Street Photographer...Not a Terrorist

Andy K said:
Kent State.

Kent State!

OMG, Andy, that was 35 years ago!

You really are an Old Labour museum relic - aren't you! 😀

Well if you want to get ancient about it - what about the Boston Massacre, huh? Your troops blew away a bunch of innocent civilians including Cripus Attucks in what was clearly a fit of nationalistic and racist rage!
 
Andy K said:

Andy:

1) Being an attorney, trained in the Anglo-American tradition, I have this "problem" of innocence until proven guilty. So probing "claims" is a good thing - but you've already convicted in you mind based on political bias - not a good thing - just ideology.

2) Mai Lai (or as I recall i, My Lai) is again ancient history. And if you were fair you then in citing it you would also note that Lt. Calley was convicted at a Courts Martial and served hard time. So, your point is?

Since you seem rather "hung up" on Viet Nam perhaps I should let you know that the war ended 31 years ago*. The US and Viet Nam enjoy full diplomatic relations today. Thousands of Americans visit Viet Nam every year and the two countries are discussing a free trade pact.

My close friend, Dao Vuong, was proud to accompany her father last year when, as a former ARVN officer, he had the opportunity to return for a visit and be re-united with his family. This a man who was once sent to a re-eduction camp after the war and also once swore he would never return.

You see, we made up with them, just like we did with your Brits after the Revolution and War of 1812! 😀

*And oh, BTW, well more than half of all Americnas and Vietnamese alive today were born AFTER the war ended and know it only from history books! Life moves on Andy....
 
Three years for the massacre of over one hundred people is 'hard time' is it? The place is called Mai Lai, pronounced 'my'.
As I said, you need to get your world view from somewhere other than the McNews channel. You call yourself an attorney, I can only assume you got your qualification via a correspondence course, given the stunning lack of intelligence displayed in some of your earlier comments.
 
Andy...I have to say, I think you are opening yourself up to a potential disadvantage here.
No country that has ever weilded any power at all, much less one ever considered an "empire" is going to hold up well to an examination of this type...and you guys have a much longer history than we do.

Are you two thinking that one or the other of you will eventually lay down and say "You win, we are evil, incompetent, etc...."?

Just wondering.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Andy...I have to say, I think you are opening yourself up to a potential disadvantage here.
No country that has ever weilded any power at all, much less one ever considered an "empire" is going to hold up well to an examination of this type...and you guys have a much longer history than we do.

Are you two thinking that one or the other of you will eventually lay down and say "You win, we are evil, incompetent, etc...."?

Just wondering.
#

Yes we do have a long history, the difference being we in Britain are happy to examine our history and the wrongs done along the way. Unlike Georgie boy here who thinks that 'OMG that was 35 years ago...' somehow makes things ok. Unarmed kids, shot down by paramilitaries on a college campus. Followed by newspapers trumpeting 'The Scum Had It Coming!' Such an event should never be forgotten lest it be repeated.

He also disparages the allied forces in Iraq, sent there to aid the US. He shows a total disregard and lack of respect for the young people who have died in Iraq. He displays a completely blinkered and US-centric view of what is happening out there, dismissing the US closest ally as 'coat holders'. I sincerely hope this is not a common view in the US.

Whether we agree or disagree with the war is unimportant, the war is not the fault of the troops. What is the fault of the troops is how they now behave toward Iraqi civilians. As a so called 'liberating' force, they should occupy the moral high ground when combating the insurgents. However, we now have cases involving coalition troops (yes some British) where beatings and killings have taken place. How can we lay claim to being 'better' than the insurgents now? But George conveniently closes his eyes to these things. He must be a compensation attorney working for no win no fee., I bet he advertises on the ceilings of ambulances.

Btw, up until about 200 odd years ago, our history was also your history (some of you anyway).
 
Last edited:
I don't think that, in general, there is any lack of self-examination over here. In fact, in our popular culture, you really aren't anyone until you've expressed how horrible this country is. I can't speak to anyone else's experience over this, but the self-loathing and bashing of one's own country can get a bit old. It can even motivate extreme patriotism.
Anyone that thought there would not be the sort of recent events you mentioned has not paid much attention to the past. I won't attempt to justify them, but I can say I understand how they happen.
I'm actually amazed at the public's expectations. We want peace without conflict ($1.50 gas without involvement in the Middle East). Failing that, we want conflict without pain, suffering or loss of life. None of it is fair, most especially to the casualties, but it's just silly to expect the world going forward to be really different than the wolrd we see looking back. The inhabitants just haven't changed all that much.
 
I think thats the difference between the British and Americans, we don't see criticism of our government as criticism of the country. Britain is a great place, but we have a lousy government. We have a Prime Minister, supposed head of a left wing political party, who has tied himself to a right wing US President. Not only that, he continually jumps through hoops every time Dubya says. No one over here has any respect for Blair,he is seen as a weak, mentally unstable weasel who has betrayed this country, and dragged Britain's name through the mud. But I would not want to live anywhere else in the world, and I am sure everyone here would say the same for their own countries.
 
Andy K said:
#

Yes we do have a long history, the difference being we in Britain are happy to examine our history and the wrongs done along the way. Unlike Georgie boy here who thinks that 'OMG that was 35 years ago...' somehow makes things ok. Unarmed kids, shot down by paramilitaries on a college campus. Followed by newspapers trumpeting 'The Scum Had It Coming!' Such an event should never be forgotten lest it be repeated.

He also disparages the allied forces in Iraq, sent there to aid the US. He shows a total disregard and lack of respect for the young people who have died in Iraq. He displays a completely blinkered and US-centric view of what is happening out there, dismissing the US closest ally as 'coat holders'. I sincerely hope this is not a common view in the US.

Whether we agree or disagree with the war is unimportant, the war is not the fault of the troops. What is the fault of the troops is how they now behave toward Iraqi civilians. As a so called 'liberating' force, they should occupy the moral high ground when combating the insurgents. However, we now have cases involving coalition troops (yes some British) where beatings and killings have taken place. How can we lay claim to being 'better' than the insurgents now? But George conveniently closes his eyes to these things. He must be a compensation attorney working for no win no fee., I bet he advertises on the ceilings of ambulances.

Btw, up until about 200 odd years ago, our history was also your history (some of you anyway).


Andy,

You are a hoot! You know nothing about me but assume everything! It such a tiresomely old exercise from the looney left of the mid-20th century. You need to neatly categorize everyone so you can "fit" them into your grand scheme of dialiectic materialism and the marxist imperative.

"Cepting that ain't the case, my boy.

I am actually quite liberal and strongly oppose the war in Iraq etc. And, yes, a million years ago I marched against the war in Viet Nam, for Civil Rights etc. and all those "good causes" of yesteryear.

But I know enough to know that life moves on and only the unforgiving still find a need to assign blame thirty or forty years after a horrible event.

If you want to talk horror, we could drag out the holocaust. Or, conversely, the firebombing of Dresden (after which I believe your esteemed PM of the day said they "deserved it").

No one wants to hear about the old man's war. You have zero creditility today with young people if you think harranguing on about My Lai (not "mai" as in the Chinese cocktail known as mai tai) will create anything more than a "yawn".

dazed,,, is correct. British history is fraught with atrocities. But they are as irrelvant today as harping about the Viet Nam War. Criminy, get over it man, your country wasn't even involved so how dare you preach to us!

As I said, Andy, you're a tired member of Old Labour (and, as you know, it was Mr. Blair who coined that phrase so as to distance himself from you and your fellows) still fighting some grand ideological battle from mid-20th century. If the US didn't exist, you'd have to "invent" it.

Well, here's an update: Capitalism won! The Left proved to be totally bereft of real ideas and technology nailed its coffin.

The Chinese have a stock market and seek to get rich (heck, they sell us just about everything we buy!). I regularly purchase Vietnamese prawns and other seafood at my local supermarket. The only thing I can get (not that I smoke) are Cuban cigars because we have a bunch of old Cuban immigrants who like you can't let go of the past (but unlike you, have a degree of political clout).

Oh, and, BTW, I work for an German bank in transactions-related matters. I don't "chase" ambulances. You watch too much television if you think lawyers are all litigators or quasi-detectives.

You'd say I sold out because I don't wave the red flag anymore. I suggest you wake up and move on. Revolution is over. That PC you're about to respond with is the capitalist tool that has empowered millions to reject the narrow "boss vs. worker" world you wish still existed!
 
copake_ham said:
You are a hoot! You know nothing about me but assume everything!

Well in my last couple of posts I decided to follow your example George. Right through this thread I have attempted to address the topic and not the speaker, whereas you have gone out of your way to post ad hominim attacks in almost all your posts. So please forgive me if I find your above comment rank hypocrisy.

You assume I'm a labour voter, you are wrong. I do not ally myself to the right nor the left. I vote on what will give the best outcome for me. I read party manifestos, look at past records, consider local as well as national issues. Only then do I vote. If no one offers good enough reason to deserve my vote, I go to the polling staion and deliberately spoil my voting paper with the words 'None of these deserve my vote'. That way I cannot be counted as having stayed at home, content with the status quo.

This whole thing started with your objection to my post stating:

' they were rescued by a multinational force led by British troops and the RCMP...'

For an 'attorney' you don't read too well do you George? You accused me of claiming the rescue was purely a British/Canadian effort, when in actual fact even a third grader could see I said nothing of the sort. I don't believe you are any sort of attorney George, maybe you turn burgers, but thats about it!
Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and no thanks, I don't want fries with that.
 
Last edited:
Andy K said:
Well in my last couple of posts I decided to follow your example George. Right through this thread I have attempted to address the topic and not the speaker, whereas you have gone out of your way to post ad hominim attacks in almost all your posts. So please forgive me if I find your above comment rank hypocrisy.

You assume I'm a labour voter, you are wrong. I do not ally myself to the right nor the left. I vote on what will give the best outcome for me. I read party manifestos, look at past records, consider local as well as national issues. Only then do I vote. If no one offers good enough reason to deserve my vote, I go to the polling staion and deliberately spoil my voting paper with the words 'None of these deserve my vote'. That way I cannot be counted as having stayed at home, content with the status quo.

This whole thing started with your objection to my post stating:

' they were rescued by a multinational force led by British troops and the RCMP...'

For an 'attorney' you don't read too well do you George? You accused me of claiming the rescue was purely a British/Canadian effort, when in actual fact even a third grader could see I said nothing of the sort. I don't believe you are any sort of attorney George, maybe you turn burgers, but thats about it!
Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and no thanks, I don't want fries with that.

Actually your post just said British and RCMP (particularly odd since the Canadians have made a big deal about NOT being in Iraq!).

Now Andy, If you consider calling you Old Labour to be an ad hominem attack I apologize. I don't consider it an insult. Just a charming anachronism - kind of like when you see those photos of the old CP babushka pensioners in Red Square pining for the good old days of the SU! 😀

Also, you are as thick-skinned as me, which is why you continue this banter rather than go whining to the moderator or threatening me with physical harm like some here! So why complain now?

Now I do think you being disingenuous. I never called you a Labour voter - only "Old Labour". And it's for just the reasons you mention above. You now HAVE to split your vote - or "spoil" your ballot because voting party line no longer "works" for you.

Old Labour had it's ideological bearings well-established and, like lemmings, woud rather go off the electoral cliff than win power.

Good old Tony came up with a better idea. But I have little doubt that Gordon Brown will "drop the ball" and allow the Oldies to sway him and the Party back into inelectability!

Blair's biggest failure wasn't making the mistake of aligning with Bush over this stupid war. It was in not finding an alternative successor to Brown - who has "Old Labour Loser" written all over his face! 😀

BTW: dazed... is correct - neither of us is going to concede so instead - want talk about cycling?

I got out on the touring bike yesterday. Iffy kind of day that started out pleasant (I felt a bit overdressed with a long sleeve jersey under a short sleeved one). But then it turned a bit nasty with chilly rain showers on and off and I was pleased I'd placed "caution" over "devil may care".

Bike's a bit mucked up but it is a tourning bike with sealed hubs and BB so should be just a matter of wiping it down.

It was good to be out on the road again after almost a month off.
 
George: If you think the Canadian government (of any stripe) would abandon its citizens in Iraq just because they (the government as well as the general populace) did not support the invasion, then you should probably read The Star and the Globe more. (BTW, your characterization of those papers, especially the Globe, as left-leaning made me laugh.) And you can get CBC radio (both Radio One and Two) streamed real time, and watch The National every night. Oh, and Global, CTV and City/Chum also are known to report news and views that you might consider "critical" of the policies of the US. Even the National Post and Sun have been known to not agree with you! But at least the Sun has the Sunshine girl, which elevates it to something .... oops, I won't complete that thought! 😉
 
George and Andy remind me of the little boy who pulls the little girls pig-tails b/c he likes her. Brokeback Rangefinder!

Andy- We would be in this mess if you guys hadn't "Cocked-up" things when you made Iraq.

Anyway..... Gotten pretty far of topic, although it has been a good read.

I just can't get the picture out of my head of a Canadian Mounty, in the red coat, riding pants, Smokey the Bear hat, riding a horse going door-to-door in the Sunni triangle asking "Have you seen a Hostage, Eh?".

I know people pick on W's supposed Rosy picture of what was going to happen in Iraq, but is anyone really that surprised? (I watched that "Mission Accomplished" speech. He talks a lot about the challenges ahead and that the fight isn't over. I really think the press got spun by the left on that one, plus the banner was a bit over the top.)

Let's point out the things that didn't happen during after the invasion that some on the left and in the media said would happen.
Our technology would fail and we would get bogged down in another Viet Nam (remember the sand storm and pause.)
We had 40,000 body bags in theatre and casualites were going to be heavy.
Iraq would lash out at Israel, starting a regional war.
The Arab street would erupt in anger (not really till lately, and then mostly in France).

We can talk about how unstable Iraq is, but look at parts of France! Sweet Mother-of-all-things-holy, maybe there is some fight in them. As to "no-go zones", have you ever been lost in East St. Louis after dark?

A country with that much fundementalist passion, pent up anger, and a wide open chance for power, what do you expect???

And let's set one thing straight. There is not going to be a civil war. Anyone who says that there is has a basic fundamental missunderstanding of what has happened in recent armed conflicts.

As soon as you put two trucks and 50 guys together the US can blast it to pieces. The best someone can do is like the current insugency. The most you are going to get is tit-for-tat thuggury back and forth. Why do you think the use IEDs and suicide bombers mostly. There are not going to be any pitched, prolonged battles.
 
--Not to take a "side" on either side of a fence, I can just say that I think that, at least in my region of Canada, we love our country, but we citizens, for the most part, know that our politicians are at times entirely clueless. Personally, I find it makes election time more fun; we get to try to pick the one that says the least amount of bizarre, ill-thought, and incorrect statements. At least, that's the view of those who enjoy political humor.
 
Just because the Canucks don't want to fight Cheney's oil war doesn't mean we don't agree with the general premise.....we're in Afghanistan now. Any Canadian who saw that clip of the fat Taliban whipping a woman because she had the audacity to wear nail polish knows this....these Muslim fundamentalists are absolutely crazy, and to just call them an anachronism is a compliment. Five hundred years behind the times is being generous.......
The Canadians accidentally shot an Afghani who was racing towards them last week. The requested compensation? That the WHOLE family be allowed to emigrate....to CANADA!
These Christian Peace Keepers who've done nothing but criticize the West for their intervention are absolute morons. There was a cartoon up here last week showing three hostages being rescued by British troops....the comment was "Thanks for saving our lives, you pig dog Bush capitalists!" Sadly, not far from the truth....can you stop an idiot from stepping in front of a train? Next one that gets kidnapped, let the CPK resue them. I won't shed any crocodile tears for idiots wha asked to be murdered.
Similarly, the death penalty being sought by even moderate Imams for the Afghani muslim who was evil enough to be converted to Christianity....Islam couldn't 'tolerate' the insult apparently. The religion is so weak they can't lose ONE? Of course the main reason they want him dead is a quote from the Imam that called for his beheading:" If we allow him to go to the West, then many will convert." Can you blame them?
The Arab press is famous for their vehement and inflammatory anti-Israel and anti-West press fabrications...yet they freak over a few cartoons.....does anybody else see the sheer hypocrisy of "how dare you insinuate Mohammed is a terrorist, if you don't apologize the bombings will commence immediately!"
We have to stop pointing fingers at each other and realize who the real enemy is here....and I'm not talking just Islamic fundamentalists. There's also a strong contingent of Christian fundamentalists in the West who, not content with living THEIR lives as they see fit, insist on telling, and even trying to legislate how everyone else must live also......says right here in their 2,000 year old book, no arguments or discussion allowed. Bush was told not to use the word "mutate" when talking about the avian flu to avoid alienating his anti-evolutionary base.
We in the West have been asking; "Where is the voice of moderate Islam?", and I don't think it's an unfair question. Answer: They've been silenced in to submission by threats and intimidation. In other words, if your interpretation differs from the fanatics, you're a heretic punishable by death.
Call the French what you want, but when moderate Muslim girls were being threatened by the crazies to wear a shador to school or be beat up, they outlawed them.
AFAIC separation of church and state is probably the most profound indication of the collective genius of the American founding fathers. Of course, they only knew what Catholics and Protestants would do to each other given the chance. They never imagined what what kind of strife an interfaith conflict would create.
Mike
 
<Once again, I post against my best judgment.>

On a recent trip to LA, I was stuck in traffic, surrounded by SUVs containing one person, listening to someone on the radio rant that they would do all they could to block off-shore oil exploration. The same group would no doubt oppose drilling in Alaska and building additional nuclear capacity.
Every person that opposes the very real steps we could take to make ourselves independent of Middle Eastern oil, yet demands cheap energy for thier lifestyle, in effect supports the war in the Middle East. Who really thinks we'd be there if not for our need for cheap energy?
Considering how completely dependent we are, I can't see how we can keep ourselves out of the region. Whether or not the specific steps the Bush administration has taken are the right steps can be debated. But whether or not are economic fates are tied to stability in the region, I think, is beyond question.
Oil is the crack cocaine of the world's economy.
We need to either accept the environmental risks of producing our own energy, or accept our shared culpability in any and all involvement in the oil producing regions.
 
copake_ham said:
Actually your post just said British and RCMP (particularly odd since the Canadians have made a big deal about NOT being in Iraq!).

For the second time my post said:
Andy K said:
Actually the operation was carried out by a multinational force led by British troops and members of the RCMP.

Also, I do want to visit your country. My objection is to being fingerprinted like a criminal when I arrive. Visitors from the US are not greeted in such a way here.

Come on Mr Attorney, read it. "a multinational force led by..."

and here are the links I posted for you to read... again... Please pay attention Mr Attorney:

The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4837602.stm

"The mission was spearheaded by British troops with the participation of forces from other coalition countries in Iraq....

...The multinational team included representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."


Reuters: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23032006/325/intelligence-work-led-rescue.html

"information extracted from a prisoner led to British troops' rescue of three Christian peace activists"

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032300223.html

"Circumstances of the rescue operation, which was spearheaded by the British, were being closely held."



anselwannab said:
Andy- We would be in this mess if you guys hadn't "Cocked-up" things when you made Iraq.

Oh yes that's right, because it wasn't the US who propped up Sadam and supplied his weapons and chemicals right through the 80s...



anselwannab said:
And let's set one thing straight. There is not going to be a civil war...

.... There are not going to be any pitched, prolonged battles.

Civil war does not have to be prolonged battles. The Northern Ireland conflict was a civil war between Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Loyalist. The same is now happening in Iraq between the Islamic factions, only much, much worse.

dazedgonebye said:
On a recent trip to LA, I was stuck in traffic, surrounded by SUVs containing one person, listening to someone on the radio rant that they would do all they could to block off-shore oil exploration. The same group would no doubt oppose drilling in Alaska and building additional nuclear capacity.
Every person that opposes the very real steps we could take to make ourselves independent of Middle Eastern oil, yet demands cheap energy for thier lifestyle, in effect supports the war in the Middle East. Who really thinks we'd be there if not for our need for cheap energy?
Considering how completely dependent we are, I can't see how we can keep ourselves out of the region. Whether or not the specific steps the Bush administration has taken are the right steps can be debated. But whether or not are economic fates are tied to stability in the region, I think, is beyond question.
Oil is the crack cocaine of the world's economy.
We need to either accept the environmental risks of producing our own energy, or accept our shared culpability in any and all involvement in the oil producing regions.

We need to follow the example of countries like brazil, who are reducing their dependency on mineral oil by investing in the production of .bio fuels etc.
 
Last edited:
Bio fuels have potential as a very small part of an overall plan. I'm affraid that the technology just isn't there (yet) to provide a nice warm environmentaly good feeling solution for the amounts of energy we're talking about.
Further, unless we just plain get lucky, no technological solution will exist until we need it. In other words, until the world is starving for energy, the financial incentive to innovate (the necessity to mother the invention) will not exist.
You ain't gotta be Nostradamus to see that people will keep acting in the future as they have acted in the past.
 
--I am having a few regrets that I posted... That said, I do feel the need to point out that this thread was in fact discussing whether photographers are being hassled by the police. Political discussions are important, but perhaps it would be more fitting to have that discussion on another thread.

Shake hands everyone?
 
dazedgonebye said:
Bio fuels have potential as a very small part of an overall plan. I'm affraid that the technology just isn't there (yet) to provide a nice warm environmentaly good feeling solution for the amounts of energy we're talking about.

IMHO the technology is not the problem but the squaremiles to grow the plants are. As far as I know all german farmland put together is not enough to produce the required 5.75% which shall be mixed to traditional fuel in the near future.

Another problem is the ecological part of "Bio"fuel. You need a lot of chemicals and a lot of energy to grow and process the plants which may result in more pollution than traditional fuels.

From an economical point of view there are doubts, too.

The way to go is hydrogen in fuelcells and synthetic fuel from biomass.

Producing hydrogen from seawater with energy generated from sunlight can be done in most of the deserts north and south of the equator.
 
Back
Top Bottom