Bombing in Belgium Airport, Metro stations - Page 12

On April 09 2016 15:20 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On April 09 2016 14:06 nolan wrote: That news reporter is probably going to end up dead or in prison soon, no? Not 100% sure the translation is accurate. Felt wierd that the comments are disabled, and i would read about MEMRI first before i would commit to the validity of this video.

Your cynicism is irrational and highly misplaced.

If this was fabricated translation, A) that would quickly become a story in itself and B) what exactly would be the angle on that by whoever is taking the time to fabricate such a video?

Sounds like you are making really weird justifications to keep rationality and the 1st hand experience out of the discussion so as to reinforce your own ego which is tied in with your dumb arguments. Not at all uncommon, we all want to be right, but how insane are you willing to get, because this is just absurd. I presume even the people in this thread who agree with you on the broader issues would concede that you are being ridiculous.

it's skepticism, not cynicism

MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West".[2] Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.

The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born American political scientist.

i don't think that can be overlook, if you want to have an object pov.

there are multiple examples that you can find where translations where more or less accurate.

Unless you speak the language, i have no idea how you can confirm the validity of this video at 100%.

Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli-born, American neoconservative political executive. She is married to Swiss-American David Wurmser, former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney.

On April 09 2016 17:28 uiCk wrote: it's skepticism, not cynicism Show nested quote + MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West".[2] Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.   The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born American political scientist. i don't think that can be overlook, if you want to have an object pov. there are multiple examples that you can find where translations where more or less accurate. Unless you speak the language, i have no idea how you can confirm the validity of this video at 100%.   Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli-born, American neoconservative political executive. She is married to Swiss-American David Wurmser, former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney.

I can't confirm it 100 %. Does that mean it's not valid? Can you confirm that President Obama isn't a closet Radical Muslim? Can you go inside his mind? Would it be healthy skepticism to keep that on the table? No, that would be cynical, not skeptical. Same shit, because you have no reason other than the protection of your own argument to think this is some kind of conspiratorial fake video, because it's an absurd claim with zero logic behind it other than the classic "How can you know FOR SURE". Why don't you plug this into google translator and confirm that you are a dumbass. I choose not to because it's a lot of work for nothing, but if I really thought there was a chance this was fake, I'd consider it. Muddying the waters with philosophy 101 is typical psuedo-intellectual bullshit that everyone can see through. It's not working, it's not persuasive, and it makes you seem far more paranoid than critical.... unless ofcourse your persuasive goal is to further my distrust in the sanity of my generation, in which case thumbs up, you are killing it.

Your use of Meyrav's political affiliation is a non-starter, exactly the same way it would be a non-starter for me to use Barack Obama's awful deal with Iran as evidence that he's a closet Radical Muslim... you can attempt to use Nihilistic circular logic to attempt to dismantle "certainty" for pointless filibuster but don't understand basic correlation vs causation. Yuck.

So, A pro isreal think tank founded by an ex Israeli military intelligence officer, that has track record of missleading, miss translating and using selective editing of "news" is NOT a cause for concern?

Your the idiot whos making logic leaps, assumptions of arguments i HAVE NOT made to discredit the simple fact i pointed out that
"Hey this org has already been accused of miss translating information before, maybe check out the source"

Its simple fact checking you fucking tard

On April 09 2016 18:44 uiCk wrote: So, A pro isreal think tank founded by an ex Israeli military intelligence officer, that has track record of missleading, miss translating and using selective editing of "news" is NOT a cause for concern?

No. Not really. Because as I said, if it's mis-translated, it's easily debunkable by simply translating it. Again, all you are doing is muddying the waters with unhealthy skepticism/cynicism (whatever). How about going after the substance of what she is saying instead of creating a ridiculous conspiracy? If you are so concerned that this MIGHT be fake, in the same way that the Earth might actually be flat after-all, would you like another speech from someone making the same points in the same situation? Wouldn't be hard to find. Or would you just claim that we can't be certain those are real either?

It's not simple fact checking. Simple fact-checking is checking the validity of things that would reasonably be exaggerated or lied about, usually claims by politicians. This is not one of those things. You can't see the difference, which is sad. Basically you are saying that I'd need to go and personally translate anything said in a foreign language in order to make sure it's not shadily translated, apparently especially by anyone who is conservative and pro-Israel (as if those are such radical things to be). That's called paranoia sir.

On April 09 2016 18:49 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On April 09 2016 18:44 uiCk wrote: So, A pro isreal think tank founded by an ex Israeli military intelligence officer, that has track record of missleading, miss translating and using selective editing of "news" is NOT a cause for concern? No. Not really. Because as I said, if it's mis-translated, it's easily debunkable by simply translating it. Again, all you are doing is muddying the waters with unhealthy skepticism/cynicism (whatever). How about going after the substance of what she is saying instead of creating a ridiculous conspiracy? If you are so concerned that this MIGHT be fake, in the same way that the Earth might actually be flat after-all, would you like another speech from someone making the same points in the same situation? Wouldn't be hard to find. Or would you just claim that we can't be certain those are real either?

Which is why i rather wait for some other source to fact check the translation , because i dont trust an org that HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCUSED MULTIPLE TIMES OF MISS TRANSLATION.

GET THAT TRHOUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL

On April 09 2016 18:54 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On April 09 2016 18:49 soberstone wrote:   On April 09 2016 18:44 uiCk wrote: So, A pro isreal think tank founded by an ex Israeli military intelligence officer, that has track record of missleading, miss translating and using selective editing of "news" is NOT a cause for concern? No. Not really. Because as I said, if it's mis-translated, it's easily debunkable by simply translating it. Again, all you are doing is muddying the waters with unhealthy skepticism/cynicism (whatever). How about going after the substance of what she is saying instead of creating a ridiculous conspiracy? If you are so concerned that this MIGHT be fake, in the same way that the Earth might actually be flat after-all, would you like another speech from someone making the same points in the same situation? Wouldn't be hard to find. Or would you just claim that we can't be certain those are real either? Which is why i rather wait for some other source to fact check the translation , because i dont trust an org that HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCUSED MULTIPLE TIMES OF MISS TRANSLATION. GET THAT TRHOUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL

Accused by weirdos like you. Not shocking.

How does one "accuse" someone of mis-translating. It's not exactly subjective.

Obama is ISIS. He's now been accused. Go prove me wrong. The waters have apparently been muddied.

lol, despite this derailment, i have some arabic speaking colleagues without any real agenda and they told me the translation is more or less accurate.

the woman is a saudi, but the news program is based out of qatar or something (which makes a lot more sense), for whatever that matters.

On April 06 2016 12:27 Mortensen8 wrote: Not third world admittedly but 2nd world. According to the UN report you will become like Poland is today. Poland interestingly will get to your current level. It's a remarkable drop going from probably number 1 or thereabouts in the world. http://ww.rrojasdatabank.info/HDRP_2010_40.pdf Why not do racial statistics? I know why they don't do it in Sweden because of disproportionate numbers. If natives committed more crime per capita they would make sure to point it out at every opportunity.

crime has a lot more to do with social status, education and income than race

On April 09 2016 21:55 nolan wrote: lol, despite this derailment, i have some arabic speaking colleagues without any real agenda and they told me the translation is more or less accurate. the woman is a saudi, but the news program is based out of qatar or something (which makes a lot more sense), for whatever that matters.

Shocker. Oh wait what if Nolan is lying about his Arabic friends? We can't ever know for sure!!!

But seriously, glad we can move on even though due to this retarded tangent and my biting on it, the point of the video itself is kinda lost. Maybe now that we've successfully fact-checked, uICK can respond to the content itself.

Or not, w/e, sorry for derailing.

My Arabic isn't the greatest, but what I find interesting is that she is specifically talking about Salafis and madrasas. And how religious fundamentalism is not criticized. And she is 100% right. She is NOT actually talking about Islam, she is talking about how Muslims are not standing up to extremism.

Read about these fucking fundamentalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

So now that we've established that there is a scary amount of Muslim fundamentalists, radicals, extremists, whatever you want to label it, what is the solution?

Let's pretend for a second that we can eliminate or enlighten all of the bleeding heart leftists who think this problem will go away if the West "minds it own business". Because that's obviously step 1, the step we are currently fighting to achieve within our own ideological battle.

But what is step 2? Is there one?

I'd posit that step 2 is to become energy independent and take the financial power away from the theocracies that fund most of the terrorism (Iran, etc.), who make most of their money selling oil directly or indirectly to us. Yet again, this involves a battle against the Left who thinks its better to pay more for oil to terrorist governments so as to somehow save the planet, then to simply drill right beneath our feet.

I say this because toppling governments and Democracy building always fails so they will need to figure out for themselves that their systems are awful and have their own revolutions, which will never happen until we stop buying oil from them and there is massive civil unrest.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/...tains-diverse-landscape-known-better/

Cliffs:

Former head of UK Equalities and Human Rights Chief - Liberal - Admits he made massive mistake and it is going to get much worse

Edit: Wrong thread

On March 29 2016 00:46 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote: ...Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable. At no point I stated if those actions were justified or not (no point in discussing that with you), I was asked about the presence of the US in muslim countries before 9/11 (thats why I mentioned Nigeria retard)

On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know?

On March 27 2016 21:29 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know? What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001?

On March 29 2016 00:46 Baalim wrote: Nigeria retard

On March 29 2016 00:46 Baalim wrote: because apparently somebody believed that prior 9/11 the US had a non-intervention and peaceful foreign policy.

Who was that person? And when you say peaceful, are you using that in the usual sense of the word, or in the sense of your usual dogmatic pacifism?

On March 29 2016 00:46 Baalim wrote: but yeah of course all these clear arguments stem from my irrational anti-Americanism because its hip.

I would really like to know what argument you think you made. The implication of what I asked should be clear to any erudite person - the West was doing hardly anything in the region when Al-Qaeda executed the worst terror attack in history. Pulling out, as usual, has not been shown to be reliably effective for achieving what you want.

On March 30 2016 03:36 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2016 17:48 Santafairy wrote:   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 21:29 Santafairy wrote:   On March 27 2016 05:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 27 2016 03:59 whamm! wrote: They won't stop bombing even if you: a) leave them alone in the middle east how would you know? What were we doing in the Middle East on September 10th, 2001? 1981 - the US shoots down Lybian jets in the Gulf of Sidra refusing to acknolwdge the area as Lybian waters. 1982 - US deploys forces in the Sinai Peninsula 1982 the US sends 800 marines in Lebanon 1983 the US sends 1200 more soldiers in Lebanon 1986 the US fires missiles against Lybian soldiers 1986 the USnaval forces bomb Tripoly claiming terrorist there attacked Germany 1987 the US attacks two Iranian oil plataform 1988 US attacks Iranian forces as reprisal for deplying mines in the persian gulf 1989 US destroys two Lybian fighters jets again over the mediterranean sea, the american pilots claimed the Lybian pilots demonstrated hostile intentions Lebanon was in a civil war in the 80s (for over a decade). Other than that teaching you that, I'm going to skip responding to this portion because it's not relevant to anything, unless you want to come back and make an actual point.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1990 - Bush declares operation Desert Shield, deploying troops in Saudy Arabia precursor to the Gulf War. The Saudi government, a US ally, asked for a troop presence because they didn't want to get attacked like Iran and Kuwait.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1996 Operation Desert Strike, american forces strike Iraq to protect the Kurdish population Do you think maintaining no-fly zones in Iraq and protecting the Kurds was a mistake? Or do you think genocide in Iraq is better than US imperialism?   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Desert Fox, american conduct major bombings for 3 days on important Iraqui targets Violating nonproliferation is a breach of international law.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 1998 Operation Infinite Reach, americans deploy cruise missiles to target suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan Wouldn't want to bomb terrorist camps, now, would we? The peaceful jihadis just want to be left alone to play paintball.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2000 special forces deployed in Nigeria for training purposes I'm talking to someone who doesn't even know where the Middle East is.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: 2001-2014 War in Afghanistan 2003-2011 War in Iraq --------------------------------------------------------------------- And that list is only acknowledged attacks, it isnt counting all the coups orchestrated by american intelligence and CIA missions and I didnt mention all the attacks post 2001 because that list is fucking endless> You really didn't understand the question at all, did you.   On March 28 2016 06:56 Baalim wrote: The US government has pretty much waged constant war against different targets for the past 200 years, I never thought there were people who actually believed you had a peaceful foreign policy... it appears to me those people exist, hi there! ...Everyone gets it. You have an irrational devotion to anti-Americanism because you think it's fashionable. Iranian's elected a prime minister in 1953 called Mossadeq. He came on and basically started to protect the interest of Iranian people, American's company didn't like it and they over threw the government. This lead to massive take over of all the populist movements inside Iran by religious figures (which were also against Mossadeq) and that eventually lead to the revolution in 79. USA was one of the first countries who actually recognized the new government of Iran with Khomeini in charge. Now it is that same government (and literally some of the same people in 53) who are trying to protect themselves from Americans because they have seen first hand what the American government does and they know American don't give a shit about anything other than the business interest of American companies. The story in Iraq and Afghanistan is very very similar. If you don't understand or acknowledge that dynamic and just blame stuff on religion of Islam, you are a fucking ignorant idiot. There are Muslims in eastern China who don't give a shit about the jews or America one way or the other because they have never been affected by them. So that alone should tell you that "Islam" has nothing to do with the violence.

You mean the jihadi separatists in China that go on machete sprees at train stations?

"protect themselves from Americans" - Yes, yes, Iran's nuclear weapons program, which is nothing new, is just an attempt to protect against the evil Americans. What are you talking about? You sound like the Dear Leader.

The religion engenders violence almost everywhere it exists or goes.

On March 30 2016 03:36 capaneo wrote: Also most ignorant Americans don't know this, but in 1988 an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people was literally shot down by an American navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The people responsible on the boat were literally given a fucking medal after their term. But I guess it is Islam that is fueling the hatred.

...Iran and Iraq were at war at the time (during the entire 80s). That was a wartime accident. It wasn't Iranians that deliberately flew planes into buildings 13 years later. Complete red herring.

On April 10 2016 05:56 soberstone wrote: So now that we've established that there is a scary amount of Muslim fundamentalists, radicals, extremists, whatever you want to label it, what is the solution? Let's pretend for a second that we can eliminate or enlighten all of the bleeding heart leftists who think this problem will go away if the West "minds it own business". Because that's obviously step 1, the step we are currently fighting to achieve within our own ideological battle. But what is step 2? Is there one? I'd posit that step 2 is to become energy independent and take the financial power away from the theocracies that fund most of the terrorism (Iran, etc.), who make most of their money selling oil directly or indirectly to us. Yet again, this involves a battle against the Left who thinks its better to pay more for oil to terrorist governments so as to somehow save the planet, then to simply drill right beneath our feet. I say this because toppling governments and Democracy building always fails so they will need to figure out for themselves that their systems are awful and have their own revolutions, which will never happen until we stop buying oil from them and there is massive civil unrest.

So you're against the faction that says the problem is the "West" and they need to go away, but you basically want to cut ties and let people fight it out and hope that, when the smoke clears, Muslim countries will be more like Albania and Turkey than a caliphate? The oil point is clear and we've known about it since the 80s (unfortunately people in power prefer the status quo), but I wish you would elaborate what you mean when you want to create "civil unrest," like what specific countries.

Edit: Good link, on another note.

On April 10 2016 17:12 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2016 05:56 soberstone wrote: So now that we've established that there is a scary amount of Muslim fundamentalists, radicals, extremists, whatever you want to label it, what is the solution? Let's pretend for a second that we can eliminate or enlighten all of the bleeding heart leftists who think this problem will go away if the West "minds it own business". Because that's obviously step 1, the step we are currently fighting to achieve within our own ideological battle. But what is step 2? Is there one? I'd posit that step 2 is to become energy independent and take the financial power away from the theocracies that fund most of the terrorism (Iran, etc.), who make most of their money selling oil directly or indirectly to us. Yet again, this involves a battle against the Left who thinks its better to pay more for oil to terrorist governments so as to somehow save the planet, then to simply drill right beneath our feet. I say this because toppling governments and Democracy building always fails so they will need to figure out for themselves that their systems are awful and have their own revolutions, which will never happen until we stop buying oil from them and there is massive civil unrest. So you're against the faction that says the problem is the "West" and they need to go away, but you basically want to cut ties and let people fight it out and hope that, when the smoke clears, Muslim countries will be more like Albania and Turkey than a caliphate? The oil point is clear and we've known about it since the 80s (unfortunately people in power prefer the status quo), but I wish you would elaborate what you mean when you want to create "civil unrest," like what specific countries. Edit: Good link, on another note.

I'm more asking than telling, I don't have the answers.

And I don't want to create civil unrest, I just think it's probably necessary for change, as is historically the case, and it would be a byproduct of the theocracies going broke (I'd think) and people rising up. But maybe the answer is more interventionism like in Iraq. I firmly believe we could have and would been successful had Barack Obama been willing to leave residual forces in place. I guess that was the strategy and it was working relatively well until we lost our nerve and Leftists took over, pulled out (while still toppling other governments like in Libya with no long term strategy in mind), and started doing favors for Iran.

I don't know. I just know the common denominator undermining progress is the confused, Anti-Western Left who apologizes for Terror-Funding Dictatorships/Theocracies and still doesn't understand that Capitalism is the only economic system on that planet that works for large, culture-diverse nations. So I'm pretty much just committed to fighting Leftism the best I can, but I am curious if you or anyone else in this thread who has been shown to be intelligent have a specific philosophy or plan as to how we should attack the problem of Islamism.

Edit: I guess maybe one general answer to my question is to let Non-Partisan experienced Military personnel start making foreign policy decisions instead of self-interested politicians in general.... the irony is it would take a politician to make that call.

I would really like to know what argument you think you made. The implication of what I asked should be clear to any erudite person - the West was doing hardly anything in the region when Al-Qaeda executed the worst terror attack in history. Pulling out, as usual, has not been shown to be reliably effective for achieving what you want.

And I posted a brief summary of all the shit the United States has been doing in the region for the past decades.

My argument is that the recipe to brew terrorist is to stir up hatred through religion and ignorance and let it simmer, but this basic ingredient, hatred comes from your foreign policy, these people were affected by the US intervention one way or another, families destroyed in wars, relatives being blown up by drones etc, it is this suffering and need for retribution that powers terrorism (and again, helped by religion, poverty etc).

Why is this so difficult for you to see? if you were living an ok life its hard for you to throw it away in a crazy pursuit, but if someone kills your mom before your eyes while you are young and turns out somebody tells you that God himself is telling you to avenge her and that after you do it you will go to heaven then no wonder they actually do it.

There are two ways to stop this, you either withdraw from the region totally and stop this cycle or a total genocide so there is no one left to pick up the rifle... I obviously think the first option is far more reasonable.

when you say peaceful, are you using that in the usual sense of the word, or in the sense of your usual dogmatic pacifism?

So are you saying the US is peaceful? and if I dont believe so I have a dogmatic interpretation of pacifism? are you fucking serious?

Who on earth would consider the US a peaceful nation? You have by far the biggest army in the world, you have been literally in constant war with dozens of different countries for the past 200 fucking years.

I think its pretty safe to say that the US does not have a remotely peaceful foreign policy.