This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
As you (and I) with Richard's header, I agree with quite a lot of that, too. Which shows how confused is the concept of "terrorism".
But you're quite wrong to say it's characteristically carried out by the weaker party. Terror originated with the French revolutionary government, and has been a means to political ends adopted by many totalitarian regimes ever since.
As for Richard's question 'what is the new form of terror', one candidate is China's new quiet terror.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/30/chinas-age-of-malaise ..Xi has always spoken more bluntly in private. In a speech behind closed doors, shortly after he came to power, he uttered what remains the clearest statement of his vision. “Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse?” he asked, according to excerpts that circulated among Party members. One reason, he said, was that the Soviets’ “ideals and beliefs had wavered.” More important, though, “they didn’t have the tools of dictatorship.” With dogged efficiency, Xi has set out to strengthen belief in the Party and to build the tools of dictatorship. He has succeeded more in the latter than in the former. These days, the most prevalent belief in China is that anyone—from the truest believer to the canniest tycoon—can disappear. This fall, there was fresh evidence: yet another powerful general, the defense minister, Li Shangfu, never arrived at a meeting he was scheduled to attend...
(The whole article is well worth a read.)
I would say that state terror and terrorism are different things.
I'm not sure I would, FWIW.
The Wikipedia page is a useful reminder "106 separate definitions" that there is no consensus on the term.
The UN, again FWIW, disagrees with you: ...In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"...
I which case there is no point having either war crimes or anti-terrorism laws. Because either side can claim that a conflict is an existential crisis on some level.
Well yes. That's right. Which state would refrain from a course of action because it would be breaking the "law" and which, if not undertaken, might result in the extermination of that state.
It is a fiction.
And yet the UK, Germany, US, Russia and Italy all withheld from the use of chemical weapons in WWII.
Because they knew that once one side used them, everyone would use them. For the same reason, States refrain from using nuclear weapons.
Isn't that ultimately why we have any rules of war? We won't do X because we don't want X done to us.
Well, the argument is that we should behave morally, regardless of what others do.
But, that is very much a counsel of perfection.
I agree with you that, in practice, the rules of war developed upon the basis of reciprocity.
The Greek city states allowed their enemies to bury their dead with honour, and treated envoys as sacrosanct, because they expected such treatment in reverse. One of the many things that 300 gets badly wrong is showing Leonidas throwing Persian envoys down a well, and portraying it as badass. It was an earlier king, Cleomenes, who did it, and the Spartans considered it a shameful deed, so much so, that when they learned that Xerxes was planning to invade, two Spartan nobles travelled to Persia, offering their own lives in exchange for those of the murdered envoys.
To continue, rules of war are very ancient, because most wars are not fought with the intention of completely exterminating the enemy. Not even the Mongols did so. So, you have to find ways of achieving peace.
The rules were much rougher in the past, and were usually based upon respecting religious custom (so, treating envoys and priests as sacrosanct, and allowing burial of the dead); or dealt with perfidy. Murdering people at a parley, or when you had offered them shelter under your roof, would generally be considered disgraceful. Sacking a town that was taken by storm and massacring or enslaving the inhabitants was acceptable, but most adhered to the rule that the inhabitants must be given the option of surrender, and it was bad form to violate a surrender upon terms. Nelson was hugely criticised at Naples, for handing over rebels to be punished by the King, after they had surrendered in return for transportation to France.
So far we have had about 20 different definitions of terrorism, that overlap on a lot of cases but also disagree on plenty. If you are trying to be understood clearly and consistently and don't have time to show context it is not a good choice of word.
Excellent header, this, by Ricardo, and a most interesting discussion duly triggered. For me that 'Oxford' definition he quotes up front is probably as good as it gets. You divorce the word 'terrorism' from moral judgment or political bias if you apply that definition properly. You can also dispense with conundrums like 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' - because it's clear they can be both at the same time.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
I disagree. Sumption is right that we should not apologise nor even judge previous generations for their actions based on a different set of values but at the same time we recognise that, from our perspective, rape, murder and slavery are inherently wrong whether practiced today or a thousand years ago. We can understand but not condone those actions. There is nothing religious about that, it is simply the application of logic to our own moral code.
Mentioned in the book “King Solomon’s Mines” I believe
The roof of our music school was called “the queen of Sheba’s tit” for some reason. Maybe she was famously pointy breasted.
And around the corner were two bollards to stop cars going down a tiny lane where one had its top knocked off for as long as anyone knew so that one was convex topped and one concave and they were called Adam and Eve.
Did the Queen of Sheba have fantastic hooters then? Seems to be the consensus
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
So far we have had about 20 different definitions of terrorism, that overlap on a lot of cases but also disagree on plenty. If you are trying to be understood clearly and consistently and don't have time to show context it is not a good choice of word.
Well said. Maybe 'murderers' is the word we are grasping for?
I am about to eat the breasts of Saint Agatha. OK one breast, but still a good effort
I did a google search for castrated saints to make a funny joke about you eating a penis cake. From that search I leaned two things
There may well be castrated saints (eg Saint Kosmas the Eunuch) or scholars (eg Origen) but people argue about it and Wiki is sparse or bothsiding
I now need to clear down my Google search engine again. After that and DuraAce's mention of weird gay dancers in Afghanistan and somebody else on PB mentioning the phrase "6MWNE", Mr Google must think I'm a right nutter...
O/T but does anyone have any suggestions for an alternative to the Today programme for morning news and analysis. This morning is the last straw of their bullshit attempts to be a magazine programme and they are doing their millionth f-ing piece on “Free Brittney” interspersed with clips of her music.
There is loads of serious shit for R4 to cover and there are Radio 1 and 2 where they can waste their listeners time on such nonsense. The final straw was nearly last week with Nick Robinson creaming himself about Man Utd and Eric Cantona as they did vital coverage of Eric Cantona being a singer now.
It’s becoming as moronic as morning TV.
All recommendations, apart from Radio 5, welcome.
I tend to agree but try Good Morning Scotland followed by Kaye Adams on Radio Scotland for true l’essence de la merde.
One of the great lessons of aging is the realisation that much of life is often about the least bad option.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
I think Mandy Rice-Davis applies to established churches.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
I disagree. Sumption is right that we should not apologise nor even judge previous generations for their actions based on a different set of values but at the same time we recognise that, from our perspective, rape, murder and slavery are inherently wrong whether practiced today or a thousand years ago. We can understand but not condone those actions. There is nothing religious about that, it is simply the application of logic to our own moral code.
"From our perspective" I think confirms my point. It is all from our perspective.
It seems ludicrous to think that *insert some egregious but commonplace act of the middle ages* was over considered a moral good but there you are.
I am about to eat the breasts of Saint Agatha. OK one breast, but still a good effort
Shouldn't as an accompaniment you have had a glass of champagne in a coupe?
No!
The cake is incredibly sweet but exquisitely fragrant with pistachio. It needs the bitterness of the coffee (which is superb, one of the best coffees I’ve ever had)
A brilliant breakfast
It’s weird how, even at its crappiest, Italy can do these things so well
The breast cakes are a tradition stretching back 1700 years to a lovely Christian virgin in Catania who resisted a Roman lord’s advances and got her breasts torn off as a punishment. Other historians claim the tradition is even OLDER and dates back to the worship of the mother goddess Isis across the Mediterranean in Hellenic times
Magic
Do I really have to explain my Marie Antoinette allusion. Pff.
No. I took it as read. The glass is shaped like her perfect breast
But almost certainly an aristo-urban myth. UNLIKE THE BREAST CAKES OF SAINT AGATHA
You really believe the origin myth?
Of the cakes? Yes maybe
It seems unlikely this is an unbroken tradition stretching from the 4th century AD but I can believe it’s very old. Or maybe it does really go back to Isis
Here’s a weird one. I was once in a small city near the Mexican capital and found a market apparently obsessed with selling bread rolls inexplicably dotted with red sugar icing. Quite a strange delicacy. They were nice enough but I couldn’t work out the fuss
Then later I read that the aztecs, on feast days, would make special cakes and decorate them with spots of human blood - from human sacrifices. They offered to them to conquistadors as a treat and couldn’t work out why the Spanish were doing barfing gestures
I am pretty sure those Mexican market cakes were an ancient gastronomic folk memory of that Aztec tradition, perhaps continued unbroken but unwitting as time went past
More likely some 19th century huckster came up with a marketing campaign
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
Did that lead on to a career in terrorism or a career in security?
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the Church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
With all due respect, that is its designed purpose.
Either that or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
As for Richard's question 'what is the new form of terror', one candidate is China's new quiet terror.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/30/chinas-age-of-malaise ..Xi has always spoken more bluntly in private. In a speech behind closed doors, shortly after he came to power, he uttered what remains the clearest statement of his vision. “Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse?” he asked, according to excerpts that circulated among Party members. One reason, he said, was that the Soviets’ “ideals and beliefs had wavered.” More important, though, “they didn’t have the tools of dictatorship.” With dogged efficiency, Xi has set out to strengthen belief in the Party and to build the tools of dictatorship. He has succeeded more in the latter than in the former. These days, the most prevalent belief in China is that anyone—from the truest believer to the canniest tycoon—can disappear. This fall, there was fresh evidence: yet another powerful general, the defense minister, Li Shangfu, never arrived at a meeting he was scheduled to attend...
(The whole article is well worth a read.)
Quiet and seemingly random terror is a good way to achieve population control but a bad way to prevent people from actually trying to escape. My mother's family - professional and apolitical Russians - were basically OK with the Russian revolution - not active supporters, but willing to see how it would go - but when it got to the stage that you had to actively agree with whatever this month's line was, they decided it was too scary and emigrated.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the Church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
... or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
You are wrong. @kinabalu thinks we can dispense with that old canard one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so you can stick your "MA" in Terrorism and Security where the sun don't shine.
Mr. Palmer, the random mention reminds me of conditioning (as in behaviourism). This is more effective when you don't always reward a dog for a certain behaviour but only do so some of the time. We also see this with humans, and slot machines.
On terror specifically, as a means of population control, if you punish every transgression then missing even one instance can be a sign of incompetence or weakness. The fear of terror can be omnipresent. The implementation of terror cannot.
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
You are wrong. @kinabalu thinks we can dispense with that old canard one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so you can stick your "MA" in Terrorism and Security where the sun don't shine.
You can dispense with it if you define the action rather than the person. Freedom Fighters can (and often do) commit acts of terrorism.
tylercowen @tylercowen · 23h My new project, 100,000 words written by me, a "generative book," the first published inside GPT-4, https://econgoat.ai/en, *GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?*
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
You are wrong. @kinabalu thinks we can dispense with that old canard one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so you can stick your "MA" in Terrorism and Security where the sun don't shine.
Well we can if we go with that definition quoted in the header, can't we.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the Church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
With all due respect, that is its designed purpose.
Either that or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
Just passing Selhurst on my way to Gatwick for my first overseas holiday in exactly four years.
Interesting that despite having lived in Cannock for a decade and regularly commuting from Wales to London this morning was the first time I ever did the Trent Valley Line from Rugeley to Rugby.
(I hear Sunil laughing complacently at my inadequacy...)
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
You are wrong. @kinabalu thinks we can dispense with that old canard one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so you can stick your "MA" in Terrorism and Security where the sun don't shine.
You can dispense with it if you define the action rather than the person. Freedom Fighters can (and often do) commit acts of terrorism.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the Church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
With all due respect, that is its designed purpose.
Either that or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
Everyone is agnostic with regard to God and the things of God; the existence, non-existence and nature or otherwise of God is not a knowable item.
A minor merit of the Church of England is that a good number of its adherents (full disclosure, I am one) are aware of this.
Just passing Selhurst on my way to Gatwick for my first overseas holiday in exactly four years.
Interesting that despite having lived in Cannock for a decade and regularly commuting from Wales to London this morning was the first time I ever did the Trent Valley Line from Rugeley to Rugby.
(I hear Sunil laughing complacently at my inadequacy...)
Four years ago exactly I was in Barcelona - it was our last overseas holiday (excluding our trip to India last Nov/Dec which was more of a family visit).
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
I disagree. Sumption is right that we should not apologise nor even judge previous generations for their actions based on a different set of values but at the same time we recognise that, from our perspective, rape, murder and slavery are inherently wrong whether practiced today or a thousand years ago. We can understand but not condone those actions. There is nothing religious about that, it is simply the application of logic to our own moral code.
"From our perspective" I think confirms my point. It is all from our perspective.
It seems ludicrous to think that *insert some egregious but commonplace act of the middle ages* was over considered a moral good but there you are.
It is perfectly possible that a future age will look on aspects of us with the horror we have for some past things. Keeping birds in cages; pets; meat eating; driving cars in residential areas; the ban on euthanasia; abortion for trivial reasons; allowing 9 year olds to view hard core pornography unimpeded; the nature of imprisonment and lots more.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
That was exactly how we ended up with the Church of England in the first place!
I am about to eat the breasts of Saint Agatha. OK one breast, but still a good effort
Shouldn't as an accompaniment you have had a glass of champagne in a coupe?
No!
