Explosions in London

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:32 PM

Invective used for the purpose of baiting, McGrath, if you want to get technical.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:36 PM

In the case of Shock and Awe, residential areas were bombed, as were hotels. In other words, civilians. In the case of the train bombings, the targets were civilians who ride on trains.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Pessimist vs Optimist
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:20 PM

But the my whole point really was for the purpose of addressing who could defined as being "average" in terms of what sort of experiences people were having. In the deep south, slaves were "the average person" prior to the civil war.

************************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Pessimist vs Optimist
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 03:47 PM

Were the slaves in the census at that time being counted each as one full human, or did 1 slave = 3/4 (or whatever fraction they used) of a full human?

From your link, beardedbruce, 1860 census, counting only the states that can pretty indesputedly be counted as "the South"...

Free -
Slave -

Alabama - 529,121
Alabama - 435,080

Florida - 78,679
Florida - 61,745

Georgia - 595,088
Georgia - 462,198

Louisiana - 376,276
Louisiana - 331,726

Mississippi - 354,674
Mississippi - 436,631

North Carolina - 661,563
North Carolina - 331,059

South Carolina - 301,302
South Caronina - 402,406

Virginia - 1,105,453
Virginia - 490,865

If we assume that in this census 1 slave = 1 full human being, then you are correct on the numbers. But the 1860 census shows that out of a total population of 7,568,454 in the states listed above, 3,566,298 were slaves. That means that the slaves numberd only 217,929 less than half of the total population. I think, considering the numbers, we can say that the slaves in the south could very definitely be put in the category of "average" in terms of how many people were having what kinds of experiences during that time period. And of course, if they were not each being counted as a full human, it's very possible that the number of slaves did indeed exceed the numbers of free people.

************************************************************************

3:47 PM is now AFTER 4:20PM?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:40 PM

And I do find it rich that you would suggest that I have no sense of irony just because I live across the Atlantic, McGrath. I've caught irony that got past your radar more than once. Them's fighting words.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM

beardedbruce, please show me where, in my 4:20 post, the word "most" appears. Please note - "average" and "most" do not mean the same thing.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:01 PM

Sorry brucie - you're getting your wires crossed in pst 8 Jul 05 - 07:29 PM;

That was me, not Carol. And I don't kjbnow where you are geting tegh idea that I think that somehow there was something justifiable about the train bombings, which I specifically described as vicious murder in the paragraph you didn't quote from that post of mine you ascribed to Carol.

............
I disagree there Carol - I differentiate between baiting (or teasing) and invective. That doesn't mean they can't be mis-used in a discussion, just as invective often is. And both should be distinguished from the kind of unpleasant personal abuse which gets thrown around too freely, especially by people who've made fools of themselves in an argument.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:15 PM

Alright then pardner, get out yer dictionary, and let's have a look...

My dictionary...

Main Entry: 1in-vec-tive
Pronunciation: in-'vek-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English invectif, from Middle French, from Latin invectivus, from invectus, past participle of invehere
: of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:40 PM

The distinction I make between invective and abuse is perhaps one that is open to challenge. My dictionary actually defines invective as "abusive speech or writing, vituperation, wordy onslaught or attack". Though dictionaries shouldn't be treated as being the last word...

But I'm sure you'd recognise as familiar the example given below the definition: he was a master of invective, but a shallow reasoner There's a lot of that around here sometimes.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:22 AM

Dianavan,

(1) there was nothing in your post I have quoted indicating you were only talking about suicide terrorist groups
(2) But even if you restrict what you have said to them it is wrong as you can see in some of my examples. Take Djerba for incidence. A Tunesian suicide-bombing Germans in a Synagogue. Who is occupying Tunesia?

I take dianavan as saying that not all terrorist groups are motivated by religion (McGrath)

McGrath, not all terrorist groups... I only can agree with a sentence formulated this cautious way. In my eyes it is true and completely uncontroversial. My issue is with the 'all are not motivated' expression. You think Dianavan didn't express herself well. You could be right but from other opinions of her I think she did express herself well and I disagree with the content (and not at all with her way of expressing herself). But she is the only one who can tell that better than our speculations.

