大象传媒

The Glass Box for Wednesday

Comments

1. At 05:02 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   I haven鈥檛 heard anything yet.

2. At 05:06 PM on 29 Aug 2007, David McNickle wrote:

   Hooray, GB wins gold at World Athletics Championships. If Ohuruogu had been running for any other country, the 大象传媒 announcers would have been jumping up and down declaring her to be a cheat for 'missing' three drug tests. Oh well, I guess you have to settle for any medal you can get.

3. At 05:29 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Catriona Graham wrote:

   I was a great admirer of Nelson Mandela during the years when he was called a terrorist. Perhaps we need to draw some lessons from that now. Who calls who terrorists and why?

4. At 05:30 PM on 29 Aug 2007, wrote:

   The "now on air" link to the PM page from the radio4 front page is not working...

   (error 403: Forbidden. Sorry, the server is not able to provide the page you requested at this time: /pm%29

   Thought I'd let you know :O)
   

5. At 05:36 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Richard Need wrote:

   Before the chimes come back from the Westminster Clock Tower can you pay tribute to the fact that what is played here is called the Cambridge Chime because it comes from the Church of Great St Mary in Cambridge, later copied for Westminster.
   It would be interesting to hear the original.

6. At 06:00 PM on 29 Aug 2007, wrote:

   I heard that sound of summer last night from inside my house. I didn't realise there was going to be fireworks and I thought something had exploded at the airport!

7. At 06:03 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Iain wrote:

   Catriona Graham, we call terrorists 鈥榯errorists鈥�, because they launch attacks on people and seek to terrorise them, just as Mandela鈥檚 group did when the bombed supermarkets and the likes., something the silly besotted woman interviewed on PM seems to have forgotten when gushing about Mandela.

   I see no reason why Mandela should have been honoured with a statue in Parliament Square.
   

8. At 06:14 PM on 29 Aug 2007, R Baker wrote:

   Can we take the absence of a piece on the Tory's mini-manifesto on crime a sign that you haven't found anything to rubbish?

   R Baker
   Shropshire

9. At 06:19 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Jacques wrote:

   Why, oh why, was there continual background music and speech during the interview by Nigel Wrench ?

   For me, it destroyed the importance of the subject.

10. At 07:30 PM on 29 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Iain (7),

    "we call terrorists 鈥榯errorists鈥�, because they launch attacks on people and seek to terrorise them"

    Only when they don't enjoy the monopoly on "legitimate" violence enjoyed by "states".

    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

11. At 07:33 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Archie Grosvenor wrote:

    I'm old but if I forgot the same appointment three times I'd seek help.

12. At 07:58 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Bob Owen wrote:

    I've seen no comment on Matt Wells's disgraceful strapline on the second anniversary of Katrina about Americans thinking New Orleans was not a deserving case. That wouldn't have anything to do with the majority of the victims being poor and black would it?

    But then I am getting used to Mr Wells's reporting views which are a good reflection of some of the less pleasant ones to be found inside the Beltway.

13. At 07:59 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    This is not in response to David (2), but the term as used on the air -

    Shouldn鈥檛 it be Athletics World Championship, as opposed to World Athletics Championship? Do tell me this is overly pedantic.

    
    signed Ped 鈥檔鈥� Tick.

14. At 08:01 PM on 29 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Does Nigel Wrench know that he has been part of a question on Round Britain Quiz?

15. At 02:15 AM on 30 Aug 2007, wrote:

    On The Anniversary of !

    Reminding us of priorities.

    xx
    ed

16. At 08:38 AM on 30 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    I thought the piece about the Mathematics Musical was quite captivating and am quite intrigued to know more about the formula! Well constructed and good to hear a decent chunk of the music too.

17. At 09:51 AM on 30 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    That is an interesting use of a question mark in Humph鈥檚 strapline.

    鈥淧M: Hear Today?s news without the barracking.鈥�

    鈥� 鈥� 鈥� 鈥� 鈥� 鈥�

18. At 11:07 AM on 30 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Ed I;
    Does that excuse the IRA and its splinters; the OAS in France during the 60's; the Baader-Meinhof in Germany; the Red Army in Italy and ETA in Spain? What made the violence employed by these groups 'legitimate' as you put it?

    All in democratic states, liberal Western nations. They loathed the systems, which put temporal power into the hands of the population and sought to overthrow deocracy in favour of their own home-grown version of a totalitarian state.

    The ANC and PAC developed into murderous organisations from peaceable beginnings, much as the PIRA did from the 'Official' IRA. All provoked by young men impatient at the slow pace of progress.

    Mandela may have become a noble man. He did not start out that way. It was his plan, implemented by Umkhonto we Sizwe, (which he originated) which killed so many innocents, more blacks than whites incidentally. Indiscriminate murder for political ends is the distinguishing sign of terrorism all over the world. Note the use of 'indiscriminate', it's there for a reason.

    None of these organisations has yet achieved its goals by violence. OAS, B-M and the Red Army were destroyed by the nations they despised. IRA begat Sinn Fein and talked its way to oblivion. ETA are still trying the endless and futile campaign. ANC and PAC never came close to bringing down Apartheid. It was collapsed by an insider. The ANC achieved power through the ballot box, not the Armalite and the bomb.

    Si.

19. At 11:30 AM on 30 Aug 2007, john douglas wrote:

    The Glass Box seems merely to be an opportunity for the bigotted ignorant to display their tasteless or unfounded views in public from behind a silly pseudonym.

20. At 12:48 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    John D;
    'Remove first the mote from thine own eye' seems entirely apt here.

    Most contributors above are using a name, not a pseudonym.

    There isn't much bigotry on display.

    Whatever is tasteful/less is in the eye of the beholder.

    If you don't have anything constructive to say, steer clear. You seem to be more guilty than any of the accusations you so casually sling around.

    Si.

21. At 12:59 PM on 30 Aug 2007, David McNickle wrote:

    Hackenbush, I just exited a forum because of pedants like you. It is actually World Championships.

22. At 01:47 PM on 30 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Si (18),

    "Does that excuse the IRA and its splinters; the OAS in France during the 60's; the Baader-Meinhof in Germany; the Red Army in Italy and ETA in Spain? What made the violence employed by these groups 'legitimate' as you put it?"

    I said nothing about 'excusing' violence of any sort, and in fact the quotation marks around 'legitimate' indicated my rejection of all violence, including that "legitimately" employed by nation-states.
    

    VIII. Nor did we foresee that the weaponry and the war science that we marketed and taught to the world would become available, not just to recognized national governments, which possess so uncannily the power to legitimate large-scale violence, but also to "rogue nations", dissident or fanatical groups and individuals - whose violence, though never worse than that of nations, is judged by the nations to be illegitimate.
    
    IX. We had accepted uncritically the belief that technology is only good; that it cannot serve evil as well as good; that it cannot serve our enemies as well as ourselves; that it cannot be used to destroy what is good, including our homelands and our lives.
    
    X. We had accepted too the corollary belief that an economy (either as a money economy or as a life-support system) that is global in extent, technologically complex, and centralized is invulnerable to terrorism, sabotage, or war, and that it is protectable by "national defense"
    

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
    ed
    

23. At 02:27 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Si (20) Actually, it's the beam.

24. At 02:56 PM on 30 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Dr Hackenbush, you go right ahead and ped all you like!

    I too have always thought the Championships are clumsily labelled.

    Fifi

25. At 03:28 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Vyle;
    I stand duly corrected!

    Si.

26. At 03:45 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Muir Houston wrote:

    SW does type a lot of crap about terrorists - or freedom fighters - context is all. The courageous liberation of Cuba from the US backed dictator by the Fidelistas? The communist dominated resistance fighters of WWII? The Iraqi 'insurgents' fighting an illegal occupying force? Or what about Angola? a terrorist force under the direction of South Africa and the US against a national liberation movement the MPLA?
    Oh and those brave freedom fighters the Contras - fighting a democratically elected socialist government (the sandanistas)

    I think you should have a look at Pilger's 'war on democracy' - many of these liberation movements arose to fight the iniquities of dictatorships implanted and supported by the US - Costa Rica, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua

    and in Africa where with help of the Cubans the Mozambique freedom fighters (Frelimo) under the leadership of Samora Machel fought and beat the South African Army

27. At 04:10 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    We call people terrorists because they terrorise other people.

    Full stop.

    This term should certainly include those who set out to cause terror to civilian populations by any means whether the necklace, the landmine or the depletated uranium shell.

28. At 04:47 PM on 30 Aug 2007, Macaulay wrote:

    Chris Ghoti - By your definition of terrorist, then every armed combatant is a terrorist.

29. At 11:13 PM on 30 Aug 2007, John M wrote:

    What a lot of drivel on this thread from people who have never lived in a terrorised environment. And don't anyone in Great Britain even attempt to claim that they live in such a situation. Until you have lived in a "terrorised" community you shouldn't attempt to pontificate on "evil" terrorists and "courageous" freedom fighters. Live in such a situation and I'll respect your opinion - otherwise I'll despise your view.

30. At 11:02 AM on 31 Aug 2007, eeore wrote:

    So no one in Great Britain can complain about living in a terrorised community?

    So let's see who you despise?

    People too afraid to leave their home after dark, women who have to make special arrangements for travelling on a daily basis for fear of attack or rape. Or perhaps to be contraversial, vivisectionists who have to check the car for bombs each morning.

    And then there are those specific occasions. Such as the atomosphere in the northern towns during and after the riots.

    I won't add Northern Ireland, since you did say Britain.

    The fact that you don't feel terrorised, does not mean that others do not live in fear.

31. At 12:14 PM on 31 Aug 2007, John M wrote:

    eeore - Slightly lost the thread have you?

    We're talking terrorists - paramilitaries, bombers, gunmen. Not yobs, thugs and the occasionally disaffected.

    The fear of those that you refer to is very real but nobody is likely to refer to the perpetrators as "freedom fighters" are they?

32. At 12:58 PM on 31 Aug 2007, wrote:

    MacAulay (28),

    Glad you understood.
    See
    

    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

    First today, and not a hint of malice! Harrrrumpfh!

33. At 02:03 PM on 31 Aug 2007, perpetual student wrote:

    I'm sorry to say that I think the debate about the useof force in South Arica has hijacked the discussion at this thread.

    I explain how in some detail at the thread recording your listener's feelings about Mandela.

    The key question is surely whether RSA will become an economically equal society in the future and what that means for the various groups in South Africa. Their historical legacies become very important in determining what their futures should be.

    The first I hope shall be last, and the last first.

    The real problem is that Mandela seems symbolically to reinforce present inequalities in RSA. It is as if he is a part of some natural order of inequality - his heritage and his outstanding qualities suggest as much.

    Instead of criticising him at that level right wing critics seek to divert attention to his past.

    This they do very crudely.(18) offering examples of a frustrated minority (the Basques), a frustrated majority (the Irish in Ireland as a whole) and a minority (the Colons) trying to impose themselves on a majority in Algeria by influencing a barely democratic Gallist France.
    One could list Bomber Harris, the FLN, Mau Mau, Castro, the French Resistance, Eoka and so on. Such lists show how every possible case can be found, where violence is unjustified and where it is justified, within democracies, dictatorships, colonies and metropolitan powers. To select a few examples is bound to distort. Particularly when the examples are so poorly chosen (18).

    I guess sometimes we all have to forget our half remembered half right lectures from our half baked PPE degrees.

    Surely what the FUTURE in RSA should look like, given the ECONOMIC past there, is what we should be focusing on.
    The present accumulated inequalities cannot be allowed to remain.

    PS Some red herrings on this thread are so rank they need to be cleared up now. Sinn Fein and the DUP are in majority government in Norhtern Ireland now.
    They have the right to wrought major changes in NI just as the ANC has in South Africa. In fact both have a duty so to do.
    

34. At 11:40 PM on 31 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Macauley @28, not if they are for example the armed ship's company of HMS Chatham giving up their first leave for some while in order to steam as fast as they can to Sri Lanka to help the victims of the tsunami there a couple of years ago.

    As a for instance.

    It is possible to be an armed member of the forces and not be a terrorist. It is also possible to be a terrorist without being a member of any country's armed forces. We mustn't get *too*confused. :-)

35. At 02:43 PM on 01 Sep 2007, Macaulay wrote:

    Chris Ghoti - I didn't use the phrase "armed member of the forces". I said "combatant" - someone engaged in fighting.