Terrorism: Paris, Syria, Turkey, Belgium, Florida......

Yeah, I agree with you. To be honest, it seems that my understanding of the word race was narrow and probably out of date. Language is not a static thing and as you say, neither is it exact.

Glad my geeking out on geopolitics and security is interesting for some one else other than me! I'd probably start talking to myself about it if there was no one else to chat to!!
 
MARKL said:
My point is that it is an inexact term at best and whichever part of 'a group of persons related by common descent or heredity or traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro or an arbitrary classification of modern humans or a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture or a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage or any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc or a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock or a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics' it may mean something different but equally valid to somebody else.

Despite our disagreement over a couple of words Johnny I want to thank you for the depth of understanding that you bring to this thread, it is awesome to be able to get this kind of understanding and insight fee of the various filters our political leaders and media bring to these issues.
Click to expand...

You realise he fills this thread with his pinko commie agenda right?
 
pink poodle said:
I'm not thinking identical, more the concept of enlightened (in this case religious) leaders having authority. A revolution is certainly different to an insurgency, but they do also have some similarities. Fidel Castro's revolution/invasion appears to model a mix.
Click to expand...

In that case, yes. Both have elements of theocratic governance to differing degrees. Revolutions and insurgencies do share commonalities (the most obvious is that there are forces looking to overthrow a national leadership) but the differences are also pretty big. As in the Iranian revolution, uprisings generally have a multiplicity of actors who converge on their shared goal of overthrowing the govt. So it's a broad movement across society that cuts across social boundaries. Insurgencies are much closer to civil wars, usually where the civilian population have to choose between two sides who are fighting to hold territory and it's often a choice of the lesser evil. Much of the time the civilian population have little choice as they are forced to support whoever is in control of their local. Of course, a lot of the time the support can be genuine and volunteered too, but it's support rather than participation like a revolution. Also, insurgencies most often have hierarchies, command structures and rank. They have doctrine, insignia, manifestos and strategies. Revolutions, unless being guided by hidden forces are more chaotic, organic, democratic and egalitarian in nature given that they succeed via critical mass - one man, one Molotov, so to speak (sorry ladies).

Another aspect of the close relationship between revolutions and insurgencies is that after the revolution succeeds in overthrowing the leader all the disparate groups that coalesced under the struggle have nothing bringing them together anymore and the fight to be the new leader begins. This is where revolutions can beget insurgencies.
 
Last edited:
johnny said:
Yeah, I agree with you. To be honest, it seems that my understanding of the word race was narrow and probably out of date. Language is not a static thing and as you say, neither is it exact.

Glad my geeking out on geopolitics and security is interesting for some one else other than me! I'd probably start talking to myself about it if there was no one else to chat to!!
Click to expand...
I skim through a LOT of your posts and links, seeing I have no idea whatsoever of diplomacy or geopoloticky matters.

My idea of diplomacy has two opposing ends:
  • Fuck off.
  • Have a beer my friend.
In between there is stuff people talk about.

My interpersonal skills are poor and as for international relations, near zero.

I've learnt a lot from you, dude!
 
^^ I've also learnt alot from johnny, like knowing when to shut up. :heh:

Seriously though I've learnt alot from this thread from not only johnny but many others too.

Personally I only know what the dumb media feeds me so it's good to get perspective from folk with a deeper knowledge.
 
So Trump declares a new approach to NATO. Will the mega alliance fall apart? Or is it a much needed wake up call to lazy members?
 
Is he actually saying that when the USA goes all rogue without UN backing if the NATO allies don't support the US then the US won't support them? or as I suspect does he not actually know what he is saying other than that it sounds good to the morons that might vote?
 
pink poodle said:
So Trump declares a new approach to NATO. Will the mega alliance fall apart? Or is it a much needed wake up call to lazy members?
Click to expand...

Trump is talking out of his arse as usual. Even if the useless, cloven-hoofed gobshite does get elected he (and the fucking numpties who voted for him) will soon realise that it's only a powerful position if Congress and the Senate allows it and given that he's fucking with the ideals of Saint Ronald Reagan himself - not to mention the US's position as world's largest arms manufacturer- I doubt he'll get much support from the Republican establishment there...
 
PINT of Stella said:
Trump is talking out of his arse as usual. Even if the useless, cloven-hoofed gobshite does get elected he (and the fucking numpties who voted for him) will soon realise that it's only a powerful position if Congress and the Senate allows it and given that he's fucking with the ideals of Saint Ronald Reagan himself - not to mention the US's position as world's largest arms manufacturer- I doubt he'll get much support from the Republican establishment there...
Click to expand...
Does he really have [legit] GOP support? I get the distinct impression they're just trying to present a united front (and not doing a very good job) to keep the great unwashed, who voted him into the nomination, onside for the presidential race. I think they're hoping the realities of the office will pull his head in for them, if he gets the top job.

#nickstevensisachunt
 
stirk said:
^^ I've also learnt alot from johnny, like knowing when to shut up. :heh:

Seriously though I've learnt alot from this thread from not only johnny but many others too.

Personally I only know what the dumb media feeds me so it's good to get perspective from folk with a deeper knowledge.
Click to expand...

I second (or third) that.

This and the election threads have been informative and often insightful.

Knuckles said:
#nickstevensisachunt
Click to expand...

Off topic snip, but agree also.
 
