Well is it a world war yet?

Superman

---

British Forces Against Terror Land At Coast

---

Mar 26, 2002 (The Nation/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) -- The British Air Force has joined the German Navy in flying spy missions over Somalia in the ongoing war against terror.

Two Royal Air Force Canberra planes arrived in Mombasa at the weekend.

They based at the Moi International Airport from where they will carry out their mission for unspecified period.

The Press Officer at the British High Commission in Nairobi, Mr Mark Norton, said the planes would carry out reconnaissance missions in the "region".

He declined to reveal the exact part of the region but it is widely believed that they will be targeting Somalia whose area over the Indian Ocean is already covered by the German Navy spy planes.

The forces would remain in the region as long as it takes, he said.

The arrival of the planes followed that of a hired Russian Antonov transport plane that landed on Saturday with military hardware.

A day later, a contingent of about 140 Royal British Air Force troops arrived in Mombasa and booked in a beach hotel on the North Coast.

A spokesman for the German Navy Lt. Commander Frank Hansmann confirmed that they would be co-operating with the British in the spying missions

"As partners in Nato, we shall be working closely because we are here for the same mission," he said on telephone.

Lt Commander Hansmann said they had resumed their flights to the Horn of Africa yesterday after a three-day rest. The plane would be airborne for between eight and 12 hours, he added.

He said that during previous spying missions, they had made many "useful general contacts" about the vessels plying in the area.

On why they had surrounded their hotel with razor wire, Lt Commander Hannsmann said it was a purely military precaution to secure their areas of operations.

"First we secured the airport and now we have done the same with the area where we are lodging ... this is a purely military procedure," he said.


Copyright The Nation. Distributed by All Africa Global Media(AllAfrica.com)


KEYWORD: Kenya


Copyright © 2002, AllAfrica.com, all rights reserved.

mike65

I just think its great that British and German armies are fighting on the same side...:)

...booked into a beach hotel? are you sure they're there for the war?

Mike.

dahamsta

I just think its great that British and German armies are fighting on the same side...

I think it's a shame that humanity feels a need to fight at all. It's pathetic.

adam

Boston

Originally posted by dahamsta
I just think its great that British and German armies are fighting on the same side...

I think it's a shame that humanity feels a need to fight at all. It's pathetic.

adam

thems fighting words

JustHalf

Is it not only a World War when two major nations go against each other?

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by JustHalf
Is it not only a World War when two major nations go against each other?

I think its when many nations go to war against eachother

Lemming

Originally posted by Mr.Applepie


I think its when many nations go to war against eachother

T'is a world war when fighting spans several continents.

WWI - Europe, The Eastern Med (Turkey), etc.

WW2 - the whole bloody planet practically.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
I just think its great that British and German armies are fighting on the same side...

I think it's a shame that humanity feels a need to fight at all. It's pathetic.

adam

Geez, will you get over your utopian world pipe dream? Wars happen. "War is the natural extension of diplomacy." Always has been, always will be.

DeVore

I think the phrase you were looking for is:
"War is the continuation of politics by another means".

I think the universal rules against matter residing in the same place at the same time, the transfer of kinetic energy between objects and our genetic predisposition to take whatever helps us to the detriment of others, pretty much guaruntees that there will always be violence between humans.


DeV.

azezil

I know this is a horrible thing to say but i think war is necessary, not because it solves anything, but becuase people die!

Think of it this way, if there was no war, famine, disease and everyone had enough food to eat, good living conditions, there's no way the Earth could sustain us for very long.

Death is necessary so that the strong may survive and flurish.

Irish_Ranger_IR

Originally posted by azezil
I know this is a horrible thing to say but i think war is necessary, not because it solves anything, but becuase people die!

Think of it this way, if there was no war, famine, disease and everyone had enough food to eat, good living conditions, there's no way the Earth could sustain us for very long.

Death is necessary so that the strong may survive and flurish.

