Turn 9/11 rubble into a killing machine? Hello?

#1
This is well worth read IMHO.

Turn 9/11 rubble into a killing machine? Hello?
The Times May 23, 2006

Whoever said that irony was dead in America clearly hadn't heard about the assault ship USS New York[

THE CLICHÉ goes that Americans do not understand irony. Not true. Seinfeld ran for 181 episodes and TV Guide rated it the best comedy show ever. Maybe they just didn’t get it in the New York Governor’s office, or at the Pentagon. A warship is to be built in part from the wreckage of the fallen World Trade Centre. No? Oh, come on, this is good stuff here. Anyone in from out of town? Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?


Some aspects of metaphorical wars turn out very real for certain people. They have a habit of becoming tangible for the rest of us, too. The Cold War became a very hot one in Asia. The War on Terror unleashed the invasion of Iraq. And while USS New York may currently be serving metaphorically as a symbol of American indefatigability and courage, it will one day be engaged in a genuine sense in the propagation of a foreign policy that continues to contribute to recycled violence, from continent to continent, with New York office workers the occasional collateral damage. To turn the rubble they left behind into the machinery for the next big mistake shows an ignorance of cause and effect that explains why some still believe George Bush and Tony Blair were right about the war, but wrong about the peace; as if the two can be separated. Our mistake was that we didn’t have an exit strategy, they say. Makes the entrance a pretty dumb-ass move, then, doesn’t it, Sparky?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2192092,00.html
 
#3
Bouillabaisse said:
Rumrunner said:
This is well worth read IMHO.


What? This badly written rant? Ill thought out, badly put and poorly argued. In fact, no arguement, just an outpouring of bile.
Really? I thought it took the term ‘re-cycling’ to a whole new level! :lol:
 
#4
While this article is... "not too bad" this is the same person who a few months ago wrote that all soldiers are steely-eyed baby killers who join the forces because they want to kill people.

He "salutes those 99.9%" who need not apply, because obviously armed forces aren't needed any everyone in them is horrible.

I can't find the thread on here, but you'll probably find a back copy on the times website.

He was "sports correspondant of the year" 2005 or 2006 or something, he's generally an oxygen thief of the highest order who occasionally writes massively opinionated pieces based on little or not fact.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
It'll make that ship special to the people who serve in her and give them a tangible link to their chummy town. You can either view the steel from the twin towers as something important because of its association with the dead, in which case using it in a ship designed to help defend America from attack is appropriate, or you can view the steel as just scrap like any other, in which case the symbolism of incorporating it into a ship is meaningless. personally, I think its appropriate
 
#6
right, the author: "Martin Samuel has been a sports writer and columnist for The Times since 2002. His weekly football column appears every Wednesday. He has been named as sports journalist of the year in the What the Papers Say awards, 2005"

and his previous article (the times' very own oxygen thief:

Today's news: soldiers are violent
Martin Samuel

The sight of young squaddies beating prisoners is depressing — and utterly predictable



As a theory it is as flawed as the notion that joining the local boxing club turns every young thug into a sportsman. Surely there is greater discipline in determinedly mining the peaceable aspect of human nature than the hostile one? Surely there is more personal pride in learning to question, rather than thoughtlessly obey? If my kids wanted to join the military in peacetime I would feel I had failed. Sorry. Mr Brown’s lazy equation of disaffected male youth + uniform and drill = better citizen does not add up. This is not about British or American soldiers, but the act of soldiering. There is something basically askew in the motivation to do the job. Those that believe they are social workers have fallen for a fantastic lie; those that are motivated by a cold love of violence are the last people that should be in military service.

On the day of the attacks, the British Army had been under primitive assault. Soldiers were sent out to arrest suspects for interrogation. There was no question of winning hearts and minds. That is for the news bulletins and cheerleaders for the war, not for the men at the sharp end. What they did, we are told by every military expert, overstepped the boundary. This is flawed logic. What they do oversteps the boundary; indeed, the very idea that armed conflict can be waged, daily, within parameters of acceptability, oversteps all boundaries. I have a friend, an old football man, who, when riled, occasionally tells mouthy teenagers that he shot better people than them in Malaya. His regiment did not believe in being slowed by prisoners. They were at war, you see.

Society will evolve only when we divorce heroism and war and accept that it is equally valiant to not want to drive a tank. You know that recruitment campaign with the slogan that says 99.9 per cent need not apply? I love that 99.9 per cent. My kind of people, the 99.9 per cent. Get up, go to work, nobody gets hurt. The best of British, I mean that. Heroes all.

See the problem I have with him?
 
#8
Another well thought out rant from Martin Samuel. He may well be a decent sports writer but his grasp of current affairs or anything to do with the armed forces displays a staggering degree of ignorance. He is indeed, to quote Crabby, "an oxygen thief of the highest order."
 
#9
crabby said:
right, the author: "Martin Samuel has been a sports writer and columnist for The Times since 2002. His weekly football column appears every Wednesday. He has been named as sports journalist of the year in the What the Papers Say awards, 2005"

and his previous article (the times' very own oxygen thief:

Today's news: soldiers are violent
Martin Samuel

The sight of young squaddies beating prisoners is depressing — and utterly predictable



As a theory it is as flawed as the notion that joining the local boxing club turns every young thug into a sportsman. Surely there is greater discipline in determinedly mining the peaceable aspect of human nature than the hostile one? Surely there is more personal pride in learning to question, rather than thoughtlessly obey? If my kids wanted to join the military in peacetime I would feel I had failed. Sorry. Mr Brown’s lazy equation of disaffected male youth + uniform and drill = better citizen does not add up. This is not about British or American soldiers, but the act of soldiering. There is something basically askew in the motivation to do the job. Those that believe they are social workers have fallen for a fantastic lie; those that are motivated by a cold love of violence are the last people that should be in military service.

On the day of the attacks, the British Army had been under primitive assault. Soldiers were sent out to arrest suspects for interrogation. There was no question of winning hearts and minds. That is for the news bulletins and cheerleaders for the war, not for the men at the sharp end. What they did, we are told by every military expert, overstepped the boundary. This is flawed logic. What they do oversteps the boundary; indeed, the very idea that armed conflict can be waged, daily, within parameters of acceptability, oversteps all boundaries. I have a friend, an old football man, who, when riled, occasionally tells mouthy teenagers that he shot better people than them in Malaya. His regiment did not believe in being slowed by prisoners. They were at war, you see.

Society will evolve only when we divorce heroism and war and accept that it is equally valiant to not want to drive a tank. You know that recruitment campaign with the slogan that says 99.9 per cent need not apply? I love that 99.9 per cent. My kind of people, the 99.9 per cent. Get up, go to work, nobody gets hurt. The best of British, I mean that. Heroes all.

See the problem I have with him?



fck fck fck....its taken me the best part of six months to forget that gibbering cnuting bollocks

*sigh*

...I'm gonna be in a bad mood for the rest of the week now
 
#11
crabby said:
right, the author: "Martin Samuel has been a sports writer and columnist for The Times since 2002. His weekly football column appears every Wednesday. He has been named as sports journalist of the year in the What the Papers Say awards, 2005"

and his previous article (the times' very own oxygen thief:

Today's news: soldiers are violent
Martin Samuel

The sight of young squaddies beating prisoners is depressing — and utterly predictable



As a theory it is as flawed as the notion that joining the local boxing club turns every young thug into a sportsman. Surely there is greater discipline in determinedly mining the peaceable aspect of human nature than the hostile one? Surely there is more personal pride in learning to question, rather than thoughtlessly obey? If my kids wanted to join the military in peacetime I would feel I had failed. Sorry. Mr Brown’s lazy equation of disaffected male youth + uniform and drill = better citizen does not add up. This is not about British or American soldiers, but the act of soldiering. There is something basically askew in the motivation to do the job. Those that believe they are social workers have fallen for a fantastic lie; those that are motivated by a cold love of violence are the last people that should be in military service.

On the day of the attacks, the British Army had been under primitive assault. Soldiers were sent out to arrest suspects for interrogation. There was no question of winning hearts and minds. That is for the news bulletins and cheerleaders for the war, not for the men at the sharp end. What they did, we are told by every military expert, overstepped the boundary. This is flawed logic. What they do oversteps the boundary; indeed, the very idea that armed conflict can be waged, daily, within parameters of acceptability, oversteps all boundaries. I have a friend, an old football man, who, when riled, occasionally tells mouthy teenagers that he shot better people than them in Malaya. His regiment did not believe in being slowed by prisoners. They were at war, you see.

Society will evolve only when we divorce heroism and war and accept that it is equally valiant to not want to drive a tank. You know that recruitment campaign with the slogan that says 99.9 per cent need not apply? I love that 99.9 per cent. My kind of people, the 99.9 per cent. Get up, go to work, nobody gets hurt. The best of British, I mean that. Heroes all.

See the problem I have with him?
Yes I do. While I don't personally think making the rubble into a warship is quite appropriate, I can't stand people like Samuel. I live in a city of Samuels, and it drives me insane. I hear that crap everyday.

I think this quote is a good analysis of people like him:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill
 
#12
Today's news: soldiers are violent
Martin Samuel

The sight of young squaddies beating prisoners is depressing — and utterly predictable

This mr martin Samuel just don’t have a clue what he is speaking about he should go out with our troops and see what they have to put up with on a daily basis by putting there own life’s on the line for queen and country they have to look after journalists wiping there backsides and trying to do there own job as best as they can what about how other people treat our troops throwing stones etc at them and cheering at them.
There are two different points of view here to consider
 
#13
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
 
#14
sports writer P.E. teacher who can print a sentance :twisted:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top