1a2bcio8

This is why Gaddafi fell. I'm pretty sure it's also about gaining access to oil in the region but, yeah, also this. Various countries in the Middle East have for years made efforts to change the way in which oil is sold. What's the name of the organisation of Middle Eastern countries regarding oil exports? I forget.

It almost certainly plays a significant role but I'm unsure it can be completely reduced to it. There's definite evidence that various petroleum countries have tried their best to get their hands on the oil. However, I suspect there's also an interest in creating new markets to profit from. The advent of McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. in Iraq is suggestive. It wouldn't surprise me if an interest in power and domination is also involved. There's a significant historical pattern of undermining democracies by the West to gain access to oil reserves. The Indonesian president, Sukarno was overthrown by General Sukarno in a coup supported by America and the UK who offered weaponry and logistical support. East Timor was invaded afterwards with over 100 000 killed. They've been oppressed ever since. There were significant reserves in the eastern sea next to these two countries. Indonesia also became a place of slave labour for the West. I think businesses such as Nike and Gap operate from there. None of this has ever really made the news because it didn't allign with the respective government's interests. Check the following also which gives an additional sense of why the Middle East is so resentful toward the West: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat Petroleum companies are currently being investigated by various governments for manipulating figures over the last how ever many years that dictate the prices it's sold for. Essentially they've lied to profit from us more than they should. There's also evidence they've lied about how much oil exists within the world - underestimating - in order to up the price. These are institutes that literally exist to profit and everything else is secondary. The modern corporation has been called psychopathic for this reason.

Fair enough

Pretty impressive in the main but I have a few critiques: I think the intro bit would be more awesome if it ended with the logo not taking over the entire screen. It felt a bit in my face to be honest; slightly overwhelming. I agree that getting rid of the pauses and stutters would make the experience more amiable. I think this is the most important point. It looks as though you were looking over my head or looking past me. Is the camera quite close and you're reading something above it? Perhaps putting the camera further back with text above it would help. This is a very picky critique but the light reflecting on your logo whilst your talking stood out a bit for me. Can you lower or spread the light somehow? Positive though were: You seemed confident and seemed like you knew what you were talking about. The overall finish definitely says professional save for the above critiques. Impressive!

I'd argue that people feel that way because despite having some awareness of what happens - the mainstream news does convey something of the atrocity - we still rarely show much horror. My Facebook offers strong anecdotal evidence of that fact. The response about yesterday has absolutely dwarfed any other kinds of similar news regarding minority groups, abroad, etc. that I've experienced even when worse things have happened. You should understand though, there's no blame or judgement. It's simply the way things have come to be for most although there are definitely people who steer this sort of course. Politicians are masters of manipulation. Generally, I'm afraid, the track record of western government speaks for itself. I'm not trying to paint a picture of politicians that are completely evil but they are people who are primarily driven by self-serving needs. This is evidenced both by foreign and domestic policy. Iraq is in a terrible state of affairs. We killed nearly a million between the first gulf war, deliberate destruction of non-military infrastructure and UN sanctions. We've now killed what appears to be over a million since the first world world. Basic infrastructures are still failing, depleted uranium is causing all sorts of health issues, democracy exists only in name, etc. All of this is stuff I've said over and over on this forum and in much more detail. I could go into much more detail now but I'm pretty sure I get dismissed without an attempt to actually properly confirm or disprove what I've said. So just thinking about that I'm going to stop this paragraph. That's not a critique at you in particular, Rowan Even if these interventions were about good intentions they've been shown not to work or cause even more problems. Regarding Libya this should be read but the consequences of intervention have clearly spilled over into neighbouring countries. And again, Iraq is in a terrible state. Afghanistan hasn't improved in any real sense. Blah blah blah. There's so much evidence if you look beyond mainstream sources. Again, I'm not going to repeat myself again when I've said so much in the past. I'm not dismissing any room for intervention whatsoever but currently we do it generally with bad intentions and without regard to consequence. edit: I said we've killed nearly a million since the first world war... haha, schoolboy. I meant second gulf war To add to this, we also see the same done to the poorest and generally most vulnerable of our country. The way they are portrayed in a lot of outlets justifies the lack or removal social support (welfare) we offer them and turns attention away from the real criminals in this society - the minority who hoard and gain monetary wealth regardless of how detrimental it is to the rest of us and the planet.

The point is that we never know that it's happened or if we do it never gains the same press that the type of story this thread is about gets. There's an ingrained attitude in us and the way we value different types of people. It being that way supports, for instance, foreign policy. In 'Culture and Imperialism' Edward Said shows how not just news reporting but general story telling in fiction, film, etc. promotes an attitude of devaluing other types of people in order to justify what we do to them. This is a long running theme that existed in our colonial days although it manifested a bit differently then. Previously, people were savages that needed to be saved from themselves and the general literature and news worked to constantly shape people's views toward that. It allowed them to miss the horrors that they were supporting or involved in.

The misconception here is that what we're doing is in some sense a response to terrorism when it's not. Our occupation of and interference with other nations relates to private interests rather than serving the public in a war against terror - which is just a marketing tool to fool us. We need to stop illegally interfering with countries right to self-determination, supporting dictators, murdering millions directly or through the destruction of essential infrastructure, etc. and then we will stop creating more terrorists. I'm not saying all will be forgive but the current course can only make thing worse. The current course will only spiral more and more out of control.

I guess we'll have to accept a difference in opinion about what we consider bad then. I will say that I don't mean they are the exact same level of atrocity or anything so abstract but I do want to say that they are both bad enough that I think they deserve similar attention. I think, at the very least, people feel less ashamed or interested to what happens to other groups of people particularly if they happened to have been demonised or negatively characterised in varying ways by popular culture. I also think we do this very sub-consciously but a systematic analysis of the media, at least, suggests this type of bias. We did invade Iraq and not with intention to help it. To the extent that Sadam was our man in the Middle East we ignored his atrocities. Only after he became unreliable did we take an interest in them to justify our so called 'humanitarian intervention.' Again, consider the hugely contradictory state of both current and historical affairs where we have repeatedly supported dictators, lauding them even, that served our interests and even ruined democracies whilst calling them otherwise. Modern Imperialism doesn't require our continued presence in a region. It requires our installing a friendly dictatorship - Iraq is not a working democracy as it stands - to fulfil our needs. We have done this in Iran, Indonesia and so on. It is a myth that our governments have noble intentions that just go awry. The intentions are self-serving. History has always been constituted by elites in one form or another ruthlessly gaining over the suffering of others. Do you imagine we are in some greater period where that is absent?

Their similarity, according to my value system at least, lies in the fact that they are both heinous. They are both murders and whether they were spontaneous or premeditated is not entirely relevant - at least to the point I want to make. I don't dispute the differences you state. What I want to move on from regarding the similarity I'm emphasising is the relative difference of response we find them given by the media and people in general. If people were really considered equal in their differences, such as race or ethnicity, we would be equally appalled by the stabbing of a foreign boy by our military forces. The intentions of that soldier can hardly have been innocent even if drunk. The British military is, after all, a extension of us through our political system which we ultimately shape through our action or apathy. I've never, ever, seen a thread on this forum regarding atrocities abroad that were done by our military representatives. It should really exact the same degree of outrage irrespective of motive unless accidental in a benign way. It certainly would if the soldier had killed a 10 year old, white British boy under the same circumstances in the UK - take a moment to consider this. What happens in occupied countries falls under the banner of premeditated murder, torture, rape, etc. The media generally but not entirely promotes this sort of attitude by highlighting this atrocity and mostly or entirely ignoring that one depending on the type of people that are being considered. The BBC has recently been heavily criticised over its reporting of the Boston bombings amongst other terrible, probably worse, events occurring in China and India at the same time that were given minimal news time. Unfortunately I think the reason for this is an ingrained sense of differing value we place on different groups of people or a type of racism; something which is conditioned into us by this kind of emphasis we find in the media. That's the reason I wanted to highlight one similarity in order to also show a radical difference in response that follows from two things that are both equally terrible in consequence. At least they are to me. We are doing things that are equally as bad yet we ignore that fact and obsess over what's been done to us, scratching our heads innocently at these crazed loons who want to kill us for arbitrary religious reasons. But there was no real response to the link I offered certainly nowhere near the responses found initially in the thread in response to the Woolwhich event. The only interest was to downplay its importance relative to it. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-british-military-in-iraq-a-legacy-of-war-crimes-and-atrocities/20878

We need to stop invading countries, particularly Muslim ones, under the false pretence of humanitarian intervention or fighting terrorism which is patently false. It's false because we routinely support terrorist groups and dictators ignoring their crimes when it serves us and highlighting (Iraq) or even fabricating the crimes of others (Iran, Syria), again, when it serves us in some other sense. These people know it is false and some of them respond in extreme ways but they really aren't any more extreme than we are - perhaps even less so - and, in terms of quantity, they dwarf our own achievements. I'm not saying that we will be completely free of terrorism if we change our foreign policy but, probably, substantially so. You only have to look at the reasons given around acts of terrorism, such as the Boston bombings and this one, to appreciate the fact. The reason given is not usually to do with a way of life but the atrocity involved in a more modern form of western imperialism. We dominate countries, murdering their populace with high tech weaponry and promoting terrible living conditions for gains in power and profit. It's only catch-22 if you think the war on terrorism is a real war and that our interference around the world isn't the primary cause.

"Any rational balance sheet of the last decade would show that the 'war on terror' has been a failure in its own terms: it has not prevented terrorism but caused it to spread." http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/united-kingdom/2475-the-lessons-to-learn-from-the-woolwich-killing-are-obvious-but-not-to-david-cameron

This is the thing that people often don't identify. We call people extremists as though that in itself is a cause for extremism. However, as I previously mentioned, it is well established that western foreign policy promotes extremism which is channelled through religion. This is not to say that some people aren't extremist because of religion, per se, but it is to say that, substantially, this is the cause in contemporary affairs. They are responding to oppression which contains incidents like the one I posted. I am not in anyway justifying these actions but I want them to be viewed in the broader of context of causality of which we are responsible and responsible in atrocious ways. Just saying something is terrorism or extremism is to stop very short of understanding these situations as though these people are randomly crazed simply by religion. I haven't watched the following video but it just appeared on my news feed and I generally know Chomsky's arguments and the broader arguments of blow back so I'm assuming it will support what I'm arguing. I'll probably watch it now though. It does refer to the consequences of drone attacks which are more specifically American but our actions aren't removed from that country. We are at best complicit and, at worst, involved in equally appalling crimes.

And I'd say if you can't see the comparisons, in the most important senses, you're trying too hard not to... I'm not trying to deny differences but the similarities are what matters in this instance. At least regarding the types of point I want to try and highlight such as can be found in my previous posts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8933193/British-soldier-jailed-for-stabbing-10-year-old-Afghan-boy.html

Well, I've been told by the appropriate authorities that I am dyslexic despite not being considered by your definition. It's most problematic for me in terms of my working memory and therefore my ability to multitask with ideas - I really struggle to take notes whilst listening - but mostly I struggle with auditory dyslexia. I often cannot process the words people say and totally mishear what's been said. I guess, in some sense, in a bid to understand what hasn't been heard properly some part of me overcompensates for and I often think people have said very strange things by way of projection. This can be quite amusing at least. Dyslexia is now recognised to manifest in a range of ways well beyond what you've said. For instance, quite randomly, I find it extremely difficult to remember the spelling of words like 'succession' where letters repeat. Other words I find so much easier to remember. I think this evidences just how complex and varied our processing abilities are such that small areas can be impaired whilst other areas are okay. And speaking and writing are different things. Lesions on the brain can impair the ability of speech (hearing or speaking) but leave intact the capacity for reading and writing. The two different capacities may share some brain structures but they also differ in others. People can even have impaired hearing whilst remain the capacity for speech or vice versa, which is really quite strange but the way things can go. Furthermore, the sheer extent of the brain's complexity leaves it very open to what may seem like inconsistent problems if we overly simplify the brain into basic functions of behavior and ability. There's also the fact that when you speak you don't require displaying all aspects of grammar in comparison to writing. There's nothing in pronunciation that tells someone you meant 'its' over 'it's', for example. Your spelling of the word in speech, so to speak, is simply phonetic making use of a different capacity than is responsible for correctly recognising and using the visual symbols of a word. Speech is also a more intuitive process in terms of grammar whereas writing is much more formal and, to an extent, an arbitrary way of representing speech although it functions quite well in its choices of symbols. Often, much of it is unnecessary although useful. This is evident when we look at other languages which often don't consider a lot of the grammar that we use without suffering in their ability to communicate. I do get why people are skeptical of dyslexia. It's quite subtle in the sense it's not like a physical impairment or a severe mental one which is easy to recognise externally. What's interesting is that dyslexics tend to, at the same time to having impairments in some areas, possess stronger attributes in their thinking in others. They tend to be better 'big picture' thinkers, for example. So there's pros and cons. The thing is that, currently, society emphasizes, especially in education, not 'big picture' thinking but memory retention and narrow thinking or specialization. Thus, because tests do not vary according to ability - so that one could be tested on how one best understanding a given subject - they are compensated in the form of longer exam times, equipment to help them remember details, etc. It's a shame because both types of thinking are useful in their own way but we currently only really cultivate one and, I think, to the detriment of society. edit: It's taken me about 4 readings to notice what is hopefully all of my bad grammar, use of the word 'over' when I meant 'other', and so on...

I'm not sure what you mean?

I still suspect that with bad dyslexia it isn't that simple. If you can't spell something in the first place, will a spellchecker definitely help? You still have to recognise the correct spelling which your dyslexia may preclude you from doing. I also suspect this is very difficult to appreciate from the side of someone who doesn't share the problem. Admittedly, I'm speculating. However, I'm sure there are people that are both lazy and dyslexic or simply just lazy. Distinguishing between wouldn't be easy.

I'm dyslexic and I often get my grammar wrong irrespective of whether I appreciate a given rule. It depends on the day but sometimes even when I reread what I've written I miss a mistake. It's difficult to express the effort that's needed to not make certain mistakes and I'm not badly dyslexic. I really struggle to remember the tense or singularity/plurality I'm writing in and, without noticing, contradict myself. In other words, I have a sense about how bad dyslexia could be very problematic. Your abilities are such that you simply miss mistakes even if you try; like a blind spot in your vision. I would speculate it's because often our use of language in the written form is so automated or sub-conscious that when that automation has faults it's easy to miss. Our conscious or non-automated attention is usually focused on the gist of what we want to say. I don't think we are able to give full conscious attention to every aspect of writing because there's a lot too it. For some people their automation works fine so that when they focus on the gist the rest just happens but, for some, like myself, it doesn't always. But, yeah, I often re-read what I've written multiple times in order to get it right. I don't think it helps that we aren't taught grammar at school. We used to be but now it's left to intuition which dyslexic people find especially difficult. I know I struggled a lot more before I read up about grammar and studied another language. I've never really shared the Nazi' grammarian attitude though. As long as I can understand people then it's enough for me. I personally enjoy trying to be as coherent as possible regarding the accepted usage of language but I don't expect others to be as rigorous. I find grammar an interesting subject particularly in the sense that it shapes our view of reality. Studying Sanskrit was strange because the verb is at the end of sentences rather than the middle of the subject and object. This seemed, to me, like an inaccurate way of representing the way things are but, actually, it's no less valid. It's just another way that shapes the way we think about things and that may or may not give certain benefits in certain senses.

People's negative views of Muslims have, I believe, been heightened to justify western imperialism. There are, undoubtedly, factions of that religion that are extremist but they are a minority. I've known plenty of Muslims and none of them were extreme in their views. In previous centuries we characterized the victims of our imperialism as savages, etc. as a justification - we were bringing 'civilization' to them but, ironically, it required pillaging their wealth and murdering them amongst other things - and the current method of painting people of the Middle East as 'terrorists' grounded in religious fundamentalism is similar. Now, I'm not saying that's your view exactly but I've head plenty of people, on my facebook for instance, talking of everyone over there as just that. The other part of this imposed world view is, as you've expressed, fear. This enemy over there and even around us will destroy us unless we destroy it first or impose this or that draconian law for protection. The American Government has has always had some sort of abstract 'war' on the go either against, Communism, drugs or terrorism. When one fades another straight away comes to prominence. Each justifies immorality because, at such times, when your survival is threatened, there is no room for such luxuries. To me, it doesn't matter if atrocities are done in the name of religion, profit or power. It's the suffering that people experience, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc, that matters. You can be just as insane by your need for profit and power as you can religion. On that basis it's the level atrocity that matters and therefore we are amongst the worst offenders. What's particularly interesting is that religious fundamentalism seems to be the channel that oppressed people use against their oppressors. I wish I could remember my readings on this to post up but it's fairly well established, even within the CIA - they call it 'blowback' I think? -, that our interventions around the world fuel terrorism. In other words, you can't necessarily blame religion totally. Rather, fundamentalist organisations are where you go to address this problem or express your hatred of those who have wronged you. I've always felt that people don't really consider the complexities involved within any mass noun such as 'Christianity' or 'Islam'. Often one small part can be taken for the whole when really it varies to a significant extent. Christianity is not all about a bearded chap in the sky and Islam is not mostly constituted by radicals that want to blow everyone up. I guess it's easier to gloss things but you miss a complete picture that might totally reshape your attitude in ways that better serve you.

Ah, the standard huge emphasis on the crimes against 'us' relative to the general downplaying or complete ignorance of our crimes against others. That is, if this instance even falls into a category 'us vs. them.' Cameron has returned to the UK for this? He'd never do the same regarding British atorcities around the world despite them being far worse. It's all a game of manipulation and racism. The government will happily call this 'terrorism' ahead of the actual facts because it serves their playing to people's prejudices. The murder itself is heinous but so is the attempt to gain from it for political purposes.

I think Matt was being humorous...

Indeed, it's a general behavior found in all areas of life.

Food poisoning sucks balls. I'd forgotten just how nasty it is. Spent the night thrashing around, in a fever and tripping out

When people criticise other forms of expression separate to their own, what they're assuming is that they've worked out what's 'best' or 'right' and everyone else is just confused. Those people who are enjoying the wrong things should hear their criticisms and change their ways. To me this just suggests a kind of insecurity; the attempt to validate your own choice by having other people practice and agree that it's the 'best' way. In reality something like the choice of riding style is definitely a subjective choice - no right or wrong beyond what suits the individual. There are things about riding which can better or harm our enjoyment of riding and that are pretty much true for everyone but whether you like this or that style of challenge isn't really one of them. It's what also causes all the arguments in the TGS vs. Street debate as far as I can tell. It's a waste of time because it's based on a misunderstanding of what's subjective, what's not and when it is subjective whether there is actually any room or point to criticising beyond the insecure need to validate your own choices...

Thanks for the comments. I was expecting more criticism given that my frame is looking even more bmx like... 24:14 at the moment but it's too much. I can still sidehop reasonably but backhops aren't very doable. I'm going to drop down to 24:15 and give that a go. I want to continue doing trials lines but in a more tech sense than distance/height so having a harder gear shouldn't impinge too much. Yeah that's the area I tend to break bikes so that gusset will hopefully help against that happening. The head angle is indeed 75. Good guess! Instantly it's opened up front wheel moves. I was concerned it might be too much but it's perfect. This is something I've talked to Nick Cooke about or he's suggested. I'm unsure about moving too far away from trials geo though to the extent that it's not enjoyable to do it even on a lower, more tech level. It's for hang nothings, my height and the aesthetic the seat-tube pressed right into the frame