The perils of colonial war in the 21st century

[Idris2002]

A columnist on the sleazy English language Moscow newspaper the Exile. It's basicallly a guide to Moscow strip clubs with the occasional interesting bit of analysis thrown in.

 

[teqniq]

Intresting thread, good read.

 

[bruise]

bizarrely, i just read a page in a book about Shakespeare (1599 A Year in the LIfe...) that could have come off this thread. WS expresses a similar fear in Henry the Fifth...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

bizarrely, i just read a page in a book about Shakespeare (1599 A Year in the LIfe...) that could have come off this thread. WS expresses a similar fear in Henry the Fifth...

Which passage?

 

[bruise]

Pistol (returning soldier) learns of his wife's death (from syphilis) and decides to return to his criminal life

Well, bawd I'll turn
And something lean to cutpurse of quick hand.
To England will I steal, and there I'll steal. (V, i, 84-6)

comentary from James Shapiro:

Overlooked in the spectacle of Henry's (and Essex's*) imagined homecoming is the largely suppressed and unhappy story of the return of war veterans like Pistol. Though England was taking the war to Ireland, it was clear that, in the aftermah of the campaign, English soldiers would be bringing their Irsih experience home. This was a different but no less disturbing kind of contamination.

he goes on to tell a story of a contemporary of Shakespeares who returned a changed man after war

in the years after his return he was a public burden and a danger to his community - he was accused of forcible entry into a local shop, he failed to pay his debts and, finally, he stabbed a neighbour to death with a 'long knife' in a quarrel.

and concludes

Through bitter war veterans like Pistol, Shakespeare also hints at the corrosive an dunavoidable national cost of the Irish war.

* Essex - the contemporaneous commander leading the invasion to quell a rebellious Ireland that Sharpiro claims WS is exploring through the historic Henry V

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting.

That corrosive cost is already looking pretty nasty in the UK this time. First the 7/7 bombings, then all of the attempts by nuLabour, especially Blair and Reid, to whip up sectarian hatred for their short sighted electoral purposes.

 

[Giles]

Interesting.

That corrosive cost is already looking pretty nasty in the UK this time. First the 7/7 bombings, then all of the attempts by nuLabour, especially Blair and Reid, to whip up sectarian hatred for their short sighted electoral purposes.

I get sick of this blaming Iraq for 7/7 etc.

Because this implies that blowing up a bunch of completely innocent people on tube trains is somehow a predictable response to people being unhappy with the British governments policy in Iraq, which in turn implies that it is somehow at least partly the governments fault that this happened.

In fact, these people are clearly mad, and anyone else who apparently thinks like this, and who propagates the idea of blowing yourself up to try to make the government change its policy, should be eliminated.

Giles..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I think you'll find a whole lot of people were predicting that something of the sort was likely, ergo it's a logically a "predictable response".

When people deny the connection with Iraq and try to claim that the only viable explanation is mental illness and/or evil though, it seems to me that they're trying to deny the obvious, with arguments that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. I'm sorry that you don't do logic Giles, but I guess that goes with your political territory.

It was a completely stupid way to try to influence goverment policy, even apart from the murderousness involved, because actually, while it did influence it to some extent, it didn't influence it away from the committment to occupying Iraq and remaining complicit in US adventures in the Middle East, as was presumably intended.

Instead it influenced it as a handy rationale to whip up sectarian hatred for purely cynical domestic political purposes (e.g. getting votes back from the BNP in neglected 'safe' Labour seats) A change of policy from which nothing good can be anticipated and an excellent example of the 'corrosive' effects we're discussing.

I think that the (presumably unanticipated) consequences of the 7/7 bombings (at least by the idiots involved) would also be a good example of what Slaar had in mind when he called such processes 'unfathomably complex'.

 

[soulman]

<snip>
Giles..

Giles..

2 Giles.. A pair, a couple, a duet even?

 

[Giles]

What ever motive these people gave for their actions is irrelevant.

Otherwise we end up with "well, better not do anything to enrage the extremists, or else they will blow people up".

