Pages: 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 32

 

2008-01-20 19:10:49
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6584|Éire

lowing wrote:

Basically, this is the same argument that Clinton used when he got caught lying.... Ummmm "define IS". A lame attempt at stalling the truth.

The bottom line is, we all know what the definition of appeasement is, and this lame attempt to dissect it, is an attempt at distracting us from the meat and potatoes of this thread. Nothing more

Hell, I even have people that normally do not agree with calling bullshit on this attempt.
Who gives a shit lowing? It's all semantics, it doesn't change the reality of anything. Terror is still terror even under a different name. I've always argued that ...like how wearing a military uniform doesn't automatically make you the good guy.

And I think it's a clever bit of spin doctoring to be honest. it attempts to remove some of the heroism from what the extremists do.
2008-01-20 19:15:54
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

No, apparently muslims are the only people who aren't allowed to be offended.
OK I'm going to make some inferences here as your argument doesn't seem to follow the point I was making (about the definition of "appeasement").  I assume you're saying that this change in wording is being done only so Muslims don't feel offended when their religion is used in conjuction with the word terrorism right?    If so, I have a couple of questions...

If Muslims are offended by the term "Islamic Terrorism" and we can change that without affecting anyone else or costing anything why shouldn't we?

If you have a problem with the change then the obvious question is why do you feel it is so important to have the "Islamic" included?  Most people against this can happily argue about the rights and wrongs around the reasons behind the change but if the term didn't alreasy exist could you argue for ints introduction, if not you can't really argue against its abolition.

I have a major problem with the general American attitude that terrorism didn't exist until 9/11 and although I can't be arsed to look into the figures, the phrase "not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim" stinks of inaccuarcy as well.  The American definition of "terrorist" seems to only include people who want to harm the west.  Just look at the tribal killings in kenya, is that not terrorism?

Personally I do think the new wording is a bit ghey, I'd prefer to drop "Islamic" and just use "terrorist" on it's own.  After all if a Muslim burned a car out you wouldn't describe it as an act of "islamic arson" would you?
2008-01-20 19:17:01
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Sorry, there's me thinking that word definitions were decided by lexicographers in Oxford but actually DST members are the authority on semantics[/sarcasm]

I suggest if lowing wants to use a more accurate word in the future he uses "panderism", "cajolement" or just straight forward "brown nosing".
Take it easy there, haus.  If you look up the definition of appeasement, you see multiple meanings which vary mostly in connotation.
2008-01-20 19:19:50
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

SenorToenails wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Sorry, there's me thinking that word definitions were decided by lexicographers in Oxford but actually DST members are the authority on semantics[/sarcasm]

I suggest if lowing wants to use a more accurate word in the future he uses "panderism", "cajolement" or just straight forward "brown nosing".
Take it easy there, haus.  If you look up the definition of appeasement, you see multiple meanings which vary mostly in connotation.
Agreed but I still say there are more descriptive words like 'Cojolement' that are less ambiguous.
2008-01-20 19:20:16
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK

SenorToenails wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Sorry, there's me thinking that word definitions were decided by lexicographers in Oxford but actually DST members are the authority on semantics[/sarcasm]

I suggest if lowing wants to use a more accurate word in the future he uses "panderism", "cajolement" or just straight forward "brown nosing".
Take it easy there, haus.  If you look up the definition of appeasement, you see multiple meanings which vary mostly in connotation.
So there can be no further arguments over the definitions of "appeasement" here is the page from the online version of the OED:

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/500 … to_show=10
2008-01-20 19:22:32
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Agreed but I still say there are more descriptive words like 'Cojolement' that are less ambiguous.
Yes.  I made that same point to Serge in that other thread.  There are other words that work MUCH better for these situations.
2008-01-20 19:28:59
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

So there can be no further arguments over the definitions of "appeasement" here is the page from the online version of the OED:

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/500 … to_show=10
It requires a login, so here is the text:

Appeasement wrote:

1. The action or process of appeasing; pacification, satisfaction.
2. The instrumentality or means of appeasing; propitiation.
3. The result of appeasing; the state of being appeased; pacification, satisfaction.
4. Freely used in political contexts in the 20th century, and since 1938 often used disparagingly with allusion to the attempts at conciliation by concession made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, before the outbreak of war with Germany in 1939; by extension, any such policy of pacification by concession to an enemy.

Appease wrote:

1. a. To bring to peace, pacify, quiet, or settle (strife or disorder).
b. To bring to peace, calm, or quiet (persons at strife or in disorder).
2. a. To pacify, assuage, or allay (anger or displeasure).
b. To pacify or propitiate (him who is angry).
c. Politics. In derog. sense (cf. sense 2a, quot. 1750), used esp. of the British Prime Minister's efforts from 1937 to 1939 to placate, and so stave off the threatened aggression of, the Axis powers: to engage in a policy of appeasement (see APPEASEMENT).
3. To assuage, soothe, allay, or relieve:    a. physical pain (obs.) or mental suffering.
b. the sufferer or part affected.
4. To pacify, by satisfying demands (lit. or fig.):    a. complaints (obs.), cravings, appetites, prejudices.
b. the person who makes the demand or has the appetite. Const. with.
Which will you use?  I agree with EstebanRey that perhaps a different word would be more descriptive.
2008-01-20 19:32:03
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK

SenorToenails wrote:

Which will you use?  I agree with EstebanRey that perhaps a different word would be more descriptive.
I wouldnt use any because appeasement isnt the correct term for this situation.
2008-01-20 19:47:28
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

I wouldnt use any because appeasement isnt the correct term for this situation.
okie dokie.  What would you use?

Based on the definitions you said to use, it would seem that it is a correct term for the situation.  Perhaps not the best, but it is appropriate.

Appease: 2. a. To pacify, assuage, or allay (anger or displeasure).

Since the motivation for this entire act is to not risk alienating the mainstream Muslim opinion, I would call that assuaging them.  (in case you are wondering, Assuage: pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of;).
2008-01-20 19:55:22
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK

SenorToenails wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

I wouldnt use any because appeasement isnt the correct term for this situation.
okie dokie.  What would you use?

Based on the definitions you said to use, it would seem that it is a correct term for the situation.  Perhaps not the best, but it is appropriate.

Appease: 2. a. To pacify, assuage, or allay (anger or displeasure).

Since the motivation for this entire act is to not risk alienating the mainstream Muslim opinion, I would call that assuaging them.  (in case you are wondering, Assuage: pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of;).
Well, that being a very broad definition of appeasement (and not relating in any way to the political policy of appeasement of Htiler), I can agree with you that this is an appropriate term, though not one I would use.

lowing has likened this to the appesement of Hitler, so he has chosen to use the definition relating to the policy of appeasement.  This is what i disagree with; the comparison between making a clear differentiation between radical Islam and mainstream Islam, and the situation pre-WWII in which our govt. appeased Hitler.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 20:14:22)

2008-01-20 20:04:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6705|'Murka

adam1503 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're extrapolating a sound bite to an attitude of a nation?
Oh come on, everyone knows US foreign policy is fairly hostile.
Whenever I see the words "everyone knows" I know at that point that the poster has nothing to back up their claim.

Which countries has the US been hostile toward other than Iran (and that has dropped off dramatically of late)? Not China. Not Russia. Not Venezuela. Not Syria. Not North Korea. Shall I go on? Not any of the usual suspects.

And regardless, even if your notion that US foreign policy was "hostile" was correct (it's not), that still does not describe Joe Blow American.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-01-20 20:07:57
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

FEOS wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're extrapolating a sound bite to an attitude of a nation?
Oh come on, everyone knows US foreign policy is fairly hostile.
Whenever I see the words "everyone knows" I know at that point that the poster has nothing to back up their claim.

