Those would be examples of your choices, RS. How do the rest of us choose?
Where: Depends. Mostly in our countries by denying them commercial and personal migration and participation.
What would we be denying ourselves when we deny these countries commercial participation, and what would we be brewing by destabilising the economies of that region?
Why:Because from the Western perspective they are sponsors of anti-Western terrorism and practitioners of primitive social oppression of women, as well being the antithesis of everything we stand for to do with human rights, liberty and basic human decency towards one another.
So, we do have the moral high-ground?
When: Now.
A hasty decision?
How: For a start, withdraw political and military support from them and tell them that they’re on their own. And mean it. For example, Saudi Arabia exists in its medieval shell largely because of American support for it, because of oil. The same with Pakistan to a lesser extent, but because there the bonus is Pakistan’s supposed support for the supposed ‘war against terror’.
Maybe Pakistan is simply trying to survive in a nightmare, no-win scenario?
You asked me how I would choose. I expressed my choices.
I wouldn’t presume to make choices for other people.
Which distinguishes me from politicians and a whole host of other arrogant arseholes who impose their idiotic views on me all the time.
Such as, for example, our latest great legislative innovation that when one lesbian has a kid via turkey baster or whatever the latest medical equivalent is then both mothers can be shown on the birth certificate, with no father. The last I heard was that a man and a woman had to make a baby, but apparently I’ve missed a huge evolutionary step which now allows two women to do it so that two mothers can be registered on the birth certificate without the nuisance of a male.
I’m sick to fucking death of reality being manipulated to conform with absurd ideas of political and cultural correctness.
Even the average moron can work out the difference between right and wrong, sense and nonsense on simple issues like who can be a mother and a father.
It takes a fucking politician or some other self-appointed guardian of community attitudes to decide that a kid can have two mothers and no father.
And these are the same sort of fuckwits who decide whether or not we should invade Iraq to deal with weapons of mass distraction which even Blind Freddie could see weren’t there on the weak ‘evidence’ produced beforehand by the nations chomping at the bit to get into Iraq.
Leaving them to revel in their seventh century attitudes and conduct, and freeing ourselves of having to accommodate that bullshit.
Why should women in Saudi Arabia be denied the right to drive a car, or even to go out of the house or to attend a doctor alone, and women in other parts of the Islamic world be punished for being raped because they lack the requisite number of four male witnesses to the rape to confirm it was a crime, or punished for reporting a rape without the requisite number of male witnesses coming forward, which automatically makes them an adulterer or slut deserving of male punishment (which, surprisingly, can include being raped. As the Yanks say: Go figure.). I may have missed something here, but the last time I heard of four blokes witnessing a rape they were the offenders.
It’s a bullshit system of outrageous male domination, oppression and exploitation of about half of the human race in those countries.
I couldn’t give a fuck about their oil.
I’d rather walk than see a woman hit with acid or killed for some bullshit notion of an ‘honour killing’, whether here or in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or some other shithole where men think it is ‘honourable’ to kill women for being victims of crime or, worse, just because they talk to someone of the wrong caste or village.
And I don’t care to hear any more in my community about how we should be culturally sensitive to a system which oppresses women and how we should see them as liberated because they’re not wearing bikinis. While their blokes have their tongues hanging out at every non-Muslim sheila showing a bit of flesh, never mind wearing a bikini.
Equality.
Humanity.
Modernity.
Of course not.
It’s not that long ago the what used to be called Negros were terribly oppressed in America, and it’s still the case that some people are oppressed in various Western democracies.
If it’s worth doing, it should be done now.
Yeah, like Musharraf suddenly came on board after 9/11 when he realised he was on a hiding to nothing from the Yanks, who stupidly fell into his trap.
Pakistan is entitled to pursue its own course of covert support for Islamic terrorists, part of which is aimed at India, because that is their orientation (a capital called Islamabad is a clue) but that doesn’t require the rest of us to accept the venom it exports.
It was a question intended for the forum as a whole.
Wasn’t trying to imply that you making choices for others - we all ought to fight our corner. Furthermore, if we don’t, then we have no other opinions with which to compare and guage our own.
I’m sick to fucking death of reality being manipulated to conform with absurd ideas of political and cultural correctness.
On that point I’m in your corner.
Arguably, one thing which we humans have in common is that we’re all different. Not just our fingerprints, but also our wants and needs are different for as many reasons as there are individuals. So, to come up with solutions to problems which seem fair and acceptable to everybody is impossible.
Given that, is it in the interests of any First World government to promote the advancement of the Third World to equal membership of the First World?
If it is not, then should we be making judgements on Third World regimes using First World standards?
