Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
JuniorD said:
It was said that our culture is superior to Muslim culture. It's not really.
We have a modern culture of imperialism - raping and piliging coutries all over the globe for the last few centuries, and doing whatever the hell we wanted with impunity. I think we are quite sophisticated at it now in that it's less overt, but we still just about get our way. The likes of ISIS are repeating the same process, it just looks rather anachronistic in the digital age. Every doggie has it's day and our hands are as dirty as theirs.
Top liberal guilt marks but absolute tosh.We have a modern culture of imperialism - raping and piliging coutries all over the globe for the last few centuries, and doing whatever the hell we wanted with impunity. I think we are quite sophisticated at it now in that it's less overt, but we still just about get our way. The likes of ISIS are repeating the same process, it just looks rather anachronistic in the digital age. Every doggie has it's day and our hands are as dirty as theirs.
In many ways India is a far better country for European and especially British imperialism than it ever was under the various Mughal empires before, or can reasonably have been expected to become if left to it's own devices.
That's certainly not to say we did everything right or that we did it for altruistic reasons. Whoever did?
Nonetheless, Modern western civilisation, with it's (still evolving) ideas of liberty, individualism, equality and reason has achieved an immense amount of good for an immense amount of people. It's brought communication, technology, health and freedom to billions of people. It's given the lowliest peasant in rural India, at least in theory, a vote equal to anyone else's. It's given the apparently oppressed Australian aboriginal accused of a crime the right to trial by a jury and if found guilty a sentence in a humane prison where a few hundred years ago tribal elders would have had him killed on a whim. It's given a sense of common humanity to 7 billion people which as far as I know is completely unprecedented in human history, where no country, even Saudi Arabia or the most backwards African despot will officially sanction slavery or genocide - the things they would have prided themselves on before the western powers oppressed them.
IS aren't engaged in anything like this process by other means. At very best they are cynical bandits stealing oil on a grand scale. Less charitably they're a bunch of theocratic maniacs bent on subjugating as many people as they can and will sink to any level of depravity and cruelty they feel will help them achieve this.
I don't even need to berate Muslim culture, whatever that may be. Western culture stands alone as being an objectively good thing, whether you're an Indian woman on a sati heap or a heretical Saudi poet whose only slim chance of keeping his head attached to his body rests on enough western opprobrium being directed against the rulers of that silly country.
The very worst thing about western culture is the sort of masochistic self-loathing and false equalisation epitomised by this post.
AJS, sorry for the OT post, but you really have to do something about your apostrophes! I've been biting my tongue on this one for weeks! You have a particular weakness for the possessive "it's". The word "its" only takes an apostrophe when the word appears as a contraction of "it is". If you say "India left to its own devices", no apostrophe! At least, however, you don't go in for apostrophes in plurals, or at least if you do I have been off eating Grammar Police doughnuts or something.
Anyway, that's the important stuff out of the way. Back to the "kill all the Muslims before they kill all of us" cuddlefest.
Anyway, that's the important stuff out of the way. Back to the "kill all the Muslims before they kill all of us" cuddlefest.
AJS- said:
Top liberal guilt marks but absolute tosh.
In many ways India is a far better country for European and especially British imperialism than it ever was under the various Mughal empires before, or can reasonably have been expected to become if left to it's own devices.
I suggest you read some modern history books on India and the Empire before making statements like that because they don't hold up. If nothing else the formalization of a rigid caste system under British rule has set India back many years. In many ways India is a far better country for European and especially British imperialism than it ever was under the various Mughal empires before, or can reasonably have been expected to become if left to it's own devices.
AJS- said:
No don't hold back. I do have a bad habit for that and some confusion. Not for plurals but for possessives. Is the possessive form of "it" a special case? Any idiots guide to them?
"India's own devices" would be correct, no?
Yes it would. The simple rule about the apostrophe is that it stands in for one or more missing characters. When you say "Breadvan's pedantry" you are actually saying "Breadvan, his pedantry", and the apostrophe takes the place of the characters that are now redundant. Look at eighteenth century writing, which is litter'd, or pepper'd, or e'en o'erwhelm'd by apostrophes."India's own devices" would be correct, no?
In the possessive its, there is no missing character, or at least there isn't one that I am aware of. If there is one, then the possessive its must be an anomaly, English being an advanced and therefore rather irregular and quirky language (less advanced languages are more regular).
plasticpig said:
I suggest you read some modern history books on India and the Empire before making statements like that because they don't hold up. If nothing else the formalization of a rigid caste system under British rule has set India back many years.
Too true. One could also argue that under British rule your ethnic Australians had their culture torn from them. The right to trial by jury is one given to them by post imperialism. I was speaking to a native Tasmanian - oh, no, I wasn't. I'm not sure the rather idyllic life of the aboriginal aussie is all sweetness and light, equal opportunity and equality under the law.India was rather civilised in its own view when the East India Co. entered the country. I'm not sure China is all that pleased with our incursions, and there are one or two sub-Saharan countries that are not thriving today.
Imperialism = imposition, particularly religion and governing systems.
There are few native Americans who would support the premise that things have got better for them.
Some argue that in certain areas 'things' are better for the natives, but these are few and far between. As for the Jewel in the Crown, one should not look at it from a western point of view but from a native Indian one. Their values might not be the same.
Back on Syria, some powerful voices on Ch 4 News from a family of Syrians living in the UK (I assume refugees, but am not sure, as I missed the intro). IS is the wrong target and bombing won't do any good, they argued. It's a non plan. One of them referred to the bombing plan as "Mission Unclear". Assad is the main problem in their eyes. I agree with them. IS is a big problem, but I can't see that bombing will make that problem go away.
Breadvan72 said:
Back on Syria, some powerful voices on Ch 4 News from a family of Syrians living in the UK (I assume refugees, but am not sure, as I missed the intro). IS is the wrong target and bombing won't do any good, they argued. It's a non plan. One of them referred to the bombing plan as "Mission Unclear". Assad is the main problem in their eyes. I agree with them. IS is a big problem, but I can't see that bombing will make that problem go away.
But would not bombing them lead to further expansion on their part, leading to more or bigger problems, I see it as an expensive containment exercise.Breadvan72 said:
Back on Syria, some powerful voices on Ch 4 News from a family of Syrians living in the UK (I assume refugees, but am not sure, as I missed the intro). IS is the wrong target and bombing won't do any good, they argued. It's a non plan. One of them referred to the bombing plan as "Mission Unclear". Assad is the main problem in their eyes. I agree with them. IS is a big problem, but I can't see that bombing will make that problem go away.
In Syria, I'd agree with them. I don't think we care just about the picture in Syria though.rovermorris999 said:
For them Assad is a problem. For us less so than IS.
The Syrians made that very point. Assad can kill as many people as he likes and we don't give a toss, but when IS kill people in Paris and we get a bunch of refugees turning up to get away from IS (and Assad), we all go bomb crazy. I suggest that Assad is a problem for us, precisely because his rule helps to produce outfits like IS and also refugees. Previous bombing without a plan, and invading without a plan, also helped to give groups like IS a leg up. rovermorris999 said:
If he still had full power our problem would be lessened. Same goes for all the b
d dictators in the region. We're far worse off than pre-Iraq.
That is a counsel of despair, I think. Abandon people to be brutalised by thugs so that we can live in peace. It doesn't work, anyway, as people rebel against the thugs, and civil wars spill over and effect us. d dictators in the region. We're far worse off than pre-Iraq.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff