Monday, October 29, 2007

How odd.....

Ahh the M25 junction 5, how I love it! Still this travelling means I can listen to Today and shout at the radio. This morning's bizarre argument came from the acting Lib Dem leader Vince Cable about the visit of King Abdullah from Saudi Arabia. Cable lambasted the Saudi regime for its gross dictatorship and general nastiness which was absolutely right of course but the proceeded to say that what should be upheld is the rule of law in relation to corruption allegations and BAE upon which the serious fraud investigation was halted.

The bizarre part of the argument for me comes in this notion of the rule of law, for it was the rule of law upon which the Lib Dems opposed the overthrow of a totalitarian secretive vicious regime in Iraq. Call me a neocon if you must but how exactly can one oppose a regime in strong moral terms and the equally stand by and say that the same moral argument does not apply to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The positions seem entirely contradictory to me.

Surely one can either oppose all forms of nastiness and human oppression by dictatorship or you don't, otherwise the claim for the moral highground looks weak? The position of the Lib Dems, and others for that matter seems to be that dictatorship is bad unless we might be breaking the law in which case sod the poor bastards having their toenails extracted by the people we denounce. These are strange times it seems.

Now I really am going to a meeting.

63 comments:

dynamite said...

My position would be "dictators are bad and we should make this clear at all opportunities, but not actually intervene militarily in other countries if we're not able to improve the lives of its citizens"...

Mountjoy said...

Vote Lib Dem if you want to have your cake and not eat it.

Manfarang said...

Iraq was invaded for its oil,there was no moral argument about the nature of its regime.Iraq was about to launch its WMD against the UK if you care to remember.
However the Saudi king is right about one thing-the serious nature of the situation in Iraq.
As they say,"You ain't seen nothing yet".Believe me this is all still in its beginning stages.The world will be a very different place when it ends.
As the Chinese say,"May you live in interesting times."

Chris Paul said...

Event, Facebook, EDM.

Neil said...

The Saudis are the biggest exporters of terrorism, thanks to their limitless supply of oil dosh to fund the Wahabi brand of Islam worldwide. Bush's family ties with the Saudis help him seemingly turn a blind eye to this pernicious influence. Its one of the fundamental contradictions in modern times.

dizzy said...

dynamite "not actually intervene militarily in other countries if we're not able to improve the lives of its citizens".

Slight problem here is that you cannot know if the latter will or will not occur prior to intervening. So in fact that argument will in effect be a do nothing justification in all circumstances.

Manfarang "Iraq was invaded for its oil,there was no moral argument about the nature of its regime."

Agreed, there was no moral argument about a regime run by a man who once read a list of names out during a government meeting then forced the ministers left to shoot those named.

Manfarang - "Iraq was about to launch its WMD against the UK if you care to remember."

Well this is entirely debatable point. If one is a sheep and acan only accept the arguments put out in an official document you might have a point. But in fact there were many arguments, made by many different people. I, for example, did not make my decision to support the Iraq War on the basis of WMD. SO basically you;re talking crap, especially with the oil line which is patently not true, one look at the oil price shows we didn't just do it for oil - and anyway, what is wrong with doing it for oil anyway if it were true? Perfectly realistic to act in economic interests to secure resources. Well, perfectly reasonable if you understand how the international arena has worked, does work, and always will work. I accept it's not reasonable if you're one of those people that scream "not in my name" whilst effectively marching in favour of keeping millions people under the rule of a totalitarian tyrant.

Chris Paul - the Facebook, EDM and the people that have signed it are just like Vince Cable. All people who claim to be upholding human rights but happily marched in favour of keeping millions in Iraq under the control of a fascist. Hardly consistent.

Chris Paul said...

I think you're obviously wrong here Dizzy. Neither Cable nor McDonnell is calling for invasion or bombing or Saudi Arabia. They are calling for the most simple of distance to be put between the UK government and the Saudi government; they are not happy about state visits; they are not happy about arms sales to and other trade with this dictatorship. And neither Cable nor McDonnell called for Saddam to be sainted. You're thinking of Galloway.

We did not march to save Saddam's neck. We marched to save massive bloodshed of ordinary citizens in Iraq. To stop they who had been pounded by Saddam and survived getting pounded again by Bush and dying.

The protestors now are not calling for an invasion or high level bombing. Though they are of course pointing out the irony of bombing and hanging one arab dictator while arming and feting another.

