The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A guy that writes for the Daily Telegraph
Long read but extremely good points raised calmly and politely.
------
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to launch a crusade for good; the face behind the faceless terror.
The closer you look, the weaker the case against bin Laden becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound in the world may have been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence that they were instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt rests on the supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.
By using bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military spending, weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have enhanced his iconic status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other words, has been nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess the means of stamping him out. This is not the only way in which the new terrorism crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power.
The lax airport security which enabled the hijackers to smuggle weapons onto the planes was the result of corporate lobbying against the stricter controls the government had proposed. Some reports suggest that so many died in the south tower of the World Trade Centre partly because some of the companies there instructed their employees to return to work after the north tower had been hit.
Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision would have been front page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive proliferation of plutonium, and a near certainty that some of it will find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which would be unacceptable at any other time.
For these reasons and many others, radical opposition has seldom been more necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable. The right is seizing the political space which has opened up where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.
Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a whole new generation of bin Ladens. The British government is considering the introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're likely to be treated as such.
One of the peculiar problems we radicals face is that the targets of Tuesday's terror represented more clearly than any others the powers we have long opposed. For those of us who have campaigned against the predatory behaviour of the financial sector and the defence industry, the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon had come to symbolise all that was rotten in the state of the world. So, though ours is a movement built on peace, it has not been hard for our opponents to equate our dissidence with terror.
The authoritarianism which has long been lurking in advanced capitalism has started to surface. In the Guardian yesterday, William Shawcross -- Rupert Murdoch's courteous biographer -- articulated the new orthodoxy: America is, he maintained, "a beacon of hope for the world's poor and dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom of thought and deed". These believers would presumably include the families of the Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain and the US have imposed; the peasants murdered by Bush's proxy war in Colombia; and the tens of millions living under despotic regimes in the Middle East, sustained and sponsored by the United States.
William Shawcross concluded by suggesting that "we are all Americans now", a terrifying echo of Pinochet's maxim that "we are all Chileans now": by which he meant that no cultural distinctions would be tolerated, and no indigenous land rights recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that those who question American power are now the enemies of democracy. It's a different way of formulating the warning voiced by members of the Bush administration: "if you're not with us, you're against us".
But when the right is on the rampage, victims as well as perpetrators are trampled.
Mark Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did it." The radical left is able to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right can't bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's new invasions of Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed terror in East Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia. Its critical faculties have long been suspended and now, it demands, we must suspend ours too.
Retaining the ability to discriminate between good acts and bad acts will become ever harder over the next few months, as new conflicts and paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may be that a convincing case against bin Laden is assembled, whereupon his forced extradition would, I feel, be justified. But, unless we wish to help George Bush use barbarism to defend the "civilisation" he claims to represent, we on the left must distinguish between extradition and extermination.
Tuesday's terror may have signalled the beginning of the end of globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to precipitate, coupled with a new and understandable fear among many Americans of engagement with the outside world, could lead to a reactionary protectionism in the United States, which is likely to provoke similar responses on this side of the Atlantic. We will, in these circumstances, have to be careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate globalisation, if it merely gives way to something even worse.
The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday, the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to voice
Long read but extremely good points raised calmly and politely.
------
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to launch a crusade for good; the face behind the faceless terror.
The closer you look, the weaker the case against bin Laden becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound in the world may have been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence that they were instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt rests on the supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.
By using bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military spending, weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have enhanced his iconic status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other words, has been nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess the means of stamping him out. This is not the only way in which the new terrorism crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power.
The lax airport security which enabled the hijackers to smuggle weapons onto the planes was the result of corporate lobbying against the stricter controls the government had proposed. Some reports suggest that so many died in the south tower of the World Trade Centre partly because some of the companies there instructed their employees to return to work after the north tower had been hit.
Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision would have been front page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive proliferation of plutonium, and a near certainty that some of it will find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which would be unacceptable at any other time.
For these reasons and many others, radical opposition has seldom been more necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable. The right is seizing the political space which has opened up where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.
Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a whole new generation of bin Ladens. The British government is considering the introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're likely to be treated as such.
One of the peculiar problems we radicals face is that the targets of Tuesday's terror represented more clearly than any others the powers we have long opposed. For those of us who have campaigned against the predatory behaviour of the financial sector and the defence industry, the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon had come to symbolise all that was rotten in the state of the world. So, though ours is a movement built on peace, it has not been hard for our opponents to equate our dissidence with terror.
