SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update: The New York Times has a story, Truck Attack in Nice, France: What We Know, and What We Don’t and an interactive map.]
LA Times is reporting:
A truck drove on to the sidewalk and plowed through a crowd of Bastille Day revelers who'd gathered to watch fireworks in the French resort city of Nice late Thursday in what officials and eyewitnesses described as a deliberate attack. The president of the Nice region says at least 75 people were killed and 50 injured. Eric Ciotti said on France Info radio that "it's a scene of horror." He said he was speaking from the scene.
Sylvie Toffin, a press officer with the local prefecture, said the truck "hit several people on a long trip" down the sidewalk near Nice's Palais de la Mediterranee, a building that fronts the beach. Wassim Bouhlel, a Nice native who spoke to the AP nearby, said that he saw a truck drive into the crowd.
[...] The death toll appeared to be climbing. Calls to interior ministry and police officials were not returned. Images circulating on social media showed grisly scenes of piles of bodies in the street. The president of the Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur regional council, Christian Estrosi, said in a message posted to Twitter that dozens of people appear to have been killed.
[...] The president of the region that includes Nice says the truck that slammed into revelers celebrating Bastille Day on the city's waterfront was loaded with arms and grenades, and that the driver of the truck has now been killed by police.
Christian Estrosi told BFM TV that "the driver fired on the crowd, according to the police who killed him."
PBS reports:
Police killed the driver "after an exchange of gunfire," Eric Ciotti, the ranking politician of the Alpes-Maritime department that includes Nice, told BFM TV, according to the AP.
Damien Allemand, a journalist for Nice Matin, wrote online that "an enormous white truck came along at a crazy speed, turning the wheel to mow down the maximum number of people."
"I saw bodies flying like bowling pins along its route," he said. "Heard noises, cries that I will never forget."
The truck jumped onto a sidewalk and rammed into a crowd watching fireworks for Bastille Day in the resort city. An eyewitness at the scene told the AP that after striking the crowd, the driver emerged from the truck and began shooting.
"There was carnage on the road," said Wassim Bouhlel, a Nice native who spoke to the AP near the Promenade du Paillon. "Bodies everywhere."
The truck plowed into the crowd over a distance of more than a mile, Ciotti said.
Additional coverage:
Associate Press
ABC News
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @06:51AM
Stop pretending all viewpoints are equal, stop pretending the more radical Islamic clerics can be permitted to exist on a planet with civilized people.
Establish a semi-official policy that we will be monitoring mosques around the world on an irregular basis. When we see an iman shouting about killing infidels and generally carrying on all jihadi we will watch for a month to see if the congregation 'fixes' the problem before deciding THEY are the problem and dropping a few Hellfire missles atop it during Friday services.
It seems there is much hate for the first amendment tonight. Score 5, Insightful? Why so fascist, Soylentils? Does everybody modding this up actually support bombing an entire mosque anywhere in the world because of its most radical members, or are you just up-modding jmorris ironicly?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @07:42AM
Not necessarily, but the alternative of continuing to turn the other cheek is not working is it?
Unless you have a good plan yourself don't judge others for considering what ideas are actually brought forth.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Friday July 15 2016, @11:10AM
waddya mean its 'not working' ?
don't we still control our puppet leaders in the 'friendly' countries there ?
don't we still get cheap oil ?
don't we instill fear in all the other countries to do what we say ?
ain't the 'score' sumpin like brown people several million versus a couple hundred whities ?
ain't we 'pacifying' them at a rate of like ten thousand to one ?
waddya mean its 'not working' ?
for a psychotic state with no other means of support other than running a planet-scale mafia protection scheme, we are doing great ! !!
...for the 1%
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 15 2016, @04:16PM
Unless you have a good plan yourself don't judge others for considering what ideas are actually brought forth.
The mere fact that someone doesn't have an alternative plan doesn't mean the plan that someone else presents is good or even just better than nothing. Not a fan of logic, are you?
