Nobel Gas
December 19, 2006 1:02 AM Subscribe
What do two war mongers, the founder of a war college, a six-star general, an alleged war criminal, a coup leader, and a handful of terrorists have in common? The Nobel Peace Prize.
This post was deleted for the following reason: please go grind your axe someplace else.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The founding fathers were terrorists in every sense of the word.
posted by Sukiari at 1:32 AM on December 19, 2006
The founding fathers were terrorists in every sense of the word.
posted by Sukiari at 1:32 AM on December 19, 2006
This post is difficult to take seriously, ubiquity. Is there anything more substantial you want to say here in the comments?
posted by cgc373 at 1:48 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 1:48 AM on December 19, 2006
The founding fathers were terrorists in every sense of the word.
Really? Details please.
posted by srboisvert at 1:58 AM on December 19, 2006
Really? Details please.
posted by srboisvert at 1:58 AM on December 19, 2006
right. and the thing was founded and endowed by the man who invented nitroglycerin and dynamite. ain't nobody perfect.
so your point is...?
posted by ab3 at 2:05 AM on December 19, 2006
so your point is...?
posted by ab3 at 2:05 AM on December 19, 2006
"Really? Details please."
Boston tea party, for one. Disobeying the law. Seeking secession. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Avoiding taxes. Piracy on the high seas. Etc.
Please, describe to me how they were NOT terrorists!
posted by Sukiari at 2:14 AM on December 19, 2006
Boston tea party, for one. Disobeying the law. Seeking secession. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Avoiding taxes. Piracy on the high seas. Etc.
Please, describe to me how they were NOT terrorists!
posted by Sukiari at 2:14 AM on December 19, 2006
And the most recent recipient is, technically speaking, a banker! A practitioner of Vile Usury! And there's evidence Rigorberta Menchu fudged parts of her memoir!
Seriously, dude, you do realize the 1997 Nobel recipients in economics lost several billion dollars in a dodgy hedge-fund scheme, right?
posted by gompa at 2:15 AM on December 19, 2006
Seriously, dude, you do realize the 1997 Nobel recipients in economics lost several billion dollars in a dodgy hedge-fund scheme, right?
posted by gompa at 2:15 AM on December 19, 2006
Meet Alfred Nobel - scientist, inventor, entrepreneur, author and pacifist.
Nobel's will states who receives the award in various categories such as chemistry, etc...
"...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
ubiquity's noted recipients obviously aren't likely candidates. Cut the guy some slack.
And Sukiari, please list the American revolutionaries who targeted British civilians and killed them in groups of 30-100 people at a time. Do you really believe there is no difference between present day terrorists and American revolutionaries?
posted by sluglicker at 2:19 AM on December 19, 2006
Nobel's will states who receives the award in various categories such as chemistry, etc...
"...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
ubiquity's noted recipients obviously aren't likely candidates. Cut the guy some slack.
And Sukiari, please list the American revolutionaries who targeted British civilians and killed them in groups of 30-100 people at a time. Do you really believe there is no difference between present day terrorists and American revolutionaries?
posted by sluglicker at 2:19 AM on December 19, 2006
"And Sukiari, please list the American revolutionaries who targeted British civilians and killed them in groups of 30-100 people at a time. Do you really believe there is no difference between present day terrorists and American revolutionaries?"
Not all of the people we have labeled as terrorists attack innocent civilians. If you think the US Government's idea of a terrorist is somebody who blows people up, you are working with an outdated set of assumptions.
There are people who are declared terrorists who have never harmed another person's body.
Terrorists do not 'hate us because we are free'. If we are being attacked by terrorists, it is because of things that we have done.
But if you want to hear about Americans attacking and killing British civilians, you need to research the patriot pirates of the War of Independence. Heck, we sent the USS Constitution among many other vessels out loot 'n burn!
posted by Sukiari at 2:43 AM on December 19, 2006
Not all of the people we have labeled as terrorists attack innocent civilians. If you think the US Government's idea of a terrorist is somebody who blows people up, you are working with an outdated set of assumptions.
There are people who are declared terrorists who have never harmed another person's body.
Terrorists do not 'hate us because we are free'. If we are being attacked by terrorists, it is because of things that we have done.
But if you want to hear about Americans attacking and killing British civilians, you need to research the patriot pirates of the War of Independence. Heck, we sent the USS Constitution among many other vessels out loot 'n burn!
posted by Sukiari at 2:43 AM on December 19, 2006
"Terrorist" is the derogatory term du jour for a weaker adversary who uses asymetrical warfare techniques. Modern global warfare has already embraced the technique of wholesale civillian slaughter to undermine a nation's military, so the moral outrage we feign at those who do it on a small scale is hilariously hollow. Look no further than Dresden in WWII. Contemporary terrorist groups do murder innocent civilians, but on nowhere near the scale that "Responsible" and "Upstanding" nations do. Meanwhile, if the revolutionary war were going on right now, you can bet your ass the Brits would be calling the revolutionaries 'terrorists.' It's marketing.
posted by mullingitover at 3:10 AM on December 19, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by mullingitover at 3:10 AM on December 19, 2006 [2 favorites]
Sure, the US government has a wider understanding of terrorist than I do, but that doesn't change my definition of terrorists being "those who harm" or "those who blow stuff up". Indeed, you're short-shrifting the Patriots, who dealt very civilly with the opposition. You want my definition of Muslim freedom fighters? The SLA comes to mind, as does the anti-Syrian bloc in Lebanon. Neither of those groups would seek to forcibly convert me on pain on death, or kill me and my entire family if they discovered I was Jewish as symbolic reprisal for Gaza and the West Bank.
That's pretty much where my lines are drawn.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 3:27 AM on December 19, 2006
That's pretty much where my lines are drawn.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 3:27 AM on December 19, 2006
Don't forget the 1947 winners, a religious group most people think either died out 200 years ago, or is a breakfast cereal.
posted by scruss at 4:04 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by scruss at 4:04 AM on December 19, 2006
Henry Kissinger the "khazarian Jew"? Once again metafilter posts the Nazi propaganda as fact. While I have no love for Kissinger, do your fucking homework. There are many reputable sources out there making cogent arguments on Kissinger's culpability without bringing in any racial slurs.
posted by worbid411 at 4:47 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by worbid411 at 4:47 AM on December 19, 2006
Saying that Kissinger is Jewish is a simple statement of fact, but let's add a little more context to zpub's usage:
Race: White (or is it " khazaran jew. an asiatic"?)
I've only heard that from white supremacists.
posted by mkb at 5:16 AM on December 19, 2006
Race: White (or is it " khazaran jew. an asiatic"?)
I've only heard that from white supremacists.
posted by mkb at 5:16 AM on December 19, 2006
It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with perspective.
posted by Sukiari at 5:16 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by Sukiari at 5:16 AM on December 19, 2006
Which renders it meaningless, in your view, Sukiari? As if it's somehow unacceptable to take sides? I'll be frank. You're not telling me something I don't understand. I make value judgements according to a set of principles I consider consistent, and although you can poke fun at (or factual holes in) individual examples, that doesn't lead me to reevaluate the groups I never respected to begin with.
Call me a sheep if you like, but I think that along with its flaws, the Nobel prizes have done some substantial good.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:37 AM on December 19, 2006
Call me a sheep if you like, but I think that along with its flaws, the Nobel prizes have done some substantial good.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:37 AM on December 19, 2006
please list the American revolutionaries who targeted British civilians and killed them in groups of 30-100 people at a time. Do you really believe there is no difference between present day terrorists and American revolutionaries?
Well, there was John the Painter.
posted by Kronoss at 5:42 AM on December 19, 2006
Well, there was John the Painter.
posted by Kronoss at 5:42 AM on December 19, 2006
What do two war mongers, the founder of a war college, a six-star general, an alleged war criminal, a coup leader, and a handful of terrorists have in common? The Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, those people have never been in my kitchen.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:54 AM on December 19, 2006
Also, those people have never been in my kitchen.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:54 AM on December 19, 2006
Ain't no such thing as a six-star general, hoss.
That's confusing. There has been, in fact, no general to wear six stars, though the rank was considered late in WWII and immediately thereafter. The rank would have be "General of the Armies" and "Flag Admiral." The insignia was conjectured by the Army's Institute of Heraldry as the 5 connected stars of the General of the Army/Admiral of the Navy (O-11 in modern paygrades, a rank created to give US commanders equal standing with European Field Marshals and Fleet Admirals) with a sixth star in the middle.
Now the kicker. Two men have held the rank of General of the Armies. The most recent was John J. Pershing. He was made General of the Armies after WWI, in recognition of his able command of the American Expeditionary Force. Part of the order granting him the rank was that he would have the option of creating the insignia. He never bothered, and wore four stars until his retirement.
The first? Gen. George Washington. He held the title "General and Command in Chief" of the Continental Army. Unlike every US general, Washington was not responsible to any civilian -- he was the only American Commander to have such complete authority over his troops.
In 1976, someone pointed out that Pershing, worthy as he was, seemed to outrank Washington. This led to Washington's posthumous promotion to General of the Armies, appointed by Ford, and in Special Order 31-3, was confirmed to that rank with a promotion date of (naturally) July 4th, 1776 -- the earliest date that Congress and the US Military felt it could make such a promotion.
By doing so, as long as no O-13/7 star rank is created, this makes General of the Armies George Washington forever the senior officer of the United States Army. Yes, John J. Pershing, by virtue of rank, stands second. Thus, since both Washington and Pershing are treated as having a rank that is higher than General of the Army, both would wear, in modern times, six stars.
The two officers considered for six stars in modern times are obvious - General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz.
posted by eriko at 6:22 AM on December 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
That's confusing. There has been, in fact, no general to wear six stars, though the rank was considered late in WWII and immediately thereafter. The rank would have be "General of the Armies" and "Flag Admiral." The insignia was conjectured by the Army's Institute of Heraldry as the 5 connected stars of the General of the Army/Admiral of the Navy (O-11 in modern paygrades, a rank created to give US commanders equal standing with European Field Marshals and Fleet Admirals) with a sixth star in the middle.
Now the kicker. Two men have held the rank of General of the Armies. The most recent was John J. Pershing. He was made General of the Armies after WWI, in recognition of his able command of the American Expeditionary Force. Part of the order granting him the rank was that he would have the option of creating the insignia. He never bothered, and wore four stars until his retirement.
The first? Gen. George Washington. He held the title "General and Command in Chief" of the Continental Army. Unlike every US general, Washington was not responsible to any civilian -- he was the only American Commander to have such complete authority over his troops.
In 1976, someone pointed out that Pershing, worthy as he was, seemed to outrank Washington. This led to Washington's posthumous promotion to General of the Armies, appointed by Ford, and in Special Order 31-3, was confirmed to that rank with a promotion date of (naturally) July 4th, 1776 -- the earliest date that Congress and the US Military felt it could make such a promotion.
By doing so, as long as no O-13/7 star rank is created, this makes General of the Armies George Washington forever the senior officer of the United States Army. Yes, John J. Pershing, by virtue of rank, stands second. Thus, since both Washington and Pershing are treated as having a rank that is higher than General of the Army, both would wear, in modern times, six stars.
The two officers considered for six stars in modern times are obvious - General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz.
posted by eriko at 6:22 AM on December 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with perspective
I agree with you on this. I would also like to point out that your world view is probably obstructed by your rectal lining.
posted by srboisvert at 6:29 AM on December 19, 2006
I agree with you on this. I would also like to point out that your world view is probably obstructed by your rectal lining.
posted by srboisvert at 6:29 AM on December 19, 2006
Calling Begin and Rabin terrorists is taking things just a bit too far, don't you think? These men fought so that they could live without discrimination, so that they could be a majority in one place and not a second-class minority everywhere else.
I was under the impression that terrorists are those who threaten the public safety because of their own beliefs and hatred of specific nations/peoples.
Like, say, Hitler, for example. Or take Osama. (I'm going on a large scale here, but you get what i'm trying to say). They wanted to wipe a nation off the face of the earth... That's not exactly "self-defence".
Particularly Rabin, who became very left-wing and operated for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, who wanted to give the Palestinians their own land, and who believed in freedom and equality for all.
So please, be a little more careful with your accusations next time.
posted by alon at 6:35 AM on December 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
I was under the impression that terrorists are those who threaten the public safety because of their own beliefs and hatred of specific nations/peoples.
Like, say, Hitler, for example. Or take Osama. (I'm going on a large scale here, but you get what i'm trying to say). They wanted to wipe a nation off the face of the earth... That's not exactly "self-defence".
Particularly Rabin, who became very left-wing and operated for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, who wanted to give the Palestinians their own land, and who believed in freedom and equality for all.
So please, be a little more careful with your accusations next time.
posted by alon at 6:35 AM on December 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
Ain't no such thing as a six-star general, hoss.
Well there is (see above) but I admit Marshall was only General of the Army, not General of the Armies. Mea culpa, I confused Marshall with Pershing. On the other hand, in addition to his 5 Stars, he also received a Silver Star. Doesn't that make six? (Thass a joke, son).
posted by ubiquity at 6:41 AM on December 19, 2006
Well there is (see above) but I admit Marshall was only General of the Army, not General of the Armies. Mea culpa, I confused Marshall with Pershing. On the other hand, in addition to his 5 Stars, he also received a Silver Star. Doesn't that make six? (Thass a joke, son).
posted by ubiquity at 6:41 AM on December 19, 2006
alona: you're going to catch a lot of shit for this, I'm afraid. Even though you're right on the mark. You see...MetaFilter is all about insisting on ideological purity from the safety of your mom's basement.
It will be enough for your critic to mention that Menachem Begin was in the Irgun and he will no longer have to deal with the historic peace with Egypt. It will be enough to say that Rabin ordered the police to break the legs of rioters during the first intefadah and it will obscure the fact that Rabin gave his life for peace and the two-state solution. In the era of Wikipedia, everybody's an expert and nobody is obliged to debate in good faith.
Keep fighting the good fight, though. The longer you spend here, the more you'll find intelligent and thoughtful people you can have conversations with. You'll learn from them and they'll learn from you. The rest of the assholes who are gearing up to jump down your throat? Ignore 'em.
posted by felix betachat at 6:45 AM on December 19, 2006
It will be enough for your critic to mention that Menachem Begin was in the Irgun and he will no longer have to deal with the historic peace with Egypt. It will be enough to say that Rabin ordered the police to break the legs of rioters during the first intefadah and it will obscure the fact that Rabin gave his life for peace and the two-state solution. In the era of Wikipedia, everybody's an expert and nobody is obliged to debate in good faith.
Keep fighting the good fight, though. The longer you spend here, the more you'll find intelligent and thoughtful people you can have conversations with. You'll learn from them and they'll learn from you. The rest of the assholes who are gearing up to jump down your throat? Ignore 'em.
posted by felix betachat at 6:45 AM on December 19, 2006
Cut the guy some slack.
No. This post is stupid and worthless, and if people felt free to imitate it MeFi would turn into a complete cesspool. What the fuck? If I wake up mad at my utility company, should I grab a bunch of links about greedy utilites and post them to the front page of MeFi? This is not something new and interesting on the web, this is a guy with an agenda. "Dude! People who win the SO-CALLED 'Nobel peace prize' sometimes aren't peaceful!!" Yeah, and your parents lied to you about Santa and your boss just wants your labor and doesn't really care about your life problems. What do you want us to do about it?
posted by languagehat at 7:00 AM on December 19, 2006
No. This post is stupid and worthless, and if people felt free to imitate it MeFi would turn into a complete cesspool. What the fuck? If I wake up mad at my utility company, should I grab a bunch of links about greedy utilites and post them to the front page of MeFi? This is not something new and interesting on the web, this is a guy with an agenda. "Dude! People who win the SO-CALLED 'Nobel peace prize' sometimes aren't peaceful!!" Yeah, and your parents lied to you about Santa and your boss just wants your labor and doesn't really care about your life problems. What do you want us to do about it?
posted by languagehat at 7:00 AM on December 19, 2006
It is conjecture to say that the General of the Armies is a 6-star rank, as it hasn't been formally established as such, but I'll give it to you.
posted by Tullius at 7:03 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by Tullius at 7:03 AM on December 19, 2006
Rabin was part of Palmach, which I am guessing if you use the American "everyone is a terrorist" definition for a terrorist, makes him a terrorist.
I'm also sure alona just forgot to come to Arafat's defense.
posted by chunking express at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2006
I'm also sure alona just forgot to come to Arafat's defense.
posted by chunking express at 7:11 AM on December 19, 2006
And really, since Ghandi never wone a Nobel Peace Prize, I suspect it doesn't mean much at all. Just like the Grammys.
posted by chunking express at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by chunking express at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2006
Damn it: I spelled Gandhi wrong. Forgive me Mahatma.
posted by chunking express at 7:18 AM on December 19, 2006
posted by chunking express at 7:18 AM on December 19, 2006
Sure, the US government has a wider understanding of terrorist than I do, but that doesn't change my definition of terrorists being "those who harm" or "those who blow stuff up".
Actually, yours is about the widest definition of "terrorist" I have ever encountered. I think you left out that part about "in service to or as a part of resistance or revolution toward the ruling order" or some such qualifier.
I'm not sure why what Sukiari wrote has people offended. If the American revolution had been defeated--in the 1780s or in the War of 1812--the movement would have been characterized as a bloody but unsuccessful terrorist action in today's terms.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:19 AM on December 19, 2006
Actually, yours is about the widest definition of "terrorist" I have ever encountered. I think you left out that part about "in service to or as a part of resistance or revolution toward the ruling order" or some such qualifier.
I'm not sure why what Sukiari wrote has people offended. If the American revolution had been defeated--in the 1780s or in the War of 1812--the movement would have been characterized as a bloody but unsuccessful terrorist action in today's terms.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:19 AM on December 19, 2006
« Older Online Rock Guitar Lessons | Keeping your Chinook up Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by felix betachat at 1:11 AM on December 19, 2006