Monday 15th May 2017

[Temulkar]

Right. So you endorse Chomsky's claim that Clinton's bombing of al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant killed several tens of thousands of people?

I don't myself think Chomsky has the better of this.

That would be Chomsky. Genocide denier I assume, famously taken to pieces by Monbiot.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/[/quote]

1. Chomsky claimed that the deaths at al-shifa equated to the deaths at 9-11. Werener Daum the German ambassador to teh Sudan claimed 10k+, based on the collapse in supply of malaria medicine and halting of humanitarian convoys. Halting humanitarian aid and denying life saving medicine, of course, are both indictments faced by every state that has committed genocide in the last century and a half.

2. Chomsky doesnt deny genocide, that really does display some clear ignorance of the subject matter, but he does apply the academic criteria for genocide to instances of mass killings in theatres of mass violence. You see genocide is a legal term, its use has legal implications, its legal definition is important. You can't use a legal definition to define one theatre of mass killing and then not use the same criteria for a different theatre. That is academically incompetent and lacking in rigour. A point Herman and Peterson make in their opening chapter, and Chomsky makes in his foreward.

I like Monbiot - although he manages to miss two important components of what constitutes genocide in his definition - and having read the texts that are referred to in this article, as well as many others in genocide studies, I know that Herman and Peterson's broad theses is correct, and they most certainly don't deny the genocide in Rwanda, although do make questionable statements about Srebrenica which are a matter of academic discourse. However, their structural argument regarding the interplay between macro-meso-micro level variables on the course and cause of genocide, and the misuse of the term by liberal interventionists is excellent, although I prefer Olusanya for MMM who is inspired, and Smeulers and Hoex are far better on Rwanda.
.
As for Monbiot taking Chomsky to pieces, I suspect that depends on your knowledge and understanding of the subject matter; I'm sure Monbiot wouldnt make that claim, whilst Chomsky would burst out laughing.

[SpinningHugo]

Right. So you endorse Chomsky's claim that Clinton's bombing of al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant killed several tens of thousands of people?

I don't myself think Chomsky has the better of this.

That would be Chomsky. Genocide denier I assume, famously taken to pieces by Monbiot.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

1. Chomsky claimed that the deaths at al-shifa equated to the deaths at 9-11. Werener Daum the German ambassador to teh Sudan claimed 10k+, based on the collapse in supply of malaria medicine and halting of humanitarian convoys. Halting humanitarian aid and denying life saving medicine, of course, are both indictments faced by every state that has committed genocide in the last century and a half.

2. Chomsky doesnt deny genocide, that really does display some clear ignorance of the subject matter, but he does apply the academic criteria for genocide to instances of mass killings in theatres of mass violence. You see genocide is a legal term, its use has legal implications, its legal definition is important. You can't use a legal definition to define one theatre of mass killing and then not use the same criteria for a different theatre. That is academically incompetent and lacking in rigour. A point Herman and Peterson make in their opening chapter, and Chomsky makes in his foreward.

I like Monbiot - although he manages to miss two important components of what constitutes genocide in his definition - and having read the texts that are referred to in this article, as well as many others in genocide studies, I know that Herman and Peterson's broad theses is correct, and they most certainly don't deny the genocide in Rwanda, although do make questionable statements about Srebrenica which are a matter of academic discourse. However, their structural argument regarding the interplay between macro-meso-micro level variables on the course and cause of genocide, and the misuse of the term by liberal interventionists is excellent, although I prefer Olusanya for MMM who is inspired, and Smeulers and Hoex are far better on Rwanda.
.
As for Monbiot taking Chomsky to pieces, I suspect that depends on your knowledge and understanding of the subject matter; I'm sure Monbiot wouldnt make that claim, whilst Chomsky would burst out laughing.[/quote]


1. Yes, That is the source Chomsky relied on. Do you endorse it? It is a ridiculous evidence free claim. Who else endorses it?

2. I agree with Monbiot.

Chomsky is a great linguist and philosopher. His forays into politics have done him harm.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ion-checks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Government threatened with legal action over immigration checks

[Temulkar]

Right. So you endorse Chomsky's claim that Clinton's bombing of al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant killed several tens of thousands of people?

I don't myself think Chomsky has the better of this.

That would be Chomsky. Genocide denier I assume, famously taken to pieces by Monbiot.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

1. Chomsky claimed that the deaths at al-shifa equated to the deaths at 9-11. Werener Daum the German ambassador to teh Sudan claimed 10k+, based on the collapse in supply of malaria medicine and halting of humanitarian convoys. Halting humanitarian aid and denying life saving medicine, of course, are both indictments faced by every state that has committed genocide in the last century and a half.

2. Chomsky doesnt deny genocide, that really does display some clear ignorance of the subject matter, but he does apply the academic criteria for genocide to instances of mass killings in theatres of mass violence. You see genocide is a legal term, its use has legal implications, its legal definition is important. You can't use a legal definition to define one theatre of mass killing and then not use the same criteria for a different theatre. That is academically incompetent and lacking in rigour. A point Herman and Peterson make in their opening chapter, and Chomsky makes in his foreward.

I like Monbiot - although he manages to miss two important components of what constitutes genocide in his definition - and having read the texts that are referred to in this article, as well as many others in genocide studies, I know that Herman and Peterson's broad theses is correct, and they most certainly don't deny the genocide in Rwanda, although do make questionable statements about Srebrenica which are a matter of academic discourse. However, their structural argument regarding the interplay between macro-meso-micro level variables on the course and cause of genocide, and the misuse of the term by liberal interventionists is excellent, although I prefer Olusanya for MMM who is inspired, and Smeulers and Hoex are far better on Rwanda.
.
As for Monbiot taking Chomsky to pieces, I suspect that depends on your knowledge and understanding of the subject matter; I'm sure Monbiot wouldnt make that claim, whilst Chomsky would burst out laughing.

1. Yes, That is the source Chomsky relied on. Do you endorse it? It is a ridiculous evidence free claim. Who else endorses it?

2. I agree with Monbiot.

Chomsky is a great linguist and philosopher. His forays into politics have done him harm.[/quote]

OK, what part of H+P's theses do you dispute covulvulus? The definition of what constitutes genocide is the updated one used by teh UN, rather than the 1948 convention quoted verbatim by monbiot - so hes wrong there or 25 years out of date at least. SO what do you disagree with in that definition of genocide?

Surely you agree that the UN criteria of what constitutes genocide should be applied to all theatres of mass violence regardless of perpertrator?

edited to add, if you agree with the UN defintion of course.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... de#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Updated guidance LCW after recent court decisions

[HindleA]

[youtube]otuwNwsqHmQ[/youtube]

[Temulkar]

And I know this was mentioned a few days ago, but havent seen this posted here (quelle suprise!)

Labour will nationalise water - another green policy which I am sure will be welcomed by all Greens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39930278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

I offer to ban myself in exchange to remove detritus from the forum.I don't give a fuck what he believes he has made a fundamental breach and should be removed.

[pk1]

I offer to ban myself in exchange to remove detritus from the forum.I don't give a fuck what he believes he has made a fundamental breach and should be removed.

Who has & what's the breach you refer to please ?

[HindleA]

Tem,what's with the surprise,suprise nonsense?.Numerous links,info has been provided.You are being disrespectful to those who make an effort.IMHO.

[Temulkar]

Tem,what's with the surprise,suprise nonsense?.Numerous links,info has been provided.You are being disrespectful to those who make an effort.IMHO.

Fair enough, I hadnt noticed.

[HindleA]

Pk1 with respect I am a one to one,fight my own battles without the leaping on thing,involving others other than strictly necessary.kind of person.

[HindleA]

OK Tem I am probably a bit in combatative mode,thanks for reply.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... re-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Martin Rowson on Theresa May and welfare

[HindleA]

FFS


PF:night night

[HindleA]

Night PF.

[HindleA]

[youtube]MZ_fXybPq1Q[/youtube]

[seeingclearly]

Very glad to see some spine here. Like Tem, I have not given up on this site, probably a bit of cussedness, but also because there are people here whose voices I value albeit they are often drowned out or over ridden by onesided arguments that do not really reflect the combined diverse views of said valued voices, and which spread a general air of dejection and defeatism that imo not that healthy.

This place was originally designed to be a haven for people travelling a roughly similar journey through a fractious political landscape, not as a war zone in its own right, and especially not to attack other havens.

In a world of increasing lies, untruths and misleading propaganda I come here to find discussion on common concerns and a ceratin amount of stability on core notions of rights law legislation governance etc. Not to be embroiled in shifting sand type political views, where everything of value can be targetted, destroyed with glib argument, then conveniently abandoned in favour of other argument when expedient. It is no subsitute for the good debate this site was once famous, in a small way, for.

I would love to see a return to that far more amicable discussion, but see an obstacle there in the constant negative and undermining posts of one person in particular. I really do not understand why the intersts of the board have not been seen to be at least as important as this individual, though I do understand that in a democracy one allows all coices. However, even in a democracy it is considered wholly acceptable to remove from the mainstream those with destructive intent. And also entirely acceptable for people to emigrate to more congenial places when home territory is suddenly rendered inhospitable. It also feels pretty bad when one would really like a wider far more open discussion on a positive way forward and how one can make a real contribution, but on mooting such one sometimes is perceived as an enemy oneself, when only seeking to help bring a return of simething that was once very present here.

Don't people remember the days when we did indeed attract large numbers and had some small significance in being a voice against the status quo, when significant posters provided information and discussion on things we could no longer find in the news?

Today we still have those posts, barely discussed though, because there is one voice that totally dominates, and now apoears to believe it 'owns' this board. Perhaps it does, in which case shame on all who have not felt strongly enough that this was a patch of britishness worth fighting for. (not the prevalent populist one, I know, but an almost lost from view better one. Though some days I really do wonder.

(((protectors)))

[seeingclearly]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... re-cartoon


Martin Rowson on Theresa May and welfare

This really should be an image link.
Thank you, Martin Rowson.