terrorism and publicity
Roger Taylor
I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
word.
The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
something has to be done.
Anyone got any ideas?
Cheers
Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/
The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA
Rabid_Weasel
Roger Taylor wrote:
> Anyone got any ideas?
Public Apathy.
It's the only way to remove the viability of the vehicle of terror.
One tried and true method is Desensitization. In this case frequent media
coverage of the events with a undercurrent focus of "yeah, they bombed some
more stuff - but *YOU* are OK and everything is trundeling along. Business
as usual. No big deal."
I suspect that this is where Israel has gotten to, either design or
accident.
It may not be the best idea, but it is *an* idea. And it'd work too.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Chas
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
> Anyone got any ideas?
Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
It's like the war against the Irish terrs- you decry them, but when the SAS
assassinates some in Gibraltar, everybody is outraged-
silly.
Chas
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
>> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
>> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
>> something has to be done.
>> Anyone got any ideas?
>
>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.
>We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
>apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
>supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
Bullshit. So wrong. So sad. There is another <should be> obvious
answer. Wanna take a, uh, stab at it?
Hal
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
proportion with the loss of life.
There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
mortality rate from bathmats.
I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
hysteria at all.
Laszlo
olaf
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:na0rc1t27g6anvfvt...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:03:50 -0600, "Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
>>> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
>>> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
>>> something has to be done.
>>> Anyone got any ideas?
>>
>>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>
> So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
> way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.
The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
they were like during the Battle of Britain.
Chas
>......This will only bring more acts of violence against us.
And there is a difference between that prospect and what's happening
presently exactly how?
Chas
Chas
> Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> proportion with the loss of life.
That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> mortality rate from bathmats.
And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
> I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> hysteria at all.
Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
Chas
Pierre Honeyman
laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> mortality rate from bathmats.
Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
point?
Pierre
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Chas wrote:
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> > proportion with the loss of life.
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
Why insensitive?
> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
Sure, it does. That goes without saying.
So, you think we should give them the publicity they killed for?
> > I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> > course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> > hysteria at all.
>
> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
*shrug* I have no idea why you think I'm cowardly.
Let's discuss it when you're in a more reasonable frame of mind.
Regarding my actual point: do you think the hysteria is justified, or
useful?
Laszlo
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
What does that have to do with anything?
My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
bet that it's also not helping.
Laszlo
Strider
Although the casualties were rather small, I think it's about intent.
50, 500, 5,000, 50,000, 5 Million, no matter. I think they would do it
if they could and will some day.
Historically, Moslems seem to start this crap every few hundred years.
It never ends until the civilized world reduces the numbers of Moslems
to controllable levels.
This is why the attention. Much of the population of the civilized
world know this. Many are oblivious.
Strider
T
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
>
>>Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
>>proportion with the loss of life.
>
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
>
>
>>There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
>>mortality rate from bathmats.
>
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices
Very offensive; just don't know what to do about it.
Badger_South
When things get tough the tough go out on the road and kick their own ass.
it may not help anything but it's a good way to get in some additional
training while you work out the helplessness and rage.
-B
Pierre Honeyman
laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > > mortality rate from bathmats.
> >
> > Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> > a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> > point?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
I dunno, you brought up bathmats.
Pierre
si
"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PKqdndw2Xt4...@comcast.com...
Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.
Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they will
kill the yellow bamboo.
Its a win win situation.
Don Wagner
>Why insensitive?
Because deaths from this crap are cause for civilized people to be
sensitive. You are equating deaths with airtime, hence you are being
insensitive.
--Don--
The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity.
They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions.
~ HST '65
h...@nospam.com
So when you signing up, pussy?
Oh, wait, you're just one of the scared ones. Sorry. Feel free to
live on in your violent revenge fantasies, however. At least there
you can be a big man.
Hal
>
>Strider
Strider
I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.
I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
catfish.
In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.
Come on! You know you want to come see me.
Strider
>
>>
>>Strider
hcannon
> >
> >Although the casualties were rather small, I think it's about intent.
> >50, 500, 5,000, 50,000, 5 Million, no matter. I think they would do it
> >if they could and will some day.
Better said if you used the term radical Moslems.
>> So when you signing up, pussy?
Why Hal you know this is jsut another one of your fantasy "Islamic bogeyman"
operations.
> Oh, wait, you're just one of the scared ones. Sorry. Feel free to
> live on in your violent revenge fantasies, however. At least there
> you can be a big man.
>
Having another Walter Mitty moment with the Marines are we?
hcannon
> >Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>
> So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
> way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.
Baloney - Radicals kill you simply because you are the infidel and they are
supposed to kill you. They need no provocation. Try harder to catch on.
Otherwise your only usefulness to the rest of us is as a human sandbag to
block their fire.
>We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
> >apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
> >supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
>
> Bullshit. So wrong. So sad. There is another <should be> obvious
> answer. Wanna take a, uh, stab at it?
>
Not really because the answer is - die.
hcannon
> Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.
>
> Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they
will
> kill the yellow bamboo.
>
> Its a win win situation.
Shame on you I am sure that is against the Geneva convention as torture.
hcannon
>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
Welcome to the wacky wonderful world of journalism - if it bleeds it leads!!
The whole time that crime was in a downward spiral in the US - the news
reporting of crime went up 50% giving the impression of a terrible crime
wave. Rather stupid really.
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
The aim is to destroy or cripple your infrastructure and hurt your economy
( ie the tube stopped and anthrax in the mail for us ) until any demands
they make are rewarded with your compliance in the hopes of peace.
Of course demands then become never ending
Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
They also cause a lot of waste - (ie descreation of Korans - which after
spending millions on an investigation turned out to be utter BS ) and, of
course they forgive themselves their errors immediately and call for others
heads when they do the same.
> Anyone got any ideas?
Somehow get to the sponsors and the advertisers, threaten with TV black
outs? However, I doubt that you will ever hold them responsible. I have
read books by supposedly well qualified individuals and run across to many
outright fabrications by authors with agendas ( axes to grind).
Fraser Johnston
"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wbeXQNAxSXzCFwd$@hawklan.demon.co.uk...
>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out. Or send 'em to Fraserland.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wbeXQNAxSXzCFwd$@hawklan.demon.co.uk...
>
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
As I was reading this post someone walked into my office and said there
daughter was going to London next week. The girl she is going to stay with
should of been at Kings Cross station at the time of the bombing but had
chicken pox and couldn't go. Bet she's glad she got sick. This sort of
shit really effects everyone.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
<laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1120772517.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> bet that it's also not helping.
That just shows your sociopathic tendencies. Non sociopaths see those 30+
dead as husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, son and daughters. You know.
People who didn't deserve to die for getting on a bus to go to work.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote in message
news:2qfrc1pqndk1g8afr...@4ax.com...
> I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.
>
> I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
> sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
> of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
> into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
> catfish.
>
> In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
> favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.
>
> Come on! You know you want to come see me.
It'll make the fish taste gamey.
Fraser
Strider
Perhaps, but just knowing I contributed to their survival will make it
all worth it.
Strider
si
"hcannon" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ztjze.44480$rb6.42994@lakeread07...
You're right - no one deserves to go on the Yellow Bamboo course. My
appologies for my extreme over-reaction. I was too harsh...
Rich
> The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
> on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
> choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
> suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
> begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
> they were like during the Battle of Britain.
As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the UK
wasn't up at the top of the list. Opposition to the war in Iraq has
little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.
On the other hand, I think there will be more support for a restriction
of civil liberties, and also for future direct military action against
extreme Islam.
Cheers
Rich
Rich
They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
motherfuckers.
:P
Rich
Rich
> My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> bet that it's also not helping.
It has had a much smaller effect than most people seem to think.
Remember, London's been bombed by terrorists before.
Irrespective of the scale and impact of the 9/11 attacks, and they were
terrible, there was a huge panic in the US primarily because it was the
first foreign terrorist attack on US soil. It was like the first time
you get slapped; the outrage at being slapped at all is as great as the
pain.
I have friends and family in London - all well, thankfully - and they
all take a view far closer to Laszlo's (however tactlessly put) than
the others here; in a city of ten million, there's not much point
living in fear that you're going to be one of a few attacked, and
especially not since there's nothing you can do about it and it's not
exactly a daily occurrence.
The media are outraged, but not really hysterical; at least, the media
I've seen.
Cheers
Rich
Rabid_Weasel
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out
of
> > proportion with the loss of life.
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle
motherfucker.
I think you're being a bit harsh. Though it seems insensitive, it's, in a
literal sense, quite true. When's the last time you saw every media outlet
from "Auntie Pinko" to Clark Howard all talking about the same 40 deaths?
There are dozens of things that kill more people then that yearly but none
get the same media attention, not even criminal murder.
> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for
publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
Sure. Makes me see red.
But that's not the nature of the question and the offered solution. The
question is "how do we make terrorists not want to blow up busses and
stuff?" One possible solution is to look at what imediate effect they
hope to gain. That effect is: exaggerated media attention in order to
create "terror." One way to mitigate the exaggerated media attention is
to create some perspective by contrasting the raw number of deaths against
deaths, though still tragic, caused by something considered rather mundane
an unworthy of comment such as falls in the bathroom.
> > I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> > course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> > hysteria at all.
>
> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian
burn;
> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
I'm not sure where you got that from. At worst Laszlo's comments could be
considered callous, insenstive, or unsympathetic, but I'm just not getting
cowardly.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid_Weasel
That's not the point. As I said to Chas, it goes to the nature of the
question and the offered solution. The question is "how do we make
terrorists not want to blow up busses and stuff?" One possible solution
is to look at what imediate effect they hope to gain. That effect is:
exaggerated media attention in order to create "terror." One way to
mitigate the exaggerated media attention is to create some perspective by
contrasting the raw number of deaths against deaths, though still tragic,
caused by something considered rather mundane and unworthy of comment such
as falls in the bathroom.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid_Weasel
Don Wagner wrote:
> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >Why insensitive?
>
> Because deaths from this crap are cause for civilized people to be
> sensitive. You are equating deaths with airtime, hence you are being
> insensitive.
Well, that *was* kinda a prerequisite of my suggestion.
Remember that I suggested one possible solution would be Public Apathy.
This would remove the "terror" caused by the attack and the subsequent
media attention. One way to create this Public Apathy is through
desensitization - attack after attack until it's considerd "normal" and
not worth comment. Another way is for a concerted campain underscoring
that, though unconscionable, the attack(s) are really pretty small scale
and *YOU* are still alive, almost *everyone* you know is still alive and
unharmed, and the infrastructure is still working just fine. Yet another
way, as Laszlo points out, is by creating a sense of "perspective" by
contrasting the number of actual deaths against deaths by "mundane" events
such as bathroom falls.
If Laszlo seems somewhat dispassionate, remember that this is a 100%
accademic discussion (since none of these are likely to happen and even if
so none of us are going to be implementing them) and accademic discussions
are often dispassionate (perhaps even better that way).
Heck, Laszlo could theoretically claim that the rest of us are being
insensitive by not raising a huhe and cry over the number of deaths and
injuries caused by easily preventable bathroom falls. :P
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Rich wrote:
> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> > My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> > fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> > rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> > London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> > bet that it's also not helping.
>
> It has had a much smaller effect than most people seem to think.
> Remember, London's been bombed by terrorists before.
So, you're saying that people there are somewhat desensitized by
repeated attacks, have come to realize that *they* are alive as are
almost *everyone* they know, and that they can put it in perspective by
contrasting against deaths caused by mundane events?
Now where have I heard that before? ;-)
> I have friends and family in London - all well, thankfully -
I'm glad to hear that.
> and they
> all take a view far closer to Laszlo's (however tactlessly put)
I'm not sure how tactless it really was. It was in the context of an
accademic discussion, after all.
> The media are outraged, but not really hysterical; at least, the media
> I've seen.
Good to hear. This will help actual *action* to be taken I think.
If there's no (or little) hysteria then people can quickly get back to
their lives and take the "terror" away from the terrorists who will
have thus failed.
Roger Taylor
>The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
>on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
>choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
>suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
>begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
>they were like during the Battle of Britain.
I don't think the war has anything to do with this. These people are
psychopaths who need no reason to kill at random, and gullible
inadequates who just want someone to tell them what to do.
As for wartime Britain, I think it's still there somewhere, but it's
pretty deep undercover. One of our problems is that we *do* need a
great deal of provoking.
Cheers
Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/
The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA
Roger Taylor
>Public Apathy.
>It's the only way to remove the viability of the vehicle of terror.
>One tried and true method is Desensitization. In this case frequent media
>coverage of the events with a undercurrent focus of "yeah, they bombed some
>more stuff - but *YOU* are OK and everything is trundeling along. Business
>as usual. No big deal."
I don't know. Public apathy is pretty much the norm in most things
these days anyway thanks to the oafs we've put in charge, but it simply
seems to prompt the media into ever more hyperbole - somehow they seem
to be locked into the early 20th Century where 'the scoop was the
thing!'
It'll probably take the conspicuous slaughter of a senior editor,
watched by his colleagues, before anything worthwhile will be done
Roger Taylor
>Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
>> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
>> point?
>They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
>motherfuckers.
Ought to be banned
Roger Taylor
>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
>supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
>assassinates some in Gibraltar, everybody is outraged-
>silly.
Gotta catch them first, Chas. I'm certainly for fighting them on all
fronts - financial, diplomatic, overt and covert violence, screw their
funding up, do deals with supporting governments etc, whatever. And, of
course, as in any fight, 100% commitment. Sadly, regarding this last we
come back to our snivelling common denominator, Tony. A 'leader' who's
just another part of the problem - so it goes.
Roger Taylor
Thanks, Herbert. I agree pretty much totally. As I said in another
reply, I don't think the media will begin to behave responsibly until
one of their senior editors is murdered when his colleagues have been
gathered around to watch
Roger Taylor
><laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
>> Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
>> proportion with the loss of life.
>
>That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
>
>> mortality rate from bathmats.
>
>that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
>
>> course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
>> hysteria at all.
>
>Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
>Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
Bit harsh, Chas. We shouldn't confuse two things. The violent death of
anyone is a 100% tragedy for kin and friends. Most of us have been
there and wouldn't wish it on a dog. But media presentation and,
particularly, Government response, needs to be proportionate. While
this was indeed an atrocity, only 40 people have been killed - as
opposed to the 40 or 50 who die violent deaths in the UK *every day* -
and it did not warrant the massive and hysterical coverage that it
received and is still receiving, especially as this is doing *precisely
what the terrorists want*. 20 full pages in the Daily Telegraph -
advertising value £920,000 - all the other papers are the same as are
the radio and TV stations. It's just wrong.
hcannon
> > I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.
> >
> > I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
> > sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
> > of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
> > into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
> > catfish.
> >
> > In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
> > favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.
> >
> > Come on! You know you want to come see me.
>
> It'll make the fish taste gamey.
>
hcannon
> > > Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.
> > >
> > > Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they
> > will
> > > kill the yellow bamboo.
> > >
> > > Its a win win situation.
> >
> > Shame on you I am sure that is against the Geneva convention as torture.
> >
> >
>
> You're right - no one deserves to go on the Yellow Bamboo course. My
> appologies for my extreme over-reaction. I was too harsh...
>
Not to mention you have descrated the, sniff, Yellow Bamboo crap er
curriculum.
hcannon
>
> As I was reading this post someone walked into my office and said there
> daughter was going to London next week. The girl she is going to stay
with
> should of been at Kings Cross station at the time of the bombing but had
> chicken pox and couldn't go. Bet she's glad she got sick. This sort of
> shit really effects everyone.
Amen.
hcannon
> >> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> >> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> >> point?
>
> >They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
> >motherfuckers.
>
> Ought to be banned
>
hcannon
>
> As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
> in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the UK
> wasn't up at the top of the list.
You are not very up on Al Qaeda are you? You have been on their list for a
long, long time.
Opposition to the war in Iraq has
> little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
> the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.
Past tense. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and has been for a long time. I have
been reading recent articles in your recent "Ecomomist " about radical
Moslems in Europe ( who are now being fed into Iraq), in the last issue of
the Journal of Foreign Affairs ( " Europe's Angry Moslems") and even in some
books ( "Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe - the Afghan Bosnia Connnection"by
Hollman). France has also been high on the list ( a plot was discovered some
time ago to blow the Eiffel tower and even Australia - all of this was
before Iraq and even 9-11). One book on Al Qaeda I read said the French
police referred to London as Londonstan. There is a problem and it is not
going to go away.
> On the other hand, I think there will be more support for a restriction
> of civil liberties, and also for future direct military action against
> extreme Islam.
Unfortunately you are correct. Like the French General who wrote the book
"Battle for the Casbah" said - " If what is happening to Algerian villages
was happening to French villages the French govt would be saying stop this
any way you can." However we have to be careful because if they turn us into
what we do not want to be they have won.
As far as extreme Islam - it is bent on destroying us. We need to quit
worrying about who kicked a Koran while the other side is sawing off heads.
Sensei Shaolin
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
You do what your forefathers would have done. You keep going to work.
You keep riding on your buses and subways. You keep flying on
airplanes and keep going on holiday when you damn well please. You
keep going to restaurants and bars to have a good time. Basically, you
don't let the terrorists have the satisfaction of thinking you are
afraid.
How England responds to this barbaric terrorist attack will define who
they are for generations to come. They need to respond with force and
not let the terrorists dictate foreign policy like what happened in
Spain. The Brits of Churchill's day would not have let weak liberal
ideology dictate how they respond. I really hope the British of today
still have the intestinal fortitude that their grandparents had during
World War II.
hcannon
> As for wartime Britain, I think it's still there somewhere, but it's
> pretty deep undercover. One of our problems is that we *do* need a
> great deal of provoking.
>
The people who stood virtually alone against Hitler at one time and went up
on the roof of Westminister Abbey to throw bombs off and protect it during
the battle for Britain will have no trouble finding their courage. All the
best to you.
Roger Taylor
>You do what your forefathers would have done. You keep going to work.
>You keep riding on your buses and subways. You keep flying on
>airplanes and keep going on holiday when you damn well please. You
>keep going to restaurants and bars to have a good time. Basically, you
>don't let the terrorists have the satisfaction of thinking you are
>afraid.
far more danger crossing the road than from terrorism. In fact the only
real danger to our society comes from a floundering, panic-stricken
response by Government.
>How England responds to this barbaric terrorist attack will define who
>they are for generations to come. They need to respond with force and
>not let the terrorists dictate foreign policy like what happened in
>Spain. The Brits of Churchill's day would not have let weak liberal
>ideology dictate how they respond. I really hope the British of today
>still have the intestinal fortitude that their grandparents had during
>World War II.
I'm less sanguine about that - see my signature. The people are ok - if
pushed hard enough - but Tony Blair's shivering and hesitant statement
from 10 Downing Street was a sorry spectacle if ever there was. We have
a dire shortage of worthwhile people in public office at the moment . .
Interesting times . . .
Roger Taylor
>> Ought to be banned
And the scary looking ones as well.
Roger Taylor
>The people who stood virtually alone against Hitler at one time and went up
>on the roof of Westminister Abbey to throw bombs off and protect it during
>the battle for Britain will have no trouble finding their courage. All the
>best to you.
link at the end of www.asshe.demon.co.uk. It was made for a specific
cause as you'll see, but it's pretty general purpose really,
Badger North
<roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
>>> >> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
>>> >> point?
