Ship of Fools: Paris Attacks (Hell Version)

Thread: Paris Attacks (Hell Version) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029918

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Because sometimes Purgatory isn't the appropriate place.

Fucking bastards, whoever they are.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

Funny to say but maybe Obama's weakness and equivocation has brought us closer to a tipping point...

Fucking bastards is right.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just for starters, it's going to make things all the more difficult for immigrants and asylum seekers, not to mention all the Muslims already living in the West.
And it damned well should.

You're a fucking obnoxious slimy toad.

120, possibly more, innocent lives have been lost in Paris. Hundreds more are injured, traumatised and bereaved.

And, your response is that hundreds, thousands more innocent people should also suffer? Unbelievable. I can't believe you have the audacity to consider yourself to be a human being.

And, it's got fuck all to do with Obama. So, just shut the fuck up. This isn't an opportunity to try and score very cheap political points.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Funny to say but maybe Obama's weakness and equivocation has brought us closer to a tipping point...

The main weakness is in your brain.

And apparently your grasp of geography. Paris, France, not Paris, Texas. The world does not revolve around your country you moron.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Isn't it wonderful? Something to amuse and engross the masses in a world literally dying of boredom.

Gosh its better than Christmas.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We are all bastards.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Literally? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Human fascination with this kind of drama really annoys me. It's bizarre. It's like slowing down to see a car crash.

News agencies are constantly feeding this need with incredulous, awful stories and people lap it up.

#fuckedup

[ 14. November 2015, 03:22: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

No. Sensationalization might be bad, but shining the light of attention on things that should not be ignored is not #fuckedup.

Get your head out of your ass, you horrible mental pygmy.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

Alan and Oreo...

45K posts between you, and you think I give a shit what you think?

[Killing me]

I would tell you both to go fuck yourselves, but I know neither of you have the cock for it.

Just keep typing, sperm burpers...

Someone else will sort what needs to be done. (Putin most likely)

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.

[ 14. November 2015, 03:41: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Fuck, I'm parking All Saints for the next few days, because that is where I can be of the most use right now. Except-Fuck you romanlion, you avatar of antimatter.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.

I wish I had a μs to tell you how much I fucking care.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You don't need to tell us how little you care. You did that very eloquently when you said that the lives of thousands of innocent people should be even more difficult than they already are.

I don't care what you think of me. It saddens me deeply that someone could actively wish harm on innocent people.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Dear me, romanlion, did you run out of stickle-bricks to play with in the nursery?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Someone else will sort what needs to be done. (Putin most likely)

Funny how you get exercised about 120 dead French people, but you clock that up to your own domestic terrorism every single week, for every year, since dot.

Of course, no one will sort what needs to be done, because y'all don't give a shit. About that or dead French people either.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Romanlion has just - depressingly - demonstrated the kind of reaction the terrorists want to achieve.

I hope you are proud of yourself, romanlion. Trouble is, given your pathological lack of self-awareness I suspect you probably are.

Meanwhile, this is not a time for scoring cheap political points as both romanlion and Kaplan Corday appear to be doing. Shame on them, shame on the pair of them.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it's got fuck all to do with Obama. So, just shut the fuck up. This isn't an opportunity to try and score very cheap political points.

It seems like, based on this, and based on various news feeds, and threads on this board, there seems to be some sort of global cheap political points contest going on.

Facebook God posted that he wished humans would stop killing each other, and I referred to a really stupid atheist/ Godbotherer spat going on and said "small hope for that when we can't stop pissing on each other long enough to hold hands together for one night..."

Human savagery is built on two things--1. On our need to be better than, more civil than, more right than...pick your favorite hate target, and don't pretend you don't have one And! 2. On our justifications-- our glorious, Byzantine, intricately constructed justifications for maintaining the position we create for ourselves in #1.

We all do it, the best of us are those who realize we all do it and check themselves, frequently. There is nothing unique or game-changing about finger-pointing

[ 14. November 2015, 08:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I agree with that, Kelly Alves and none of us are immune from finger pointing.

That doesn't make romanlion any less of an obnoxious twat, nor dies it lessen my disappointment at Kaplan for his standard knee-jerk response that lefties and liberals are far too inclined to point the finger at the US and Israel when plenty of posters here - of all persuasions - have a far more nuanced approach than that.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

When did I defend either of them?

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Isn't it wonderful? Something to amuse and engross the masses in a world literally dying of boredom.

Gosh its better than Christmas.

On social media it does sometimes seem there is a fine line between expressing genuine solidarity and support, and a melodramatic 'Look at me and be impressed by my intelligent/deep/articulate/knowledgeable/grief-stricken reaction'.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, it's hard to know how to express yourself without crossing that line. I restricted myself to a couple of reserved memes. The San Francisco City Hall pic I posted in Purg actually got me quite weepy, but t reality is am not French, and while expressing solidarity seems necessary, waxing all "I AM SO DEEVVESTATED!!!" seems quite presumptuous and self-aggrandizing. It is not my tragedy. It may be ours (the world's) but it is definitely not mine.

Really, the best I have heard all night was a one-liner posted by my favorite drag queen-- all she said was "Peace and love to Paris." That's it.

[ 14. November 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I've never seen you so cross Alan. Fully understandable. You do it for us vicariously.

But aging neo-wuss that I am, romanlion has to be reproached for his Islamophobia on a Christian forum, in love.

His fear begets ours. His fear is part of the cycle of violence. We just reinforce it.

I'm afraid we need to embrace him. Not to change his mind, that cannot be done except by suffering, but because it's the right thing to do.

Because although Jesus was confrontational, rebuking, it was from beneath. Alone. Against power. If He'd have had the time to continue subverting violence, how would He have done that.

OOOOH! He did. He does.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.
I wish I had a μs to tell you how much I fucking care.

romanlion, you're taking advantage of this not being Real Life.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Literally?

