Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 21 2015 16:05. Posts 3093
spitfire I've never seen anyone on these forums, or hardly anywhere else in the past 5 years, say that the invasion of Iraq was not a disaster.
Afghanistan people are more likely to consider a disaster because of Iraq - that made US disengage too early and be spread too thinly for their mission to be completable. That's an argument anyway - the one I make is once again that bombs create hatred creates tension creates hostility and then circle is going - but if you believe in interventionism, then Afghanistan was almost as good of a target as they get.
After watching this I've read a few articles about the growing rape of women and mostly children in Sweden. Had no idea it was so bad, everything is so completely twisted there.
After watching this I've read a few articles about the growing rape of women and mostly children in Sweden. Had no idea it was so bad, everything is so completely twisted there.
"Sverigedemokraterna" which is considered a "racist party" in Sweden, are going in for the same politics about asyl/refugees etc as the other scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, Finland.
Does that mean they also consider Denmark, Norway, Finland racist ? I acctually wonder.
Basicly it says, its crisis. This crazy, insane man Stefan Lovfen already begged Norway and Denmark for help with their welfare immigrants. But we answered "no" and replied its their own fault. "In my opinion Sweden took in too many" our Prime minister added Hilarious
I honestly think Jimmie is the only man on the planet that can save Sweden now
:D
Last edit: 21/11/2015 18:27
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:01. Posts 6374
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
I said why do you keep repeating how bad is Islam when in this thread I havent seen anybody saying things like "they are not real muslims" or "terrorism has no faith", I think everybody in this thread agrees that Islam is the most violent religion in our time.
And yes there are other reasons why they attack, and that is the west imperialism and constant military presence in their region, it is not the only one, but a big one, along with their faith.
"in out time" seems like you didnt do your homework as cloud requested, still ignorant about how islam was spread by sword
anyway i m talking to you mostly b/c you seem to think we wont be facing these attacks if it werent for iraq and other interventions, which is very naive view
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:13. Posts 6374
you think us foreign policy is terrible and also like Noam Chomsky, the guy whos opinion on international relations has been asked for @ every international relations topic by the USA government? that irony -_-
Noam Chomsky is not only against US imperialism, but against the existence of your governments at all, he is an anarchist ffs, do you think anarchist support foreign invasions across the globe for economical and political reasons? lol
im well aware of his opinions, but these are somewhat irrelevant in that sentence either way. its just spitfres attempt to sound smart and sophisticated that went wrong
On November 20 2015 04:47 Baalim wrote:
You keep babbling on how bad Islam is... nobody has said Islam is a religion of peace or anything remotely positive about it, who the fuck are you even talking to?
thread about muslim terrorist attacks, why do i even bother to talk about islam?
b/c you among the others are constantly trying for find another reasons for their actions besides religion. you brought up comparison with christianity into this with all your knowledge and expert bible analysis
On November 20 2015 05:33 Stroggoz wrote:
I agree with Baal on drone strikes, i don't think any serious observer would disagree.
As for Islam being more barbaric than Christianity, i have to disagree. And there are different types of Islam and Christianity connected to different institutions. Some are violent, and crazy, some are not.
in 2003 a group of powerful and fanatic christian fundamentalists invaded iraq, which has killed over 700,000 people. That's one example of extremist christian violence, but there are others.
ISIS has so far, killed many people but not as many as the neo conservatives who draw their power from christian fundamentalism in America.
I read a book today by Syrian historian Sami Moubayed, called 'under the black flag'. He has lived under ISIS's regime and describes Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's regime as almost identical to Saddam Husseins in its practices of torture and savagery, which is understandable, since he learn't all his techniques living in Husseins regime and he uses former Baathist party members as his henchmen. We should remember most of Europe and the neo-cons like Raegan and bush senior supported Saddam Hussein up until 1990, germany and america even gave him weapons of mass destruction like mustard gas. You can read this in 'The great conquest of civilization' by Robert Fisk.
ISIS grows out of something that has built up over hundreds of years, from a culmination first of salafi-wahhabi religion which was founded by the Saud family and some crazy religious fanatic. Their conquests in the middle east eventually led to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which are spreading this violent religion everywhere they can. America and Britian, the west in general have always opposed movements that try to seek to nationalize their resources, that is 'secular nationalism', so they support crazy fanatic totalitarian regimes like the saud family. It's a cheap way to conduct an imperialist policy. You keep get an elite group to do your dirty work for you, and let them keep a little of the money.
America supported Al Qaeda in 1979 in their plan to draw russia into a war they couldnt win. This plan was drawn up by the American statesman zbigniew breziznski.
in 1982, the Hafez al Assad regime in syria massacred their opposition who were wahhabi salafists, which then vowed revenge and joined Al qaeda and bin laden in afghanistan. Now they are back as Al Nusra.
ISIS was a branch off from Al qaeda, which is even more extremist than the Al qeada group is. ISIS is what you get when you rape a country as hard as the mongols did in 1258. It's easily predictable that when you destroy a country you will turn them into a bunch of fanatics. Any student of history will know this. And their are other factors which have helped create ISIS, like the ones i have pointed out. It's quite complex.
I havn't posted very often on LP and hardly visit anymore, but i came back and found a thread on one of my topics so i thought i would comment.
One of the reasons i left is people like dogmeat. I am no fan of being around stupid people. People like you don't respond to argument, for you to look in the mirror and think about what your responsible for is crazy, since it would be rational. that's why you blame problems on arabs and their inferior culture or whatever it may be. This is why the powers in Europe still rape the poorer nations with their neo-colonial policies.
i love how you blame christianity for terrible us foreign policy. yet when it comes to isis etc, you search for every reason but islam. you even use the term wahhabism, which is just a fancy term for following islam fundamentals. pretty much what chomsky would said
i take being called stupid by a syndicalist as a compliment
i don't blame US foreign policy on just christianity. I blame it mostly on the concentrations of power from its private and state institutions, but that's a long story. As for ISIS, of course islam is a reason for its creation. There are a lot of other reasons too, like the one's i pointed out. To blame any violence on just religion is not true in either of these cases. There are always complex reasons. As for wahhabism, every serious scholar and historian-not just chomsky, uses the term, how can they not?
i challenge you, show me new testament verses validating us foreign policy or any verses promoting violence really. til then your connections are just typical lefting nonsense and manipulation.
the way you used that term was just to cover up the fact that isis is doing nothing else but following islam fundamentals, similar to using term "islamist".
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:14. Posts 6374
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
well he indeed was, but still better than alternatives
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:15. Posts 6374
note this is 1y old
ban baal
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:18. Posts 6374
quaran 33:21
VERILY, in the Apostle of God you have a good example for everyone who looks forward [with hope and awe] to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly.
ban baal
1
traxamillion United States. Nov 21 2015 20:33. Posts 10468
Why do I get the vibe sroggoz and spitfire are of middle eastern descent (esp Stroggoz)
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 21 2015 20:35. Posts 6374
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
well he indeed was, but still better than alternatives
Yay at last something to agree on, don't know what the jew/atheist paradox should lead to other than showing a bias in society? There s a reason the usage of a martyr is so productive.
Cause traxx the prejudice has been ran deep in your life making you shallow minded, not only do I have nothing to do with arabs, our educational system was built in a way where the first 14 years of your life the only thing you learn in history classes is how osmans have enslaved us for 500 years and raped our women and killed our men pushing hatred deep into society, that may seem unbelievable to you simply because you are simple. Just as simple as the masses here that are all racist because of a system build to make them be so. There were ideas of replacing the information in a more softening way so hatred wouldn't be preached from such an early age and people PROTESTED about it. They protested to saving their children the unnecessary negative emotion about something that has ended over 120 years ago
Last edit: 22/11/2015 22:13
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 24 2015 07:30. Posts 2226
On November 21 2015 13:32 Stroggoz wrote:
If we want to get rid of the Taliban because its undemocratic then the safest option would be to give financial support to internal liberal democratic resistance in Afghanistan, if there is any. I do not think the Afghanistan war had any legitimacy. Suppose we want to bomb a country because it's harboring terrorists. Well, no one accepts that argument when the west harbors terrorists. Like, for example Orlando Bosch, a terrorist that blew up an airliner and was harbored by the Bush administration. This does not give Afghanistan the right to invade the US and start bombing the place.
This, to me, is an interesting frame of mind. Likening a country that observes the rule of law, and is founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, to a country where tribal nihilists have free reign.
I looked up this Bosch character, and it said he was found not guilty by a court for the accusation of having a part in an airliner that blew up. But it looks like he really did it, so it wouldn't be a stretch to grant that for the sake of argument. Now, I'm actually NOT an international lawyer, but this looks to me like a complaint you should file in that department rather than the US foreign policy box.
I'm sorry this guy apparently escaped justice. But shit does happen. OJ Simpson also killed his wife and a waiter. That doesn't mean the NFL can bomb the USA. Orlando Bosch is not a paramilitary pseudo-state hiding in the territory of a friendly regime. It looks like he's just a damn guy. If the US was housing the FLQ and they kept attacking Canada and killing people, then we would have a fitting analogy. Until then, what you have is nothing more than a case of the Venezuelan justice system letting a guilty guy off? Like, this is the best example you could come up with for Yankee hypocrisy?
This is what I mean when I say people have lost the ability to see degrees in anything. To compare things without equating them. People unironically saying the USA is just as bad as the Taliban.
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
Afghanistan invasion had less arguments than the Iraq invasion which had none. And if the USA didn't try to play god and only destabilized the region instead of on top of that tried to push their own culture and democracy things would've been far better, you can't force a society to change its ways over night.
Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban (this is the same Taliban that kills young girls who try to go to school), who was harboring al-Qaeda, who you may remember AtTaCkEd NeW yOrK cItY. However. "not having your country ripped apart by supposedly irreconcilable religious wars" is not some kind of unique American culture, it should be a natural human right of anyone born after the 18th century. It's true that you can't force a society to change overnight. It takes a long time, and a considered effort, and I submit there's nothing more worth doing if you do it right.
By the way, you can't simultaneously 1) argue that removing Saddam was a mistake after we've just been over in this thread that the Iraqi people couldn't do it themselves and 2) argue that nonintervention in Syria is going to have a favorable outcome for anyone except extremists if it's at all possible that ISIS is worse/harder to expel than the Baathists.
ISIS controls a region containing 8 million people. They are attacking other countries. All these bombs and massacres of civilians in the region and out, those are attacks, and they would happen whether or not France was bombing ISIS targets, because there's no such thing as a provoked massacre of civilians, and because, and I thought this was an uncontroversial idea, most of all they're just fucking psychotic. At a certain point you have to accept your enemy is the geopolitical Joker.
Everything about refugees is a sideshow that's keeping people in denial because they really can't fathom, in a liberal democratic paradise, that a geopolitical joker would exist "in 2015." It's a feel-good excuse to do nothing. What's that? 4 million of people have been driven out of Syria trying to escape violence? Let's give tens of thousands of them permanent residence in Sweden. thereifixedit.jpg. It presents the illusion of a solution. It's quite sad because it's possible to accept so many refugees that it has a negative effect on your home country while still not making a dent in the actual problem where the refugees came from. This perfectly fits the left's guilt complex, though.
The conflict in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced over 4 million. This has been going on for years already. Show me the possible future where we do nothing and the Middle East lives happily ever after. I want to know how that will work. Since the holidays are approaching, I want to be able to make an advent calendar of doing nothing in Syria and eat chocolate until the country is peaceful.
On November 21 2015 14:01 Spitfiree wrote:
p.s. inb4 the Saddam was a war criminal etc etc pathetic arguments by brainwashed ppl
I would like to just take this opportunity to reiterate what a great humanitarian Saddam Hussein was and to express my sympathy for his family and chastise the brainwashed Iraqi tribunal that hanged him.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Santafairy, as for the first post you replied to, both WW1 and WW2 were largely sold to the american public as efforts to help free the world from tyrrany. I didn't really mean it as liberating the germans or japanese, but as liberating the countries invaded by them. Particularly in WW1 was the government propaganda towards the american population massive to build support for conscription. And yeah the US didn't actually engage until they were attacked/declared war upon, but when they did, the effort to sell the good vs evil, of saving the world from tyrrany (which in the case of WW2 genuinely has some merit) story was massive.
I agree, but I think you're underestimating the aspect of it that would pass as patriotism at the time, that we would call jingoism today, aspects that aren't explicitly part of the good vs. evil narrative, if you see what I mean.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As for the second post, that post of mine was specifically regarding drone strikes. (Well, any type of 'surgical bombing' that happens to have 'unintended civilian casualities'). I don't believe that these attacks are instrumental towards stopping more incidents like the Paris terror attacks, rather I think they are instrumental in causing more of these types of incidents, because they invariably create hatred, which is pretty much the prime ingredient in any terrorist's mind. And please don't equate this position to me thinking that we should do nothing, because at no point did I say such a thing. I just have little faith in military solutions alone, especially drone strikes or bombing raids, solving this issue at all.
