44 1 min 15 yrs

Inspired by Troll, here’s a few thoughts for y’all. Just make sure you have a mug of cheer at hand so you may really savour the moment….

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

44 thoughts on “ATW DVLOG

  1. Well said David. As Pete Moore pointed out earlier, the equivalence of some on the left towards Al Quaeda atrocities in Iraq needs to be exposed for the gross hypocrisy that it is. Yasmin Alibi Brown is a total disgrace.

  2. Cheers David!

    Excellent commentary as usual, I will also being cheering the Giants on tomorrow in honor of my New York ATW friends.

    My beautiful mug is being put to good use this fine evening. How many fish tanks do you have?

  3. speaking of Iraq, and careers, and the media,especially the BBC, did you see that Colonel Tim Collins is to do a show on the BBC this coming week?

    He has been widely sought after since he left the army, so it looks like the BBC have snapped him up!! That has to be in their favour. At least he didn’t end up in Stormont!

  4. David, I must add further to what you said about the terrible mass murders in Iraq. They are not just terrorism – they are also jihad martyrdom.

  5. gee that looks like a very inviting cup you have there….

    you will never here the Muslim community protest against the use of handicapped woman, but we in the west are the barbarians

    excellant post sir

  6. Terrible about the terrorist scum using mentally handicapped people to detonate bombs. They’ve done it before though – or tried, anyway. The one kid they tried to use went straight to US military and told them that he had been strapped with a bomb. They got the bomb off of him before it went off. I’ll have to try to find that story…Anyhoo – it just shows how alien their way of thinking is to us. Anything that promotes islam – in their mind – is good. Completely different set of morals.

    I agree on McCain – and very disappointed that ‘Julie Annie’ (as many conservatives called Giuliani) endorsed him. Super Tuesday is going to be a nail biter.

    I had no idea that Tom Petty was the halftime show! More reason to watch it. Go PATRIOTS!!

  7. david, surely the salient question on the particular post is whether or not you are a "water carrier" for the failure of modern capitalism?

  8. since you explicity cite the recent terrible actions in baghdad as terrorism would it be a suitable interrpretation, david, to state that terrorism is; "the deliberate targeting of civilian populations with intentional or arbitrary acts of violence, with the intention to create tension, division or fear* within the affected populations"?

    * or all of the above (for the lawyers)

  9. trip
    as opposed to the success of communism…lol

    I take it you feel that strapping bombs to 2 retarted women and blowing them up by remote is not terrorism.

    It’s positions like that trip that make you such an easy person to ridicule…

  10. Don’t you mean the failure to distinguish between civilian population and combatants, Trip? In war you can still be held accountable for criminal acts. Unlike terrorists.

  11. no thats not what i mean alison. the presence of military combattants on one side is not a necessary factor for acts to be considered terrorism.

    david?

  12. Sorry, I don’t respond to asinine questions.

    I thought the question was a good question. Infact trippers definition of terrorism is pretty good.

  13. Sorry, I don’t respond to asinine questions

    can i at least ask what is assinine about the question?

  14. It is written with the explicet intent to equate the USs tactics in war with the tactics of terrorism.

    The whole premis is like you "asinine"…

  15. Dead right Troll, I’ve had far too many of these posed and you know that the result is a diversion, an attempt to attack democratic states like the US, UK and Israel.

  16. It is written with the explicet intent to equate the USs tactics in war with the tactics of terrorism.

    dictionaries shared round your way? you should ask for yours back.

    ignoring your inability to understand or spell explicit, you are wrong.

  17. Daytripper,

    Let me observe that you are on a Northern Ireland site, and in Northern Ireland the operative mode of communicating is the "fudge" which means that one is never to be tied to a dictionary definition when flexibility is required. Even Big Ian would agree with me here.

  18. Thats a cop out. If you cannot answer difficult questions then how does anyone hope to persuade people over to their point of view. The premise of the question may be wrong, then why not say so, and re-word it differently?

    If a blog is there for debate, then not answering a perfectly valid question, which was free from abuse of any kind is to be at odds with open and public debate on the issue.

    Asisine it was not. Only answering questions that are phrased how you would like them poses no challenge. If you can’t be challenged then what is the point of providing a platform for discussion.

  19. Typhoo,

    While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I will still observe that all politicians are only willing to be challenged if they can manage the challenge to their advantage. I myself, in my weaker moments, have been known to ignore an annoying question then go on to pontificate elsewhere.

    Good on ya for keeping their (and my) feet to the fire!

  20. Answering difficult questions is fine. Answering asinine questions is foolish. If I have if to define terrorism for readers, after explicitly stating that what happened in Baghdad was terrorism incarnate, then maybe they need to have a little think.

    And just for starters, targetting military personnel is just as much an act of terrorism as targetting civilians. Thus for an IRA terrorist to shoot an RUC officer in the back, is an act of terrorism. To blow up Canary Wharf, an act of terrorism. To kill terrorists – an act of honour.

  21. daytripper

    "ignoring your inability to understand or spell explicit, you are wrong."

    not really ignoring then ;o)

  22. The definition of terrorism is an intersting one issue. Although for any such definition not to include the incident featured here would be lacking to say the least.

    Daytripper’s definition doesn’t really capture it.

    Apart from David’s point about military personnel there is also the issue of the overall motivation.

    I am not sure about the bombing of Dresden.

  23. Opps sorry re my first point I got this mixed up with the one specifically about the downs syndrome woman being used in terrorism

  24. What about the Blitz?

    And back to the issue, what about this act – using handicapped women? What do you think Tripper? I’m geuinely interested in why when something gross happens we always have to find some dotted line back to the West etc as if to excuse their actions.

    Also within your definition doesn’t the motivation come into it? For example if an act is a response to an act of aggression and specifically targets those who committed them or is designed to stop a greater threat?

    Aren’t terrorists people who really care little as a general rule, not the exception, about their victims and whose aim is a cause (political, ideological, religious)?

    That’s my stab at it Trip 😉

    (i’m sure it will get picked to pieces cynically by someone)

  25. "For example if an act is a response to an act of aggression and specifically targets those who committed them or is designed to stop a greater threat?"

    …then it is designated an act of war and war is generally declared – is what i mean there, so not terrorism.

  26. David,

    Here From the link,

    "There is disagreement on definitions of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally, that acts of terrorism should not be accepted under any circumstances"

    David,

    YOU said in your vlog, ‘let me tell you what terrorism is’ then you come along and reiterate above what terrorism is. I live in Belfast, I know terrorism when I see it,I don’t need you to tell me, defining it eludes the experts. You didn’t even make an attempt at an alternate definition, you evaded it, and did not defend what you said for all to see in your vlog.

    You are the person on slugger saying your resident lefties don’t have to genuflect, yet you evade a perfectly phrased question put to you with any sort of abuse on the grounds that it is asinine.

    Rubbish. Either you can answer the question or you can’t?

    David??

  27. Your all dancing angels on the heads of pins.Trippers soul purpose was to equate the US Military to terrorists. He does it atleast once a month.

    He believes that non uniformed illegal cambatents that use woman, children, and the handicaped as walking bombs are the same moral equivalents as our young men and woman that enlist in the military put on a uniform and serve our nations.

    It is this very belief that makes him such a contemptable excuse for a human being. He honestly is NOT mentaly capeable of seperating an act of terror from an act of war.

  28. Troll,

    Did it ever occur to you that your problem with Daytripper is simply that you can’t understand what he writes?

  29. the operative mode of communicating is the "fudge" which means that one is never to be tied to a dictionary definition when flexibility is required.

    thats the beauty of the question alan. it exposes sham positions.

    Answering difficult questions is fine. Answering asinine questions is foolish. If I have if to define terrorism for readers, after explicitly stating that what happened in Baghdad was terrorism incarnate, then maybe they need to have a little think.

    david, i agree with you. thats why im asking for clarification on whether i have interpreted you right? ive asked multiple times for your definition of terrorism, which you have evaded superbly. evaded, i might add, while simultaneuosly critcising institutions like the UN for not agreeing on a clear and concise definition.

    for me its an important question, because it tends to get right at to heart of peoples position on such an important matter.

    And just for starters, targetting military personnel is just as much an act of terrorism as targetting civilians.

    always, or just certain circumstance? are you claiming that resistance directed at occupation forces is simply terrorism? soviet partisans were merely terrorists? french resistance operations targeting german officers were terror attacks?

    Thus for an IRA terrorist to shoot an RUC officer in the back, is an act of terrorism. To blow up Canary Wharf, an act of terrorism. To kill terrorists – an act of honour.

    i agree. they are acts of terror. thats why its not so clear cut when defining the term.

    The definition of terrorism is an intersting one issue. Although for any such definition not to include the incident featured here would be lacking to say the least.

    aileen, my definition covers such incidents clearly. why would you think that it doesnt?

    Apart from David’s point about military personnel there is also the issue of the overall motivation.

    I am not sure about the bombing of Dresden.

    yes non-civilian persons can be victims of terrorism. but you have to very careful when including groups like soldiers. otherwise you end up defining all military acts as acts of terror also. not that that would be particularly bad thing.

    as for your position on dresden, i think it shows clearly what im talking about above. when forced to clarify your own definition then we see where it starts to break apart. people will accept some horrific acts, which by any measure are acts of terror, as mere military excess and thus outside the bounds of any definition. that leads me to the point where i have to question why some get a free pass and some get put against the wall? i think what you eventually find is the polarisation of them ‘n us and an ill thought rationalisation that gives states the benefit of the doubt, primarily by their own citizens. but the purely military aspect also masks another very important point. States have been involved in direct terror plots and acts against civilians. Operation Gladio in cold war europe shows clearly that state actors were quite willing to kill and maim its own citizens as part of a wider continental strategy. intelligence agents have also been shown to deploy false flag terrorism (planting a bomb and blaming someone else) in an effort to delegitimise opposition. Gladio again was used for this, as were operations against Iran and Guetemala.

    Bottom line; a state actor planting a car bomb is still terrorism, regardless of how justified people think it is for a goal. ends dont justify means.

    more later.

  30. Typhoo,

    If,like the UN and other moral equivocators, you cannot define terrorism, how can you conform to the global intellectual consensus that acts of terrorism are wrong?

    I understand you know what terrorism is. Most sensible people do. Experts rarely fall into the camp of being sensible, especially if these "experts" are linked to liberal organised hypocrisies like the UN, Amnesty, Liberty, etc.

    I do not see that Tripper HAS a question. He lost ,my interest somewhere after he called me a "water carrier for failure of modern capitalism". To engage with that is to engage with 5th form student grant thinking.

    Dresden was not terrorism, it was war. Hiroshima was not terrorism -it was war. Trippers’s specious "State actors" using car bombs has a resonance when I think of Iran and what happened in Argentina to the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires. But last time I checked Tripper opposed my desire to want to bomb Iran.

  31. Fair enough. Any chance of posting about the bugging here, or do we have to follow you accross the way?

    How come ATW feels like the poor relation?

  32. You have to remember, Daytripper, that apart from cowardice in their refusal to tackle any definition, you’re also dealing with the laziness and sloppy thinking that characterises much of what passes for opinion in rightworld.

    Re. your point. Basically we’re just talking about the meaning of words and labels, as everybody basically agrees on what happened at, for example, Canary Wharf, Narrow Water and Dresden.

    For what it’s worth here’s my opinion: The Dresden attacks – while doubtless terrible and creating terror among the civilian population – cannot really be classified as a terrorist act in the political sense of the word. The attackers were in uniform, belonged to a structured army and were identifiable as such. (not talking about the morality of such attacks here, which is a different point).

    I also wouldn’t call cases like an IRA mortar attack on a RUC barracks or the Narrow Water bomb terrorist attacks. (but YES, folks, many of their other acts were very definitely terrorist, OK?).

    My definition of a terrorist act is when someone causes CONTINUOUS terror among the civilian population by acting from within its midst and being indistinguishable from that general population.

    Whether that individual is an agent of a democratic state or some lone loon makes no difference.

    So, 9-11 were definitely terrorist attacks, but if say some group flew identifiable planes across the Atlantic regularly to crash into skyscrapers they – even if they succeeded in getting through air defences – would not be terrorists.

    An interesting question could be: can a terrorist act ever be justified?

    But generally, the term means little in debate beyond cheap rhetoric, and I have long since stopped paying heed to the countless selective uses of it.

  33. "I also wouldn’t call cases like an IRA mortar attack on a RUC barracks or the Narrow Water bomb terrorist attacks. (but YES, folks, many of their other acts were very definitely terrorist, OK?)."

    That was terror Noel but mentioning narrow water in relation to terrorism and saying it wasn’t terror is pure stupidity. Narrow Water will always be remembered for the attack on the British army that blew those men to smithereens, infact those poor souls their bodies lay all over the road. It stands as one of the most horrific acts of the sad history here.

    "My definition of a terrorist act is when someone causes CONTINUOUS terror among the civilian population by acting from within its midst and being indistinguishable from that general population."

    No. Because there can be a single act of terror, there doesn’t have to be continious acts to define terrorism.

  34. daytripper

    "aileen, my definition covers such incidents clearly. why would you think that it doesnt?"

    I didn’t think it didn’t. I wasn’t commenting about your definition at that point. I thought I was in the thread specifically about the DS bomb and was just establishing that that was clearly one.

    When I said that your defintion didn’t capture it I meant capture the essence of the word. My mind was working quicker than my fingers ;o)

    Re Dresden For me it hinges on how necessary it was to end the war. I do distinquish. We were at war and we were justified in being so. That doesn’t mean that anything we had done in those circumstances would have been justified. It is more that I am unsure of the details of that incident than unsure of what constitutes terrorism.

  35. >>That was terror Noel but mentioning narrow water in relation to terrorism and saying it wasn’t terror is pure stupidity.<<

    Typhoo, No. I was talking above about the meaning of the word "terrorism", which is what we were discussing. I wasn’t making any value judgements either way; in fact I implied that many acts that are not terrorist are totally horrific and inexcusable.

    If you say something was a terrorist attack simply because it caused horror, that will extend the meaning far wider than anyone would be comforatble with (as it would then certainly include every air raid carried out by every air force and even artillery attacks).

    >>Because there can be a single act of terror, there doesn’t have to be continious acts to define terrorism.<<

    But that was my point. Even if there is only one such attack, the population will be in permanent (or at least long-term) state of terror as they will have no way of knowing when or even whether another such attack will occur.

  36. Alison:
    And back to the issue, what about this act – using handicapped women? What do you think Tripper? I’m geuinely interested in why when something gross happens we always have to find some dotted line back to the West etc as if to excuse their actions.

    im taking a completely balanced view of what constitutes terrorism is. Quite obviously this was an act of terror. but any personal definition should effectively amnesty your won side for similar acts of barbarity. david is basically saying that any enemy who performs such acts is a terrorist. if our state or an ally employs such methods it can be justified. its selling your self short on any moral grounds and can only embolden corrupt statemen and state actors.

    David:
    Dresden was not terrorism, it was war. Hiroshima was not terrorism -it was war.

    there are few (if any really) degrees of separation between this type of justification and that used by the germans for its myriad attrocites. the notion of "total victory" requires and justifies absolute brutality.
    the deliberate targetting of civilian centres is by any measure an act of terror. but whether it is definable purely as terrorism is debatable. personally i consider them crimes against humanity.

    Trippers’s specious "State actors" using car bombs has a resonance when I think of Iran and what happened in Argentina to the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires. But last time I checked Tripper opposed my desire to want to bomb Iran.

    nothing specious about them. they existed in the past, and i have no doubt they exist today. that is why states (not the UN) have real difficulty in pegging itself to a pure legal definition of terrorism. they dont want to affect their intelligence toolkit or place themselves at risk of prosecution should somebody expose state complicity in genuine acts of terrorism, like the bombings of milan and the bologna train station or the "random" gun attacks in belgium. All of which were proved to be connected to organisations whose links streched through local government all the way up througho NATO to M16 and the CIA.

    the real problem i have is that people recoil from such possibilities and they end up defending the actiors and actions. to use rightworld parlance, this is a form of "terror appeasing".

  37. modalities of perception interacting with agenda driven pluralities.
    What is liberty even?
    Are Palestinians / Irish allowed to enjoy liberties taken for granted by Israel, USA, UK.?
    If they are denied, what is legitimate pressure?

  38. It has been a while since I last surfed on to this website. I see daytripper is still rollinging in his delusional moral equivalency. Sigh..somethings NEVER change.

    Can we all agree the radical islam is a pox upon humanity?

    hilary may get the WH, but the liberals are terrified -and rightly so – that they are going to lose the House and most likely the Senate in the 08 election cycle.

    After Super Tuesday, I will be attending CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) and hope to get a read on the pulse of the conservative base post Super Tuesday. I am soliciting questions from you and your contributers to pass on to the gathered politicos at this meeting.

    Excellent vlog, David, have you considered kicking the vlog up a notch with chromakey techniques? You are quite photogenic and have lovely accent that I would not mind seeing & hearing more of 🙂

Comments are closed.