Truth Discussion Time - Page 77

So we have a liberal democrat and a conservative arguing in favor of US wars arguing against a liberal democrat, a free market anarchist and a centrist arguing against lol, I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire, was first besieged by Muslim forces in 674. After 4 years of fighting the muslims were finally repelled:

"The Arab attack.. was the fiercest which had ever been launched by the infidels against a Christian stronghold, and the Byzantine capital was the last dam left to withstand the rising Muslim tide." noted one historian. "The fact that it held saved not only the Byzantine Empire, but the whole of European civilization."

The muslims returned with a vengeance in 717 and laid siege to the city once more.

The byzantines, aware of the Muslim threat, had signed a treaty with the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel the previous year. Under the terms of the treaty, Tervel was bound to help repel the Muslims at Constantinople and so the Bulgarian army attacked the invanding Arabs and forced them to fight a war on two fronts. (indeed history repeat itself)

Sandwiched between the walls of Constantinople and Bulgarian forces, the Muslims were gradually worn down and eventually lost to a Bulgarian onslaught.


History is awesome

On March 08 2018 04:59 NMcNasty wrote: 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. .

So Assad did it wrong right? he should have tortured through drowning simulation. sleep deprivation, force feeding through tubes and indefinite incarceration with no charges... now THAT doesn't justify war, but beating them up now that totally moralliles justifying arming a religious fantical militia to start a civil war.

thanks for the clarification lol

FFS Baal.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/human-slaughterhouse-mass-hangings-and-extermination-at-saydnaya-prison-syria/

Between 2011 and 2015, every week and often twice a week, groups of up to 50 people were taken out of their prison cells and hanged to death. In five years, as many as 13,000 people, most of them civilians believed to be opposed to the government, were hanged in secret at Saydnaya.

Yeah that's not 'beating them up' and that's only part of it. The white supremacists you're following on Twitter are leaving you severely misinformed.

So you also believe the US is justified in taking military action in Guinea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuiba, Chad, Congo, Cuba and Venezuela because they have evil dictators that kill civilians at will?

On March 09 2018 03:34 NMcNasty wrote: FFS Baal. https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/human-slaughterhouse-mass-hangings-and-extermination-at-saydnaya-prison-syria/ Show nested quote + Between 2011 and 2015, every week and often twice a week, groups of up to 50 people were taken out of their prison cells and hanged to death. In five years, as many as 13,000 people, most of them civilians believed to be opposed to the government, were hanged in secret at Saydnaya. Yeah that's not 'beating them up' and that's only part of it. The white supremacists you're following on Twitter are leaving you severely misinformed.

Lol.

You realize that the number of innocent casualties alone in Iraqi invasion, for example, is at least 3 times higher the first year alone. Thats not including troops.


The count in Syrian civilians is an unknown number but speculations go as high as 500,000 people. There goes your rational argument.

Genjix is actually in Syria now fighting alongside Kurds to fight ISIS. I think he'd know for sure what's going on there.

On March 09 2018 08:05 Baalim wrote: So you also believe the US is justified in taking military action in Guinea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuiba, Chad, Congo, Cuba and Venezuela because they have evil dictators that kill civilians at will?

Maybe? I’m for foreign intervention to prevent genocide. You have to take it on a case by case basis. There’s a huge difference between Cuba and Congo.

On March 09 2018 08:55 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2018 03:34 NMcNasty wrote: FFS Baal. https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/human-slaughterhouse-mass-hangings-and-extermination-at-saydnaya-prison-syria/   Between 2011 and 2015, every week and often twice a week, groups of up to 50 people were taken out of their prison cells and hanged to death. In five years, as many as 13,000 people, most of them civilians believed to be opposed to the government, were hanged in secret at Saydnaya. Yeah that's not 'beating them up' and that's only part of it. The white supremacists you're following on Twitter are leaving you severely misinformed. Lol. You realize that the number of innocent casualties alone in Iraqi invasion, for example, is at least 3 times higher the first year alone. Thats not including troops. The count in Syrian civilians is an unknown number but speculations go as high as 500,000 people. There goes your rational argument.

?????

Honestly have no idea what your point is here. Seems to be “what about Iraq” but then you’re pointing out 500k Syrian casualties as if that undermines my argument somehow.

It does undermine your argument, cause the casualties would've been nowhere as high as that if the USA didn't arm ISIS or pushed Turkey to stop buying their petrol... how is that not obvious. There are dozens of diplomatic measures they could've taken that didn't involve weapons that would've made the whole situation better. For example how did the Toyota truck which the US sent to the "rebels" ended up in ISIS? They must've defeated some rebel cell probably... its not that the rebels have close ties to ISIS or anything.


Let's actually go to a completely different topic. Why exactly are the USA selling weapons to Saudi Arabia for decades now? Would you give me any reasonable argument for that ?

On March 09 2018 16:03 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2018 08:05 Baalim wrote: So you also believe the US is justified in taking military action in Guinea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuiba, Chad, Congo, Cuba and Venezuela because they have evil dictators that kill civilians at will? Maybe? I’m for foreign intervention to prevent genocide. You have to take it on a case by case basis. There’s a huge difference between Cuba and Congo.

I agree there is a big case for foreign interventions to prevent genocide. The US government has violently opposed examples of this. For example the 1978 intervention by vietnam into cambodia, which got rid of pol pot, and is probably one of the few interventions that can be morally justified. Although im not sure what the intentions behind it were. All of the west opposed this intervention and starting supporting pol pot to oppose Vietnamese intervention.

The US has already intervened in both those countries you mention, engaging in some pretty serious terrorism in cuba and assassinating patrice lamumba in the congo, going on to support psychotic kleptocrats like mobutu, and then supporting dictators in neighbouring countries, like paul kagame, probably the biggest mass murderer on the planet right now, and who has invaded 2 countries, congo, and rawanda. I suspect corporations were the main supporters of war in the congo since they are the main beneficieries of it, but there is no way to prove it. The war in the congo is very complex tbh and it seems like there are many beneficaries from it, a big part of the modern tech economy revolves around this war.

On March 09 2018 16:03 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2018 08:05 Baalim wrote: So you also believe the US is justified in taking military action in Guinea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuiba, Chad, Congo, Cuba and Venezuela because they have evil dictators that kill civilians at will? Maybe? I’m for foreign intervention to prevent genocide. You have to take it on a case by case basis. There’s a huge difference between Cuba and Congo.

So am I, but firs tof all that is the supposed job of the UN, to democratically vote and stop genocide from happening.

So since you are supporting non UN-sanction military action you must believe that the US should ignore and manipulate the UN as it does because your government is more righteous and knows better, come on man, you are not this stupid, you know well that these wars have economical and political agendas behind them and "doing the right thing" has very little to do with anything.

And you can't call yourself a non-interventionist or pacifist if you morality justify invading half the third world ffs.

On March 09 2018 18:18 Spitfiree wrote: It does undermine your argument, cause the casualties would've been nowhere as high as that if the USA didn't arm ISIS

I mean there's *some* merit to the idea that the US inadvertently "created" ISIS in the sense that with the entirely unjustified invasion of Iraq (anyone actually following the thread knows I was opposed to it) we created the conditions in which ISIS would thrive, but the idea that the US is directly arming ISIS (like purposely giving them Toyata trucks) is 911-was-an-inside-job level conspiratarding and doesn't deserve the time of day.

So everyone agrees that foreign intervention to prevent genocide is justified.

My claims that Assad is a brutal dictator murdering thousands of civilians seems to be going unchallenged (why wouldn't it be, its confirmed with 5 min of googling).

--------

So pretending the United States does not exist for a second, it still should be the case that people itt feel foreign intervention in Syria is justified. Or does Syria not reach the threshold of enough civilian deaths?

The problem is this:

Some small % of muslims will for a long time always believe the right way to follow the Quran and the Hadiths is to try to model the Prophet Muhammed 100% in every way possible.

So even if ISIS is destroyed, it will only be replaced by new similar groups. Hopefully this ideology will evolve beyond it in not too many centuries..

On March 10 2018 16:58 NMcNasty wrote: So everyone agrees that foreign intervention to prevent genocide is justified. My claims that Assad is a brutal dictator murdering thousands of civilians seems to be going unchallenged (why wouldn't it be, its confirmed with 5 min of googling). -------- So pretending the United States does not exist for a second, it still should be the case that people itt feel foreign intervention in Syria is justified. Or does Syria not reach the threshold of enough civilian deaths?

those are necessary but insufficient conditions. For example what about the fact that russia supports assad? It would be very dangerous to invade a client state of russia, just as it would be dangerous for russia to invade a client state of america's. You also have to find internal democratic resistance to the assad regime. I havn't followed the conflict closely in a while, but last time i looked, all sides of this war were non-democratic and pretty violent.

There usually isn't too much you can do about civil war, but one solution would be for both russia to stop arming assad and america to stop arming rebels. The reason assad can get away with massive amounts of murder is because he depends on external support. Take that support away and he would need at least some support from the public to maintain power and he would be forced to stop killing so many people. Both superpowers have to stop arming each side of this war. That's the easiest way to decrease casualties and invading a country when it's supported by a superpower like russia seems insane to me and could escalate to a nuclear war.

On March 10 2018 16:35 NMcNasty wrote: but the idea that the US is directly arming ISIS (like purposely giving them Toyata trucks) is 911-was-an-inside-job level conspiratarding and doesn't deserve the time of day.

Thats just an empty and stupid hyperbole, the US is giving weaponry to rebels which are Islamist and many with ties to ISIS so naturally many of these weapons land in ISIS hands, also Saudi Arabia has been doing this in a much more blatant way, since just like ISIS, they strongly oppose Assad's bastion against Islamism in the region.


I guess this is a related story, CIA rebels fighting Pentagon rebels lol: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleea...cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html


US interventionism in the middle east has worked wonders in the last decades for its stability, so lets continue sprinkling weapons here and there, I'm sure that will help.