Evensong emerges just long enough to demonstrate how she's lost her grasp of the English language.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Literally?
Evensong emerges just long enough to demonstrate how she's lost her grasp of the English language.

That's what training for ordination does for you. Particularly when the soil is prepared by certain kinds of post-modernism.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.
I wish I had a μs to tell you how much I fucking care.

If you don't fucking care, then don't fucking post, because then those of us who do fucking care have to waste our fucking time dealing with your fucking attitude.

There's quite enough evil in the world today without you deciding to contribute to it by showing the exact same kind of intolerance of difference that leads to this shit in the first place. The difference between you and a machine-gun wielding suicide bomber is one of the method and degree, not of sentiment.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Aside from the sadness and anger I feel over the attacks on Paris, shitstains like Romanlion who use the attacks for their own personal political vomiting make me sick. I've seen it on both sides of the political divide tonight. They, along with ISIS, Al Queda, etc. can go to hell.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.
I wish I had a μs to tell you how much I fucking care.
If you don't fucking care, then don't fucking post, because then those of us who do fucking care have to waste our fucking time dealing with your fucking attitude.

There's quite enough evil in the world today without you deciding to contribute to it by showing the exact same kind of intolerance of difference that leads to this shit in the first place. The difference between you and a machine-gun wielding suicide bomber is one of the method and degree, not of sentiment.

Amen all over this.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Come back romanlion. ALL is, are forgiven.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Literally?
Evensong emerges just long enough to demonstrate how she's lost her grasp of the English language.
That's what training for ordination does for you. Particularly when the soil is prepared by certain kinds of post-modernism.

I'm just going to take a moment to appreciate this little zap of comic relief God has chosen to visit on this thread...

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Literally?
Evensong emerges just long enough to demonstrate how she's lost her grasp of the English language.

'Metaphorically' is the new* metaphorical meaning for 'literally'.

*not so new, actually - first recorded usage of 'literally' in this sense was in 1769.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

... I mean, Ruth ain't gonna find it funny at all, but I'm enjoying myself...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Orfeo makes a good point, that the logic of the right wing (well, some of them), in saying that we should now be hostile to Muslims and refugees, is the same logic as IS. They say that Western civilians are responsible for Western crimes in the Middle East, and the right wing say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence.

It's amazing how people have recourse to the same faulty logic, I suppose they have abandoned rationality, and support guilt by association.

Unfortunately, in both cases, reasoned argument will bounce off them. In fact, they seem to revel in irrationality.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I'm glad Alan started this. There's a place for allsaintsy little candles, but right now my main feeling about this whole thing is how bloody ANGRY I am at the inhuman savages who could do a thing like this to us. Angry that Parisians are going through this for the second time in less than a year. Indescribably angry that the cowardly bastards are dead and will never have to face justice for their actions. Angry that our society is a fucked-up mess and we can't stop radicalisation that makes young men capable of this kind of atrocity.

And Romanlion, you can fuck right off and shut your odious little maw and stop trying to profit from our fucking tragedy that you obviously couldn't care less about except as it allows you to be a fucking xenophobic racist bigot with exactly no human empathy whatsoever. It's people like who are going to helping that xenophobic fucking witch Marine fucking Lepen to an even bigger section of the vote come next election so the country can carry on being royally screwed.

I despair.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, the terrorists will increase the right-wing vote, will increase hostility to Muslims and refugees, WTF? Is this what they want?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the terrorists will increase the right-wing vote, will increase hostility to Muslims and refugees, WTF? Is this what they want?

Almost certainly it's part of their aims, yes:

a) It's great fuel for their radicalization recruitment programmes.
b) Polarization in France opens up the prospect of all kinds of domestic problems and destabilization of the country, giving it less time and energy to help bomb Syria.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It's the ordinariness of this that's shocking. Office workers putting the working week behind them and looking forward to going out for dinner on a Friday night, to mark the start of the weekend, or to hear their favourite band playing, or even just to do some late-night shopping. It could have been pretty much any city on any Friday night.

We were joking yesterday morning at the office (long before this happened) about it being Friday 13th and how you could tell by the weather. If only that had been the worst thing to happen that day. Friday 13th has taken on an extra resonance this year.

But don't let them win. Don't stop going out for dinner, don't stop making plans. I'm taking the view that if my number's up, it's up and there's nothing I can do about it. Until then, I'll live life my way as best as I can.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the terrorists will increase the right-wing vote, will increase hostility to Muslims and refugees, WTF? Is this what they want?

It's probably a part of what they want. It helps the recruitment of human bombs.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the terrorists will increase the right-wing vote, will increase hostility to Muslims and refugees, WTF? Is this what they want?

Yes, because they don't really care about refugees and Muslims except as potential recruits. They're not going to get any recruits by directly attacking refugee and Muslim communities ... but get irrational bastards like romanlion to attack them in some twisted sense of revenge. Well, then they might get some recruits.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

I am minded of the time when my sister-in-law was posted to the High Commission in a then very volatile country. A week or so before she left, there was an attack on a train station. To all those who called for her not to place herself in danger, she replied that she could just as easily been bombed in London during the IRA campaign, but received nothing but messages of joy and jealousy that she was going to London. In any event, she returned 4 years later, having had a relatively peaceful stay.

Be careful, but carry on as usual, was her message. During that period, I visited several times, and was only once or twice a little upset.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Indescribably angry that the cowardly bastards are dead and will never have to face justice for their actions....
I despair.

One has to hope that even now they are facing the justice they were too cowardly to face here, and being told just exactly what the God they proclaimed as the greatest thinks of them, and why they are not going to have anything to do with 72 virgins, or dried grapes, or whatever it is is supposed to be their reward for the slaughter.

If they are so determined to die by punishing the unbeliever, why not take on fully armed Commandos?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There's nothing cowardly about them. And what justice will they be facing as they stand before Jesus with their victims?

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I agree, it is not cowardly. I imagine many of these young people truly believe they are serving their God and I suspect they have to overcome fears to make what they see as the ultimate sacrifice for him. I find it incredibly sad. The cowards are those who send them out to do this, convincing them that this is how they can best serve God.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I wish I had the time to describe what an utter shitstain of person you paint yourself as, romanlion.

I'll have to find a more efficient way.
I wish I had a μs to tell you how much I fucking care.
If you don't fucking care, then don't fucking post, because then those of us who do fucking care have to waste our fucking time dealing with your fucking attitude.

He does care, it is why he posts. It sends fire to his loins, every counter post to his is like a short stroke along his tiny penis.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does care, it is why he posts. It sends fire to his loins, every counter post to his is like a short stroke along his tiny penis.

Microscopic, you mean.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does care, it is why he posts. It sends fire to his loins, every counter post to his is like a short stroke along his tiny penis.
Microscopic, you mean.

Where's Godwin when you need him?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not every reference to Hitler is Godwin relevant.
romanlion has a history of posting inflammatory remarks with no substantive support. What other reason than self-gratification do you see?
Hardly a surprise that you would come to his defence, though is it?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

i think passer was referring to that old, old, old, old song about various genital deficiencies of various Nazi leaders. But I thought the line was that Hitler had no balls?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

One ball.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just for starters, it's going to make things all the more difficult for immigrants and asylum seekers, not to mention all the Muslims already living in the West.
And it damned well should.

If guilt-by-association is fair do's, then you must be held accountable for all the fascists whose hateful opinions you spew.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One ball.

Hm. Ok.

I was misremembering the opening line as" Hitler has got no balls at all..."

[ 14. November 2015, 16:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not every reference to Hitler is Godwin relevant.
romanlion has a history of posting inflammatory remarks with no substantive support. What other reason than self-gratification do you see?
Hardly a surprise that you would come to his defence, though is it?

Wow - you sure got the wrong end of that stick, didn't you? But if it makes you feel better to screech at me, be my guest. Though I'm curious as to what within my SoF history would make you think that I would ever have anything positive to say about romanlion and his particular ideology. Are you confusing me with someone else, or just lashing out in general anguish? (Oh - and it was, I believe, Goebbels who had no balls at all, for the record.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is entirely possible that I am confusing either your avatar or not properly remembering a name change chain.
So I apologise.
But what did you mean re the Godwin reference?

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I was watching the ever-growing dogpile on romanlion (of which I approve, incidentally, having seen the Purg thread) and made what was intended as a pithy allusion to the omission thus far of reference to our old friend Godwin, thereby ironically incorporating that very reference.

It worked for me.

That aside, I accept your apology, of course. No offence was taken.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If they are not cowards, maybe some other word would apply to people who shoot unarmed people who can't fight back.
That they are going to their deaths with suicide vests doesn't undo that.

But I do agree that the ones who send them are the greater cowards.
One a youth between 15 and 18 years old.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, because they don't really care about refugees and Muslims except as potential recruits. They're not going to get any recruits by directly attacking refugee and Muslim communities ... but get irrational bastards like romanlion to attack them in some twisted sense of revenge. Well, then they might get some recruits.

The new Polish government (PiS, gobshites) came out today and said that, in light of what happened in Paris, we won't take in any new refugees from other EU countries. So first Daesh wins by reducing those against them by killing them/scaring them away, then they make it, via gobshite governments (our new defense minister reckons that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" may be legit), harder for refugees in the EU.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wasn't accusing you of defending either romanloon or Kraptalk Carsi (kharsi), Kelly Alves.

I didn't express rmyself properly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(our new defense minister reckons that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" may be legit)

Ho-lee shit.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(our new defense minister reckons that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" may be legit)
Ho-lee shit.

Link to Guardian article.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just for starters, it's going to make things all the more difficult for immigrants and asylum seekers, not to mention all the Muslims already living in the West.
And it damned well should.
If guilt-by-association is fair do's, then you must be held accountable for all the fascists whose hateful opinions you spew.

Don't bring your extended family to my house seeking refuge from an unidentified relative that murdered your kids and set your place on fire without a strong expectation of scrutiny, including cavity searches and constant monitoring.

I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".

Open borders immigration policy is only slightly less brain dead stupid than the suggestion that raising the minimum wage is part of the solution.

Suffering is inevitable, but there is still some measure of control over who will bear the brunt of it. For the foreseeable future you can forget about the US exercising that measure of control.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You are an idiot. If the US, or Britain for that matter, had proper concern for secure borders, they would not fuck up other countries so blithely.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot. If the US, or Britain for that matter, had proper concern for secure borders, they would not fuck up other countries so blithely.

A little tighter with the index finger, fucktard.

If you can't do it right just don't touch it at all.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot. If the US, or Britain for that matter, had proper concern for secure borders, they would not fuck up other countries so blithely.
A little tighter with the index finger, fucktard.

If you can't do it right just don't touch it at all.

If only you would take your own advice.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".

That implies guilt by association. I'm sorry your logic skills are so shabby. May I suggest education?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".
That implies guilt by association. I'm sorry your logic skills are so shabby. May I suggest education?

It is a possibility. For example I might suppose that romanlion's children are as bigoted and stupid as he is.

But that isn't rational.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I see everybody's favourite presidential candidate has been making measured and rational comments as usual.

Frankly, I'm waiting for him to talk about how 9/11 would have been so different if only New York bankers routinely went to work with SAMs over their shoulders.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".
That implies guilt by association.

That's all you got?

You suck worse than the seahawks.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Oh, romanlion, you're so hard. You typed that right at us! What audacity and courage.

Plus a devastating swipe at [checks internet] a professional sports team geographically proximal to mousethief!

We're all a-quiver.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".
That implies guilt by association.
That's all you got?

Yep, all I have is logic. Beats what you've got.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I see everybody's favourite presidential candidate has been making measured and rational comments as usual.

Frankly, I'm waiting for him to talk about how 9/11 would have been so different if only New York bankers routinely went to work with SAMs over their shoulders.

I was reading some really thoughtful and insightful article on a fairly trustworthy news outlet today, and the enlightenment was spoiled by some damn video ad featuring said butthead blathering loud stupidities. I kept turning it off, and something or other would make it spontaneously kick in again.

Metaphor for our times, I'm sure.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Open borders immigration policy is only slightly less brain dead stupid than the suggestion that raising the minimum wage is part of the solution.

If you want to see the prime example of brain dead stupid, go and look in the mirror.

A policy of providing asylum for those fleeing from assorted thugs in Syria, Iraq, Libya and a range of other locations around the world is not stupid. It's not only humanitarian and Christian, in allowing people escape the influence of radicals we might even reduce the number of people fighting for them.

And, I stand by my statements that we need to improve the fuckedup-ness of our nations where large parts of our population are thrown on the junk pile of society, without any chance offered to help them out. It's inhuman, unChristian and should not be tolerated in civilised nations - much less by nations with leaders claiming to be Christian. Ensuring that they can have jobs which pay a decent wage is one part of what we need to be doing to correct that injustice. It's something that is not only good because it treats people as human beings worthy of respect, it has the added benefit of boosting our economies by putting spending power in the hands of those most likely to spend it and the benefit of reducing the pool of people who may turn to criminal acts out of desperation or to seek an end to their injustice through violent means.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There's no point in trying to reason with him, because he and Reason are strangers.

He's supposedly outraged that a group of people identifying themselves as being part of Islamic State have killed some French civilians, and has consequently suggested that a group of people identifying themselves as American go and kill some other civilians somewhere else to teach Islamic State a lesson.

What's all that about then? Especially considering that a group of people identifying themselves as either French or American have already been killing civilians in other areas of the world, not just in areas controlled by Islamic State. I mean, there was that hospital thing a few weeks back just for a start.

I would ask him for an explanation, but it'll just be something-Muslamics-something and it won't be coherent. Much like most governments' foreign policy.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
He's supposedly outraged that a group of people identifying themselves as being part of Islamic State have killed some French civilians, and has consequently suggested that a group of people identifying themselves as American go and kill some other civilians somewhere else to teach Islamic State a lesson.

He's not outraged at all. Truth is he's actually delighted that the murder of 129 of my fellow Parisians has given him an opportunity to air his bigotry. That doesn't make him a very nice person.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

"Victims should have had guns." Oh, sure. There could then have been a blazing Wild-West-style shoot-out in the streets of Paris with many more people dead and injured. Preferably also a few cinematic-type chases into densely populated areas and some extra hostage situations thrown in with hijacked cars speeding down the middle of streets and colliding in fireballs and crashing into buildings?

I fear for the world if that man gets elected. How likely is that currently looking?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re Trump getting elected:

Well, the Republicans have to nominate him, first, to be their candidate. If they run him, they should be ashamed of themselves. (Though I'm not sure they're capable of it. And I'm talking about the Republican leaders, not individual, everyday people.) AFAIK, the Republicans don't have any particularly good/sane/intelligent candidates. (I also worry about Ted Cruz getting in. His dad's a Dominionist, and believes Ted will be one of the end-time princes who bring back all the wealth that rightly belongs to God's people--i.e. Christians.)

My main worry about Trump's chances is that he's a major celebrity. He has a lot of face and name recognition, partly due to hosting "The Apprentice" reality show. His extreme wealth *should* work against him with the general public, given the economy, class divisions, etc., and his general attitude (IMHO) towards anyone he considers less worthy than himself--which seems to be most people.

But...we also want to believe that we can be rich. And "the Donald" is so outrageous that people want to know what he has to say. So it's easy for him to get press coverage.

And some people may want to see him debate Hillary or Sanders. He might be perceived to win the debate, simply on the basis of outrageousness and his over-sized personality.

If Trump becomes president, it will probably be a sign of one apocalypse or another. Call 1-800-BUFFY-VS. She's good at that!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've never implied guilt by association, but it damned well should make things more difficult for "immigrants and asylum seekers".
That implies guilt by association.
That's all you got?
Yep, all I have is logic. Beats what you've got.

People who use guilt by association often deny it. I suppose at some level they realize that 1), it's irrational; 2) it's the same logic used by IS.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

romanlion you cock.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
romanlion you cock.

Hey, good to see you, old man.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
romanlion you cock.
Hey, good to see you, old man.

Ditto!

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Pyx_e's reappearance balances out deano's.

On another note: I am so fucking tired of all the passive-aggressive crap on Facebook talking about how people don't care as much about the suicide bombings in Beirut or the attack at the Kenyan university back in April as the attacks in Paris.

Yes, US foreign policy is fucked up. Yes, racism is deeply engrained in American culture. Yes, those two things are related.

But you know what? I cared more when the US was attacked on 9/11 than I care about Paris. And if it had been LA that was hit in 2001 instead of New York and Washington, I'd have cared even more about that. If I'd lost a family member -- and I know people who did -- that would rate far beyond the deaths of strangers.

No, I didn't get all upset when Beirut got bombed, because Beirut has been getting bombed pretty much my whole life. I don't stay glued to the TV every time shit goes down in the Middle East, because shit goes down in the Middle East every fucking day. But when the capitol city of a western democracy that has been peaceful since 1945 suffers terrorist attacks, it's shocking. It's sad that it's not shocking when Beirut gets bombed, but it's just not. And it's not weird or wrong that as a country we care more about what happens to our friends than to others.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

coughs. Liberty fries? The Americans weren't so friendly with France 12 or so years ago, were they now?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Fuck you. That wasn't me. That wasn't even a majority of Americans.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

What Ruth said. And they were freedom fries.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, I didn't get all upset when Beirut got bombed, because Beirut has been getting bombed pretty much my whole life. I don't stay glued to the TV every time shit goes down in the Middle East, because shit goes down in the Middle East every fucking day. But when the capitol city of a western democracy that has been peaceful since 1945 suffers terrorist attacks, it's shocking. It's sad that it's not shocking when Beirut gets bombed, but it's just not. And it's not weird or wrong that as a country we care more about what happens to our friends than to others.

And that is exactly one of the terrorists' main points. They want the West to experience what their countries have been experiencing on a daily basis for a long time; to bring the atmosphere of, as it might be, Baghdad to the capitals of Europe. The news doesn't really mention Baghdad much these days basically because the bombings are pretty much an everyday occurrence.

I was dismayed by Beirut but I know the city from pre-war days, when it was a wonderful place to be. The really depressing thing is that the Middle East as a whole has such potential to still be a great place, if only people would stop this ridiculous spiral of violence and start focusing on building the region up instead of tearing it apart. If they could just work together and put as much energy into restoration instead they could transform it into a great place to be. But no, not while some people insist (sometimes at gunpoint) that their worldview is correct and definitive, and if you don't agree, you must be sub-human and your life isn't worth preserving.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Let's face it, on this side of the Pond there was some pretty spectacular arseholery (or ass-holery in deference to our American friends) going on after 9/11 ... 'they had it coming ...', '... now they know what it's like to experience terrorism ...' and similar shit-arse sentiments ... like as if that's any consolation when New York, Washington and innocent people being used as human missiles en-route for the latter were struck by crazed jihadis.

So I don't blame some elements in the US for feeling narked when some French or British people came out with crap like that.

We've all got our share of insensitive toads - the US has Trump right now trumpeting that the Paris attacks wouldn't have happened if the people in the restaurants and the rock concert had been properly tooled up and packing heat ...

[Roll Eyes]

There were equally stupid statements coming out of other people's arses at the other end of the political spectrum when the US was on the receiving end of jihadist violence.

None of this helps.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There is a general point that these things affect us more if we know the places or people involved - the Paris attacks have hit me harder than some of the others as I know the city and know the area where the attacks took place ... I've walked those streets, perhaps even eaten in restaurants close by those which were hit.

Yes, I am less affected by news of bombings in Beirut or Baghdad but that doesn't mean I'm a heartless bastard who doesn't care less ... I was deeply upset by the Kenyan attacks earlier this year, for instance and I have no connection with Kenya whatsoever - other than knowing a few people who have lived and worked there in the past.

I don't think it's an issue of which of these incidents does or should affect us the most ... 'every man's death diminishes me ...'

Donne's dictum holds true, but it doesn't mean that the death of a friend, loved one or compatriot isn't going to affect us the same as that of someone we don't know or whose country or circumstances we are less familiar with.

Everyone was shocked by the shootings of predominantly British holiday-makers in Tunisia earlier this year - and British, Germans and Belgians were probably more upset by that than Australians and Americans - who weren't among the victims on that occasion as far as I am aware.

The Russian air-crash over Egypt upset me too, and I don't know that many Russians - but I'd be lying if I said that it upset me as much as it would have done had it been a British 'plane.

The main thing, though, isn't to 'grade' these incidents but to try to work - in some way - towards an end of them - wherever they take place.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Hell call the next… for the cretinous little buggers who thought it would be the funniest thing ever to head into central Paris last night and let off some nice noisy explody firecrackers.

They got arrested and hopefully they’re not laughing quite so much now.

[Mad]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What Ruth said. And they were freedom fries.

I recall they were to be eaten with cheese by surrender monkeys. Is that correct?

The problem you and Ruth have is that how would others possibly know what the majority of Americans think? Your media is our source. With Trump currently their darling.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The easiest way is this. When you see the media reporting something which they imply is the "majority view" or "so obvious, who wouldn't think this?" then you disregard what they say. Get on line, talk to people from which ever group the media claim to be representing. You may find the media are right, mostly you'll find they exaggerated things to the point of being effectively false to sell copy, or promote a cause dear to the heart of the owners of that media outlet - usually his wallet.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, though, No Prophet ... there are more US news outlets than the ones that tend to get villified over here - Fox - or those that get villified over there - CNN and MSNBC ...

My impression of the US news media overall is that it is just as varied as anything you'll find over here - with the range running from completely cretinous to actually really rather good ... which is also what you find here too.

What tends to happen is that it's the most cretinous elements that attract the most attention.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The problem you and Ruth have is that how would others possibly know what the majority of Americans think? Your media is our source.

That you trust our media is not Ruth's problem. It's yours. You'd have to be an idiot to trust our media. And you'd have to be an idiot not to realize you'd have to be an idiot to trust our media. Thinking people on this side of the pond check things in world news against BBC, Al Jazeera, and other foreign media outlets as a reality check against our very twisted media. Not that all foreign media sources are perforce reliable. But they're not subject to the same pressures that American sources are.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

let me be clearer. Media in all its forms is the source of the world's information about other parts of the world. While shipmates may be excellent appraisers of the quality of that information, for the average person around the world, not so much. I personally knew that the anti-French sentiment of a dozen years ago was from a shrill and humour-mongering minority, but it was rathe dominant.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

no prophet: How stupid can you be? You're consuming a very narrow band of American media if you think Trump is their "darling." Try NPR. Or any one of a number of non-Murdoch-owned outlets.

[ 16. November 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I have noticed a propensity among certain Americans not to trust ANY news media - whether left, right or centre in ideology - and to for them to turn to whacko nut-job conspiracy theory websites instead.

I say 'certain Americans' because it's not a tendency I've observed among most American I know in real life - nor those I encounter virtually here aboard Ship. However, it does seem pretty common among Americans I come across through various social media outlets.

I'd prepared to accept that an impression of similar numbskullicity might be gained if one were to browse the posts of certain Brits. You know the type they are ... the 'Kippers and the like - whether the Disgusteds of Tonbridge Wells or the 'They're all after our jobs' types of East London.

These days, though, we'd have to read the Telegraph for the splutterings of retired RAF wing-commanders and army colonels.

I'm not an expert on US media and much of what I've seen of it either leaves me cold or open-mouthed at the crassness of it - but then so do the British red-tops and the Daily Wail and Daily Excess.

I have come across some right-wing Americans who do watch BBC broadcasts - if only to pontificate, 'the BBC is as bad as MSNBC!'

The conspiracy sites and the sites with titles like 'American Patriot' or 'American Conservative' with crossed rifle logos and so on make me go ... [Help]

But I'd imagine we'd find equally eye-brow raising sites in Russia and China and other parts of the world.

Also, there are certainly independent websites and non-Murdoch news channels in the US which don't go down that kind of route and where you'll find as much - if not more - antagonism towards butt-brains like Trump than anything you might find in media over here.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I have noticed a propensity among certain Americans not to trust ANY news media - whether left, right or centre in ideology - and to for them to turn to whacko nut-job conspiracy theory websites instead.

I say 'certain Americans' because it's not a tendency I've observed among most American I know in real life - nor those I encounter virtually here aboard Ship. However, it does seem pretty common among Americans I come across through various social media outlets.

I'd prepared to accept that an impression of similar numbskullicity might be gained if one were to browse the posts of certain Brits. You know the type they are ... the 'Kippers and the like - whether the Disgusteds of Tonbridge Wells or the 'They're all after our jobs' types of East London.

From what I've seen, the rugged-individualist, conspiracy theory types ARE more prevalent in the USA than in the UK. A Little Englander will say something like "Bloody EU, trying to slap labels on all our dairy products and tell us what we can teach our kids in school", and leave it at that. Whereas an American of the "Paranoid Style" will draw in supposedly hidden global conspiracies of an occultic hue(eg. the Bilderbergers) to spice up his denunciation of the more visible threats.

Though I have heard that the Freemen On The Land, which is straight out of the American militia subculture, has developed a bit of a following in the UK. I don't know enough about the British domestic scene to know if this might be connected to an increased distrust in the police.

And of course, the UK has David Icke.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

One more thing...

quote:
The conspiracy sites and the sites with titles like 'American Patriot' or 'American Conservative' with crossed rifle logos and so on make me go ...

The American Conservative tends to publish people like Pat Buchanan, Eric Margolis, and Rand Paul, who tend to be hostile toward increased American intervention in the middle east and elsewhere. This marks them apart from FOX News etc, who tend to just cheerlead for whatever the official Right is proposing(which almost always includes more war).

If I'm not mistaken, the Murdoch press in the UK is closer to FOX in this regard.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I'm not saying that sites with titles like 'American Patriot' have the same agenda as Fox News ... which, as you say, has an agenda that is similar to Murdoch-media the world over.

I was simply using it as an example of the kind of US site/news and comment outlet that makes me go [Eek!]

...

If the title wasn't bad enough - isn't 'Patriot' in the US short-hand for gun-totin' US Particularist? - then it's the crossed rifles insignia that sends me heading for the hills ...

I don't think we've heard anything from David Icke for a while. I've only ever met one person in real life who took him seriously ...

Whereas I get the impression that were I to travel across certain States in the US I'd have to keep my mouth well buttoned up lest I be dragged outside and bull-whipped - or worse - for being a Goddamned Pinko Limey 'Enabler' or some such horse-shit ...

But that's just an impression ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry Stetson, you mentioned the 'American Conservative' rather than 'American Patriot'. My bad.

Either way, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, the terms 'Conservative' and 'Patriot' are both terms I'd rather not see conjoined with American in a publication title.

'American Liberal', 'American Progressive' or 'American Inclusivist' or even 'American Commonsense Publication That Wants Everything to Be Just Nice' would fall easier on my eye ... and none of those are oxymorons.

I don't know what it is, but any combination of the terms 'American', 'Patriot' and 'Conservative' would turn me into a quivering wreck ... I hear the twang of banjos ... the ropes tightening about my wrists ...

[Ultra confused]

I'll wake up with a jolt and in a cold-sweat tonight ... (uncorks whisky tumbler) ...

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And of course, the UK has David Icke.

He may still be alive but he's certainly dropped completely off the radar. I don't think anyone's heard anything from him for years - though it's probably there if you actively look for it. No mainstream coverage, anyhow.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And of course, the UK has David Icke.
He may still be alive but he's certainly dropped completely off the radar. I don't think anyone's heard anything from him for years - though it's probably there if you actively look for it. No mainstream coverage, anyhow.

I'm sure you're right.

Icke is basically the equivalent of Alex Jones in the US. I think Jones has a bit of a higher profile(he turns up playing himself in Hollywood films occassionally), though nothing approaching mainstream acceptablility.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Errr...how did a thread to rage about the Paris attacks turn into *another* trash America fest?

And no, The Donald isn't enough of a reason.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Again, my particularly take on things is irrelevant as they come from American meda. What is important is what the typical person understands. Telling me to attend to NPR or that I'm stupid not to go online to check it all out doesn't answer for the average person who looks at some trending idea or meme.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can't speak for No Prophet, but I'm not trashing America ...

I am surprised that No Prophet can speak at all, though, as his flag is clearly set so high up the particular orifice that he speaks out of that his words probably don't have room to emerge from between the cheeks of his butt.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
“The killing has to stop and world leaders must find a way forward that defeats ISIS using the weapon that these terrorists fear most of all, peace talks.

“There were signs over the weekend that those talks may now have some new foundation and I would encourage presidents and prime ministers to recognise that the drones cannot provide a solution and pick up the phones and find a way of halting this never ending circle of death.”

I thought this was a spoof quote when I first read it. Turns out to be true.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, why may I ask, have you shared that in Hell? Not that I object to the opportunity to read wise words. Maybe the Greens could win my vote back from Corbyn (at the moment I wouldn't say Labour, because I'm not convinced the party has seen the light and got behind Corbyn).

"We cannot let a handful of terrorists dictate ...", well it doesn't really matter what follows that phrase, it's a good thing to say. The terrorists win if we let them change us.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, why may I ask, have you shared that in Hell?

Presumably because he wants as many dead civilians as he can possibly squeeze out of this fuck-awful situation, and his tiny mind can't quite envisage a scenario where bombing the crap out of towns and cities isn't going to bring peace.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Here's the kind of thing that gets represented as news and media online: "...selfie altered to look like Paris suicide bomber". This is an equal opportunity offence, this time by a Spanish news source, with the error pointed out by a Canadian one.

Gammy thinks she's cute liking my gams, but continues to miss the point that regardless of the sources of news online it is what people accept as truth. It isn't truth.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't speak for No Prophet, but I'm not trashing America ...

No, and you displayed a great deal of insight. (Meaning, of course, that you said some things with which I agree. [Biased]

)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Maybe people are just starting to notice the inconsistancy in you aping the behavior you claim to despise. As for your dismissal of NPR, it only you prefer American news outlets that confirm your biases. Like Fox.

For the record Gam, he three words you mention have been so co-opted by assholes that they tend to give me the wilies, too, although i stared calling myself a patriot again when Ani DiFranco reclaimed the term.

[ 17. November 2015, 01:27: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I am not dismissing NPR, they just aren't on the radar for the younger people who happen to have set me straight on where they get their info. Here in Canada, they pay a wee bit of attention to CBC as a standard news outlet, but seem to attend to headlines only, and all the rest is quick and short tidbits of sensational. That may be logically and internally and anally inconsistent with something of concern, but it does seem important about what passes for news and general public opinion.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have noticed a propensity among certain Americans not to trust ANY news media - whether left, right or centre in ideology - and to for them to turn to whacko nut-job conspiracy theory websites instead.

I say 'certain Americans' because it's not a tendency I've observed among most American I know in real life - nor those I encounter virtually here aboard Ship. However, it does seem pretty common among Americans I come across through various social media outlets.
...

News Flash; there are lots of trolls on the internet.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I am in rare agreement with President Obama;
Jeb Bush saying that the US should only take Syrian Refugees who are Christian is shameful.

I keep finding it hard to decide which of the Republican Presidential Candidates is the least loathsome.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Looking at the field, I'm somewhat relieved that that is a decision I don't need to make.

As a furiner, I'll only have to bear the consequences if you get it wrong.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Errr...how did a thread to rage about the Paris attacks turn into *another* trash America fest?

And no, The Donald isn't enough of a reason.

This thread has never really been for raging about the Paris attacks, except for La Vie en Rouge. From the first couple of posts it has been about romanlion and about how awful so many of us are in the West. Trashing America seems to me to be just another way for us to aim our rage at anyone but the sick bastards who carried out these attacks.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

John Oliver covers it best.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, Jonah, whilst it's certainly true that the internet is full of trolls and nut-jobs - as I have helpfully been reminded here - one rarely comes across anyone so manifestly despicable as romanlion - so it's hardly surprising that this thread has veered from outrage at the terrible events in Paris and the sick bastards who carried it out - to observations about the kind of views that romanlion and his ilk tend to promote.

There's also been the matter of No Prophet's Flag Distorts His Farts reducing US public opinion to what's found on internet memes or on Fox News - and sure, a lot of people go along with that but as Kelly Alves, Ruth and others have been pointing out this doesn't mean that everybody does ... any more than it means that all British people believe The Sun, the Daily Wail and the Excess ...

So no, I don't accept that this thread has descended into a 'let's bash America' thread - rather it's become - inevitably - a clash between more liberal and more conservative types ... with various gradations between the extremes.

Romanlion is out on one limb ... way out on one limb. So way out I'm surprised it hasn't snapped.

As for No Prophet, all he seems to be doing is taking soundings from things he sees on-line or people he knows within his immediate circle and extrapolating that to suggest that everyone - or the vast majority of people - think the same.

He's done this before, I've noticed, on threads about evangelicalism (to take one example) when he assumed that evangelicalism the world over was exactly the same as the version he'd encountered within 200 yards of his own front door.

Sure, we can all do that to a certain extent with various pet peeves, but No Prophet specialises in it - to the extent that I no longer take him seriously.

I assume I'm the 'Gammy' he refers to, in which case I'm a he and not a she ... so he can't even get that right.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

FFS. Komensky and Steve Langton exist in parallel universes that are so populated by the ghosties of their own imagining that I'm surprised they can take time out from their crusade to hunt out a) Constantinian Christianity or b) the influence of Holy Trinity Brompton to wipe their own backsides, never mind engage in a sensible conversation.

Of course their analysis has some validity, but they both attack every possible conversation with the vigour of a rabid dog seeing the threat of a postman's leg.

Nobody cares, you pissants.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
John Oliver covers it best.

I saw that, but thought it didn't really deserve the publicity it generated in the media (Guardian, New Yorker etc all praised it almost instantly).