El Greko, good observations, but you made me stop when you did write about the "pan-Arab" conscience. The Indonesian bombers do not fit in here for they are not Arabs though they are co-religionists. The common religion is here the motive and not the common Arab-ness. Suicide terrorists from the South of Sudan also hardly fit the Pan-Arab motive.

Using the cautious formulation of McGrath I'd agree that not all motives are religious but I'd disagree with 'all motives are not religious'.

BTW, I liked reading a comment in today's Guardian with a German angle (our terrorists of the 70s) in it:

Useful idiots have always apologised for terrorists

Those who say we are doomed to remain indefinitely in a state of siege are as wrong as those who think that merely to withdraw from Iraq, desirable though that would be, would bring the terrorist siege to a quick, clean end.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:22 PM

Wolfgang - You are such a nitpicker you drive me crazy!

If there is a misunderstanding, take it up with "Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice."

From the article posted by Carol C. in this thread and by me on another thread.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:16 AM

Nitpicking is better than insults. Wolfgang's approach has a lot to be said for it.

Though I'd disagree with his judgement this time, where he reads intent into what appears pretty clearly to have been ambiguity in a hastily written post by dianavan.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:25 AM

Carol, take some valium. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse forum. Your regular attacks on people such as McGrath, El Greko, greg, and others do not win you any debating points.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:53 AM

Useful Idiots

From the Guardian article...

If Germany's experience has lessons for us, it is that the outcome of our journey depends most of all upon security measures to catch the terrorists and a rejection of violence by those who are tempted to excuse or even condone it.

Rejection of violence indeed.

Iraq Body Count

"One might ask how it is possible to claim that the deaths of some 4,500 civilians at the hands of paramilitaries demonstrates "utter contempt for innocent life" when the blood of some 14,000 innocents staining our own hands is considered noble and necessary. Tony Blair provided the following answer on 20th November, standing alongside George W Bush in London:

    'This terrorism is the 21st century threat. It is a war that strikes at the heart of all that we hold dear, and there is only one response that is possible or rational: to meet their will to inflict terror with a greater will to defeat it; to confront their philosophy of hate with our own of tolerance and freedom; and to challenge their desire to frighten us, divide us, unnerve us with an unshakeable unity of purpose; to stand side by side with the United States of America and with our other allies in the world, to rid our world of this evil once and for all.'

The claim that a strategy which produces 14,000 civilian deaths is the expression of a "philosophy of tolerance and freedom" is a claim which we find incomprehensible. Our incomprehension is shared, we believe, by the majority of the world's people."

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:54 AM

Guest, Fed Up, you have a bizarre idea of what constitutes an attack.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:41 AM

Imagine the flak if we decided to piss all over a thread about a tragic occurence in US.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:43 AM

It happened in the threads about 9/11, GUEST 20 Jul 05 - 11:41 AM.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:44 AM

Well if you thought that was ok it explains why you are doing it here.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:49 AM

Yes, actually, I did think it was ok. I thought that the perspectives about the relationship of the US to the rest of the world that were given by people from other countries in those threads was quite valuable for us here in the US to read.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

There's a time and a place for obsessive rantings,but you wouldn't understand that. Carry on, without martin you seem to find any outlet you can.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:54 AM

Carry on, without martin you seem to find any outlet you can.

...and here I thought you were trying to take his place.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:56 AM

goodbye carol. I have a job to go to.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:11 PM

Why CarolC must you continue to fight on this thread which is about poor people meeting there death, please show some respect for the dead.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:20 PM

Actually, GUEST, I have mostly been trying to avoid fights. Why don't you talk to the ones who keep trying to drag me into fights? They are the ones who are sullying this thread.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:21 PM

This thread isn't just about poor people meeting their death. Its about the explosions in London. That begs the question why.

Guest - Do you feel anything for the Iraqis who have died as a result of U.S. aggression? The people of London and the people of London are the same to me. I don't know any of them but I still think its tragic.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:40 PM

dianavan you should also show some respect for the dead, and dont use this thread for your political rant platform

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:48 PM

"Guest - Do you feel anything..." On balance, probably not. But in any case it's a good policy to ignore that kind of self-absorbed phantom.
...............

Here is a link to pictures of London in the wake of the bombs, on flickr.

A bit more relevant.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

I think the conversation while mostly okay, is somewhat hampered because folks are discussing it at different levels. At the level of death unleashed on unsuspecting civilians, there is a sad commonality to all the victims, wherever they are. However, if you're going to start equating all victims of all wars, you are taking a moral equivalency view, much as one might make of it from outer space. This is not wrong of itself, but it is wrong to make everything equal and then come back into the game arguing in favor of one side.

If you're going to take the viewpoint from outer space, then you should stay in outer space.

If you're going to argue that people, who strap on explosives and go onto a civilian conveyence in order to wreak havoc on fellow civilians, are no different from military opponents in battle; you are involved in the morality of warfare and judgements can and are being made as to the values of either side and the springs of belief that flow into these actions. But it's correct to call attention to the distinctions being ignored to make that argument.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:38 PM

There is a difference between killing military opponents and killing random civilians, robomatic.

But when you're engaged in killing random civilians to make a political point, how the bomb is delivered is not all that significant to the reality of what is being done. And the truth is, that is what has been done in our name.

And that isn't to say that the people who blew up those bombs in London weren't engaged in an act of cruel and vicious murder, because they were. And the fact that they aren't the only ones in no way changes that.
.................................
That link I gave to the London bombing pictures on flickr - they are best seen as a slideshow, which you can do by pushing "View as slideshow" on the flickr screen. Seeing those shots of Londoners standing in the three minutes silence, taken by a whole bunch of strangers, adds up to a very powerful experience. I urge people to take a couple of minutes out from squabbling to share it.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:13 PM

McGrath: Without being more specific, you have just agreed with me without agreeing with me. You first say that there is a difference, but you then go on to restate what you have already said, so I conclude that you say there is a difference, but choose not to delineate that difference. thus creating a distinction without a difference.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 05:53 AM

any interested parties...

the body hair shaving was reported by The Times - sorry I didn't keep the article

Wolfgang, did the RAF bomb Germany in 1970's/80's?

wouldn't surprise me....they tell us nothing!

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:04 AM

wld I had read that they shaved off their beards to avoid being possibly recognised as moslems.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:18 AM

I read they were working in a pig slaughter house to escape detection.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Jack
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:45 AM

Thanks for the Silence pictures McGrath.
I think that one of our regular contributors will have been celebrating while we were grieving.
He only contributes to Irish political threads, no interest in music, and hates all members of the English race.
He wrote this a few weeks ago.

GUEST,Tír Eoghain BS: British Army reward murderer. (139* d) RE: BS: British Army reward murderer. 29 Apr 05

---------------------------------------------------------------

Al Q is on its way, Yorkie.
One door closes, another door closes, eh?

Good luck on your National Security thing.
We'll be alright however, Jack!

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: DavidHannam
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 08:10 AM

Yes very moving pictures.

Yes a disgusting post i think from the tir eoghin.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,more terror attacks
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:25 AM

More terror attacks. Police are looking for a muslim in a local hospital

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 08:29 PM

In think you misunderstood what I was saying robomatic. My fault.

I didn't state the difference because I didn't think it needed to be stated. So I will now. As I see it setting out to kill non-combatants, such as civilians on a train, or families in their homes, is always murder and always indefensible, whoever does it. Setting out to kill enemy soldiers who would kill you if they had the chance is at least arguably justifiable.

That is the distinction that matters. How the killing mechanisms are delivered is, so far as ethics are concerned, not in itself that important. A bomb is a bomb.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:49 PM

Thank you for the clarity McGrath. I don't agree with your last statement, but I'm not going to argue the point.

As far as the latest bomb attempt goes, it appears that the good guys got lucky as there were no deaths, and a lot of evidence has been obtained.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:22 AM

weelittledrummer,

I should have thought of the other meaning of 'RAF'.

RAF: Red Army Faction (in their language)
Baader-Meinhof group in the liberal newspapers
Baader-Meinhof gang in the conservative press

This RAF did bomb Germany in the two decades, the other RAF didn't, not in these two decades I mean.

Wolfgang - You are such a nitpicker you drive me crazy! (Dianavan)

If one tries to see patterns, one of the good tests is to find exceptions, for one mostly can learn more from exceptions than from corroborations of a rule. My mind is trained this way. I've always found counterexamples to something I had thought was true an enrichment and never thought of them as nitpicking.

Dianavan, you could try to take corrections with more composure. Do you still remember your excessive emotional reaction when I told you that the Faroes lie West of Ireland? A simple three word sentence like 'I stand corrected' or 'I have erred' is often better than trying to defame the one posting in opposition to one of your points.

I'm not a wholist. I never mean the whole person or even the whole argumentation in one thread if I oppose one particular point.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:04 AM

The Faroes lie west of Ireland? No they don't. West of England and west of Wales, and west of almost all of the Scottish mainland; and most people - leaving out the ones who think they're in the South Atlantic - would be pretty surprised at that.

But most of Ireland is in fact to the west of the Faroes.
......................

As this post demonstrates, I agree with Wolfgang on the value of precision in matters of fact. And on quite a lot of other aspects relating to the way arguments are best conducted.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:50 AM

So McGrath - Are you saying that the Blasket Islands (off the Dingle Penninsula) are the most westerly point?

Wolfgang - I let it go because I didn't want to argue about something I didn't think it was particularly important and I also know that if you bothered to contradict this minor point, it wasn't worth the effort to try to change your mind.

Maybe it depends on whether you consider Ireland to be part of Europe.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:18 AM

No, I'm saying that most of the island of Ireland is to the west of the westernmost part of the Faroe Islands. (And the Blaskets, of course, are to the west of the Irish mainland, but I'm a bit puzzled why they come into it...)

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:38 PM

Has someone been bombing the Blaskets? I'm getting a bit confused here.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:10 PM

This thread drift was a result of Wolfgang being a nitpicker.

I once said something like the Dingle Penninsula or the Blasket Islands were the most westerly point of Europe. He says its the Faroe islands and that I was trying to defame him by not admitting that I was wrong, or something like that. Its no big thing to me its just that Wolfgang won't let it go. He thinks I owe him an apology.

I don't think I owe him an apology. I think he is OCD and maybe he should admit he is wrong and let it go.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:34 PM

I think he is Often Correct Dianavan too.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:39 PM

What about Rockall?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Tam the man
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:59 PM

I don't remmber them being on all day about the bobmbings in Northern Ireland, or warrington, Brighton or Iraq, but because it happens in London that is different and that they are muslims or whatever, anyway it is sad that it happened isn't it.

As you say we could go on forever.

If it happens anywhere else as I say it is a quick there has been a bobming in Iraq or Warrington and now the weather, I mean how would you lot feel if they did that with London, I don't think you would be pleased would you.

Tam

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Tam the man
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:07 PM

Ps.

I'm sorry if I have upset some people but please rembember that it not all London, there are other places that are just as important as London.

Anyway.

If I have upset anyone I'm sorry, but we have a saying in Scotland whay is it always London, everything has to go to London, why not Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle.

But that the London people for you, they think that the border between Scotland/Wales stops at the Watford Gap, and anything that is beyond that is just wilderness.

But let bygones be bygones

Tam

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Tam the man
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM

PPs

we have a saying in Scotland, to the English and that is

WELCOME TO BRITIAN

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:16 PM

Thread drift extraordinaire once again

Just to remind people this thread is about when many people died in a bombing incident.

God bless them

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:22 PM

500