• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Paris terrorist attacks

The first bit of this article by Peter Hitchens talks loads of sense about syria (BHM's ears prick up...); then he follows it up by suggesting that cannabis use might be behind terrorism (and balance is restored).

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-bombs-and-a-plane-and-not-one-good-idea.html

(though actually i quite like peter hitchens, while being diametrically opposed to most of his views, i can respect him and his honesty (the interview owen jones did with him on youtube is entertaining); it comes to something when peter hitchens consistently make more sense on foreign policy than nearly every guardian journalist (including owen jones sometimes) - Peter oborne and ambrose evans pritchard are also worth a mention (as 'right wing' journos that this lefty likes (because they actually do journalism))
 
The a munitions been passed and the lords been praised and the wars on the television will never be explained.

Long winter of long shadows and high hopes waiting for utopia waiting for hell hell to freeze over.

We are all frenemies now.

Did anyone watch Justin trudeaus reaction. Smirk. Smirk . Smirk all the way thru. These mo fos feed on dead corpses. For fuck sake bbc news 24 is pumped into school, ahem, academies canteens. Fear fear fear. Whose fucking way of life are they defending? Their fucking own way of life, that of debauchery , decadence greed and CHILD ABUSE.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Oh dear.

You really need to look up where 'beyond the pale' comes from.

Clue. It's racism against the 'uncivilised Irish'.

You really could have picked a better example for a moral compass.
Click to expand...

It would appear that the phrase has a number of completely different stories about its origin and associations, despite that we all know what the phrase means:

On a documentary about Jewish history Simon Scharma stated that the phrase emerged due to the Jewish population generally only being allowed to reside in The Pale of Settlement of Imperial Russia. Their living conditions beyond the Pale were said to be even worse than they were than within.

"The Pale of Settlement was the term given to a region of Imperial Russia in which permanent residency by Jews was allowed and beyond which Jewish permanent residency was generally prohibited. It extended from the eastern pale, or demarcation line, to the western Russian border with the Kingdom of Prussia (later the German Empire) and with Austria-Hungary. The archaic English term pale is derived from the Latin word palus, a stake, extended to mean the area enclosed by a fence or boundary.

Jews were, however, excluded from residency at a number of cities within the Pale, while a limited number of categories of Jews were allowed to live outside it.

With its large Catholic and Jewish populations, the Pale was acquired by the Russian Empire (which was majority Russian Orthodox) in a series of military conquests and diplomatic maneuvers between 1791 and 1835, and lasted until the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. It comprised about 20% of the territory of European Russia and largely corresponded to historical borders of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Crimean Khanate; it included much of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Moldova, Ukraine, and parts of western Russia."

Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement


BHM your posts are just deliberately too annoying to be worth responding to.
 
Last edited:
The version I was told was that pale = wooden stake (as in "impaled") = boundary marker; and behaviour considered "beyond the pale" was fit only for "those filthy outsiders". No mention of specific groups. But no matter how you slice it and dice it, it's based on a deeply racist assumption .....
 
mydrugbuddy said:
It would appear that the phrase has a number of completely different stories about its origin and associations, despite that we all know what the phrase means:

On a documentary about Jewish history Simon Scharma stated that the phrase emerged due to the Jewish population generally only being allowed to reside in The Pale of Settlement of Imperial Russia. Their living conditions beyond the Pale were said to be even worse than they were than within.

"The Pale of Settlement was the term given to a region of Imperial Russia in which permanent residency by Jews was allowed and beyond which Jewish permanent residency was generally prohibited. It extended from the eastern pale, or demarcation line, to the western Russian border with the Kingdom of Prussia (later the German Empire) and with Austria-Hungary. The archaic English term pale is derived from the Latin word palus, a stake, extended to mean the area enclosed by a fence or boundary.

Jews were, however, excluded from residency at a number of cities within the Pale, while a limited number of categories of Jews were allowed to live outside it.

With its large Catholic and Jewish populations, the Pale was acquired by the Russian Empire (which was majority Russian Orthodox) in a series of military conquests and diplomatic maneuvers between 1791 and 1835, and lasted until the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. It comprised about 20% of the territory of European Russia and largely corresponded to historical borders of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Crimean Khanate; it included much of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Moldova, Ukraine, and parts of western Russia."

Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement


BHM your posts are just deliberately too annoying to be worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Beyond the pale.

Etymology

From pale ‎(“jurisdiction of an authority, territory under an authority's jurisdiction”), suggesting that anything outside the authority's jurisdiction was uncivilized. The phrase was in use by the mid-17th century, and may be a reference to the general sense of boundary, but is often understood to refer specifically to the English Pale in Ireland. In the nominally English territory of Ireland, only the Pale fell genuinely under the authority of English law, hence the terms within the pale and beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beyond_the_pale
 
Irish people know the etymology of the term. Not sure if the British school system would cover it; seem to gloss over most of the important bits of your colonial history.
 
You know, I don't remember learning about a single one of problems with the Empire, not one bit about the exportation of food while others starved en masse...

<3
 
our civilengineering gave industry, education, hygiene, communication & transport to filthy unwashed heathens everywhere
 
funny, the irish hating colonialism n all, yet happy to be a debt-ridden colony of europe

chief export; drunkardness
 
I think if your next-door neighbour moved into your house while you were out shopping one day, and then when you tried to shoo them out, moved into your downstairs toilet insisting it was their property, you might be just a little bit pissed off.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
our civilengineering gave industry, education, hygiene, communication & transport to filthy unwashed heathens everywhere
Click to expand...

And scientific racism don't forget - a key export to germany and america.

Is that like when we 'improved' bengal at the point of a gun by reducing a rich area with world-renowned textile technology and relatively high standard of living to an impoverished raw materials supplier to our north of england textiles industries (followed by us saying that our comparative industrial success proved our churchillian scientific racism about the 'beastly indians'). Or when we improved the skilled bengali craftsmen by chopping off fingers so they wouldn't compete with our protected industries (ie 'free' market). Or the improvements like when we introduced the 'free' market to bengali and irish farmers' labour so they had to earn wages for food rather than grow it, knowing full well that the market would end up adjusting millions of the 'useless eaters' out of existence. Also it's funny how imperial-apologists never mention that the railways were nearly all built to service british wealth extraction rather than any sort of service to the people - as evidenced by the routes. (not to mention, we could have just helped them build railways without fucking colonising them)
 
Last edited:
One can certainly see what effective systems are in place when the word 'sceptical' has become such a pejorative term.
 
Don Luigi said:
One can certainly see what effective systems are in place when the word 'sceptical' has become such a pejorative term.
Click to expand...

It could be me being thick (certainly not a rare thing) but I'm not following your post, Mr Luigi.

Also, where the feck have you been?! =D

<3
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
we were too busy abolishing slavery
Click to expand...
We never abolished slavery. It simply ceased to be economically viable with the advent of the steam engine; which is always ready for work, doesn't need to sleep, eats only coal and, if it starts making any unwelcome noises, can be silenced with a judiciously-applied dollop of oil. Once machine-made goods outperformed slave-made goods, it was clear there would be no future for slavery. But maybe even then, there would have been such a thing as a politically-expedient move .....

And even over here in the UK, industrialisation wasn't a total picnic. Yes, it created the modern working class, and eventually brought prosperity. I'm not arguing against history. I live in a city that grew up with the advent of the Railways -- goods arriving by train needed warehouses to store them in, shops to sell them from, offices to keep track of it all and banks to look after the money, and trains leaving could take with them goods from new factories, and the workers would need such amenities as pubs, restaurants, shops, even theatres and dance halls once they had money to start spending; and I'm thankful for that. But you can't pretend there wasn't also an ugly side, with many casualties.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
chinese, yonks before anyone

we were too busy abolishing slavery
Click to expand...

I was only using it as a way to say something about your racism (and our scientific racism came after slavery was abolished) - the following paragraph was the serious bit. (and what Julie said above)

Is there any difference between saying 'filthy unwashed heathens' and 'kuffar'? To not be a heathen would you need to understand the golden rule?
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Stop being an arse, you know what he means. We don't have to go back 'centuries'.

The west armed the Mujahadeen .........
Click to expand...

He said centuries.
So he means a period of time lasting somewhere between 99 and 101 years.

Of course I'm aware of the Mujahadeen etc.

It wasn't the recent history I was disputing. It was the idea that the middle east has been a victim for 100s of years.

They gave as good as they got back when the crusades were still a thing and large parts of land changed hands more than once.

I'm sure you know this.

They like to call us crusaders.

As scotch said, some of them have been fed that victim narrative since birth.
Who benefits from this version of the truth ?

Those countries have a wealth of natural resources, in fact *the* natural resource that the world can't function without.

But a lot of people living there are dirt poor.

They feel a lot of resentment, but this bullshit crusader narrative keeps them angry at us, not their leaders. Is it our fault their leaders are hoarding all those oil dollars ?


Of course you could argue that we have propped up dictators.
But have we ? If the leaders of those countries suddenly started investing in hospitals, roads and schools would we stop buying their oil ?
Of course not.

Whats the alternative to propping up / doing business with a dictator ?
Live without petrol and plastic ( in which case, you first ! ) or change the regime ?

Seems to me that faced with that choice those of us in the west can't win, we'll be the great satan whatever we do.

ISIS and the greedy cunts running those countries benefit from all that 'crusader' bullshit.
We shouldn't be so keen to believe and repeat it.


ScotchMist said:
As I said, it's abhorrent, the whole lot, on both sides.. I certainly know the answer to it is not more bullets and bombs.. 10+ years in Afghan, what did that achieve, a bigger problem from where I'm standing.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a 'mistake'
Afghanistan is not quite so black and white, IMO. The locals were suffering under the Taliban.

As for ISIS. I can't see any solution other than a military one. They don't want to negotiate. There is no reasoning with them. They need that land taken from them, its having the caliphate that legitimizes them.


F.U.B.A.R. said:
Perhaps we should aspire to a return to the dark ages as well, that'll stop 'em won't it? ;)
Click to expand...

Agree.
If I have to pick a side I'll pick the side that sends robots to Mars, not the side that has one book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top