Truth Discussion Time - Page 74

On March 01 2018 21:45 Baalim wrote: So are you saying that Hillary setting a no-fly zone basically claiming the US would shoot down any Mig in Syria is far more reckless than anything Trump has said about Kim, right?

Again, a proposal for a no-fly zone for a murderous (why do I keep getting scare quotes??) regime, that is dropping chemical weapons on civilians is perfectly reasonable. No one was advocating a direct attack on Russian planes.

and Bush fabricated evidence to get into Iraq, in a war that Obama voted against. Saddam and Assad are similarly awful, but there wasn't an ongoing civil war when we entered. If anything entering started a civil war making the situation much worse. Afghanistan was justified, though certainly overly aggressive use of force at times.

On March 02 2018 03:40 Santafairy wrote: my favorite was the US is innocently propping up opposition in a civil war against a "murderous regime" in Syria, when the opposition have been caught turncoating to ISIS, but Bush (and therefore Obama but we can't mention that) must be a war criminal for fighting a war in Iraq (and Afghanistan?) like Saddam and the Baathists dindu nuffin

sadam and assad were/are both surely monsters of extreme sadistic scale, and anyone who has researched middle eastern geopolitics can see that back in the 1980's bush senior was supplying chemical weapons to saddam Hussein and they were the best of friends. Western Europe was also friendly with saddam. For some reason no one likes to mention that. Source: Robert Fisks writings which can be googled or read in 'the great war for civilization'.

There was also a rebellion against saddam in the early 1990's which could have worked if america gave some mild military assistance. (They were right there). A far easier and less devastating way to get rid of a regime, but they chose not to.

@Mcnasty I think it's kind of shocking that anyone can think there was a moral justification for bombing afghanistan. How can you possibly make a moral case for that?

On March 02 2018 05:36 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2018 21:45 Baalim wrote: So are you saying that Hillary setting a no-fly zone basically claiming the US would shoot down any Mig in Syria is far more reckless than anything Trump has said about Kim, right? Again, a proposal for a no-fly zone for a murderous (why do I keep getting scare quotes??) regime, that is dropping chemical weapons on civilians is perfectly reasonable. No one was advocating a direct attack on Russian planes.

A no-fly zone means anything on the air will be shot down, and it was a time when Russia was bombing ISIS.


You are as blinded by your own biases as the red state republicans who believe the US goes to wars against "murderous regimes", grow up you child.

The US doesn't give a fuck about murderous regimes, they dont care about Syria and Assad the same way they didn't care for Aghanistan in the 80s, they were political moves, they armed the Taliban to fight the soviets, and now they armed ISIS to fight Assad & Russia, and the no-fly zone was a movve to antagonize Putin.

If this isnt clear to you I don't think you are equipped to have these kind of conversations as you only seek confirmation of your beliefs and not knowledge.

See i would dismiss your arguments as just being overly cynical but you always give yourself away with the scare quotes. You're simply grossly misinformed about Assad, Russia, and the Trump administration. You call me a child when your media diet consists of youtubes and 4Chan. Try reading actual newspapers like an adult.

On March 02 2018 06:35 Stroggoz wrote: @Mcnasty I think it's kind of shocking that anyone can think there was a moral justification for bombing afghanistan. How can you possibly make a moral case for that?

Uh, the normal reasons? 9/11, the Taliban, Al Queda.

There was 1 doctor left in Kabul when the american / western soldiers got there

People hang from lampposts, executions were entertainment at football stadiums.

Girls were denied going to school, women executed for showing themself outdor without a man

On March 02 2018 16:39 NMcNasty wrote: See i would dismiss your arguments as just being overly cynical but you always give yourself away with the scare quotes. You're simply grossly misinformed about Assad, Russia, and the Trump administration. You call me a child when your media diet consists of youtubes and 4Chan. Try reading actual newspapers like an adult.

It was not that long ago when only the republicans were the fools who thought of the US wars as the spreading freedom and the killing baddies, and they hate you because they hate your freedom, they have nothing to do with the military industrial complex profits and control crude prices by controlling strategic areas, no sir.


The fact that the 5 major defense contractor stocks like Boeign have been skyrocketing since the Syria conflict is just a happy coincidence and now you eat up this neo-cold war with Russia with a big spoon, go watch CNN I'm sure their intelligence analyst, who is the motherfucking ex chief of the CIA who lied to congress about the NSA domestic surveillance will keep you informed like the grown up you are.

On March 02 2018 16:48 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2018 06:35 Stroggoz wrote: @Mcnasty I think it's kind of shocking that anyone can think there was a moral justification for bombing afghanistan. How can you possibly make a moral case for that? Uh, the normal reasons? 9/11, the Taliban, Al Queda.

not sure how listing these names helps as an argument. If you think 9/11 is a justification for invading a country. That justication is simply to meet aggression with aggression. Lets assume that's a good justification. Then why would bin laden be condemned over his attack on the WTC. part of his justification was past american aggressions such as the bombing of a pharmacuetical plant in the sudan, by bill clinton. Why arn't countries in latin america allowed to bomb america and kill a few hundred thousand, for example, for what america did to them in the 1970s?

What about the Taliban, well, a lot of the taliban came from the mujihideen in the 1980's afghanistan, who were supported and fundedby by the cia and the al saud family, NSC advisor zbigniew brezinzski was very open about this, saying it was a plan to lure russia into a war in afhganistan that they couldnt win. So an easy way to get rid of the taliban would be to not help bring about their existence.

Al Queda are a monster, radical islam seems to have gotten worse after every time the US intervenes in the middle east, with its final form being ISIS, which is the worst of them all. If we dislike Al Queda, then we should look at the root cause of their existence. Most people fail to do this even though its an extremely easy and simple task.

Iraq = terrorist groups and a mad dictator gassing his own citizens

Afghanistan = terrorist groups and the worst place on earth to be born as a woman

Libya = free port for terror

Probably many more reasons for intervention, but im sure glad we did so

MFW when Baal shares a tweet by a white nationalist

Censorship algorithms are good when it comes to feminist postmodernists (Peterson) but when it comes to censoring hateful speech based on gender and ethnicity, that's crossing the line man. We all know white nationationalism is perfectly safe and should be tolerated but everything we don't like and which we pigeon-hole into a boogeyman called postmodernism, that's not to be tolerated.

On March 03 2018 21:07 Loco wrote: I'm confused by what the video is supposed to demonstrate. Extremely powerful private corporations are using whatever algorithms benefits their bottom line and instead of accepting that this is part of the capitalism you cherish, you blame feminists and a human right's bill that protects trans people against overt discrimination?

How is it important who tweeted the link? It could have been hitler or mother theresa its the video what I want to share, I dont follow that guy and have never heard of him before.

Except that google has massive state subsidies as most of the big data collective companies, they are far from any example of laissez-fair free market, in any case shouldn't your cherished government stop google and this kind of power with anti-trust laws?

Indeed its in pursuit of bottom line, they are going for "advertizing friendly" content, meaning anti-SJW style of content is not allowed, ergo SJW is mainstream-thought/culture which is exactly what you and Drone keep denying, that the purple haired feminist are some fringe part of society that does not represent, well turns our you are wrong.


And I dont blame a bill or feminists, I blame the idea of hate speech and the blindness of people like yourself who dont see the dangers of this and you think its fine because its been used against ideas you disagree with, but one day, this power will be used for something you dont like.

Now are you arguing against Bret Weinstein? is he here or something, because I dont recall ever advocating for any kind of censorship

On March 03 2018 16:47 VanDerMeyde wrote: Iraq = terrorist groups and a mad dictator gassing his own citizens Afghanistan = terrorist groups and the worst place on earth to be born as a woman Libya = free port for terror Probably many more reasons for intervention, but im sure glad we did so

you argue against McNasty yet you both share this 12-year-old vision of the US foreign policy of evil terrorists versus freedom fighters.

btw arent you from Norway, why do you say "we"?

On March 03 2018 05:20 Stroggoz wrote: Lets assume that's a good justification. Then why would bin laden be condemned over his attack on the WTC.

Because the other part of his justification is just kill all the infidels it doesn't matter if they're children or civilians. Certain enemies can't be reasoned with in any regard, at some point you just have to eliminate the target.

finally someone was able to out baal as a mexican anarchist white nationalist

On March 03 2018 23:57 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 03 2018 21:07 Loco wrote: I'm confused by what the video is supposed to demonstrate. Extremely powerful private corporations are using whatever algorithms benefits their bottom line and instead of accepting that this is part of the capitalism you cherish, you blame feminists and a human right's bill that protects trans people against overt discrimination? How is it important who tweeted the link? It could have been hitler or mother theresa its the video what I want to share, I dont follow that guy and have never heard of him before. Except that google has massive state subsidies as most of the big data collective companies, they are far from any example of laissez-fair free market, in any case shouldn't your cherished government stop google and this kind of power with anti-trust laws? Indeed its in pursuit of bottom line, they are going for "advertizing friendly" content, meaning anti-SJW style of content is not allowed, ergo SJW is mainstream-thought/culture which is exactly what you and Drone keep denying, that the purple haired feminist are some fringe part of society that does not represent, well turns our you are wrong. And I dont blame a bill or feminists, I blame the idea of hate speech and the blindness of people like yourself who dont see the dangers of this and you think its fine because its been used against ideas you disagree with, but one day, this power will be used for something you dont like.

It matters for the same reasons you've said you've agreed with in the past which were laid out in the Contrapoints video. These people are not interested in free speech. They want people to believe they are because it furthers their hateful agenda. They're baiting people and distracting them and you're just giving them more views, more exposure. More chance for them to prey on the vulnerable. You should be ashamed. That you are not alarmed by the fact that you do this and you share a common agenda with these people says a lot to me.

This also happens at the same time that the Guardian released this article. Also the same in the UK. Coincidence or strategic diversion? Why aren't you presenting both sides and asking us to explore things instead of attacking us?

Big data companies benefit from diversity and atmospheres of inclusion, this has been well studied. We do our best work when we feel safe and appreciated. You can't just blame it on state subsidies. Don't think for a second that laissez-faire would reverse this trend. I don't even know what to say about your last paragraph, you make it sound like you believe hate speech is a pure fiction.

You keep bringing up biases and blindness and don't realize how unproductive and self-righteous this kind of speech is. If we're all so blind and nothing is changing from you saying it, why don't you stop posting about it? You don't sound so lucid to me, you sound like an alarmist. It's not by showing me more of the same one-sided things through the eyes of fear that I'm going to learn anything you know?

On March 04 2018 00:03 Baalim wrote: Now are you arguing against Bret Weinstein? is he here or something, because I dont recall ever advocating for any kind of censorship

Well I'm glad you cleared that up. I posted it to remind people that everyone is a hypocrite including those who are leading the free speech crusade. There's no clear cut good guys versus bad guys going on. There's only which agendas we think are most harmful and we have different opinions on that.

On March 03 2018 21:07 Loco wrote: You should be ashamed. That you are not alarmed by the fact that you do this and you share a common agenda with these people says a lot to me.

Should I be ashamed for defending free speech because some hateful group of idiots also claim to do that?

I will defend freedom of speech no matter who opposes it or who endorses it, my ideas are my own, I do not ascribe to any form of grou-think or ideology.

This also happens at the same time that the Guardian released this article. Also the same in the UK. Coincidence or strategic diversion? Why aren't you presenting both sides and asking us to explore things instead of attacking us?

I think it would be interesting to see the ethnicity of these attacks against jews, particularly in the UK, I think it wont help your narrative, but what "other side" you want me to present? a nazi threat? Nazism is not socially tolerated, and I post shit that is alarming for example, who was the one who posted the Milo video and the nazi salutes? I was.

Big data companies benefit from diversity and atmospheres of inclusion, this has been well studied. We do our best work when we feel safe and appreciated. You can't just blame it on state subsidies. Don't think for a second that laissez-faire would reverse this trend.

what are you even talking about? benefit in what way are you talking about employees, consumers or what? please give a specific answer, and you said this is free-market results, and I said it wasn't free market and its true, and that your beloved state should stop this, so again statism proves itself useless.

I don't even know what to say about your last paragraph, you make it sound like you believe hate speech is a pure fiction.

Why would you even say such a dumb thing? how many times I have to repeat it, I am for freedom of speech, and yes obviously speech can be used to promote racism.

[quoe]It's not by showing me more of the same one-sided things through the eyes of fear that I'm going to learn anything you know?[/quote]

Well you and drone claimed the SJW (to put a name on all of it) agenda wasn't a growing trend, I posted a link about how YouTube the biggest media platform on earth is censoring ideas against SJW culture in hopes to show you how it is indeed a growing trend, but your response to it was to try to shame me for pushing stuff Nazis post

The problem is not what I post, the problem i s that you simply do not listen, actually this reminded me when I gave you a link with proof of the scandinavian gender occupation thing and instead of taking it in you made the most pathetic mental gymnastics ever to claim it actually supports your views lol.