Drone and air strikes were not invented on November 14th, 2015. They're something that needs to happen at some level to kill people, especially when you can't reach them with soldiers. They're obviously not a magic wand. There is no quick fix. But I don't see that you can categorically say they're a mistake? Help me out.
The day after the attacks, France dropped 20 bombs in a region that looks like this.
My point is we're not talking about Rolling Thunder tonnage here. It's not bombing at a Vietnam-level obvious mistake. Saying one SNAFU or another is the west's "fault" (which is victim-blaming and otherwise the same language used by extremists, by the way) may be true in the sense of foreign policy because of our support of conservatism, and it may be true in a meaningless Aristotelian sense of if the west didn't exist, extremists wouldn't be able to hate it. But in the case of surgical drone/air strikes, it strikes me, as it were, that you're overestimating the effect they have, and when you look at other factors I doubt we wouldn't still have the same quagmire today.
Saudi Arabia's also doing airstrikes, right? Syria is doing airstrikes, obviously. Is that all okay because they're brown-skinned countries? Are they not radicalizing people?
It's irrelevant now anyway. You're talking about getting a flu vaccine after you're already bedridden. The circumstances to run your experiment don't exist. ISIS has no peaceful endgame, whether you stop shooting or not, we know they're going to keep shooting.
On November 21 2015 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I even kinda think that drone strikes are very likely to result in more retaliation towards civilian targets specifically because there are no military casualities. If the US is able to conduct warfare without soldiers getting killed, then the US will not feel the domestic pressure to disengage (once again, vietnam-iraq). Basically, if there are no military targets for people fighting against american (or western) involvement in a region, then they are only left with civilian targets. (And please don't equate this to me defending their actions, I'm merely trying to understand so that we can act in a way that makes these types of terrorist attacks less likely to happen. )
I understand you're not an apologist. But this is fundamentally an argument of appeasement.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 24 2015 11:58. Posts 3093
nice post santafairy. You highlight exactly why this is an extremely difficult situation, because indeed, I can't offer a solution. I just.. I'm so afraid of this escalating, so I want us to take an as de-escalationary approach as we can. I understand likening this to appeasement - but even though this word has a dirty, pussified meaning post ww2, is there another way of de-escalating a conflict? The thing is though, the way I feel is basically that, any current IS member is fucked. This is harsh coming from me - because I fundamentally don't believe in free will, I fundamentally don't believe in people deserving anything, good or bad, yet in the case of IS, I kinda feel like joining that organization is a way of handing back in your library card, except for books we're talking value as a human being. I understand that IS needs to be destroyed, and I don't think their members are rehabilitable. But we cannot act in any way that increases their recruitment power.
IS, as fucked as they are, understand enough about how the west operates for them to manage to push exactly the right escalation buttons. It's like, their habitual torturing/burning alive/mangling of people broadcast live on the internet, that made it incredibly hard for any country to 'plant boots on the ground'. The aftermath of the battle of Mogadishu would be absolutely nothing compared to what would happen if IS captured american soldiers. Thus, we have to bomb, but bombs always have civilian casualities. Which is why I state that at least, we cannot 'just' bomb. And we most certainly cannot bomb while at the same time spouting off anti-islamic rhetoric (even if you genuinely fully believe in all of it, just understand that right now is not the right time). This, coupled with certain historical incidences (centures of crusades, followed by a USA-led invasion of afghanistan and Iraq labelled as a crusade against terror, support of Israel which in many ways has been obviously destabilizing and creating a common enemy), stuff that we can't undo, but that makes it easy to paint a picture of the west as an enemy - particularly to the 17 year old mourning his recently bombed brother, is reason why we must tread carefully. But then, at the same time, we can't tread carefully, because as you said, they control land areas containing 8 million people. And while a huge majority of the people residing in those areas are negative towards IS, they're also (from what little we've gotten of information from those regions) basically imprisoned, basically experiencing those that pledge allegiance to IS manage to reattain their freedom - just now with more wealth and women than before as well, and it is a fact that many IS members are more attracted to the bling that comes with the organization than any religious message they are trying to convey. (IS recruitment officers in Europe specifically target young muslim males with no future prospects, no relationships, and a lacking knowledge of Islam. The european muslims who go to Syria to fight rarely ever do so due to religious affiliation, but because they are promised excitement, wealth, and sex, all of which are inattainable to them in Europe. ) So IS, while I believe foreign policies of the west were instrumental in creating their initial support, is probably self-sustainable even without us bringing more fuel for their hatred, which means we have passed the point where nonconfrontation is an option.
But we still have to be so careful.
Like, follow this argument.
It's impossible to really estimate how many active terrorists exist. From quickly googling though, this page claims that it's 184 000. That's certainly a large enough number to cause a whole lot of death and turmoil - individual terrorists have on multiple occasions killed 100+ people. Yet, compared to the number of nearly 1 600 000 000 muslims in the world, it's a really tiny number, slightly more than one in every 10000. No white people generalization can possibly ever be made from a similar degree of support. (And yeah, I know that the numbers of muslims who 'to some degree' support terrorists is far higher (which usually means supporting their goals, not their means, just how like there are many Norwegians who support Breivik's goals - nobody will agree with his means though)). I am not really afraid of 184000 global terrorists. But I am incredibly afraid of what happens if the muslim population is sufficiently radicalized for this number to go from 0.01% to say, 1%? Then we're looking at 16 million instead. And I think rhetoric is a huge factor here. Especially when our hands are somewhat tied in terms of military involvement. Basically, I can see how we need to get involved militarily, and then yeah, bombs and drones will be essential - but we must do so coupled with rhetoric of ridding the region of the perversion that is IS (hey, I also support calling them Daesh, for this very reason), and without espousing any type of generic, anti-muslim sentiments along the way. And this is just.. it's so important.
I also must state that there is a difference between drone strikes targetting IS targets in the middle east and drone strikes in Pakistan though. The latter seems far less warranted (and thus also far more radicalizing).
You also asked about Syria and Saudi-Arabia.I recall reading articles in Norwegian newspapers from early on in the conflict, when it was just a civil war, before any mention of IS was mentioned, where they were interviewing some moderate Syrian who had been engaged in some of the protests. He was warning very specifically about the development; (it was in Norwegian and like 3 years ago, can't find a link) he stated that the brutalization that the syrian population was currently enduring at the hands of Assad's special forces was forever altering them, brutalizing themselves, and he was really afraid of what groups were going to pop up as a response to it. It's not rocket science that hatred spawns hatred - it's fundamentally human behavior which has been true for as long as we have been conscious. So yes, Syria and Saudi-Arabia are no better. But lol, it's not because they are brown skinned. It's because they are not democracies, rather they are countries famed for being brutal, oppressive dictatorships. If we, as the democratic west, feel like we can justify actions by stating that 'look at this brutal oppressive dictatorship, they're doing the same thing', then where does that place us? I'm not even remotely comfortable with being on the same level as them in terms of moral behavior.
Being a democracy comes with a healthy set of benefits. It also comes with a set of responsibilities. Not only because our rulers are supposed to reflect the will of its people. Also because it looks that way to others. I can without problems state that the actions of IS in no way represent the will of muslims worldwide. I can do the same for Assad. The civil war in Syria and other Arab spring countries originated exactly because the population disagreed so much with their regimes (granted, I'm not saying that these revolutions were pushing for increased secularism, although only factions of the revolting groups had islamification in mind). However, when a democratically elected president of the US claims that he needs to invade two Islamic countries, with popular support in his population, in an attempt to wage a crusade against terrorism, it becomes very easy for a terrorist demagogue to argue that the american people themselves are to blame.
A shit storm is coming.
This situation will require a lot of rationality and compromises to be solved and I don't feel like this is what we will get with leaders like Putin and Erdogan
0
dogmeat Czech Republic. Nov 24 2015 22:26. Posts 6374
Nuke the turks
ban baal
1
traxamillion United States. Nov 25 2015 00:58. Posts 10468
prejudice is a big part of my life as a poker player. When I go to the casino I am instantly making judgements based on age and race before I have even played 1 hand at a table.
Am I a racist asshole then? Or may there be some value in prejudicial thoughts?
The TSA at airports are more likely to stop Middle Eastern passengers. Sure it may not be completely PC but truth is a Muslim is more likely to take down a plane than a white man from seattle with a wife and kids in private school. Stereotypes exist because they do truthfully characterize the target group in some manner. I am no asshole for acting accordingly.
----
Going back to my bigoted life of White Privilege now, peace guys
I acctually wonder. 
