US Air Strike Kills 85 Civilians

[Greyblades]

It's how we vertically rotate, my fellow of african descent.

[Gilrandir]

Guerrilla (pronounced as /gwair - EE - yuh/ btw, not like the animal as most yanks do)

No it's pronounced as /ger -ril - la/, lieutenant is pronounced as /Left - ten - ant/, Myanmar is pronounced as /Bur - ma/ and French is prounounced as /cheeze - eat - ing - sur - ren - der - mon - kee/.

We invented the language we get to say how it's words are pronounced

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pron...lish/guerrilla

[Husar]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pron...lish/guerrilla

All wrong, it's a Spanish word and Seamus is closest or nails it, depending on how you pronounce the phonetic writing.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...rrilla-warfare

Listen to the two examples here, I prefer the Latin American one.

[Pannonian]

All wrong, it's a Spanish word and Seamus is closest or nails it, depending on how you pronounce the phonetic writing.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...rrilla-warfare

Listen to the two examples here, I prefer the Latin American one.

From my limited knowledge of Latin languages, would "gaireeya" be closest to the mark? And IIRC it comes from the Spanish insurgency against the French invaders during the Napoleonic wars.

[Greyblades]

I'm still pronouncing it ger - illa

[Husar]

From my limited knowledge of Latin languages, would "gaireeya" be closest to the mark? And IIRC it comes from the Spanish insurgency against the French invaders during the Napoleonic wars.

I'm not one to ask about phonetic writing/spelling, for Germans it would be "Gerrija" or "Gerriya", but then again when I actually speak, I always struggle with the very pronounced "r" in Spanish myself because where I come from, we hardly pronounce any r...
The guy in my link pronounces it very well though, it's just whatever you write, different people will say it in a different way depending on their native language and accent I guess. I found a German youtuber who just said "gorilla" (same in German and English) and sold that as the correct pronunciation, but that's just wrong.
The double "L" in Spanish is always pronounced like a "y" or "j" in English and German. So Mallorca is pronounced "Mayorca" and guerrilla is like "geriya" (the "u" after the g is silent and only serves to make the g a hard sound instead of a soft one) and so on.

[Pannonian]

I'm not one to ask about phonetic writing/spelling, for Germans it would be "Gerrija" or "Gerriya", but then again when I actually speak, I always struggle with the very pronounced "r" in Spanish myself because where I come from, we hardly pronounce any r...
The guy in my link pronounces it very well though, it's just whatever you write, different people will say it in a different way depending on their native language and accent I guess. I found a German youtuber who just said "gorilla" (same in German and English) and sold that as the correct pronunciation, but that's just wrong.
The double "L" in Spanish is always pronounced like a "y" or "j" in English and German. So Mallorca is pronounced "Mayorca" and guerrilla is like "geriya" (the "u" after the g is silent and only serves to make the g a hard sound instead of a soft one) and so on.

Majorca is pronounced madge-orca.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We're leery of you because of WWI, then WII, then Korea, then the Falklands.

~Sorry, you're like our number three lady.



Probably - but the Americans have historically had a problem with recognising other forces' vehicles. During the Iraq War I was told by serving soldiers that Americans were not routinely trained to recognise the silhouette of friendly NATO hardware.

Then there's the Old Story about Patton threatening to turn his army around and assault the USAAF behind him if they didn't stop bombing his men.

OH, be fair at least! We're just about as likely to 'blue-on-blue' ourselves as we are you lot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there was political or security cooperation with that government more of this information would have been known to us. especially with these various rebel groups having a history of spreading misinformation like the many offsprings of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't doubt all slides exaggerate reports. One reason it’s hard to believe is if you look at life in Damascus and the more demanding lifestyle in rebel-occupied territories. Many sources claim the gas attack was carried out by a dissident, and is possible considering it’s the dumbest thing the government could have done to undermine its legitimacy.

There would not have been more casualties. You'd know that if you started talking to people and learn something instead of talking at them.

A number of points to understand about the Western Mindset on Syria.

1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.

2. Many have said that we should have intervened in syria earlier, particularly to destroy Assad's ability to cripple his own country's infrastructure. We should have destroyed his Air Power.

3. Against this other have said we should just leave the Syrians to it, even if we can reduce casualties we are morally obliged NOT to help a people overthrow their Tyrant, they have to do it themselves. The debate between this and point 1 is at least as old the sons of the Athenian Tyrant Peisistratos, i.e 6th century BC.

4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.

At the bottom of all of this is the Western Belief in the superiority of our Constitutional arrangements and our form of government - essentially it's a belief in our cultural superiority based on hard practical observation.

[Greyblades]

I have found myself questioning if our constitutional arrangments and forms of government is even transferable to those without a specific historical and cultural imperitive to maintain it.

Can democracy really be sustained by a people lacking at least some history of self instigated revolution?

[Idaho]

OH, be fair at least! We're just about as likely to 'blue-on-blue' ourselves as we are you lot.

All the British soldiers I've spoken to about Iraq and Afghanistan have all said the same thing. That American soldiers are trigger happy, clueless and a danger to everyone around them.

[Fragony]

Maybe those are the only ones you want to talk with. I know a few Dutch soldiers who were there and they don't say these things at all, all the more that American (and Ausie) soldiers are too reluctant to shoot

[Pannonian]

A number of points to understand about the Western Mindset on Syria.

1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.

2. Many have said that we should have intervened in syria earlier, particularly to destroy Assad's ability to cripple his own country's infrastructure. We should have destroyed his Air Power.

3. Against this other have said we should just leave the Syrians to it, even if we can reduce casualties we are morally obliged NOT to help a people overthrow their Tyrant, they have to do it themselves. The debate between this and point 1 is at least as old the sons of the Athenian Tyrant Peisistratos, i.e 6th century BC.

4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.

At the bottom of all of this is the Western Belief in the superiority of our Constitutional arrangements and our form of government - essentially it's a belief in our cultural superiority based on hard practical observation.

We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.

[Gilrandir]

All wrong, it's a Spanish word and Seamus is closest or nails it, depending on how you pronounce the phonetic writing.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...rrilla-warfare

Listen to the two examples here, I prefer the Latin American one.

I'm not one to ask about phonetic writing/spelling, for Germans it would be "Gerrija" or "Gerriya", but then again when I actually speak, I always struggle with the very pronounced "r" in Spanish myself because where I come from, we hardly pronounce any r...
The guy in my link pronounces it very well though, it's just whatever you write, different people will say it in a different way depending on their native language and accent I guess. I found a German youtuber who just said "gorilla" (same in German and English) and sold that as the correct pronunciation, but that's just wrong.
The double "L" in Spanish is always pronounced like a "y" or "j" in English and German. So Mallorca is pronounced "Mayorca" and guerrilla is like "geriya" (the "u" after the g is silent and only serves to make the g a hard sound instead of a soft one) and so on.

As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.

[Pannonian]

As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.

Gorilla is a hamophone of guerrilla. It sounds almost the same, and it's animal related.

[Husar]

As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.

Heresy!

Gorilla is a hamophone of guerrilla. It sounds almost the same, and it's animal related.

Aren't you just repeating what he said?

[Gilrandir]

Aren't you just repeating what he said?

No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.

[Pannonian]

No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.

Smoked meet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.

I have found myself questioning if our constitutional arrangments and forms of government is even transferable to those without a specific historical and cultural imperitive to maintain it.

Can democracy really be sustained by a people lacking at least some history of self instigated revolution?

It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.

If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.

As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.

You're right about the way it's pronounced, it's pretentious to try to pronounce is in a Spanish accent unless you actually speak fluent Spanish.

They aren't exactly homophone though because guerrilla and gorilla are pronounced with different vowel sounds in the syllable.

[Gilrandir]

They aren't exactly homophone though because guerrilla and gorilla are pronounced with different vowel sounds in the syllable.

Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla

http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla

They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.

[Husar]

Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla

http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla

They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.

Heresy!

In German we also call the Belgian city of Liège Lüttich, even though it's not hard to say Liège.
This could all have been solved with Esperanto, or was it Espresso?...

[Pannonian]

It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.

If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.

I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.

No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.

Hamophone is something that's almost the same, and which involves animals. It's a tight definition and rarely used, which is why I've just invented the word.

[Montmorency]

I sat it like, "görilla".

[AE Bravo]

1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.

Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.

4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.

But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.

Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803

This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.

Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.

We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.

Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.

[Montmorency]

Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.

That is why the West cannot defeat Islamism other than by offering a direct alternative - in other words, state theology. And that would be difficult.

[AE Bravo]

Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.

Explain. What Muslim societies want their leaders to be spiritual leaders? Are you saying they prefer clerics or conservatives over monarchs or army veterans?

[Montmorency]

No. Islamism is modern and progressive. It believes that Islam in its religious institutions and its spiritual principles must permeate political organization and action, among other things. Do not refer to it in terms of Church and State; both are only a subset of Islamic life.

This is what most modern Muslims want or welcome. This new and inclusive ideology - or at least its ideal - is exactly what so many Western Muslims identify with, and ultimately why so many find purpose in anti-Western commitments.

To spell it out (now I'm speaking more directly to the issue of Islamist violence):

"Radical terrorists", native to the Middle East, attack the West because obviously the West usually would act to counter their influence.

"Disenfranchised Muslim youth", native to Western states, attack the West because they have found their identities outside the West AND in particular (for those who favor the most violent approaches and factions) because they recognize the capacity and obligation for it.

Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.

[Montmorency]

Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.

And before you get pedantic, let me clarify: the perception and promise of and from heritage, which amounts to the same.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla

http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla

They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.

In American, perhaps, but not in English which I shall now call "Commonwealth English".

I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.

You're right, Germany and Japan don't deserve democracy - neither does the Arab world. Today, now more than ever, states have tools that allow them to suppress their own populace so long as they have a few men willing to operate them. Today dictators have air forces, to defeat them you need one of your own Air Force. It's not like outside help for rebels is a new thing.

Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.

I think I acknowledged that it's not the only Western philosophical strain - it is none the less an important one.

Arab miss-trust of the Western "Liberal Agenda" is miss-placed. It comes, I think from a basic miss-understanding of how a Liberal Democracy works. I have observed, from the Arab Spring, and now in Turkey that authoritarian Muslim governments are primarily concerned with retaining power. This fundamentally different to Western governments which are primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The reason for this is that Western governments are necessarily transient they will be voted out of office, usually in a decade or less.

So what do the "Liberal" Western governments want in the Middle East? Just the same - peace and prosperity - peace in the Middle East means peace in Europe and prosperity means trade.

Previously there was a third concern - containing Communism - and this led the West to support Tyrants as the lesser of two evils. By keeping Tyrants in power we ensured a degree of peace and Prosperity in the Middle East at the expense of some freedoms, and we kept the Communists out. Now the imperative to "hold the border" against the "Red Menace" has receded. The Middle East is now no longer a major proxy battleground and we have had time to reflect on the consequences of our policy.

The reality is that we don't want Tyrants, we want Democratic governments we can partner with, governments that are also more concerned with maintaining peace and prosperity than holding on to power.

So, yes, there is a degree of self-interest but Western Powers are entirely sincere when they say they want democracy in the region because democracy will benefit us over the long term and will not do us serious harm in the short term, for the aforementioned reasons.

But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.

Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803

This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.

Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.

As I recall he was in exile in Iran until we overthrew Saddam and he has always been in favour of attacking British and American troops. We could walk around without weapons handing out bread and milk and so long as we wore uniforms he's call on his followers to shoot us.

Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.

Behold - the reason we don't always support democracy in the Middle East, apathy. Not malice.

[Montmorency]

You can suppress an army with an air force, but not a "populace".