The authoritarianism which has long been lurking in advanced capitalism has started to surface. In the Guardian yesterday, William Shawcross -- Rupert Murdoch's courteous biographer -- articulated the new orthodoxy: America is, he maintained, "a beacon of hope for the world's poor and dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom of thought and deed". These believers would presumably include the families of the Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain and the US have imposed; the peasants murdered by Bush's proxy war in Colombia; and the tens of millions living under despotic regimes in the Middle East, sustained and sponsored by the United States.
William Shawcross concluded by suggesting that "we are all Americans now", a terrifying echo of Pinochet's maxim that "we are all Chileans now": by which he meant that no cultural distinctions would be tolerated, and no indigenous land rights recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that those who question American power are now the enemies of democracy. It's a different way of formulating the warning voiced by members of the Bush administration: "if you're not with us, you're against us".
But when the right is on the rampage, victims as well as perpetrators are trampled.
Mark Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did it." The radical left is able to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right can't bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's new invasions of Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed terror in East Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia. Its critical faculties have long been suspended and now, it demands, we must suspend ours too.
Retaining the ability to discriminate between good acts and bad acts will become ever harder over the next few months, as new conflicts and paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may be that a convincing case against bin Laden is assembled, whereupon his forced extradition would, I feel, be justified. But, unless we wish to help George Bush use barbarism to defend the "civilisation" he claims to represent, we on the left must distinguish between extradition and extermination.
Tuesday's terror may have signalled the beginning of the end of globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to precipitate, coupled with a new and understandable fear among many Americans of engagement with the outside world, could lead to a reactionary protectionism in the United States, which is likely to provoke similar responses on this side of the Atlantic. We will, in these circumstances, have to be careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate globalisation, if it merely gives way to something even worse.
The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday, the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to voice
Page:
Yeah me too.
I guess being a full-time activist/investigative hero doesn't pay too well.
I'll stick with being a part-time shouty-bloke and earning a bit more than that.
I guess being a full-time activist/investigative hero doesn't pay too well.
I'll stick with being a part-time shouty-bloke and earning a bit more than that.
Fair enough!
Though I am truly shocked. I really do find it hard to believe that he earns less money than I do!
Though I am truly shocked. I really do find it hard to believe that he earns less money than I do!
Wookie:
Got a response from George Monbiot on the impression you got from his article of the sort of person he was:
"I generally don't reply to personal things like this. but just for your own info - I earned a net 12,900 pounds last year before tax, and I ride a bicycle, so it's not a very accurate picture!
With my best wishes
George Monbiot"
Got a response from George Monbiot on the impression you got from his article of the sort of person he was:
"I generally don't reply to personal things like this. but just for your own info - I earned a net 12,900 pounds last year before tax, and I ride a bicycle, so it's not a very accurate picture!
With my best wishes
George Monbiot"
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
> Okay, so I am a political/historical ignoramus; maybe I shouldn't get into
> arguments about subjects I know little about.
That's not a sarcastic comment,
> that's an admission. I've said before that I've little or no interest in
> politics.
I will admit I get so wound up over these matters that my judgment
> gets very clouded and my ability to argue rationally disappears - whether I know
> what I'm talking about or not.
Pointers to decent sites detailing the history
> involved will be appreciated; meanwhile, I'll go looking myself in the hope of
> enlightenment.
Even as someone who does enjoy political debate etc I find myself at saturation point with the situation at the moment. Howeve I am a big fan of George Monboit. Perhaps try his site.:)
> Okay, so I am a political/historical ignoramus; maybe I shouldn't get into
> arguments about subjects I know little about.
That's not a sarcastic comment,
> that's an admission. I've said before that I've little or no interest in
> politics.
I will admit I get so wound up over these matters that my judgment
> gets very clouded and my ability to argue rationally disappears - whether I know
> what I'm talking about or not.
Pointers to decent sites detailing the history
> involved will be appreciated; meanwhile, I'll go looking myself in the hope of
> enlightenment.
Even as someone who does enjoy political debate etc I find myself at saturation point with the situation at the moment. Howeve I am a big fan of George Monboit. Perhaps try his site.:)
*wags finger*
And dont you forget it.
Seriously though Wookiee, none of this was meant in anger. I think people that see different sides of an situation should try and explain their views.
Nothing wrong with that and it may cause someone to see something in a different light.
Now get your behind over to the Movie forum and check out the "Hot Monkey Love" movie thing in Extra FAD
And dont you forget it.
Seriously though Wookiee, none of this was meant in anger. I think people that see different sides of an situation should try and explain their views.
Nothing wrong with that and it may cause someone to see something in a different light.
Now get your behind over to the Movie forum and check out the "Hot Monkey Love" movie thing in Extra FAD
Okay, so I am a political/historical ignoramus; maybe I shouldn't get into arguments about subjects I know little about.
That's not a sarcastic comment, that's an admission. I've said before that I've little or no interest in politics.
I will admit I get so wound up over these matters that my judgment gets very clouded and my ability to argue rationally disappears - whether I know what I'm talking about or not.
Pointers to decent sites detailing the history involved will be appreciated; meanwhile, I'll go looking myself in the hope of enlightenment.
That's not a sarcastic comment, that's an admission. I've said before that I've little or no interest in politics.
I will admit I get so wound up over these matters that my judgment gets very clouded and my ability to argue rationally disappears - whether I know what I'm talking about or not.
Pointers to decent sites detailing the history involved will be appreciated; meanwhile, I'll go looking myself in the hope of enlightenment.
Kitty wrote:
Denying people the right to
> self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to
> formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression.
> Surely thats where we are at now?
Exactly my point.
I have had this a hell of lot from people since I wouldn't just sit there and cut-out'n-keep a picture of "our boys" from The Sun or paste Bin Laden on a target.
But the reactionaries don't seem to be able to differentiate between "I do not condone the Taliban/Bin Laden in any way whatsoever" and "I believe the USA and UK are just as brutal and oppressive a regime and exactly the same".
Those that stop and say "I don't believe what is happening is correct" are labelled as "sympathisers" or "one of them" and you are subject to all manner of verbal abuse (personally speaking).
Well, like Monboit, I choose to use the education provided to me (at my own expense after college) to make myself aware of the facts and the history behind things like foreign policy to the Middle East and similar situations, so I am able to stop and think "Why did this happen?" instead of "Hit 'em back Bush! Blow 'em all to hell!"
If you read back through all manner of topics I have posted before Sept 11th, I have been a most vocal critic of the ways our government operate, with arms dealing to dictatorships and murderous countries.
This is not to say I am standing here saying "The UK Government is totally corrupt and we deserve being bombed!", that is me standing there saying "Well, despite the benefits we enjoy, there are actually a number of things wrong here, and these are the facts..."
Please, go back and read my topics on Asset Forfeiture, Arms Dealing etc etc to see that my sudden concern with our government does not stem from Sept 11th.
And I am not a rich-toff, or spoilt rich kid that likes to play revolutionary.
I am a normal, everyday person that realised a long time ago that I found a number of things suspect, and made the facts available and feel the need to share them.
(I believe I posted my "Preaching to the Disinterested" topic because I am unable to stop looking at these areas of government)
I defend myself day in/day out here and in the world, but that's cool. I choose to stand up and say "We are being royally screwed here" and try to get information out to others.
However, as soon as someone approaches the WTC and Pentagon attacks, everyone suddenly becomes fiercely patriotic and assumes a "You either support the military action or you are a liberal sympathiser".
Well I am neither.
I agree something needs to be done, but I don't have the answers.
I do know that bombing a country with zero resources achieves nothing except anti-west feelings, and no amount of chucking pop-tarts from aeroplanes will fix that.
I do not support terrorism.
But that means I do not support terrorism carried out by the UK or USA either.
You cannot differentiate here.
People say "Well we have to do something in return", but that's exactly what people like Bin Laden have been saying for years, but those in charge didn't listen.
And now we are here.
The West has systematically abused and repressed places like Afghanistan. Like Kitty says, the USA are solely responsible for the Taliban and Bin Laden.
They trained the most fundamental,hardcore fighters they could find to roust the Russians, and look surprised when they get kicked in the balls.
I am not justifying Bin Laden's actions here, merely saying you can't arm, train and fund this guy and then say "Why did this happen?"
We are heading right back to the Cold-War era, throwing 40 years down the pan to strike back at a group we created and trained.
That isn't right.
And it is my right to say so, just as it is yours to agree with what is going on.
One big difference I notice in these forums though:
I am constantly being told that the way I think and my comments are "wrong" and "You cannot suggest that this action is wrong", but I do not tell you that you are wrong for supporting the action.
I condemn the actions, not those who believe in them
However, that same courtesy is not extended to myself and others who express unhappiness and question what is going on.
Which is why we are in this sorry state right now, because one group said "No, you cannot think like that, you are wrong".
Interesting footnote to this thread:
Not one single person has attempted to argue or discuss the points made by Mr Monbiot - merely attacked the type of people that put forward such sentiments.
Why is that?
I even provided his email address for those that disagree to tell him directly, to enter into a conversation with him face-to-face.
Has anyone done that?
Does anyone have the courage of their conviction enough to take their objections to a man that knows more than you about this stuff?
Denying people the right to
> self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to
> formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression.
> Surely thats where we are at now?
Exactly my point.
I have had this a hell of lot from people since I wouldn't just sit there and cut-out'n-keep a picture of "our boys" from The Sun or paste Bin Laden on a target.
But the reactionaries don't seem to be able to differentiate between "I do not condone the Taliban/Bin Laden in any way whatsoever" and "I believe the USA and UK are just as brutal and oppressive a regime and exactly the same".
Those that stop and say "I don't believe what is happening is correct" are labelled as "sympathisers" or "one of them" and you are subject to all manner of verbal abuse (personally speaking).
Well, like Monboit, I choose to use the education provided to me (at my own expense after college) to make myself aware of the facts and the history behind things like foreign policy to the Middle East and similar situations, so I am able to stop and think "Why did this happen?" instead of "Hit 'em back Bush! Blow 'em all to hell!"
If you read back through all manner of topics I have posted before Sept 11th, I have been a most vocal critic of the ways our government operate, with arms dealing to dictatorships and murderous countries.
This is not to say I am standing here saying "The UK Government is totally corrupt and we deserve being bombed!", that is me standing there saying "Well, despite the benefits we enjoy, there are actually a number of things wrong here, and these are the facts..."
Please, go back and read my topics on Asset Forfeiture, Arms Dealing etc etc to see that my sudden concern with our government does not stem from Sept 11th.
And I am not a rich-toff, or spoilt rich kid that likes to play revolutionary.
I am a normal, everyday person that realised a long time ago that I found a number of things suspect, and made the facts available and feel the need to share them.
(I believe I posted my "Preaching to the Disinterested" topic because I am unable to stop looking at these areas of government)
I defend myself day in/day out here and in the world, but that's cool. I choose to stand up and say "We are being royally screwed here" and try to get information out to others.
However, as soon as someone approaches the WTC and Pentagon attacks, everyone suddenly becomes fiercely patriotic and assumes a "You either support the military action or you are a liberal sympathiser".
Well I am neither.
I agree something needs to be done, but I don't have the answers.
I do know that bombing a country with zero resources achieves nothing except anti-west feelings, and no amount of chucking pop-tarts from aeroplanes will fix that.
I do not support terrorism.
But that means I do not support terrorism carried out by the UK or USA either.
You cannot differentiate here.
People say "Well we have to do something in return", but that's exactly what people like Bin Laden have been saying for years, but those in charge didn't listen.
And now we are here.
The West has systematically abused and repressed places like Afghanistan. Like Kitty says, the USA are solely responsible for the Taliban and Bin Laden.
They trained the most fundamental,hardcore fighters they could find to roust the Russians, and look surprised when they get kicked in the balls.
I am not justifying Bin Laden's actions here, merely saying you can't arm, train and fund this guy and then say "Why did this happen?"
We are heading right back to the Cold-War era, throwing 40 years down the pan to strike back at a group we created and trained.
That isn't right.
And it is my right to say so, just as it is yours to agree with what is going on.
One big difference I notice in these forums though:
I am constantly being told that the way I think and my comments are "wrong" and "You cannot suggest that this action is wrong", but I do not tell you that you are wrong for supporting the action.
I condemn the actions, not those who believe in them
However, that same courtesy is not extended to myself and others who express unhappiness and question what is going on.
Which is why we are in this sorry state right now, because one group said "No, you cannot think like that, you are wrong".
Interesting footnote to this thread:
Not one single person has attempted to argue or discuss the points made by Mr Monbiot - merely attacked the type of people that put forward such sentiments.
Why is that?
I even provided his email address for those that disagree to tell him directly, to enter into a conversation with him face-to-face.