I'd rather we do nothing than use plans which are even worse than doing nothing, like taking away liberties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @08:35PM
Reading comprehension failing you today?
AC said consider other plans. IE to discuss them. Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea, and there are no good ideas so lets not talk about it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:26AM
AC said consider other plans. IE to discuss them. Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea
They've been discussed countless times. How many 'discussions' are enough? We shouldn't surrender our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Also, the AC said not to judge others unless you have a good plan yourself, but there is no reason you can't judge others without having an alternative plan.
Quit trying to shut down the conversation by saying no thats a bad idea, and there are no good ideas so lets not talk about it.
Well, there are no good ideas being presented, that I see. This can't end well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @08:32AM
I'm proposing bombing a mosque because the imam (that would be the guy up front preaching, you seem kinda clueless on details like that) is preaching sermons to kill and bomb infidels and other utterly unacceptable things. If the congregation allows that sort of thing to continue and they continue to attend that sort of service it is reasonable to conclude they approve of the message. There is a word for a group of people discussing engaging in acts of terror. Eliminate the terror cell. If the local government is on the ball they should know what is going on, so if they didn't clean it out they can't complain when we do. They would bluster but since their alternatives are to say they are incompetent or to say they knew and approved, which assuming we really had stopped playing around, would be suicide.
Last I checked, the 1st Amendment didn't extend beyond the U.S. border, we are the only country with such a thing. But yes, inside the U.S. we shouldn't use Hellfire missles. Just surround the place with cops, arrest em all for conspiracy to commit acts of terror, war, use weapons of mass destruction, whatever. And use RICO to seize the mosque itself and all other assets of the iman and congregation.
And just to really get the usual suspects here all agitated.... RICO would also do wonders on idiots like BLM. Videotape em chanting "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" and then arrest em all and RICO the hell out the whole criminal conspiracy. Inciting to riot. Incitement to commit murder. And just to watch the heads explode throw a few sedition charges. Then use RICO to work your way up the money trail. Probably can't get all the way to Soros but you could probably scare the hell out of the whole rent a mob industry.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Friday July 15 2016, @10:24AM
On the one hand you're suggesting monitoring that mosque for a while to see if the problem is dealt with. In that case it's conceivable other organisations, maybe other countries, maybe even the government of the country the mosque is in, might also be monitoring the situation. Some of these might even be using the technique of attending the mosque undercover in order to monitor. Indeed as time goes on a decent portion of those attending might actually be spying for one group or another, who are all concerned about the message they're hearing.
You then suggest to bomb the mosque after a month because it's reasonable to assume the people attending it support the position being advocated.
The only way those two statements can fit together coherently is if everyone happens to know that exactly one month is the amount of time one should monitor a situation before taking action, and that action should be descruction of the place and people. In thise case anyone attending before that time is up might be undercover, but anyone there a single day later must be in agreement with the preacher.
It's a good thing you're not in charge of anything.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @01:13PM
Usually i find jmorris unhinged, but he is making a striking amount of sense right about now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:47PM
Usually i find jmorris unhinged, but he is making a striking amount of sense right about now.
Stockholm syndrome. jmorris is still unhinged, and is suggesting genocide and war crimes and plain murder. You should take a deep breath, and come to your senses. Once you get over the initial reaction of fear, you will see that jmorris is still unhinged, and just more fearful that usual, and you do not need to follow him into madness.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @06:09PM
If the local country is competently dealing with the problem in its mosques there is no need for us to drop bombs on such a competent and useful ally. But the current reality is that few countries shut down radical mosques, and that simply has to change. When they can openly call for jihad and terror, even on televised sermons, the local population sees this and understands that speaking out is a good way to die, so even if they don't like it they do not speak. When they see these guys going boom, being carted off in chains, etc. that situation on the ground changes.
It would help you understand if you stopped sperging. I didn't call for a precise one month interval. I said randomly monitor and if you see a terror imam you watch it a month to see if the congregation or the local government deals with the problem, and if they don't we make the area perfectly safe. Depending on the relationship with the local government we might even clue them in as an alternative, so long as the end result is a definitive end of the problem. The idea is again, to change the reality on the ground. Now the congregation sits in either agreement or fear when the imam starts ranting about killing infidels. I propose changing it to a reality where the locals quietly cut the guy's throat or let the local authorities cart the guy off for 'questioning' because they decide they don't like the idea of exploding.
Yes, someone who happened to attend for the first time on the day of the kaboom would be an innocent victim of chance. This happens in war. However it wouldn't happen often, because again the idea is to change the reality on the ground. It would only require a couple of lessons to drive the radicals firmly underground where spy-vs-spy action could happen quietly, outside the public eye.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @06:34PM
I'm projecting that either very late 2019 or else 2020 is when the Constitution is suspended, and something similar to your proposal goes into effect once pesky things like the 1st and 6th Amendments are no longer a problem. Clinton is the last president of the United States of America.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @03:51AM
As to mosques in other countries, there are basically three possible scenarios:
-- They take care of the problem
-- They let us take care of the problem
-- We invoke whatever negating clauses are in our treaties, such as how they might be prohibited from harboring our enemies. At which point they are no longer our friends and we're free to act.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:52PM
As long as you support doing the same thing to Christian groups, monitoring Priests/Pastors/whatever they're called in various churches around the world, and bombing churches led by preachers who incite violence in their "flock", such as bombing abortion clinics and such.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @03:45PM
Something in your post is rattling around in my brain and won't settle.
I think it has something to do with trying make equivalencies between today's Christianity and Islam. We've got headlines full of terror attacks from fundamentalist Muslims, yet the last terror attack that came to mind from a self-proclaimed Christian, let alone one that claims to be based upon Christian fundamentals, is Timothy McVey's corner-turning truck bomb that blew up the Murrah building and lots of people inside it. I vaguely recall a few attacks on abortion clinics, but memory serves those began and ended in the 80s or 90s.
Care to expound?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:19PM
But surely you have no problem with monitoring churches that do promote violent extremism, regardless of how few in number they may be?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @05:00PM
You might try an alien artifact in your worldview. Open an actual history book sometime, reality differs from your fantasy world. Specifically look at the FBI's infiltration of the Klan, including churches. The last time the Democratic Party had a terror wing it took the government a long time to finally get tired enough of tha atrocities to put it down, but when they finally did they sent undercover agents into churches. Nobody seemed to find it unusual. Now infiltrating a Masonic Temple would probably rustle some jimmies.
Bottom line, when you suspect criminality, law enforcement investigates. Churches included. As a general rule, churches are open to anyone who comes through the door so it is hard to even find a basis for objection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @05:01PM
Yes - and also the agreed-upon result is that 130,000 angels can dance upon the head of a pin. Any more theoretical questions you want answered? Congrats on your misdirection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @04:45PM
Well, I'm not the original AC you were responding to but I'll take a shot at this one. Bottom line, your memory is rather faulty. First, suggesting that Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian terrorist" is problematic (check the section on his religious beliefs) [wikipedia.org]. We have already been over this several times on the forum. Pay attention to what you are reading and stop spewing misinformation. Second, attacks on abortion clinics did not stop in the 80s or 90s. In one of the more recent attacks 3 people were killed and several injured on November 29, 2015; that was a few mere months ago. There have been several others over the last few years in which arson and other property crimes have been committed. You can find all this info yourself by pointing your favorite search engine at something like "abortion clinic attack" and following the links. Again, pay attention and stop spewing misinformation. Remember, this is not the green site; we expect people who post comments here to be at least a cut above that.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday July 16 2016, @04:00AM
While there are still the odd attacks or killings by Christian extremists.... they are rare enough that we have no trouble identifying each and every one.
Meanwhile, Islamic attacks and killings are so common that they're evidently not newsworthy. A small sample from just the past year or so:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 15 2016, @08:38PM
Nice Attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel ‘Wasn’t A Muslim, He Was A S**t’, Wife’s Cousin Says [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
His wife’s cousin Walid Hamou told MailOnline: “Bouhlel was not religious. He did not go to the mosque, he did not pray, he did not observe Ramadan. He drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. This is all forbidden under Islam.
‘He was not a Muslim, he was a shit. He beat his wife, my cousin, he was a nasty piece of work.”
Fox News had a similar story that popped up on Google News but now I'm not readily finding it.
So, any proposal to put Muslims on double secret probation wouldn't have caught this guy. The clue is Tunisia and everybody crapping their pants about Daesh, not Islam. Note that everybody's focusing on Islam now. The moon matrix crew can now beam down and enjoy a weekend of Monster Hunter. Mission Accomplished™.
If you were a disaffected young man with no future from a Muslim country, it would probably look like a fine way to kick the bucket: in a blaze of glorious infamy. Just yell Allahu Ackbar! and racism will do the rest for you. You've become an instant An Hero™ overnight! No, Islam isn't a race. However, racism turned this incident into “Islamic terror.” Now we begin the march into a becoming a real police state all because it's unpossible that he was just being a copycat.
I may have to walk back the comment I made last night. Had a few b33rs at that point and probably shouldn't have been posting.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @03:54PM
Last I checked, the 1st Amendment didn't extend beyond the U.S. border, we are the only country with such a thing. But yes, inside the U.S. we shouldn't use Hellfire missles.
I agree that this part of your qualified position is now in line with the 1st amendment.
Just surround the place with cops, arrest em all for conspiracy to commit acts of terror, war, use weapons of mass destruction, whatever. And use RICO to seize the mosque itself and all other assets of the iman and congregation.
Oops, now back smack-dab in the middle of 1st amendment territory. Remember "the right of the people peaceably to assemble?" Yes, peacably; we're allowed to attend rallies where somebody else tries to start a riot. Merely attending rallies, or churches, or mosques that have a leader spouting violent rhetoric is not enough to arrest everybody for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. This is a Godwin-worthy position.
This last quote is out of order:
If the local government is on the ball they should know what is going on, so if they didn't clean it out they can't complain when we do.
What if they agree with the violent rhetoric? You never even specified that they had to be encouraging violence against America, this could be an entirely local affair you're wanting to get involved in. Localized muder of "infidels" is a horrible tragedy, but I don't want the Military Industrial Complex playing world-police to stop it. Your statements, taken in their current form without future qualifications, seem to advocate the invasion of outwardly peaceful countries that have internal policies you disagree with. You are the aggressor. You are the one bringing war.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @06:29PM
You seem to have some very strange notions, probably by watching TV....
Just because you aren't shooting AK-47s into the air doesn't mean you are peaceful. If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled. You can and should be carted off.
What if they agree with the violent rhetoric? You never even specified that they had to be encouraging violence against America, this could be an entirely local affair you're wanting to get involved in.
Then they die. What I'm proposing is making the strict (i.e. violent and supremacist) interpretation of the Koran an outlawed political view, worldwide. Any other solution simply allows the problem to fester somewhere and recur. Any government stupid enough to openly side with the ISIS worldview gets smashed into tiny bits and we don't rebuild, we just reapply the treatment as needed until a less suicidal group of despots, thugs and assorted riffraff gets into power.
They can get into all of the localized wars they like, if they want to thin their own numbers why should be get in their way? But do it for reasons other than a jihad against infidels, no suicide bombing of civilians, etc. We make those ideas like Nazism, entirely outside the realm of viable ideas.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @06:50PM
If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled.
We're discussing an entire group of people at a given event, not just those actively voicing their support of violent actions. I think that your understanding of what it means for citizens to peacably assemble is very different than US law. You can support rounding people up for associating with others, but pretending it's constitutional is just silly. I personally support plenty of unconstitutional things, I just don't act like they're constitutional.
Then they die. What I'm proposing is making the strict (i.e. violent and supremacist) interpretation of the Koran an outlawed political view, worldwide.
Then you support a one world government? This sounds like a one world government. Without a one world government, nobody can make worldwide laws. Once you're making worldwide laws, you're a one world government. Once you have a one world government, you'd better hope it doesn't decide that your ideology should be wiped out with Hellfire missiles -- you'll have nowhere left to hide. Me, I'm hoping the federal government fragments. I even think US states are too big, the city-state might be a nice model to return to. I don't want anybody making laws for everybody.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:27PM
Sorry pal, you attend a Klan rally and folks just might think you are suspect. Attend the weekly meetings and good luck with "I'm not a bad person!" Attend a Nazi rally, goosestep around in jackboots and then try going back to the real world and see how welcome you are. We currently allow either of those groups to carry on here in the U.S. because they are annoying, not dangerous. Try goosestepping around Berlin in a Nazi uniform and see how that works out for ya. They don't think it is harmlessly quirky over there.
You Progs almost universally want to classify the Allah Ackbar! Kaboom! crowd into the harmlessly quirky category because your minds apparently can't process the concept of people who hate American and Christianity like you yet are dangerous.
Then you support a one world government?
Not at all. I'm saying radical Islam has declared unrestricted war on us and we should do the same and utterly and completely stamp it out. Same as we did Nazis, Imperial Japan, etc. Only unconditional surrender was an acceptable resolution to the war. Once they aren't at war with us, once the war criminals have all been hunted down and dealt with, we should leave them ruthlessly alone to do whatever makes them happy... so long as it doesn't involve a resumption of chanting "Death to America!"
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @10:01PM
Then you support a one world government?
Not at all.
A single post prior, you said you wanted a worldwide law. Are you changing your position, or just losing track of it? Or do you actually think an entity can make a worldwide law without being a one world govenment?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @10:36PM
I'm saying we are at war and we should kill the enemy wherever we find him and anybody doesn't like it can just not like it. I'm not proposing some idiotic one world government boondoggle, no empowering of the feckless despots and morons at the UN, none of that. Just that we treat the Islamic Fascists exactly like we treated the Axis powers in WWII. I think you heard the word outlaw and assumed a whole superstate behind that one word, with courts, police, legislatures, etc. I mean outlaw in the sense of Nazism, we outlaw it by dropping enough ordnance on it to make the problem go away and then get back to normal international relations.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 15 2016, @11:23PM
If you're suggesting that we force or the threat thereof to enforce a global ban against certain kinds of speech without respecting local laws, that sounds like a one world government to me. There is no extra court system necessary. If you claim legitimate use of force over the entire face of the planet (as you seem to), you're trying to make a one world government. You can act like that entity will give up power when the time is right, but historically governments don't seem to do that too often. I don't know what you think a one world government is, if not an entity that uses force to govern the world. I think you're playing a word game because you don't want to identify as supporting a one world government even though you still want to use your governments military to enforce your will worldwide. It's difficult being an authoritarian, it causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance if you also value human freedom and self-governance.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:32PM
I'm saying we are at war and we should kill the enemy wherever we find him and anybody doesn't like it can just not like it.
jmorris is just scared. We are not at war, regardless of who the "we" is.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 16 2016, @12:37AM
Tell me, does the ancient chatbot philosopher aristarchus support a one world government? If not, how big would he prefer governments to be?
For some reason I find myself modeling you as an authoritarian communist (I used to be one myself), but that assumption could be wildly incorrect.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 16 2016, @01:10AM
Tell me, does the ancient chatbot philosopher aristarchus support a one world government? If not, how big would he prefer governments to be?
Not particularly relevant, when we are trying to talk jmorris out of his bunker where he is quaking in fear and advocating genocide. But it you must know, world government is a fact. There are international laws, there are mechanisms to enforce them. Many agreements are rather trivial, such a standards of navigation, TCP/IP, kilos. Others are not very solid, and violations take place on a fairly regular basis, with things like human rights, freedom of thought, ban on torture and political violence. But the fact that the rule of law is imperfect does not change things. Murder is illegal in Texas, for example.
Now if you are looking for authoritarians, you have the Libertarian (and Realpolitik!) view of government as the result of war, defined by Karl Clausewitz as the attempt to impose your will upon the enemy. This is also shared by these racist Tea-party types and the "shaking in their boots" Trump supporters. So if government is reducible to power and the ability to coerce compliance, it makes perfect sense to attempt to be the one whose will is imposed. Of course, it is also admitting that if it comes right down to it, you too can be dominated, and you know it.
So here it might be interesting to take a look at the Master-Slave dialectic in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. For Hegel, two self-consciousnesses are driven to mortal combat precisely because they recognize their selves in the other, which undercuts their own certainty of being. This is why Christian fundies are so afraid of Muslim radicals: they are nearly identical, and so intolerable to each other. Hegel's tableau, when it does not result in the death of one party, causes the losing party to submit to the will of the victor. But the interesting thing is that the slave, being forced to deal with the actual real world at the behest of his master, actually comes to have to power to control the environment, and soon the master is totally dependent on his slave. Anybody in IT knows how this goes.
Once the slave realizes he controls the master, tables are turned, but the slave no longer needs to oppress the master, the fight for recognition is meaningless. So, the take away? World government, like any decent government worthy of the name, is the free association of free persons, based on the authority of the consent of the governed. In other words, we cannot protect jmorris from the nasty Imams calling for his random demise. He would have to become a free person, a citizen of the world, before that would be possible. And when it would be possible, it would no longer be necessary.
Sorry for the overly long reply, JNCF! Hope it answers your question.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 16 2016, @02:24AM
Not particularly relevant, when we are trying to talk jmorris out of his bunker where he is quaking in fear and advocating genocide.
Oh, I agree that it is a more-or-less-off-topic distraction. I don't think jmorris is going to be opening the hatch even a crack anytime soon (some fresh ideas might seep through the airlock), so I'm not too worried about it.
But it you must know, world government is a fact. There are international laws, there are mechanisms to enforce them.
I'm not sure what mechanisms you mean. The breaking of treaties is punished by fines, and if the fines go unpaid they turn into sanctions. While sanctions can have a devastating effect on a country, I see them as very different from the forceful entry proposed by jmorris. The UN can invade a country with a coalition, but their rules don't allow action if any member of the security council (read: nuclear states) vetoes it. So I feel comfortable arguing that nations with seats on the security council are still sovereign entities (unless there is a crazy-undetectable-illuminati-one-world-shadow-government, which I don't model there as being). If the UN wanted to stop Texas from murdering inmates, they couldn't.
So if government is reducible to power and the ability to coerce compliance, it makes perfect sense to attempt to be the one whose will is imposed.
Like I said, I used to be an authoritarian communist! :) Now I only support communism at a very small scale, which is to say that I don't want my will to be imposed outside of my immediate surroundings. I still view this as a more-or-less accurate description of government, though.
Of course, it is also admitting that if it comes right down to it, you too can be dominated, and you know it.
Not admitting this would be silly. Just ask Winston what 2 + 2 equals.
For Hegel, two self-consciousnesses are driven to mortal combat precisely because they recognize their selves in the other, which undercuts their own certainty of being.
Oh dear, pre-Darwinian pontifications on the human condition have a tendency to bore me. What if our biology is just incentivizing us to consume energy gradients so that we can make more copies of our genes? (Dorian Sagan would argue for the reverse of this causality, oddly.) The competition arising from this could explain our inclinations towards mortal combat just fine on its own, no extra speculations about recognizing the self in the other needed.
But the interesting thing is that the slave, being forced to deal with the actual real world at the behest of his master, actually comes to have to power to control the environment, and soon the master is totally dependent on his slave. Anybody in IT knows how this goes.
I do think this is one of Hegel's more interesting (perhaps even valid, it makes a bit of intuitive sense) conclusions that I've been exposed to. The muscle-leading-mind bit is fun as well. I've read very little Hegel directly, mostly it dribbled in second-hand from Marxist literature. I didn't major in Philosophy very long -- when a line of philosophy starts to get really interesting, the sciences steal it away. Damn dirty sciences.
World government, like any decent government worthy of the name, is the free association of free persons, based on the authority of the consent of the governed. In other words, we cannot protect jmorris from the nasty Imams calling for his random demise. He would have to become a free person, a citizen of the world, before that would be possible. And when it would be possible, it would no longer be necessary.
I'm genuinely unsure what you're talking about now. You could mean this in the sense that you you used world government before, with the modern UN counting. Alternatively, you could mean it in the idealized Marxist end-goal sense, where communism blurs into anarchy and people don't need social hierarchies because we all view ourselves as part of a whole. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter interpretation.
Sorry for the overly long reply, JNCF! Hope it answers your question.
Well, I did ask you to answer an arbitrary question that you didn't have any obligation to reply to. I do appreciate you taking the time!
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday July 15 2016, @11:54PM
Well, then, here it is!
If you are openly calling for the slaughter of infidels, killing of civilians, violent overthrow of the government, etc. you are NOT peaceably assembled. You can and should be carted off.
Bye, jmorris! Was nice knowing you! We tried to tell you that you were not being peaceable when you were calling for bombing mosques, killing civilians, and overthrowing a bunch of governments, but you just wouldn't listen. I guess you were right, there is no negotiating with extremists, like yourself. Enjoy your extraordinary rendition!
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 15 2016, @07:06PM
Thanks JNCF, it seems objective reason is not encouraged in this debate. Murder and violence quite often keep the cycle running, inspiring the recipients of violence to lash out afterwards. Some people here are so stuck in the good vs. evil mindset, which is part of how the cycle goes.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 15 2016, @07:38PM
What a very clueless remark. That is not how people work, and you know that fine and well.
You just described guilt by association. Enlightened legal and ethical systems recognise this as a fallacy and will not convict people on that basis. And there's you advocating mass murder.
Some countries have laws against hate crimes, for example incitement to commit acts of violence, and if a preacher were doing such a thing, he could be prosecuted under that law.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 15 2016, @09:35PM
You just described guilt by association.
We do that all the time, especially in wartime. You live in Germany in 194x? Kaboom. Japan? Kaboom... with two really big KABOOMs as finishing moves. Hell, FDR rounded up American citizens just because of their racial background but I think we all agree now that was probably a bit too much. Ever heard of RICO? That is where an entire organization is declared criminal and anyone and any asset connected to it is boned. So explain why you support giving a special exemption for some organizations that have the goal of killing as many civilians as possible in an effort to violently overthrow the lawful governments of every Western nation-state?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 17 2016, @01:27PM
How lovely, you're advocating a return to fascism?
I'm not. More cluelessness on your behalf.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:42PM
He started good with the sniping suggestion. But then he wanted to drop hellfire missiles in rural public areas and on mosques. And that during Friday services. How about snipe the Iman? Or even better. Simply arrest him and put him in front of a judge?
You know. The non-violent solution with rule of law and all that. In most European countries hate speech already is forbidden. So you don't even need to change any laws. Just enforce the existing ones more efficiently.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:55PM
Those kinds of things are currently used as recruitment tools by ISIS. Giving them exactly what they want and increasing radicalization is the last thing we should be doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2016, @02:48PM
Duh, because they're different, therefore they aren't human. Muslims are sub-human scum that don't deserve the same rights and treatment as normal people (Good, Christian individuals (white and heterosexual, of course)).