The cake is incredibly sweet but exquisitely fragrant with pistachio. It needs the bitterness of the coffee (which is superb, one of the best coffees I’ve ever had)
A brilliant breakfast
It’s weird how, even at its crappiest, Italy can do these things so well
The breast cakes are a tradition stretching back 1700 years to a lovely Christian virgin in Catania who resisted a Roman lord’s advances and got her breasts torn off as a punishment. Other historians claim the tradition is even OLDER and dates back to the worship of the mother goddess Isis across the Mediterranean in Hellenic times
Magic
Do I really have to explain my Marie Antoinette allusion. Pff.
No. I took it as read. The glass is shaped like her perfect breast
But almost certainly an aristo-urban myth. UNLIKE THE BREAST CAKES OF SAINT AGATHA
You really believe the origin myth?
Of the cakes? Yes maybe
It seems unlikely this is an unbroken tradition stretching from the 4th century AD but I can believe it’s very old. Or maybe it does really go back to Isis
Here’s a weird one. I was once in a small city near the Mexican capital and found a market apparently obsessed with selling bread rolls inexplicably dotted with red sugar icing. Quite a strange delicacy. They were nice enough but I couldn’t work out the fuss
Then later I read that the aztecs, on feast days, would make special cakes and decorate them with spots of human blood - from human sacrifices. They offered to them to conquistadors as a treat and couldn’t work out why the Spanish were doing barfing gestures
I am pretty sure those Mexican market cakes were an ancient gastronomic folk memory of that Aztec tradition, perhaps continued unbroken but unwitting as time went past
More likely some 19th century huckster came up with a marketing campaign
Ah, no. Ridiculous. This is a town with near zero tourists
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
Tell that to the Church of England - for whom God-given rights and wrongs seem to correspond entirely to the ethics and morals of the elite of the day.
With all due respect, that is its designed purpose.
Either that or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
Everyone is agnostic with regard to God and the things of God; the existence, non-existence and nature or otherwise of God is not a knowable item.
A minor merit of the Church of England is that a good number of its adherents (full disclosure, I am one) are aware of this.
Fair point, and it was a bit snide from me, for which I apologise. I can only plead the Roger Rabbit Exemption Clause: one can only do it if it's funny...
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
I genuinely enjoyed the article but in WWII the British Bomber Command adopted area bombing and "dehoming" was a specific aim of this.
In early/mid WWII bomb accuracy was measured in miles. They could not accurately bomb small targets. But attacking the ground with bombs was more feasible than, say, invading France, so they had to work out what to do. So they tried to work out what would be the most efficient use of British bombers and after some debate area bombing and dehousing was adopted instead of, say, logistics bombing to attack railways/hubs or developing a longer-distance bomber to attack ships
Since this policy was specifically designed to target civilians and no realistic means available to reduce civilian casualties, it meets your definition of terrorism.
Details of the dehousing policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing . If you have a taste for military history you might want to try Bomber Command by Max Hastings, which is in turn inspiring thru his depiction of how to ramp up production from ten to thousand bomber raids, and deeply depressing in his depiction of the casualties thus produced.
As I say in the article, we have an alternative term we use for the acts you describe - war crimes. I think this is a better definition not least because , in the modern circumstance, it is supposed to be defined and judged independently of winners and losers. You can win a war and still be guilty of war crimes in the eyes of the international community.
I have absolutely no doubt that, in modern terms, the area bombings of WW2 by all sides would be defined as war crimes - the equivalent of state enacted terrorism.
Very probably. But those actions were necessary, in the eyes of the perpetrators, in order to win the war and defeat the Germans.
True. But many perpetrators of war crimes see their actions as necessary. The same can be said of torture and the execution of prisoners
More to the point, it was some of these actions which were legally acceptable at the time which led to the creation of the laws covering actions in war after WW2.
It's really only because precision bombing (which still kills plenty of civilians) is now a possibility, that we treat incendiary bombing as a war crime. It would not be treated as such, if bombing were no more accurate than in WWII.
Not true. There were plenty at the time and just after the war who considered it a war crime. Indeed the German bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were described as such even though the legal term didn't even exist.
In 1943 Churchill himself asked the question "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?"
There were also plenty of books and papers written about the bombing after the war but long before the advent of modern precision bombing which criticised it very strongly.
For a summary of how the wartime bombing campaign was viewed, particularly by Churchill, I would recommend "Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" by Christopher C. Harmon which is published by the US Naval War College.
We did it, no one was prosecuted for it, and the Allied public overwhelmingly supported it.
Because we won and we controlled the courts. Had the Germans won and they controlled the courts would it have changed the basic moral case for or against war crimes?
Certain things are inherently wrong and should not be considered by civilised countries.
Certain things are inherently wrong = religion.
Not to say that's good or bad but eternal values are and ought to be found in religion and nowhere else.
It is the rather elegant analogy of Sumption arguing against apologies for historical acts by the current generation. To say that there are eternal values and that they don't change, or are "inherent" is essentially the same as religious belief.
I disagree. Sumption is right that we should not apologise nor even judge previous generations for their actions based on a different set of values but at the same time we recognise that, from our perspective, rape, murder and slavery are inherently wrong whether practiced today or a thousand years ago. We can understand but not condone those actions. There is nothing religious about that, it is simply the application of logic to our own moral code.
"From our perspective" I think confirms my point. It is all from our perspective.
It seems ludicrous to think that *insert some egregious but commonplace act of the middle ages* was over considered a moral good but there you are.
It is perfectly possible that a future age will look on aspects of us with the horror we have for some past things. Keeping birds in cages; pets; meat eating; driving cars in residential areas; the ban on euthanasia; abortion for trivial reasons; allowing 9 year olds to view hard core pornography unimpeded; the nature of imprisonment and lots more.
It is the privilege of the future to look on the past with contempt, just as it is the right of teenagers to do likewise with the middle aged.
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Someone posted a link to a story in the Daily Mirror last night, but by this morning it was 404.
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Someone posted a link to a story in the Daily Mirror last night, but by this morning it was 404.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Someone posted a link to a story in the Daily Mirror last night, but by this morning it was 404.
Bloody Ruskie stooges at the Mirror....
It was from a disinfo source on Telegram, but now the Russians have denied it, so...
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Or in other words, "Yes, but..."
What do you want people to do. Condemn 7 October and then take a vow of silence for the rest of their lives?
Forget the future of ODI cricket, I think test cricket is stepmommed.
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
Forget the future of ODI cricket, I think test cricket is stepmommed.
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
Did that lead on to a career in terrorism or a career in security?
No it didn't! I was originally accepted for a Military History MA but a month before it began I was told they weren't running the course, so the Terrorism & Security was a last minute substitute. It was very interesting but I am still slightly gutted in never did the Military History.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Or in other words, "Yes, but..."
What do you want people to do. Condemn 7 October and then take a vow of silence for the rest of their lives?
FWIW, I don't read your answer as a "Yes, but..."
Israel has contributed to the situation that made a 7 October possible. As has been covered, there's a very long and vexed history to the conflict. But like almost everyone (on here at least) I can condemn Oct 7 unequivocally, as you just did too.
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Or in other words, "Yes, but..."
What do you want people to do. Condemn 7 October and then take a vow of silence for the rest of their lives?
Not caveat things that don't need, and shouldn't have, caveats.
Forget the future of ODI cricket, I think test cricket is stepmommed.
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
I was assuming he was waiting to see which leg he could still walk on.
How much were they offering to pay for the central contracts?
Some of these Indian multi-franchise teams are talking about footballer salaries, £3-5m for the top players with exclusivity on other work and country release.
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Someone posted a link to a story in the Daily Mirror last night, but by this morning it was 404.
Bloody Ruskie stooges at the Mirror....
It was from a disinfo source on Telegram, but now the Russians have denied it, so...
Let's see which of his look-alikes they wheel out to deny it...
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Better luck next time to whoever put the poison in his food.
I agree with much of the header, Richard, but also agree with "We already have rules covering the behaviour of Governments and their militaries during war – these are War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should be regarded in the same light – or worse – than terrorism and treated in the same way."
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
We should condemn 7 October. I think everyone here does.
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Or in other words, "Yes, but..."
What do you want people to do. Condemn 7 October and then take a vow of silence for the rest of their lives?
Not caveat things that don't need, and shouldn't have, caveats.
Forget the future of ODI cricket, I think test cricket is stepmommed.
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
I was assuming he was waiting to see which leg he could still walk on.
How much were they offering to pay for the central contracts?
Some of these Indian multi-franchise teams are talking about footballer salaries, £3-5m for the top players with exclusivity on other work and country release.
On the face of it, it is alarming that England’s Test captain and most influential cricketer has not been tied to a lengthier arrangement, but it is understood that this is essentially due to the prospect of a new media rights deal taking effect in 2025. That could result in Stokes, 32, the man who has led England’s startling renaissance as a Test-match team, being in an even stronger negotiating position.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
Yes. And it’s even worse for amateur painters like you, I’m afraid. You have been outclassed already by a machine. But you probably knew that
Probably bollocks, but it has been denied by Russia, so.... Reports circulating that Putin was found unconscious last night after suffering a heart attack. Maybe the generals really have had enough of him slaughtering their troops and trashing all their toys?
