blandy

Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across (only without the big words or the w***ky ones - "utilitarian calculus of violent struggle" - I have no idea what that's supposed to mean! - I take it to indicate the writer is a plum, which probably isn't what he/she intended).

Now that tube Davis has gone the tone has changed from exasperation to practicalism, influenced no doubt by the short timescales and the acceptance on both sides that no deal is massively harmful. The tone may change back if all these stupid Theresa May red lines are insisted on, mind.

In my short post, I didn’t help my self with the use of “universally”, so I’ll try again. It’s often said, in regard to terrorist attacks etc. that we need to tighten our laws, arrest more suspects, interrogate them a little more “firmly”, worry less about human rights. We condemn the terrorist acts as outrages - blowing up kids in Manchester, buses and trains in London...So we rightly say the killing is wrong and torture of suspects is wrong. I don’t see how anyone could then excuse it or say it isn’t wrong to kill or torture people if (in the example given) the ANC does it “to battle apartheid”. Torturing terror suspects, summary executions, blowing up pubs, cars, hotels..it’s all wrong in this terror/war on terror situation. I didn’t mean it to include people in their homes faced with armed burglars and defending themselves or families from....etc. Or military intervention to stop the mass killings in Bosnia, or Rwanda or Sierra Leone, or as you mentioned it WWII.

Deep, brother, deep. pringle sweater.

What’s that thing we say? If we stoop to the evil they do, we’ve lost? If we adopt the same standards as the terrorists... if killing and torture is wrong ( sorry, I used that word again), then it’s universally wrong. And it is wrong. Does the end justify the means? When did our standards slip like that?

Looking at that picture, crazy in a small way, only. And why is he wearing Trump’s tie?

Yes that seems fair comment. My take is that the writer seems to come from a standpoint of Conservatism, rather than neutrality. The parts about Corbyn do rather do as you say. Yet there’s something there in terms of how quite a number of his more credulous fan base tend to perhaps over state his difference from everyone else, and this photo is often used as a contrast and compare thing for that purpose. Anyway I learnt a bit more background I didn’t know from the article.

Sure. Where do you draw the line between, say "Sabotage" and "terrorism" - because my hazy recollection of the radio interview was that they were accused of Sabotage (or similar, rather than actual (what I'd call) terror attacks. I think the guy said they didn't do the one they were accused of, but he intimated they "weren't exactly angels" with a sort of knowing laugh.

A long time ago, I heard an in depth interview with one of the other people who was tried and locked up alongside Mandela. It was touching and honest and dignified and much more, but he did say that yeah, they were a little bit naughty in some of the protest stuff they did. Maybe one man's (or woman's) freedom fighter is another's terrorist?. IIRC he did say that what they were locked up for (convicted of) they were innocent of, but...

Like one of Albert's less accurate crosses, er, to stay on topic, when he's, um, picked by Steve Bruce out.

I saw an article earlier, linked from that Twitter. It covers Thatcher, Corbyn Mandela etc and various other stuff I didn't really know in any detail.

Yeah. I know - my "quote"

Um, I don't know how to break this to you gently Akram, but I think you might have got entirely the wrong end of the stick, there.... Anyway, have a youtube link of the latest Corbynite away day, after their cultural awareness session.

Like Dante meets Bosch in a crack lounge! er, I think the phrase the journalists use is "familiar failings for Steve Bruce". Seems exactly right/

Must listen to this. I piggin' love the Album Leaf, so will investigate.

I loved the first 3, not so much the fourth one, thought Elpintor was decent, but as you say this new one...it's ok. Won't buy.

Soon, then, there'll be none left.

er, don't tell me the prize for a correct guess is a banana

Ah, the old "bunker mentality". I wonder if you're not a little green in the ways of the world. I mean is it a fair way to judge people?.You're never going to get it right to a tee, are you? You might as well say "a little birdie told me" as a gauge of accuracy. swish **** it. balls!

I noticed yesterday when searching for album art, that when the results came up, nothing happened when I clicked on a picture, but if I right clicked, open in new tab, then it worked - or are you two talking about some new fangled funky camera based do dah?

Yeah, the "apparent/apparently" thing is legitimate. "It appears that/apparently..." as in "it looks like", but the veracity is unconfirmed.

I gues they must have gone out, travelling somewhere.

Wrong - as in unsuitable, undesirable, inappropriate. Like wot dikshunry sez. and no, this 'don't nazi' stuff is not silly at all. Quite the opposite. Just ask Ken Livingstone.

Yeah, absolutely. Other than the choice of the word “nitpicking”, which I suspect underplays the emotion to a huge degree. lts two things utterly separate, yet connected. Because of history, there’s a real lesson in basic civility and human interaction. The people on the end of perceived orvreal anti semitism are aghast at their treatment, and 99+% of them are innocent of any remote wrongdoing. They’re getting the ire from anti semites. That’s so wrong and just has to stop. On the other hand, genuine valid abhorrence at what has been done by elements of Israel’s “state” shouldn’t be stopped or smothered. I think when the two things get conflated, whether by Israel’s propaganda machine, or by opponents of Israel’s actions, that’s where the fault line lies. I think the labour arguments about definitions are not the worst part of that, but they are to me a part. I just don’t understand the reflex to call back to Naziism. Just take away the reference, treat it all for what it is, not what was 70+ years ago. The two things are different, hugely so. Just leave nazi references well out of it. They’re not right, whether “a little bit like” or direct claimed parallels. It’s counter productive, innacurate, offensive and wrong. Solve, or try to, todays problems not those of the 1940s. It’s not the same, no matter what parallels people think they see.

Yes, that's a much better and wiser parallel There are a few things here. Firstly, the actions of Israel in terms of land theft, repression, killings, disproportionate force, targeting people, shooting them, destroying schools hospitals, olive groves, farms, collective punishment, punishing families for the "crimes" of their relatives.. the list is endless and disgraceful. It's an utter stain on humanity. Total agreement there. It's been abhorrent. The Nazi comparison though...there's the big elephant in the room, the monumental horrific scale of genocide, the targeting of all Jews, Gays, minorities, communists, other stuff mentioned before...it's just a totally different scale, and picking (relatively) smaller examples from their other appalling acts..I just don't think it's right to use "of course, I'm not saying everything the Nazis did, just the property theft and the ...whatever". It's impossible to ignore the murder and eugenics and etc. on millions of people, almost none of whom had done the slightest thing to warrant a fraction of the cruelty. There are obviously Arabs, Palestinians and people of various minority groups living happy, peaceful lives in Israel, they are not picked out and marched off to concentration camps...all this we all know. So as bad as many actions have been any comparison with the Nazis is just...at best misguided and at worst maliciously offensive. Dave's right as well, Israel didn't used to be as extreme as it is. There was a lot of communal, liberal, open, engaged spirit and ethos. It's so sad it's spiralling into worse behaviour and it's ingrained it seems.