The Pheasant, Wizard Award Winner Options

[Guest_Nina_*]

James

You are most welcome

Nina

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

My post obviously didn't come across as I wanted it to  (well it was late and I was tired).  

There is no suggestion he was especially wicked, heartless, brutal nor inhumane (interesting concept for a bird)  nor took any pleasure in the killing
I didn't mean to suggest your poor persecuted pheasant was any of those.  In fact in my post I said:

My feeling is that your pheasant had a need to turn to violence and shoot his attackers

I wasn't trying to compare your pheasant with Cathy's Knight, though you read it as such.  

I was looking at a notion of someone in their fight for survival being driven to go much further than is necessary for self preservation, which is what Cathy implies in her tale (or that is how it appears to me).  

Also in my mind was the question of when the underdog has the upperhand and the power is his, will he abuse it or not?

With regard to war.  With the exception of trying to stop the evil of the Nazis in world war 2 which was totally justified (I probably wouldn't be sitting here talking to you if Hitler had succeeded), most wars are a fight for power and control.

Well, those were the weird wonderings of my mind after reading your poem, so I will shut up now and go and cook the tea.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Thanks again for popping back and sticking with this.

I think it must be me who didn't quite make myself clear - not you :)

>>I didn't mean to suggest your poor persecuted pheasant was any of those.  In fact in my post I said:
>>My feeling is that your pheasant had a need to turn to violence and shoot his attackers

Nope I didn't misunderstand that. I was just stating the situation as compared to Cathy's character - not rebuffing any comment you made at all, sorry.

>>I wasn't trying to compare your pheasant with Cathy's Knight, though you read it as such.

I did, yes. Weren't you? I though that you were in order to do what you mention in your next point...

>>I was looking at a notion of someone in their fight for survival being driven to go much further than is necessary for self preservation, which is what Cathy implies in her tale (or that is how it appears to me).  

I agree; in that specific verse, her knight comes across as all those things I was saying the pheasant wasn't. To me her knight goes way beyond self-preservation - almost into what, today, we would call war crimes - but that only applies to that verse; I really have to re-read the whole.

err, so I actually think we're agreeing?

WW2 was also a fight for power and control. All wars are that (as you indicate) - with economics thrown in. The Nazis simply wanted to control just about everywhere for the greater good of Germany and fascism. And there's a good chance that I wouldn't be sitting here, replying to your non-posts, either.

Your mental wanderings are far from weird (something about which I know a great deal) and very much appreciated.

A cooked tea... that takes me back to my childhood. Apart from toast, don't think I've had one since. Just checking when the next train to London is from central Hampshire - they are very frequent - and the journey is quite quick - so if you'd kindly hang on a few mins...

James.

[Guest_Jox_*]

You're very kind, Nina, Thank you very much.

[Guest_Jox_*]

© James Oxenholme, 2005. I, James Oxenholme, do assert my right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of The Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act, 1988. (Laws of Cymru & England, as recognised by international treaties). This work was simultaneously copyrighted in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance, only.


*Graphic provided by
Celtic Castle Designs

Reference: TC 0259 AB (06/01/2005)

The Pheasant
by TC

Pheasant! Pheasant! Pheasant!
All guns trained on the bird
which suddenly appeared,
diving from above.

Too late!
The pheasant opened-up
with his machine gun:

the shooting party were slaughtered.

(end)

[JLY]

James, this seems like some kind of reversal of fortune. Are our aviary friends turning their rage against mankind?
JLY

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi, James,

I can usually throw myself off the edge and comment on your poems, but his has me uncomfortably puzzled; I am not sure quite what it is. It is not quite utterly sureal (at least by your standards, lol! ), but definitely not normality. Am I missing a metaphor somewhere, or do you just dislike wanton murder of pheasants?

Your bemused friend,  
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi John and Fran,

Thank you both for commenting. I thought the poem was one of my most obvious ones but since you kindly ask...

This is surrealism, unfortunately. Oh that it were reality! OK, if I’ve not been obvious enough, here’s part of my personal credo - not religious in a godly sense (of course) but part of my personal "religion", I suppose, Views I hold very deeply, anyway and I didn’t intend to express much, except via fiction. However...

I'm not against killing animals for food. Indeed, shooting is probably the most humane way and the birds do have an almost free life prior to being murdered. Much, much  better than say, battery farming and equally better than abattoirs. Humans need to eat and can be the kindest killers in the animal world. No argument from me there (although some of my socialist veggie friends would, most certainly argue).

However, I live in an area where pheasants are bred, loosed and shot for sport. Many are subsequently eaten but that is not the prime purpose of the Brits and foreign visitors who pay up to £1,000 for their day’s sport.

Now, I think people who kill for sport should, themselves, face similar murder. Why not? I would love to see pheasants take arms and attack-back. Why should humans simply take pleasure by wrecking others’ lives - even if the others are birds. The shooting (if not for food) is wanton murder. We try to kill foxes for coming in and murdering chickens without cause - why should we be exempt?

The UK is currently in the process of fox and stag-hunting bans - will take another year unless by any chance, Labour lose the 2005 election and the shooting Tories win. I see no reason (and I have written work about this in the past - though I didn’t think them good enough to post) fox hunters, themselves should not be hunted down and torn apart like we do to poor foxes (which is far worse than shooting pheasants). I don’t agree with the animal welfare protestors that “Meat is Murder” - well, it is but legitimate for feeding ourselves. But the opportunities for sport are endless, so why make the animals suffer for our sadistic pleasure?

Here’s the end-lines from an unfinished piece - which I may be tempted to work on now... (I know it needs a lot, it has been abandoned for two years, so not for crit - just to show my views).

-----------------------------

No! I trip and fall to the ground. Suddenly I realise that the dogs and humans are upon me. I catch sight of the men's uniforms - all bright and clean; too clean - a brilliant blood red.

I struggle to right myself but the first dog is sinking his teeth into my neck. I shake my head violently. he briefly lets go. I rise to my feet but am set-upon by another dog and then another and then they all join in. I feel one tear at my throat but after a feeling  like a cut I feel no more. My head is jerked round and I see that dogs are at each of my legs. Since I lost the feeling there quite a while ago it is like looking at someone else's legs being torn apart. There is no sensation. My mind begins to wander again. Something is happening. all the countryside has grown. The fresh coolness of Spring has turned into the burning aridness of high Summer. I think a dog is at my chest - I can feel that - or is it the hot summer sun? The season is changing again. It is Autumn. The leaves are peacefully drifting down. I an tiring. I try to stretch my legs but something is stopping them - Oh, yes, I think it must be the dogs. The pace of the changing seasons is accelerating again. It is Winter now. the snow is falling and cold is descending. I look for somewhere to sleep. this seems as good a place as any. I will sleep here while I wait for my Spring to return - I wonder if it'll be as good as the last?

I seem to hear some distant words. I think the man in red said "Foxes are vermin you know," and the man in black reply "so are Jews". I must be imagining things.
---------------------------------------

So, yes, I equate killing for sport with fascism. An elitist sorting of World-order based on malicious prejudice - in this case that humans are more important than animals. Why are we? Only because we think we are. Ask the pheasants (peasants) - I doubt they’d agree. Ah but they can’t speak human, can they - or was it because the Jews might have big noses? All inferior. We obviously have the right to kill them all. Human life is so much more important. Why? Oh, because humans say so. Must be true, then. (Of course, we’ll re-define what is human some times to suite the political conditions, too).

Makes the RC church look holy in comparison - see, despite many people thinking I hate Catholics (100% untrue) or Catholicism (untrue) or the RC Church (blame them, more than hate them), none of them are my top-target. What is? Simple - our species: Humans, me included. We‘re the ones who cause most of the misery and havoc on Earth - via so many ways.

That’s why I wrote the poem.

Thanks for asking, all the best, James.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James,

I was definitely missing the intention. Your prose brings it home viciously - made me feel queasy reading that. Thanks...

However, I didn't see that in the poem. This may well be showing my lack of experience - perhaps others who know more about poetry and have known you longer may see more clearly. Else I am inclined to wonder if it is just a little too pared down ... wait and see what else is said.

As an aside, if the pheasants too over the world, they'd start by hunting down mankind for sport, but they'd no doubt end up just as bad (Animal Farm).

Regards,  :dragon:
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, thanks for your reply and sorry to make you queasy.

However, my message is not violence; it is peace. We should only kill animals when we have to for our lives' sake (and many people are far more extreme than that).

My poem did not contain anything like as much as the info I just gave in prose. It did not attempt to link wanton violence towards animals with fascism and so on. (Ironic you should say pared-down - I have just replied to your posting in the story thread about that very topic - a cross-over between poetry and prose).

In prose, I think what the poem says is "Why should pheasants not have the equal right to murder people, if people insist on murdering pheasants?" That's all. The rest was an extension - a reason for the poem, I suppose.

I hope the poem said that - did it not? If not, I shall have to revise, yes.

Re: Animal Farm. I don't know but wild animals often kill very nastily... then again, not often for fun (there are exceptions - e.g. foxes). Then again, if they became a comfortable dominant species, who knows...

Thanks very much for sticking with it Fran and I hope you feel better soon.

Best wishes,

James.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Hi James!

I think you have a very valid complaint and I understand how you feel.  I too agree that killing for food is necessary and ok but to kill just for sport is vicious.  I have to agree with Fran that the poem is too pared down.  I think it could benefit from additions.  I hope I don't offend you but when I read the poem I saw it as cute...the birds getting revenge upon humans...but I don't think you want it read that way.  Use your wide knowledge and understanding of the written word and make the meaning of that poem known.  I believe you have something worth writing about!

~Cathy

[Guest_Jox_*]

Cathy, Hi... thank you very much - very helpful.

You most certainly do not offend me; your (and Fran's and John's) comments are very useful - precisely what I need to shape the work.

I was trying to use a certain cuteness which I had intended to be shattered by the final word "slaughtered" but seems I've not suceeded yet. I must think again.

I am curious on one thing, though:

"the birds getting revenge upon humans...but I don't think you want it read that way"

That was precisely what I did mean in the poem. All the prose I wrote was simply explaining how I arrived at that stage. The poem does not address those other issues. I am addressing them in different pieces (like the prose one from which an extract was taken, but not in this).

Emm.. puzzled now.. I suppose I just have to make the revenge less comical? Less cute?

Thanks Cathy... much appreciated.

James.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Others may not see it that way James.  Maybe it's just me and my warped brain!  LOL

[Guest_Jox_*]

Cathy, I've already lost my "MM Minimalist" crown to Alan - I have no intention of also losing my "MM's Most Warped Brain" title. Sorry! I'm keeping it.

You have made valid points; I shall think on't and I'm very grateful.

James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
I'm still new here at least in my opinion. I think of "new" as not having to feel that I know the members and can then judge how to respond to a posted piece.
I have long thought that modern poetry is not suitable to humor.
Not knowing you well I first responded to "Pheasants..."  as attempted humor. I didn't think of it as successful.
Then reading the comments I learned enough to review in my own mind a concept I'd not thought deeply about before. I'm a liberatarian and so my first thought is to respect the choices of others or differently expressed over here, "buzz off". However, considering man's feral urge to kill wantonly in the name, believe it, of sport, is
difficult to simply put out of one's mind.
Indeed I do believe man lowers himself, perhaps even below most animals, in killing for sport.
That left me with a need to comment on the poem, yet to do so without alienating the hunters or yourself.
For the hunters, may I say that "that's what makes a horserace".
To you, I believe such a topic coming from deep conviction requires
either additional poetic expression to assure that the reader interprets it properly or suitable footnotes.
On second thought, if we all stay friends, my typing finger has been unnecessarily stressed.
Cheers,    jgd

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron,

Thank you very much for your interest and comments.

I do (try to) write humour poems - e.g. "Donkeys Cheat At Cards," which I see as humour with no deeper meaning. Then again...

I am certainly not saying that others find my efforts funny but - in general - I think humour can be achieved in any form of writing - even academic papers (sometimes).

My overall target is not really any one group - it is power-bases of mankind - where that power is abused. Now, I judge what abuse is because this is my mind's output. But I'm always happy to argue my corner. In this poem I suppose I am "targeting" sports shooters. However, it may be in every other respect they are decent people and much better than I. So it is really we humans who need to be held to account - and that does include me (at least the last time I looked in the mirror!) (That was an attempt at self-deprecating humour :) )

>>"To you, I believe such a topic coming from deep conviction requires
either additional poetic expression to assure that the reader interprets it properly or suitable footnotes."

This troubles me a bit and for two reasons.

Yes, I do use footnotes - sometimes very extensive. But usually to explain references which would take ages to look-up. I try not to use footnotes to explain the meaning of a poem. I will always explain to critics what I meant if they ask, though. However, I rather think the poem is failing if I need to explain the meaning per se.

Secondly, I do expect the reader to bring something to a poem - their own mind. Therefore, I am not comfortable with "a proper interpretation." If an interpretation is required that is up to the interpreter (i.e. the reader) - what you suggest is not the flexibility of interpretation, it is a rigid prescription, is it not? Once I have created the poem with a certain meaning in mind, it is interesting to see the various interpretations which people make. If you took it to be humorous (albeit a failed attempt at) that is interesting, too. Cathy did suggest it was a little too over that side for my meaning and I think you make a similar point. I may adjust it, then.. but to be honest I never find anything with guns in to be funny. I utterly hate them. So I do have a philosophical problem there. For me, guns always mean serious. I shall have to think on that.

On this point, if you return, might you please tell me what additional poetic expression you had in mind? (I’m stumped on that one). Thanks in advance.

>>On second thought, if we all stay friends, my typing finger has been unnecessarily stressed.

emm you’ve lost me here, sorry Ron. Your typing was not wasted; I appreciated your comments but that is not mutually exclusive with us remaining friends, is it? I would have thought that if you were willing to take the trouble to comment as you have, that was a very friendly and helpful act - and I’m grateful. Thank you.

All the best, James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

I read your poem a couple of days ago, while I was at work but I have been so busy that I haven't had time to post.  I understood the point you were trying to make about the pheasant getting revenge on the humans.  The word slaughtered makes for a brutal ending giving a picture in my mind of a massacre taking place.  

The poem reminded me a bit of a poem I used to read as a child, from a book by Heinrich Hoffman called Struwelpeter.  You can read it here, though the ending isn't as final as yours.

My instinctive feeling about Pheasant is a sadness that this bird is being brought down to the low level of humans.  Having killed them in that way, the bird is now no better than they were and this is why it makes for uncomfortable reading.

Mind you I found reading your story much more painful reading, particularly the last paragraph.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Nina,

Hello and thank you. Thanks also for taking the trouble to return and comment.

I have read the poem to which you referred but have not quite set it in my mind yet - I have bookmarked it so that I can return; I think it needs some thought - not as obvious as would appear at first (or I'm simply thick - which may be the case).

I appreciate your focussing on "slaughtered" because that was precisely why I used it. A brutal and final word. I tried to make the poem look a little "nice" at first until the shooting - then that word.

I agree about the bird being brought down to our level - and Fran thought as you because she mentioned "Animal Farm." I suppose I have to say that, generally, humans do try to be better to other animals than many other animals do to each other. Nevertheless, killing for sport is fairly uncommon, I believe, so is an especially unpleasant human trait.

My personal feeling is that the humans got what they deserved. I don't blame the pheasant. However, to take your point... you're right - if, say, the Israelis and Palestinians stopped attacking each other than maybe peace? On the other hand, how do the repressed defend themselves if turning the other cheek fails? Have they any alternative but to stoop to violence? I have no  panacea, of course. I simply ask the questions.

I have decided to update that story and will post on MM for crit when I have done so. Of course, the problem now is that everyone knows the ending. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your comment - I didn't mean to pain anyone but, on t'other hand, it is good to have a reaction to one's efforts.

Thank you very much Nina; you have caused me to think more.

Best wishes, James.

[jgdittier]

Dear Jox,
From my point of view, in depth discussions of a piece of poetry is the greatest reward I'd want for mine. Thus I hope you discount my comment about the typing finger.
I suppose the area where we underlap our views is re "deep conviction" in poetry. Since when reading poetry we can't see expressions, nor eyes, hear vocal inflections, etc., and poetry often says so much in so few words, all seem to me to establish a situation where interpretation is difficult. It would therefore seem that as soon as this fact was recognized, some means to deal with it would be adopted. I assume the early poets found that they preferred the potential for misinterpretation and it has become as aspect of poetry.
I find a parallelism even now, tho of the slightest importance. In writing verse, if I shorten a word in order to maintain the cadence, I show the apostrophe. I am strict about cadence and do not want my reader to stumble over whether a normally three-syllable word be
pronounced with just two. It seems to me to be a favor for the reader. But no, I was quickly told that modern style requires the word to be fully spelled out, inferring that it's up to the reader to pronounce it as I intended. I've similarly never seen why.

As to how to assure that the thrust of the piece is properly interpreted, I'd totally leave that to the descretion of the writer. It's just that when I've written what I call "think pieces", they've usually been unintentionally confusing which was not my goal.

Cheers,    jgd

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
For an example of a "think piece" failing

http://p070.ezboard.com/fthepoe....3.topic

It's called PC Football.

You may have to join ezboard but it doesn't cost and you won't be spammed
Cheers,    jgd

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

On the other hand, how do the repressed defend themselves if turning the other cheek fails? Have they any alternative but to stoop to violence? I have no  panacea, of course. I simply ask the questions.


You raise a question that I pondered on as I was posting my comment.  My feeling is that your pheasant had a need to turn to violence and shoot his attackers.  How do you draw the line between shooting for self defence and carrying on just because you have the power.  (I know what I want mean to say but I am finding it difficult to put it into words).  Cathy considers this issue in part 2 of her Knight in Shining Armour when she says (and I hope she doesn't mind me quoting):

He was wicked on the battlefield,
heartless and inhumane.
His friends called it survival,
others called him insane.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina, thanks for re-visiting.

To be trivial for a moment (because such things amuse me). This is my 1600th post on MM and I earn my Fifth pip for my fun. So I'm rite chuffed.

You have interestingly juxtaposed Cathy's poem and mine to make a fascinating point. Thank you. What do you think, Cathy?

My response is thus:

Cathy's sequence of poems complete one work and so (sorry!) I may have missed the justification for the war. However, in the particular verse quoted I see none; it is accepted as is.

My point was that the guns were all ready to kill the pheasant but he was quicker. There is no suggestion he was especially wicked, heartless, brutal nor inhumane (interesting concept for a bird)  nor took any pleasure in the killing. It was the cliche situation of "them or me." I suppose the pheasant could have flown elsewhere but the guns would have followed him. Besides, the Palestinians and Israelis are rather static.

How could anyone call the pheasant's reaction insane? A pacifist might disagree with it but it is survival - the basic biological imperative - so is as sane as can be.

Therefore, unless the explanation is elsewhere in Cathy's work, I think we have two very different situations here: two different motives and two different approaches.

For me, war is a terrible business, filled with no glory, no heroism in general and no victory at the end. But some wars do need fighting in order to survive - either literally or at least in relative freedom. When Blair said that the recent Iraq war was vital for the safety of the UK I supported it. I now feel duped and believe the war was wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that, in the longer run, Iraq and the World are better-off without Saddam. However, we can't simply declare war everywhere we don't like the government. I don't see the pheasant even in that light. I see him more as fighting the Battle of Britain against the Nazi invaders. And that, I do believe was right and necessary. Think of the consequences if Hitler had succeeded.

I think the final word "slaughter" was right. For me, it prevented the poem from being amusing (though others disagree). It also brought home the bloody reality of war. So, even though I "support" the pheasant - I still hate the process. In the case of the Palestinians and Israelis negotiation is the only way forward, leading to non-interference either way. But the Germans could not have been stopped that way... they may have left Britain alone but not the rest of Europe.

I think that's my rather rambling answer. Any use, Nina? Thanks again.

James.

[Guest_JohnK_*]

James,

This piece did make me chuckle.  I'm something of a fan of humour that subverts convention, and while I'm not unfamiliar with the idea of arming prey, I thought this was fresh way of approaching the subject.

I was slightly confused to begin with as to why hunters would shout "Pheasant!" like that, but that fell into place once I realised it was one nasty pheasant they were dealing with. :)

As for my own views, I too disagree with hunting purely for sport.  However, the majority of the hunters I have met/chatted with are bowhunters in the US, and they have a strong ethical sense of the responsibilities of hunting (they only hunt what they're going to eat, they take great care to kill as quickly as possible, etc.).  I have no problem with the fact that they also derive pleasure from the experience of pitting their stealth against the senses of their quarry.

Anyway, I'm somewhat off topic now, so I'll close.

[Guest_Jox_*]

John good to meet you - I'll say Hello properly over in your poem, which I'm off to crit after replying to this and fetching a cuppa.

Thank you very much for popping in and commenting.

This piece did make me chuckle.  I'm something of a fan of humour that subverts convention, and while I'm not unfamiliar with the idea of arming prey, I thought this was fresh way of approaching the subject.

Thank you very much. I intended it as a jocular piece until the end, though not humorous per se. Nevertheless, quite a few critics have said it is humorous so be it. I didn't think I'd see prey armed before but Nina highlighted another poem which did it and, now I think more, most Tom & Jerry cartoons do it too.

>>I was slightly confused to begin with as to why hunters would shout "Pheasant!" like that, but that fell into place once I realised it was one nasty pheasant they were dealing with.  

Well, I thought of the pheasant as exercising pro-active self -defence (you know the sort of thing - Let's invade Iraq because they must have WMD aimed at us, which can be activated in 45 mins etc). But, of course, in the hunters' case, they were actually out hunting pheasant...  the alert was meant to work t'other way too - a shout so they could aim their guns and not miss an opportunity. I should have called the pheasant “Blair.” Then again, I respect and agree with the pheasant’s motives.

>>As for my own views, I too disagree with hunting purely for sport.  However, the majority of the hunters I have met/chatted with are bowhunters in the US, and they have a strong ethical sense of the responsibilities of hunting (they only hunt what they're going to eat, they take great care to kill as quickly as possible, etc.).  I have no problem with the fact that they also derive pleasure from the experience of pitting their stealth against the senses of their quarry.

I would exclude hunting for food from my criticism. If we are to be a meat-eating species - and that does not seem unreasonable, many species are - then the most humane kill is best. Leaving the birds in the wild and fast-killing seems the best way to me... then again, I'm not being targeted.

My contention was that killing for sport, in my opinion, is wrong (e.g. fox hunting and pheasant hunting for sport etc). I have no comment to make on the pleasure hunters take  - ok, I have; I find it an unpleasant base instinct - but that doesn't matter. These people need to eat (especially after a long day hunting!) so whatever else they derive from it is of no matter to me, nor to the murdered birds.

In actual fact, I am more guilty of harming animals than your bowhunter friends - because I eat meat killed at abattoirs. I eat meat which is intensively farmed. These must be bigger crimes. So it is better that the hunters kill their food quickly in the wild. I feel I ought to address mass farming and the mass slaughter which puts meat in our stomachs, too - but poems etc tend to creep up on me and that topic hasn’t... yet.

>>Anyway, I'm somewhat off topic now, so I'll close.

No more so than most people here - me included. We do need to focus on each other’s work - but I feel you’ve done very well here - especially by addressing the meaning of my poem. You (and some others) have taken slightly different meanings to the ones I intended in parts - which I always find fascinating. Different people do bring different interpretations - I really like that aspect of art.

Thank you very much John. Most interesting. After that cuppa, I’ll be across to look at your first post. Cheerio now,

James.

[Guest_JohnK_*]

Hello James, and apologies for the delay in replying.

>John good to meet you - I'll say Hello properly over in your poem, which I'm off to crit after replying to this and fetching a cuppa.

>Thank you very much for popping in and commenting.

My pleasure, and thank you again for your help and comments.  Much appreciated. :)

>>This piece did make me chuckle.  I'm something of a fan of humour that subverts convention, and while I'm not unfamiliar with the idea of arming prey, I thought this was fresh way of approaching the subject.

>Thank you very much. I intended it as a jocular piece until the end, though not humorous per se. Nevertheless, quite a few critics have said it is humorous so be it. I didn't think I'd see prey armed before but Nina highlighted another poem which did it and, now I think more, most Tom & Jerry cartoons do it too.

I was thinking of poor old Elmer Fudd myself.

>>I was slightly confused to begin with as to why hunters would shout "Pheasant!" like that, but that fell into place once I realised it was one nasty pheasant they were dealing with.  

>Well, I thought of the pheasant as exercising pro-active self -defence (you know the sort of thing - Let's invade Iraq because they must have WMD aimed at us, which can be activated in 45 mins etc).

Oh yes, and while we're at it, let's "impose democracy" on them.  That makes perfect sense and isn't in any way fundamentally idiotic.

>But, of course, in the hunters' case, they were actually out hunting pheasant...  the alert was meant to work t'other way too - a shout so they could aim their guns and not miss an opportunity. I should have called the pheasant “Blair.” Then again, I respect and agree with the pheasant’s motives.



>>As for my own views, I too disagree with hunting purely for sport.  However, the majority of the hunters I have met/chatted with are bowhunters in the US, and they have a strong ethical sense of the responsibilities of hunting (they only hunt what they're going to eat, they take great care to kill as quickly as possible, etc.).  I have no problem with the fact that they also derive pleasure from the experience of pitting their stealth against the senses of their quarry.

>I would exclude hunting for food from my criticism. If we are to be a meat-eating species - and that does not seem unreasonable, many species are - then the most humane kill is best. Leaving the birds in the wild and fast-killing seems the best way to me... then again, I'm not being targeted.

>My contention was that killing for sport, in my opinion, is wrong (e.g. fox hunting and pheasant hunting for sport etc). I have no comment to make on the pleasure hunters take  - ok, I have; I find it an unpleasant base instinct - but that doesn't matter. These people need to eat (especially after a long day hunting!) so whatever else they derive from it is of no matter to me, nor to the murdered birds.

Indeed.  Personally, I can understand and identify with the sheer thrill of pitting your skill against the senses of a wild animal, but I'm not sure if I could actually shoot one.  Actually, I've written a drabble on this subject.  I might post it in the prose section at some point, although it's more like a poem in form I think.

>In actual fact, I am more guilty of harming animals than your bowhunter friends - because I eat meat killed at abattoirs. I eat meat which is intensively farmed. These must be bigger crimes. So it is better that the hunters kill their food quickly in the wild. I feel I ought to address mass farming and the mass slaughter which puts meat in our stomachs, too - but poems etc tend to creep up on me and that topic hasn’t... yet.

I know the feeling.  It's the same way with me and short stories.  Also, the Odysseus poem sort of mugged me.  I wasn't expecting to try to write a poem at all.

>>Anyway, I'm somewhat off topic now, so I'll close.

>No more so than most people here - me included. We do need to focus on each other’s work - but I feel you’ve done very well here - especially by addressing the meaning of my poem. You (and some others) have taken slightly different meanings to the ones I intended in parts - which I always find fascinating. Different people do bring different interpretations - I really like that aspect of art.

Thank you, and yes, interpretation is fascinating.  To allude to my poem for a moment, you took the verse that I wrote describing Odysseus' father as describing Odysseus himself.  Personally, I'm not sure I understand that, but if it works both ways, then great :)

>Thank you very much John. Most interesting. After that cuppa, I’ll be across to look at your first post. Cheerio now,

Bye for now, and thanks again.

John

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi John.

I think we've come to various agreements so I'll rest the debate there - please tell me if I've missed anything.

I just wanted to thank you both for returning and for the interesting conversation. Much appreciated. Being selfish, I'm really glad you've joined MM (thanks Fran). This conversation and your poem have both been fascinating.

I'll pop across to Ody to explain why I see that verse as I do.

Best wishes, James.

[Cleo_Serapis]

CONGRATS Jox on your Wizard Award winning tile!

Well done!
~Cleo  :pharoah2

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

congratulations on your wizard award.  I enjoyed the discussion on this tile

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Lori & Nina,

Thank you both very much indeed.

Nina - I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion; me too.

James.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James,

A wonderfully thought-provoking piece; nice to see the wizard.  :wizard:

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Fran,

Thank you very much - you comments mean much to me.

James.

[Psyche]

Hi James !

I love the idea of your poem, but it doesn't quite convey to the readers the principles by which you appear to stand. It does sound more humorous than representative of one's stance in life. Now I'm the one's that's gone SO solemn....  :speechless:
So I'll make a "humorous" suggestion:


The Pheasant
by TC

Pheasant! Pheasant! Pheasant!
All guns trained on the bird
which suddenly appeared,
diving from above.

Too late!
The pheasant opened-up
with his machine gun:

the shooting party were slaughtered


Too late !
The pheasant opened-up
showering pellets
from its sharp beak.

the shooting party were slaughtered.

I don't like the idea of the pheasant using a machine gun ! This would be a passive resistance, sort of....  :(

Good read, and a wizard, at that !! Congrats !
Psyche

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Sylvia,

Thank you very much for your visit and comments...

This "humour problem" is a really difficult one. I wanted the peice to seem jocular (arther than humourous) initially so that the final verse - or, at least, the final line was shocking. However, I don't want people amused by the whole thing in some sort of cartoon-humour thing. So I agree about that problem.

Having said that, would not him firing from his beak actually enhance the unwanted humour?

Sorry to disappoint, by the way but I'm not a pacificist and don't believe in passive resistance. If, for example, Britain had been taken over by the Nazis in WW2 (which seemed very likely at times) then I would have wanted us to use any and all means at our disposal to destroy the oppressors. I loathe war and all it brings but freedom must be maintained (Yes, I can debate what freedom means for ever but, shall we say, self-determination for a country?)

I'm no Ghandi, no saint. If I wasn't a coward in WW2 - which is probably highly likely - I'd like to think I was doing all I could to destroy the Nazis, using every and all means available. Though, isn't it a complete failure of humanity that WW2 was ever needed?

This poem, by the way, was partly written with the Nazis in mind. Though I was not advertising that in the poem, per se - but did drop-in part of a prose piece in reply to illustrate the point.

So, from my pheasant's point-of-view I expect him to use the biggest guns he can to do the maximum damage he can.

Now, maybe humour isn't a problem, after all?

Thank you very much indeed; always a big pleasure to see you around - and especially to receive a crit from you, Sylvia.

By the way, how's the broadband going now? Still miss the Net Cafe?

Thank you,
James.

[Psyche]

Hi James !
That was a long doorbell ring. Glad I made u laugh with my remarks about spermatozoides and such.... but I'm back to say that I still don't like the idea of arming the poor pheasants with machine guns, even metaphorically. It's not the poem that fails, it's the idea. We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess that's what makes a forum dynamic, yeah, yeah...
Trouble is, I don't believe in absolutes. Passive resistance has worked very well under certain circumstances and happens to be about the only effective weapon for the weak. If you can't or don't have arms to bear, then you use whatever method works, and passive resistance is one of them.  Ghandi, of course, is a prime example. I don't believe he wished to be a martyr, and anyhow he was shot by one of his own countrymen, not by a Briton.
On the other hand, other nations can and must defend themselves against monsters like Hitler. And rightly so, there's no avoiding it. The Battle of Britain must rate as about the most heroic recent landmark in history.
Whereas more recent events, such as arming other monsters like Sadam Hussein and then bombing the whole country of Iraq, just don't "click" with me. And most of Africa was armed by the West, and look at the mess they're in.

Going back to the pheasants, I'd like to think of them as part of the weak communities on this planet, so I'd also feel happier if they were to "bomb" hunters using alternative & effective methods, not the "eye for an eye, or tooth for a tooth" strategy. I don't feel comfortable with the idea of pheasants creating mass destruction with machine guns....how sad !! ¡This may sound funny, but I'm being dead serious.   :(

There would surely be no end to the violence, and we'd have, no doubt, an Animal Farm planet. Now I'm feeling depressed.

All the same, it's a great poem, you wizard, you !

Best, Psyche

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Sylvia...

That was a long doorbell ring.

More like a gong of the ages! :)

Glad I made u laugh with my remarks about spermatozoids and such

Humour is vital - even if I'm trying to ditch it here!

>>.... but I'm back to say that I still don't like the idea of arming the poor pheasants with machine guns, even metaphorically. It's not the poem that fails, it's the idea. We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess that's what makes a forum dynamic, yeah, yeah...

Indeed, do go on...

>>Trouble is, I don't believe in absolutes.

Makes two of us. Agree on that.

>> Passive resistance has worked very well under certain circumstances and happens to be about the only effective weapon for the weak. If you can't or don't have arms to bear, then you use whatever method works, and passive resistance is one of them.  Ghandi, of course, is a prime example. I don't believe he wished to be a martyr, and anyhow he was shot by one of his own countrymen, not by a Briton.

Ghandi - yes, correct.

Sure, if one doesn't have any useful weapons and all that is left, passive resistance it has to be. But if one is stronger then employ everything at one's disposal. Unless one is a pacifist doesn't that make sense?

>>On the other hand, other nations can and must defend themselves against monsters like Hitler. And rightly so, there's no avoiding it. The Battle of Britain must rate as about the most heroic recent landmark in history.

Yes, those chaps were amazing. In fairness, I'm sure the German pilots were decent people, too. But they were there to enforce the Nazi's will and that had to be opposed. Whenever I see a Spitfire fly above me I always think of that Battle.

>>Whereas more recent events, such as arming other monsters like Saddam Hussein and then bombing the whole country of Iraq, just don't "click" with me. And most of Africa was armed by the West, and look at the mess they're in.

Ah! If you think I might support Western arms policy and the invasion of Iraq, you'd have me wrong there. I did support the Iraq War initially because our own PM - Blair lied to us. He told us that the Iraqis had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD - i.e. Chemical / Biological / Nuclear) which could be targeted at Britain within 45 minutes. We had much reason to suspect Saddam would target, too. But it was all lies. I'm not entirely sure if Blair was lied to himself and simply passed that on or if he twisted the info given to him so much that it constituted his own lie. But they were lies.

Ironically, I think the Iraq War was precipitated by the USA neo-Cons and the fundamentalist Christians from whom they draw their strength. But I think the Bush administration has lied less to the US people than HMG has to us. Besides, the UK did not have to join in. We did so willingly - even eagerly - so I wouldn't blame the US for that.

I'm delighted Iraq is free of Saddam; the man, his sons and his regime were tyrants, murders and oppressed all. However, we cannot simply rampage around the globe like some 21st Century Robin Hood - quite insane.

Most arms sold to Africa are immoral. I agree.

>>Going back to the pheasants, I'd like to think of them as part of the weak communities on this planet, so I'd also feel happier if they were to "bomb" hunters using alternative & effective methods, not the "eye for an eye, or tooth for a tooth" strategy.

You see, I have never believed in eye for an eye etc. I would always want kill for an eye, kill for a tooth. massive and unstoppable retaliation. Overwhelming force. Genuine Shock and Awe. Why pussy-foot around. If its war then lets stop the other side as quickly as possible. Here Hitler did have the right idea - Blitzkrieg. Very effective. If Britain were attacked I would want HMG to set out to absolutely obliterate our opponents; no questions and no quarter. Nothing held back. Now, by doing that it might actually be a quicker, less damaging war - surrender might come quicker. Imagine if we could have nuked German cities in 1940 - the war might have been over within a year. Yes, there would have been much suffering - but there was. Overall, it would have reduced the number of people suffering greatly.

In the poem, I was trying to empower the pheasants - turn them from being the weaker species into the stronger (their flight gives them the edge).

>>I don't feel comfortable with the idea of pheasants creating mass destruction with machine guns....how sad !! ¡This may sound funny, but I'm being dead serious.    

But why not? The shooting day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out (save closed season) goes on. That is mass destruction - just a few at a time. Why wait around to be shot at?

>>There would surely be no end to the violence, and we'd have, no doubt, an Animal Farm planet. Now I'm feeling depressed.

I disagree. The "no end to violence" scenario is when both sides are reasonably evenly matched - so the war goes on and on and on (1914-18 trench warfare, for example) or when one side is being repressed and cannot fight back properly (e.g. the Palestinians against the Israelis today).

When the Allied nuked Japan in WW2 that soon stopped the fighting. I live near the UK's nuclear bomb factories - and I used to drive past them daily. It's a pity we need them but we do. It represents devastating power and protects our security on that top level. Of course, countries still need conventional forces but nuclear weapons have, in my opinion, protected the global peace since WW2. I belong to the first generation of Brits who have not experienced a major war in their life time. Lots of smaller wars, of course. And people still are killed, maimed etc. But no very major war. (We were not involved in Viet Nam). I'm thankful for that beyond measure. But such security comes at a price - part of it was the Battle of Britain and other WW2 engagements and part the nuclear deterrent and part alliances - e.g. NATO / Australia / New Zealand etc. Of course, having the USA as one's major ally is very useful, too - and for that reason maybe we should have told them Iraq was a damn silly idea, not just agreed to join them. I think we did the US a disservice there.

>>All the same, it's a great poem, you wizard, you !

Thanks Sylvia and sorry to distress you. Hope you feel better now. You know, I think we aren't that far apart. Neither of us wants war. Both of us want any wars to be minimised in length and damage. We just have different approaches to achieving that.

All the best to you,

James.

[Psyche]

Me again !
No, you've depressed me even more  :(
I cannot stomach a world reduced to nuclear retaliation and/or instant annihilation and/or an unending arms race. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous events. Millions of innocent people died or are still suffering the consequences.
In the end it all boils down to the issue of humanity's inhumanity.
The only solution that might, just might work, is that people become ever more conscious of their leaders' madnesses and use every tool within their power to stop the power-hungry race. I think a little of that is beginning to happen, people are getting more involved, opening their eyes just a weeny bit, speaking out... In my country we have silent protests, thousands marching with candles in their hands, picketeers and such. We also "invented" the cooking-pot protest. Buenos Aires becomes a deafening clang clang clang of pots and pans, at certain hours, on certain days, to defy and protest and claim attention from our indifferent, corrupt, stupid politicians.
We've now managed to get the Governor of Buenos Aires indicted because of a recent fire in a disco which claimed the lives of around 190 youngsters. The man will be jailed for life. But if people had not crowded out into the streets and scared the pants off the President himself, this guy would still be walking free. A guy who accepted bribes to allow unsafe discos to function... the authorities thought they could just jail the owner of the disco, but we the people thought differently.
Well, James, were  :offtopic: AGAIN, I believe.
All because of some pheasants...
I'll get that doorbell.
Best, Sylvia

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Sylvia,

Sorry to have depressed you more - not intended!

>>I cannot stomach a world reduced to nuclear retaliation and/or instant annihilation and/or an unending arms race. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous events. Millions of innocent people died or are still suffering the consequences.

Yes but it's Japan's fault. No one asked them to bomb Pearl Harbour. No one asked them to walk into Singapore. No one asked them to keep fighting to no real point. innocent citizens always suffer in wars, I'm afraid. That is war - especially modern and civil wars. War is a horrid business. But so long as mankind fights wars this will continue. It's in our nature I'm afraid. See Fran's poem "Hatred" in the closed forum - says it all, really.

I think those two atom bombs were the best available end to the war available. Had the Allies tried to storm the Japanese beaches, it is estimated that at least 1/4 million would have been killed initially. The death toll on the Japanese would have been far higher because the defenders would have been ill-equipped older men, women and children. It would have been massive slaughter. Two bombs stopped all that. Yes, people do still live with the consequences and no one would wish that on them. But what about all the US Navy personnel who were burned to death - or to life-long injury - on their ships in Hawaii. Not one of them had ever attacked Japan. What about all the British and Empire troops who were tortured to their deaths in Jap POW camps - by a people with utter contempt for human life. “Sow and Ye Shall Reap.” It was the Japanese brutality and aggression which caused their suffering. They were going to have to pay the price somehow - the nuclear bombs affected far fewer people than any other available option.

Might I suggest your real opposition here is to war itself? If it is we really are in agreement. Wilfred Owen is my favourite poet - that could hardly be so if I thought war anything but horrendous. (Yes he’s an excellent poet but his message is very strong).

>>In the end it all boils down to the issue of humanity's inhumanity.

Indeed.

>>The only solution that might, just might work, is that people become ever more conscious of their leaders' madness and use every tool within their power to stop the power-hungry race. I think a little of that is beginning to happen, people are getting more involved, opening their eyes just a weeny bit, speaking out... In my country we have silent protests, thousands marching with candles in their hands, picketeers and such. We also "invented" the cooking-pot protest. Buenos Aires becomes a deafening clang clang clang of pots and pans, at certain hours, on certain days, to defy and protest and claim attention from our indifferent, corrupt, stupid politicians.

Forgive my apparent ignorance but I thought The Argentine was a democracy now? Is that system not working. Cannot you simply throw your governments out of office? I assumed that once the Junta had been consigned to history things had started to improve. no?

>>We've now managed to get the Governor of Buenos Aires indicted because of a recent fire in a disco which claimed the lives of around 190 youngsters. The man will be jailed for life. But if people had not crowded out into the streets and scared the pants off the President himself, this guy would still be walking free. A guy who accepted bribes to allow unsafe discos to function... the authorities thought they could just jail the owner of the disco, but we the people thought differently.

Well, that’s politicians and officials everywhere. None will volunteer for the chop and their friends will try to cover for them. Like war, just human nature. But it does sounds as if your system is rather a throw-back too. Good luck with modernising it.

>>Well, James, were   AGAIN, I believe.  All because of some pheasants... I'll get that doorbell.

Thanks Sylvia, again I enjoyed that.
I hope you’re a little less depressed now (though I daren’t ask again). Good luck with your efforts to improve governance of The Argentine. Sounds like we have it easy here!

James.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James,

Sylvia, I don't think you're off topic - the poem is about violence and retaliation. (We may be past the critting punctuation stage, but not off topic).

Yes but it's Japan's fault.

No, it was their leadership's fault. Now, leadership is part and parcel of a country, but in the past when the 'wrong' leaders were in power and a nation went to war, only the soldiers were involved directly. (Okay, those at home starved and were taxed to hades, but that was it.)

Since WWII it is now possible to involve the entire population in a war. The citizens of Hiroshima - the grandmothers, the babies - had nothing to do with deciding to bomb Perl Harbour.

Any more than the Jewish children in the Lodsk (sp?) ghetto had anything to do with any fermentation against the Nazis.

All innocent. All murdered.

Modern warfare holds power over governments by threatening innocent people - it's like taking hostages.

911 is part of that: governments are now waking up to the fact that with modern weaponry and ideas small cells of terrorists can terrify a nation almost as much as a full scale war. At least in the latter you can threaten retaliation, but with Al Quaida (sp?) where does it come from?

The only way we can convince the world that we disagree with our leaders is to vote them out - but what a pitiful selction of choices we have - or use peaceful protest when they let the power or conspiracy-theories go to their heads. The anti-war rally before Iraq in the UK was huge.

I don't know what the answers are: it's impossible to un-invent the atomic bomb, now it has been developed. But, like Sylvia, I don't think that answers can ever be simple, and violence should always be last resort.

(Okay, James, as a mod, you can please delete this if it is too off topic, but if you do need to, pls PM it to Sylvia so she sees. Ta)

Best,
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, Thanks for popping back.

Neither of you is off-topic - this is precisely the sort of debate I delight in my work generating. It's why I write, more than anything probably. And you've both offered excellent crits, thank you. If I deleted your post I'd be truncating the effect of my poem - why would I want to do that? Quite apart from your excellent comments?

Now, I'm going to disagree with you in the main!

>>James: Yes but it's Japan's fault.

>>Fran: No, it was their leadership's fault. Now, leadership is part and parcel of a country, but in the past when the 'wrong' leaders were in power and a nation went to war, only the soldiers were involved directly. (Okay, those at home starved and were taxed to hades, but that was it.)

We always have to take the leadership as acting for a country; we have no alternative. It was the sons of those people who murdered and mutilated the American people in Pearl Harbour. It was the sons of those "innocent" people who murdered, mutilated and tortured the British and Empire servicemen in many Far East camps. It was Japan's fault. No one says that it was every Japanese person's fault; of course it wasn't. Can't be the children's fault and, because of their previous system of government, couldn't be many others' intentions either - but they are a collective, as are all countries and so it was Japan's fault. In war one cannot divide those people who are "ok" from the rest. Not everybody in Germany voted the Nazis into power but, tough, that was their government. War is not about fairness; it is about using force to stop force - and the force in the Far east was Japan. They butchered and tortured their way across the continent in a most terrible way. (Incidentally, I'm not actually sure I blame anything Japanese per se - I think most / all humans are capable of this and it just happened to pop up in the Japanese at the time. Next time - and there will be a next time (See "Hatred") - it will be others.

>>Fran: Since WWII it is now possible to involve the entire population in a war. The citizens of Hiroshima - the grandmothers, the babies - had nothing to do with deciding to bomb Perl Harbour.

Tough. Neither did the innocent Hawaiians killed and maimed. That's war. The Japanese should not have started it. It is no good arguing for the innocent in a country which starts a war; they cannot be helped until the war has been concluded. We can all say how terrible - and it is. We can all lament what happens - and it is lamentable. But the nukes ended the war in the least costly human way, overall. Had the Japanese surrendered earlier the nukes would not have been deployed. (Mind you, I suspect we might have had nuclear war in Europe as a result... man needed to see the power of those weapons).

>>Fran: Any more than the Jewish children in the Lodsk (sp?) ghetto had anything to do with any fermentation against the Nazis.

I'm lost here. Sorry I may not know the story - against the Nazis?? I had it in mind that the Nazis were the opporssors.

>>Fran: All innocent. All murdered.

Which is why the Germans and Japanese needed stopping.

>>Fran: Modern warfare holds power over governments by threatening innocent people - it's like taking hostages.

It always has, really. Look at the brutal repression of the Welsh - in our own homeland - by the Bloody English and Normans. (The Normans repressing the English, too, of course). War has always involved the whole population - just that it's said to be a new thing. It ain't: it's always been.

>> Fran: 911 is part of that: governments are now waking up to the fact that with modern weaponry and ideas small cells of terrorists can terrify a nation almost as much as a full scale war. At least in the latter you can threaten retaliation, but with Al Quaida (sp?) where does it come from?

The 21st Century problem - but AQ would be easy to deal with if it existed as a big organisation. It doesn't. It's insignificant. The real thread is thousands of un-linked angry young Arab males. Easily proved: Kill the few AQ people and the threat remains.

>>The only way we can convince the world that we disagree with our leaders is to vote them out - but what a pitiful selction of choices we have - or use peaceful protest when they let the power or conspiracy-theories go to their heads. The anti-war rally before Iraq in the UK was huge.

I agree but only people who feel strongly againt the war go onto the streets. I was in favour of the war but I didn't go onto the streets to say so. Millions were in favour - not all against.

>>I don't know what the answers are: it's impossible to un-invent the atomic bomb, now it has been developed. But, like Sylvia, I don't think that answers can ever be simple, and violence should always be last resort.

emm... isn't that like saying that Quantum Mechanics is a tad complex? Would anyone (save maniacs) disagree?

(Okay, James, as a mod, you can please delete this if it is too off topic, but if you do need to, pls PM it to Sylvia so she sees. Ta)

No, Fran, everyone should see your arguments. I wish all my work sparked-off this so big thanks to Sylvia and you.

James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

I have been trying to catch up on this fascinating discussion (not easy with the amount of interruptions I've been getting)

There were two things you mentioned in your last post, James, that I wanted to comment on.

The first:

War has always involved the whole population - just that it's said to be a new thing. It ain't: it's always been.


The people of Germany voted Hitler into power.  The whole population enabled him to do what he did, either by willingly following or burying their heads in the sand and doing nothing.  Only a courageous few stood up and tried to fight against it.  Complicity  

secondly:

The 21st Century problem - but AQ would be easy to deal with if it existed as a big organisation. It doesn't. It's insignificant. The real thread is thousands of un-linked angry young Arab males. Easily proved: Kill the few AQ people and the threat remains.

You are so right.  Only it isn't only un-linked angry young arab males.  In this country there are many angry young Asian males.  These young men are been targeted and stirred up by the fundamental Islam movement preaching hatred and violence.  I see and hear about it all the time in my neighbourhood.  It is quite frightening.  They are searching for some way of expressing their anger and will be easily influenced.  Hitler fed on this sort of discontentment and anger.  

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Good to see you back; thank you.

>>I have been trying to catch up on this fascinating discussion (not easy with the amount of interruptions I've been getting)

Thanks for persevering.

>>There were two things you mentioned in your last post, James, that I wanted to comment on.

Sure...

>>The first: War has always involved the whole population - just that it's said to be a new thing. It ain't: it's always been.
>>The people of Germany voted Hitler into power.  The whole population enabled him to do what he did, either by willingly following or burying their heads in the sand and doing nothing.  Only a courageous few stood up and tried to fight against it.  Complicity

I agree! I don't think it undermines my point but I agree. It is true that was complicity (though I think the general population knew less than we assume they did). Nevertheless, in previous generations, war had often involved everyone, too.

>>secondly: The 21st Century problem - but AQ would be easy to deal with if it existed as a big organisation. It doesn't. It's insignificant. The real thread is thousands of un-linked angry young Arab males. Easily proved: Kill the few AQ people and the threat remains.

>>You are so right.  Only it isn't only un-linked angry young Arab males.  In this country there are many angry young Asian males.  These young men are been targeted and stirred up by the fundamental Islam movement preaching hatred and violence.  I see and hear about it all the time in my neighbourhood.  It is quite frightening.  They are searching for some way of expressing their anger and will be easily influenced.  Hitler fed on this sort of discontentment and anger.  

Yes, luckily the number of people likely to be persuaded by fundamental Islam in the UK is relatively few. Though it only takes one suicide bomber, of course. However, in the US the same is true of fundamental Christianity - behind the Bush Whitehouse - and that has a vast potential audience. These are the reasons I oppose the internationally powerful religious blocs - they are a danger to us all. If they "simply" practiced their religion no one would mind at all.

Thanks Nina!

James.