>> ^kymbos:

It's not about this generation of 20 year olds, it's every generation of 20 year olds. It's you, at 20. Man, it took me a while to lose my sense of entitlement. In fact, I'm not sure I have.
Disclaimer: not including those 20 year olds from WWI and WWII.


There's always talk about that greatest generation. What about the ones that were fucked up in the head because they went through a horrible fucking War? I mean thats gotta mess you up something fierce.

It's a BBC promo that is supposed to make you want to watch the rest of the episode - hence the BBC2 branding at the end of it.

>> ^messenger:

So what's the answer? What a lame place to cut off a QI clip.

It's not about this generation of 20 year olds, it's every* generation of 20 year olds. It's you, at 20. Man, it took me a while to lose my sense of entitlement. In fact, I'm not sure I have.

*Disclaimer: not including those 20 year olds from WWI and WWII.

Your video, QI - David Mitchell attempts to explain the origin of "WWI", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You are certainly correct. Time magazine used the term in June 1939, even Wikipedia tells us that much. But we also know from this clip that it's not 1939.

Now, the German term "Erster Weltkrieg" was used as early as 1928 by Stefan George in his work "Das neue Reich", more specifically his poem "Einem jungen Führer im Ersten Weltkrieg".

Is it the earliest mention of the term? No idea. And that's still just the German version, who knows at what point in time the English decided to steal it.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
I think the focus is on the "First" in "First World War," but nice resources. Yay I can still read Sütterlin or whatever that font was called.

>> ^radx:

http://www.archive.org/stream/derweltkriegdeu00niemgoog
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2026/2026-h/2026-h.htm
Or is my memory playing tricks on me again?


I think the focus is on the "First" in "First World War," but nice resources. Yay I can still read Sütterlin or whatever that font was called.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

Thank you God, for killing all those babies... keep up the great work on your infallible 'plan'. Sure looks like things are going great on this so far. I mean, what a success WWI and WWII was too. Makes me wonder what other excellent plans you have in store for us on this little ball of dirt.


Dude, God didn't kill those babies, the devil did... maybe the super devil.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41784_52848431374_713135_n.jpg

Thank you God, for killing all those babies... keep up the great work on your infallible 'plan'. Sure looks like things are going great on this so far. I mean, what a success WWI and WWII was too. Makes me wonder what other excellent plans you have in store for us on this little ball of dirt.

>> ^heropsycho:

Before I share my opinion about this, I want to share I have a Master's Degree in history, specializing in 20th Century US and World History.
History doesn't back this up. Show me the world war that started post 2008. 2002? 1987? 1970's...
Why was there a 20 year pause between the end of WWI and WWII when the US economy went to crap just after WWI ended?
This is sheer utter, 100% steaming pile of horsecrap "history".
>> ^Duckman33:
LOl keep your heads in the sand guys. Can't wait till we can say "We told you so." I find it laughable that history backs this up and you guys still vehemently deny this is a possible scenario.



Yeah it's cherry picking.

Before I share my opinion about this, I want to share I have a Master's Degree in history, specializing in 20th Century US and World History.

History doesn't back this up. Show me the world war that started post 2008. 2002? 1987? 1970's...

Why was there a 20 year pause between the end of WWI and WWII when the US economy went to crap just after WWI ended?

This is sheer utter, 100% steaming pile of horsecrap "history".

>> ^Duckman33:

LOl keep your heads in the sand guys. Can't wait till we can say "We told you so." I find it laughable that history backs this up and you guys still vehemently deny this is a possible scenario.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

No. It may jumpstart it temporarily but as you print more money, the value of the dollar drops, and then we're stuck with inflation. And so to incentivize people to spend money in an inflated economy the Fed then in turn manipulates interest rates (cheap credit) and creates market bubbles that give the impression people are making more money because more money is available than before and there's no major change in interest rates, so it's cheap credit.

And so because credit is cheap we no longer spend from savings, but spend from credit. That means we don't save our money before buying that TV or buying that car, but instead buy it on credit. This poses a major problem because we become accustomed to living in debt, and we tend to spend more. And why shouldn't we when saving money means it will be devalued over time based on inflation.

Between 1813 and 1913 the cost of gold per ounce remained rather steady (approx. $30/ounce), and it wasn't until we abandoned a value backed currency (meaning currency that cannot be printed out of thin air like the Fed has been doing since 1913) that we saw increases from 1913 to 2010. Today gold is closer to $2000/ounce. This is why saving money in a bank is a bad investment (and so is saving your cash in a coffee can) and therefore people are incentivized to spend from credit and invest in risk retirement investments.

Capital is savings. Capitalism is spending from savings. What we have now isn't not true Capitalism, but rather spending from credit, i.e., spending from debt. And it's dangerous. Eventually the dollar bubble will pop, and we'll most likely be left where the Germans were after WWI with a worthless currency they burned in the winter to stay warm.

The largest scam of the fiat currency system, however, is who is rewarded and who is most strongly affected negatively. when money is printed, the government, the banks and the military industrial complex receives the money first and spends it before "inflation" drops the value. It then gets circulated through society, and the last people to have their cost of living adjusted for inflation tends to be those on Social Security. It's really an unfair and cruel system.

Anyhow, that's the gist of it as far as I understand it.

Man, these planes would have *ruled* the skies during WWI.

Wow. You're supposed to nose UP on landing, not DOWN.

Also, WWII had friggin spitfires and Japanese Zeros. Bi-planes were WWI...