And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee

[Hooahguy]

it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people. why dont you run those numbers for NYC or some other big city in the US or other big city.

[Lemur]

Ah yes, those polite Brits ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people. why dont you run those numbers for NYC or some other big city in the US or other big city.

New York:

Total Pop: 8,274,527

Murders: 523 in 2008

But then, the muder rate in America is astoundingly high, 3 times that of Canada, for example.

Also: I have to ask, ever been to London?

[Tribesman]

Ah yes, those polite Brits

Whats the name of the actor in the top picture?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Whats the name of the actor in the top picture?

Oh, come of Tribes. I know you know what the Plebs are like here, so come off it. Actor or no he has a point. The British, and English in particular, have never been a generally peaceable people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

From the article, Israel has far outstripped, for example, England.

The OP article? I don't believe that had any statistics, just "young whippersnappers are so violent" old-fogeyness.

CR

[Hooahguy]

Also: I have to ask, ever been to London?

actually yes. it was fun watching some random idiots mess with the buckingham palace guards.

now back to topic: so we know about murder rates. what about crime in general? maybe NYC and london has low murder rate but high non-violent crime?
EDIT: look what i found.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

actually yes. it was fun watching some random idiots mess with the buckingham palace guards.

now back to topic: so we know about murder rates. what about crime in general? maybe NYC and london has low murder rate but high non-violent crime?

Crime in London has been falling year-on-year since 2003. In any case, violent crime reflects more the brutalisation of the country, while non-violent probably reflects more on poverty.

Gun crime in London has gone up, but even with that murders have fallen.

[Whacker]

Besides, 99% of all crime in merry ol' England can be directly attributed to soccer hooligans.

[Tribesman]

Oh, come of Tribes. I know you know what the Plebs are like here, so come off it.

But since the photos are from a fictional piece about domestic hooligans and the second one is a european match then compare domestic and international firms in other european countries, they make the British firms look very tame in comparison.

[Meneldil]

it may also have to do with the natrual politeness of british people.

Rofl.

I know this is useless and off-topic spam (but then the whole 'cities are more violent' arguement is kind of off topic too), but I don't have anything smart to answer to the 'natural politness of british people' part. Someone really needs to hang around in London after 7PM and watch drunk teenagers insulting eachothers and peeing in the middle of a street.

[econ21]

To what extent is victory possible only by embracing the strategems of the opposition?

...

On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?

Protaganists tend to use strategems appropriate for their situation, so using the opposition's methods may only be best if both sides are in a similar situation - say, two nation states or two sides in a civil war. But most conflicts nowadays seem to be asymmetric - between an occupying army and an insurgency, for example - so embracing your opponent's methods is unlikely to be best. For example, an occupying army often depends on the will of an electorate to maintain its mission and resorting to discreditable methods may undermine that support.

History provides little doubt that terror - when wielded by despots - can be an effective counter-insurgency tactic or way to oppress a weaker people. It's less clear to me that it is a viable option for a democracy - even one with its back against the wall like Israel.

[Hooahguy]

Rofl.

I know this is useless and off-topic spam (but then the whole 'cities are more violent' arguement is kind of off topic too), but I don't have anything smart to answer to the 'natural politness of british people' part. Someone really needs to hang around in London after 7PM and watch drunk teenagers insulting eachothers and peeing in the middle of a street.

sorry for the common american misconception that the only thing british people did was sit around in wigs and sip tea while talking about the latest developments in some random area.

[rotorgun]

Israel/Palestine...
One word....Bollox
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.

I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.

My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic. Where do you propose the "jellyfish" go? Both sides are acting foolishly, no matter how it all got started. They all need a timeout as far as I'm concerned. I wish the whole world would just turn their back on the lot of them....Israel/Palestine.

[Husar]

My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic.

What's antisemitic about that post?

[rotorgun]

What's antisemitic about that post?

You don't think that it's a bit rough on the Jewish people...."jellyfish" as they are referred to? It wasn't as simple as many people would like to make it out to be in those days. No one, and I mean no one wanted to help the Jews out. I agree that the people who lived in the region should have been considered, but who was at fault for that? The British government as I recall. For the fact they they have a right to survive, as do we all, they are to be referred to as jellyfish? They have fought for the right, as any human would do.

I think it's time for the Palestinians and the Israelis to forget the past. If they worked together, they could make that region a paradise, don't you agree?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't think that it's a bit rough on the Jewish people...."jellyfish" as they are referred to? It wasn't as simple as many people would like to make it out to be in those days. No one, and I mean no one wanted to help the Jews out. I agree that the people who lived in the region should have been considered, but who was at fault for that? The British government as I recall. For the fact they they have a right to survive, as do we all, they are to be referred to as jellyfish? They have fought for the right, as any human would do.

I think it's time for the Palestinians and the Israelis to forget the past. If they worked together, they could make that region a paradise, don't you agree?

I think you're missing the fundamental point Tribes was making: Namely that no one has the right to go to an area, kick out the locals and build a new country based on mythology over 2,000 years old. It's also not the "fault" of the British, the situation not being remotely within the control of the government until 1919, and the Jews forcing the British out after WWII with acts of terrorism.

I suspect Tribes' intention was to be harsh because he feels that generally people are afraid of being harsh, or even fair, with Israel.

[rotorgun]

I think you're missing the fundamental point Tribes was making: Namely that no one has the right to go to an area, kick out the locals and build a new country based on mythology over 2,000 years old. It's also not the "fault" of the British, the situation not being remotely within the control of the government until 1919, and the Jews forcing the British out after WWII with acts of terrorism.

I suspect Tribes' intention was to be harsh because he feels that generally people are afraid of being harsh, or even fair, with Israel.

I agree that there is a tendency by many of the United States to walk softly when criticizing Israel. Be assured that I am not at all happy with how the Israelis have acted recently. I feel for the Palestinians as much as I do for the Israelis. The alleged "kicking out" of the Palestinians didn't exactly happen as many think, but it was an international effort to resolve a difficult question. It was led by the British (see below) until taken over by the UN. The Zionists only declared independence after the Arab States rejected Partitioning. In my opinion, the Arab world used the Palestinian peoples as a pawn in order to have a pretext to attack Israel.

Although you may feel that the history of the Jewish people is based on myth, I would ask you how to explain how they came to be there in the past. Do not the remains of the temple that the Romans destroyed exist? Is Masada a figment of our imaginations? Were the Jewish people that Alexander the Great encountered there really Palestinians ? Have not there been numerous archeological discoveries to prove the former existence of Israel in history?

I hate to only use one source, but as it is late here I quickly perused the Wiki article about Israel. Here is an apt excerpt.

The modern state of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism since ancient times,[9][10] and the heartland of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[11] Following the birth of political Zionism in 1897 and the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom the British Mandate of Palestine after World War I, with responsibility for establishing "...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion..."[12] In November 1947 United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[13] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[14] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Some international borders remain in dispute, however Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.-Wikipedia

PS: Very good of you to steer me back on point. I meant no offense.

[Tribesman]

My dear Tribesman, I had no idea you were so antisemitic. Where do you propose the "jellyfish" go?

errrrr.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree that there is a tendency by many of the United States to walk softly when criticizing Israel. Be assured that I am not at all happy with how the Israelis have acted recently. I feel for the Palestinians as much as I do for the Israelis. The alleged "kicking out" of the Palestinians didn't exactly happen as many think, but it was an international effort to resolve a difficult question. It was led by the British (see below) until taken over by the UN. The Zionists only declared independence after the Arab States rejected Partitioning. In my opinion, the Arab world used the Palestinian peoples as a pawn in order to have a pretext to attack Israel.

The fact of the matter is, Israel should not exist according to the British mandate. Let me quote the text of the Balfour Declaration:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

It's a wonderful piece of British diplomatic writing a real Classic, it says everything and promises nothing. Not worth the paper it's written on. It was also a response to a reality, that the Jews of Europe were determined to settle in Palastine, and already were. The Mandate was intended to create a mixed country in Palastine.

To be fair to the Arabs, the partitioning was a breach of every promise since 1915.

Although you may feel that the history of the Jewish people is based on myth, I would ask you how to explain how they came to be there in the past.

Well, there were Jews living in the area which became Palastine, but what does that prove? The period before the Exile in Babylon is fairly mythological. The Trojan War probably happened, but it's still a myth, and no grounds for modern Turks to ask for reparations.

In fact, the archaeological evidence for the events of the Trojan War is better than most of the events in the Bible before the Exile.

Do you know what the Welsh call England? They call it, "The Lost Land"

The point is, it doesn't matter. It was far too long ago.

Do not the remains of the temple that the Romans destroyed exist? Is Masada a figment of our imaginations?

So what? Do the Remains of Vindolanda, or Hadrian's Wall exist? Does that mean anything?

Were the Jewish people that Alexander the Great encountered there really Palestinians ?

Ah, the dirty little secret of Zionism. Who do you think the Palastinians are? A thousand years ago when the Crusaders arrived they found an area of mainly Jews and Christians. Do you suppose that the Palastinians are a new ethnic group in the area since 2,000 BC?

Have not there been numerous archeological discoveries to prove the former existence of Israel in history?

Of Jews in Israel, in some form. Even the Israeli Universities admit that trying to prove that King David actually maintained Jerusalem is almost impossible to demonstrate using archaeology.

[Hooahguy]

The point is, it doesn't matter. It was far too long ago.

doesnt mean it never existed.

So what? Do the Remains of Vindolanda, or Hadrian's Wall exist? Does that mean anything?

yes. it proves they existed.

Of Jews in Israel, in some form. Even the Israeli Universities admit that trying to prove that King David actually maintained Jerusalem is almost impossible to demonstrate using archaeology.

you do realize that archaeology isnt the only way to prove things, right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

doesnt mean it never existed.




yes. it proves they existed.




you do realize that archaeology isnt the only way to prove things, right?

None of which makes any of it relevent.

My ancestors kicked the Dumonians out of the city I am currently living in, but that was 1,000 years ago and no one has suggested we should be forcibly removed; especially since many of the Celts returned and naturalised and now you can't tell the difference.

[Husar]

So I suppose you're in favour of partitioning the US to split off the state of Aztlan or whatever it's called? 2000 years ago it wasn't the USA anyway, it wasn't even the USA 500 years back so obviously the people of Aztlan have a historical right to that region.

[Hooahguy]

well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.

That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.

[Husar]

well you may ridicule this, but because i am jewish and i believe in the Torah and everything it says, i believe that G-d promised the jews the land of israel, a promise which still holds true today.
now of course for someone who doesnt believe in the Torah, they will think this is rediculous, but this is what a lot of Jews believe, and so do i.
so there.

And everybody around you believes in their god-given right to kill you, so where does that leave us?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I suppose the difference between the Jews reclaiming their land compared to say the Welsh losing England, is that the Jews really needed a homeland, and they had the power to get it.

IIRC it wasn't entirely down to Jewish nationalism, weren't there plans to establish a Jewish nation in Alaska, Russia, Uganda or even Madagascar at some point?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well I suppose the difference between the Jews reclaiming their land compared to say the Welsh losing England, is that the Jews really needed a homeland, and they had the power to get it.

IIRC it wasn't entirely down to Jewish nationalism, weren't there plans to establish a Jewish nation in Alaska, Russia, Uganda or even Madagascar at some point?

Yes, there were; but I'm not convinced the Jews needed a homeland, we tend to think this because of the Holocaust, but bear in mind the number of Jews in the British government, one might almost say a disproportionate number, at the same time as people of the same religion were being Persecuted in Germany.

Also, I take serious issue with "reclaiming", prior to 1900 I doubt there were many third-generation Zionist Jewish immigrants, if any at all. By contrast, there are still living people who remember the Civil War of '47-8, and the Palastinians despereately need somewhere to live.

Further, I am deeply suspicious of the claim that the majoriety of the Jews alive today can trace a majoriety of their ancestors back to Palastine, that claim seems more likely for the Palastinian Arabs. For every person in Holywood, or the media in general, with the "Jewish" look there are probably many more who look just like any other European walking the street. This seems even more true when one looks at the Israelis that appear as pundits/ambassadors/politicians on Television.

[Brenus]

“R. Heinlen wrote the book he was dead serious” Was he? How do you reconcile Star ship Troopers with e.g. “in a Foreign Land” (where Heinlein became a hippy guru) or “Friday”? He was an author and he just created world, populated sometimes with religious hardliners, lonely heroes or intellectual teenagers…

I thing Israel mutation from an open and free country with an army of builders/fighters to a monster with a feeling of full impunity and superiority on the neighbours is/was unscripted in how it was created.

[Hooahguy]

That is why the Jews have been persecuted; claiming a God-given right to be placed above other people.

um no. no no no no no no no no
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
there, was that enough to get it into your head?
first off, let me just say, doesnt pretty much every religion have a "holier than thou" attitude towards others?
its not unique.
you clearly have no realization what you just justified with that post. you just justified every jew-hater in history.