Nature has a funny way of trying to even things out, Azezil is right in saying that, if there was no war, the world would be crowded place, what happens there? More people living happy, but for how long? No where on earth is ever happy, this could not happen, it never has and never will. War goes with Peace, better medicine more disease, with no ww1 or ww2, there would less technoligy, there would be no computers, as they were invented to decode german messages, not to say that they would have never been invented, they would have, if there was no ww2, attom power would not be invented, the list is endless, so in an Ironic world, war is good for industry, technoligy, inventions, jobs, brings ppl together, of course theres death, but in the end we all die, the important thing is how we live.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by DeVore
I think the phrase you were looking for is:
"War is the continuation of politics by another means".

I think the universal rules against matter residing in the same place at the same time, the transfer of kinetic energy between objects and our genetic predisposition to take whatever helps us to the detriment of others, pretty much guaruntees that there will always be violence between humans.


DeV.

Bravo DeVore. Couldn't quite remember, but the meaning is the same. And yes, war isn't going anywhere for a long, long time.

Sand

Azeil youre talking along the lines of Malthuas there. Suffice to say his theory is not bourne out by empirical evidence, though large population growth rates are associated with (empirically and by the solow model) poorer countries.

dathi1

Well if you're investing in Military stocks the future looks rosey..Lockheed up / AT&T up / GEC Plessey up. This is what its all about. Bush looks happy.

Victor

Originally posted by Irish_Ranger_IR
war is good for industry, technoligy, inventions, jobs, brings ppl together, of course theres death, but in the end we all die, the important thing is how we live.

OK, let us say you employ 100 (or 100,000 or 100,000,000) workers and one (or 1,000 or 1,000,000) soldier. The one soldier can destroy the work of ten workers. It takes the surplus resources of a further 10 workers to pay for the soldier and his equipment.

You go to war, you double your army (to 2). Work force is reduced by 1. Your enemy (army also 2) destroys 20% of your annual production (20 workers). The military consumes the work of 20 workers. The war now accounts for about 42% of potential production.

Put your resources to better use please.

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by Victor

OK, let us say you employ 100 (or 100,000 or 100,000,000) workers and one (or 1,000 or 1,000,000) soldier. The one soldier can destroy the work of ten workers. It takes the surplus resources of a further 10 workers to pay for the soldier and his equipment.

You go to war, you double your army (to 2). Work force is reduced by 1. Your enemy (army also 2) destroys 20% of your annual production (20 workers). The military consumes the work of 20 workers. The war now accounts for about 42% of potential production.

Put your resources to better use please.

Ah economics is there anything it can't explain?

Fair point though victor. Never looked at it that way

Irish_Ranger_IR

1 American plane with 1 rocket wiped out a factory, 100 miles away, and destroys the work of 10,000 workers SO?

You go to war, you double your army (to 2). Work force is reduced by 1

work force is never reduced, as men go to war, women take over the men's jobs, it always happens, look at ww2, women made tanks, shells, bullets, clothes, planes, and so much more, children can be used for small work, if necessary, not everyone that fights in war dies, and not everyone in the army fights,

Your enemy (army also 2) destroys 20% of your annual production (20 workers)

And you destroys there's, so you both are even!

What you are talking about?

ReefBreak

Bravo DeVore. Couldn't quite remember, but the meaning is the same. And yes, war isn't going anywhere for a long, long time.

Personally, I believe that globalisation is the best way to minimise the threat of world war. The anti-gloabisation movement will obviously see it differently - but they'd be too busy protesting and engaging in "civil disobedience" to see the bigger picture.

ykt0di9url7bc3

wait till democracy collapses then we're all in trouble...


war is here until every country is content in its needs...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by SearrarD
wait till democracy collapses then we're all in trouble...

Speak for yourself, I welcome our insect overlords...

war is here until every country is content in its needs...

War is eternal then?

Sand

War can make sense from a political point of view. It makes very little sense from an overall economic point of view (Yeah arms manufacturers will do well from it but theyre not the economy)- assuming of course open economies. It pretty much will be eternal due to politicial differences.

Terran

It's not a World War. It's that simple. No.

yellum

Originally posted by mike65
I just think its great that British and German armies are fighting on the same side...:)

...booked into a beach hotel? are you sure they're there for the war?

Armed Brits and Germans in a hotel environment. Oooooh the race to put your towel on a sun lounger just turned deadly. Victorian cross awarded for injuries sustained in placing the Union Jack Towel on the sun lounger.

dahamsta

Geez, will you get over your utopian world pipe dream? Wars happen. "War is the natural extension of diplomacy." Always has been, always will be.

Just because "wars happen" doesn't make them acceptable. If you accept war, you are by extension accepting murder, rape, child abuse and every other crime against humanity and the person.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming of peace and humanity and trying to achieve them, even if it's only with words. If you think it's wrong to express a "utopian world pipe dream", you're no better than the warmongers. You represent all that's wrong with humanity.

Your thinking is vile, I detest people like you.

[EDIT: This was a bit OTT, I apologise. I just wish that people would let others express their opinion without jumping in and trying to ridicule them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My decision to have a "utopian world pipe dream" isn't exactly an earth-shattering troll. If you disagree with me, fine, but how about just stating that, instead of telling me to "get over it"?]

adam

mike65

Methinks Adam is grandstanding a little.

Far be it for me to speak for Gargoyle but I don't think he was suggestjng war is acceptable merely an inevitable side-effect of humanity.

Mike.

dahamsta

Adam gets annoyed when people belittle his right to have a strong opinion on something as objectionable as war.

There is no doubt that there is a part of humanity that is obsessed with violence, war and anger. Every single person on the planet has this contained within them in my view, it's just that some people control it better than others. Me, I had a ferocious temper when I was younger - still do - but I don't let it extend to violence any more, because I recognise it as wrong, a sickness that needs to be cured. I'm not looking for credit for this, because I feel it is my duty to control my anger.

War, violence and anger should never be accepted or even played down "because that's the way people are". To equate it with war itself, it's a daily battle that it is our duty to fight. If we don't, it will continue. The only way to change humanity's view of war, violence and anger is to accept our weaknesses and try to fix them. Not accept them as something that just is, and won't change. It's the opposite of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". We're broke, we have to fix ourselves.

The only war that should be accepted by humanity is our own war against ourselves.

adam

The Corinthian

What a curious point of view - violence as a sickness. What if violence is not the aberration but the natural state of man? What if conflict is at the centre of what defines us?

I think such a revelation might throw a spanner in the civic works of Utopia...

"Don't tell me violence doesn't solve anything. Look at Carthage." - Robert Heinlein

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What if violence is not the aberration but the natural state of man?

Then why do we _work_ so bloody hard to get food on the table and a roof over our heads. We use our resources positively, collectively to improve ourselves and each other.

War is the antithesis of what we spend 99% of our time doing. Hardly our definition.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
Then why do we _work_ so bloody hard to get food on the table and a roof over our heads. We use our resources positively, collectively to improve ourselves and each other.

When we work we are not only performing a function, we are competing. Sport, acquisition of wealth or knowledge, finding or keeping a mate, even Quake are all competitive pursuits. What is violence, but the most extreme affirmation of competition?

Perhaps then the extreme is the aberration, but only because we suppress it.

Whatever, just a thought. In the end:

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 34. War is good for business.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 35. Peace is good for business.

dahamsta

I don't know anything about Utopia, Carthage or Heinlein, so I'm not qualified to comment. I can only assume that the reference is to a situation where violence created a victory that is accepted by the majority as right, though, and I don't deny that in war, this happens -- although I won't get into specific examples because that will take us even more off-topic. But who's to say that the result would not have been the same without war?

My point is that I believe that we should be working towards resolving our differences without having to resort to war and violence. In this particular case, I believe that the leaders are letting revenge come before what's right for their people. I believe that far more progress is and will be made if people will just sit down and talk to each other. Of course, wars of words will ensue but it is up to us to brush it off, or fight back with our own words. But not with guns.

I realise that my "utopian world pipe dream", is unrealistic in the present tense, something that will not happen in my lifetime. But it's my view that we should at least try to work towards that pipe dream, insteading of putting a check in the box marked "violent" under "humanity". Some people seem willing to just accept humanity as violent and move on. I can't do that.

adam

Clintons Cat

it will probally get shot full of more holes than general custers hat but....

I challenge the notion that War is good for innovation.


The major scientific discoveries and inventions of the last twenty years have been made in regions conspicuous by their LACK of war, USA,Western Europe,Japan and to a lesser extent China.
Meanwhile regions that have had major regional instability and civil wars notably the middle east,central africa and central america have fallen behind in both wealth,health and technology.
Take a look at what twenty years of continual war have done to afganistan or somalia or uganda or lebonon.

yellum

One shot...

Uhm, hasn't the USA and UK been involved in a good few wars in the past twenty years ? Their war machines have constantly been going.

We have the internet thanks to arpanet a military network. We have gps because of the american military. Military sponsored research has given us a lot in the past twenty years.

Adam, you need to read fightclub. I admire you're beliefs but humanity is still at the level where only when violence is used and people and property destroyed and damaged do governments and people sit up and take notice.

After that the negotiations begin.

Typedef

Most of you are wrong on several different levels.

War is endemic of the human's psyche's slavery to the id. If humans were more evolved there would be less violence, for example in our primate cousins interpersonal conflicts are regularly (especially in chimpanzees) resolved by physical conflict. The tendancy in human society is for democratic resolution of interpersonal conflicts by an entity called the state. Now groupings of humans 'states' fight in much the same way our primate cousins fight for control of terroritories and resources, however once humanity evolves and technology advances sufficiently to propell humans into the cosmos we will more than likely encounter other space faring lifeforms and more than likely these lifeforms will be pretty hostile.
Therefore once humans reach into space, we humans will have to unify because we will more than likely come face to face with spacefaring races who are extremely hostile because of Darwinian notions of survival of the fittest either humans will eventually supplant these other races or will come to be exterminated by these other space faring lifeforms.

Much the same thing happend to Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Erectus when Homo Sapiens spread out from Africa, the competing groupings of humans vied fro resources, 'possibly' made 'war' on each other and eventually Homo Sapiens became the only species of homonid on the planet. Therefore one day it will not be intra species warfare as humans are preiodically preoccupied with now, but inter species, interstellar warfare.
It is this kind of reasoning that has led leading thinkers in human society such as Stephen Hawking to call for humans to begin to genetically reengineer themselves to be as smart as strong and as physically resiliant and as long living as science can make, so that when it comes time for our species to compete with other high technology species, we have the best 'Darwinian' chance we can give ourselves.

Typedef.

Clintons Cat

(re britain and americas wars)
One thing that typifies these wars is the inability of the enemy to strike back directly at either Britain or America.
Wars like memories grow better the futher away they are.
Unfortunately Tony Blair seems to love these kinds of wars,heaven help us if we ever pick on a nation that has developed the ability to hit London using manly weapons like tanks,artillery,bombers,fighters and missiles,not cowardly weapons like suicide bombers and civillian aircraft .
War sucks.

mike65

Originally posted by Typedef

...however once humanity evolves and technology advances sufficiently to propell humans into the cosmos we will more than likely encounter other space faring lifeforms and more than likely these lifeforms will be pretty hostile.
Therefore once humans reach into space, we humans will have to unify because we will more than likely come face to face with spacefaring races who are extremely hostile....
Typedef.

Bloody hell Typedef, you don't want to delete that
section do you?
The chances of coming face to face with alien life form that are sufficently evolved to communicate with on any level are soooo small as to not be worth even considering.

Anyway we'd win - we have Hollywood on our side.

Mike.

Typedef

You make a valid point.

The other possibility is that humans will spread throughout the galaxy and in a Asimovian Foundation like model will begin interstellar pan Galatic war at frist between the strong spacer colonies and the earth, but then eventaully against Trantor like superpower power bases.
Fortunately the robots will be looking out for us.

Typedef.

mike65

Actally thats' a lot more likely if still in the far future, btw I should have noted in my post that we may not be sufficently evolved to comunicate with any other species either!

Mike.

dahamsta

Uhm, hasn't the USA and UK been involved in a good few wars in the past twenty years ? Their war machines have constantly been going. We have the internet thanks to arpanet a military network. We have gps because of the american military. Military sponsored research has given us a lot in the past twenty years.

Well, what about NASA? They've given us a hefty chunk of innovation since their inception, a good chunk of which wasn't driven by military applications, but our curiosity, our natural instinct to explore. How about the World-Wide Web, which was conceived by Tim Berners-Lee in CERN, and nearly didn't come to fruition at all because he was supposed to be working on the particle accelerators? It really only came to fruition because Berners-Lee said to his bosses: "Look, this is a really good idea, how about turning a blind eye to my development work?"

This is really difficult to argue, because the natural response is: How do we know that that these innovations wouldn't have come about in another way if we didn't have this natural preponderence to scrap? Couldn't ARPANET just as easily have been created as a network for communication between businesses? The argument against that is that businesses would have tried to keep a tighter control on it, but who has a tighter control over things than the government? Again though, it's difficult to argue, it becomes more of a discussion on the existance or non-existance of fate than anything else.

But here's one final example to tickle you though: Public/private key cryptography. Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman (Diffie-Hellman) are credited with inventing public/private key cryptography in the mid-seventies. (Another man, Ralph Merkle, is all but forgotten, although he played a critical part in this. Also, Diffie-Hellman invented just the concept of public/private key cryptography; it was Ronald Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman that actually came up with a working implementation of it (RSA).)

However, almost in parallel with the work being done in the "public domain" above, the UK's GCHQ (Government Communications HeadQuarters) was starting to get ticked off with the key distribution problem, and started looking for a solution that would boost security and cut the cost of key distribution (in the old days, all keys had to be delivered in person by agents, which added up to quite a lot). And so James Ellis, Clifford Cocks and Malcolm Williamson invented public/private key cryptography too, shortly (very shortly) before it was invented in the US.

So, in this example, the military application beat the public domain example, but only just. Both implementations were developed almost in parallel, and critically, the military application was hidden from the public until just five years ago, when Clifford Cocks gave a talk on it in 1997. In fact, the British government battled Cocks on this, they didn't want him to give the talk at all. If it hadn't been for Diffie, Hellman, Merckle, Rivest, Shamir and Adleman, Phil Zimmerman wouldn't be releasing PGP until round about now.

Again, this is an arguable example, because there is no doubt that the drive to protect communications stems from our preponderence to fight. But the critical factor here is something that may be being misunderstood: I don't think humanity should stop fighting, period; I think humanity should stop fighting with physical violence. Earth would be a very boring place to live if we never disagreed, never argued, and never stamped our little feet and sulked. But it would be a far more productive and happy place if we all agreed to stop shooting, stabbing and blowing one another up.

Adam, you need to read fightclub. I admire you're beliefs but humanity is still at the level where only when violence is used and people and property destroyed and damaged do governments and people sit up and take notice. After that the negotiations begin.

Well, I /saw/ Fight Club, but I'm not sure it's the same thing. And I'm not disagreeing with the notion that humanity is at this level. My point is, again, that we should not accept this, whether implicitly or explicitly, we should battle against it. There is a preponderence in people to say, just as has been said above, that "that's the way we are". It is the way we are, but we should recognise that our preponderence to fight (with violence) is a flaw, and what do you do with flaws? You fix them. We should always keep that flaw in the back of our mind, and always use our minds as our primary weapon.

adam

yellum

Most of NASAs work is done for the military.

And I agree that our violent tendencies are a flaw, but what can you do if not using violence doesn't work ?

king of fifa

as the hippies used to say :make love not war man

azezil

gee's Typedef you're a bigger sci-fi nerd than me ROFL!

handyandy

Originally posted by yellum
Adam, you need to read fightclub. I admire you're beliefs but humanity is still at the level where only when violence is used and people and property destroyed and damaged do governments and people sit up and take notice.

I have not read the book (seen the film about 6 times), but are you espousing the theories of a guy suffering from (movie

)split personality disorder

/ sleep deprivation / chronic depression and sociopathic / psychopathic / megalomaniac tendancies?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
Geez, will you get over your utopian world pipe dream? Wars happen. "War is the natural extension of diplomacy." Always has been, always will be.

Just because "wars happen" doesn't make them acceptable. If you accept war, you are by extension accepting murder, rape, child abuse and every other crime against humanity and the person.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming of peace and humanity and trying to achieve them, even if it's only with words. If you think it's wrong to express a "utopian world pipe dream", you're no better than the warmongers. You represent all that's wrong with humanity.

Your thinking is vile, I detest people like you.

Nice rant there. I never said I liked war or wanted war, only that it is ridiculous to think it is escapable. The rest of your post is unworthy of a response, except I will respond to:

Originally posted by dahamsta

Your thinking is vile, I detest people like you.

It is people like you who appeased Hitler and caused the deaths of millions by their inaction and cowardice. You detest me? Good on you. If someone such as yourself did not detest me, I would think I was doing something wrong. :cool:

dahamsta

Try reading the rest of the post Gargoyle.

Blaming "someone such as myself" for the evils of Hitler and the Nazis is mind-boggling. Do you blame conscientious objectors for the atrocities that took place in Vietnam? Even the atrocities committed by U.S. grunts?

A conscientious objector is not the same thing as a coward.

adam

handyandy

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I never said I liked war or wanted war, only that it is ridiculous to think it is escapable.

But on a different plane, taxes are also inescapable, but everyone tends to do their damndest to pay as little as possible.

king_of_inismac

so in an Ironic world, war is good for industry, technoligy, inventions, jobs, brings ppl together, of course theres death, but in the end we all die, the important thing is how we live.

This is what I regard as a rather flippant dissregard for the human suffering and tragedy involved in global warfare.Would you be so, if you were fighting in the battle of the somme?

July 20, 1918

My own beloved wife

I do not know how to start this letter. The circumstances are different from any under which I ever wrote before. I am not to post it but will leave it in my pocket, if anything happens to me someone will perhaps post it. We are going over the top this afternoon and only God in Heaven knows who will come out of it alive.

I am in his hands and whatever happens I will look to him in this world and the world to come. If I am called my regret is that I leave you and my bairns. I go to him with your dear face the last vision on earth I shall see and your name upon my lips, you the best of women. You will look after by Darling Bairns for me and tell them how their daddy died. james Milne (1896-1915)

Sharkey

Originally posted by yellum
Most of NASAs work is done for the military.

Having contracted to NASA and worked on various projects in the past, including the Hubble Space Telescope, I can tell you that this statement is pure trash.

At most, NASA provides the occasional launch vehicle to put a few military satellites in orbit (So have the Chinese and ESA). However, military satellites are not built by NASA. Neither are missiles.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
Try reading the rest of the post Gargoyle.

Blaming "someone such as myself" for the evils of Hitler and the Nazis is mind-boggling.
adam

I'm not placing blame for the evils of Hitler, etc. I'm saying that people such as you aided their cause.

Originally posted by dahamsta
Do you blame conscientious objectors for the atrocities that took place in Vietnam? Even the atrocities committed by U.S. grunts?

No.

Originally posted by dahamsta
A conscientious objector is not the same thing as a coward.

I never said it was.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dahamsta
A conscientious objector is not the same thing as a coward.

"When they came for the Jews, I was not a Jew and so I did not speak. When they came for the Catholics, I was not a Catholic and so I said nothing. When they came for the homosexuals, I was not a homosexual and again, I said nothing. But when they came for me, there was no one left to speak."

But to refuse to act often comes close to it, Adam...

Von

Originally posted by The Corinthian

"When they came for the Jews, I was not a Jew and so I did not speak. When they came for the Catholics, I was not a Catholic and so I said nothing. When they came for the homosexuals, I was not a homosexual and again, I said nothing. But when they came for me, there was no one left to speak."

But to refuse to act often comes close to it, Adam...

That your own version of Niemoller's quote is it? This is the more common one :-

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

And this is reputed to be the correct one.

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Did you speak out about the raid on the Genoa Social Forum when people were beaten in their sleeping bags, taken to jail, tortured, humiliated and forced to sing fascist songs in rooms with pictures of Mussolini on the walls?

"I will be misquoted by idiots." Martin Niemoller

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
That your own version of Niemoller's quote is it?

No, it’s just the first one I found when I did a quick Google for it.

And this is reputed to be the correct one.

Reputed by who? Not that it makes any difference, as the exact text does not change the context in which I quoted.

Did you speak out about the raid on the Genoa Social Forum when people were beaten in their sleeping bags, taken to jail, tortured, humiliated and forced to sing fascist songs in rooms with pictures of Mussolini on the walls?

Of course I did, I laughed at the irony of their finally finding the ‘Fascists’ they were so intent on ‘fighting’. Don’t ask me to feel sympathy for anarchists.

"I will be misquoted by idiots." Martin Niemoller

LOL. And where is your source for that quote Von?