Knuckles said:
Does he really have [legit] GOP support? I get the distinct impression they're just trying to present a united front (and not doing a very good job) to keep the great unwashed, who voted him into the nomination, onside for the presidential race. I think they're hoping the realities of the office will pull his head in for them, if he gets the top job.

#nickstevensisachunt
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he does as a hefty proportion of the establishment realised that they are beholden to Trump voters if they want to keep their jobs. Some of the more senior and entrenched figures like Lyndsey Graham feel safe enough to criticize but for the nmost part he seems to be collecting a lot of endorsements.

Ted Cruz actually became almost likeable for a brief second there when he refused to endorse him due to the personal attacks Trump had made on his family. He also did a good job of showing up the other potential nominees who hitched themselves on Trumps bandwagon despite all the humiliating shit he dished out to them.

At best Trump winning will just lead to utter shutdown of the American political system (similar to, if not worse than what has been seen with Obamacare) as the House and Senate try and block every daft policy he tries to enact. Not that he's likely to try and follow through with half the shit he's spouted. Much of his policies are contradictory with one another and some of the tent-pole ones (The Wall, Mexico paying for The Wall, banning Muslim immigration etc.) are pure fantasy that are impossible to enact.
I'd imagine though that he'd probably spend most of his time hosting State dinners and inflating his ego whilst leaving the running of the country to his staff and the VP who would soon find themselves up shit creek sans paddle-pops

Also I wouldn't be surprised if the daft cunt gets himself impeached for some reason or another before his first year is out.

At worst however, global economic meltdown, Further conflict in Europe as Russia escalates the conflict in Ukraine and maybe starts having a go at the Baltics, China seizing total control of the South China Sea and giving a pervy wink to Taiwan and bloodshed on US streets as racial tensions spiral out of control - the latter may or may not happen anyway if the police don't stop shooting unarmed black guys on camera.


Personally I think it'll be close especially in the popular vote but the whole electoral college thing they have (which I still don't understand) will see Clinton grab it - possibly with the help of the Supreme court a la 2000.

In the meantime I'm stocking up on popcorn and counting the days down to the debates. It'll be like Pacqaio vs Mayweather all over again (but hopefully with more punching)
 
Freediver said:
Is he actually saying that when the USA goes all rogue without UN backing if the NATO allies don't support the US then the US won't support them? or as I suspect does he not actually know what he is saying other than that it sounds good to the morons that might vote?
Click to expand...

Hard to say. Did he just mean in peace keeping? That would be very surface level. Or did he mean the deeper darker side of things..?

PINT of Stella said:
Trump is talking out of his arse as usual. Even if the useless, cloven-hoofed gobshite does get elected he (and the fucking numpties who voted for him) will soon realise that it's only a powerful position if Congress and the Senate allows it and given that he's fucking with the ideals of Saint Ronald Reagan himself - not to mention the US's position as world's largest arms manufacturer- I doubt he'll get much support from the Republican establishment there...
Click to expand...

We can only hope. His breath definately stinks like shit though.
 
PINT of Stella said:
Unfortunately he does...sniparoo...In the meantime I'm stocking up on popcorn and counting the days down to the debates. It'll be like Pacqaio vs Mayweather all over again (but hopefully with more punching)
Click to expand...

Still feels to me like they're just battoning down the hatches and keeping their fingers crossed that if he gets in, that other nutty fuck in Moscow will lob a few intercontinentals at the whitehouse (which I'm pretty sure trumpet will paint gold and pink) and the veep can take over.

Will be looking forward to Julia Louis-Dreyfus being the first female president.

#prettysureclintonhitsharderthanmayweather

Edit: you pretty much reiterated my point.

Redbruce: isn't he but? Runs a close second to the twat who represented him in his appeal "what he done, is pretty low down the scale" what a bitch.

#nickstevensisachunt
 
Last edited:
So this seems to be the first right-wing terrorist act since Andreas Breivik, I wonder what the comparative response will be in the coming days.
 
Mattydv said:
So this seems to be the first right-wing terrorist act since Andreas Breivik, I wonder what the comparative response will be in the coming days.
Click to expand...

I spent last week in a hotel only 2km from where this took place, and walked to the shoping center for dinner at an italian place one night. Glad I'm home now, this and the train knife attack since I left there.
 
Mattydv said:
So this seems to be the first right-wing terrorist act since Andreas Breivik, I wonder what the comparative response will be in the coming days.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that there have been others. The mass shooting at a church in Charlestown South Carolina last year immediately springs to mind as do the many bombings and shootings that occur at abortion clinics every year.

The distinction between organised acts of insurgency and indiscriminate mass killing by unhinged individuals have been blurred to the point where it's become almost farcical to apply labels to them. Tragedies like Nice and the Orlando shootings are prime examples of this.

At this time all I've read is speculation that it may be a far-right extremist group but it does seem very plausible given the 5 year anniversary of Breivik, relatively low casualty rate and fact that they did a runner instead of dying for the cause.

Either way it's more fuel for the fuckwits who think that it's possible to ban all immmigration from a demographic of 1.5bn people...
 
PINT of Stella said:
I'd argue that there have been others. The mass shooting at a church in Charlestown South Carolina last year immediately springs to mind as do the many bombings and shootings that occur at abortion clinics every year.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry, I meant in Europe. I would absolutely agree with you re: Charleston.
 
Heading to Europe for hols next week. Might change our flights to Chechnya or Yemen to lower the risk of being involved in a terror attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top