Which countries has the US been hostile toward other than Iran (and that has dropped off dramatically of late)? Not China. Not Russia. Not Venezuela. Not Syria. Not North Korea. Shall I go on? Not any of the usual suspects.

And regardless, even if your notion that US foreign policy was "hostile" was correct (it's not), that still does not describe Joe Blow American.
Well done you've just defeated your own argument...

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2008-01-20 20:08:58)

2008-01-20 20:11:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6705|'Murka

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

FEOS wrote:

adam1503 wrote:


Oh come on, everyone knows US foreign policy is fairly hostile.
Whenever I see the words "everyone knows" I know at that point that the poster has nothing to back up their claim.

Which countries has the US been hostile toward other than Iran (and that has dropped off dramatically of late)? Not China. Not Russia. Not Venezuela. Not Syria. Not North Korea. Shall I go on? Not any of the usual suspects.

And regardless, even if your notion that US foreign policy was "hostile" was correct (it's not), that still does not describe Joe Blow American.
Well done you've just defeated your own argument...
eh?

I don't see where I said "everyone knows". Did I miss it somewhere?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-01-20 20:17:36
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

FEOS wrote:

I don't see where I said "everyone knows". Did I miss it somewhere?
You're argument was against the term "everyone knows" on the basis that the statement is derived from prejudice/stereotypes and not real evidence.  You then go on to describe a whole host of countries as "the usual suspects" thereby being just as prejudiced. 

Furthermore, the fact you could compile that list proves that the US has been hostile to all of them recently defeating your original argument.
2008-01-20 20:19:32
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

Well, that being a very broad definition of appeasement (and not relating in any way to the political policy of appeasement of Htiler), I can agree with you that this is an appropriate term, though not one I would use.

lowing has likened this to the appesement of Hitler, so he has chosen to use the definition relating to the policy of appeasement.  This is what i disagree with; the comparison between making a clear differentiation between radical Islam and mainstream Islam, and the situation pre-WWII in which our govt. appeased Hitler.
Appeasement when related to Chamberlain:  Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.

In the face of preventing terrorism, Britain has changed a policy.  Terrorists = aggressor, British = sacrifice principles.  It fits that definition too.

I see what lowing means, and I don't disagree.
2008-01-20 20:22:24
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't see where I said "everyone knows". Did I miss it somewhere?
You're argument was against the term "everyone knows" on the basis that the statement is derived from prejudice/stereotypes and not real evidence.  You then go on to describe a whole host of countries as "the usual suspects" thereby being just as prejudiced. 

Furthermore, the fact you could compile that list proves that the US has been hostile to all of them recently defeating your original argument.
I don't see the prejudice in FEOS's post, nor do I see how you think he contradicted himself.
2008-01-20 20:26:29
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

SenorToenails wrote:

Appeasement when related to Chamberlain:  Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.

In the face of preventing terrorism, Britain has changed a policy.  Terrorists = aggressor, British = sacrifice principles.  It fits that definition too.

I see what lowing means, and I don't disagree.
But when did the terrorists demand to stop being called 'Islamic terrorsits'?  Read Chamberlain's definition again then think about what the British Government is actually doing. 

This change is for the benefit (or supposed to be anyway) of the 99.9% of peaceful Muslims, it doesn't grant the terrorists any advantage and is actually there to help slow recruitment to their organisations.  It's not like Al Queda released a statement saying "if you stop refering to our activities as Islamic terror, we'll stop bombing you" is it?????
2008-01-20 20:28:31
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK

FEOS wrote:

Whenever I see the words "everyone knows" I know at that point that the poster has nothing to back up their claim.

Which countries has the US been hostile toward other than Iran (and that has dropped off dramatically of late)? Not China. Not Russia. Not Venezuela. Not Syria. Not North Korea. Shall I go on? Not any of the usual suspects.

And regardless, even if your notion that US foreign policy was "hostile" was correct (it's not), that still does not describe Joe Blow American.
I know its over 3 years old, and I know that Colin Powell is no longer Sec. of State, but it seems relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3994699.stm

The US Secretary of State has said that his country will continue to pursue an "aggressive" foreign policy.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Colin Powell said President George Bush would not alter or curtail his policies abroad in his second term."The president is not going to trim his sails or pull back," Mr Powell said in his first interview since the election.

"It's a continuation of his principles, his policies, his beliefs," he told the London-based newspaper.

The president had won a mandate to pursue a foreign policy that was in the US national interest, he said.

This policy had traditionally been "aggressive in terms of going after challenges, issues", Mr Powell added, and the president was "going to keep moving in this direction".
At no point did I suggest that the US had been hostile towards foreign countries; you merely assumed I did because you heard the soundbite "aggressive foreign policy" and automatically thought you knew what I meant.

And at no point did I suggest that the average "Joe Blow American" is hostile towards foreign nations.

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
2008-01-20 20:30:54
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6844|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

SenorToenails wrote:

I don't see the prejudice in FEOS's post, nor do I see how you think he contradicted himself.
FEOS had a problem with people being prejusdice against US foriegn policy, the assumption that the US is currently drawing up hostile foreign policies against a host of countries it doesn't like.  He then goes on to describe Venezuela, Syria & North Korea as "the usual suspect" thereby reinforcing the notion that these countries a currently hostile toward the US/West, see now?
2008-01-20 20:38:27
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

I don't see the prejudice in FEOS's post, nor do I see how you think he contradicted himself.
FEOS had a problem with people being prejusdice against US foriegn policy, the assumption that the US is currently drawing up hostile foreign policies against a host of countries it doesn't like.  He then goes on to describe Venezuela, Syria & North Korea as "the usual suspect" thereby reinforcing the notion that these countries a currently hostile toward the US/West, see now?
No.  I don't see a problem with referring to some countries as "the usual suspects".  I took usual suspects to mean countries the US had been at odds with in the past.  That is hardly prejudice.  Oh well.
2008-01-20 20:41:18
motherdear
Member
+25|6945|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
only got one thing to say, Harden the fuck up Britain !
2008-01-20 20:54:07
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK

motherdear wrote:

only got one thing to say, Harden the fuck up Britain !
From the article in the OP:

The shift follows a decision taken last year to stop using the phrase "war on terror", first adopted by U.S. President Bush.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.

The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is instead being described by key figures as "more like a death cult".
It seems like we are only following in the wake of the US yet again.  I could tell the US to 'harden the fuck up and grow some balls'..but I wont. "how can you fight this war on terror if you can not even muster the courage to call it what it is."  Those were lowing's exact words.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 20:56:41)

2008-01-20 21:07:56
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6424|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

motherdear wrote:

only got one thing to say, Harden the fuck up Britain !
From the article in the OP:

The shift follows a decision taken last year to stop using the phrase "war on terror", first adopted by U.S. President Bush.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.

The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is instead being described by key figures as "more like a death cult".
It seems like we are only following in the wake of the US yet again.  I could tell the US to 'harden the fuck up and grow some balls'..but I wont. "how can you fight this war on terror if you can not even muster the courage to call it what it is."  Those were lowing's exact words.
Wow.  Just wow.

Read about it.  See if you can identify your enormous error.

LONDON - The British government has stopped using the phrase “war on terror” to refer to the struggle against political and religious violence, according to a Cabinet minister’s prepared remarks for a Monday speech.
2008-01-20 21:19:16
adam1503
Member
+85|6682|Manchester, UK
Okay.  I will hold up my hands on this one and admit that I misinterpreted what the article said.

Though i still agree with these sections of the article:

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.

The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is instead being described by key figures as "more like a death cult".

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 22:26:13)

2008-01-20 23:48:06
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6617|New Haven, CT
How did this turn into such a popular topic?

 

Pages: 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 32

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard