Nava, I can't let this go

[cowgirl]

RE: constantly mentioning Spanish origin

I hesitate to perpetuate this hijack into another layer of trainwreck, but what the heck.

It is extremely common on this board for most people to assume you are American when they read your posts. There’s nothing wrong with that because usually it’s a fair assumption.

However, those of us who are NOT American sometimes get tired of constantly having to correct that assumption from people who respond to our posts. Things are different in different countries (laws, institutions, cultural practices, etc etc) and often, understanding my post requires that you know where I come from. If you assume I am American, you will misunderstand me. And since I come from Canada, usually misunderstandings like this aren’t particularly drastic (since we share so much language and cultural history and so forth).

I noticed that when I lived in England I was prefacing a lot of statements with “In Canada, we …” Because up until that point ALL of my experiences had taken place in Canada, but what everyone was talking about had taken place elsewhere. So without that clarification I would not have been understood.

It seems to me that the proportion of Dopers who are born and raised in a non-English-speaking country is pretty low, and I would expect that this assumption of American-ness is even more exasperating.

Re: choice of “Headless chickens” as descriptor

I will also submit that cliches and expressions are among the most difficult things for non-native speakers of a language to become fluent in. Someone who learned English as a foreign language may not be as familiar with all the subtle connotations and denotations of a given English expression as a native speaker would. I have known many non-native speakers of English to misuse English expressions in a dizzying variety of ways, some totally off base, some nearly correct but critically not, and some with the correct connotation but incorrect denotation.

I am not suggesting that she used the term “headless chickens” incorrectly, just that it might behoove us to be a little more charitable in our interpretation of its use, especially considering her subsequent clarifications of her intent.

[Man_With_a_Cat]

@DudleyGarrett

Many were civilians, many were active duty personnel. The fact that you’re part of the military, on active duty, makes you a combatant in its essence. It doesn’t matter if you’re a pencil-pusher or not, you still have to train physically, you still have to fire weapons annually and qualify, you still have to study strategic and tactical aspects of warfare, and your total existence is supporting, and carrying out when called upon, an aggressive foreign policy.

If you disagree, then the point stands that 100% of those who died in Hiroshima were non-combatants as there weren’t any active battles occurring in Hiroshima at the time of the atomic bomb detonation.

Holy Jesus on a Stick, you douche. It’s called Reading for Comprehension.

‘combatant’ does not equal “could be deployed”.

Civilians, in the employ of the military are not combatants and likely never will be, even ‘in essence’.

No one disputed your Hiroshima and Nagasaki references. Shit, pretty much any country involved in a war with another has bombed or attacked cities, and yep - caused civilian casualties. Japan, Hawaii, London, Beirut…

First, you try to compare an attack using hijacked civilian airplanes (whose passengers were probably all military, so probably combatants in your eyes, right?) to attack OFFICE BUILDINGS in New York with Dresden, then you want to personally re-define the word ‘combatant’ to suit your own needs.

Enough of this hijack anyway. I’m out of this thread, I have better things to do than try to reason with a hammer.

Hope I can keep you entertained in the future. I’ll try not to use any big words.

[buttonjockey308]

1. NavaThat shit was wrong. Simply wrong. Nothing fun, amusing, or even quizzical about what happened that day. Not the action, not the reaction, and not the subsequent war. That said, even from Spain you’re exercising the right of free speech, and you’re welcome to it. I would caution you though not to say that too loudly if you’re ever actually on US soil, we ARE a violent bunch after all.

2. Your firefighters and rescue workers and so forth weren’t needed. Firefighters from other states in the union were restricted from travel to NY and if they didn’t heed the restriction, were turned away from ground zero once they got there. Clearly large scale incident management is not your forte, but believe me, it was for the best.

3. jjiimm It’s true, we reacted violently to a violent attack. Unfortunately, we didn’t react violently enough, and certinaly not toward the right people. I understand Citizens of the Great and Powerful EU have been enduring these kind of things for decades. We’re new to it

@Charles Bukowski

The problem with these people is, their cities have never been bombed, and their mothers have never been told to shut up

rest assured though that should it happen again, things are going to get fuck ugly for a. the people living here who resemble the people who committed whatever act, (historically muslims/arabs, but insert your religious/political/race group here) b. whatever country those who commit the act(s) are from.

(as an aside, I think that, Og forbid, if Hillary wins, and the terrorists see it as an opportunity to pull another asshole move like this one, that she’ll make the trip from zero to bitch on wheels in the same time it’ll take to scramble the bombers and flatten some stretch of sand. She’ll have something to prove, and she’ll do it big, methinks)

4. Jackmanii is right. The folks in the rest of the world tolerate us 'Mericans because a) We are the last remaining superpower. b) They like money, we have money. c) We have jobs, they need jobs. d) They secretly dig our culture, but it’s just as cool to hate America, so you can easily play both sides of the fence. e) Of course we’re all violent, jingoistic, egotistical, gun-toting, cultureless slobs; but when the shit hits the fan, who else you gonna call when you REALLY need help? Spain?

[John_Mace]

@Martin Hyde

How can you debunk fact? Spain gets attacked and then elects someone who guarantees them he’ll shamefully run out of Iraq to make Spain even more irrelevant on the world stage than it already was. The attacks happened immediately prior to the election, the idea that a significant number of voters wouldn’t be impacted by their own internal cowardice after being attacked is doubtful. In America, a pacifist candidate who was advocating we essentially do what the terrorists want us to do would be humiliated at the ballot box. Such a candidate becomes Prime Minister in Spain as his party is swept in to power on a wave of pacifist desire to roll over and play dead.

The pre-election and pre 3/11 terror attack polls showed that this was already a done deal. The Iraq war never had the support of the Spanish people.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@DudleyGarrett

Where did I say “military personnel?” (I actually said 95% were civilians)

It makes perfect sense. Go back re-read the thread. Civilians died in the Pentagon; active duty military died in the Pentagon. There are not equally “non-combatants.”

Do you get it? Let me spell it out for you, in much clearer terms.

1. The Pentagon attack caused the deaths of over 100 people.
2. Some dead were civilians.
3. Some dead were non-active duty military.
4. Some dead were active duty military.
5. Not all dead were non-combatants.

I’m still confused by this:

@DudleyGarrett

The fact that you’re part of the military, on active duty, makes you a combatant in its essence

OK, so anybody in the military is a combatant. Check.

But then:

the point stands that 100% of those who died in Hiroshima were non-combatants as there weren’t any active battles occurring in Hiroshima at the time of the atomic bomb detonation

OK, but since you had just pointed out that all that was needed to be a combatant was to simply be in the military, it doesn’t make sense that 100% of the people in Hiroshima were non-combatants since there were no active battles. Remember, you just said that a combatant doesn’t need to be in combat, only be in the military. I’ll refresh:

@DudleyGarrett

The fact that you’re part of the military, on active duty, makes you a combatant in its essence

So if any members of the Japanese military were in Hiroshima, even if they were not engaged in active battles, they were, by your own definition, combatants.

[C3]

@yojimbo

Flights maybe but every sort of transport? From London to the continent? Yep. OTT IMO.
I wasn’t. That was a general comment.

Yes, every sort of transport, if the objective was keeping them in London (in case they were needed), not keeping them off transportation because they thought it was unsafe. Nava, why exactly were your coworkers kept in London? Do you even know the reasoning your U.S. managers had? Or are you just assuming it was because they were worried about terror attacks happening on the ferries? If they were worried about terror attacks, maybe they were not concerned about the ferries themselves being bombed, but rather they were concerned that their employees, carrying documents or whatever that identified them as working for an American company, would be targeted. That’s not exactly unheard of. I’m just not convinced that her company’s reaction was unwarranted.

[Crotalus]

@DudleyGarrett

Woe is me, I haven’t demonstrated to Judge Crotalus’ satisfaction that I know what non-combatant means. Perhaps it’s because that I was both a combatant and a non-combatant that I understand the term goes much deeper than what can be comprehended from an on-line dictionary.

Good on you, Judge Crotalus, you’ve the wisdom simply unattainable by the proletariat.

Dude, any wisdom I have is only unattainable by the impervious. That shoe probably fits you. Whatever I have attained is certainly attainable by the proletariat, because I’m a member.

Crotalus, proud member of the working class since 1954

[DudleyGarrett]

@Crotalus

Crotalus, proud member of the working class since 1954

Then get off your short donkey.

[mhendo]

@cowgirl

I am not suggesting that she used the term “headless chickens” incorrectly, just that it might behoove us to be a little more charitable in our interpretation of its use, especially considering her subsequent clarifications of her intent.

But, as you suggest, she used the term correctly. She used it to mean people running around haphazardly and not knowing what to do.

Surely everyone realized that she was referring to headless chickens in the usual, colloquial sense. Surely no-one was retarded enough to think she was actually referring to dead people, and taking delight in their deaths?

@Zebra

You do realize that a headless chicken is one that has been slaughtered? Right? Their heads (the chicken’s) don’t fall off due to natural causes.

Oh.

[elbows]

For myself I simply cannot imagine ‘enjoying’ the aftermath of the loss of thousands of innocent lives, where ever they occur, no matter how comical the aftermath may manifest.

Nor could I bring myself to use the word ‘fun’, not even in some ‘black humourish’ way concerning a tragedy of this scale.

To then explain it as the result of some managers being displaced for a few days, some unneeded aid being refused and a general ‘now you have a taste of something we know well’, to me, is terribly revealing about one persons self absorbed perspective.

I live by the adage, “When someone shows you who they really are - your job is to SEE.”

And I feel I see now something I had not seen before in a poster I formerly respected.

While a none apology was thrown in for good measure, I just can’t convince myself that this poster was so naive as to not know the shitstorm her words would produce. And no amount of back pedaling can change the hurtful nature of the sentiment expressed.

[Throatwarbler_Mangrove]

Martin Hyde, I have nothing against you and believe you to be a reasonable, intelligent fellow, but I’m afraid on this subject you have been sadly misled. Sorry you had to find out about it this way.

[yojimbo]

@C3

Yes, every sort of transport, if the objective was keeping them in London (in case they were needed), not keeping them off transportation because they thought it was unsafe. Nava, why exactly were your coworkers kept in London? Do you even know the reasoning your U.S. managers had? Or are you just assuming it was because they were worried about terror attacks happening on the ferries? If they were worried about terror attacks, maybe they were not concerned about the ferries themselves being bombed, but rather they were concerned that their employees, carrying documents or whatever that identified them as working for an American company, would be targeted. That’s not exactly unheard of. I’m just not convinced that her company’s reaction was unwarranted.

Fair enough but Nava made the point that it was OTT so I just went with her opinion as she knows the facts.

[lalenin]

Hold on, first you say:

@Martin Hyde

I had no intentions except to convey the message that you’re from a country of fuck-ups and incompetents. Spain is like the Mexico of Western Europe and an embarrassment, in my opinion. Its people are stupid and poor, and its politicians are spineless cowards. Furthermore the Spanish can’t even deal with their own internal problems so the idea that we would want them contaminating America with their incompetence is laughable.

And then you come back with:

@Martin Hyde

Well you’re hear essentially crying about a few friends of yours who were inconvenienced and blaming it on America. America is a big country with a lot of people, you shouldn’t judge it based on a few managers in your company.

Were you trying to illustrate “self-contradictory” statements by example?

[Nava]

@yojimbo

After the attack the government tried to put the blame on ETA for political gain. They were caught doing this and paid the price.

Actually, that was only the heat-of-the-moment reaction of one minister. And of about 40M Spaniards, but we weren’t on TV.

[nonymouse]

Man, this is like watching a bunch of pre-programmed jingoists wave their wangs in Nava’s face shouting USA! USA! I am embarassed for you all.

[Dangerosa]

Sometimes, Nava’s very very very good English just hits wrong. And, although she has a great grasp of American culture - once in a while her behavior is just - not native. It seems possible that this is one of those cases. There must be a word for what she is describing - but fun - even with the black humor disclaimer - isn’t it.

[Nava]

@Dangerosa

Sometimes, Nava’s very very very good English just hits wrong. And, although she has a great grasp of American culture - once in a while her behavior is just - not native. It seems possible that this is one of those cases. There must be a word for what she is describing - but fun - even with the black humor disclaimer - isn’t it.

If someone can give me the word, I’ll be happy to learn it. Neither “entertaining” nor “interesting” seem to quite fit the bill.
I don’t know, nonymouse, there’s people who I offended and to whom I’ve already apologized, there’s people who just like anything that smells like blood, and there’s people who actually understood what I meant (either from the start or with the explanations). Maybe I should be taking offense and searching for a high horse but dunnow, it’s not the case.

[Zebra]

@yojimbo

It’s also a common expression to mean people doing things haphazardly.

The most common usage, at least over here, is for people acting in a extreme panic.

They weren’t allowed to go back home until our managers in the US got their washed underwear back

{excessive bolding removed}

That clause gives the location of her managers, not their nationality, if you want to get technical about reading comprehension.

[Gukumatz]

@Annie-Xmas

Excuse me, but what other country has seen such an act of terrorism? What other country has had four targets hit out of the clear blue sky? What other country has lost almost 3,000 innocent people and 500 police, firefighters, and emergency workers in 102 minutes? What other country has had all its flights cancelled? What other country has had to have its planes diverted to another country to land? In what other country do you see am empty space in a skyline and want to cry every single time?

@Annie-Xmas

Those were in countries at war. NYC wasn’t at war to my knowlege. It was out of a clear blue sky. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a successful event to stop a war. 9/11 was an attempt to stop the American way of life.

I regularly appreciate and am entertained by your posts in an honest fashion, Annie-Xmas, but this dreck galls me.

An attempt to stop the American way of life? Only to the degree Americans let it. But not only let it, encouraged it, urged it on and embrace it. And Americans have already begun halting that frightening turn of events, returning to the equiable status quo which the western world (including me and mine) enjoy.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, however, still deal with the back effects of the atomic bombs. Hundreds of thousands (conservative sources give numbers around 200.000 and upwards, for the after-effect deaths alone) died after Japan surrendered. In other words, after the war was ended.

And if you want to keep straight-backed wrt to your third statement (on page one, post 36, what about Iraq? You’re not formally at war with them; your Congress never declared it, did they? They might miss their skyline, infrastructure, part of their population and stability or, as you might put it, Iraqi way of life.

Now I know you and I are probably on the same side against that war, but your hyperbolé regarding America’s loss (out of the context of Nava’s admittedly antagonistic comment) is horseshit.

With all respect,
Andreas

[lorene]

@elbows

For myself I simply cannot imagine ‘enjoying’ the aftermath of the loss of thousands of innocent lives, where ever they occur, no matter how comical the aftermath may manifest.

Nor could I bring myself to use the word ‘fun’, not even in some ‘black humourish’ way concerning a tragedy of this scale.

This was exactly why I started what has turned into a major clusterfuck here.

I did not think she was referring to the people in NY, running from the towers, when she referred to Americans running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I didn’t actually give a rat’s ass who she meant at that point, because no matter what, her statement struck me as callous and hateful.

Edited to add: I do have a very good understanding of what the US government has done to make others feel that we had this coming. The whole “you reap what you sow” thing. I still don’t find that an excuse for calling the aftermath kind of fun.

And I don’t buy the language thing for a second. If she can pepper her posts with abbreviations and colloquialisms like “middlebro”, as she refers to her brother, she can damn well learn a word for “fun, in a morbidly humorous sort of way.”