For one thing, it is a fucking stupid line of argument. The lives of the French are never going to be destroyed because they have a nice brand of cigarettes, a half-baked existentialist philosopher and some over-sweet confectionary? Have you heard of Vichy, John? Or do you think that these things have only existed in the time since you were in short trousers?

For another thing, I don't see the publicity for a cable channel praising Russia for having great vodka and potatoes in solidarity with their plane loss, or discussing falafel and humus in response to the attacks in Lebanon.

Maybe he did. Maybe John Oliver is an equal-opportunity satirist, but I'm pretty damn sure the NYer and Guardian didn't splash his words all over their website.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re more variety in news sources:

Check out the many links at the bottom of HuffPost's front page.

[ 17. November 2015, 11:53: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What are you on about, mr cheesy?

[Confused]

I don't see either Komensky or Steve Langton anywhere on this thread - it's got nothing to do with HTB for one thing and probably isn't Constantinian enough for Steve (although give him time ...)

As for the John Oliver thing - how literal can you get? It's satire FFS ... do you think he really believes that France will be saved by the ghosts of Jean-Paul Sartre, Edith Piaf, by iconic brands of cigarettes and cones of fancy pastries?

[Help]

You sound like the sort of person who'd read Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' and say, "This is disgusting, he's actually proposing that we eat Irish children ..."

Or like the Anglican bishop who is said to have had looked for Lilliput on his globe when 'Gulliver's Travels' came out.

Or have I got the wrong end of your stick?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - so I've just bobbed over to the Purgatory version of this thread and so can see what you're getting at about Steve Langton and Komensky.

[Roll Eyes]

So, yes, point taken and point well made.

What particularly struck me was Steve's helpful comment that all Christians who have found themselves in some kind of 'Constantinian' set-up are ipso facto 'bad Christians' as a result of that irrespective of how well-meaning they might be otherwise.

Yeah, right ...

And this is the guy who took it badly when I quoted Richard Baxter to the effect that - sincere though they might very well be - the besetting sin of Anabaptists was to be overly judgemental and holier-than-thou. QED.

But of course, Baxter himself is beyond the pale because he served as an army chaplain for the Parliamentarians during the Civil War.

[Roll Eyes]

But my point about John Oliver and satire still stands.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But my point about John Oliver and satire still stands.

I think I was pretty clear that my beef was with the media - including the media in countries where Oliver's programme cannot even be seen - giving saturation coverage to a a short monologue which cannot have been written in much more than 24 hours, and with the apparently widespread view that this was the best response to the atrocity.

I don't think it was. I thought it was bollocks. Not very funny, not very clever, not very insightful, not really worth reporting in the international media.

YMMV.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Haven't seen that John Oliver piece yet. But as to him, and satire in general, ISTM this is where the persuasive voice of change is coming from. John Oliver played a larger role in the American Net Neutrality battle than almost any American. Satire has power because it is not establishment and it entertains.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I didn't think it was particularly clever or funny either, mr cheesy - but at least I didn't take him literally as you appeared to do ...

[Disappointed]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Allow me to summarize the key parts of the Last Week Tonight bit:

1) This was done by fucking assholes. Possibly aided by other total fucking assholes, in accordance with a philosophy of utter assholery.

2) Fuck those assholes.

There was then some droll allusion to Jihadists trying to have a "culture war" with France, and asserting "good fucking luck".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't think it was particularly clever or funny either, mr cheesy - but at least I didn't take him literally as you appeared to do ...

I invite you to read the reports of this in The New Yorker, the Guardian the Independent, Buzzfeed etc etc and so on..

And then you might understand what I'm saying.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Allow me to summarize the key parts of the Last Week Tonight bit:

1) This was done by fucking assholes. Possibly aided by other total fucking assholes, in accordance with a philosophy of utter assholery.

2) Fuck those assholes.

There was then some droll allusion to Jihadists trying to have a "culture war" with France, and asserting "good fucking luck".

It sounds like it wasn't the kind of satire where you say the polar opposite of what you believe(eg. A Modest Proposal), but rather the kind where you say what you do believe, but in an exaggerated and/or light-hearted manner.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, that's exactly what it was Stetson.

I have some sympathy with mr cheesy's view that it wasn't particularly clever or original and that the media coverage it evoked was rather OTT ... but I suspect it acted like some kind of safety valve or release ... like when someone swears when they bash their finger when hanging a picture on the wall ...

I don't have an issue with mr cheesy's overall point, but his 'what a stupid argument' schtick seemed to miss the point somewhat from my reading of his post ... but hey ... it's no big deal.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I believe the time for France is now...

They left NATO to decide themselves how to deploy their own buckets of "Instant Sunshine".

What are they waiting for?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Unlike you, the French government aren't homicidal maniacs.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unlike you, the French government aren't homicidal maniacs.

Yes they are. History shows they are EXACTLY as homicidal as me. Especially if they or (if I win the EuroMillions this weekend) me decide to get MEDIEVAL on their asses!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

By all means, go after them swinging a morning star.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
By all means, go after them swinging a morning star.

Hmm. What about Conrad III having a few buckets of uncontrolled neutrons? What would he hav done?

I'm with him.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

deano, go to bed, you're pissed as a parrot.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We're civilised human beings, not criminal thugs like Daesh. We don't, or shouldn't, set out to target civilians. It's highly unfortunate, and reason enough to reconsider our tactics, that conventional "smart" bombs kill the innocent along with the probably guilty. And, you propose we extend the range of our crimes against humanity by using nukes?

Go home, and repeat at least one thousand times "Two wrongs do not make a right".

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I believe the time for France is now...

They left NATO to decide themselves how to deploy their own buckets of "Instant Sunshine".

This might help you sober up.

quote:
France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defense system but returned to full participation on 3 April 2009.

So you're ignorant as well as stupid. Good work.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0