When really we need to destroy them and their ideas.

Giles..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

With what are you going to 'destroy them' Giles?

How are you going to tell who to 'destroy' and who not to 'destroy'? Or are you planning to nuke the Leeds Metropolitan area and hope for the best?

How will you 'destroy their ideas'? With neutron bombs? Gas? B52 strikes?

I suspect that there are a few significant flaws in your cunning plan Giles.

 

[Giles]

Well, I think you'll find a whole lot of people were predicting that something of the sort was likely, ergo it's a logically a "predictable response".

When people deny the connection with Iraq and try to claim that the only viable explanation is mental illness and/or evil though, it seems to me that they're trying to deny the obvious, with arguments that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. I'm sorry that you don't do logic Giles, but I guess that goes with your political territory.

It was a completely stupid way to try to influence goverment policy, even apart from the murderousness involved, because actually, while it did influence it to some extent, it didn't influence it away from the committment to occupying Iraq and remaining complicit in US adventures in the Middle East, as was presumably intended.

Instead it influenced it as a handy rationale to whip up sectarian hatred for purely cynical domestic political purposes (e.g. getting votes back from the BNP in neglected 'safe' Labour seats) A change of policy from which nothing good can be anticipated and an excellent example of the 'corrosive' effects we're discussing.

I think that the (presumably unanticipated) consequences of the 7/7 bombings (at least by the idiots involved) would also be a good example of what Slaar had in mind when he called such processes 'unfathomably complex'.

So, our country should make policy mindful that a few loons might blow up the public transport system if we choose to do something they don't like.

That's no way to run things. It is giving in to violent extremists.

We didn't decide to kick out all ethnic minorities because that was what was what this guy wanted, did we?

We can't end up unable to do things because we are paralysed with fear over some psycho blowing up the Tube if they disagree with us.

Giles..

 

[Aldebaran]

It was a completely stupid way to try to influence goverment policy, even apart from the murderousness involved, because actually, while it did influence it to some extent, it didn't influence it away from the committment to occupying Iraq and remaining complicit in US adventures in the Middle East, as was presumably intended.

To give it such an intention is missing the point (I was under the impression you would know that).
Direct influence on governmental policy is not the primary aim of those behind the screens of such attacks. They are not that delusionally crazy (it would be much better if they were).

Instead it influenced it as a handy rationale to whip up sectarian hatred for purely cynical domestic political purposes (e.g. getting votes back from the BNP in neglected 'safe' Labour seats) A change of policy from which nothing good can be anticipated and an excellent example of the 'corrosive' effects we're discussing.

By which you seem to overlook that this is part of the cynical game of destabilisation of societies by creating or widening divisions between the communities. This leads to Muslims in a non Muslim nation, already a vulnerable group with many complaints (justified or not, in this case that doesn't matter) feeling targeted, thus alienating even those who were "integrated" from their society.

I find it quite interesting (and of course very disturbing and worrying too) to observe how easy government actors fall in that trap and hence become themselves a dreamed tool for the Radical's tactics.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

So, our country should make policy mindful that a few loons might blow up the public transport system if we choose to do something they don't like.

Would you mind adressing those words to the US and UK governments on behalf of the MENA region? And please remind them that I don't speak of the USA/UK only blowing up some transport systems. Thank you.

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Again Giles, you demonstrate that you are a simpleton.

The point is not that we should change our policies because some dickheads blew up the tube, the point is that we have already enacted policies that have caused some dickheads to blow up the tube, on the back of which some other dickheads (principally Blair and Reid) have tried to make political capital out of it with the potential for a whole lot of other really quite unpleasant future consequences. We are in this situation already and it would be quite nice to figure out how to mitigate the damage that has and is currently being done.

To do that, we would probably be best advised to stop getting our opinions from the Daily Mail and start using our best efforts towards logical thought.

I know your best efforts are really quite embarassing in this respect, but you could at least try a bit harder, if only to avoid looking like a complete idiot.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

To give it such an intention is missing the point (I was under the impression you would know that).
Direct influence on governmental policy is not the primary aim of those behind the screens of such attacks. They are not that delusionally crazy (it would be much better if they were).