Has anyone done that?
Does anyone have the courage of their conviction enough to take their objections to a man that knows more than you about this stuff?
People seem to be forgetting that Taliban is in existence as a direct result of past American policy in Afghanistan. They armed, trained and supplied the Mujhadin in order to get the Russians out back in the 80's. The Taliban is the direct descendent of that action. I am not posting this as a denial of the atrocities of the WTC or even to justify it any way just as a gentled reminder that America's heavy handed intervention in foreign affairs hasn't got us very far in the past. History has taught us that caution at least should be exercised. Tub thumping nationalism leads to blinkered visions and shortsightedness. Surely the point of history is to learn from it.
Also on the point of swearing allegance to the flag - a practice beloved of the States. Again the point is being missed. America is two hundred years old (If you take Columbus's "Discovery" as the starting point). It is a nation of immigrants Britain isn't (maybe I should qualify that with a historic timespan. Large scale immigration is a relatively recent feature of British life given how long we as a nation state have been in existence). Britain's national identity has had a lot longer time to evolve. This doesn't make us superiour just doesn't mean we have a different sense of national identity. One that doesn't require swearing allegiance. We do not need daily reminders that we are "British".
Allegiance is also something that should be earned not expected. I am hugely proud of being British but for the reasons that others would see as disloyalty. I am proud because we have a free press, a democratic government and socialised education and health care. None of this is perfect and all of those liberties are being threatened in the current climate. I am proud that I can question and challenge decisions taken on my behalf. That is something that is worth fighting for.
As for George Monboit being some jag driving, toff well again you've got it slightly wrong. He is a tenacious, talented investigative journalist with a long track record of working long and hard to expose "injustices". Poison Arrows a book he wrote about corruption in Indonesia took him two years to investigate in the country.Living under daily threat of being exposed and executed for trying to highlight the plight of a dispossed and abused people. Hardly living the highlife. I'm not asking that you should agree with what he says. I'm saying that you should defend his right to say it and not jump to assumptions about the nature of the man. As far as I can see he's put his education to good use.
Denying people the right to self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression. Surely thats where we are at now?
Also on the point of swearing allegance to the flag - a practice beloved of the States. Again the point is being missed. America is two hundred years old (If you take Columbus's "Discovery" as the starting point). It is a nation of immigrants Britain isn't (maybe I should qualify that with a historic timespan. Large scale immigration is a relatively recent feature of British life given how long we as a nation state have been in existence). Britain's national identity has had a lot longer time to evolve. This doesn't make us superiour just doesn't mean we have a different sense of national identity. One that doesn't require swearing allegiance. We do not need daily reminders that we are "British".
Allegiance is also something that should be earned not expected. I am hugely proud of being British but for the reasons that others would see as disloyalty. I am proud because we have a free press, a democratic government and socialised education and health care. None of this is perfect and all of those liberties are being threatened in the current climate. I am proud that I can question and challenge decisions taken on my behalf. That is something that is worth fighting for.
As for George Monboit being some jag driving, toff well again you've got it slightly wrong. He is a tenacious, talented investigative journalist with a long track record of working long and hard to expose "injustices". Poison Arrows a book he wrote about corruption in Indonesia took him two years to investigate in the country.Living under daily threat of being exposed and executed for trying to highlight the plight of a dispossed and abused people. Hardly living the highlife. I'm not asking that you should agree with what he says. I'm saying that you should defend his right to say it and not jump to assumptions about the nature of the man. As far as I can see he's put his education to good use.
Denying people the right to self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression. Surely thats where we are at now?
People seem to be forgetting that Taliban is in existence as a direct result of past American policy in Afghanistan. They armed, trained and supplied the Mujhadin in order to get the Russians out back in the 80's. The Taliban is the direct descendent of that action. I am not posting this as a denial of the atrocities of the WTC or even to justify it any way just as a gentled reminder that America's heavy handed intervention in foreign affairs hasn't got us very far in the past. History has taught us that caution at least should be exercised. Tub thumping nationalism leads to blinkered visions and shortsightedness. Surely the point of history is to learn from it.
Also on the point of swearing allegance to the flag - a practice beloved of the States. Again the point is being missed. America is two hundred years old (If you take Columbus's "Discovery" as the starting point). It is a nation of immigrants Britain isn't (maybe I should qualify that with a historic timespan. Large scale immigration is a relatively recent feature of British life given how long we as a nation state have been in existence). Britain's national identity has had a lot longer time to evolve. This doesn't make us superiour just doesn't mean we have a different sense of national identity. One that doesn't require swearing allegiance. We do not need daily reminders that we are "British".
Allegiance is also something that should be earned not expected. I am hugely proud of being British but for the reasons that others would see as disloyalty. I am proud because we have a free press, a democratic government and socialised education and health care. None of this is perfect and all of those liberties are being threatened in the current climate. I am proud that I can question and challenge decisions taken on my behalf. That is something that is worth fighting for.
As for George Monboit being some jag driving, toff well again you've got it slightly wrong. He is a tenacious, talented investigative journalist with a long track record of working long and hard to expose "injustices". Poison Arrows a book he wrote about corruption in Indonesia took him two years to investigate in the country.Living under daily threat of being exposed and executed for trying to highlight the plight of a dispossed and abused. Hardly living the highlight. I'm not asking that you should agree with what he says. I'm saying that you should defend his right to say it and not jump to assumptions about the nature of the man. As far as I can see he's put his education to good use.
Denying people the right to self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression. Surely thats where we are at now?
Also on the point of swearing allegance to the flag - a practice beloved of the States. Again the point is being missed. America is two hundred years old (If you take Columbus's "Discovery" as the starting point). It is a nation of immigrants Britain isn't (maybe I should qualify that with a historic timespan. Large scale immigration is a relatively recent feature of British life given how long we as a nation state have been in existence). Britain's national identity has had a lot longer time to evolve. This doesn't make us superiour just doesn't mean we have a different sense of national identity. One that doesn't require swearing allegiance. We do not need daily reminders that we are "British".
Allegiance is also something that should be earned not expected. I am hugely proud of being British but for the reasons that others would see as disloyalty. I am proud because we have a free press, a democratic government and socialised education and health care. None of this is perfect and all of those liberties are being threatened in the current climate. I am proud that I can question and challenge decisions taken on my behalf. That is something that is worth fighting for.
As for George Monboit being some jag driving, toff well again you've got it slightly wrong. He is a tenacious, talented investigative journalist with a long track record of working long and hard to expose "injustices". Poison Arrows a book he wrote about corruption in Indonesia took him two years to investigate in the country.Living under daily threat of being exposed and executed for trying to highlight the plight of a dispossed and abused. Hardly living the highlight. I'm not asking that you should agree with what he says. I'm saying that you should defend his right to say it and not jump to assumptions about the nature of the man. As far as I can see he's put his education to good use.
Denying people the right to self govern, to express disenting points of views and be sufficently educated to formulate and express their views leads to prejudice, bigotry and oppression. Surely thats where we are at now?
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
He's typing his article condemning the excesses of the West on a
> laptop, while in transit to a posh West End restaurant in a chauffer-driven BMW,
> where he's meeting his beautiful girlfriend, who he plans to propose to with a
> diamond ring the size of a golf ball over a multi-course meal costing hundreds
> of pounds.
Ok, well I've emailed him on this point to see exactly where he stands and what he feels about his using the system to criticise it.
Not to be smug, but you have a valid point and I'm interested in seeing what he has to say about this.
If you don't accept
> the way things are done to maintain the ways of the West, then don't accept the
> benefits that a Western lifestyle brings, either. That's like saying that you
> abhor the violation of burglary, and buying a knocked-off TV for £50 from
> some geezer at the pub.
That is absolute balls my man.
So you're saying you either go through the system and blindly follow without question or you reject everything and leave the country if you find yourself disagreeing with certain aspects of how your country operates in Foreign Policy and Domestic issues?
He's not slating the entire government for everything, he is merely stating his opposition to the current actions in Afghanistan. Which he is entitled to do.
There is a difference between saying "Hang on, this is wrong to me and here is why I believe this" and saying "Burn the government, evil UK that we are"
By your reasoning, the only people in England would be those that agree 100% with our actions, or are too scared to speak out against the government in case they are labelled "trouble makers" or "hypocrites?"
That's not a country I want to live in.
I would give more sway to the opinion of someone that has educated themselves to a level where they can speak about issues and how they percieve them, as opposed to saying "But you live here, if you dont like it, leave!".
That, to me, reeks of Totalitarianism, borderline fascist.
And I am NOT labelling you at all, I am saying that anyone that would say that is edgeing towards that type of behaviour(Not you specifically Wookiee)
It is my right, and anyone elses, to avail themselves of information and education precisely to question authority.
To present a voice that says "Well hang on a second here, what about this?" instead of just letting those in charge tell us what is good for us.
I see it as my purpose, as do others, to try and get as much info as possible to present arguments/alternate viewpoints to those that are presented as "The Way Things Should Be".
If it wasn't for those people that make a conscious decisiong to try and see things from another angle, then we would never be able to question or learn from mistakes, simply because there would be no opportunity to.
To present the ideal of "You either agree with everything we do or you leave, and dont you dare criticise" is a dangerous one.
I'm aware that you aren't doing this, but it's where this is headed if you carry on your train of thought to the end.
For someone to say "That doesn't seem right" can give people a moment to stop and consider what is being done.
If there were no voices of dissent, then the only way of gathering information would be from official party releases, something that failed in China and will fail anywhere else that people feel the need to stand for what they believe in.
I will always remember a photo of a guy standing in front of tanks in Tianneman Square. He was standing for what he felt was right, despite the certainty of death.
Except the tanks stopped.
Which is what just might happen if someone stands firm for their beliefs.
Ghandi changed the world through his beliefs, as did Martin Luther King and any number of other people that criticised their governments whilst at the same time using the available benefits for that precise purpose.
He's typing his article condemning the excesses of the West on a
> laptop, while in transit to a posh West End restaurant in a chauffer-driven BMW,
> where he's meeting his beautiful girlfriend, who he plans to propose to with a
> diamond ring the size of a golf ball over a multi-course meal costing hundreds
> of pounds.
Ok, well I've emailed him on this point to see exactly where he stands and what he feels about his using the system to criticise it.
Not to be smug, but you have a valid point and I'm interested in seeing what he has to say about this.
If you don't accept
> the way things are done to maintain the ways of the West, then don't accept the
> benefits that a Western lifestyle brings, either. That's like saying that you
> abhor the violation of burglary, and buying a knocked-off TV for £50 from
> some geezer at the pub.
That is absolute balls my man.
So you're saying you either go through the system and blindly follow without question or you reject everything and leave the country if you find yourself disagreeing with certain aspects of how your country operates in Foreign Policy and Domestic issues?
He's not slating the entire government for everything, he is merely stating his opposition to the current actions in Afghanistan. Which he is entitled to do.
There is a difference between saying "Hang on, this is wrong to me and here is why I believe this" and saying "Burn the government, evil UK that we are"
By your reasoning, the only people in England would be those that agree 100% with our actions, or are too scared to speak out against the government in case they are labelled "trouble makers" or "hypocrites?"
That's not a country I want to live in.
I would give more sway to the opinion of someone that has educated themselves to a level where they can speak about issues and how they percieve them, as opposed to saying "But you live here, if you dont like it, leave!".
That, to me, reeks of Totalitarianism, borderline fascist.
And I am NOT labelling you at all, I am saying that anyone that would say that is edgeing towards that type of behaviour(Not you specifically Wookiee)
It is my right, and anyone elses, to avail themselves of information and education precisely to question authority.
To present a voice that says "Well hang on a second here, what about this?" instead of just letting those in charge tell us what is good for us.
I see it as my purpose, as do others, to try and get as much info as possible to present arguments/alternate viewpoints to those that are presented as "The Way Things Should Be".
If it wasn't for those people that make a conscious decisiong to try and see things from another angle, then we would never be able to question or learn from mistakes, simply because there would be no opportunity to.
To present the ideal of "You either agree with everything we do or you leave, and dont you dare criticise" is a dangerous one.
I'm aware that you aren't doing this, but it's where this is headed if you carry on your train of thought to the end.
For someone to say "That doesn't seem right" can give people a moment to stop and consider what is being done.
If there were no voices of dissent, then the only way of gathering information would be from official party releases, something that failed in China and will fail anywhere else that people feel the need to stand for what they believe in.
I will always remember a photo of a guy standing in front of tanks in Tianneman Square. He was standing for what he felt was right, despite the certainty of death.
Except the tanks stopped.
Which is what just might happen if someone stands firm for their beliefs.
Ghandi changed the world through his beliefs, as did Martin Luther King and any number of other people that criticised their governments whilst at the same time using the available benefits for that precise purpose.
Page: