And we're back!

Main Menu

Recent posts

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on Today at 04:04:19 AMExactly, the first set of people were unknowingly infected but, when the problem became clear instead of taking action it was business as usual.

There is a pattern here; British state entities are far more concerned with saving face than ensuring the welfare of the "little people".

Yes - and look at the postmasters, or at Hillsborough or, for that matter, other NHS scandals. There is a pattern of cover up, lies and protecting each other that's a huge problem.

And I also think of Johnny Mercer's evidence of officials lying to him and the amount he had to push on war crimes by British special forces in Afghanistan to get anywhere - he'd heard about it as a veteran from other veterans and was faced with a stone wall in the MoD where he was a minister. Similarly in Rory Stewart's memoir when he talks about aid to Syria where he fees like he'll know something and has a very strong suspicion it's going to jihadi groups (it was) and has numerous meetings where he's lied to by officials or fobbed off or even told by a civil servant in Number 10 that he's causing problems before getting to the bottom of it.

So there are issues with the politicians and it is their responsibility regardless, but I can't help but wonder if their sin was basically to believe what civil servants told them - and if they can't, our system is in real trouble.
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by OttoVonBismarck - Today at 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: Josquius on Today at 02:45:25 AMIt clearly wasn't.

If you're going to live with a false set of facts I don't really know what to say. Yes, a significant portion of the Jewish population that made up early Israel was based on entirely legal immigration to the region. The next big wave was Mizrahi Jews expelled from across the Arab world, whose descendants represent a significant percentage of Israel's population--and letting them go back to their homes would mean Arabs giving up lands they stole (not to mention forcing Jews to move to countries that are mostly antisemitic autocracies today.)

Quote from: Josquius on Today at 02:45:25 AMYes. Exactly as  I said, it'd be wrong to say it'd be a completely clean operation where the Jews could neatly move back to normal lives in the countries they came from.

It'd be wrong to even countenance it, period. A significant portion of the people in question were expelled from ancestral homes in Ottoman lands and concentrated in a Jewish homeland. It would be like trying to force the Pontic Greeks back to Turkey, or to try and force all the Balkan population moves back to their pre-WWI state. The idea it is even a legitimate idea is nonsensical and even normalizes the concept of ethnic cleansing.

Quote from: Josquius on Today at 02:45:25 AMInteresting, I've never heard this Wilsonian self-determination argument from the modern day looking back.

It isn't about self-determination--it is about the factual, practical reality, that both after WWI and WWII, there were significant movements of ethnic populations (and in the case of India/Pakistan a few years later--religious) to borders that were seen as more stable. Some of this was deliberate policy, some of it was consequence of other policies.

The fact this "shuffling" resulted in "tragic stories" for Arabs (and also for Jews in many cases), is simply not unique. In fact I would argue it is significantly less tragic than the story of the India / Pakistan split up, in terms of human suffering / harm done.

The core issue is we seem to only believe in the case of Israel and the Jews that the correct answer for a mid-century or earlier wrong, is to do another set of ethnic cleansing to benefit Arabs--who have already had carved out for them literally 15 or so countries in the region. Is it your assertion that Arabs simply need 100% of all lands in the region? Is no other ethnic group legitimate? I assure you that Arabs have never been 100% of the ethnic composition of the region. These were shared lands among many ethnicities since time immemorial.

The "Arab lands" position echoes Arab supremacy that basically asserts that because at a given point in history Arab rulers had the most power in the region, 100% of all the land is "Arab" and anything else is evil or illegitimate. That isn't just nonsensical, it is immoral, and would be easily called out as such in most other contexts. It is quite literally the same argument Russians make that they "deserve" control of all the lands that were once under Russian dominion, it doesn't matter that maybe there were actually ethnic groups who weren't Russian, it matters that Russians used to dominate, so those lands must be seen as Russian in perpetuity. We reject it when Putin makes that argument, for good reason.
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by grumbler - Today at 08:25:06 AM
Ah, the old unsourced "apparently" claim followed by outrage.  So very Languish.
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 08:20:05 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 20, 2024, 11:38:34 PMIt is a serious question: what did change?  Did they prevent Netanyahu from doing what he wanted to do?

Yes all the time. In addition to protecting LGBTQ rights, rights of non-Orthodox converts etc. the Court has been the one institution to resist the most blatant actions against Palestinians in Israel proper and the territories, including rulings shutting down individual settlements and issuing injunctions against land seizures. Not to mention its ruling striking down the proposed judicial reform, which has held up.

QuoteThat's a technicality.

It's the farthest thing from a technicality; it's a fundament of the rule of law. A court's jurisdiction is the source of all of its power and authority. A court that acts outside its jurisdiction by definition is abusing its power.

QuoteIt's akin to saying the US courts can't judge a President for his crimes.

No it's not akin to that at all. No one has argued the US courts lack jurisdiction to hear such cases.

It's more akin to saying that US courts can't judge the President of France for alleged crimes committed in France against people in France.
Off the Record / Re: South African General Elec...
Last post by HVC - Today at 08:18:40 AM
Old white dude. That demographic hasn't let us down yet.

Off the Record / Re: South African General Elec...
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 08:15:42 AM
The Black man with hair. A man strong enough to go against M. Jordan is strong enough for Africa.
Off the Record / Re: South African General Elec...
Last post by Syt - Today at 08:02:28 AM
So, who's the least corrupt one?
Off the Record / South African General Election
Last post by Josquius - Today at 07:07:27 AM
With no clear Languish option who shall win?
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 06:07:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:56:56 AMApparently the US placed restrictions on ANY western-provided weapons strike in russia proper. As in, if you use this SCALP or Storm Shadow to hit Belgorod, we will stop providing aid.

I'm not sure what the Biden administration is thinking here. In 20 or 100 years nobody will remember or care about your build back better or inflation reduction act. They will remember how you fumbled your way to "realpolitk" cynicism, using Ukrainian lives.

11 civilians were murdered in Kharkiv yesterday. Ukraine knows where those launchers are but is not "allowed" to hit them. What the actual fuck.

It's all Mike Sullivan's fault.
Off the Record / Re: NHL Hockey thread
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 06:06:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 20, 2024, 11:12:46 PMSo mid way through the third I was like "hey don't anyone say anything, but Skinner has an "s-word" going on".  I never said the word, that was an exact quote.

Canucks promptly score two gals, 3-2 final.

Am I in the wrong?