Think you've completely missed this. It's not that hard surely?

dizzy said...

"I think you're obviously wrong here Dizzy. Neither Cable nor McDonnell is calling for invasion or bombing or Saudi Arabia."

Well if I had said that they were I would be, but I didn't say that, you said I said it. This is a common thing that happens on blog and forum. It's called a straw man argument where you say someone said the opposite of what they did in order to destroy the argument that was made but make it look like you have. Try harder.

"We did not march to save Saddam's neck. We marched to save massive bloodshed of ordinary citizens in Iraq."

Oh I see you marched in order to protect the people living under the rule of a tyrant. It's all so clear now. You were protecting their rights by letting them stay under his control.

"The protestors now are not calling for an invasion or high level bombing."

Again, I didn't say that they were.

"Though they are of course pointing out the irony of bombing and hanging one arab dictator while arming and feting another.

Think you've completely missed this. It's not that hard surely?



Not missed anything. The irony is clear. The point I am making is that you and others that marched against the Iraq War totally turned your back on the population of Iraq that had been living under a totalitarian regime for ovr thirty years. It was morally disgusting and entirely nihilistic and complete betrayal of the Left wing principles you so produly claim to wear on your arm. You may not have marched and said "we want Saddam to stay" but by marching and saying "we don;t want you to attack Iraq" you were effectively condemning the oppressed population of Iraq to continual oppression, frankly it was disgusting.

Alex said...

The LibDems show that they are irrelevant to the government of the country. We may not like the form of government in Saudi Arabia, and there may be many practices there which do not ft with our view of civilisation or good government, but they are a sovereign nation, he is the head of state and our countries have some common interests even if they are not perfectly aligned. It is inconceivable that any Lib Dem should be given any government role in a coalition if they are likely to pull this stunt again. They have hardly grown up from student politics.

I have serious doubts about the timing of Miliband's second adoption. We have limited control over the timing of births, but Miliband's absence for an adoption seems a little unfortunate.

Manfarang said...

Dizzy
I trust you were not at the Baghdad Arms Fair in 1989.If you were then you would have been aware of just how much more than moral support Saddam received from the west.
You clearly know little of the history of Iraq or the Middle East and have probably never been near the place.
The RAF perfected its bombing techniques by bombing Kurdish villages during the period of the Mandate and beyond.
During the same time the British got the oil without the necessity of paying for it.
Today the instability has meant it is not possible to extract the needed oil in sufficient amounts that would drive the price down.
Invading Iraq was a huge mistake with unimaginable consequences.

dizzy said...

I trust you were not at the Baghdad Arms Fair in 1989.If you were then you would have been aware of just how much more than moral support Saddam received from the west.

What relevance does that have to today? I mean for one, what happens in the past, however morally right or wrong, it does not negate the moral rightness or wrongness of actions in the present. NOt unless you're engaging in the most fallacious of reasoning that places associative guilt of those from the past on the people of the present - which is of course intellectually absurd.

Also, can you define "West", because total receipts from Iraq suggest that around about 80% of all their weapons came from France and Russia, countries that funnily enough opposed the war, can't imagine why!

I love the fact that it was the British that bombed the Kurds, rather than Saddam Hussein. I can't begin to imagine where you direct all blame in this respect. Plus the conspiratorial reasoning that the only reason the oil price has not gone down is because we just havn't been able to steal it yet is brilliant. Always an answer.

I'll tell you what is actually clear. You're one of those people that use bizarre fallacies of circumstantial guilt and fit you're entire analysis in with your preconceived world view. West = evil. Saddam = not as evil - which is patently bollocks.

dynamite said...

Dizzy - of course you're right. If only someone had warned us! Thank God we had the great Tory Opposition though, asking all the right questions about the post-conflict and holding our government to account! Brillo job!!!

Manfarang said...

1989 was just a few years ago.What is important is not what you or I think but the reality realised by the Iraqi people that Saddam was able to stay in power for so long because he was "our" man ie supported by the western countries up until the invasion of Kuwait.
Why didn't Saddam face a trial about what he did to the Kurds?
If you question what I say why not go to Iraq and find out for yourself but do write your will before you go.

dizzy said...

Yesterday was not long ago, it still doesn;t make your reasoning sound.

Manfarang said...

