blue but nevah f*ckin' yellow, Gylles Brandreth kick your head in, Jamie Oliver salmo-nellaaahhh") fading out with the maniacal laughter of Joanna Lumley in an echo chamber.
No, not on popsike.
Way to slap the hand that holds the olive branch. Just to be clear: fuck you. Making physical threats on the internet is the height of softbatch bullshit. If you want to take a real-life poke at me, I live on the corner of Ditmars Boulevard and 37th Street in Astoria, Queens. I will gladly receive you.
You:
Me:
I didn't get that crooked nose in a tickle fight.
Is this for real?
It's like pulling back the curtain in Oz expecting to see Fred Williamson only to be greeted by Harry Potter's nerdy brother.
Yikes.
Pulled from his own post in the Prop 1 thread. You can't make stuff like that up.
[strike]I'd heard that hackey-sack was a dangerous sport, but I thought this was an exaggeration.[/strike]
Sorry for the attempted humour. But seriously, stay away from Hackey Sack.
Do you guys have dirty hippies who play hackeysack in the UK? I always thought of it as a quintessentially American follishness.
It's definitely played by 'alternative' types. I guess it appeals to those that don't go in for football (soccer), but want to be able to do something on a University campus/park that is vaguely showing off physical prowess to the opposite sex. Takraw on the other hand really does look hardcore.
It actually cost over a million dollars to put that azalea garden together. People seem to love it though.
I was just fleshing out dude's "policies are different/ results are the same" argument. Maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought?
Also, I never said focus "only" on intent. But you can't ignore it. As to your innocent cilvian scenario, as rootless would point out, that's absurd. Dead civilians don't have feelings to enable them to find "solace" in anything. They're dead. The family members that are alive may take solace in the fact the person died accidentally and wasn't murdered, yes. If you don't think that losing someone accidentally is different than losing someone by cold blooded murder at the hands of another, I don't know what to tell you.
Not the country that has already resorted to using them.
No.
I suggest you consider there is nothing "accidental" about foreign invasions/occupations. What the US, Canada, Britain, etc., etc,. are doing in the Middle East is very much murder.
If it's war, all the fighters are soldiers.
If it's unreasonable acts of aggression, all the fighters are terrorists.
I am not a fan of the double standard or the blind acceptance.
Just because one relates more to one side than the other doesn't make it unquestionably right or forgivable.
Ayo?
That was my point, actually. A dead person doesn't care about supposedly noble "intent."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/bin-laden-the-vindicator/
I'll never understand folks who call the US anti-Muslim and cite as an example...Bosnia.
bin Laden doesn't come across as very bright in that article.
2nd root in that piece bin Laden said that the US was indifferent in Bosnia. He probabaly meant that the US stood by during much of the ethnic cleansing there.
The US had to be dragged into that conflict. It was only when Tony Blair said that the UK would go it alone if Clinton wasn't interested (and I guess the idea of being out 'world-policed' by some Euromang) that the US got involved.
All the NATO countries held back longer than they should have in Bosnia. Although the US didn't rush to intervene that was a political decision - US military advisers on the ground urged action fairly early on, I seem to recall.
There was a recent documentary on Briddish tv about Tony Blair. The main topic was about whether or not he should be tried in the UK for war crimes, or for lying to the public, and his piss-poor legacy regarding the erosion of civil rights (War-On-Terror-R), economic problems etc.
This wasn't a fawning piece by any means.
However, one thing even his harshest detractors (and they had interviews with lots of top bods from both sides of the Atlantic) were happy to agree on was that with Bosnia he did get it right, and from the start it was Blair that pushed for action. Clinton had no interest in it. Not many European countries did. The doc rightly questioned the motive. Did Blair merely see this as his first chance to get stuck in? Was this about bolstering public opinion? At that time, before Iraq, he was still a media darling, and saviour of the country from the evil Tory scum, so his motives were probably fairly honest; a destabilising conflict with massive civilian casualties on Europe's doorstep couldn't be allowed to continue.
I'm not saying any of this as some kind of UK-is-better-than-US thing, or because I'm trying to weigh in on whatever argument OBL was making (haven't and won't read that article). I don't think any hesitation from the US would've been based on religious grounds or location of the conflict - Clinton's America just didn't throw troops around as much as the George Dubya Bush regime(s) did.
EDIT: if there was much more to why the US hesitated, this doc didn't mention it. Paging Motown67?
I thought so. But it's really immature to call that these days. Joke's on you.