"Explosion" in Manchester

[Husar]

Note 1. I naturally refer to "Nazi's" in plural because NAZI is an acronym. However, it would be churlish to dissagree with an educated German on the subject, so I won't.

That was mostly in reply to Monty, but the apostrophe only belongs there in the genitive form either way. "Nazis" is the plural and "Nazi's gun" means the gun belongs to one Nazi. If the gun belongs to more than one Nazi, it is "Nazis' gun". I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on. Of course technically speaking a Nazi is a "Nationalsozialist" and in German the plural would be "Nationalsozialisten" while the genitive would be "Nationalsozialisten".
Of course with the article it makes more sense: plural: "die Nationalsozialisten", genitive: "des Nationalsozialisten".
I won't blame you for using the plural and genitive of the English word though.

Note 2. If you have correctly read my point but miss-identified my my irony as sarcasm then perhaps we have struck upon the precise boundary between wry British irony and dry German Sarcasm. Might we call it the "Husar-Philippus Demarcation Point"? Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize is due to us in the future for this contribution to international harmony and understanding?

It's late and I can't decide whether irony and sarcasm are different enough to warrant that, but we should accept the prize.

[Gilrandir]

Really? Warrior ethics?

It was not MY claim:

Bravery has traditionally been associated with the warrior ethos. At what time in history has it been considered reasonable for a warrior to target victims such as these?

You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

[Husar]

It was not MY claim:


You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.
Your reminder came without a critical thought apparently and I had not previously brought up any hard evidence against it. I replied to your bringing it up again to kill it with fire before anyone would seriously consider it again now that you brought it up again. Don't put wrong arguments into focus again uncritically if you don't want me to strike them down right away.

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule. Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

[Gilrandir]

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule.

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

[Husar]

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?:

Yes, and also, yes...

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

I went one step beyond what you said, in that if there is a code, then these cases would have to be exceptions. I wasn't saying you said that, I commented on the logical conclusion of what you said "in Pannonian's defense".
The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one. So if there were such a code, like the "honor among thieves", it would have to show through it being practiced in an overwhelming number of cases, as though it were one of the essences of the "warrior trade". I don't think that is the case (and you seem to agree there), so there is no such code.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

This might be correct, but we have a saying here that goes: "Worte sind Schall und Rauch." - "Words are sound and smoke."
Implying that things can easily be said and there is no inherent persistence.

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

It is only implied through practice, so I'm trying to break it out of existence!

[Gilrandir]

The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one.

I may be mistaken, but what Pannonian meant was rather close to the knighthood oath:

Be loyal of hand and of mouth, seeking to serve every man as best ye may.
Seek ye the fellowship of good men, hearken unto their words and remember them.
Be humble and courteous wherever thou goest, not talking much, neither being dumb altogether.
Allow no women or child to suffer by thy default, so that if ye may lift thy hand to assist one, do so. If thou must draw thy sword to defend them, do so unto thy own death.
If thou come into fellowship with boys or men who speak in a disrespectful manner of any women or maiden, let them know in gracious words that this displeases thou and thy Lord, then depart their company forthwith.
Thou art to defend and protect those who seek to worship in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and promote faith in Him throughout this earth He has made.

http://www.knightforhire.com/oath_of_the_knight.htm

So, loosely speaking, it can be thought to be ETHICALLY binding all warriors. But of course they never took it. Though the society presumes they should abide by it.

[Fragony]

Why do you all assume there is a reason, is there anything reasonablebabout it. Killing young girls. Cwn't you see the weakness? Cruelty will only get you so far, and they know that as they are getting increasingl cruel. happy maelsröm IS you are soscrewed

[Husar]

I may be mistaken, but what Pannonian meant was rather close to the knighthood oath

Except that such a thing didn't really seem to exist.
And one wouldn't say a knight wasn't a knight if he didn't follow the knighthood code to the letter, right?

Why do you all assume there is a reason, is there anything reasonablebabout it. Killing young girls. Cwn't you see the weakness? Cruelty will only get you so far, and they know that as they are getting increasingl cruel. happy maelsröm IS you are soscrewed

Well, if there is a reason, it could be useful to know it as it may help stop this madness, no?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I may be mistaken, but what Pannonian meant was rather close to the knighthood oath:

Be loyal of hand and of mouth, seeking to serve every man as best ye may.
Seek ye the fellowship of good men, hearken unto their words and remember them.
Be humble and courteous wherever thou goest, not talking much, neither being dumb altogether.
Allow no women or child to suffer by thy default, so that if ye may lift thy hand to assist one, do so. If thou must draw thy sword to defend them, do so unto thy own death.
If thou come into fellowship with boys or men who speak in a disrespectful manner of any women or maiden, let them know in gracious words that this displeases thou and thy Lord, then depart their company forthwith.
Thou art to defend and protect those who seek to worship in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and promote faith in Him throughout this earth He has made.

http://www.knightforhire.com/oath_of_the_knight.htm

So, loosely speaking, it can be thought to be ETHICALLY binding all warriors. But of course they never took it. Though the society presumes they should abide by it.

That code has been held in abeyance for some time. It was promulgated in an era when protecting the womenfolk (a quarter of whom would die fulfilling their biological function) and children (as many as half of whom would succumb to disease etc. prior to attaining breeding age) was an absolute cultural/societal necessity. Even then, it was honored too often in the breach.

Modern cultures, with their robust capabilities and vastly improved survivability chances due to medical health practice, no longer have a "protect them or it all falls apart" motivation for such an ethical standard in warfare. We honor it (too our credit) as a tradition that the strong should not exploit but should protect those weaker than themselves.

However, in a strictly logical sense (setting aside sentiment and morality for those not identified as 'us.'), attacking the women and children is just as effective as any other choice in a long term struggle. Those will become and/or will breed the opponents of the future, so if there is no reasonable likelihood of absorbing them into the 'us' and making them your own, then killing them is every bit as valid as killing the opposing warriors -- and tactically much easier. Nits grow into lice, so squash them now.


In this, ideology is the driving force. Islamist extremism labels us as the enemy (not without some justification, to be fair). Though ideologically driven, they are not irrational enough to presume that capabilities are close enough for a conventional victory OR a victory in the short term. Ideologically, to the extremist, we who are not of the Umma are ALL valid targets in a war that can only be won through generating an attrition cost that we are unwilling to support. It is their only conceivable route to victory in this conflict. The other choice would be to negotiate, and negotiation requires compromise -- which is impossible as one cannot compromise core truths that define your own identity.


THAT is why there is a binary solution set here. Islam must altar itself to change that outlook in much the same manner as Christianity moved away from violence as a tool for religious faith. Today, violent Christianity is almost unheard of and is actively opposed by the mainstream. It is highly marginalized. That same degree of marginalization has yet to occur in Islam, though any fair minded person must note that the VAST majority of Muslims have no interest in terrorism as a tool for defending or spreading the faith.
The other choice in the binary set is extirpation, with all of the horror such would entail.

How does Islam come to embrace the Enlightenment to the degree that Western Christianity has done so and thereby properly relegate religion to the spiritual and moral/ethical spheres of life? Will not be easy as the current dominant forms of government in much of the Islamic world (Monarchy, Dictatorship, and Warlordism) have little to no interest in an enlightened population.