Reasoning!The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake.What is it you can't get your head around?
Anyway it is far from over.As the Americans put it the British have been defeated in Basra.Remember the eastern part of Saudi has a large Shi'a population that has not exactly been well treated.This is also the oil producing region as you are of course aware.Now if the Americans start bombing Iran....

dizzy said...

Yes yuo seem to be missing the fact that you're argument makes assumption of negation upon previous events. It's bollocks.

Manfarang said...

Now I've had some hummus and shi I'll continue.
Negation of what previous events?
The establishment of the mandate,the 1920s uprising,the support for the monarchy after "independence",the reoccupation during the second world war(as someone who was in the British army at that time told me,"it was so hot we would spend the day sitting in the tents"),the Baghdad pact,even after the 1958 revolution
relations between Iraq and Britain soon became "strong",during the 1970s large numbers of Iraqi students came to Britain....

Manfarang said...

Now that you have had your (complete) Horlicks I must continue.
If the invasion of Iraq was justified then the question is why didn't it take place when Kuwait was liberated? After all the shi'as in the south had been encouraged to revolt and then left helpless.Something which has not been forgotten.
I feel it is Dizzy's Primrose League that has been completely negated.

dizzy said...

"If the invasion of Iraq was justified then the question is why didn't it take place when Kuwait was liberated? "

See again you're doing this idiotic history thing and saying "well if it was justified why didn't we do it back then". The reasoning you're displaying here is totally whacked.

It doesn't matter why we did or didn't do anything (not just Iraq, anything) in the past because that action or inaction does not have a bearing on the moral rightness or wrongness of something in the present or the future.

That sort of logic, if applied to other scenarios, for example, female suffrage, would lead someone to say "well if female suffrage is justified why didn't we give women the vote in 1732?".

Now, putting aside the fundamentally dumb nature of your argument, the reason we didn't "go to Baghdad" was because the Bush Sr didn't want to. It was a morally bankrupt thing to do in my opinion, he should have finished Saddam off, and his later inaction when the Kurds attempted to rise up was outrageous as well.

However, as I already said, your argument itself is flawed so I fail to see the relevance of the question. Try again, but try a little harder.

P.S. You will blink before I do.

dizzy said...

dynamite said...
Dizzy - of course you're right. If only someone had warned us! Thank God we had the great Tory Opposition though, asking all the right questions about the post-conflict and holding our government to account! Brillo job!!!


Dynamite, apologies for not replying earlier. I wasn't a member of any political party in 2003 so what the Tory Opposition did then is nothing to do with me, unless of course you're saying that membership of a party makes one guilty of everything that party has ever done in history. In which case we might as well end it there because it's just a silly argument, or perhaps I could blame my great-grandmother for having my grandmother thus producing the scenario that she would have my mother and then have me, I'm guessing the sarcasm of this part of my response won't be lost on you.

However, I imagine your point is that the Lib Dems were the only one's who got their prediction right, and thus this a "told you so" argument which itself is flawed simply because a prediction of future events is not the equivalent of knowing about future events. However, you also mtnion asking questions about the post-conflict suggesting that if the questions had been asked and the answers had been sufficient the Lib Dems would have supported the war, which is something that I doubt given that the official opposition to the war by the Lib dems was to cite the mythical non-existence of international law as a reason not to act against a fascist totaltarian.

The fact remains however, that you're origional response in this thread was to say that intervention could only be justified if we are able to "improve the lives of the citizens". This seems to me (a) to be based on the assumption that it is posible to predict all possible future events of mankind in relation to your action, and (b) that there is some sort of subjective value placed upon the deifntion of "improvement". For example, and this is a completely glib repsonse I admit, but which is better?

To live in a secretive police state where all form of dissent is dealt with by people disappearing, where school childfren are taight the leader is the their "father", and where everyone lives in fear of the knock on the door, or...

To live in an open society where you have free election but that you might, if you're unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, get blown up whilst doing your shopping?

Now if you ask me their both pretty shitty, although the latter has a greater capacity and potential to get better than the former.

Of course one could play the numbers game, and say that a million Iraqi have died since the invasion which outweighs the number that died before it under Saddam. Ergo Saddam was qualitatively 'better'. Now if we put aside the fact that the million figure is based upon extrapolation of personal experience from a thousand or same sample set one really has to ask themselves,or should I say you do as a "liberal" what do you believ in more? The strength and positivity of liberty which might kill more people, or the negetivity of oppression which kills less? It's not an easy decision to make, which is why it sucks to be a real political leader rather than an armchair analyst.

