Malaysian Airlines MH17 - plane crash, near Donetsk, Ukraine.

Yves Geza said:
And BTW, you should be careful because there may well be members of this forum who will suggest that Poland and Pakistan have already destabilised the UK with their own people ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but those would be individual people as opposed to state sanctioned, I haven't noticed any Polish surplus T-64s cruising the local High Street yet ;).
 
Dave1 said:
So you would be happy with Poland or Pakistan destabilising the UK in the name of looking after "their own people", or sending military supplies to them to begin an armed insurrection?
.
Click to expand...

That's half of Wiltshire then :D Will Asda stock military supplies next to the polish food section?
Have you tried the polish food? They do these huge dumplings which are great, the meats... yum.
 
ST4 said:
You don't see Putin and the Ukrainians interfering re the scottish independence vote, why should we interfere in their affairs. The French etc are quite right to sell them ships etc if they are willing to buy.
Click to expand...

No, but didn't Alex Salmond say that Putin was a good example to Russians a few months ago !
 
dont they have a law that says something like " if a russian lives in another country , then russia owns that country " or is it if they just go on holiday there ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
No, but didn't Alex Salmond say that Putin was a good example to Russians a few months ago !
Click to expand...
No. He was asked in an interview if he can think of anything good about Putin as a politician, and he said that Putin was an effective politician who had managed to restore some Russian pride. Which is true. He also offered several criticisms of Putin, but obviously they were not widely reported.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, etc.
 
BillN_33 said:
You tell us that your specialist subject is “Aviation security” – without giving any evidence.
.
Click to expand...

Bill, Bernie's specialist subject is everything to do with aviation and policing - from this I suspect that he was some manner of airport policeman or security guard

anyone who disagrees with him is 'talking rubbish' - regardless of how many facts there are on their side.

Life is generally a lot easier if you accept this and don't try to convince him of anything
 
ghoti said:
No. He was asked in an interview if he can think of anything good about Putin as a politician, and he said that Putin was an effective politician who had managed to restore some Russian pride. .
Click to expand...

Hitler was a good political manipulator who restored German pride, so while this analysis of vlad the impaler is probably correct it doesn't mean its a good thing for the rest of the world (its worth noting that other territory that he thinks is rightfully Russia's includes a big part of finland, some of Norway, and Alaska (the last on the basis that the czars sale of it to the US was invalid because the Czar had no right to sell something that belonged to mother Russia) - I don't seriously believe that even mad vlad would invade a chunk of the USA , but anything is possible.
 
big soft moose said:
Hitler was a good political manipulator who restored German pride, so while this analysis of vlad the impaler is probably correct it doesn't mean its a good thing for the rest of the world (its worth noting that other territory that he thinks is rightfully Russia's includes a big part of finland, some of Norway, and Alaska (the last on the basis that the czars sale of it to the US was invalid because the Czar had no right to sell something that belonged to mother Russia) - I don't seriously believe that even mad vlad would invade a chunk of the USA , but anything is possible.
Click to expand...
But he didn't say it was a good thing for the rest of the world. He was challenged to point out in what ways Putin might be considered a good politician. He wasn't asked to defend his politics. Hitler was an effective politician too. The fact he was a nasty piece of work doesn't change that.
 
Last edited:
Actually Hitler wasn't that effective in a democratic setting - he tended to rely heavily on physical intimidation by his followers (pretty much like Vlad in fact) - he was however a f*****g genius at demagoguery.
 
big soft moose said:
Actually Hitler wasn't that effective in a democratic setting - he tended to rely heavily on physical intimidation by his followers (pretty much like Vlad in fact) - he was however a f*****g genius at demagoguery.
Click to expand...
In what ways could "being a genius at demagoguery" mean he was not an effective politician?
Demagoguery is politics, and it takes place in a democratic setting pretty much by definition. In fact, the first part of your post vaguely contradicts the last part.

Similarly, Salmond himself is a bit of an @rse but he is also an effective politician. I'd go so far to say he is an excellent politician. One of the best in the UK.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
In what ways could "being a genius at demagoguery" mean he was not an effective politician?
Demagoguery is politics, and it takes place in a democratic setting pretty much by definition. In fact, the first part of your post vaguely contradicts the last part.
.
Click to expand...

Nope - being a demagogue means leading by the force of your personality and how you inspire your followers - it is rarely effective in a democratic system where the electorate expect to see policies rather than propaganda but it is effective in a single party system - in Hitlers case after the Reichstag fire in convincing the german people that the one true saving of the master race was to invade most of Europe and to put down the untermenschen (who he blamed for all the ills). None of that makes him an effective politician , but it does make him an effective political manipulator.

Actually there are strong parallels with Churchill , who was also a strong leading figure in a govt of national unity and an inspiration to his people , but was an abject failure in multiparty politics in peace time

as regards Salmond - anyone who is generally considered " a bit of an arse" is by definition not an effective politician , he is again very short on policy , but long on generic propaganda about a single subject.
 
big soft moose said:
Nope - being a demagogue means leading by the force of your personality and how you inspire your followers - it is rarely effective in a democratic system where the electorate expect to see policies rather than propaganda but it is effective in a single party system - in Hitlers case after the Reichstag fire in convincing the german people that the one true saving of the master race was to invade most of Europe and to put down the untermenschen (who he blamed for all the ills). None of that makes him an effective politician , but it does make him an effective political manipulator.

Actually there are strong parallels with Churchill , who was also a strong leading figure in a govt of national unity and an inspiration to his people , but was an abject failure in multiparty politics in peace time

as regards Salmond - anyone who is generally considered " a bit of an arse" is by definition not an effective politician , he is again very short on policy , but long on generic propaganda about a single subject.
Click to expand...
Salmond is very popular within a democratic system. Leading his party to a landslide victory in the lasy Scottish parliamentary elections. A party that had struggled for mainstream support. So how is he ineffective?

A demagogue is a leader who appeals to the emotions of the public, through policy (in the case of a demagogue, policy that is based in populism rather than evidence or reason) or otherwise. Dictators needn't appeal to public emotions because they generally use brute force to suppress opposition. So dictators may be demagogues, but demagoguery is most relevant in a democracy. Hitler was a democratic demagogue, that led to his election whereupon he became a demagogue dictator.
 
big soft moose said:
Bill, Bernie's specialist subject is everything to do with aviation and policing - from this I suspect that he was some manner of airport policeman or security guard

anyone who disagrees with him is 'talking rubbish' - regardless of how many facts there are on their side.

Life is generally a lot easier if you accept this and don't try to convince him of anything
Click to expand...

Thanks Pete, a real shame as forums are really good for expanding knowledge and understanding situations

The world is going mad and the more that normal people throughout the world can communicate with each other the more we will understand each other.

I am sure it all started through some can of anger that got out of hand as we all have our "off days' …….. in retrospect I am sorry that I got involved ……. this forum does have strong views on both sides
 
ghoti said:
Salmond is very popular within a democratic system. Leading his party to a landslide victory in the lasy Scottish parliamentary elections. A party that had struggled for mainstream support. So how is he ineffective?
Click to expand...

you described him as a 'a bit of an arse' - that's not a decription usually appended to someone who is very popular

ghoti said:
A demagogue is a leader who appeals to the emotions of the public, through policy (in the case of a demagogue, policy that is based in populism rather than evidence or reason) .
Click to expand...
exactlty which is why demagoguery doesn't work in a free democracy because evidence and reason are required - but it does work in a failing state like post Weimar repbublic Germany (or post communist Russia) where an effective demagogue can convince a population that he is the only alternative to anarchy. It has b****r all to do with being an effective politician , whi is someone who can convince through reason and evidence
 
big soft moose said:
you described him as a 'a bit of an arse' - that's not a decription usually appended to someone who is very popular

exactlty which is why demagoguery doesn't work in a free democracy because evidence and reason are required - but it does work in a failing state like post Weimar repbublic Germany (or post communist Russia) where an effective demagogue can convince a population that he is the only alternative to anarchy. It has b****r all to do with being an effective politician , whi is someone who can convince through reason and evidence
Click to expand...
"Bit of an arse" is my opinion. Just like Salmond may think Putin is a nasty piece of work but can believe he is an effective politician. Of course Salmond is popular. I don't even know how that could be disputed.

And if you think the majority demand evidence and reason in a free democracy, you're living in a dream. People like policy that plays into their emotional or personal narrative, and cherry pick the evidence to fit that. Regardless of whether it withstands scrutiny. They don't tend to build political allegiances dispassionately from the ground up. Look at the ascent of Farage. Now /there/ is a demagogue. In fact, most of our current politicians practise demagoguery to one extent or another, because most of the public have no interest in disinterested politics. They like stuff that flatters their narrative.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
"Bit of an arse" is my opinion. Just like Salmond may think Putin is a nasty piece of work but can believe he is an effective politician. Of course Salmond is popular. I don't even know how that could be disputed.
Click to expand...

he's popular with the 50% (or less possibly) of scots who want independence - he's despised by the 50% or whatever who don't - and most English people couldn't give a toss about him either way and he has no policies beyond Scotland should be independent - when asked about international economics or defence or environment, or nearly every facet of government he seems clueless - the only reason Cameron hasn't torn him to pieces is because Cameron seems similarly clueless and ineffectual himself.

If Scotland fails to get independence that will be the end of Salmond's career , as he'll be forever tarred as the man who failed to convince - and if he succeeds, I would be willing to bet he doesn't survive past the next Scottish election as prime minister/president or whatever they choose to have

ghoti said:
"Look at the ascent of Farage. .
Click to expand...

Ascent :LOL: (we need a ROFL smiley) -imo its a funny definition of ascent to make a complete arse of oneself live on national TV (demonstrating that you are probably the only politician alive who can't go one on one with nick Clegg) and throwaway your political window of opportunity (presented by the general wetness of the mainstream parties) by allowing your party's spokes people to paint themselves as ineffectual fascists who want to compulsorily abort disabled babies. Ascent :banghead: - if Edmund Hillary had used that definition he'd have explored the marinas trench rather than everest
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
he's popular with the 50% (or less possibly) of scots who want independence - he's despised by the 50% or whatever who don't - and most English people couldn't give a toss about him either way and he has no policies beyond Scotland should be independent - when asked about international economics or defence or environment, or nearly every facet of government he seems clueless - the only reason Cameron hasn't torn him to pieces is because Cameron seems similarly clueless and ineffectual himself.



Ascent :LOL: (we need a ROFL smiley) -imo its a funny definition of ascent to make a complete arse of oneself live on national TV (demonstrating that you are probably the only politician alive who can't go one on one with nick Clegg) and throwaway your political window of opportunity (presented by the general wetness of the mainstream parties) by allowing your party's spokes people to paint themselves as ineffectual fascists who want to compulsorily abort disabled babies. Ascent :banghead: - if Edmund Hillary had used that definition he'd have explored the marinas trench rather than everest
Click to expand...
Your understanding of the political situation in Scotland is lacking. If you think Salmond & the party he leads have no policies beyond independence you simply haven't followed the debate in Scotland. Not surprising. Why would you? Most people down here aren't interested. I'm interested because I have roots and recent history in Scotland. I was living in Glasgow when the SNP landslided the Scottish elections.

And Farage. Come on. You're trolling now. He did incredibly well in the local elections for an erstwhile fringe party; /despite/ having a roster full of lunatics. Public opinion polls solidly and uncontroversially held that he soundly beat Clegg in those silly debates. Are you just making things up to try and win a debate by brute force?
 
Last edited:
SNP landslided the elections because everyone was sick of labour and north of the border they were the only real alternative - after independence (if it happens) SNP will no longer have a raison d etre they'll be blamed for every negative consequence and tax rise, and there seats will rapidly be taken by other parties.

and Farage - they only did well in local elections because people protest voted at the condems who couldn't bring themselves to vote labour - that isn't going to carry through into general elections when most of them will return to the tory fold.

we might be a little OT so perhaps we should just agree to differ and unhand the thread
 
big soft moose said:
SNP landslided the elections because everyone was sick of labour and north of the border they were the only real alternative - after independence (if it happens) SNP will no longer have a raison d etre they'll be blamed for every negative consequence and tax rise, and there seats will rapidly be taken by other parties.

and Farage - they only did well in local elections because people protest voted at the condems who couldn't bring themselves to vote labour - that isn't going to carry through into general elections when most of them will return to the tory fold.

we might be a little OT so perhaps we should just agree to differ and unhand the thread
Click to expand...
Yes, perhaps.

You're still wrong, though. ;)
 
THIS Dont ask me though.
 
That website makes me angry
 
Bernie174 said:
Wondered how long it would be before that sort of thing started.
Click to expand...
It started pretty much after the news broke. People are vacuous idiots.
I love a good old yarn as much as anyone but these people live in a fantasy world.
It's almost entertaining watching them eke out their tortuous conspiracy theories. Convinced half of them do it for fun to laugh at the other half who take it seriously.
 
It's almost entertaining watching them eke out their tortuous conspiracy theories. Convinced half of them do it for fun to laugh at the other half who take it seriously.
Click to expand...

Oh it certainly has it's entertainment value! Unfortunately, some see it as the truth, which says a great deal about some people!
 
Bernie174 said:
Oh it certainly has it's entertainment value! Unfortunately, some see it as the truth, which says a great deal about some people!
Click to expand...
Do they not stop and think: "Why? Why this elaborate ruse? Why pretend one plane has gone missing and then recommison it as a second plane, which you fill with the dead bodies of the people you killed in the first incident and then blow up in the skies over Ukraine? Then they have to explain what happened to the passengers on the second flight. Would it not be simpler, if we're going to be so mercenary anyway, just to blow up the MH17 flight without all that nonsense with a second plane? Why?"
 
Do they not stop and think: "Why? Why this elaborate ruse? Why pretend one plane has gone missing and then recommison it as a second plane, which you fill with the dead bodies of the people you killed in the first incident and then blow up in the skies over Ukraine? Then they have to explain what happened to the passengers on the second flight. Would it not be simpler, if we're going to be so mercenary anyway, just to blow up the MH17 flight without all that nonsense with a second plane? Why?"
Click to expand...

Sadly, the simple answer is no! Bit like 9/11, all these complex theories none of which really hold any water, and ignore the ridiculously complex logistical issues that would make the idea public knowledge long before it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top