>
>>> >They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
>>> >motherfuckers.
>
>>> Ought to be banned
>
>>Just the assault bathmats and the 50 caliber ones though.
>And the scary looking ones as well.
And the ones that say "Hey!" when you step on them
Badger Jones
www.youngforest.ca
"Hard to be a freak when the carnival's not in town." - Chas Clements
h...@nospam.com
<shaolin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's the neocons and conservatives who are afraid and want to justify
more war based on this "terror".
Hal
Chas
>> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle
> motherfucker.
> I think you're being a bit harsh.
I view it as the same sort of perversion as child-molestation.
I feel no onus of civil reserve whatsoever, and despise those that affect an
objectivity about such social events.
> Though it seems insensitive, it's, in a
> literal sense, quite true. When's the last time you saw every media
> outlet
> from "Auntie Pinko" to Clark Howard all talking about the same 40 deaths?
That's not the outrage, that's the price of the outrage.
> There are dozens of things that kill more people then that yearly but none
> get the same media attention, not even criminal murder.
Everybody dies- it's the manner of the event that draws our attention. If
the terrs had captured 350 people, tortured 300, killed 40, would that
outrage you? Is it 'more important' than the comparable number lost in
traffic accidents, or succumbing to heart disease, or slipping on a bathmat?
> But that's not the nature of the question and the offered solution. The
> question is "how do we make terrorists not want to blow up busses and
> stuff?"
No; his point was the objectification of the deaths- deaths by terrorist
bombing being no more notable than slip-and-fall.
In terms of your re-statement of the question, it's not about 'making them
not want to blow up busses and stuff'- there's no need for an ideological
re-education, and it wouldn't work anyway. The idea is to make the
consequences so immediate and rigorous as to dissuade the less-committed and
kill the zealots.
> One possible solution is to look at what imediate effect they
> hope to gain. That effect is: exaggerated media attention in order to
> create "terror." One way to mitigate the exaggerated media attention is
> to create some perspective by contrasting the raw number of deaths against
> deaths, though still tragic, caused by something considered rather mundane
> an unworthy of comment such as falls in the bathroom.
Bullshit- same thing as mitigating child molestation or physical abuse, or
killings for hire, or sex murders. Nothing about it is 'mundane', and the
deaths are so societally repugnant as to warrant our civic attention.
The basic difficulty is personifying 'the media', and the concept that we
'let' them report terrorist activity, or that they act as a collective in
any practical sense.
We can deal with death-by-bathmat; death comes to us all. Considering subway
travel as a hazard, or sitting in a sidewalk cafe`, or shopping in a
department store, and being subjected to HE/fragmentation attack- over an
internal question of politics 4,000 miles away is another thing entirely.
>> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian
> burn;
>> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
> I'm not sure where you got that from. At worst Laszlo's comments could be
> considered callous, insenstive, or unsympathetic, but I'm just not getting
> cowardly.
In the broader metaphysical sense of the athma's confrontation of the
dichotomy of benefit/deficit in similar time-space context specific events.
I find the feigned objectivity to be an avoidance of individual social
responsibility- hence, 'cowardice'.
and it was that or call him a cocksucker three more times.
Chas
Chas
>......But media presentation and,
> particularly, Government response, needs to be proportionate.
no.
It doesn't.
The death of a child or an innocent, at the hands of a self-admitted
'terror' warrior, is far more heinous than the same child run down by a
lorry.
> While
> this was indeed an atrocity, only 40 people have been killed - as
> opposed to the 40 or 50 who die violent deaths in the UK *every day* -
> and it did not warrant the massive and hysterical coverage that it
> received and is still receiving, especially as this is doing *precisely
> what the terrorists want*. 20 full pages in the Daily Telegraph -
> advertising value £920,000 - all the other papers are the same as are
> the radio and TV stations. It's just wrong.
The value of the 'publicity' is irrelevant, as is the fact that the terrs
'want it'. The reality is that they lived amongst you, plotted against you,
and killed/maimed hundreds on behalf of an easily identifiable ideology.
That's 'news', and so is the outrage, and so will be the retribution taken.
As Eagleberger said yesterday; they're fucking with the most powerful
nations on earth, and it's time that they suffered the consequences of that.
Chas
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Badger North wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:22:49 +0100, Roger Taylor
> <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> >> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> >>> >> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> >>> >> point?
> >
> >>> >They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
> >>> >motherfuckers.
> >
> >>> Ought to be banned
> >
> >>Just the assault bathmats and the 50 caliber ones though.
> >And the scary looking ones as well.
>
> And the ones that say "Hey!" when you step on them
Pierre has *promissed* not to do that anymore.
Pierre Honeyman
Yeah, sorry guys.
Pierre
The Ghost of Mas Oyama
Dear England,
Do not listen to this left wing libturd named Hal. If it was up to
him, he would have you all surrender to terror like the French did back
in WWII. Even to this day, the French are known to be a bunch of left
wing sissies who surrender at every chance they get. Hell, remember a
few years ago when hundreds of French people died because the weather
was a little warmer than what they were used to? They all just said,
"It's hot and we surrender our lives."
Don't be like the French! In other words, don't be like Hal.
The tragedy in London is a slap in the face of all things you hold near
and dear to your hearts. Please, for the sake of your children and
grandchildren, don't roll over on this one. Your grandparents would
not have let Hitler get away with this. Don't let Al-Qaeda get away
with this. Libturds like Hal have no concept of how important it is to
take a stand against those who think they can get away with terror.
Pierre Honeyman
Rabid_Weasel wrote:
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > > mortality rate from bathmats.
> >
> > Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> > a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> > point?
> >
> > Pierre
>
> That's not the point. As I said to Chas, it goes to the nature of the
> question and the offered solution. The question is "how do we make
> terrorists not want to blow up busses and stuff?" One possible solution
> is to look at what imediate effect they hope to gain. That effect is:
> exaggerated media attention in order to create "terror." One way to
> mitigate the exaggerated media attention is to create some perspective by
> contrasting the raw number of deaths against deaths, though still tragic,
> caused by something considered rather mundane and unworthy of comment such
> as falls in the bathroom.
Actually I think I was seeing the solution last night when I was
watching the news.
The news was reporting that "thousands upon thousands" of Londoners
still went to work that day. And that "thousands upon thousands" of
Londoners left for home, walking calmly, taking the *bus*, just going
home. Not business as usual, but THEY DIDN'T CAPITULATE. And that
made international news. The news of "Nobody panicked", "People still
went to work".
When some bitch decides to fake a kidnapping to avoid getting married,
that's not news. When a group of psychopaths plant 4 explosives on the
transit system of a city that's a world power in its own right, that's
fucking news. What are we going to do, ignore it?
Pierre
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Same effect, pretty much.
> When some bitch decides to fake a kidnapping to avoid getting married,
> that's not news. When a group of psychopaths plant 4 explosives on the
> transit system of a city that's a world power in its own right, that's
> fucking news. What are we going to do, ignore it?
What we *do* about it is different from what we do to reduce the
effectiveness of it.
Making the public realize that their personal odds of getting blown up
are pretty darn small and hunting down the perpetrators and summarily
executing them are not mutually exclusive, eh? :-)
PT
> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> point?
Yeah, and besides that, aren't bath mats a safety item? The absence
of a mat is what'll kill ya.
The panic of this London bombing has clouded EVERYONE's minds.
---
Paul T. "Ban the bare tub!"
Pierre Honeyman
PT wrote:
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > > mortality rate from bathmats.
> >
> > Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> > a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> > point?
>
> Yeah, and besides that, aren't bath mats a safety item? The absence
> of a mat is what'll kill ya.
Well, actually, the absence of a mat means that we're low on staff, and
it'll be back to kill you later...
Pierre
Strider
<shaolin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
For Sale:
French military rifle, never fired, dropped once.
Strider
Rich
>
> > As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
> > in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the UK
> > wasn't up at the top of the list.
>
> You are not very up on Al Qaeda are you? You have been on their list for a
> long, long time.
Do feel free to reread what I wrote. :P
> Opposition to the war in Iraq has
> > little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
> > the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.
>
> Past tense. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and has been for a long time.
Yes, and in Syria, and Jordan, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan and most
significantly Saudi Arabia.
Of course, the action in Iraq has inflamed the situation and given the
terrorists more specific, well/defined targets.
> One book on Al Qaeda I read said the French
> police referred to London as Londonstan. There is a problem and it is not
> going to go away.
The French police are welcome to refer to whatever they like; France
has three times the Islamic population of the UK.
Cheers
Rich
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Chas wrote:
> "Rabid_Weasel" <lawson_NO_...@dayton.net> wrote
> >> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle
> > motherfucker.
> > I think you're being a bit harsh.
>
> I view it as the same sort of perversion as child-molestation.
> I feel no onus of civil reserve whatsoever, and despise those that affect an
> objectivity about such social events.
Well, I'm not going to apologize for remaining a functional, cognitive
being in the face of adversity and stress.
You can talk about your fantasies, if you like, of what you would do to
these terrorists if you had them in your backyard. Or you can cope with
shock and stress in whatever way you prefer. There are plenty of
"security blanket" threads in this NG alone where you can try and
convince each other that you're powerful and not at all helpless.
I cope by trying to consider ways of thwarting the terrorists, and not
giving in to the mass hysteria they delight in engendering. If that
offends you, well, I don't care.
> >> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian
> > burn;
> >> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.
> > I'm not sure where you got that from. At worst Laszlo's comments could be
> > considered callous, insenstive, or unsympathetic, but I'm just not getting
> > cowardly.
>
> In the broader metaphysical sense of the athma's confrontation of the
> dichotomy of benefit/deficit in similar time-space context specific events.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and the quality of your
discourse so far in no way motivates me to decipher this mess.
I doubt more than 5% of this NG understands your sentence, either.
Unless you're simply using obscure terms to score a cheap and dishonest
debater's point, explain your points in terms that we can understand.
> I find the feigned objectivity to be an avoidance of individual social
> responsibility- hence, 'cowardice'.
> and it was that or call him a cocksucker three more times.
You can call me whatever you like; I find your opinion of me entirely
unimportant. If Kirk, for instance, were to call me a coward, I would
take notice, and consider the possibility that I had a personality flaw
I was previously unaware of. You doing the same is meaningless.
I would suggest that you spend some time searching for the substance
behind trivial matters of style which clearly impress you a great deal.
> Chas
Laszlo
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Rich wrote:
> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> > My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> > fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> > rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> > London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> > bet that it's also not helping.
>
> It has had a much smaller effect than most people seem to think.
> Remember, London's been bombed by terrorists before.
>
> Irrespective of the scale and impact of the 9/11 attacks, and they were
> terrible, there was a huge panic in the US primarily because it was the
> first foreign terrorist attack on US soil. It was like the first time
> you get slapped; the outrage at being slapped at all is as great as the
> pain.
>
> I have friends and family in London - all well, thankfully - and they
> all take a view far closer to Laszlo's (however tactlessly put) than
> the others here; in a city of ten million, there's not much point
> living in fear that you're going to be one of a few attacked, and
> especially not since there's nothing you can do about it and it's not
> exactly a daily occurrence.
God bless them. I consider people like them to be true blessings.
Whether by the desensitization brought on by experience, or by taking a
rational view of the facts, they have hit upon the sane solution.
Laszlo
hcannon
> It's the neocons and conservatives who are afraid and want to justify
> more war based on this "terror".
Really and your solution is what, Hal? Appeasement? Surrender? Become a
slave? Love and kiss the terrorist as he cuts your throat? Embrace Islam?
You just do not get it do you? These guys are fanatics and they want to kill
you and you are not going to pacify them, ever, no matter how much you kiss
their asses and do their bidding.
It is you who is terrified of them . Fool.
hcannon
> >
> > > As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
> > > in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the
UK
> > > wasn't up at the top of the list.
> >
> > You are not very up on Al Qaeda are you? You have been on their list for
a
> > long, long time.
>
> Do feel free to reread what I wrote. :P
Gotcha. Good for you.
>
> > Opposition to the war in Iraq has
> > > little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
> > > the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.
> >
> > Past tense. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and has been for a long time.
>
> Yes, and in Syria, and Jordan, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan and most
> significantly Saudi Arabia.
>
And in the Far East - your point is?
> Of course, the action in Iraq has inflamed the situation and given the
> terrorists more specific, well/defined targets.
Hooey the situation was inflamed long before Iraq. You could say it was
inflamed by Bosnia or Afghanistan. They will strike anywhere they can. They
are out to kill infidels period.
I think you know your own history better than I - so you could say the
situation was inflamed in 1640 when they raided your coast for slaves or
back further. Just more of an age old battle.
>
> > One book on Al Qaeda I read said the French
> > police referred to London as Londonstan. There is a problem and it is
not
> > going to go away.
>
> The French police are welcome to refer to whatever they like; France
> has three times the Islamic population of the UK.
>
I know and they are scared.
Roger Taylor
>"Roger Taylor" wrote
>> particularly, Government response, needs to be proportionate.
>no.
>It doesn't.
Yes it does. You can do what the hell you like, sack-cloth and ashes,
keening in the street, whatever you need, but the Government needs to
look at the cold hard reality of events, especially if it hopes to do
anything about bringing retribution on the perpetrators and, perhaps
more importantly, preventing anything similar happening again. The very
fact that we have a Government ruled by whimsy and so-called passion
instead of genuine ability is why so many things are a mess here.
>The death of a child or an innocent, at the hands of a self-admitted
>'terror' warrior, is far more heinous than the same child run down by a
>lorry.
Not to those involved - it's a 100% horror in both cases. Socially it
is, I agree. Death during an atrocity does warrant more attention than
the 2 column inches in a local paper that a traffic accident would
warrant. Nevertheless, the current degree of exposure is unwarranted.
It certainly serves no useful purpose and given that the terrorists rely
absolutely on publicity, it is downright irresponsible. The media need
to grow up, all of them.
>> While
>> this was indeed an atrocity, only 40 people have been killed - as
>> opposed to the 40 or 50 who die violent deaths in the UK *every day* -
>> and it did not warrant the massive and hysterical coverage that it
>> received and is still receiving, especially as this is doing *precisely
>> what the terrorists want*. 20 full pages in the Daily Telegraph -
>> advertising value £920,000 - all the other papers are the same as are
>> the radio and TV stations. It's just wrong.
>The value of the 'publicity' is irrelevant, as is the fact that the terrs
>'want it'.
The cash value I happened to know and it's a damned good measure of the
free publicity these creatures are being given. It's appalling.
> The reality is that they lived amongst you, plotted against you,
>and killed/maimed hundreds on behalf of an easily identifiable ideology.
There is no ideology. This is all the shitty aftermath of the Cold War.
Any claimed 'cause' is merely an excuse for psychopaths and inadequates
to do what they're good at - destroying things and causing hurt.
>That's 'news', and so is the outrage,
Only because the media make it so - see above, they need to grow up.
> and so will be the retribution taken.
That *should* get the publicity - but I doubt it'll get 20 pages worth.
>As Eagleberger said yesterday; they're fucking with the most powerful
>nations on earth, and it's time that they suffered the consequences of that.
They will, but see my signature
Chas
>>> particularly, Government response, needs to be proportionate.
>>no.
>>It doesn't.
> Yes it does. You can do what the hell you like, sack-cloth and ashes,
> keening in the street, whatever you need, but the Government needs to
> look at the cold hard reality of events, especially if it hopes to do
> anything about bringing retribution on the perpetrators and, perhaps
> more importantly, preventing anything similar happening again.
The hard cold reality of events is that you've been attacked on your
sovereign soil by people who target innocents, and comparing it to
deaths-by-bathmat is what's 'unreal'.
The way we'll 'get them' is by denying them the protection of the law by
public action rather than it becoming a partisan domestic political issue.
> The very
> fact that we have a Government ruled by whimsy and so-called passion
> instead of genuine ability is why so many things are a mess here.
I tend to isolate domestic problems from 'foreign-relations' ones, and
'government' made problems from 'problems from without'.
While people have been dithering about handling the koran with rubber
gloves, they've been figuring out how to set simultaneous bombs in your
public places.
Gee; and we were being so considerate of their good opinion of usduh.
> Not to those involved - it's a 100% horror in both cases.
Oh hogwash, Robert; don't tell that lie, buddy.
Your child, dead, is a horror; your child dead by the hand of an enemy, or a
pervert, or a mad dog, is far worse.
> Socially it
> is, I agree. Death during an atrocity does warrant more attention than
> the 2 column inches in a local paper that a traffic accident would
> warrant. Nevertheless, the current degree of exposure is unwarranted.
> It certainly serves no useful purpose and given that the terrorists rely
> absolutely on publicity, it is downright irresponsible. The media need
> to grow up, all of them.
Nah; public outrage will have its expression, as will public courage, public
grief, the public call to arms, and the public expression of support to
those hurt.
You're equating 'publicity' with some sort of commodity to be bartered
somehow to some end having to do with terrorist satisfaction of some sort.
I'm sure it'a all very scholarly and objective, but it's silly in it's
premise; no offense sir.
>>The value of the 'publicity' is irrelevant, as is the fact that the terrs
>>'want it'.
> The cash value I happened to know and it's a damned good measure of the
> free publicity these creatures are being given. It's appalling.
You have it the wrong way round, Robert, me old son- the news is what you
bring, not what you sell. Your sponsoring commercial venture is what's being
sold.
Terrorism is an old guerilla war tactic- doesn't depend on publicity (other
than the horror of the people finding the wagon train, for instance), it
depends on the willingness to do something really uncivil/rude in a random
matter and letting the chips fall where they may.
>> The reality is that they lived amongst you, plotted against you,
>>and killed/maimed hundreds on behalf of an easily identifiable ideology.
> There is no ideology. This is all the shitty aftermath of the Cold War.
> Any claimed 'cause' is merely an excuse for psychopaths and inadequates
> to do what they're good at - destroying things and causing hurt.
Oh crap. They're people, just like you, except they want to kill you.
They've made a choice independently of your moral qualms, and you've got to
deal with it or die. Not everything that's happening is a consequence of
your actions- others act independently of your stimulus; independently of
any causative action on your part, and now you've got it to do.
>>That's 'news', and so is the outrage,
> Only because the media make it so - see above, they need to grow up.
No; people are actually outraged about it, buddy. No one needs the media's
urging of some sort to be outraged.
The wonder is that you're not.
> The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his
> treatment
> of the IRA
You've had a domestic problem with civil war for a while, bud. A threat from
a foreign power is materially different. One can see why ya'll would be
reticent to wage ruthless war on yourselves- our War Between States should
be a signal lesson, for example- but attack from without is completely and
utterly different.
Chas
Roger Taylor
>"Roger Taylor" wrote
>> Yes it does. You can do what the hell you like, sack-cloth and ashes,
>> keening in the street, whatever you need, but the Government needs to
>> look at the cold hard reality of events, especially if it hopes to do
>> anything about bringing retribution on the perpetrators and, perhaps
>> more importantly, preventing anything similar happening again.
>The hard cold reality of events is that you've been attacked on your
>sovereign soil by people who target innocents, and comparing it to
>deaths-by-bathmat is what's 'unreal'.
It wasn't me who did the bathmat comparison. I quoted the 40-50 people
who die violent deaths every day in the UK - 15,000 a year or so, all
tragic, and nary a headline in sight.
>The way we'll 'get them' is by denying them the protection of the law by
>public action rather than it becoming a partisan domestic political issue.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. We'll 'get them' by proper,
professional police and intelligence work, something markedly absent
from this country at the moment, but there's no other way.
>> The very
>> fact that we have a Government ruled by whimsy and so-called passion
>> instead of genuine ability is why so many things are a mess here.
>I tend to isolate domestic problems from 'foreign-relations' ones, and
>'government' made problems from 'problems from without'.
Fair enough, but politicians who are incompetent at dealing with one are
unlikely to be competent in dealing with the other.
>> Not to those involved - it's a 100% horror in both cases.
>Oh hogwash, Robert;
It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
> don't tell that lie, buddy.
>Your child, dead, is a horror; your child dead by the hand of an enemy, or a
>pervert, or a mad dog, is far worse.
Fortunately, I can't talk from the experience of losing a child, but in
any event, grief reactions are very individual and not really comparable
one with another. That said, I can't see any parent on being told their
child had been killed in a traffic accident crying out 'thank heavens he
wasn't killed by terrorists' Those so inclined will shake their fists
at whatever target they find appropriate - a callous God, drunken
drivers, terrorists.
>> Socially it
>> is, I agree. Death during an atrocity does warrant more attention than
>> the 2 column inches in a local paper that a traffic accident would
>> warrant. Nevertheless, the current degree of exposure is unwarranted.
>> It certainly serves no useful purpose and given that the terrorists rely
>> absolutely on publicity, it is downright irresponsible. The media need
>> to grow up, all of them.
>Nah; public outrage will have its expression, as will public courage, public
>grief, the public call to arms, and the public expression of support to
>those hurt.
I'm not talking about hindering public expression I'm talking about it
being made responsibly not just out of some gormless out-dated
journalistic habit. Jeez, times have changed, for crying out. I agree
it could indeed be extremely positive, but if you can't manage that in
1000 words, you're a pretty shoddy writer. (And, of course, it's highly
unlikely there'll be a public call to arms in the UK!, but that's by the
by).
>You're equating 'publicity' with some sort of commodity to be bartered
>somehow to some end having to do with terrorist satisfaction of some sort.
>I'm sure it'a all very scholarly and objective, but it's silly in it's
>premise; no offense sir.
No offence taken, but the premise isn't silly, it's fundamental. For
whatever reasons they're doing what they're doing, terrorists know they
can only win by panicking Governments and for that they need as many
people as possible to know what they've done and be frightened by it -
'anybody, anywhere, we're liable to kill you'. When the media give that
full throttle, as they have been doing, they're doing their work for
them.
>> The cash value I happened to know and it's a damned good measure of the
>> free publicity these creatures are being given. It's appalling.
>You have it the wrong way round,
>Robert,
Steady on Charles
> me old son- the news is what you
>bring, not what you sell. Your sponsoring commercial venture is what's being
>sold.
>Terrorism is an old guerilla war tactic- doesn't depend on publicity (other
>than the horror of the people finding the wagon train, for instance), it
>depends on the willingness to do something really uncivil/rude in a random
>matter and letting the chips fall where they may.
It's always depended on publicity otherwise it's ineffective - no one's
going to be scared if they don't know about it.
>>> The reality is that they lived amongst you, plotted against you,
>>>and killed/maimed hundreds on behalf of an easily identifiable ideology.
>> There is no ideology. This is all the shitty aftermath of the Cold War.
>> Any claimed 'cause' is merely an excuse for psychopaths and inadequates
>> to do what they're good at - destroying things and causing hurt.
>Oh crap. They're people, just like you, except they want to kill you.
That's what I call a psychopath. It mightn't be clinically accurate
usage, but I think most non-medics would understand it. It's a class of
people who can't be reasoned with and will probably have to be hunted
down and killed, preferably sooner than later.
>They've made a choice independently of your moral qualms, and you've got to
>deal with it or die. Not everything that's happening is a consequence of
>your actions- others act independently of your stimulus; independently of
>any causative action on your part, and now you've got it to do.
As you say, 'shit happens'. I do my best with it.
>>>That's 'news', and so is the outrage,
>> Only because the media make it so - see above, they need to grow up.
>No; people are actually outraged about it, buddy. No one needs the media's
>urging of some sort to be outraged.
>The wonder is that you're not.
I'm outraged about a lot of things - there's plenty to be outraged about
over here for anyone with half a brain cell. I've been outraged for
decades now, and I've been doing something about it rather than just
ranting. To what effect, I don't know, but the tenor of many debates
has changed in my direction, so maybe, just maybe . . .
Plus I'll carry on doing things
>> The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his
>> treatment
>> of the IRA
>You've had a domestic problem with civil war for a while, bud. A threat from
>a foreign power is materially different. One can see why ya'll would be
>reticent to wage ruthless war on yourselves- our War Between States should
>be a signal lesson, for example- but attack from without is completely and
>utterly different.
I can't speak to your civil war, but the Irish problem was one of
terrorism not freedom fighting. The rule of law might have been
somewhat less than perfect in Ireland, as it was in many of your
Southern States in the 60s, but it *was* there and could have been used
more wisely. *But* that's water under the bridge - and no-one - NO-ONE
- least of all the Irish, know why or what they're fighting for. Now,
the fighting is just between gangs of drug dealers and criminals.
Cheers
Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/
The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA
Robert Low
>>Chas wrote:
>>Oh hogwash, Robert;
> It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
Ah, just take it as a compliment :-)
Chas
> It wasn't me who did the bathmat comparison. I quoted the 40-50 people
> who die violent deaths every day in the UK - 15,000 a year or so, all
> tragic, and nary a headline in sight.
Huge explosions; property and services damage; 700 injured, 50 dead- an act
of war rather than a forseeable hazard like traffic or disease or common
crime.
Sorry- they're just not comparable, and some feigned objectivity is just an
affectation.
>>The way we'll 'get them' is by denying them the protection of the law by
>>public action rather than it becoming a partisan domestic political issue.
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. We'll 'get them' by proper,
> professional police and intelligence work, something markedly absent
> from this country at the moment, but there's no other way.
Everybody in the world needs to turn to the person next to them and take a
long close look at who it is.
> Fair enough, but politicians who are incompetent at dealing with one are
> unlikely to be competent in dealing with the other.
I've always hoped that external problems would bring the best from a man-
rising above petty partisanship to statesmanship, if you will.
>>Oh hogwash, Robert;
> It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
Yeah; eyes mostly- at least I confuse you with the other smart one <g>
> I'm not talking about hindering public expression I'm talking about it
> being made responsibly not just out of some gormless out-dated
> journalistic habit.
Ah; a literary critique`.
> ......When the media give that
> full throttle, as they have been doing, they're doing their work for
> them.
The media isn't monolithic anymore than the 'people' are; or the government,
or the terrorists. One cannot decry the publicizing of the event just
because terrorists benefit from publicizing the event.
The reality is that events that are news are on the news. Big events are big
news, and multiple simultaneous explosions affecting 750 people and millions
in damages and disrupting one of the oldest cities in europe is big.
It's the tone that sometimes offends me- skating the perimeter of an
apologia for them, for example.
> It's always depended on publicity otherwise it's ineffective - no one's
> going to be scared if they don't know about it.
Actually, it's just more immediate. During the indian wars, here in the
Western US, news of massacres, the torturing of women and children, got
around- just not as quickly. It is in the nature of people to talk about
attacks on the community.
>>Oh crap. They're people, just like you, except they want to kill you.
> That's what I call a psychopath.
No; all enemy 'soldiers' aren't psychopaths. Even the guys that choose
self-immolation as they kill 'enemy'/civilians aren't psychopaths, they're
ideologues- and zealots aren't psychopaths, unless one believes that
idealism is mental illness.
> .....It's a class of
> people who can't be reasoned with and will probably have to be hunted
> down and killed, preferably sooner than later.
Well, yeah; but not because they're mentally ill, because they self-identify
as enemies to us.
No need to call them any denigratory names- killing them is sufficient.
> As you say, 'shit happens'. I do my best with it.
Yup; stroke or sink.
> I can't speak to your civil war, but the Irish problem was one of
> terrorism not freedom fighting.
When?
You've been there a thousand years.
> ......Now,
> the fighting is just between gangs of drug dealers and criminals.
Well; I wouldn't be that harsh on your government, but you know them best.
Best wishes-
Chas
slim
Notice how they brand everyone they scoop up as a "terrorist", yet
they refuse to bring these folks to trial.
--------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
"Other top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would
last
"weeks, not months.""
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/052705/052705w.php
"More than two years into a war that was supposed to be quick and easy,
and
the justification for which has spun from removing a dictator to
eliminating
weapons of mass destruction to fighting terrorism and, finally, to
planting
democracy that would then spread across the Middle East, Iraq is in chaos."
RayGun sends his lackey to kiss Saddam's ass.
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.quantumphilosophy.net/files/clips/TimRyan_Medium.mov
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
slim
Chas wrote:
>
> "Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> > modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> > Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> > something has to be done.
> > Anyone got any ideas?
>
> Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
> We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
> apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
> supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
How about charging them with thier "crimes", having fair and open trials
and convicting them?
slim
h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:03:50 -0600, "Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> >> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> >> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> >> something has to be done.
> >> Anyone got any ideas?
> >
> >Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>
> So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
> way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.
Chas thinks this is just a glorified bar fight.
slim
laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Rabid_Weasel wrote:
> > Roger Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone got any ideas?
> >
> > Public Apathy.
> >
> > It's the only way to remove the viability of the vehicle of terror.