By which you seem to overlook that this is part of the cynical game of destabilisation of societies by creating or widening divisions between the communities. This leads to Muslims in a non Muslim nation, already a vulnerable group with many complaints (justified or not, in this case that doesn't matter) feeling targeted, thus alienating even those who were "integrated" from their society.

I find it quite interesting (and of course very disturbing and worrying too) to observe how easy government actors fall in that trap and hence become themselves a dreamed tool for the Radical's tactics.

salaam.

I'm making a distinction (elided for the purpose of speaking to the simpleton Giles) between the immediate motives of the presumably idealistic but stupid youth who carried out these attacks, and the more sophisticated motives of those who would wish to perpetrate such divisions.

I'm much more worried by the implications of the latter. Indeed, that's sort of what this whole thread is about in my mind at least.

You could call it (following Bateson) 'schismogenesis', the process of producing and worsening the divisions within a society.

Iraq shows us what happens further down that path and potentially provides a catalyst and perhaps a variety of templates for it happening (by intention or not, as you say above, in this case it doesn't matter) in many other societies.

 

[Giles]

Again Giles, you demonstrate that you are a simpleton.

The point is not that we should change our policies because some dickheads blew up the tube, the point is that we have already enacted policies that have caused some dickheads to blow up the tube, on the back of which some other dickheads (principally Blair and Reid) have tried to make political capital out of it with the potential for a whole lot of other really quite unpleasant future consequences. We are in this situation already and it would be quite nice to figure out how to mitigate the damage that has and is currently being done.

To do that, we would probably be best advised to stop getting our opinions from the Daily Mail and start using our best efforts towards logical thought.

I know your best efforts are really quite embarassing in this respect, but you could at least try a bit harder, if only to avoid looking like a complete idiot.

So, are you saying that the government should take into account the likely violent reaction of extremists when making policy decisions, or not?

And less of the "ad hom" stuff, please. We don't agree, fine. But less of the "you don't agree with my opinion, therefore you are an idiot" shit.

Giles..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Giles, if you don't want me to treat you like an idiot, please don't treat me like one by offering such witless rhetorical devices as though they were valid arguments. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I'm always up for one, but that starts by not insulting the intelligence of those you're talking to.

 

[Giles]

Giles, if you don't want me to treat you like an idiot, please don't treat me like one by offering such witless rhetorical devices as though they were valid arguments. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I'm always up for one, but that starts by not insulting the intelligence of those you're talking to.

You still did not answer my question.

Giles..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Your question was the witless rhetorical device I had in mind, or an example thereof.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Let me put it another way. Our government already has significantly changed its policy, from fluffy multiculturalism into an aggressive sectarian rhetoric, that may win them short terms gains and get them a few votes back from the BNP, but which can only, as Aldebaran has correctly identified, play into the hands of extremists intent on damaging our society in the long term.

 

[Giles]

Your question was the witless rhetorical device I had in mind, or an example thereof.

I was only asking what you thought, and you don't seem to want to answer, preferring to shout me down instead.

I don't deny that the people responsible for 7/7 stated that the Iraq situation was why they did what they did.

But that does not mean that we should listen to them in any way, or tailor our future actions to worries about others carrying out similar atrocities.

If by their actions they have brought about hostility to their fellow muslims, well tough.

Giles..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think we have to live with the consequences of our government's actions in getting us involved in Iraq. We can mitigate those consequences, or we can play to the extremist agenda by making them worse, as your 'tough' remark suggests you are only too eager to do. You have plenty of company though, because right now our government, in pursuit of votes, seem to be going all-out to make the corrosive effects of their original blunders on our society worse with some cynical sectarian rhetoric aimed at vote grubbing that might have made even Maggie Thatcher puke with self-disgust.

Let me offer you an metaphor, in Ju-Jitsu theory, there are three basic classes of technique. Go, which is pure force against force, a punch or whatever, Ju, which involves yielding to a force and adding your own energy to it, say for a throw, and Aiki, which relies not on force, but on confusing your opponents own nervous system into defeating him for you.

