i understand that being part of an underclass in a country that is losing its world-standing must be a very frustrating experience. with a lack of education and wider awareness, the frustration must quickly turn to anger and bitter rage. i completely sympathize with you medium. like your troglodyte ancestors you are a sub-species of the modern american that is facing a painful extinction.
I can see how you are able to empathize with me and I do appreciate it. I feel very blessed to be able to be lead through this troubling time by someone who has experienced it first hand. I mean who would no more about it than a guy who lives in a country that used to be the largest most powerful in the world and is now marooned on a couple of small pathetic islands? A country that has wars over islands near the south pole in an attempt to save some last shimmering thread of a once powerful empire. But fear not, you guys will always have North Ireland.
Thank you for your friendship.
Thank you for your friendship.
the falklands war was about keeping our empire? LOL. we had willingly given 90% of it back by political treaty/agreement by that point. the falklands war happened because.... most people living on the falklands consider themselves british, and didn't want to be made argentinian. thus it was an invasion. thus we kicked their land-grubbing asses. lol at likening the falklands to imperialism. if you want 20th century imperialism, you need to look a little closer to home. although let's not get into all the wars you entered into in order to extend your world-weight, and ended up fucking up disastrously. i mean, really? we whupped the argentines with their decent equipment. you guys can't even beat a few arabic goat-farmers with 60 year old AK's. and vietnam? LOL. incompetent. so incompetent you had to throw a hissy-fit and drop half the world's bombs on the neighbouring countries
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-05 08:59:50)
oh right so defending an island that belongs to you that was invaded is "imperialism". but invading a foreign country that poses no threat to you, didn't invade you, and toppling its government and installing your own... isn't "imperialism". funny that. do you have a poli sci degree rthki?
you know when you make the effort to come out of your perma-lurk mode and poke a dumb one-sentence reply, you should at least put a little thought into it. i mean, come on. if you're going to post so sparingly. check a wikipedia article or something.
you know when you make the effort to come out of your perma-lurk mode and poke a dumb one-sentence reply, you should at least put a little thought into it. i mean, come on. if you're going to post so sparingly. check a wikipedia article or something.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-05 09:02:25)
You fucking moron, the Falklands was RIDDLED with British blunders and fuck-ups. Lets review them:Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the falklands war was about keeping our empire? LOL. we had willingly given 90% of it back by political treaty/agreement by that point. the falklands war happened because.... most people living on the falklands consider themselves british, and didn't want to be made argentinian. thus it was an invasion. thus we kicked their land-grubbing asses. lol at likening the falklands to imperialism. if you want 20th century imperialism, you need to look a little closer to home. although let's not get into all the wars you entered into in order to extend your world-weight, and ended up fucking up disastrously. i mean, really? we whupped the argentines with their decent equipment. you guys can't even beat a few arabic goat-farmers with 60 year old AK's. and vietnam? LOL. incompetent. so incompetent you had to throw a hissy-fit and drop half the world's bombs on the neighbouring countries
One of your ships was sunk because the captain was on the SatPhone which disables the RADAR.
Another was sunk because the anti-ship missile defense sent the fucking missile into another ship.
Speaking of which, you only brought one ships worth of helicopters and it was promptly sunk by your own missile defense.
Brought to few aircraft to give proper air cover.
Decided to use a bay shaped like a bowl for your landing so your RADAR didn't work, resulting in a few more ships being sunk.
Used absolutely no common sense maneuvering your troops and literally only won by sheer luck and enemy incompetence.
Seriously bro, don't argue about how great British military is with a guy in a country who routinely stomped your countries shit in.
lol where am i saying the military are great? i said a) it wasn't imperialism and b) at least we get shit done.
america's own 'imperialism' during the 20th century has been humiliation and an exercise in futility.
your failure and laughing-stock status in the middle-east are at least preparing you for the emotional re-evaluation that will come about when china and asia far surpasses your global power.
america's own 'imperialism' during the 20th century has been humiliation and an exercise in futility.
your failure and laughing-stock status in the middle-east are at least preparing you for the emotional re-evaluation that will come about when china and asia far surpasses your global power.
"I think today the world is asking for a real alternative. Would you like to live in a world where the only alternative is either anglo-saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values?
I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy...
What I'm afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, we get a capitalism much more efficient and dynamic than our western capitalism. But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends - give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration - no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over." -Slavoj Zizek
Good(or bad?) news for Macbeth.
I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy...
What I'm afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, we get a capitalism much more efficient and dynamic than our western capitalism. But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends - give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration - no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over." -Slavoj Zizek
Good(or bad?) news for Macbeth.
generally always bad news when people start quoting zizek.
EDL torched a mosque and was stupid enough to spray paint their name on the walls
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575 … al-murder/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575 … al-murder/
yeh now americans are gonna tell us how much race-tension there is in europe and how we're all on the brink of racial apocalypse
well at least you have fewer guns if it does go southUzique The Lesser wrote:
yeh now americans are gonna tell us how much race-tension there is in europe and how we're all on the brink of racial apocalypse
Last edited by Trotskygrad (2013-06-05 10:21:26)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … tment.html
The organisation is the leading militia in the north-eastern part of rebel-held Syria, and has taken control of parts of the civilian administration in the city of Raqqa.
It posted a new notice there this week saying it was open to receiving complaints from members of the public.
"Any one who might have a complaint against any element of the Islamic state, whether the Emir or an ordinary soldier, can come and submit their complaint in any headquarters building of the Islamic state," the notice said. "The complaint should be in writing, provide details and give evidence.
"We promise that we will ensure accountability for anyone committing violations, and they will be sent to the Sharia court of Iraq and al-Sham."
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham - a popular term for Syria and Lebanon - is the name al-Qaeda has given to its new merged operation in the neighbouring countries.
The merger caused a split within the ranks of Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian organisation loyal to al-Qaeda which has led much of the recent fighting in the civil war on the rebel side. Parts opposed widening its mission outside Syria's borders.
Al-Qaeda has long had a reputation for bureaucracy, with papers rescued from the house where Osama bin Laden was killed by American special forces revealing the sometimes controlling nature of its correspondence with its various branches.
Earlier this week, a letter to Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the one-eyed guerrilla leader from North Africa, found by the Associated Press in a house in Timbuktu was revealed to contain stinging criticisms of him by the Shura Council of Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb for failing to submit his expenses, answer his phone regularly, or carry out attacks as instructed.
The notice in Raqqa may be a response to regular protests against aspects of its rule by civil society groups in Raqqa. On a recent visit, activists the Telegraph the group had tried and failed to ban smoking, a claim the group denies.
The notice was signed by the "Emir" of Raqqa, a title regularly claimed by Al-Qaeda sub-leaders.
Full literal translation:
Any one who might have a complaint against any element of the Islamic state, whether that be the Emir or a soldier, he shall come and submit his complaint in any headquarters of the Islamic state with the condition that this complaint shall be written and give details and evidence.
We promise you that we shall make accountable anyone committing violations and that person will be sent to the Sharia court of Iraq and al-Sham.
signed
Emir of Raqqa
Islamic state in Iraq and al-Sham
Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2013-06-05 12:07:42)
Good god, should we start talking about the long list of American fuck-ups in 20th century warfare? Or should I point out not only had we foreign help in the American Revolutionary War, but Great Britain was also occupied elsewhere. Claiming sole American victory there is about as arrogant as thinking that we won WW2 single-handedly. And at the end of the War of 1812, we still had more killed and wounded than the British Empire.Extra Medium wrote:
You fucking moron, the Falklands was RIDDLED with British blunders and fuck-ups. Lets review them:Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the falklands war was about keeping our empire? LOL. we had willingly given 90% of it back by political treaty/agreement by that point. the falklands war happened because.... most people living on the falklands consider themselves british, and didn't want to be made argentinian. thus it was an invasion. thus we kicked their land-grubbing asses. lol at likening the falklands to imperialism. if you want 20th century imperialism, you need to look a little closer to home. although let's not get into all the wars you entered into in order to extend your world-weight, and ended up fucking up disastrously. i mean, really? we whupped the argentines with their decent equipment. you guys can't even beat a few arabic goat-farmers with 60 year old AK's. and vietnam? LOL. incompetent. so incompetent you had to throw a hissy-fit and drop half the world's bombs on the neighbouring countries
One of your ships was sunk because the captain was on the SatPhone which disables the RADAR.
Another was sunk because the anti-ship missile defense sent the fucking missile into another ship.
Speaking of which, you only brought one ships worth of helicopters and it was promptly sunk by your own missile defense.
Brought to few aircraft to give proper air cover.
Decided to use a bay shaped like a bowl for your landing so your RADAR didn't work, resulting in a few more ships being sunk.
Used absolutely no common sense maneuvering your troops and literally only won by sheer luck and enemy incompetence.
Seriously bro, don't argue about how great British military is with a guy in a country who routinely stomped your countries shit in.
fuckin' amateurs. has america ever won a war without technological advantage? medieval arabs in the middle-east are making you look shit.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-05 14:19:14)
Elphinstone.
We pretty much did win WW2 singlehandedly. Id love to hear any arguements to the contrary.
Extra Medium wrote:
We pretty much did win WW2 singlehandedly. Id love to hear any arguements to the contrary.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Trolls too hard for his own good. 2/10
Extra Medium wrote:
*argumentExtra Medium wrote:
We pretty much did win WW2 singlehandedly. Id love to hear any arguements to the contrary.
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the article talks about "deep reading" and "literature", and it cites frank kermode (one of those pesky world-famous literature academics you demanded me to list so many times and then said nothing about). i guess it's safe to say 'deep reading' involves more than an adult reading the mr. men books. deep reading is about sustained concentration and about the ability to analyze both formal cogency and deeper sub-texts/thematics.what's the last book you read that made you experience this dilbert? just curious.The deep reader, protected from distractions and attuned to the nuances of language, enters a state that psychologist Victor Nell, in a study of the psychology of pleasure reading, likens to a hypnotic trance. Nell found that when readers are enjoying the experience the most, the pace of their reading actually slows. The combination of fast, fluent decoding of words and slow, unhurried progress on the page gives deep readers time to enrich their reading with reflection, analysis, and their own memories and opinions. It gives them time to establish an intimate relationship with the author, the two of them engaged in an extended and ardent conversation like people falling in love.
I have a Rudyard Kipling poem on the wall of my cubicle
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think he was pointing out the fact that it's much easier to defend than it is to occupy. You can't compare the Falkland's war to anything we've done in the past two centuries. Perhaps the Battle of Midway is equivalent...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
oh right so defending an island that belongs to you that was invaded is "imperialism". but invading a foreign country that poses no threat to you, didn't invade you, and toppling its government and installing your own... isn't "imperialism". funny that. do you have a poli sci degree rthki?
you know when you make the effort to come out of your perma-lurk mode and poke a dumb one-sentence reply, you should at least put a little thought into it. i mean, come on. if you're going to post so sparingly. check a wikipedia article or something.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the article was about fiction. the idea behind 'deep reading' is that it engages your creative/critical faculties to try and empathize and imagine things on a deep and often analytical level. i think the article was more about people not reading books anymore where they have to imagine worlds and conjure up settings/characters/feelings, just by concentration and rhetorical evaluation. non-fiction is kind of a different ticker.
cool though.
why would you have a poem by an arch-toff imperial fantasist, by the way? seems kind of antithetical to your principles.
it's not "if", is it?
cool though.
why would you have a poem by an arch-toff imperial fantasist, by the way? seems kind of antithetical to your principles.
it's not "if", is it?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-05 16:44:41)
Of course it's IfUzique The Lesser wrote:
the article was about fiction. the idea behind 'deep reading' is that it engages your creative/critical faculties to try and empathize and imagine things on a deep and often analytical level. i think the article was more about people not reading books anymore where they have to imagine worlds and conjure up settings/characters/feelings, just by concentration and rhetorical evaluation. non-fiction is kind of a different ticker.
cool though.
why would you have a poem by an arch-toff imperial fantasist, by the way? seems kind of antithetical to your principles.
it's not "if", is it?
Non-fiction can be challenging in its own way, and this one definitely did so. Very well written, and it wasn't a straight history, but an explanation of an idea and the path it took to become reality. It forced me to think back on my fluid mechanics course and the behavior of steam.
I will say one thing about reading in a post-Google/Wikipedia world, it takes me a lot longer to finish many books than it used to. Before, I would've simply glanced past a reference I didn't understand and hoped for an explanation later in the book, now I put down the book, do a quick search, and sometimes this leads me down a rabbit hole that can lasts hours. Some would lament this as a distraction, but overall, I feel I end up with a much deeper understanding.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat