The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

I don't think it's that we value british lives more, we just value news about things happening at home more.
Would you be surprised to find that French newspapers carry a lot of news about france and middle eastern ones lots of news about the middle east?

Is it wrong to look after your own people first?

For example, while I would never harm, or see harm done to a child I would never look after someone else's kid and neglect my own.

Dont know if that makes sense, but what Im trying to say is we should worry about our own people before the rest of the world and if we are all ok then it is only right that we help any one else we can.

ttfn

No racist, imperialist conspiracy here, folks. Move along....

Seriously, I care more about what happens in SHeffield because I live here. I care about Edinburgh and Leeds because I have family there. I care something about Manchester and London because I have friends there.

Most of the rest of the UK I give a glance at in the news.

I apply the same rules to the rest of the World. I won't pretend that the deaths of people in other parts of the world affect me as much as the deaths of people in the UK. They don't - and that's not because I'm a racist, imperialist uncaring sod it's because I'm here in the UK and not in Iraq, Darfur Province, Indonesia, wherever.

Joe

"800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq" well thats stat's totally wrong for a start. Its logical that we care more about events closer to home, after all we all know somebody in London, or who was in London that day.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

nearly all news media follow certain criteria when reporting a story based on these values by Johan Galtung and Marie Holmboe Ruge

Frequency, Threshold, Unambiguity, Meaningfulness, Consonance, Unexpectedness, Continuity, Composition, Reference to élite nations, Reference to élite persons, Personalisation and Negativity

the more of the above list a news item has the more prominent it will be on the news

i knew my media studies course would come in handy one day :D

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

I wouldn't say they value our lives more rosie, just that being in the UK it is inevitable that it will get more coverage. Additihally, whilst the bombings are taking place in London we know how close it is to us and increases the likely that it could happen the same up here.

Don't forget the headline in the Aberdeen 'Press & Journal' on news of "The Titanic" sinking:

"North East Man Dies in Sea Accident"

Of course the British media is going to feature the London bombings in much more prominence than whats happening in Iraq. After all this is happening in our own country.

To be honest in the light of recent events in London I really don't think its time to be having a pop is it?

It's not a case of British lives being sacrosanct over all others, but when a terrorist attack happens in Britains capital city, affecting British people, with British journalists providing coverage do you really think that that's going to be number two on the headline round ups after "goat farmer dies in Fallujah"?

I'm not trying to be flippant here but what happened was a major event, both politicaly and socially. Now is not the time to wheel out the PC bandwagon and start handing out seat reservations. This is a touchy subject for a lot of people and I think it's inappropriate to commandeer the topic for the whistle stop "There's vast injustice world-wide and we must eradicate it" tour 2005.

You're completely entitled to your views, I fully respect that, but have a heart eh?

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
nearly all news media follow certain criteria when reporting a story based on these values by Johan Galtung and Marie Holmboe Ruge

Frequency, Threshold, Unambiguity, Meaningfulness, Consonance, Unexpectedness, Continuity, Composition, Reference to élite nations, Reference to élite persons, Personalisation and Negativity

the more of the above list a news item has the more prominent it will be on the news

i knew my media studies course would come in handy one day :D
Aha, so I can start a new career as a journalist now I know the inside secret - pick a story without vowels! :D

Originally posted by rich951
Aha, so I can start a new career as a journalist now I know the inside secret - pick a story without vowels! :D
:D :D :D :D

but to clarify for those that didn't get it

Consonance: Stories which fit with the media's expectations, and as such, receive more coverage than those which defy them

There i was thinking it was about avoiding making disagreeable vowel sounds

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

The media do not value lives. Millions of people live their lives unencumbered by media intrusion.

The media values death, as death is a story.

The more deaths there are, the bigger the story.

The closer the deaths are to the media company in question, the bigger the story.

The more violent and horrific the deaths are, the bigger the story

The more pictures available of the death scene, especially moving pictures, the bigger the story.

So when 60 people die horrifically in bomb blasts in London, you can expect it to be a big story in the UK media (and abroad).

When 200 people die underground in central China, don't expect to hear about it.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

No tangible difference in the 'value' of a human life. I think what you're alluding to in your post is the amount of media coverage and I think we all know that the amount of dedicated media coverage does not equate to the amount of care or value shown for an individual life. One only has to look at the media circus that surrounded the Michael Jackson trial or the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib to realise that media attention does not demonstrate that they value or care for their subjects. The media is no more caring that a pod of killer whales showing attention to a group of seals- they're ready to turn and strike at any moment, ruthless in their mission to sell a story! Whilst it's a macabre way to look at it Iraqi suicide bombings don't make the frontpage because the British people don't care (out of sight, out of mind). It's evidence that a little bit of conservativism resides within us all (whilst many of us don't care to admit it). We care about the attack on Britons in London because it's an attack on our soil. These 'Barbarian Invasions' are the first of their kind on British soil and represent a surge in terrorist activity. Are we wrong to want to report about it day and night? No. If one were to check-in at a Baghdad hotel and switch on the televsion I'm sure they would notice that the suicide bombings in Iraq are given a great deal of airtime.

If British people place an intrinsically higher value on the lives of those in London than the innocent civilians in Iraq it's not really outrageous or unexpected. After all, what are you going to want to read about more - an attack on your capital city by terrorists that seek to destroy your daily life or terrorists in a country far away that has little or no effect on your life?

Originally posted by cgksheff
Don't forget the headline in the Aberdeen 'Press & Journal' on news of "The Titanic" sinking:

"North East Man Dies in Sea Accident"

Allow me to lighten the mood with an old joke:

A teenager is walking though a park in Manchester when he sees a dog attacking a young child. The teenager runs up and kicks the dog, killing it and saving the life of the young child.

A journalist who is walking though the park sees the incident and rushes over to the teenager, pencil and paper at the ready.

"MAN UTD FAN SAVES CHILD'S LIFE" says the hack

"I'm not a Man Utd fan" says the teenger

"OK, how about MAN CITY FAN SAVES CHILD'S LIFE"

"I'm not a Man City fan either" says the teenger

"So what team do you support?" asks the jounalist

"Liverpool" comes the reply

"SCOUSER KILLS FAMILY PET"

Originally posted by noseyrosie
What's the difference, someone tell me!

you've got to be kidding.. right? right??

Originally posted by dirtybobby
you've got to be kidding.. right? right??

To be honest Bob that was my first thought as well. :(

Sadly I don't think she is

Don't be so mean to noseyrosie, she was just asserting an opinion.

I can't see the difference between suicide bombings of civilians in Britain or Iraq by extremists either. :confused:

Abdul your joke was very funny!

Point taken - it his her opinion but it does seem to be a very nieve one. Either that or its a deliberate troll.

Originally posted by Saifa
Point taken - it his her opinion but it does seem to be a very nieve one. Either that or its a deliberate troll.

Though Rosie and I have disagreed on numerous occasions and appear to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum I have never found her to naive - far from it in fact. I think her ability to identify such inconsistencies demonstrates that she is not a naive person.
Furthermore, I don't think she's trying to bait or provoke anybody into responding either. She has raised an extremely valid and cogent point for debate. So instead of labelling her "naive" or accuse her of joshing (which, by the way, is far easier than holding one's own in a debate) lets discuss the subject shall we?

OK, the difference is that people are, on the whole, going to be interested more in what is happening in their country than in others.

Therefore, events in the UK are going to take precedence in UK news over those in foreign countries.

Easy enough yes?

Originally posted by JonJParr
After all, what are you going to want to read about more - an attack on your capital city by terrorists that seek to destroy your daily life or terrorists in a country far away that has little or no effect on your life?

Fair defence of Rosie, but the above is a very flippant comment. Are you suggesting that all Iraqis are terrorists? And what is happening over there has everything to do with our lives, especially if it's inspiring a new generation of terrorists.

Whilst world events do have a knock-on effect on the state of things in the UK, I think they have "everything" to do with it is maybe going a bit far.

Originally posted by skny
"800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq" well thats stat's totally wrong for a start. Its logical that we care more about events closer to home, after all we all know somebody in London, or who was in London that day.

It's not my statistic - take it up with the people at Radio 4!

Oh dear. It appears that, once again, I am out of step with the 'spirit of the age'. Pardon me a second, whilst I adjust my doublet and hose. That's better. Being an old-fashioned Englishman, I have always put the people I fondly think of as kith and kin first. In other words, I am first and foremost interested in the affairs, trials and tribulations of the English. Should I bow my head in shame? I do not think so.

It would be a strange and horribly patronising cove who was equally interested in the affairs of the people of Iraq, the pygmies of the Gabon Rainforest, or even the plight of redundant faeces collectors in the Uh Minh forest of Vietnam. Of course I am interested in English people more than any other kind. I am one. I think posters will find that there is a general trend towards this kind of fellow-feeling throughout the human social world. Whether causality lies in social construction or genetic determinism, I do not know. The point is, that is the way of the world.

I'm really surprised at everyone's reactions to be honest, as far as I'm concerned, British people dying is tragic, yes, but no more or less tragic than anyone else dying - and my point was that both groups are dying from the same cause.

I'm so flummoxed by all this...

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

We're in Britain - what on earth do you expect?

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'm really surprised at everyone's reactions to be honest, as far as I'm concerned, British people dying is tragic, yes, but no more or less tragic than anyone else dying - and my point was that both groups are dying from the same cause.

I'm so flummoxed by all this...

You *really* don't understand? London is our capital city. London is in Britain. We are served by British media. We may have relatives or friends involved when attacks take place in London. We instinctively feel more empathy to those who we can relate more closely to. Bad events in Britain are bound to take precedence over bad events elsewhere because.... wait for it...... we're in...... BRITAIN.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'm really surprised at everyone's reactions to be honest, as far as I'm concerned, British people dying is tragic, yes, but no more or less tragic than anyone else dying - and my point was that both groups are dying from the same cause.

I'm so flummoxed by all this...

I agree, I'm finding this and the thread titled "So all Muslims moderate" to be a little unsettling and very illuminating at the same time. In my opinion a human death is a human lost, there shouldn't be an us or them, we are all flesh and blood, and we all feel pain the same way. You can't start putting a higher value on one race over another because that is the definition of racism.

Rosie,
You must have a very internationalist view of humanity to feel so 'flummoxed' by the reactions. Maybe it is a reflection of your generation's greater interest in global politics than in local or national politics? There appears to be a sociological trend in this direction. Maybe you see yourself as a 'citizen of the world'?

Originally posted by Tubthump
I agree, I'm finding this and the thread titled "So all Muslims moderate" to be a little unsettling and very illuminating at the same time. In my opinion a human death is a human lost, there shouldn't be an us or them, we are all flesh and blood, and we all feel pain the same way. You can't start putting a higher value on one race over another because that is the definition of racism.

It's not a case of VALUING one race or nationality more or less than another. It's a case of simply having more interest in, and empathy towards your fellow citizens, and the media simply provide the coverage to feed this.

Originally posted by Tubthump
I agree, I'm finding this and the thread titled "So all Muslims moderate" to be a little unsettling and very illuminating at the same time. In my opinion a human death is a human lost, there shouldn't be an us or them, we are all flesh and blood, and we all feel pain the same way. You can't start putting a higher value on one race over another because that is the definition of racism.

I don't put a value on a life because of what colour, race or creed they are.

I put a value on every life, but if I treated the death of a stranger in Aberdeen or Abu Dhabi in the same way as I treat the death of a friend, neighbour or relative very little would get done at The Towers.

Most of the arguments on this thread have more to do with common culture, proximity and knowledge of places and locations than race. A hell of a lot of people of different races died in the London bombings; I just get the feeling that people are trying to shout racism here when it's nothing of the sort.

Joe

"You can't start putting a higher value on one race over another because that is the definition of racism" Where did that come from? No one is rating dead civilians on some kind of moral scale, what happens closer to home is far more important and interesting to most people than what happens in some warzone on the other side of the planet. I think its very self-consciously "right-on" to suggest everyone should have some kind of universal non-discriminating empathy that quite honestly doesnt seem natural to me at all.

Reality check....Just because you care more about some people more than others, doesnt mean you think they are superior.

The fact that deaths in Britain and Iraq receive different prominence is not surprising, but the huge difference in prominence is insidious.

It's this that leads us to be blind about events futher from home, and in turn to hold dangerous double-standards; the number of people on this forum who have in the last two weeks advocated the stringing up, or at least kicking out, anyone with a vaguely suspicious complexion is truly frightening. Unbelieveably, these same people are in denial about the fact that Iraqi citizens and Moslems worldwide are engaged in a similar search for scapegoats, and a lot of them have picked the USA and UK as their scapegoats.

Another example of our insularity: on the "So all Muslims are moderate?" thread, Serapis blithely stated "how many Christian, Jewish or Hindu suicide bombers have you heard of over your life time or your parent’s life time? I bet you can’t even think of one." The sad fact is that that statement is probably true. Most people on this forum are probably totally unaware of the fact that the most prolific suicide bombers in history were the Hindu Tamil Tigers.

Caring about things close to home is understandable, but ignorance about the wider world is unforgivable.

Originally posted by Tubthump
I agree, I'm finding this and the thread titled "So all Muslims moderate" to be a little unsettling and very illuminating at the same time. In my opinion a human death is a human lost, there shouldn't be an us or them, we are all flesh and blood, and we all feel pain the same way. You can't start putting a higher value on one race over another because that is the definition of racism.

Exactly!

Why is everyone treating my question like it doesn't even deserve discussion because they think answer is obvious?!

Why does geographical distance mean we shouldn't care as much?!

If we lived in Moscow the people in Vladivostok would be part of our own nation but as far away as we are from the middle east? Are political borders really that important?

Argh!:rant:

The thread is how shall I say ,mm very studenty in its complexion,very naive to say the least.
Of course all life is important except you tend to look on your (own) a little closer.
Internationalism is all very well but like the saying says,look after your own first.;)

Originally posted by royjames
The thread is how shall I say ,mm very studenty in its complexion,very naive to say the least.
Of course all life is important except you tend to look on your (own) a little closer.
Internationalism is all very well but like the saying says,look after your own first.;)

It's hardly surprising roy, me being a student and all.

It's not naiive, it's a very important issue, but I wouldn't expect you to understand, frankly.

I'd rather be 'studenty' than hold your views.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
It's hardly surprising roy, me being a student and all.

It's not naiive, it's a very important issue, but I wouldn't expect you to understand, frankly.

I'd rather be 'studenty' than hold your views.


Lol ok rosie,we will have to beg to differ.
:D

Originally posted by royjames
The thread is how shall I say ,mm very studenty in its complexion,very naive to say the least.
Of course all life is important except you tend to look on your (own) a little closer.
Internationalism is all very well but like the saying says,look after your own first.;)

It is natural to see most detail in one's immediate range. But at this point it would be interesting to know what you personally define as "your own". ?

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

I am aware, having read her posts on the G8 summit thread, that noseyrosie has an internationalist outlook, and I commend her for that.

Whilst I agree with the majority of posters on this thread - that we are naturally inclined to devour news about what is happening in our country, including the recent bombings in our capital city, it is also important to try and keep up with what is happening in the rest of the world.

Whilst noseyrosey is right to draw our attention to events elsewhere in the world, I think she is drawing the wrong conclusions by simply comparing the number of deaths that occurred in the London bombings with the number of deaths occuring on a daily basis in Iraq. But we could also compare the number of daily deaths in Iraq with the far greater number of deaths that daily occur from starvation, especially in Niger - but that doesn't get anywhere near the same press coverage as events in the Middle East.

It is not simply a question of the scale of deaths or the nature of the atrocities that currently engage us, but also their proximity to home, and the immediate effect that they have on our own lives, and those of our friends and family, especially those living in London.

But noseyrosie, hold onto your concerns for others who share our planet. Your post reminded me of the words of John Donne, in his famous meditation......No man is an island.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Originally posted by redrobbo
Your post reminded me of the words of John Donne, in his famous meditation......No man is an island.
Which reminds me of Jah Wobble's not-so-famous (but rather good) song "Everyman's an Island" (...and the tide is coming in)

It's about time that mankind accepts two things:
1: We are inclined to tribe, over beliefs, blood kinships and idealogical connections.
2: We live in a hybridised world, where massive, rapid movements of people have messed around with the jigsaw of those relationships.

Whenever it happens there have always been wars, but if we look at the lessons history teaches us about our behaviour patterns, we might just be able to think our way around Armageddon and really, for the first time, actually make the world a better place. Forcing everyone else into one dominant way of seeing things simply does not work. So with the communication tools we have, can we not actually pool our resources and do something new?

This is the responsibility of all of us, but especially our elected and non-elected leaders, who after all represent us. It is also the responsibility of the greatest communication tool on the planet - the world's media. Which has to stop asking "so Minister, which is better, chalk or cheese?" and start saying "so how do we knit together what Mr Black knows with what Ms White, Mr Yellow and Ms Brown know?" If James Naughtie and his counterparts at the Sun start doing something other than goading politicos into quantative defenses of their own party-bred small-mindedness we might begin to get somewhere. Just a thought.

Originally posted by timo
Rosie,
You must have a very internationalist view of humanity to feel so 'flummoxed' by the reactions. Maybe it is a reflection of your generation's greater interest in global politics than in local or national politics? There appears to be a sociological trend in this direction. Maybe you see yourself as a 'citizen of the world'?

Absolutely, and I feel it's a very healthy outlook to have. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Absolutely, and I feel it's a very healthy outlook to have. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Hear hear! If everyone thought like Rosie, we wouldn't be worrying about wars and suicide bombers. To coin an irrational-sounding truism, Internationalism starts at home.

"Another example of our insularity: on the "So all Muslims are moderate?" thread, Serapis blithely stated "how many Christian, Jewish or Hindu suicide bombers have you heard of over your life time or your parent’s life time? I bet you can’t even think of one." The sad fact is that that statement is probably true. Most people on this forum are probably totally unaware of the fact that the most prolific suicide bombers in history were the Hindu Tamil Tigers."

A fair point, although I'm unaware of the statistics involved re: tamil tigers. The problem is, currently the problem of militant islam is far more international and relevant and when people see years of suicide bombing and terrorist activities all over the world, from bali to chechnya to madrid to the US and finally to the UK, there a common thread involved here and it would be strange to ignore a pattern that would suggest that every single islamic country in the world either suffers from terrorism or spawns terrorists (or both)

But back to the main point, of course the original posters convictions are all very admirable and evolved and la la la, but its not reasonable to expect most other people to share them or even necessarily to understand them.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'm really surprised at everyone's reactions to be honest, as far as I'm concerned, British people dying is tragic, yes, but no more or less tragic than anyone else dying - and my point was that both groups are dying from the same cause.

I'm so flummoxed by all this...

Lets turn it around and ask you a question Rosey.

Would it affect you more if someone on your street was blown up?

Would it be closer to home if someone in your family were blown up?

Or do you not take more interest when the story is about Sheffield city centre being closed because of a suspect package.

I know that my level of empathy/interest declines in direct proportion to how 'close to home' the event is.
Whilst I wish I could stop suicide bombers in Iraq with a wave of my magic wand, given the option I would first stop them hurting my family, my friends, people from sheffield and people from the uk.
It's normal human behaviour to associate with groups large and small, but the smaller more exclusive ones normally mean more to us. The largest group we can possibly belong too is the human race, and thus the needs of that group come last after every smaller group to which we associate ourselves.

Originally posted by skny
A fair point, although I'm unaware of the statistics involved re: tamil tigers.
Tamil Tigers: 76 suicide bombers.

Number 2 in our hit parade, pop-your-clogs-pickers, is Hamas, with a measly 54 "martyrs".

Originally posted by skny
The problem is, currently the problem of militant islam is far more international and relevant
Relevant to you. I imagine that the people of Sri Lanka, to paraphrase that fount of Internationalist wisdom Craigmason, couldn't give a toss.

Originally posted by DanSumption
...Internationalism starts at home.

Awesome!

I'm so going to pinch that.

Originally posted by ADC_28
I'm so going to pinch that.
Damn! Where's that copyright signature of Phan's when I need to pinch it?

Ah well, remember you heard it here first!

Come on. Its FAR more relevant to the international community, and affects a hell of a lot more countries and people. Ergo, that means its more relevant. But I don't doubt that if I was on a Sri Lankan forum it would be a more pressing matter for me to mull over.

Both the Tigers and Hamas have tangible and rational political objectives, in that they have resorted to suicide bombing in pursuit of territorial claims. One may disagree and abhor their methods, but their aims are understandable (the same could be said of the IRA). The London bombers had/have no such rational objectives and are probably motivated by a kind of free floating aggressiveness which has found an outlet in religious extremism or by resentment deriving from an ideology of grievance. They probably bear most similarity to the Russian nihilists of the 19th century, such as Nachaev. To compare them to either the Tamil Tigers or Hamas (or for that matter the Kamikaze pilots) is in my opinion to misunderstand them.

Yes, you're right, although "the international community" in this case still means a minority of countries in the world.

But my original point still stands, which was that because of a blinkered view of the world, a majority of us here think "all suicide bombers are Moslems" when this is so unbelievably way off the mark and is also a potentially dangerous prejudice to carry around with you.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
To compare them to either the Tamil Tigers or Hamas (or for that matter the Kamikaze pilots) is in my opinion to misunderstand them.
You're right, but look back at the question from Serapis which I was responding to and you'll see quite clearly why I was comparing them: because they're all suicide bombers.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Damn! Where's that copyright signature of Phan's when I need to pinch it?

Ah well, remember you heard it here first!

'Internationalism' did indeed start at home in that the word was coined by Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philospher.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
'Internationalism' did indeed start at home in that the word was coined by Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philospher.

We know all about Bentham :hihi:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
We know all about Bentham :hihi:

But have you seen him?

http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm

Originally posted by LordChaverly
But have you seen him?

http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm

Every time I go to London I plan to....but my family just doesn't have the same fascination as me! I nearly applied to UCL just for Bentham. We quizzed the UCL representatives at the University convention at the arena about it too. I also know a fair bit about his theories too...and the head stealing incident!

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Every time I go to London I plan to....but my family just doesn't have the same fascination as me! I nearly applied to UCL just for Bentham. We quizzed the UCL representatives at the University convention at the arena about it too. I also know a fair bit about his theories too...and the head stealing incident!

I think they only bring him out on certain days now. And the head is made of wax (the real one is kept somewhere separately because its in such bad condition).

I have seen Lenin several times though. He too looks like a waxwork.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I think they only bring him out on certain days now. And the head is made of wax (the real one is kept somewhere separately because its in such bad condition).

I have seen Lenin several times though. He too looks like a waxwork.

Mostly I love the reason why they have to keep his body at all.

"The insipid, pedantic, leather-lipped oracle of the commonplace bourgeois intelligence of the nineteenth century", to quote the peoples' favourite philosopher. :hihi:

Coming back to the discussion of 'internationalism', many of the posts on this thread would fit into the idealist tradition in International Relations, which probably had its heyday in the immediate aftermath of the first world war but which continues to have an influence on ways of thinking about international issues. In contrast, the realist and neo-realist schools of thought reject these perspectives as being based largely on wishful thinking. Where the idealists go wrong in my view is in assuming that there is a coherent global community and a common set of global values (and that conlficts are largely about superficial misunderstandings and poor communications). A very useful corrective to this view is Samuel P. Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order'. I won't attempt to paraphrase what it says, because in it Huntington advances a much more complex and sophisticated argument (or rather set of arguments) than most people - particularly his critics - realise. It is often summarised by people who have never actually read it. Definitely worth reading at first hand

Originally posted by DanSumption
"The insipid, pedantic, leather-lipped oracle of the commonplace bourgeois intelligence of the nineteenth century", to quote the peoples' favourite philosopher. :hihi:

If only more people in the 20th century had been followers of Bentham rather than Marx, the world would have been a much better place - and the sum total of human happiness, to use one of his most famous phrases, would have been vastly increased. All the followers of Marx ever did was increase the sum total of human misery.

"the greatest good for the greatest number" - god, my A-level History lecturer used to repeat that phrase so often that it became like a blunt instrument in more ways than one.

Well if there is a perception of "muslim=suicide bomber" than the bombers themselves arent exactly blameless themselves of perpetuating this stereotype. "blessed by the holy martyrs who brought death and destruction to the crusading infidels" and so on and so forth, dirka dirka mohammed jihad.

edit: arent the tamil tigers a marxist organisation? did some googling after DS's posts referencing them....

Originally posted by skny
arent the tamil tigers a marxist organisation? did some googling after DS's posts referencing them....
Quite possibly, they are a secular organisation but they are all Hindu, and one would assume that their religious views and their take on the afterlife would have a bearing on whether or not they're willing to blithely throw their own lives away.

I agree..but considering that hindus (another googlisation) comprise 13% of the world's population and muslims consist of about 19%, I think -right now- muslims do seem to have a bit of a international monopoly on the old "die for the glory of the supreme being" concept.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The sheer amount of coverage on the London bombings makes it pretty clear, once again, that the British, or at least the media, values British lives over foreign ones. For example, on the radio the other day, most of the news was taken up with a minor addition to the London bombings story, and a minor story mentioned that 800 people a day die from suicide bombings in Iraq. That's the same way the London 53 (?) died. What's the difference, someone tell me!

in reality every huma life is the same. However, from a British media point ours are more precious.

I suppose in the old days when we were fighting France etc ours were more important.