A good example of Aiki is a trick my instructor used to like of thrusting his palm at your face just enough to make you flinch, and then following the flinch with his palm until you fell over backwards. The destructive effects of something like the 7/7 bombs are a bit like the latter case. The point of 7/7, despite what the dickheads who carried out the attack may have thought, was to set in motion a process by which our society damages itself through its own instinctive reaction to the provocation being offered.

When my instructor did that trick, if you were alert to it, you could easily deal with it in a variety of simple ways. If you weren't switched on to the implications of it though, you'd invariably fall on your arse. In terms of handling the consequences of their actions, Blair and co are in the process of falling on their arse with rather unpleasant consequences for our society.

 

[teqniq]

If by their actions they have brought about hostility to their fellow muslims, well tough.
Giles..

That's a bit much. What about all the decent law-abiding people of any religious persuasion who just want to get on with their lives without forcing their beliefs on anyone? And as Alderbaran has stated on other threads the type of extremism that was responsible for 7/7 is in no way compatible with Islam - I'm pretty much an aethiest btw and do not subscribe to any religion.

P.S. back on topic anyone?

 

[Aldebaran]

Iraq shows us what happens further down that path and potentially provides a catalyst and perhaps a variety of templates for it happening (by intention or not, as you say above, in this case it doesn't matter) in many other societies.

Iraq is in my view not such a good comparison.

Historical tensions and divisions in that society existed under the surface before the removal of a dictatorship that effectively suppressed them. With all that came to it and resulting in total collapse of every form of law and order. Power vacuums got thus created to be filled by tribal and/or religious loyalties and powers.
Everyone with a brain could know that Iraq would become the ideal training and recruitment ground for Radicals of all types and for isolated cases of "men on a mission" and that Iran would seize the occasion to throw its infuence into it.

Yet although the existing sensitivities, loyalties, ethnic and/or religious divisions in the Iraqi society added to the - for outsiders - confusing situation, they are not its cause or its result. What some like to call "civil war" between Sunni and Shia is a side effect that could only surface because of all the rest. This latest evolution however could indeed take the overtone and escalate into a full scale civil war, spreading beyond Iraqi borders at that.

All that can't be found in fully functioning Western societies. Maybe on a local scale the tactics of what the West likes to call "insurgents" can be imported and cause troubles that are difficult to manage. Maybe I'm not sufficiently informed about it but I don't see how that can get spread all over a country, let alone to the point of creating a situation like in Iraq where society risks to come to the point of a total collapse. (I'm still somewhat optimistic about it that this evolution can be turned back but possibly I am a lonely dreamer.)

salaam.

 

[dylanredefined]

A few shoulder launched surface to air missles were available in iraq .My unit managed to aquire one by being espically nice to a tribal leader .It was in a pretty poor condition though and may not have worked .For all the hoohah about these weapons they are complicated to operate and also not
particuarly robust.
With aks rpgs and exsplosives all you need to cause chaos .And all that was available in plenty in iraq.

 

[Idris2002]

How good would the heavy machine guns the provies had be against 'copters?

I don't recall them downing any, apart from a lucky hit with an improvised mortar.

 

[dylanredefined]

They would certainly kill a helicopter.Unfortunatly or fortunatly its a bulky
bit of equipment and you really need to set it up when you can gurantee to hit the helicopter and then get away(bit complicated when a heavy machine gun is three man lift plus ammo ) .Managed to shoot one down I remeber and damage a couple landing and taking off I believe.

 

[Jonti]

...On 9 Septemner 2001 my predominant thought was "...and this is the beginning of the end of the American Empire" ... and the USA is over.

It didn't have to develop that way, but, yes, it was pretty clear that the US rulers, mad with anger, would do everything wrong in the aftermath. Euripedes, and it seems, bin Laden, would have understood this. It is a vast, almost incomprehensible, tragedy for the USA that we see unfolding.