The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Not at all mate, I'd accept.
It is possible to disagree and argue (which is different to "fighting") without getting personal or taking it to heart.
This is why I am free to think what I do about this situation and you can think how you do.
We are both right, and we are both wrong.
It is possible to disagree and argue (which is different to "fighting") without getting personal or taking it to heart.
This is why I am free to think what I do about this situation and you can think how you do.
We are both right, and we are both wrong.
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
> I'd still buy you a pint! :-)
Though of course you may not accept, or simply pour it over me...
> I'd still buy you a pint! :-)
Though of course you may not accept, or simply pour it over me...
Goatboy wrote:
> (trying to make him aware that whilst I am annoyed at his post, I
> am not annoyed at him. There IS a difference)
Indeed! I feel the same - but that's the point of discussion.
I'd still buy you a pint! :-)
> (trying to make him aware that whilst I am annoyed at his post, I
> am not annoyed at him. There IS a difference)
Indeed! I feel the same - but that's the point of discussion.
I'd still buy you a pint! :-)
Goatboy wrote:
> So you condemn him for a Western education?
Not at all.
My point is that people criticise and then develop selective amnesia.
Obviously I don't know the man, but the impression I get is this:
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.
> So not like Mr Bin Laden then?
Maybe not, but also not entirely *unlike* him according to some of the views on the website.
> What is wrong with education yourself, and then deciding that you find the foreign and ethical
> practices of your government distasteful?
Nothing at all, but it is sometimes necessary to do the wrong things for the right reasons. At least in my view, anyway.
He hasn't ranted and screamed about
> anything, merely raised some issues that you have decided to not
> address.
It's not a question of not addressing issues. No government in this world is 100% clean; they all have things to hide, and things that they'd rather forget and wish they hadn't done.
I know we and the US have done some despicable things, and I'm not saying we should continue to do them; but if a situation threatens our way of life - as I believe the WTC/Pentagon attack does - then I believe we are justified in striking back using all means at our disposal.
> I'm not having a pop at you Wookiee
Okay, but I wouldn't blame you if you were.
> I find our actions in bombing a country with negligible
> infrastructure an abhorrent thing when it will not bring any kind of
> "revenge" to fruition.
I see this as a war against a group within Afghanistan, not with the country itself. We are trying to hit targets owned and used by the Taliban. Some civilians have been killed and injured; that is... 'unfortunate' doesn't seem an adequate word, but you know what I mean.
However, I don't believe that as many civilians have been killed as the Taliban claim, and as they have a penchant for killing their own anyway, I wouldn't be entirely convinced that all civilian deaths were inflicted by US bombs anyway.
I believe that the Taliban forces should be 'softened up' before ground troops are committed, and I also believe that a number of the civilian deaths will have been caused purely because the Taliban will not allow "their people" to leave their homes and avoid the bombs falling on or near legitimate targets. The Afghan people may not be able to cross borders, but they could at least go to them, where bombs are not falling.
> Why is someone branded a "hypocrite" or "wrong" because
> they disagree with what is being done?
Not because he disagrees with what is being done, but because denounces the ways and methods of the west, yet accepts those traits of western life which give him wealth, prosperity and a reasonable standard of living.
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.
> You are saying that if you have an education here and choose to
> take a job, you have to salute the flag each day and agree with everything? You
> are not entitled to your viewpoints on something?
As it happens, I do think that we should take far more pride in Britain. Children in our schools should salute the flag as they do in the US, and the adult population should show more national pride too. I'm not talking about marches, Doc Martens and Nazi salutes, just that we should start looking to instill a renewed sense of national pride throughout the population. The saluting of the flag and pledging of allegiance doesn't cause racial tension with the minorities in the US, so why should it here?
There is nothing wrong with flying the Union Jack or the Cross of St. George - contrary to what seems to be popular belief, it does NOT make you a racist thug - just a proud Englishman. No-one cries when the Scottish, Irish or Welsh wave their national flags with pride, so why should we tolerate slurs of "racist"?
Every other country flies their national flag with pride, without worrying about causing insult to minorities living within their country. It doesn't mean that they can't think and say what they like. Why should we be any different?
Anyway, that's getting away from the point... but I thought it was relevant to your comment... sorry!
> So you condemn him for a Western education?
Not at all.
My point is that people criticise and then develop selective amnesia.
Obviously I don't know the man, but the impression I get is this:
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.
> So not like Mr Bin Laden then?
Maybe not, but also not entirely *unlike* him according to some of the views on the website.
> What is wrong with education yourself, and then deciding that you find the foreign and ethical
> practices of your government distasteful?
Nothing at all, but it is sometimes necessary to do the wrong things for the right reasons. At least in my view, anyway.
He hasn't ranted and screamed about
> anything, merely raised some issues that you have decided to not
> address.
It's not a question of not addressing issues. No government in this world is 100% clean; they all have things to hide, and things that they'd rather forget and wish they hadn't done.
I know we and the US have done some despicable things, and I'm not saying we should continue to do them; but if a situation threatens our way of life - as I believe the WTC/Pentagon attack does - then I believe we are justified in striking back using all means at our disposal.
> I'm not having a pop at you Wookiee
Okay, but I wouldn't blame you if you were.
> I find our actions in bombing a country with negligible
> infrastructure an abhorrent thing when it will not bring any kind of
> "revenge" to fruition.
I see this as a war against a group within Afghanistan, not with the country itself. We are trying to hit targets owned and used by the Taliban. Some civilians have been killed and injured; that is... 'unfortunate' doesn't seem an adequate word, but you know what I mean.
However, I don't believe that as many civilians have been killed as the Taliban claim, and as they have a penchant for killing their own anyway, I wouldn't be entirely convinced that all civilian deaths were inflicted by US bombs anyway.
I believe that the Taliban forces should be 'softened up' before ground troops are committed, and I also believe that a number of the civilian deaths will have been caused purely because the Taliban will not allow "their people" to leave their homes and avoid the bombs falling on or near legitimate targets. The Afghan people may not be able to cross borders, but they could at least go to them, where bombs are not falling.
> Why is someone branded a "hypocrite" or "wrong" because
> they disagree with what is being done?
Not because he disagrees with what is being done, but because denounces the ways and methods of the west, yet accepts those traits of western life which give him wealth, prosperity and a reasonable standard of living.
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.
> You are saying that if you have an education here and choose to
> take a job, you have to salute the flag each day and agree with everything? You
> are not entitled to your viewpoints on something?
As it happens, I do think that we should take far more pride in Britain. Children in our schools should salute the flag as they do in the US, and the adult population should show more national pride too. I'm not talking about marches, Doc Martens and Nazi salutes, just that we should start looking to instill a renewed sense of national pride throughout the population. The saluting of the flag and pledging of allegiance doesn't cause racial tension with the minorities in the US, so why should it here?
There is nothing wrong with flying the Union Jack or the Cross of St. George - contrary to what seems to be popular belief, it does NOT make you a racist thug - just a proud Englishman. No-one cries when the Scottish, Irish or Welsh wave their national flags with pride, so why should we tolerate slurs of "racist"?
Every other country flies their national flag with pride, without worrying about causing insult to minorities living within their country. It doesn't mean that they can't think and say what they like. Why should we be any different?
Anyway, that's getting away from the point... but I thought it was relevant to your comment... sorry!
Wookiee you damn dirty military-industrial pawn, want a fight?
We can beat each other with magazines.
You can have "Blind Eyed Patriot" and I'll have "Dirty Hippy Commie", 10 paces and then we start slapping?
(trying to make him aware that whilst I am annoyed at his post, I am not annoyed at him. There IS a difference)
We can beat each other with magazines.
You can have "Blind Eyed Patriot" and I'll have "Dirty Hippy Commie", 10 paces and then we start slapping?
(trying to make him aware that whilst I am annoyed at his post, I am not annoyed at him. There IS a difference)
Sorry Wookiee, whilst I respect your opinions and need to stress that I am not trying to fight with you, your post has really, really pi**ed me off.
But that's your right to express your opinions, but please, discuss and argue the points he has raised rather than attack him for his beliefs and actions.
That's no better than Bin Laden "I disagree with what he says, therefore I shall condemn him"
He wasn't anti-capatalist. Did you read the whole thing?
He is saying that the current climate allows for all manner of dubious legislation to be issued in without question and criticises the foreign policies of both the USA and UK.
So if he's got to you that much, tell me what he said that made you angry.
But that's your right to express your opinions, but please, discuss and argue the points he has raised rather than attack him for his beliefs and actions.
That's no better than Bin Laden "I disagree with what he says, therefore I shall condemn him"
He wasn't anti-capatalist. Did you read the whole thing?
He is saying that the current climate allows for all manner of dubious legislation to be issued in without question and criticises the foreign policies of both the USA and UK.
So if he's got to you that much, tell me what he said that made you angry.
Major flaw.
But the scary thing is, under the Terrorism Act, that name is now extended to dissenters and and those that express less than 100% condemnation of terrorist actions.
Which means you, me and a lot of other people here.
Altogether now, with right arm raised skywards
"Big Smile! Big Smile!"
But the scary thing is, under the Terrorism Act, that name is now extended to dissenters and and those that express less than 100% condemnation of terrorist actions.
Which means you, me and a lot of other people here.
Altogether now, with right arm raised skywards
"Big Smile! Big Smile!"
Meka_Dragon wrote:
"Refusal to grant asylum to anyone with terrorist links, and to refuse suspected terrorists entry into the country"
Um, surely this should have always been the case?
I heard on the news yesterday that the Government was going to freeze all terrorist bank accounts. In a few weeks time.
Anyone see the flaw here?
"Refusal to grant asylum to anyone with terrorist links, and to refuse suspected terrorists entry into the country"
Um, surely this should have always been the case?
I heard on the news yesterday that the Government was going to freeze all terrorist bank accounts. In a few weeks time.
Anyone see the flaw here?
So you condemn him for a Western education?
So not like Mr Bin Laden then?
Why not argue the points he has raised rather than criticise him?
Feel free to express your disgust to him:
[email protected]
What is wrong with education yourself, and then deciding that you find the foreign and ethical practices of your government distasteful?
He hasn't ranted and screamed about anything, merely raised some issues that you have decided to not address.
(I'm not having a pop at you Wookiee, just wondering why someone that has questions and feel that our actions are somewhat wrong is condemned as "one of them" or "Hypocrite" because they choose to dissent from party line?)
I find our actions in bombing a country with negligible infrastructure an abhorrent thing when it will not bring any kind of "revenge" to fruition.
Why is someone branded a "hypocrite" or "wrong" because they disagree with what is being done?
You are saying that if you have an education here and choose to take a job, you have to salute the flag each day and agree with everything? You are not entitled to your viewpoints on something?
He is not attacking Britain as a whole, just this action.
But it seems that some people are unwilling to listen to people that want to say "Hang on a minute" and instead shout "Hypocrite" and "Bloody sympathiser"
So not like Mr Bin Laden then?
Why not argue the points he has raised rather than criticise him?
Feel free to express your disgust to him:
[email protected]
What is wrong with education yourself, and then deciding that you find the foreign and ethical practices of your government distasteful?
He hasn't ranted and screamed about anything, merely raised some issues that you have decided to not address.
(I'm not having a pop at you Wookiee, just wondering why someone that has questions and feel that our actions are somewhat wrong is condemned as "one of them" or "Hypocrite" because they choose to dissent from party line?)
I find our actions in bombing a country with negligible infrastructure an abhorrent thing when it will not bring any kind of "revenge" to fruition.
Why is someone branded a "hypocrite" or "wrong" because they disagree with what is being done?
You are saying that if you have an education here and choose to take a job, you have to salute the flag each day and agree with everything? You are not entitled to your viewpoints on something?
He is not attacking Britain as a whole, just this action.
But it seems that some people are unwilling to listen to people that want to say "Hang on a minute" and instead shout "Hypocrite" and "Bloody sympathiser"
I find people like this hypocritical.
Whining about the injustices of the west, with a few well-chosen quotes, slamming capitalism and globalisation, while no doubt having a top-notch Western education. Working in a cushy job, earning thousands of pounds. Quite probably with a very cushy pad, driving a posh car, and eating in fancy restaurants, etc.
Not to mention posting such stories on a website - one of the biggest symbols of Western globalisation there is.
Whining about the injustices of the west, with a few well-chosen quotes, slamming capitalism and globalisation, while no doubt having a top-notch Western education. Working in a cushy job, earning thousands of pounds. Quite probably with a very cushy pad, driving a posh car, and eating in fancy restaurants, etc.
Not to mention posting such stories on a website - one of the biggest symbols of Western globalisation there is.
Page: