Truth Discussion Time - Page 76

On March 07 2018 00:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2018 18:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: USA created ISIS ? lol You realize that the US supports Syrian rebels against Assad right? Syrian rebels are Islamic fundamentalists, among them ISIS, who dont want Assad because he isn against a theocracy and the Calyphate. What do you think about that? that Assad is a baddie and Syria needs freedom or something?

Yeah thats one of the problems in those areas.

We call it "Pest eller Kolera" in Norway. "Choose between 2 evils".

When people say "Israel has to give back their occupied areas !" I usually ask "should they give the Golan-hights to Assad or ISIS?" exactly because of ur point here.

The US is actively bombing ISIS in Syria so the idea that we’re somehow allied with them because we’re undermining (and sometimes directly bombing) Assad is completely ridiculous.

On March 07 2018 16:19 NMcNasty wrote: The US is actively bombing ISIS in Syria so the idea that we’re somehow allied with them because we’re undermining (and sometimes directly bombing) Assad is completely ridiculous.

Is it completely ridiculous to claim that you supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight against Russia?


The rebels in syria are a group of fundamentalist groups, in its majority ISIS who seek to topple Assad because he is against a theocratic caliphate. Assad is the last bastion of anti-islamic fundamentalist in the middle east, so yes if you bomb him you are helping ISIS agenda.

Assad is also friendly to Russia, thats the reason why Putin has been fighting against ISIS & the rest of the rebels and pretty much the entire reason of this war is a Russia vs USA proxy war, but in your mind as in VenderMeyde its a war about freedom and evil dictators lol.

On March 07 2018 15:19 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2018 00:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 06 2018 18:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: USA created ISIS ? lol You realize that the US supports Syrian rebels against Assad right? Syrian rebels are Islamic fundamentalists, among them ISIS, who dont want Assad because he isn against a theocracy and the Calyphate. What do you think about that? that Assad is a baddie and Syria needs freedom or something? We call it "Pest eller Kolera" in Norway. "Choose between 2 evils".

So you who spoke a lot about how scary terrorism is prefer ISIS over a dictator who opposes islamic fundamentalistic theocracy? ok

Back on the sexism/racism topic:

Man in Belgium fined 3k euros or jail time for sexist remark
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...els-fined-police-gender-a8242706.html

Also a man and a woman sentenced to 3 and 1 year in prison in the UK for making a video speaking against a muslim man who commited rape.



But dont worry people, Loco says this is just fine since that is not free speech and also the state could never misuse such powers.

You mean that governments are abusing their power? No way.

Let's aim for that utopia where we all hold hands and no one's feelings are getting hurt. I'm sure that will happen.

On March 07 2018 20:46 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2018 15:19 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On March 07 2018 00:29 Baalim wrote:   On March 06 2018 18:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: USA created ISIS ? lol You realize that the US supports Syrian rebels against Assad right? Syrian rebels are Islamic fundamentalists, among them ISIS, who dont want Assad because he isn against a theocracy and the Calyphate. What do you think about that? that Assad is a baddie and Syria needs freedom or something? We call it "Pest eller Kolera" in Norway. "Choose between 2 evils". So you who spoke a lot about how scary terrorism is prefer ISIS over a dictator who opposes islamic fundamentalistic theocracy? ok

That tortures his own population thou. I dont prefer any of those 2.. The safe answer would be to say "I support the civilians".

On March 04 2018 14:35 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2018 00:09 Baalim wrote:   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"? "We" as "we in the west". Norway did send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq over the years also. Im a little tired of these myths about western aggression towards the favourite victim Islam yet again. History repeat itself again and again: Islamic aggression and then playing the victim when getting demolished. Mexico would obviously not be the first target if the world community would allow free ports for terror in Libya or Afghanistan/Iraq. So I kinda get the ignorance this time. Im sure as hell glad these terrorist groups were not allowed to grow any further.

I just saw this... what do you mean by "history repeats itself again"? You believe that you could comapre the current geopolitical state to that of the Roman Empire? Or Byzantine? When people were shitting on the streets in Europe, Western Europe was basically just tribes whose elites fucked which each other's sisters/brothers/cousins and there was the occasional pillage hit and run to Jerusalim ? We were all savages back then. Every single nation. The only reason you see it as the "islamic invasion" in history books is because they didn't win for a majority of reasons. In fact if you think that the "west" was so good back then, you should know that the Ottoman invasion would've been easily stopped if Austria simply sent troops. But hey we Christians are good and would def protect our very developed society. On top of that the west was just a pure shitstorm

As a matter of a fact throughout the years after the Roman Empire there were 2 nations which stopped the invasion from the Middle East - Byzantine(Greece) and Bulgaria(when Greece had problems and required aid). And you know what? We pillaged and raped everyone in this region in that time. In fact, during the times in which we weren't helping Greece to stop the invasions, we were at war with them. How very progressive.

It's always funny to me when people say "oh forget about the Middle East, those guys have been at war with each other since they exist". As if Europe hasnt been the same way up untill 80 years ago??? We're currently living in the longest period of time in which Europe is at peace and we've managed to forget about that shit. Not only so but there are people like you that think you're entitled to the moral high ground because of that. If you're gonna use terms like "history repeats itself" you should be more afraid of your neighbour nations than ISIS.

I relate to your views, but not to the reasons for your views ... as usual you think its a religion problem and you believe that total war is the most productive way to go. Which by the way is the most savage way of thinking, how very unchristian of you... History does repeat itself, just not the way you think it does. Fortunately, contrary to people's beliefs, we've learned and we're learning ... just not at the pace which people expect that to happen. Let's be realistic though. It is true that Islam has held that region back a lot, however, we were just lucky enough to break through the dogmas of Christianity, that's all. Otherwise, we'd be just as bad.

The only difference is that we've learned to collaborate. It's the driving force of progress in the developed world. Unfortunately, it's human nature to compare themselves, thus given collaboration should bring more benefits to a certain group compared to someone else. Thus this someone else is being bullied and put down all the time in order for the "winners" to be winners. The even worse part is that the liberals have gone to the absolute other ends of the specter now and are trying to shove uncomprehensible ideas down societies throat. Of course that you won't be able to integrate people who were being specifically being targeted by western societies in a matter of years. First, those people don't want to be integrated, second western societies don't want to integrate them. Liberals are basically acting as abusive parents to a spoiled child and expect things to work.

Get both sides to comprehend the ideas first, then try to actually manifest them into a reality. It's not that hard of a concept in a nutshell.

In another nutshell I'd still blame the US and their policy the last 40 years towards Islamic nations that led to this situation. If Khadaffi and Saddam werent aiming towards trading petrol in a currency different than US dollar the situation might've been quite different. Of course, if the USA actually believed in free markets they wouldn't have completely demolished the whole region either, would've tried competing. Let the inner problems of a nation be solved by the nation itself, don't intervene unless its absolutely necessary e.g. mass killings etc... and if you're doing it "for the greater good" definitely be sure that you're not benefitting HARD from that intervention. There are very obvious ties to the USA benefitting from every single intervention they did anywhere since WW2. I still prefer the overall politics of the USA compared to the other alternatives, just saying that there were many ways in which they could've been MUCH MUCH better and the image of the western world wouldn't have suffered as harsh as it is suffering now, in the views of islamic societies.

On March 07 2018 20:43 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2018 16:19 NMcNasty wrote: The US is actively bombing ISIS in Syria so the idea that we’re somehow allied with them because we’re undermining (and sometimes directly bombing) Assad is completely ridiculous. Is it completely ridiculous to claim that you supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight against Russia?

I never denied that, but again, people are just mentioning historical events or foreign policy like its self-evident that there's something egregiously morally wrong there. The soviets flatly invaded Afghanistan, the US assisted the Afghans with anti-aircraft weaponry. Of course the reasoning wasn't purely based on the desire to defend the freedom of the Afghans, stopping the spread of Soviet power was obviously the priority, but that doesn't really change the fact the US did actually help the Afghans repel a foreign invader. The same is true with Syria, yes the US is concerned about Russian influence in the region, but that doesn't wash out the fact that Assad is a butcher and that there's a large pro-democracy opposition against him. Also the "if you harm my enemy you support me" logic fails the other way. Since the US is bombing ISIS, then we're actually supporting Russia and Assad?

Assad and ISIS are both undeniably torturers and murderers of innocent civilians, not just at some point in the past, but right now. Military action against them is morally justified. The hard part is finding the appropriate level of force.

On March 08 2018 02:57 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2018 20:43 Baalim wrote:   On March 07 2018 16:19 NMcNasty wrote: The US is actively bombing ISIS in Syria so the idea that we’re somehow allied with them because we’re undermining (and sometimes directly bombing) Assad is completely ridiculous. Is it completely ridiculous to claim that you supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight against Russia? I never denied that, but again, people are just mentioning historical events or foreign policy like its self-evident that there's something egregiously morally wrong there. The soviets flatly invaded Afghanistan, the US assisted the Afghans with anti-aircraft weaponry. Of course the reasoning wasn't purely based on the desire to defend the freedom of the Afghans, stopping the spread of Soviet power was obviously the priority, but that doesn't really change the fact the US did actually help the Afghans repel a foreign invader. The same is true with Syria, yes the US is concerned about Russian influence in the region, but that doesn't wash out the fact that Assad is a butcher and that there's a large pro-democracy opposition against him. Also the "if you harm my enemy you support me" logic fails the other way. Since the US is bombing ISIS, then we're actually supporting Russia and Assad? Assad and ISIS are both undeniably torturers and murderers of innocent civilians, not just at some point in the past, but right now. Military action against them is morally justified. The hard part is finding the appropriate level of force.

NSC advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was the person who was in charge of arming mujihideen in the 1980's and he said he did it to induce russia into invading the country, the strategy being to 'give russia their own version of vietnam'. So that had the predictable consequence of ruining Afghanistan.

Assad and ISIS are that terrible, and i agree. But how does that make military action against them morally justified? By similar logic we can invade america because they also torture and murder innocent people, but on a much larger scale. You might want to look into just war theory, there are a lot more criteria needed to make a war morally justified and almost every war fails those criteria.

On March 08 2018 02:57 NMcNasty wrote: Assad and ISIS are both undeniably torturers and murderers of innocent civilians, not just at some point in the past, but right now. Military action against them is morally justified. The hard part is finding the appropriate level of force.

The US sanctioned torture overseas and also in Guantanamo Bay, so I guess waring war against the US invasion included is perfectly morally justified right?


Also yes, you bomb ISIS and the Assad and war profiteers are just loving it, has it ocurred to you that perhaps its a good idea to use those trillions domestically instead of playing world police about things you know nothing about?

On March 08 2018 03:19 Stroggoz wrote: NSC advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was the person who was in charge of arming mujihideen in the 1980's and he said he did it to induce russia into invading the country, the strategy being to 'give russia their own version of vietnam'.

Not buying at all that that is what defines the conflict as a whole.

By similar logic we can invade america because they also torture and murder innocent people, but on a much larger scale.

How about just no. Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib were/are huge humanitarian disasters but its not close to the routine murdering (not collateral damage) and torturing (to death, not waterboarding) of civilians.

It doesn't really matter anyway, if people are discussing how to stop Hitler's invasion of France, "Well what about Napoleon?" isn't a useful question.

I'm a regular liberal democrat. I'm generally for non-involvement in international conflicts, and I'm heavily against this current absurd level of military spending. I probably even lean left/libertarian on the western scale in general not just for an American. I really have no desire at all to defend US military policy as a whole.

On March 08 2018 04:59 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2018 03:19 Stroggoz wrote: NSC advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was the person who was in charge of arming mujihideen in the 1980's and he said he did it to induce russia into invading the country, the strategy being to 'give russia their own version of vietnam'. Not buying at all that that is what defines the conflict as a whole.   By similar logic we can invade america because they also torture and murder innocent people, but on a much larger scale. How about just no. Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib were/are huge humanitarian disasters but its not close to the routine murdering (not collateral damage) and torturing (to death, not waterboarding) of civilians. It doesn't really matter anyway, if people are discussing how to stop Hitler's invasion of France, "Well what about Napoleon?" isn't a useful question. I'm a regular liberal democrat. I'm generally for non-involvement in international conflicts, and I'm heavily against this current absurd level of military spending. I probably even lean left/libertarian on the western scale in general not just for an American. I really have no desire at all to defend US military policy as a whole.

How about yes. Why do you think im talking about just Gauntanmo and Abu Gharaib? I didn't even mention them but they are small fractions the amount of people the american government has tortured. ISIS and Assad are pretty minor on scale compared to the amount that's suffered from American aggression. You can read the full record of this in scholarly research, which there is plenty of, and it was at least as brutal. I'm not too sure what can be done about syria but you are easily coming to conclusions without looking at just war theory, and your using very weak principles as a justifcation for aggression.

And why can't you understand the basic argument. Your applying a principle for other countries that isn't applied to your own country. im assuming your an intelligent person and can see that.

A good example of how American propaganda works well.

On March 08 2018 02:57 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2018 20:43 Baalim wrote:   On March 07 2018 16:19 NMcNasty wrote: The US is actively bombing ISIS in Syria so the idea that we’re somehow allied with them because we’re undermining (and sometimes directly bombing) Assad is completely ridiculous. Is it completely ridiculous to claim that you supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight against Russia? I never denied that, but again, people are just mentioning historical events or foreign policy like its self-evident that there's something egregiously morally wrong there. The soviets flatly invaded Afghanistan, the US assisted the Afghans with anti-aircraft weaponry. Of course the reasoning wasn't purely based on the desire to defend the freedom of the Afghans, stopping the spread of Soviet power was obviously the priority, but that doesn't really change the fact the US did actually help the Afghans repel a foreign invader. The same is true with Syria, yes the US is concerned about Russian influence in the region, but that doesn't wash out the fact that Assad is a butcher and that there's a large pro-democracy opposition against him. Also the "if you harm my enemy you support me" logic fails the other way. Since the US is bombing ISIS, then we're actually supporting Russia and Assad? Assad and ISIS are both undeniably torturers and murderers of innocent civilians, not just at some point in the past, but right now. Military action against them is morally justified. The hard part is finding the appropriate level of force.

the US didn't want afghanistan to repel the soviet union. They wanted them to get stuck in a costly quagmire. I remember reading that assistance in terms of anti-aircraft weaponry was deliberately delayed so that the Soviet Union would not start out losing helicopters and too costly equipment too early, as that might have forced a retreat at an earlier point than they did. Turning Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam was a deliberate action and a truly indefensible action from a moral point of view. (Quite successful in terms of short-term geopolitics though, but 911 and Afghanistan becoming the shitty hellhole it has been since can both be traced back to this - not that it was 'great' before either or whatever. )

On March 08 2018 13:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: Turning Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam was a deliberate action and a truly indefensible action from a moral point of view.

I'm just not really buying that the Soviets were duped so easily, and even if they were the majority of the moral culpability still rests with them for the invasion.

Also, even if the US had the power to automatically goad the Soviets in, which I agree would be morally reprehensible, once the Soviets invade deciding whether to continue arming the rebels becomes a separate question.

On March 08 2018 07:13 Stroggoz wrote: Your applying a principle for other countries that isn't applied to your own country. im assuming your an intelligent person and can see that.

If I'm a smoker, but tell other people to stop smoking for health reasons, people can call me a hypocrite but I'm not wrong. If I'm not a smoker, its my parents who are smokers, and I tell everyone including my parents to stop smoking, I'm neither wrong nor a hypocrite.

Not pretending to be an expert on the conflict, I'm just a guy reading wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

The full significance of the U.S. sending aid to the mujahideen prior to the invasion is debated among scholars. Some assert that it directly, and even deliberately, provoked the Soviets to send in troops.[15][16][17][18][19] Bruce Riedel, however, believes that the U.S. aid was intended primarily to improve U.S. relations with Pakistan, while Steve Coll asserts: 'Contemporary memos—particularly those written in the first days after the Soviet invasion—make clear that while Brzezinski was determined to confront the Soviets in Afghanistan through covert action, he was also very worried the Soviets would prevail. ... Given this evidence and the enormous political and security costs that the invasion imposed on the Carter administration, any claim that Brzezinski lured the Soviets into Afghanistan warrants deep skepticism.'[7][11] Carter himself has stated that encouraging a Soviet invasion was 'not my intention.'[20] Gates recounted: 'No one in the Carter Administration wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and no one, as I can recall at least, ever advocated attempting to induce them to invade ... Only after the Soviet invasion did some advocate making the Soviets 'bleed' in their own Vietnam.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

Prior to the arrival of Soviet troops, Afghanistan's communist party took power after a 1978 coup, installing Nur Mohammad Taraki as president. The party initiated a series of radical modernization reforms throughout the country that were deeply unpopular, particularly among the more traditional rural population and the established traditional power structures.[36] The government's Stalinist-like nature[37] of vigorously suppressing opposition, executing thousands of political prisoners and ordering massacres against unarmed civilians, led to the rise of anti-government armed groups, and by April 1979 large parts of the country were in open rebellion.[38] The government itself experienced in-party rivalry, and in September 1979 Taraki was murdered under orders of his rival and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hafizullah Amin, which deteriorated relations with the Soviet Union. Eventually the Soviet government, under leader Leonid Brezhnev, decided to deploy the 40th Army on December 24, 1979.[39] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,[40] killing president Amin and installing Soviet loyalist Babrak Karmal from a rival faction.

back to the operation cyclone article:

May 1979, U.S. officials secretly began meeting with rebel leaders through Pakistani government contacts. A former Pakistani military official claimed that he personally introduced a CIA official to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar that month (Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied).[10] After additional meetings on April 6 and July 3, Carter signed a "presidential 'finding'" that "authorized the CIA to spend just over $500,000" on non-lethal aid to the mujahideen, which "seemed at the time a small beginning."

The major part of the aid (20M per year according to the article) was given after the Soviets invaded. I'm sure something was added to the intial 500k in the second half of 1979, but still seems dubious that you can really goad a superpower with whatever small amount it actually was.

Spitfiree I dont have all those opinions that you give me (or type as if I have)

f.example:
"you should know that the Ottoman invasion would've been easily stopped if Austria simply sent troops."

I thank you for interesting info, but I dont see where I claimed the opposite ?

You're saying "history repeats itself" and hint at the Islam being the biggest evil to Europe ever to exist, when its clearly Europe itself that is the biggest evil to itself historywise. Yeah, could've just written that simple sentence.

NMcNasty there is literally 0 reason for the USA to do anything in that region at that point in time other than oppose Russia. You clearly agree with that. Let's ignore the reasons behind that and whether or not they knew what would've happened by arming fanatics. Let's simply look at what happens to Afghanistan after Russia pulls out. Guess who demolishes the country. A hint - its not the Soviet Union that's done the most damage, its the troops that were armed by the USA, they bring back slavery, bring back fanatic religion, the intellectual part of society is killed/imprisoned or w/e other nasty thing you could think of. As much as I despise the Soviet Union ideology I would take it any day of the week when the other option is fanatical religious idiots. The USA were very much aware of what will happen - Bzezinski is one of the biggest political minds, he knew what he s doing.