Tunisia 8 hostages murdered.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

really makes a difference?

The correct quote is:
"What difference, at this point, does it make"

None when you run your own illegal server!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Do tell where one might find this 'solid scientific research'? At 8.5 yrs that means Slick Willy and GW cant control our lives as they only had 8 years as opposed to 8 1/2...6 months really makes a difference?

Well... it proves folks are still thinking... bludi slowly but..
Still hangin in there.. Just.
Britain lost the plot tho'.. and Blair got his 3rd term..
So.. guess you guys are smarter after all...

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Do tell where one might find this 'solid scientific research'? At 8.5 yrs that means Slick Willy and GW cant control our lives as they only had 8 years as opposed to 8 1/2...6 months really makes a difference?

Best version and most recent version is:


Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln and Matthias Schündeln, 'On the endogeneity of political preferences: Evidence from individual experience with democracy,' in Science (Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Vol. 347 No. 6226, pp. 1145 - 1148.


Science is, as you likely know, one of this planet's top two science journals. Getting published in Science (or Nature) means passing through a rigorous process of examination by other scientists expert in the field. I never had an article published in Science.


That paper is on line, but behind a pay-wall for most folk (but many educational institutes and libraries will have either a paper copy or free on-line access).


The bibliography in that paper will point you to earlier research on the topic.


And if that still doesn't work out for you, Ars Technica has a popularised but not incorrect summary at: New democracies need about 8 years for popular support to develop | Ars Technica


8.5 years is an average. And it doesn't refer to Billy Clinton's or Barry Obama's term sitting at the top desk: it refers to the time a population needs to live in and experience a particular political culture before they accept the 'new' ways (or lies) as legitimate. The test case involved new democracies, i.e. polities that had become democratic (in some cases for the first time, in other cases polities that had resumed democracy after decades of authoritarianism).

So no, 6 months doesn't make a critical difference. But 8 - 8.5 years looks like a critical time period for political culture.


Not everything is about the US political cycle.


Al

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Blair got his 3rd term.

Spelling! Isn't the rule 'i before a' in the case of that prime minister?


Al

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Best version and most recent version is:


Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln and Matthias Schündeln, 'On the endogeneity of political preferences: Evidence from individual experience with democracy,' in Science (Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Vol. 347 No. 6226, pp. 1145 - 1148.

My apologies. I neglected to add the date of publication: 6 March 2015.

And the URL for the on-line version of the paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6226/1145


Al

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Best version and most recent version is:


Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln and Matthias Schündeln, 'On the endogeneity of political preferences: Evidence from individual experience with democracy,' in Science (Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Vol. 347 No. 6226, pp. 1145 - 1148.


Science is, as you likely know, one of this planet's top two science journals. Getting published in Science (or Nature) means passing through a rigorous process of examination by other scientists expert in the field. I never had an article published in Science.


That paper is on line, but behind a pay-wall for most folk (but many educational institutes and libraries will have either a paper copy or free on-line access).


The bibliography in that paper will point you to earlier research on the topic.


And if that still doesn't work out for you, Ars Technica has a popularised but not incorrect summary at: New democracies need about 8 years for popular support to develop | Ars Technica


8.5 years is an average. And it doesn't refer to Billy Clinton's or Barry Obama's term sitting at the top desk: it refers to the time a population needs to live in and experience a particular political culture before they accept the 'new' ways (or lies) as legitimate. The test case involved new democracies, i.e. polities that had become democratic (in some cases for the first time, in other cases polities that had resumed democracy after decades of authoritarianism).

So no, 6 months doesn't make a critical difference. But 8 - 8.5 years looks like a critical time period for political culture.


Not everything is about the US political cycle.


Al

Thanks ..Between primary and secondary education?

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Thanks ..Between primary and secondary education?

Gerbals was effective over a shorter period of time in his brainwashing of the masses however if you take into account the Nazis and Hitler campaigns prior to even come g to power I can see some sense in what you are saying. Public opinion is fickle and given a less educated population easily manipulated.

Chaya.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

My goodness. How can you even attempt to give moral support or justification for terrorists. They are the scum and cowards of the earth. Blowing up children in schools. Killing civilians eating pizza in a pizza shop. I could go on and on.

The Geneva convention on the rules of law considered un - uniformed combatants as the worst. ...

All independence colonial movements that fought against the occupying powers were looked by those countries as terrorist movements. When you have not the means to fight a conventional war and you fight for what you see as right (for instance the independence of occupied territories or against a dictatorship), terrorism, or what is called as so by the opposing governments, is the only option. Off course the difference between terrorism and freedom fighters is a very narrow one and mainly dependent on the ones that finally won and re-wright the history.

Some states at a given time have done far worst than any terrorist movement, look for instance and the German final solution for Jews, the Turkish genocide with the Armenians just to name two cases but we could find many more.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

All independence colonial movements that fought against the occupying powers were looked by those countries as terrorist movements. When you have not the means to fight a conventional war and you fight for what you see as right (for instance the independence of occupied territories or against a dictatorship), terrorism, or what is called as so by the opposing governments, is the only option. Off course the difference between terrorism and freedom fighters is a very narrow one and mainly dependent on the ones that finally won and re-wright the history.

Some states at a given time have done far worst than any terrorist movement, look for instance and the German final solution for Jews, the Turkish genocide with the Armenians just to name two cases but we could find many more.

The murder of tourists without any provocation is an act of terrorism. Beheading captive soldiers or civilians simply on account of their ethnicity and or religion is terrorism, and depending on scale may be considered "ethnic cleansing" or genocide.

Attempting to conflate a discussion of 'movements', political policy and objectives with the aforementioned behaviour is at the very least a mistake.

[Sailor_Hutch]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

20 europeans,2 Tunisians dead as of 8pm UTC.
Seems Tunisian security all over this,killing 2 shooters,while searching for 3 more suspects. I trust critical mass of magical thinking religous extremists found and imprisonned. Murderous nutjob wingnuts exist all around the world.

I will say I am somewhat nervous upon frequent trips to Alexandria,Egypt.

All the Best

I feel so badly for the Tunisians. Much of their economy depends on foreign tourists. As far as Egypt goes, I just watched a documentary about a british lad walking the edge of the Nile, through Cairo, etc. He had an entourage (supplied by Egyptian government) of ten policemen for the entire trip. I wonder who paid for them, or if they were gratis? I think he may have been working for a publication, but not sure. Anyway, they don't want the bad publicity either.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

The murder of tourists without any provocation is an act of terrorism. Beheading captive soldiers or civilians simply on account of their ethnicity and or religion is terrorism, and depending on scale may be considered "ethnic cleansing" or genocide.

Attempting to conflate a discussion of 'movements', political policy and objectives with the aforementioned behaviour is at the very least a mistake.

Non sense calling that ethnic cleansing or genocide. All liberation movements were responsible for many innocent killings and senseless acts.

I was just looking to what are called terrorist movements and I have no sympathy for any kind of fundamentalism, that for me is an evil in itself since fundamentalism is the opposed of tolerance that can only be born for the understanding of different realities and different ways to look at reality.

Yes I agree the beheading of captive soldiers or the murder of tourists is also a senseless act but without making no excuses regarding the wrongness of that attitude it seems that when violence is upon westerners dead seems to have another value. Put that in contrast with the dead of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians that wrong western policies on the North Africa and Middle east have indirectly caused on that region and the dimension of the drama will be wildly broadened.

[darylat8750]

This song was written in 1949. I first heard it in the late '50s. With minor variations it still tells the tale. Live the best you can the world will continue as it will.

They're rioting in Africa - The Merry Minuet - Life

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Polux

All independence colonial movements that fought against the occupying powers were looked by those countries as terrorist movements. When you have not the means to fight a conventional war and you fight for what you see as right (for instance the independence of occupied territories or against a dictatorship), terrorism, or what is called as so by the opposing governments, is the only option. Off course the difference between terrorism and freedom fighters is a very narrow one and mainly dependent on the ones that finally won and re-wright the history.

Some states at a given time have done far worst than any terrorist movement, look for instance and the German final solution for Jews, the Turkish genocide with the Armenians just to name two cases but we could find many more.

Terrorists are not legitimate freedom fighters. They are the lowest scum on the face of the earth. A legitimate freedom fighter are people like French resistance who fought as underground freedom fighters against the Nazis. It is painfully obvious that some people are so badly educated that they see no difference between these hero's and the scum terrorists. The resistance fighters in France fought Germany soldiers and military targets. They did NOT blow up or target civilians. The coward terrorists of today kill CIVILIANS. DO YOU NOW understand the difference?

My goodness how sick it is when people can't see the difference.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Terrorists are not legitimate freedom fighters. They are the lowest scum on the face of the earth. A legitimate freedom fighter are people like French resistance who fought as underground freedom fighters against the Nazis. It is painfully obvious that some people are so badly educated that they see no difference between these hero's and the scum terrorists. The resistance fighters in France fought Germany soldiers and military targets. They did NOT blow up or target civilians. The coward terrorists of today kill CIVILIANS. DO YOU NOW understand the difference?

My goodness how sick it is when people can't see the difference.

You, the member named Wrong and I all see this topic the same. I'm sure there are others who have chosen not to get involved.

I can understand where Boatman61 is coming from; throughout history the winner has always been the one to write the history books and paint themselves as saints regardless of the truth. There are few left afterwards to dispute their actions and version of events. Just because the British gov't didn't like the US colonies breaking away and called them terrorists did not make them so. Walking shoulder to shoulder through a field is acting like a sitting duck. Shooting from behind trees was a lot smarter - they didn't target the families, only the red coats, AFAIK. Perhaps even as recently as WWII and Vietnam there were atrocities on both sides that could be called terrorism or genocide.

I'm no war historian, but it seems to me since the advent of the Geneva Convention, there are rules of engagement concerning capturing enemy soldiers and treatment of non-combatants, etc. and these rules are supposed to be followed by all recognized "soldiers."

Have innocent civilians been killed by governments? Plenty of times, heck, the only 2 times nuclear weapons have ever been dropped on anyone, it was on civilian towns - but that was to demonstrate that the US was very serious and willing to take extreme measures to end the war now. Does that make it right? Well, not really, but even as a Japanese American, I'll readily admit that it did save a lot of lives.

Now, with camera phones and Instagram and the internet, history is being written as it happens and nobody is going to get away with putting a spin on it or rewriting history, it's all getting uploaded in real time.

Back to the definitions of soldiers vs terrorists, it seems pretty simple to me: if you follow the rules of engagement of the Geneva convention and fight only against other soldiers, you can call yourself a soldier, regardless of which side you're on.

If you go around beheading people, killing innocent people, committing atrocities, etc, then you're just a criminal making excuses for your homicidal behavior and similar tactics can and should be used to eradicate the vermin from the face of the earth. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or which side you're on (to me, at least) it's your methods and tactics that determine how I view you.

There are enough "reporters" wandering around that if you think you have a valid gripe, there are 10 or 20 of them ready to stick a mic in your face and broadcast whatever nonsense grievance you'd like to air. Recent riots in MO and L.A. come to mind.

These aren't just my opinions, this is the basis of how you'll be treated by US troops the world over. Conduct yourself like a soldier, and the protections of the Geneva Convention will be afforded to you. Act like Boko Haram, for example, and they're not going to bother capturing you like a POW or dragging you in for a trial, you'll just get neutralized, as they say.

[lonesoldier0408]

Head in the sand or up their arse, the mentality is the same. Freedom of religion now means, no talk of God or Prayer or the pledge of allegiance to your country of choice. You now get a letter for permission to educate your child on sex but, islam is, "World History," and we can (indoctrinate your child) teach tolerance.

Yes the human race is, again asleep at the wheel.