If the Third World should be assisted into becoming First World, then should we not have a description of that mission, and should we not then have a long-term strategy, together with the short-term plans, in place to achieve the mission?
If we, the First World, continue to exploit the Third World, then do we have the right to complain when the Third World kicks back. If we do, do we just go over there and kick some arse, just to demonstrate that we’re not to be messed with?
Just being a little circumspect, chaps.
ISLAMABAD
After the formation of Pakistan in 1947, it was felt that a new and permanent Capital City had to be built to reflect the diversity of the Pakistani nation. It was considered pertinent to locate the new capital where it could be isolated from the business and commercial activity of the Karachi, and yet be easily accessible from the remotest corner of the country.
A commission was accordingly set in motion in 1958, entrusted with the task of selecting a suitable site for the new capital with a particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics and defense requirements, aesthetics, and scenic and natural beauty.
After extensive research, feasibility studies and a thorough review of various sites, the commission recommended the area North East of the historic garrison city of Rawalpindi. After the final decision of the National Cabinet, it was put into practice. A Greek firm, Doxiadis Associates devised a master plan based on a grid system, with its north facing the Margallah Hills. The long-term plan was that Islamabad would eventually encompass Rawalpindi entirely, stretching to the West of the historic Grand Trunk road.
Islamabad nestles against the backdrop of the Margallah Hills at the northern end of Potohar Plateau. Its climate is healthy, pollution free, plentiful in water resources and lush green. It is a modern and carefully planned city with wide roads and avenues, elegant public buildings and well-organized bazaars, markets, and shopping centers.
The city is divided into eight basic zones: Administrative, diplomatic enclave, residential areas, educational sectors, industrial sectors, commercial areas, and rural and green areas?
The metropolis of Islamabad today is the pulsating beat of Pakistan, resonating with the energy and strength of a growing, developing nation. It is a city which symbolizes the hopes and dreams of a young and dynamic nation and espouses the values and codes of the generation that has brought it thus far. It is a city that welcomes and promotes modern ideas, but at the same time recognizes and cherishes its traditional values and rich history.
A part of the problem regarding Political Correctness for the likes of you and I, RS, and others who frequent this site, is that we were raised with good, Christian values. Whether one follows the faith, or not, is an individual matter, but the values are there. Unfortunately, many people today do not share those values of what is right and wrong, which opens the door wide for the PC Brigade and, as a consequence, the rest of us have to suffer the dictatorial vomit of those that think themselves wiser and better informed than the rest of us.
I don’t much care for Christians of the annoying sort who bang on my door on Sunday when I’m trying to sleep, or the other sort at work who just shit me with their assurances that God loves me and everyone else when I can point to countless pieces of random brutality which contradict that, but I can’t think of better values than those which Christ, as distinct from the arseholes who noisily claim to be Christians and who always want money from me rather than principle, espoused.
Which principles, unless you’re a decomposing vegetable, are very clear and simple and obvious rules for living together in harmony
Is it just hatred? Or is it an irrational fear in the face of a misunderstood or misstated threat, the (dehumanized) “other,” where peoples’ natural impulses of self-defense and insecurity are manipulated into making them the “Scary Monsters” they’re supposedly afraid of?
Even many participants in the most horrifying of genocides may be (very perversely) interpreting their actions as a form of self-defense…
Sure. Flight or fight. For some, in order to fight they must get angry,usually as a result of fear. There fore they turn the energy of fear into hatredwhich is how they are able to commit acts of violence which they might not be able to commit in ordinary circumstances.
Dehumanizing doesn’t necesarily equate with hatred. In a slave society, the slaves are often dehumanized in order to justify their enslavement but it does not follow that their masters necessarily hate them, providing they know their place.
However, hatred can easily lead to dehumanization taking a violent form.
It would have been interesting to see how the society would have developed if they had been adults.
Digressing slightly
The Admirable Chricton is an inteerresting old film
Act One is set in Loam Hall, the household of Lord Loam, a BritishUnited Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. It is an island country, spanning an archipelago including Great Britain, the northeastern part of Ireland, and many small islands…
peer, Crichton being his butlerButler
A butler is a servant in a large household. In the great houses of the past, the household was sometimes divided into departments with the butler in charge of the dining room, wine cellar, and pantries. Some also have charge of the entire parlour floor, and housekeepers caring for the entire house…
. Loam considers the class divisions in British society to be artificial. He promotes his views during tea-parties where servants mingle with his aristocratic guests, to the embarrassment of all. Crichton particularly disapproves, considering the class system to be “the natural outcome of a civilised society”.
