Attacks in Paris

soon, I spoke of Donald Soper and asked your opinion, you replied you were too young to know of him. Later you said you did look him up and you disagreed with him. So why are you asking others ? you have decided you do not agree with pacifism

I shudder whenever I heard WW1 being called 'the Great War' - it killed millions in the most atrocious of ways, on both sides- and served no purpose at all, none.
I read 'all quiet on the Western Front' as a teenager, and it marked me forever- the film too.

WW2 was very different- and the question often goes through my mind- was it just and necessary? Or would another way been possible? I think it was perhaps necessary- but sometimes I just do not know any more. Woud Hitler have died and run out of power- and the number of deaths be actually less than those created by war? I don't know.

What is for sure, is that the situation now is totally different. There is not one clear enemy in one clear region- so we can't just go and bomb all over the place- without making things much worse.

As for Churchill- he was a brilliant man- but he was very lucky- and even more the soldiers who could have all perished had the weather forecast turned out to be as he was advised. He took a huge gamble, and won. He could have lost too- and that does not bear thinking about.

We have armed all the dictators, to OUR own ends- and have created this terrible situation- with the sale of OUR arms (French, UK, USA and yes... Switzerland too)- and now the world is reaping the results- and there does not seem to be solutions in sight. Bombing 1000s of innocent civilians will just create more and more terrorists...

A separate issue, but I've often wondered. If I was growing up in Gazza now- would I be a pacifist or a 'terrorist' - what is the difference between a terrorist fighting to save his people and country, and a soldier?

Well said Granjura

It was called the Great War because it was so big, involving so many countries and went on for so long, not because anyone thought it was actually 'great' as in wonderful granjura lost in translation?

roses, of course I am aware of that. But everytime I hear it- it still shocks me, as there was nothing 'Great' about that terrible war, apart from the sheer size of the massacres.

No, no, no! You are still putting a different interpretation on "great" despite your protestations, GJ! As rosesarered says, nobody sees any connotations of praise in the word great, it was designated "the war to end all wars" (alas, proved wrong) that is its tragedy.
Great = very big, that is all.
I suppose the same misinterpretation could exist in the word "grand" which in one language can be used as in "Ee, that were grand, champion" and in French simply means "big".
Cf the Great Fire of London -not a "wonderful day out" or indeed the Great a plague of 1665, the last major plague in England.

To the Great Plague and Great Fire could be added the Great Stink of 1858 in London when the hot summer weather exacerbated the smell of untreated he man waste and industrial effluent from the River Thames. That can't have been fun either! But fortunately led indirectly to Joseph Bazalgette plan for the creation of the system of sewers which has lasted into this century.

What has any of that to do with anything?

I shudder whenever I heard WW1 being called 'the Great War' - it killed millions in the most atrocious of ways, on both sides- and served no purpose at all, none

Just trying to illustrate what we mean by Great in this context in English.

In passing, the two meanings of grand exist in French too. I remember a lecturer on an induction course in Paris in 1967 saying that we all agreed that de Gaulle was un homme grand (tall), but was he un grand (great) homme?

I understand the relevance of alea's comparison. The Great War was great in the sense that is was the biggest and most widespread war that had yet been known, ditto the Great Fire and the Great Plague, but no-one thought or thinks since that they were great in the sense of wonderful - and there was a Great Freeze, which perhaps the children thought great for skating, but no-one else was favourably impressed by.

Thee are two meanings to the word great, and granjura is conflating them. I don't think anyone else does.

I always laugh when I hear someone who is losing an argument call the other person's views 'simplistic' - it usually means the bare bones of the argument has been laid out and they can't think of an answer

Annie where on earth did you get the 'pacifists sell arms' bit from? What a very odd interpretation to put on anything that's been posted.

Can you please explain that very stupid post?

"exacerbated the smell of untreated he man waste "

Yeah. Nothing to do with us girls.

Anya, I asked a question , is asking a question now stupid ? Or does it again depend on the poster ?

The generation that used the term 'great war' never considered any good connotation in the word 'great'. My granny, who.of course, lived through both world wars, always used that term because until 1939, it was the 'great' - in the sense of immense - war. I have rarely heard this term being used by subsequent generations and never by my parents. When I grew old enough to understand, it was always the 'first world war'.

Jingl, what my dad used to call "unconscious humour"!!! Either a Freudian slip or I suspect my iPad has a mind of its own

I too understood Aleas post perfectly well, perfectly apt.

Granjura you ask if WW11 was ' just or necessary ' , although you say you think you believe it probably was neccessary may I ask if you were alive during WW11 and if so were living in the relative safety net of Switzerland.

I have sort of agreed I do not agree with pacifism.

But asking people in their 70s 80s and 90s is a world of difference from asking someone in their 20s.

It is called experience.

A separate issue, but I've often wondered. If I was growing up in Gazza now- would I be a pacifist or a 'terrorist' - what is the difference between a terrorist fighting to save his people and country, and a soldier?

The difference is [and people can correct me if I am completely wrong]
if a terrorist stops fighting, fighting ceases.

In the case of IS, if British or France or USA or whoever stops fighting, fighting does not cease[from IS].

Huge difference.

Whitewave, WW1 was the war to end all wars and it was going to last less than six months , 16 million deaths and five years of fighting and we still want war.

Can I ask what you think would have happened if people did not fight against the Germans?

I think you are mixing me with someone elsen

I took that from Ab's 11.25 post. Sorry, it didnt need your name first.

djen I can't believe anyone on GN called you those names, so presumably they came from a difference source; people on here may disagree (and quite vehemently sometimes) but that it beyond the pale.
Un-Australian? where on earth did that come from? that's just odd.
How can you be Un-Australian unless you are an Australian citizen
People such as the hairdresser in England who says she will refuse to have Muslims as customers are just exacerbating the situation - and creating divisions where none existed.

I suppose what we are trying to differentiate is between defence of our people and way of life against an enemy and that of attacking for no reason.

rose, dj was quoting Adam Hills, although I admit the post did puzzle me at first!

soon

I think you make a good point re if terrorists stop fighting then fighting stops but IS 'will never stop' .

Absent your post of 18/11/15. 22.29

You state 'Talk of WW111 and a global caliphate , whether here or in the knee-jerk media seems disproportionate'. You then mention IS is well funded, but does not have the finances to become a state nor a caliphate.

I realise you in your post you are making the points stated in relation to those who keep referring to Germany and I agree it doesn't wash with me either.

I have to take issue with the premise however that IS could never become a state /caliphate. IS does not have to gain a state/caliphate by financial means it is like a cuckoo , it just kills it's prey and dominates the nest it's prey has built.

The desire for the Islamic State/Caliphate is not reliant on finances it is already being built hypothetically in the minds of the Islamic State fighters. Maybe WW111 is a strong opinion to hold but the defeat of IS and the worldwide spread of IS is as close as we have probably come to since the Cold War . As for a global caliphate the only way to stop it is to fight it.