For me though I'd take freedom and liberty over a fascist dictatorship any day.

Manfarang said...

The reason why the Americans didn't go to Baghdad wasn't because Bush Sr didn't want to go there,it was because the coalition he had put together in the wake of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait would have fallen apart.And of course such an invasion was not authorised by the United Nations.The UN resolution only allowed the liberation of Kuwait.
The Arab countries could see the dangers of such an invasion.
There is only one Arab country that has a political system, similar to the western democracies. That is of course is Lebanon.Even there you may have noticed how violent the politics are.
But to return to Iraq.Past actions have no moral consequencies?Well that lets us off the hook.No worries about a bit of Imperial looting, pillage and killing. Of course those on the receiving end see it a little differently.
How can others be condemned for being brutal and repressive when exactly the same methods were used against them?
What do they say about those who don't learn the lessons of history?
We are paying the price for invading Iraq because it was done without having the proper UN authorisation.

dizzy said...

1: I didn't say past actions have no moral consequences. I said that the morality inherent within past actions or inactions have no bearing on the moral rightness or wrongness of present or future actions. What coiuntry A does today, right or wrong, does not impact on the rightness or wrongness of what country A does in ten years time.

2: The UN has no "authorising" power. FACT. No sovereignty has been deferred to it from the nation states which make up its membership. Sovereignty is, has been, and remains with the members. As such the actions of any country, in any form, on the international stage does NOT require authorisation from the UN because the UN has no power conferred to it that says it is the ultimate authorising sovereign.

Your argument, which is founded upon the notion that the invasion of Iraq was somehow a breach of "international law" is flawed because such law simply does not exist. For law to exist it requires there to be a common sovereign power to (a) create it and (b) enforce it. The UN and its charter does not confer upon the UN body sovereignty over its members. As such where there is no sovereign common power there can be no law, and where there is no law there can be nothing that is unjust. Thus your position starts from a false premise about where power lies in the relationship of states on the international arena.

Try harder.

Manfarang said...

Now who has the preconceived world view.Saddam was a Ba'athist.It is important to get the names right to properly understand the thinking and influence of such an ideology.The motto of the Ba'ath party was Unity, Freedom and Socialism.We don't need to worry too much about the Socialism bit,except that the massive privatisations carried out by American rule put half the country on the dole.
Its that word "Freedom".Of course it was possible to buy an alcohlic drink in Saddam's Iraq.Although something tells me those bars in Basra have long since closed.
The Middle East did/does have one party inspired by what is best described as classical fascism- the Phalange in Lebanon.But I think you may be on their side.

Manfarang said...

You better tell the university law departments to cancel their courses in international law.
And rewrite the history books.The communists were fighting UN forces in Korea.
Well they did talk about the"new" morality in the 1960s, although that was more to do with the pill.
I have not noticed individuals changing their morality every ten years.

dizzy said...

The UN force that went into Korea does not mean that the UNm has sovieriegnty it simply means that in that specifc situation there was international agreeemnt. It does not, thereby mean that international law exist. However, and relating to universities, that is an ad verecundiam fallacy, so please try again.

Manfarang said...

RIMSKY-KORSAKOV!!!
The fact that we have in Britain an unwritten constitution does not mean there is no constitution.
Public international law concerns the relationship between sovereign nations.It is developed mainly through multinational conventions.
There are of course international courts at the Hague.
Now we are getting there.It is by international agreement that the problems in Iraq and other countries can be solved.No one single country can be the world's policeman.

dizzy said...

"Public international law concerns the relationship between sovereign nations. It is developed mainly through multinational conventions."

And here we have the poblem, you just called convention and agreement law. It is not law.

There are of course international courts at the Hague.

Internationla courts which require International agreement to try someone through Treaties which are not unable to be broken at the slightest whim.

No one single country can be the world's policeman.

Slight problem here is your abject failure to understand the nature of power. The subtext of what you;re saying is "America has no right to do X". The fact remains that power on the international arena occurs based upon the power of each player relative to each other. The US is the most powerful, and if it weren;t someone else would be. In the current scenario that would be eiother China or Russia. Screaming about the "world policemen" thus negates the fact that if the one you irrationally hate wasn;t there you would have a different one that was much worse.

Next specious argument please. Feel free to completely ignore the critcisms of your previous points again, I don't mind.

dynamite said...

Dizzy, no it's not an "I told you so" nor does it especially matter that the Lib Dems opposed it, it's just a general expression of astonishment at the failure to recognise or acknowledge that the Iraq War was a monumentally bad idea, a point upon which everyone from Powell to the CIA could seemed in accord. "How were we supposed to know it would go tits up?" seems like a rather sad response, and from someone like you, disingenuous...

Manfarang said...

There you go again....
Of course many of the conventions do become national law.To give a good example-The War Crimes Act 1996 defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions".So these conventions do become recognised by means of statute law and not simply agreement.
(anyway why the need to talk about law,the Tory Party used to be full of lawyers.Things must be bad if you don't have many lawyers among your ranks)
I didn't say the US should become the world's policeman.There is still a lot of isolationist sentiment in America.Although they have undertaken that role from time to time.During the Iran-Iraq war,they reflagged the Kuwaiti tankers in order to give them US naval protection in the Gulf.
Of course being the world's policeman is an old Tory idea from the days of the British Empire.It used to be talked about a lot fifty years ago.
Ignore your criticisms!Surely you are not for one moment being serious.No such thing as international law...tell that to someone who is involved in shipping.What next-no such thing as ethics?Maybe on planet Cameron!

dizzy said...

Of course many of the conventions do become national law.

The key point here is that they are national, not international. Once they become law they can just as easily be revoked. Their existence as rules on the international arena do not imply that only the international arena can revoke them, only national institutions can.

(anyway why the need to talk about law,the Tory Party used to be full of lawyers.Things must be bad if you don't have many lawyers among your ranks)

What does this have to do with the price of bread?

I didn't say the US should become the world's policeman

Indeed you did not, but in the current real of the discussion at hand you have been referring to the West and the primary power in the West is the US.

Of course being the world's policeman is an old Tory idea from the days of the British Empire.

Gladstone was a Tory?
Ignore your criticisms!Surely you are not for one moment being serious.

You have littered your arguments with logical fallacies and you have chosen to ignore each time I have pointed that flaw. Ad hominens abusives, ad hominen circumstantial, appeals to authority.

No such thing as international law...tell that to someone who is involved in shipping.

Again you are missing the distinction of law that is founded upon international agreements and national sovereignty enforcing it, and law that exists separately of the national sovereign under an international.It is very simple, there is no "international" global sovereign, period. As such there is actually such thin as international law. There is, as I said, certainly trans-national agreement with trans-agreement on enforcement, but the ultimate sovereign of those legal constructs is found within each sovereign nation that agrees to it. And the power to ignore those agreements equally lies with every sovereign nation.

What next-no such thing as ethics?

Well no, because ethics is a philosophical construct the same as law is. However, as I've now said to you more than once, the question is not whether rules or norms of action exist on the international stage. The question is if "international law" exists then by what international sovereignty does it receive it's legitimacy from? It is very simple, nations make law, nations make agreements, nations agree convention, and it is nations that remain sovereign in terms of revoking law, revoking agreements, and revoking convention.

Maybe on planet Cameron!

Irrelevant ad hominen about someone I've never met and probably never will. What's the point you;re making?

dizzy said...

dynamite said...
"How were we supposed to know it would go tits up?" seems like a rather sad response, and from someone like you, disingenuous...


I wasn't saying "how were we supposed to know", I was saying that purely from realistic philosophical standpoint it was impossible to actually know what would happen. It's not disingenuous, its totally honest. We could predict scenarios, but we couldn't know them. And I don;t think basing foreign policy on the subjective notion of "improvement" in a situation where one cannot know is not a very sound premise.

Manfarang said...

So the invasion of Iraq was a logical thing to do? I don't think so.
BTW What is the name of your university?Clearly you haven't studied law.Law is not a philosophical construct,jurisprudence is.
Common law isn't based on logic either but judicial precedent.
Dare I mention supra-national law!
Yes that is European Union law which is binding in Britain.Please don't tell me the EU doesn't exist because the laws it makes are part of international law.
I thought you said you were a Tory?I am surprised you would not like to meet Dave.He is by all accounts a nice chap.A case of being Cornerstone?

dizzy said...

So the invasion of Iraq was a logical thing to do?

Who said that?

Law is not a philosophical construct, jurisprudence is.

Err no, jurisprudence is a theory in the philosophy of law. What you've failed to do is make a distinction between when I write law (sometimes "law") and law. Yet again though you seem to be failing to also notice the word "international" that you are tagging in front. So let's play some Socrates here and see if we can get anyway. Where does man made law receive its political legitimacy?


Dare I mention supra-national law!Yes that is European Union law which is binding in Britain.Please don't tell me the EU doesn't exist because the laws it makes are part of international law.

Excellent I was waiting for you to leap on the EU. I though, perhaps you would have th brain not to do it, but clearly you're being so intransient in terms of not actually reading what I have said - hence the fact that you have not actually tackled the point directly - but in this example sovereignty is __clearly___ being conferred. I did not say that transborder law could not exist, I said that the notion of "international law" (ergo global law) is a fallacy. But I think you know that.

And no, I'm not a member of Cornerstone

Manfarang said...

You better let these deluded fools know-
http://www.un.org/law

You say man made law which implies law can be made by some other form.
Well in a country in the Middle East....
There is of course canon law of which the doctrines of the Church of England are subject to. I would not mention this but I have noticed the word "papist" on your blog which in the light of the troubles is a term of needless offence.

dizzy said...

You better let these deluded fools know-
http://www.un.org/law


argumentum ad verecundiam

You say man made law which implies law can be made by some other form.

Laws of physics?

I have noticed the word "papist" on your blog which in the light of the troubles is a term of needless offence.

It's called irony you prat.

Manfarang said...

Beggars belief!

dizzy said...

Which bit?

Manfarang said...

The cosmic irony.

dizzy said...

Agreed, there is something quanitly amusing don't you think about how every time I have pointed out your use of logical fallacy, or provided refutation to your straw men you have not attacked the responses and merely ignored them and either (a) tried the fallacy again in a different way, or (b) created another "so you're saying?" misrpresentation which again is easily refuted.

I don;t know about you but I'm laughing my head off at it because it's so easy.

Manfarang said...

Well with your rose tinted spectacles I don't expect you to see the world as others might.

dizzy said...

They're blue actually

Manfarang said...

Exactly!

dizzy said...

Yes, you're missing sarcasm again. Just out of curiousity do you actually intend on critcially arguiong against what I've written?

Manfarang said...

Just out of curiousity have you ever lived in the middle east?

dizzy said...

If I have what relevance does it bear on the points we are discussing.

Manfarang said...

You would have known that the result of invading Iraq is civil war.They were not prepared to welcome the Americans as liberators.They didn't like Saddam,but their dislike of the Americans is much stronger.They are not too fond of the British either.They have shown us the door before and I think the British government has got the message this time that we are no longer welcome.

dizzy said...

What is the relevance of 20/20 hindsight statements to my original post?

Manfarang said...

The issues are not black and white.
By breaking the rules,the outcome is hardly likely to be better.

dizzy said...

That's still irrelevant to the absurd moral relativism being displayed by the likes of Vince Cable.

Manfarang said...

As I said its the rules.
Within Iraq in a few years another strongman will eventually take over but lets hope by then there is much better control of the arms trade and the world is no longer so dependent on middle eastern oil.

dizzy said...

Moral relatvism is about rules? By another "strongman" you mean a dictator? Would you be happy to see the West sit back and let that happen?

Manfarang said...

In Laos many bomb craters are visible from the air.More bombs were dropped in Indo-China by the Americans than on Germany in the second world war but did that bring victory?
Of course Iraq is not Vietnam but I think more people in America are being to realise that a military solution is not possible.

dizzy said...

Is the new strategy to just post random statements? Please let me know and I will join in too.

Manfarang said...

random statements?
George Dubya mentioned the cold war in his Veteran's Day rambling statements to the Heritage Foundation about Iraq so events that have happened else where do have a relevance.

dizzy said...

That's like saying because someone used the word "the" in a sentence it is relvant to all other senetnces with the same word in it. Your post was totally meaningless in the context of this thread and as response to the preceeding comment that was directly addressed at you.

Manfarang said...

And the meaning of meaning?

dizzy said...

Forty two

Manfarang said...

"The Forty-two Lettered Name is entrusted only to him who is pious,meek,middle aged,free from bad temper,sober and not insistent on his rights."

dizzy said...

Congratulations, you can use Wikipedia.

Manfarang said...

And you can use Google.
But you can't break the wall of silence.

dizzy said...

Oh dear, Houston we have a nutter. Thread will have to lock soon - after I have the last word of course.

Manfarang said...

God bless you.

dizzy said...

twinkle twinkle little troll
gets himself in a whole