Syrian Civil War Developments

[snapper]

Point is we are after Gadaffi why? For attacking his own people supposedly but isn't that what Assad is doing too? When then are we NOT afyer Assad?

[Doktor]

Point is we are after Gadaffi why? For attacking his own people supposedly but isn't that what Assad is doing too? When then are we NOT afyer Assad?

Someone is holding a grudge on the Col for Berlin, Lockerbie...
Assad is killing ONLY his own. For now.

[snapper]

So resolution 1973 was in fact incorrect? We are not there to protect civilians etc but to get someone for Lockerbie. Makes more sense...

[Doktor]

So resolution 1973 was in fact incorrect? We are not there to protect civilians etc but to get someone for Lockerbie. Makes more sense...

Resolution was correct. What is happening now is not according with that.

Can someone tell me if the helos are ground troops or air force?

[Double Edge]

Navy ;)

[Parihaka]

Point is we are after Gadaffi why? For attacking his own people supposedly but isn't that what Assad is doing too? When then are we NOT afyer Assad?

Because the Arab League is strongly opposed to intervention against Assad, whereas they were strongly insistent on Gaddafi being removed.

[dave lukins]

I think he means the Native Americans. Just guessing.

No he does not. He means the real Indians. The brown variety.

I dunno, to me that sentence structure lends itself to Native Americans and what the Americans did to them a coupla hundred years ago

Yes, it does indeed refer to the now called, Native Americans. vsdoc, we don't need others to pillage for us as we are quite capable of doing that ourselves thanks

[bigross86]

And that's Dave's take from the collective unconscious...

[dave lukins]

Because the Arab League is strongly opposed to intervention against Assad, whereas they were strongly insistent on Gaddafi being removed.

A case of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" ;)

[dave lukins]

And that's Dave's take from the collective unconscious...

Why should Jung have it all to himself

[vsdoc]

Yes, it does indeed refer to the now called, Native Americans. vsdoc, we don't need others to pillage for us as we are quite capable of doing that ourselves thanks

Yes we know Dave. But to be fair, you do leave behind some good things for the bluddy natives. Royal Enfields for one. ;)

[Chunder]

Not it is not. People don't really change all that much in a few hundred years. Its called the collective unconscious by Jung. Symbolic at best it may be, illogical not.

You don't prosecute the children for the fathers crimes. Collective Unconscious is rubbish in this context, the more precise definition is retribution.

Your seeking PENITENCE as a form of retribution from a collective that is removed. Using 70 years as an aggregate life span of the Briton, the events and political landscape has long since changed - and certainly in an argument put forward, that Britain as it stands today, may not comment because of actions committed from a Britain as it stood decades ago, is irrelevant. The assertion That Britain isn't a democratic state, and that as the people that live and die electing it are not fluid as they havn't changed that much (never mind it being the actions of another generation) as have the evolution of laws & politics that govern it and the reason those laws have been debated on & passed on the floor of parliament by the people the people themselves elect, isn't just obnoxious - it's ignorant. Juxtapose at your own peril.
Take any major Western, Eastern or African Nation over the past 2 Millenia and use that argument.

Your collective Unconscious definition isn't even appropriate. Why should Britain, if seeing a wrong, not be conscious of a wrong, based on a perceived wrong committed decades ago?! It is a very poorly understood field by psychiatrists when it comes to dealing with people who feel resentment for actions perpetrated by an entity that no longer exists, both in reality for the patient (the person feeling resentment towards the subject) that was never in contact, upon an entity that isn't responsible for another's actions - and that of the subject of the resentment themselves, who is completely powerless & at the whim of the forbearer. Im not suggesting your a mental patient, I am however suggesting you look at the picture objectively especially when it comes down to the individual.

Saying people are collectively unconscious because a government has failed to stand up and say sorry (for an act it didn't commit, and mindful that a request for reparations may well be made, from taxpayers dollars, paid by people who don't had anything to do with the actions of their forbears) and the evident incapacity to determine what reparations are necessary, and to what length and extent - can easily turn into moral usury.

[vsdoc]

You don't prosecute the children for the fathers crimes. Collective Unconscious is rubbish in this context, the more precise definition is retribution.

Your seeking PENITENCE as a form of retribution from a collective that is removed. Using 70 years as an aggregate life span of the Briton, the events and political landscape has long since changed - and certainly in an argument put forward, that Britain as it stands today, may not comment because of actions committed from a Britain as it stood decades ago, is irrelevant. The assertion That Britain isn't a democratic state, and that as the people that live and die electing it are not fluid as they havn't changed that much (never mind it being the actions of another generation) as have the evolution of laws & politics that govern it and the reason those laws have been debated on & passed on the floor of parliament by the people the people themselves elect, isn't just obnoxious - it's ignorant. Juxtapose at your own peril.
Take any major Western, Eastern or African Nation over the past 2 Millenia and use that argument.

Your collective Unconscious definition isn't even appropriate. Why should Britain, if seeing a wrong, not be conscious of a wrong, based on a perceived wrong committed decades ago?! It is a very poorly understood field by psychiatrists when it comes to dealing with people who feel resentment for actions perpetrated by an entity that no longer exists, both in reality for the patient (the person feeling resentment towards the subject) that was never in contact, upon an entity that isn't responsible for another's actions and that of the subject of the resentment, who is completely powerless & at the whim of the forbearer. Im not suggesting your a mental patient, I am however suggesting you look at the picture objectively especially when it comes down to the individual.

Errrrr Chunder ..... God save the Queen ..... and

God save the Commonwealth ...... and

Jai Hind.

[Chunder]

As a rather humerous aside - when my parents named me, the middle names they gave me, being the proud, thoughtful parents they were, gave me names from each side of the family they were proud of.

Unfortunately - One of them turned out to be a notorious Paedophile! Or at least so I am told. I never could live it down.

What reparations bill would I be paying on that asshole?!

[Chunder]

Errrrr Chunder ..... God save the Queen ..... and

God save the Commonwealth ...... and

Jai Hind.

lol :) I'm not altogether sure about there being a god. If there is I hope s/he thinks im a good bloke.