> >
> > One tried and true method is Desensitization. In this case frequent media
> > coverage of the events with a undercurrent focus of "yeah, they bombed some
> > more stuff - but *YOU* are OK and everything is trundeling along. Business
> > as usual. No big deal."
> >
> > I suspect that this is where Israel has gotten to, either design or
> > accident.
> >
> > It may not be the best idea, but it is *an* idea. And it'd work too.
>
> Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> proportion with the loss of life.
>
> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> hysteria at all.
BU$H and The BITCH have to have justification for ruining the
American economy, despabilizing the planet and making a ton
of cash by the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.
slim
Chas wrote:
>
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> > proportion with the loss of life.
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
>
> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
Don't you have any compassion for the tens of thousands of innocent
Iraqi's killed by US munitions?
slim
Strider wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2005 14:41:58 -0700, laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> >> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >>
> >> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> >> > mortality rate from bathmats.
> >>
> >> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> >> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> >> point?
> >
> >What does that have to do with anything?
> >
> >My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> >fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> >rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> >London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> >bet that it's also not helping.
> >
> >Laszlo
>
> Although the casualties were rather small, I think it's about intent.
> 50, 500, 5,000, 50,000, 5 Million, no matter. I think they would do it
> if they could and will some day.
Lets start moring the hundred thousand inncent Iraqi's killed by
US munitions, OK?
slim
Strider wrote:
> Come on! You know you want to come see me.
Stride-Rite, please stop trolling for dates in this newsgroup!
Roger Taylor
>"Roger Taylor" wrote
>> Yes it does. You can do what the hell you like, sack-cloth and ashes,
>> keening in the street, whatever you need, but the Government needs to
>> look at the cold hard reality of events, especially if it hopes to do
>> anything about bringing retribution on the perpetrators and, perhaps
>> more importantly, preventing anything similar happening again.
>The hard cold reality of events is that you've been attacked on your
>sovereign soil by people who target innocents, and comparing it to
>deaths-by-bathmat is what's 'unreal'.
It wasn't me who did the bathmat comparison. I quoted the 40-50 people
who die violent deaths every day in the UK - 15,000 a year or so, all
tragic, and nary a headline in sight.
>The way we'll 'get them' is by denying them the protection of the law by
>public action rather than it becoming a partisan domestic political issue.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. We'll 'get them' by proper,
professional police and intelligence work, something markedly absent
from this country at the moment, but there's no other way.
>> The very
>> fact that we have a Government ruled by whimsy and so-called passion
>> instead of genuine ability is why so many things are a mess here.
>I tend to isolate domestic problems from 'foreign-relations' ones, and
>'government' made problems from 'problems from without'.
Fair enough, but politicians who are incompetent at dealing with one are
unlikely to be competent in dealing with the other.
>> Not to those involved - it's a 100% horror in both cases.
>Oh hogwash, Robert;
It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
> don't tell that lie, buddy.
>Your child, dead, is a horror; your child dead by the hand of an enemy, or a
>pervert, or a mad dog, is far worse.
Fortunately, I can't talk from the experience of losing a child, but in
any event, grief reactions are very individual and not really comparable
one with another. That said, I can't see any parent on being told their
child had been killed in a traffic accident crying out 'thank heavens he
wasn't killed by terrorists' Those so inclined will shake their fists
at whatever target they find appropriate - a callous God, drunken
drivers, terrorists.
>> Socially it
>> is, I agree. Death during an atrocity does warrant more attention than
>> the 2 column inches in a local paper that a traffic accident would
>> warrant. Nevertheless, the current degree of exposure is unwarranted.
>> It certainly serves no useful purpose and given that the terrorists rely
>> absolutely on publicity, it is downright irresponsible. The media need
>> to grow up, all of them.
>Nah; public outrage will have its expression, as will public courage, public
>grief, the public call to arms, and the public expression of support to
>those hurt.
I'm not talking about hindering public expression I'm talking about it
being made responsibly not just out of some gormless out-dated
journalistic habit. Jeez, times have changed, for crying out. I agree
it could indeed be extremely positive, but if you can't manage that in
1000 words, you're a pretty shoddy writer. (And, of course, it's highly
unlikely there'll be a public call to arms in the UK!, but that's by the
by).
>You're equating 'publicity' with some sort of commodity to be bartered
>somehow to some end having to do with terrorist satisfaction of some sort.
>I'm sure it'a all very scholarly and objective, but it's silly in it's
>premise; no offense sir.
No offence taken, but the premise isn't silly, it's fundamental. For
whatever reasons they're doing what they're doing, terrorists know they
can only win by panicking Governments and for that they need as many
people as possible to know what they've done and be frightened by it -
'anybody, anywhere, we're liable to kill you'. When the media give that
full throttle, as they have been doing, they're doing their work for
them.
>> The cash value I happened to know and it's a damned good measure of the
>> free publicity these creatures are being given. It's appalling.
>You have it the wrong way round, Robert,
Steady on Charles
> me old son- the news is what you
>bring, not what you sell. Your sponsoring commercial venture is what's being
>sold.
>Terrorism is an old guerilla war tactic- doesn't depend on publicity (other
>than the horror of the people finding the wagon train, for instance), it
>depends on the willingness to do something really uncivil/rude in a random
>matter and letting the chips fall where they may.
It's always depended on publicity otherwise it's ineffective - no one's
going to be scared if they don't know about it.
>>> The reality is that they lived amongst you, plotted against you,
>>>and killed/maimed hundreds on behalf of an easily identifiable ideology.
>> There is no ideology. This is all the shitty aftermath of the Cold War.
>> Any claimed 'cause' is merely an excuse for psychopaths and inadequates
>> to do what they're good at - destroying things and causing hurt.
>Oh crap. They're people, just like you, except they want to kill you.
That's what I call a psychopath. It mightn't be clinically accurate
usage, but I think most non-medics would understand it. It's a class of
people who can't be reasoned with and will probably have to be hunted
down and killed, preferably sooner than later.
>They've made a choice independently of your moral qualms, and you've got to
>deal with it or die. Not everything that's happening is a consequence of
>your actions- others act independently of your stimulus; independently of
>any causative action on your part, and now you've got it to do.
As you say, 'shit happens'. I do my best with it.
>>>That's 'news', and so is the outrage,
>No; people are actually outraged about it, buddy. No one needs the media's
>urging of some sort to be outraged.
>The wonder is that you're not.
I'm outraged about a lot of things - there's plenty to be outraged about
over here for anyone with half a brain cell. I've been outraged for
decades now, and I've been doing something about it rather than just
ranting. To what effect, I don't know, but the tenor of many debates
has changed in my direction, so maybe, just maybe . . .
Plus I'll carry on doing things
>> The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his
>> treatment
>> of the IRA
>
>You've had a domestic problem with civil war for a while, bud. A threat from
>a foreign power is materially different. One can see why ya'll would be
>reticent to wage ruthless war on yourselves- our War Between States should
>be a signal lesson, for example- but attack from without is completely and
>utterly different.
I can't speak to your civil war, but the Irish problem was one of
terrorism not freedom fighting. The rule of law might have been
somewhat less than perfect in Ireland, as it was in many of your
Southern States in the 60s, but it *was* there and could have been used
more wisely. *But* that's water under the bridge - and no-one - NO-ONE
- least of all the Irish, know why or what they're fighting for. Now,
the fighting is just between gangs of drug dealers and criminals.
Cheers
Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/
The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA
Roger Taylor
>
>Huge explosions; property and services damage; 700 injured, 50 dead- an act
>of war rather than a forseeable hazard like traffic or disease or common
>crime.
>Sorry- they're just not comparable, and some feigned objectivity is just an
>affectation.
it's effect on the bereaved families is no different - grief is grief -
not comparable, not measurable. I'm far from objective about it - it
was an atrocity and those responsible should be hunted forever - 'not
time, nor distance, nor the strength of princes will protect them', but
I refuse however, to allow media hysteria - or over-reaction, if you
will - to determine my response. Then, I am a pistol shooter - more a
sniper than a machine-gunner :-)
>Everybody in the world needs to turn to the person next to them and take a
>long close look at who it is.
I'm in favour of that. Know thy neighbour. Damn sight more reliable
than ID cards, retinal scans etc
>> Fair enough, but politicians who are incompetent at dealing with one are
>> unlikely to be competent in dealing with the other.
>I've always hoped that external problems would bring the best from a man-
>rising above petty partisanship to statesmanship, if you will.
I commend your optimism. Bit of a triumph of hope over experience
though, I suspect.
>>>Oh hogwash, Robert;
>> It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
>Yeah; eyes mostly- at least I confuse you with the other smart one <g>
Ah - what a loss to the diplomatic corps you were :-)
>> I'm not talking about hindering public expression I'm talking about it
>> being made responsibly not just out of some gormless out-dated
>> journalistic habit.
>Ah; a literary critique`.
Hey, I'm a writer, fella (amongst other things)
>The media isn't monolithic anymore than the 'people' are; or the government,
>or the terrorists. One cannot decry the publicizing of the event just
>because terrorists benefit from publicizing the event.
I can and I will. They're wrong - plain and simple. Just doing 'what
they've always done' (rarely a good reason for doing anything) won't
wash. Times have changed - the media are part of the problem now.
>The reality is that events that are news are on the news. Big events are big
>news, and multiple simultaneous explosions affecting 750 people and millions
>in damages and disrupting one of the oldest cities in europe is big.
Big money and pandering to some perceived common denominator. Not good.
>>>Oh crap. They're people, just like you, except they want to kill you.
>> That's what I call a psychopath.
>No; all enemy 'soldiers' aren't psychopaths. Even the guys that choose
>self-immolation as they kill 'enemy'/civilians aren't psychopaths, they're
>ideologues- and zealots aren't psychopaths, unless one believes that
>idealism is mental illness.
These are not soldiers - soldiering is an honourable profession - we owe
our right to shout freely across the pond at one another to people who
practised it. Going round arbitrarily killing people is the act of
lunatics, whatever 'justification' they bring to it.
As for idealism, that's certainly done a deal of harm in its time.
Personally I prefer pragmatism and a demonstrated commitment to
tolerance and freedom. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were all
'sincere, commitment politicians.'
>> .....It's a class of
>> people who can't be reasoned with and will probably have to be hunted
>> down and killed, preferably sooner than later.
>Well, yeah; but not because they're mentally ill, because they self-identify
>as enemies to us.
>No need to call them any denigratory names- killing them is sufficient.
There's a need to the extent that time spent looking to appease them by
treating them as reasonable and trying to deal with their 'causes' is
time wasted and advantages given.
>Well; I wouldn't be that harsh on your government,
Feel free. Every little helps. Especially if you can de-sanctify Tony
Blair Stateside :-)
Roger Taylor
>>>Oh hogwash, Robert;
>> It's Roger, Charles, old bean. A senior moment perhaps? ;-)
>Ah, just take it as a compliment :-)
Hmmm. I'll do my best.
At least you're a mathematician.
And you've read my books . . . (or bought them anyway) . . .
Bit sluggish politically though . . . :-)
Robert Low
> And you've read my books . . . (or bought them anyway) . . .
I even enjoyed them: deduce what you will about my
literary tastes from that. I'd even buy another if
you wrote one.
> Bit sluggish politically though . . . :-)
I was going to join the apathy party, but I couldn't
be bothered.
Roger Taylor
>Roger Taylor wrote:
>> And you've read my books . . . (or bought them anyway) . . .
>I even enjoyed them: deduce what you will about my
>literary tastes from that.
Obviously deeply perceptive
> I'd even buy another if
>you wrote one.
I'm working, I'm working . . . . . . . !!!
>> Bit sluggish politically though . . . :-)
>I was going to join the apathy party, but I couldn't
>be bothered.
Ta daaaaa!! Welcome to the Golden Oldie Show :-)
Jay Sun
"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wbeXQNAxSXzCFwd$@hawklan.demon.co.uk...
>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
>
Jay Sun
terrorists
"Jay Sun" <jasonha...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:daqogp$8mg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Roger Taylor
>Maybe the media should just call em murderers, or something else instead of
>terrorists
I agree entirely. They need to be radically 're-branded'. Part of
denying these creatures publicity would be to drop the dramatic name
'terrorist' and replace it with 'criminal', and to abandon the ludicrous
title 'war on terrorism' - or should I say (breathlessly) 'WAR ON
TERRORISM!!!'? - in favour of a dull 'anti-crime campaign'.
Personally, I liken them to cancer cells - they spread, they rot and
they serve no useful purpose. The problem we've got (in the UK) is that
with the present Government our immune system has been badly impaired.
I'm sure we'll recover, but I'm far from sure how.
Chas
>>Sorry- they're just not comparable, and some feigned objectivity is just
>>an
>>affectation.
> It was just as foreseeable as your average murder or fatal accident and
> it's effect on the bereaved families is no different - grief is grief -
> not comparable, not measurable.
When was your last 50-person murder, with 700 wounded?
And, 'grief' is not just grief- there is a whole sliding scale ranging from
the pride of a mother lost her son in wartime to the grief of a father whose
daughter was taken by a perv- they're different in scale.
> ......Then, I am a pistol shooter - more a
> sniper than a machine-gunner :-)
Useful until you've got more than six enemies.
> I commend your optimism. Bit of a triumph of hope over experience
> though, I suspect.
Oh Dawg; it's true.
I keep hoping the crap-eating belly-crawlers will show some integrity-
it's that or abandon all hope whatsoever.
>>Yeah; eyes mostly- at least I confuse you with the other smart one <g>
> Ah - what a loss to the diplomatic corps you were :-)
It was my dream as a child.
>>No; all enemy 'soldiers' aren't psychopaths. Even the guys that choose
>>self-immolation as they kill 'enemy'/civilians aren't psychopaths, they're
>>ideologues- and zealots aren't psychopaths, unless one believes that
>>idealism is mental illness.
> These are not soldiers - soldiering is an honourable profession - we owe
> our right to shout freely across the pond at one another to people who
> practised it. Going round arbitrarily killing people is the act of
> lunatics, whatever 'justification' they bring to it.
Different view of warfare.
American indians, for instance, had no qualms about attacking
'non-combatants', or torturing survivors, or taking slaves- it was their
way, and nothing 'psychotic' about it- just a different way of life.
We say, in silat; 'fight like a mirror'- in many ways, your opponent sets
the parameters of the fight, and you adjust to that- not impose your
worldview on them.
> As for idealism, that's certainly done a deal of harm in its time.
> Personally I prefer pragmatism and a demonstrated commitment to
> tolerance and freedom.
Geez; talk about 'doublethink'- neither 'tolerance' nor 'freedom' is
'pragmatic'.
Chas
Roger Taylor
>When was your last 50-person murder, with 700 wounded?
>And, 'grief' is not just grief- there is a whole sliding scale ranging from
>the pride of a mother lost her son in wartime to the grief of a father whose
>daughter was taken by a perv- they're different in scale.
it's not comparable. Further, you can't grieve for people you don't
know. You can feel for them certainly, but that's a different thing -
that's empathy - fellow feeling - you can't grieve. Grieving is a
massive emotional outpouring due to a personal loss. It's one of life's
frightful necessities but I wouldn't wish it on a dog - not even on Tony
Blair. Now there's compassion for you!
>> ......Then, I am a pistol shooter - more a
>> sniper than a machine-gunner :-)
>Useful until you've got more than six enemies.
True - if you've let them get that close - or forgotten a few spare
mags.
>>>Yeah; eyes mostly- at least I confuse you with the other smart one <g>
>> Ah - what a loss to the diplomatic corps you were :-)
>It was my dream as a child.
How could it not be? :-)
>>>No; all enemy 'soldiers' aren't psychopaths. Even the guys that choose
>>>self-immolation as they kill 'enemy'/civilians aren't psychopaths, they're
>>>ideologues- and zealots aren't psychopaths, unless one believes that
>>>idealism is mental illness.
>> These are not soldiers - soldiering is an honourable profession - we owe
>> our right to shout freely across the pond at one another to people who
>> practised it. Going round arbitrarily killing people is the act of
>> lunatics, whatever 'justification' they bring to it.
>Different view of warfare.
>American indians, for instance, had no qualms about attacking
>'non-combatants', or torturing survivors, or taking slaves- it was their
>way, and nothing 'psychotic' about it- just a different way of life.
That was then, this is now. Some ways of life need to die out. The Old
Testament 'eye for an eye' was a liberalizing measure, then came 'love
thy neighbour' People who arbitrarily kill innocents might have been
'heroes' once - though I doubt it - now they're psychopathic. That's
progress for you.
>We say, in silat; 'fight like a mirror'- in many ways, your opponent sets
>the parameters of the fight, and you adjust to that- not impose your
>worldview on them.
Fighting like that *is* my worldview. That's why violence is a thing a
last resort. To win, you have to be worse than your enemy. Your saving
grace is that you didn't start it and you quit once you were safe.
>> As for idealism, that's certainly done a deal of harm in its time.
>> Personally I prefer pragmatism and a demonstrated commitment to
>> tolerance and freedom.
>Geez; talk about 'doublethink'- neither 'tolerance' nor 'freedom' is
>'pragmatic'.
Behave, Chas. We're talking about politicians. Tony Blair talks about
freedom etc etc but his laws show nothing but contempt for trial by
jury, imprisonment without charge etc and his whole 'management' style
is bullying, blame-seeking and distrustful 'top-down' interference. I
don't care what a politician is thinking - if he's *doing* the right
thing, that's all that matters
Robert Low
>>Roger Taylor wrote:
>>I'd even buy another if
>>you wrote one.
> I'm working, I'm working . . . . . . . !!!
Seriously? How are you planning to market it?
Back to your old publisher, or self-publish and
flog it on CD?
>>I was going to join the apathy party, but I couldn't
>>be bothered.
> Ta daaaaa!! Welcome to the Golden Oldie Show :-)
Yep, the old ones are still the old ones, aren't
they?
Roger Taylor
>>>I'd even buy another if
>>>you wrote one.
>> I'm working, I'm working . . . . . . . !!!
>Seriously? How are you planning to market it?
>Back to your old publisher, or self-publish and
>flog it on CD?
Seriously, yes, - about 80,000 words in so far - but it's going at a
very leisurely pace - I have no contract so no deadline pressure. Added
to which it's a decidedly odd piece of work, I'll have to finish it just
to see how it ends.
Headline were a small(ish) house when I started with them and, as is the
way with small houses, were interested in writers and writing. As they
went mega, so the suits and 'bottom-liners' took over making it even
harder for non-famous names to get published. I'll probably give it a
shot as I'm nothing if not an opportunist, but I won't be holding my
breath.
Self-publishing is interesting but generally unlikely to be profitable
unless you're a dab hand at marketing or get really lucky and ring a
public bell (lottery odds there, though). Certainly I'm glad I
published my aikido book.
It was also interesting preparing the CD and well worth the extra effort
making the format comfortable to read from the screen. I'll certain put
it on CD.
Hey - made it to the Sunday Telegraph two weeks on the trot. Next week,
the world!! Never give up :-))
Chas
> no - grief is grief - it's highly personal. It's not measurable and
> it's not comparable. Further, you can't grieve for people you don't
> know. You can feel for them certainly, but that's a different thing -
> that's empathy - fellow feeling - you can't grieve. Grieving is a
> massive emotional outpouring due to a personal loss. It's one of life's
> frightful necessities but I wouldn't wish it on a dog - not even on Tony
> Blair. Now there's compassion for you!
Then we have signally differing definitions of the word 'grief', and the
inferences/differences we've drawn are pretty groundless in comparisons
between them.
I see it as a far broader word with several levels of abstraction inherent
in the context- a semantic argument, if you will.
>>> ......Then, I am a pistol shooter - more a
>>> sniper than a machine-gunner :-)
>>Useful until you've got more than six enemies.
> True - if you've let them get that close - or forgotten a few spare
> mags.
I'm kinda the 'M-14 Old Corps' myself. General Patton would have updated his
appraisal of the 'finest battle-rifle in history' comment had he seen one.
>>American indians, for instance, had no qualms about attacking
>>'non-combatants', or torturing survivors, or taking slaves- it was their
>>way, and nothing 'psychotic' about it- just a different way of life.
> That was then, this is now.
No; it's 'now', in every sense of the word.
>.......Some ways of life need to die out.
Nah; I think we've swung too far in the 'opposite' direction.
>The Old
> Testament 'eye for an eye' was a liberalizing measure, then came 'love
> thy neighbour'
I don't remember 'Be thou a Doormat' though.
> People who arbitrarily kill innocents might have been
> 'heroes' once - though I doubt it - now they're psychopathic. That's
> progress for you.
Then any pilot of any bomber is a 'psychopath', and they're not. The context
of 'war' removes a lot of the social inhibition appropriate to 'not-war';
has to, and rightly so.
One of the reasons we limit the military insofar as 'domestic' use, for
other than humanitarian stuff like flood management, is the sheer level of
destruction that the word 'military' implies.
'Terrorism' is an adjunct of every military operation; 'Operation Shock and
Awe' is an example. We can't resent their mode of operation, we simply have
to deal with it, strategically as well as tactically.
> Fighting like that *is* my worldview. That's why violence is a thing a
> last resort. To win, you have to be worse than your enemy. Your saving
> grace is that you didn't start it and you quit once you were safe.
It's always worked for me- philosophically/spiritually.
I make a differentiation between 'force' and 'violence' aphoristically;
'Force is the objective application of controlled Violence; Violence is the
subjective application of uncontrolled Force'.
Slow to be moved to the application of Force, as a problem-solving
mechanism, is a measure of one's ethical rectitude and moral integrity-
failing to move appropriately is a measure as well.
Chas
Robert Low
> Seriously, yes, - about 80,000 words in so far - but it's going at a
> very leisurely pace - I have no contract so no deadline pressure. Added
I can wait. There's plenty other stuff to read in the meantime. (Just
finished King Oedipus, which leaves the other six by Sophocles before
I look for something new.)
> to which it's a decidedly odd piece of work, I'll have to finish it just
> to see how it ends.
Is it Hawklan's world? (Or do I have to wait and find out
for myself?)
> Self-publishing is interesting but generally unlikely to be profitable
> unless you're a dab hand at marketing or get really lucky and ring a
> public bell (lottery odds there, though).
Sure: it was more curiosity than advice :-) I've heard of relatively
little good about self-publishing, but could see it might have its
attractions to somebody of independent nature. (Though even the
most independent of us has to concede that any publisher will have
a better distribution and publicity machine than none at all...)
> Hey - made it to the Sunday Telegraph two weeks on the trot.
Hah. When you can get a letter into the Grauniad I'll be
impressed :-)
Roger Taylor
>I can wait. There's plenty other stuff to read in the meantime. (Just
>finished King Oedipus, which leaves the other six by Sophocles before
>I look for something new.)
- not the excellent format of my own CD (cough cough) but not bad and a
damn sight easier to read than most 'complete works of . . .' I read
the Oristeia (?) myself recently - my daughter got a 'new', I suspect,
trendy, translation from the library and I thought it was terrific. For
my sins I can't remember the translator's name. So it goes
>Is it Hawklan's world? (Or do I have to wait and find out
>for myself?)
No, it's not. Maybe I have to write this before I can go back there, I
don't know. That kind of writing isn't particularly controllable, odd
though that might seem.
>> Self-publishing is interesting but generally unlikely to be profitable
>> unless you're a dab hand at marketing or get really lucky and ring a
>> public bell (lottery odds there, though).
>Sure: it was more curiosity than advice :-) I've heard of relatively
>little good about self-publishing, but could see it might have its
>attractions to somebody of independent nature. (Though even the
>most independent of us has to concede that any publisher will have
>a better distribution and publicity machine than none at all...)
The main decision you have to make in advance is, as when running for
election, 'how much am I prepared to spend (lose)?' Fix your figure,
then go for it and don't grizzle if it actually costs that much.
Depends how you feel about the project, of course. I liked my aikido
book and it looks good in print. Even read bits of it myself from time
to time. :-)
>> Hey - made it to the Sunday Telegraph two weeks on the trot.
>Hah. When you can get a letter into the Grauniad I'll be
>impressed :-)
Steady on, lad, steady on, get a grip. This might be rma but there are
limits . . .
Roger Taylor
>"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> no - grief is grief - it's highly personal. It's not measurable and
>> it's not comparable. Further, you can't grieve for people you don't
>> know. You can feel for them certainly, but that's a different thing -
>> that's empathy - fellow feeling - you can't grieve. Grieving is a
>> massive emotional outpouring due to a personal loss. It's one of life's
>> frightful necessities but I wouldn't wish it on a dog - not even on Tony
>> Blair. Now there's compassion for you!
>Then we have signally differing definitions of the word 'grief', and the
>inferences/differences we've drawn are pretty groundless in comparisons
>between them.
>I see it as a far broader word with several levels of abstraction inherent
>in the context- a semantic argument, if you will.
I was coming to the same conclusion. Just as you distinguish between
force and violence, so I distinguish between grief and empathy.
>>.......Some ways of life need to die out.
>Nah; I think we've swung too far in the 'opposite' direction.
Well, society's always swinging one way or another. Ours is way too
over-governed, querulous, whining, snivellingly risk-averse and
litigious to carry on that way for long in my opinion. Possibly this
atrocity might wake us up a little - make us get a grip of reality. If
it doesn't, the next one will.
>>The Old
>> Testament 'eye for an eye' was a liberalizing measure, then came 'love
>> thy neighbour'
>I don't remember 'Be thou a Doormat' though.
Anyone who reads the welcome in my face as a 'welcome' on the mat is
welcome to try - providing he doesn't mind stumping along afterwards,
two foot shorter.
>> People who arbitrarily kill innocents might have been
>> 'heroes' once - though I doubt it - now they're psychopathic. That's
>> progress for you.
>Then any pilot of any bomber is a 'psychopath', and they're not. The context
>of 'war' removes a lot of the social inhibition appropriate to 'not-war';
>has to, and rightly so.
As to the rights and wrongs of the WW2 bombing campaigns, you know my
view - once committed, you've got to do what you've got to do - that's
why war's a bad thing. I'm not prepared to pass judgement on men for
what they did at such a time against an appalling tyranny. We, safe
now, because of them, and having 20-20 hindsight, can't begin to know
what it was like in those days, with *thousands* of people being wiped
out every night, nor know what we would have done in their place.
That said, it would be both politically and practically impossible to
carpet bomb cities these days. Hell, there's headlines if a soldier
shoots someone. All of which, I believe, is not a particularly bad
thing.
Nice talking to you, young 'un
Robert Low
> Yes, there's always plenty to read. I have a CD of Shakespeare's plays
> - not the excellent format of my own CD (cough cough) but not bad and a
> damn sight easier to read than most 'complete works of . . .'
Yeah, I have to admit, the 'complete works' only virtue tends
to be completeness. No notes, and text so small that you
need a magnifiying glass. Then again, buying the Arden edition
of every play would end up a tad expensive.
> I read
> the Oristeia (?) myself recently - my daughter got a 'new', I suspect,
> trendy, translation from the library and I thought it was terrific.
Harrowing stuff, isn't it, though? What amazes me is how much
humans haven't changed in the past couple of thousand years.
> No, it's not. Maybe I have to write this before I can go back there, I
> don't know. That kind of writing isn't particularly controllable, odd
> though that might seem.
You gots to write down what the Muses whisper in your ear.
It's hubris to think you have any actual control over it :-)
>>Hah. When you can get a letter into the Grauniad I'll be
>>impressed :-)
> Steady on, lad, steady on, get a grip. This might be rma but there are
> limits . . .
Seriously though: the Telegraph would naturally be more receptive
to your ideas. If you can make the point so incontrovertibly that
the Grauniad publishes the letter, then you *know* that you've
made some progress. Can't spend all your time preaching to the
choir...
Chas
> I was coming to the same conclusion. Just as you distinguish between
> force and violence, so I distinguish between grief and empathy.
A vet who goes to the Wall in DC grieves for all 57,000 men; known to him
personally or not. A jew grieves for the Holocaust; an amerindian for the
Trail of Tears, blacks for the Mid-Atlantic Passage.
It isn't the incapacitating grief one must feel upon the loss of a child,
but it'll do.
> That said, it would be both politically and practically impossible to
> carpet bomb cities these days. Hell, there's headlines if a soldier
> shoots someone. All of which, I believe, is not a particularly bad
> thing.
The difficulty is always reconciling it for a civilian watching who's
comparing it with burglaries gone bad in Croydon.
> Nice talking to you, young 'un
Always, m' dear old thing-
Chas
slim
Roger Taylor wrote:
>
> olaf writes
> >The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
> >on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
> >choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
> >suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
> >begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
> >they were like during the Battle of Britain.
>
> I don't think the war has anything to do with this. These people are
> psychopaths who need no reason to kill at random, and gullible
> inadequates who just want someone to tell them what to do.
As opposed to the psychopaths like Cheney, Rummsey, Rove, Wolfowitz,
and the rest of the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight"?