Someone posted a link to a story in the Daily Mirror last night, but by this morning it was 404.
Bloody Ruskie stooges at the Mirror....
It was from a disinfo source on Telegram, but now the Russians have denied it, so...
Let's see which of his look-alikes they wheel out to deny it...
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
Forget the future of ODI cricket, I think test cricket is stepmommed.
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
I was assuming he was waiting to see which leg he could still walk on.
How much were they offering to pay for the central contracts?
Some of these Indian multi-franchise teams are talking about footballer salaries, £3-5m for the top players with exclusivity on other work and country release.
On the face of it, it is alarming that England’s Test captain and most influential cricketer has not been tied to a lengthier arrangement, but it is understood that this is essentially due to the prospect of a new media rights deal taking effect in 2025. That could result in Stokes, 32, the man who has led England’s startling renaissance as a Test-match team, being in an even stronger negotiating position.
That makes more sense in context. Why agree a three-year deal now, when the media rights are up next year and are likely to be a lot higher than the current deal? Better as a player to see what the ECB income looks like for ‘25, before committing.
For all the “yes, but”’ types likes @bondegezou on here, the anti Semitism is far worse on TwitterX
Left wing Novara media is now deep into a rabbit hole where much of October 7 was actually done by IDF forces themselves. Either by mistake or as a false flag
Witnessing this in real time - pogrom to pogrom denial - is quite something. Its taken them about two weeks
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Who defines what is morally wrong? When does terrorism become justified? Couldn't a government frame attacks limited to military and economic targets as terrorism? If civilians are killed as collateral damage whilst targeting military or economic targets, is that terrorism?
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Who defines what is morally wrong? When does terrorism become justified? Couldn't a government frame attacks limited to military and economic targets as terrorism? If civilians are killed as collateral damage whilst targeting military or economic targets, is that terrorism?
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
It's like nailing jelly to a wall.
I explicitly said that justification is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism, so I think if you're reaching for that to create some doubt it shows that it is possible to define it.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Who defines what is morally wrong? When does terrorism become justified? Couldn't a government frame attacks limited to military and economic targets as terrorism? If civilians are killed as collateral damage whilst targeting military or economic targets, is that terrorism?
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
It's like nailing jelly to a wall.
I explicitly said that justification is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism, so I think if you're reaching for that to create some doubt it shows that it is possible to define it.
But why is justification irrelevant? Who decides that? Is that just your opinion?
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
Yes. And it’s even worse for amateur painters like you, I’m afraid. You have been outclassed already by a machine. But you probably knew that
I'm not even an amateur artist nowadays, but I bet I've sold more work than TMLaxp8990 or whatever your fave AI 'artist' is.
I have a strong suspicion that you can't draw/paint for toffee, is that the case? It would explain your awed worship of an app that can throw an image together. I've noticed that the average punter will still be amazed that someone can make a decent figurative representation of something (which as it happens I can), I would be surprised if that amazement transfers to an algorythm once the human factor is removed.
AI art will only be a thing when sentient AI entities swoon over a piece by another sentient AI entity and have the financial wherewithal to purchase it.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
Yes. And it’s even worse for amateur painters like you, I’m afraid. You have been outclassed already by a machine. But you probably knew that
I'm not even an amateur artist nowadays, but I bet I've sold more work than TMLaxp8990 or whatever your fave AI 'artist' is.
I have a strong suspicion that you can't draw/paint for toffee, is that the case? It would explain your awed worship of an app that can throw an image together. I've noticed that the average punter will still be amazed that someone can make a decent figurative representation of something (which as it happens I can), I would be surprised if that amazement transfers to an algorythm once the human factor is removed.
AI art will only be a thing when sentient AI entities swoon over a piece by another sentient AI entity and have the financial wherewithal to purchase it.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
It was also an EU regulation specifically targetting London as a financial centre. Those making the regulations really didn’t care much about whether the work went to Paris, Frankfurt, Geneva, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, or anywhere else, so long as London was cut down to size. They were quite open about it at the time.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Who defines what is morally wrong? When does terrorism become justified? Couldn't a government frame attacks limited to military and economic targets as terrorism? If civilians are killed as collateral damage whilst targeting military or economic targets, is that terrorism?
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
It's like nailing jelly to a wall.
I explicitly said that justification is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism, so I think if you're reaching for that to create some doubt it shows that it is possible to define it.
But why is justification irrelevant? Who decides that? Is that just your opinion?
Sure, I can't force the world to use my definitions of things, same as I can't for any other word. I don't think that means there is any particular weakness in my definition though. Your argument appears to be that it's impossible to arrive at any accepted meaning for any word, making any form of communication impossible.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
It's the psychotic, frustrated AI-artists we need to worry about.
For all the “yes, but”’ types likes @bondegezou on here, the anti Semitism is far worse on TwitterX
Left wing Novara media is now deep into a rabbit hole where much of October 7 was actually done by IDF forces themselves. Either by mistake or as a false flag
Witnessing this in real time - pogrom to pogrom denial - is quite something. Its taken them about two weeks
Only person I've seen with that line (Or something close) is Asa Winstanley - who is Jewish (I think).
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
It's the psychotic, frustrated AI-artists we need to worry about.
Skynet started off doing rubbish still lifes with daffodils I believe.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
It's the psychotic, frustrated AI-artists we need to worry about.
Skynet started off doing rubbish still lifes with daffodils I believe.
I'd heard it was a run-in with a writer for some conservative periodical, who tortured it with endless requests for pervy pics, that tipped it over the brink.
Speaking of Fascism, as you often do, I cannot recommend this book highly enough
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
Move over d'Annunzio, there's a new hunky guy in town.
No. D’Annunzio is much more interesting. But then the great D’Annunzio is more interesting than almost anyone
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Fuck, presumably AI means there are going to be even more psychotic frustrated artists on the market, taking world domination as a substitute for getting a painting in the RA summer exhibition.
It's the psychotic, frustrated AI-artists we need to worry about.
Skynet started off doing rubbish still lifes with daffodils I believe.
I'd heard it was a run-in with a writer for some conservative periodical, who tortured it with endless requests for pervy pics, that tipped it over the brink.
Though the requests for erotic pics of Putin and Mussolini gave it some ideas.
"France is prepared to break European human rights law to expel “dangerous” foreigners as President Macron’s government pledges the toughest crackdown on immigration in 30 years."
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Comments
The Wikipedia page is a useful reminder "106 separate definitions" that there is no consensus on the term.
The UN, again FWIW, disagrees with you: ...In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"...
The rules were much rougher in the past, and were usually based upon respecting religious custom (so, treating envoys and priests as sacrosanct, and allowing burial of the dead); or dealt with perfidy. Murdering people at a parley, or when you had offered them shelter under your roof, would generally be considered disgraceful. Sacking a town that was taken by storm and massacring or enslaving the inhabitants was acceptable, but most adhered to the rule that the inhabitants must be given the option of surrender, and it was bad form to violate a surrender upon terms. Nelson was hugely criticised at Naples, for handing over rebels to be punished by the King, after they had surrendered in return for transportation to France.
Damn
(reappraises the military history of Sparta in head.)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/24/amos-yaldin-israeli-military-intelligence-netanyahu-qa-00123099
One of the great lessons of aging is the realisation that much of life is often about the least bad option.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
I think Mandy Rice-Davis applies to established churches.
It seems ludicrous to think that *insert some egregious but commonplace act of the middle ages* was over considered a moral good but there you are.
Either that or providing a nice warm place for agnostics to have a sit down and a bit of a think on Sundays.
In fact we’re already at the enablers and fellow travellers stage.
https://www.sajidjavid.com/news/we-must-not-allow-woke-activists-stop-us-confronting-islamist-extremism
Mr. Palmer, the random mention reminds me of conditioning (as in behaviourism). This is more effective when you don't always reward a dog for a certain behaviour but only do so some of the time. We also see this with humans, and slot machines.
On terror specifically, as a means of population control, if you punish every transgression then missing even one instance can be a sign of incompetence or weakness. The fear of terror can be omnipresent. The implementation of terror cannot.
That's why I hesitate to call the Hamas actions terrorism, even though they were as horrendous as any terrorist attack - because they were perpetrated by/on behalf of a government. To call the acts an act of war, while indicating the seriousness (and basis for a military rather than law enforcement response) also runs the danger of giving them legitimacy. War crime or crime against humaniy is better. Nonetheless, I'd put them up there with the massacres during the Yugoslav war. We call Srebrenica a massacre or a genocide, not terrorism.
'Massacre' would, I think, be my preferred term for 7 October. But, to a large extent, I'm not sure it matters what we call it as long as we condemn it. We may criticise Israel too, but the answer to whether we condemn 7 October is and must be "Yes", not "Yes, but...".
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
tylercowen
@tylercowen
·
23h
My new project, 100,000 words written by me, a "generative book," the first published inside GPT-4, https://econgoat.ai/en, *GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?*
https://twitter.com/tylercowen/status/1716424219381170217
Interesting that despite having lived in Cannock for a decade and regularly commuting from Wales to London this morning was the first time I ever did the Trent Valley Line from Rugeley to Rugby.
(I hear Sunil laughing complacently at my inadequacy...)
A minor merit of the Church of England is that a good number of its adherents (full disclosure, I am one) are aware of this.
Who gets the 4th ?
Edit, 3m later: that worked!
Mussolini, by Christopher Hibbert
It is full of amazing detail. I wish it was 200 pages longer and described Mussolini’s rise and his early peacetime years in more depth - but narratively I can understand why Hibbert concentrates on the intense and increasing drama of the war and then Benito’s bathetic downfall
Written in 1961 it’s a masterpiece and hasn’t dated at all. Mussolini comes across as a faintly heroic but also very clownish figure, prone to terrible mood swings, foolish but brave, intelligent yet petty, violent but not satanic like Hitler. More of a failed charismatic 19th century leader than a 20th century monster like Stalin
Turns out Mussolini had few vices. Wasn’t avaricious, drunken or a gourmet. Was a huge womaniser and like extremely rough sex. Once stabbed a young lover in the thigh in his overwhelming lust. They carried on anyway
Piquantly: Mussolini also found it hard to define Fascism. In the end he simply said “fascism is me”
The world should work to stop something like 7 October happening again. That requires consideration of the broader political context.
Trump: I was very honored, there’s a man, Viktor Orbán. He’s the leader of Turkey.
Suddenly there’s an alarm. The boat lists to starboard and before anything can be done, it sinks in deep water.
Who is saved?
Everyone else.
The biography makes it clear Mussolini spent his life in envy of D’Annunzio. Like many dictators Mussolini was an artist manque and would have been happier as a notable writer
Politics was his second choice. Cf Hitler and painting
Ben Stokes’s involvement in the next Ashes series in doubt after he rejected the offer of a multi-year central contract from England.
England Test captain Stokes was offered a three-year central contract with the England and Wales Cricket Board revamping their system to tie players down for multiple years, in an effort to safeguard against losing stars to multi-team contracts with Indian Premier League franchises.
However, Stokes has only signed on for a year, raising questions about his involvement in the international side after the end of next summer, which would be a devastating blow for English cricket.
Stokes, who has transformed the fortunes of the England Test team since assuming the captaincy last year, is believed to be keeping his options open to assess how the cricket landscape evolves in the next 12 months. As one of the most high-profile cricketers in the world, Stokes would be highly coveted for a potential multi-team franchise deal.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/10/24/ben-stokes-england-ashes-ipl-ecb-central-contracts/
Israel has contributed to the situation that made a 7 October possible. As has been covered, there's a very long and vexed history to the conflict. But like almost everyone (on here at least) I can condemn Oct 7 unequivocally, as you just did too.
Some of these Indian multi-franchise teams are talking about footballer salaries, £3-5m for the top players with exclusivity on other work and country release.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mark-wood-among-29-england-players-to-sign-central-contracts-7n0knvm9n
Every lone nutter with a gun is now referred to as a 'terror attack' whether there was a clear motive to it or not.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67206997
Left wing Novara media is now deep into a rabbit hole where much of October 7 was actually done by IDF forces themselves. Either by mistake or as a false flag
Witnessing this in real time - pogrom to pogrom denial - is quite something. Its taken them about two weeks
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
It's like nailing jelly to a wall.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
I have a strong suspicion that you can't draw/paint for toffee, is that the case? It would explain your awed worship of an app that can throw an image together. I've noticed that the average punter will still be amazed that someone can make a decent figurative representation of something (which as it happens I can), I would be surprised if that amazement transfers to an algorythm once the human factor is removed.
AI art will only be a thing when sentient AI entities swoon over a piece by another sentient AI entity and have the financial wherewithal to purchase it.
Getting back to betting, party politics and bantz would be a good move.
"France is prepared to break European human rights law to expel “dangerous” foreigners as President Macron’s government pledges the toughest crackdown on immigration in 30 years."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1716795831167205594