News of the day

I'm under the impression that back during the 1970s, when various paramilitary groups affliated with Palestinian nationalism targeted Israelis and Jewish people in general a lot of stuff like this actually went down on a regular basis even being supported or carried out by gov't intelligence agencies, but we didn't hear about it that often because society wasn't quite as media-saturated back then.

The best example would probably be the Munich Olympics massace in 1972, and the Mossad retaliatory assassinations following, but a book that came out about the history of Danish military intelligence goes into detail about more examples happening in my country - like one incident when the military intelligence actually outsourced activities to far-right vigilante groups. In case you're curious its title is something like The War of the Spies by Hans Davidsen-Nielsen, no idea if it's been translated into other languages-

Truth is stranger than fiction...

Slavoj Zizek had a pretty interesting analysis of Breivik's proclaimed ideological worldview. The relevant quote:

Slavoj Zizek wrote: But what if we are entering an era where this new reasoning will impose itself? What if Europe should accept the paradox that its democratic openness is based on exclusion – that there is "no freedom for the enemies of freedom", as Robespierre put it long ago? In principle, this is, of course, true, but it is here that one has to be very specific. In a way, there was a vile logic to Breivik's choice of target: he didn't attack foreigners but those within his own community who were too tolerant towards intruding foreigners. The problem is not foreigners, it is our own (European) identity. Although the ongoing crisis of the European Union appears as a crisis of economy and finances, it is in its fundamental dimension an ideologico-political crisis: the failure of referendums about the EU constitution a couple of years ago gave a clear signal that voters perceived the EU as a "technocratic" economic union, lacking any vision which could mobilise people – until the recent protests, the only ideology able to mobilise people was the anti-immigrant defence of Europe.

I'm not sure his two cents about the Charlie Hebdo attack have been posted here yet, so I'll link to the relevant article which follows a similar angle.

While I don't always agree with that many of Zizek's conclusions, as extreme as they might appear he usually brings an insightful perspective on things as he thinks more thoroughly about the fundamental issues at stake and from more interesting angles than most commentators. Not to mention that he's extremely entertaining to write.


Edited by Toaster Mantis - February 15 2015 at 09:12

Toaster Mantis wrote: First my country gets hit by not one but two Islamic extremist terror attacks, and now Russia threatens us with nuclear holocaust. This decade really feels like the 1980s all over again, if the economy being as terrible as back then wasn't enough...

^ Hm. Well, Putin is an idiot, and a nuclear holocaust is a plan that is too ambitious for him to live up to. Can you imagine how the rest of the world would respond if he actually did it? I don't know why not just ignore him.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - March 22 2015 at 10:04

I doubt there'll be another world war, and even if there is it won't be referred to as a 'world war' by our leaders and our media..

It'll be a "Multiple theatre kinetic engagement initiative" or some such sh*t.

I think Henry Kissenger (?) once said that it used to be easier to control a million people than to kill them, but now it's easier just to kill them than to control them.

Or was it the other way round...

Whatever the world has gone bonkers, and we're heading for something, although I suspect it'll just be more economic shocks and increased terror attacks.

The greatest danger of all is the current social, economic , spiritual and political apathy, a dangerous precursor to human stupidity, aka war. At least during the Cold War, the 'game' was played by sides that fully understood the consequences (from MAD to perestroika) and played chicken with each other. ISIS is bad news, North Korea is very bad news, Putin's soviet megalomania and bullying are front and center. No one cares enough to see the danger of doing nothing, not even voicing their fears openly. Apathy......

Blacksword wrote: I doubt there'll be another world war, and even if there is it won't be referred to as a 'world war' by our leaders and our media.. It'll be a "Multiple theatre kinetic engagement initiative" or some such sh*t. I think Henry Kissenger (?) once said that it used to be easier to control a million people than to kill them, but now it's easier just to kill them than to control them. Or was it the other way round... Whatever the world has gone bonkers, and we're heading for something, although I suspect it'll just be more economic shocks and increased terror attacks.

I doubt leaders were the ones referring to them as World Wars, anyway. Possibly after the fact, after historians and journalists broke the terms in. Maybe even Churchill did, but I don't know. It's certain the U.S. wouldn't, PR wizards that we are. We don't have a Department of "War" anymore, after all, even if "defense" is certainly not what Iraq was about.

What I imagine will happen is minor terror attacks on the daily around the world, punctuated by larger ones every year or 6 months (Boko Haram, Yemen), punctuated further by huge ones every decade or so (9/11). Then long, drawn-out, misguided conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq Part II: The Islamic State Strikes back). Until eventually Iran or some other rogue nation or group gets the bomb. And they wouldn't even have to use it, mind you. They probably wouldn't even have to build it. Find some schematics on an Iranian server somewhere (Stuxnet) watch a jittery Israel lob some missiles somewhere and the middle east goes wild(er).

I just somehow doubt Russia will enter into it much. It's really just a sad, opportunistic, former power, grabbing inconsequential land to the rest of the world--sorry to say, Ukraine--and flexing its muscles.

Toaster Mantis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Everyone should take a look at the google doodle today. Unfortunate case of a genius who was continually overlooked due to her gender. It just shows the same page as usual for me, but that's because I've got it to reset to the Danish version. Is it Ada Lovelace the international version shows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

I am, like a lot of people, concerned about the future of the world in regard to nuclear weapons.

stonebeard wrote: Blacksword wrote: I doubt there'll be another world war, and even if there is it won't be referred to as a 'world war' by our leaders and our media.. It'll be a "Multiple theatre kinetic engagement initiative" or some such sh*t. I think Henry Kissenger (?) once said that it used to be easier to control a million people than to kill them, but now it's easier just to kill them than to control them. Or was it the other way round... Whatever the world has gone bonkers, and we're heading for something, although I suspect it'll just be more economic shocks and increased terror attacks. I doubt leaders were the ones referring to them as World Wars, anyway. Possibly after the fact, after historians and journalists broke the terms in. Maybe even Churchill did, but I don't know. It's certain the U.S. wouldn't, PR wizards that we are. We don't have a Department of "War" anymore, after all, even if "defense" is certainly not what Iraq was about. What I imagine will happen is minor terror attacks on the daily around the world, punctuated by larger ones every year or 6 months (Boko Haram, Yemen), punctuated further by huge ones every decade or so (9/11). Then long, drawn-out, misguided conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq Part II: The Islamic State Strikes back). Until eventually Iran or some other rogue nation or group gets the bomb. And they wouldn't even have to use it, mind you. They probably wouldn't even have to build it. Find some schematics on an Iranian server somewhere (Stuxnet) watch a jittery Israel lob some missiles somewhere and the middle east goes wild(er). I just somehow doubt Russia will enter into it much. It's really just a sad, opportunistic, former power, grabbing inconsequential land to the rest of the world--sorry to say, Ukraine--and flexing its muscles.

I agree with much of that, but I wouldn't say Ukaraine is an inconsequential piece of land. It may be if you live in the US, but it's on Europes doorstep and we don't want Russia playing their games in our backyard, and by the same token we don't want NATO poking them with their missile defence shields, and gathering military hardware in east EU states.

Russia may not be the roaring bear it once was, but that is part of the problem. They still have in excess of 20,000 nuclear warheads and have been investing ever more of their dwindling finances in upgrading their conventional forces. Add to that the fact that Putin is clearly insane and longs for the old days and presides over a Russia who's relations with the west are at an all time low since the "end" of the cold war, and you do have a potential recipe for disaster.

Ukraine are not lillywhite either. Kiev is currently quite happy to allow neo Nazi groups to expand and grow in power and influence while fighting the mutal enemy; the pro Russian seperatists. All it would take for Russian forces to cross that border en-masse is for some 'event' resulting in mass casualties among the rebels giving them the justification to intervene. Obama may not have the belly for this kind of thing, but if Putin sniffs his fear then the Kremlin may well have the belly for it.