|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2020 12:40:31 GMT 1
I think some people are getting a bit confused over the defund the police thing.
Some are calling for the police in the US to be disbanded, but the vast majority just want some of the money that is spent on buying things like armoured cars, assault rifles and grenade launchers be spent on ways to cut crime instead. Social workers, youth engagement, civil rights, etc.
I just checked for a random city in the US and decided on Des Moines in Iowa. It has a population roughly equal to Telford and Bridgnorth combined. The Police Department in the city itself has a budget of over $70m for this financial year. That is 39% of the entire city's budget. The Fire Department comes in 2nd with 23%. That leaves 38% for everything else, libraries and community development get around 4% each, Civil and Human rights got less than 1%.
If you add into the city police the County Sherrif budget and the State Police budget which share the juristiction there is an even bigger problem.
These are the discrepencies that the BLM movement want to end.
|
|
|
Post by blamber on Jul 2, 2020 16:54:50 GMT 1
I think some people are getting a bit confused over the defund the police thing.
Some are calling for the police in the US to be disbanded, but the vast majority just want some of the money that is spent on buying things like armoured cars, assault rifles and grenade launchers be spent on ways to cut crime instead. Social workers, youth engagement, civil rights, etc.
I just checked for a random city in the US and decided on Des Moines in Iowa. It has a population roughly equal to Telford and Bridgnorth combined. The Police Department in the city itself has a budget of over $70m for this financial year. That is 39% of the entire city's budget. The Fire Department comes in 2nd with 23%. That leaves 38% for everything else, libraries and community development get around 4% each, Civil and Human rights got less than 1%.
If you add into the city police the County Sherrif budget and the State Police budget which share the juristiction there is an even bigger problem.
These are the discrepencies that the BLM movement want to end.
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on Jul 2, 2020 16:57:29 GMT 1
It's quite clear actually.
Just read what BLM say in the UK. They say they are raising funds for โDeveloping and delivering training, police monitoring and strategies for the abolition of policeโ.
|
|
|
Post by blamber on Jul 2, 2020 17:08:55 GMT 1
And their aim to dismantle capitalism is going end the discrepancies of greed and inequality? To be replaced by what? Communism? Where everyone lives miserably and the ruling party feed off corruption and are obscenely wealthy? Or perhaps a radical new socialist model like Venezuela where there are now no pubic services to speak of, people are starving and the dictatorial president makes all the decisions. No thanks. Oh, and then there's the small matter of BLM wanting to abolish prisons - no doubt to iron out the discrepancy that criminals have the right to their freedom. BLM are a hard left organisation that want power for themselves. They are NOT a modern day Robin Hood simply striving for a fairer society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 19:28:42 GMT 1
Slavery wasn't genocide, because there are so many damn blacks in Africa.
Darren Grimes, Tory poster boy, just nods and doesn't challenge him.
I wonder what might have been said if he was talking about Jewish people.
Interesting point about the slave trade being part of the start of globalisation.
There are winners and losers in capitalism. No need to guess who the losers were, and who might feel are losing now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 20:07:33 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 20:15:56 GMT 1
/photo/1
Just in case people have forgotten.
These are the 'holds' the Israeli security service said they don't use.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jul 2, 2020 20:48:27 GMT 1
/photo/1 Just in case people have forgotten. These are the 'holds' the Israeli security service said they don't use. remind us why they are being held ? it kind of matters at times ? are these regular or are they isolated occurrences ? how long where those positions held for ? they could be suspected suicide bombers or petty shoplifters ? if they are closer to the first description, then in our country we tend to blow their heads off instead of put our knee on it, even if it turns out they were totally innocent
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 3, 2020 7:11:44 GMT 1
The Israelis stated that โthere is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airwayโ. So if they do not instruct or train their own police to use such a technique then it would be a push to think they would be training other police forces in it. And there appears to be no proof whatsoever that this training technique was included in any training or collaboration between US and Israeli police. I would urge people to read this...
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 3, 2020 7:46:25 GMT 1
Starkey needs to clarify why he said what he said and he needs to make an apology. I agree with his opinion that slavery was not and is not genocide but the words he used to express that opinion were simply unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 8:01:01 GMT 1
The Israelis stated that โthere is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airwayโ. So if they do not instruct or train their own police to use such a technique then it would be a push to think they would be training other police forces in it. And there appears to be no proof whatsoever that this training technique was included in any training or collaboration between US and Israeli police. I would urge people to read this...
There are apparantly rules in place to prevent armed soldiers, entering a school during school times.
There are also laws about the age of criminal responsibility being for 12 years olds upwards.
Here's a video of both of being broken and Israeli soldiers pushing teachers with gun barrels.
Any statement by the Israeli security services needs to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 8:12:42 GMT 1
Starkey needs to clarify why he said what he said and he needs to make an apology. I agree with his opinion that slavery was not and is not genocide but the words he used to express that opinion were simply unacceptable. Just because not every black person died it wasn't a genocide?
There are around 15m Jews in the world, would that mean that the holocaust wasn't genocide?
Just because the failure to wipe out whole sections of the worlds population isn't 100% successful doesn't make it any less of a genocide.
No apology is ever going to cut it.
Any respect I had for you disappeared in those 13 words.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 3, 2020 9:55:18 GMT 1
Slavery wasn't genocide. It was about exploitation not extermination. Slave owners didn't want to destroy their 'property'.
|
|
|
Post by salop18 on Jul 3, 2020 9:56:08 GMT 1
Starkey needs to clarify why he said what he said and he needs to make an apology. I agree with his opinion that slavery was not and is not genocide but the words he used to express that opinion were simply unacceptable. Just because not every black person died it wasn't a genocide?
There are around 15m Jews in the world, would that mean that the holocaust wasn't genocide?
Just because the failure to wipe out whole sections of the worlds population isn't 100% successful doesn't make it any less of a genocide.
No apology is ever going to cut it.
Any respect I had for you disappeared in those 13 words.
Think near enough everybody on this board lost respect for you when you condoned a terrorist attack in Reading. You have no right to take the moral high ground, fascist.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jul 3, 2020 9:58:22 GMT 1
The slave trade relied on enough of them surviving to make the money.
Of course that is different to ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust.
But the fact so many of them did die does make it genocide. The fact that it was in some way a byproduct of an industrial system shows just how dehumanised the slaves were.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 10:09:49 GMT 1
Just because not every black person died it wasn't a genocide?
There are around 15m Jews in the world, would that mean that the holocaust wasn't genocide?
Just because the failure to wipe out whole sections of the worlds population isn't 100% successful doesn't make it any less of a genocide.
No apology is ever going to cut it.
Any respect I had for you disappeared in those 13 words.
Think near enough everybody on this board lost respect for you when you condoned a terrorist attack in Reading. You have no right to take the moral high ground, fascist. I think you need to check your facts owd lad. I did not condone it. I stated that the person involved might have felt that he had a justification for it. Big difference.
Isn't it funny how pretty much everyone was on board with Islamists playing their part in the downfall of Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi, but are surprised when they turn on the West. We played our part in destroying those countries and some of the people from those countries might feel that they are justified to attack us.
I think you'll find that I'm a lot further from the path to fascism than you are. Unless of course you are going to go down the usual right wing route and try to tell me that Hitler was a socialist.
|
|
|
BLM badge
Jul 3, 2020 10:44:18 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by martinshrew on Jul 3, 2020 10:44:18 GMT 1
Think near enough everybody on this board lost respect for you when you condoned a terrorist attack in Reading. You have no right to take the moral high ground, fascist. I think you need to check your facts owd lad. I did not condone it. I stated that the person involved might have felt that he had a justification for it. Big difference.
Isn't it funny how pretty much everyone was on board with Islamists playing their part in the downfall of Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi, but are surprised when they turn on the West. We played our part in destroying those countries and some of the people from those countries might feel that they are justified to attack us.
I think you'll find that I'm a lot further from the path to fascism than you are. Unless of course you are going to go down the usualย right wing route and try to tell me that Hitler was a socialist.
There is no justification for butchering three people to death in broad daylight. Just admit your comments were disgusting. You're not wired up properly.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 3, 2020 10:53:58 GMT 1
The slave trade relied on enough of them surviving to make the money. Of course that is different to ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust. But the fact so many of them did die does make it genocide. The fact that it was in some way a byproduct of an industrial system shows just how dehumanised the slaves were. I guess we see it differently. As already mentioned above, slavery is about exploitation not extermination. Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people, to eradicate them. Hence we look to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust. Both genocide and slavery are abhorrent of course but I think you can and need to differentiate between the two.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 10:58:15 GMT 1
I think you need to check your facts owd lad. I did not condone it. I stated that the person involved might have felt that he had a justification for it. Big difference.
Isn't it funny how pretty much everyone was on board with Islamists playing their part in the downfall of Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi, but are surprised when they turn on the West. We played our part in destroying those countries and some of the people from those countries might feel that they are justified to attack us.
I think you'll find that I'm a lot further from the path to fascism than you are. Unless of course you are going to go down the usual right wing route and try to tell me that Hitler was a socialist.
There is no justification for butchering three people to death in broad daylight. Just admit your comments were disgusting. You're not wired up properly. I never said there was a justification ,because there wasn't any. I said that he may have felt that he had the justification.
As it happens there was no real justification for us invading Iraq or taking sides in Libya either.
Two wrongs have never made a right and never will, but there are still too many people that still believe in the old 'eye for an eye' bullsh*t.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 11:07:33 GMT 1
Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people, to eradicate them.
Would it be classed as genocide to remove all of the healthy people from their villages and leave the weak, elderly and infirm to die and then take those healthy people thousands of miles away, force a completely different language and religion on to them and force them to work or die? Their whole village will be gone, their whole history will be gone, their language and religion will be gone. How is that not genocide when there is no trace left of their former lives? Their whole existance prior to being taken has been eradicated.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jul 3, 2020 11:09:48 GMT 1
I think you need to check your facts owd lad. I did not condone it. I stated that the person involved might have felt that he had a justification for it. Big difference.
Isn't it funny how pretty much everyone was on board with Islamists playing their part in the downfall of Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi, but are surprised when they turn on the West. We played our part in destroying those countries and some of the people from those countries might feel that they are justified to attack us.
I think you'll find that I'm a lot further from the path to fascism than you are. Unless of course you are going to go down the usual right wing route and try to tell me that Hitler was a socialist.
There is no justification for butchering three people to death in broad daylight. Just admit your comments were disgusting. You're not wired up properly. it was clear to me that Neil was not trying to justify those murders but simply explain why that bloke might have flipped seems to me that the latest game we play in this country is to try and twist someones social media comments to mean something else come on we are better than that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:09:00 GMT 1
Slavery wasn't genocide. It was about exploitation not extermination. Slave owners didn't want to destroy their 'property'. Slaves only became 'property' when they were bought. There is much debate about how slaves were treated once in the hands of their owners. Some owners were happy to work them to death and replace them with more, others more 'care'. Black people were seen as sub-human and not worthy of being classed 'race'. It's what happened before that's the talking point and how much market forces dictated the trade. We need to stop looking at black Africans as an homogeneous group. Many indigenous groups were wiped out during the 300 years of the slave trade. Particularly groups on the coast. Those not fit to work were murdered. When demand increased slavers went inland again wiping out whole indigenous groups and only taking those fit to work. Many died on the middle passage. The ships were packed for volume with the view that there would be enough to turn a profit at the end. In many ways it can be compared to the Nazi genocide of Jewish peoples. Some were worked to death, some were murdered straight away.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jul 3, 2020 12:17:11 GMT 1
/photo/1 Just in case people have forgotten. These are the 'holds' the Israeli security service said they don't use. remind us why they are being held ? it kind of matters at times ? are these regular or are they isolated occurrences ? how long where those positions held for ? they could be suspected suicide bombers or petty shoplifters ? if they are closer to the first description, then in our country we tend to blow their heads off instead of put our knee on it, even if it turns out they were totally innocent they chose to ignore it !
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jul 3, 2020 12:33:09 GMT 1
The slave trade relied on enough of them surviving to make the money. Of course that is different to ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust. But the fact so many of them did die does make it genocide. The fact that it was in some way a byproduct of an industrial system shows just how dehumanised the slaves were. I guess we see it differently. As already mentioned above, slavery is about exploitation not extermination. Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people, to eradicate them. Hence we look to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust. Both genocide and slavery are abhorrent of course but I think you can and need to differentiate between the two.
Slavery may have been about exploitation but if extermination was a large scale outcome does it make a difference?
Of course it does in motive, but if it doesn't in practice then it is definitely a grey area.
I totally agree it is trying to distinguish which type of horror is the worst.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 3, 2020 13:11:29 GMT 1
I guess we see it differently. As already mentioned above, slavery is about exploitation not extermination. Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people, to eradicate them. Hence we look to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Holocaust. Both genocide and slavery are abhorrent of course but I think you can and need to differentiate between the two.
Slavery may have been about exploitation but if extermination was a large scale outcome does it make a difference?
Of course it does in motive, but if it doesn't in practice then it is definitely a grey area.
I totally agree it is trying to distinguish which type of horror is the worst.
I guess if you mean and want to enslave and exploit a people then you will not aim to exterminate them. As there would then be no one to exploit. I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a huge amount of suffering for those who have been enslaved but with that said, I still see it differing to genocide. But understand if others may see it differently.๐
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 3, 2020 13:59:52 GMT 1
Slavery may have been about exploitation but if extermination was a large scale outcome does it make a difference?
Of course it does in motive, but if it doesn't in practice then it is definitely a grey area.
I totally agree it is trying to distinguish which type of horror is the worst.
I guess if you mean and want to enslave and exploit a people then you will not aim to exterminate them. As there would then be no one to exploit. I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a huge amount of suffering for those who have been enslaved but with that said, I still see it differing to genocide. But understand if others may see it differently.๐ Think you are forgetting that people come in all sorts. As a slave trader who do you take from the village you raid? All the fit ones. What do you do with the old and frail? Murder them or just leave them to die because you have the fit ones.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 3, 2020 14:00:29 GMT 1
Slavery may have been about exploitation but if extermination was a large scale outcome does it make a difference?
Of course it does in motive, but if it doesn't in practice then it is definitely a grey area.
I totally agree it is trying to distinguish which type of horror is the worst.
I guess if you mean and want to enslave and exploit a people then you will not aim to exterminate them. As there would then be no one to exploit. I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a huge amount of suffering for those who have been enslaved but with that said, I still see it differing to genocide. But understand if others may see it differently.๐ Estimates of 2-4 million deaths from mainly coastal areas of West Africa even before allowing for the deaths in transit. I have no way of knowing how many people lived on the West African coast all those years ago or how many different tribes, but I would say it is a safe bet to say that many of those tribes were wiped out completely. Is that not genocide? Just because they some of the people into slavery doesn't make it not genocide.
The genocide in East Timor claimed around 150,000-200,000 lives, around 25% of the population. Many women were forcibly sterilised, toddlers were taken to mainland Indonesia and stripped of their nationality and hundreds of people were forced to walk in front of Indonesian troops as human shields against the resistance. Was the treatment of African slaves any less of a genocide, when they were killed if they were elderly or infirm, raped, beaten and starved even before they set foot on a ship? And if they were to die in transit they were thrown into the Atlantic.
If they were 'lucky' enough to survive the journey they lived in constant fear of beatings, whips, dogs and hangings.
But hey! It wasn't like a proper genocide, because lots of them survived.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 3, 2020 15:22:34 GMT 1
I guess if you mean and want to enslave and exploit a people then you will not aim to exterminate them. As there would then be no one to exploit. I don't think anyone would argue that there wasn't a huge amount of suffering for those who have been enslaved but with that said, I still see it differing to genocide. But understand if others may see it differently.๐ Think you are forgetting that people come in all sorts. As a slave trader who do you take from the village you raid? All the fit ones. What do you do with the old and frail? Murder them or just leave them to die because you have the fit ones. What a discussion this is. Why would anyone within the slave trade contemplate the genocide of a people that they mean to continue to enslave and trade? As it would then mean there would be no one to enslave and trade. Your aim is not to eradicate but to exploit. As you can not exploit something that you have eradicated. As mentioned above... Slavery wasn't genocide. It was about exploitation not extermination. Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that many, many people have suffered and died as a result of slavery. That is undeniable. But still, slavery does not automatically equate to genocide.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 3, 2020 16:39:38 GMT 1
Think you are forgetting that people come in all sorts. As a slave trader who do you take from the village you raid? All the fit ones. What do you do with the old and frail? Murder them or just leave them to die because you have the fit ones. What a discussion this is. Why would anyone within the slave trade contemplate the genocide of a people that they mean to continue to enslave and trade? As it would then mean there would be no one to enslave and trade. Your aim is not to eradicate but to exploit. As you can not exploit something that you have eradicated. As mentioned above... Slavery wasn't genocide. It was about exploitation not extermination. Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that many, many people have suffered and died as a result of slavery. That is undeniable. But still, slavery does not automatically equate to genocide. Still not quite got it then? The frail and the elderly haven't got anything you can exploit, some would be killed if they got in the way, the others would die slowly because all the fit for purpose had been taken and enslaved. "But still, slavery does not automatically equate to genocide". Surely it does if you wipe out a village of all the fit and able and, no doubt, kill anyone that tries to stop you? If you remove all those who are fit and able to have children from a group then have you not destroyed the group?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jul 3, 2020 16:44:47 GMT 1
There is no justification for butchering three people to death in broad daylight. Just admit your comments were disgusting. You're not wired up properly. it was clear to me that Neil was not trying to justify those murders but simply explain why that bloke might have flipped seems to me that the latest game we play in this country is to try and twist someones social media comments to mean something else come on we are better than that moderator wars ๐
|
|