Smuel's good morning extravaganza

I believe the kids would say "REKT"

Good evening.

 

So why is Hillary Clinton a bad thing? This isn't a loaded question of the, "Duh, shutup, she's obviously great because she's a Democrat," form - but there's a hatred I'm not fully understanding.

Obviously she has had some dubious ties to big business (or things that make a largish amount of money, this is literally the length my lazy google knowledge extends), and obviously threatening national security by being a lazy cunt is stupid. Buuuuuuttttt, as an ill-informed Englishman, what did she do before this to rouse ire?

And yeah I said "rouse ire" instead of "upset people", because if I had a dime for everyone who said upset people I'd rather hit them with the dimes and make them say "rouse ire" because it sounds nicer.

But anyway, explain yourself, Americans! It's not like British people do anything shockingly weird and disheartening.

Good morning? The question mark will disappear when I'm happy with my county again.

 

If you are unhappy with your county then perhaps you should move to another one. I used to live in Buckinghamshire and it was rather quaint.

 

Regarding Clinton, my impression is that she is by necessity projecting a very controlled image. This is because she isn't as naturally charismatic as, say, Obama, and so the concern is that if she shows any kind of human side because it will be ripped to shreds for being the wrong kind of human side. As a result, she comes off as cold and inhuman, and people react against that. I think it's the right choice for her though - being yourself is a very risky proposition at that level of politics.

Good morning.

 

The reasons you've already stated are plenty. I think a lot of people have a problem with her being considered "next in line" as if the presidential office was somehow hereditary. Many are also a wee bit revolted of her being presented as a feminist candidate or that her being elected would be a big feminist victory when she's about as much a feminist as Thatcher. This was especially jarring when she was put against Sanders. Against Trump she'll be lauded as a feminist up to the point of burning witches.

I loathe Clinton for her hawkishness. Her imperialistic tendencies are evident in her unwavering support for and involvement with militaristic endeavors (such as the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya and her preference for "hard men with the guns" over silly diplomacy). Her involvement in the coup in Honduras is especially off putting. She's also adopted a very reckless and stand-offish attitude against Russia which almost makes me feel that the world would be a safer place with Trump at the helm. His isolationism (although admittedly something he wants to base on military strength) and lukewarm attitude towards Russia is less likely to plunge us into a world war financed by Mexico.

 

I'm certainly considering it, after my PhD.

Regarding all the Clinton stuff, it's pretty interesting. As I said I'm not really familiar with her, so I did appreciate the added perspective - especially for having an eye on the US election when it comes round.

Good morning.

I got too lazy to put a question mark already.

 

The last few days have been fantastic. I have seen an increase of people walking and getting fresh air thanks to the new Pokemon Go mobile application.

 

With all the talk about Pokémon Go, the main thing I'm thinking about is:

"I wonder what kind of Pokémon hangs out near my erect penis."

A pity I'll have to wait a while to find out in the UK.

With that food for thought, I bid you Good Morning.

 

Here's a relevant Reddit thread for you Jojo.

Good afternoon.

 

That's genuinely hilarious.

Good morning.

 

Write your reply...

 

Good evening.

 

I don't care what the news keeps telling me, that certainly doesn't seem like a "Nice terrorist attack".

Poor taste jokes aside, that attack is horrendous. I only just caught it on the news last night, now in the morning hearing an 80+ death toll is pretty horrific. It's crazy that a few years ago it would have been Britain islamic extremist terrorists would have been going after - now ever since that one Charlie Hebdo cartoon they're acting like France is the devil and must be burnt to the ground at all costs. It's unfortunate that this stuff keeps slipping through their intelligence services, on the flip side a massive lorry isn't going to ring any alarm bells in terms of looking for something suspicious.

Out of respect, and because I feel a bit guilty for the joke, I'll leave it at Morning today.

 

I don't think it's been confirmed that the attack had anything to do with islamic extremism. A local paper apparently claims that the perpetrator was a french citizen from Tunisia. Any religious motivation is pure speculation at this point. Hollande making a speech about islamic terrorism is a bit unfortunate. Especially since IS and the like are more than happy to take responsibility for their acts, which hasn't been done it this case.

Not saying anything about what it is or isn't, just saying that it's too soon to call it islamic terrorism in no uncertain terms.

Have a nice morning.

 

Yeah. I'd forgotten about Charlie Hebdo, so when I saw the news today I was like "Geez, what have they got against France recently?" Though as Ruda says my second thought was "This isn't really consistent with the usual Islamic terrorist acts." So it's probably too early to say anything about the motivations in this case.

Even in the broader picture I'm not sure that Charlie Hebdo has much to do with it - I expect that all of this kind of thing is more opportunistic. I don't think there is a terrorist leader somewhere saying "Now we will shift our focus to France". More likely there happened to be some French radicals who reached the right age and levels of indoctrination and expertise around this time, so now is when they did their thing.

Good mourning.

 

When does something become (or stop being) a terror attack?

 

I always thought terror attacks by definition had to have a broader cultural and ideological underpinning, they're not just done out of a general selfish desire to hurt people. In other words, if a person is acting on the perceived desires of a larger group then it would be a terror attack - so I'd say both the Nice and Dallas attacks definitely qualify (I'd imagine Micah Johnson still thought in someway he was doing right by the African American community, and wasn't motivated at least entirely by self-satisfaction).

I think the fact that they're termed "terror" attacks is also significant. While there may be a lot of psycho losers who want to mass murder and scare others, terrorist attacks are designed to provoke terror on a larger scale - so the whole world takes notice. They perpetrate their acts in such an obtrusive manner that they want to, in the literal sense of the word, terrorise people.

Apparently he was called Mohamed and he had "a beard". While I'm not a betting man, my money would be on islamic extremist.

Let's hope tomorrow might bring a Good Morning.

 

I think the UN definition is intended targeting of civilians. The perpetrator(s) also needs to have an agenda of sorts (intimidating governments, population and the like). After the rise of toughened anti-terrorism legislation a terrorist can sometimes be an individual disagreeing with the government and a group of such individuals demonstrating is sometimes known as a terror attack.

A terror attack used to require a member of the IRA to be involved. Nowadays, a muslim perpetrator is often a condition for a terror attack. If not, it's called the act of a sole, deranged individual such as Breivik (who admittedly is usually referred to as a terrorist today).

Today we could see the label being flimsily attached and then peeled off a few times. The news report (at least the few I watched) went through the following stages.

1. Knee-jerk reaction, many deaths = terrorism
2. No group claimed responsibility = not terrorism??
3. Perpetrator is a french citizen but from Tunisia = uncertain.
4. Tunisia --> muslim --> terrorism

Admittedly, I haven't glanced at the news in a few hours so I might be bit out of the loop. The point is: fuck the decline of journalism. I think.

 

There you go Ruda, with your astute UN definitions and incisive dissection of the shitty media circus that surrounded the attack. I mean, someone would have to be an idiot to just rattle off their own personal opinion without looking at those wider sources for something actually accurate first.

 

Morning.