At the beginning of Act Two, Loam, his family and friends, and Crichton are shipwrecked on a deserted tropical island. The resourceful Crichton is the only one of the party with any practical knowledge, and he assumes, initially with reluctance, the position of leader. This role begins to take on sinister tones when he starts training Ernest, one of the young aristocrats with them, to break a liking for laboured epigramEpigram
An Epigram is a brief, clever, and usually memorable statement. Derived from the “to write on - inscribe”, the literary device has been employed for over two millennia…
s by putting his head in a bucket of water whenever he makes one. Crichton’s social betters at first resist his growing influence and go their separate ways, but in a pivotal scene they return, showing their acquiescence by accepting the food Crichton alone has been able to find and cook.
Act Three reveals the island two years later. Crichton has civilised the island with farming and house building and now, called “the Guv.”, is waited on with the trappings and privileges of power, just as his master had been in Britain. Lady Mary, Loam’s daughter, falls in love with him, forgetting her engagement to Lord Brocklehurst at home. Just as she and Crichton are about to be married by a clergyman who was shipwrecked with them, the sound of a ship’s gun is heard. After a moment’s temptation not to reveal their whereabouts, Crichton makes the conventionally decent choice and launches a signal. As the rescuers greet the castaways, he resumes his status as butler.
Act Four (subtitled “The Other Island”) is set back at Loam Hall, where the status quo anteStatus quo ante
Status quo ante is Latin for “the way things were before” and incorporates the term status quo. In law, it refers to the objective of a temporary restraining order or a rescission in which the situation is restored to “the state in which previously” it existed…
has returned uneasily. The Loams and their friends are embarrassed by Crichton’s presence, since Ernest has published a false account of events on the island, presenting himself and Lord Loam in key roles. Lady Brocklehurst, Lord Brocklehurst’s mother, quizzes the family and servants about events on the island, suspecting that Lady Mary may have been unfaithful to Lord Brocklehurst. The household evades these questions, except for a final one when Lady Mary reacts with shock - “Oh no, impossible…” - to the suggestion that Crichton might become butler at her married household. To protect her, Crichton explains the impossibility is due to his leaving service, and the play ends with his and Lady Mary’s regretful final parting.
Perhaps a lot of Jay Leno’s Jaywalking segment was a put on–people acting stupid to get on television–but I wonder . . .
Too many younger people (20’s and under) couldn’t place the American Civil War–they thought it was probably in the 1930’s. A school teacher thought the Panama Canal ran through Florida.
I don’t know if it was a high school or university, but a Berkeley, California (where else?), school was proposing to do away with science programs because not enough ‘minorities’ were attending them–they were disproportionately Anglo-white. If Chinese, for instance, are minorities in California, are they included in that ‘study’? Because of the school regime, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are probably outdistancing whites.
Weren’t the Hitler Youth, because of all the hours spent in studying Nazi dogma, marching, and training for war, deprived of the traditional German education? I read this somewhere, and was surprised, because I thought, that even under the Third Reich, and even given what they were supposed to study, their education was good. As a result, after the war, how did Germany cope with the (surviving) young people?
I still maintain, even though young people are very adept with video games, they are, by and large, abysmally ignorant of history. My young cousin, twice-removed, proved this–he’s near-genius but I’m always amazed what he doesn’t know.
Let’s not forget Stalin in all this - in terms of his own people he was far worse than Hitler…
Don’t get me wrong, none of what any of them did was good, but Hitler’s aggression was mostly outwards, while Stalin was responsible for 20 - 30 million deaths of his own countrymen - good old ‘Uncle Joe’ had the facade of an amiable but tough leader, but in reality he was every bit as rabid and psychotic as Hitler.
Most of us are aware of Stalin and his misdeeds -but why stop with Stalin?
…If we were to draw up a list of despots and their crimes, it would take some time to produce and some time to read. Furthermore, it has always suited the agenda of the Western powers to highlight Stalin’s crimes for political reasons. So, no, we’re not discussing, nor forgetting, Stalin as a despotic dictator but the thread is about Hitler, even though we do meander and digress.
I don’t know what I was on, but I shall certainly try some more…but, perhaps, not before logging on.
My apologies, Clave. You raise a good point:
Hitler’s aggression was mostly outwards, while Stalin was responsible for 20 - 30 million deaths of his own countrymen - good old ‘Uncle Joe’ had the facade of an amiable but tough leader, but in reality he was every bit as rabid and psychotic as Hitler.
As Herman has alluded to, Hitler terrorised his own people and had many of them transported to the concentration camps. These included Jews, Gypsys, the disabled and, of course, political rivals and dissenters. In comparison, for the most part, Stalin was confined by his own national boundaries, but if he had been free to operate abroad, I’m sure he would have equalled Hitler in his brutal treatment of other nationals. Hitler, on the other hand, was projecting outwards as he was pursuing a war of conquest.