On March 10 2018 16:35 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2018 18:18 Spitfiree wrote: It does undermine your argument, cause the casualties would've been nowhere as high as that if the USA didn't arm ISIS I mean there's *some* merit to the idea that the US inadvertently "created" ISIS in the sense that with the entirely unjustified invasion of Iraq (anyone actually following the thread knows I was opposed to it) we created the conditions in which ISIS would thrive, but the idea that the US is directly arming ISIS (like purposely giving them Toyata trucks) is 911-was-an-inside-job level conspiratarding and doesn't deserve the time of day.

They're not arming them directly. They're supplying the rebels. The rebels obviously have ties to ISIS considering their supplies are going there. So you either believe that your government is dumb enough and it doesn't have that intel to their ties to ISIS, which makes them incompetent. Or they simply ignore it and decide to do it even if there is a chance of their supplies going to ISIS - so they can stop Assad.

Not quite sure which one is worse.

Also you can't simply imagine the scenario you gave. There is the UN, there are international conventions, there are international laws and agreements and NOONE should be ignoring them, just because they can. Otherwise they are completely meaningless. Your government's response to the UN was sending that dumbass lady which was saying stuff like " there is a new sheriff in town" or some shit like that. What a joke. Is this some wild, wild west movie? I get if she were a politician inside the country, where she could say the dumbest things and could still get elected ( Hello Trump ), but she's trying to swing votes in the UN in particular directions. The UN ambassadors are not your average Joe that will take the dumbass rhetoric and narrative.

And while I'm still talking about this. She is trying to shove down the Iran supporting terrorist groups propaganda in the UN as we are discussing this. There's also the narrative of the people being severely oppressed and etc. etc.. As I previously said, Iran is most likely USA's next target. If someone with as limit knowledge as mine is able to see this shit, you should be very concerned. I'm not saying you're going to invade it, I'm saying that your government will try to demolish their stability. There is a reason your ambassy in Israel was moved, there is a reason the US-Palestinian relationships are at an "all-time low" and they all lead to the US preparing an anti-Iranian campaign. The Bush administration (yes since the 2002s or 2003s) is the first one that started pushing the propaganda that the biggest enemy to Palestine is the terrorist support of Syria and Iran. It would be best for the Palestinian if those nations would stop aiding them. Yet the Palestinians obviously believe the absolute opposite. Look what happened to Syria, lets see what happens to Iran in the next 10 years shall we?

I was actually going to propose what Stroggoz did in his previous post, but wasn't quite sure my argument is strong enough. His is. It makes the most sense, even though it doesn't seem like "the humane way" as there would be plenty of people dying while the situation is solved internally. Historically speaking, civil wars that had external support were much more violent though.

Some small % of Muslims will for a long time always believe the right way to follow the Quran and the Hadiths is to try to model the Prophet Muhammed 100% in every way possible. So even if ISIS is destroyed, it will only be replaced by new similar groups. Hopefully this ideology will evolve beyond it in not too many centuries..

That's absolutely true, and nations like the USA have the force to isolate such groups without intervention. The constant bombings of Islamic nations serves as a catalyst to such cells to develop and brainwash people into wearing suicide vests. It's not really that hard of a concept.

On March 10 2018 22:35 Stroggoz wrote: those are necessary but insufficient conditions. For example what about the fact that russia supports assad?

I agree, and fear of a larger conflict is a legitimate argument against intervention in Syria. But what I'm getting at though, since that's the case, we shouldn't be spazzing out shouting WARMONGERS at every mention of getting involved. What's holding the international community back from full involvement in Syria is fear of Russia.

It would be very dangerous to invade a client state of russia, just as it would be dangerous for russia to invade a client state of america's.

But it isn't though. Russia invaded Ukraine with basically no repercussions except for sanctions, which are somewhat harsh on the Russian people but have little or no effect on Putin since he has an iron-clad grip on the country and basically all the money he could ever need.

You also have to find internal democratic resistance to the assad regime. I havn't followed the conflict closely in a while, but last time i looked, all sides of this war were non-democratic and pretty violent.

Disagree pretty strongly there, and again, feel like its pretty easily proven by just low-level googling, wikipedia, or whatever.

There usually isn't too much you can do about civil war, but one solution would be for both russia to stop arming assad and america to stop arming rebels.

No, again, we shouldn't be treating Assad and the opposition as just equally bad random sides that are tussling with each other for no reason. The entire reason the war started was because the people were brutally oppressed. You can lend support to them or not.

The reason assad can get away with massive amounts of murder is because he depends on external support. Take that support away and he would need at least some support from the public to maintain power and he would be forced to stop killing so many people.

Yes! But you can't just ask Russia nicely.

On March 11 2018 00:33 Spitfiree wrote: ctly. They're supplying the rebels. The rebels obviously have ties to ISIS considering their supplies are going there. So you either believe that your government is dumb enough and it doesn't have that intel to their ties to ISIS, which makes them incompetent. Or they simply ignore it and decide to do it even if there is a chance of their supplies going to ISIS - so they can stop Assad.

Or ISIS just somehow got its hands a Toyota and whatever Russian-troll backed conspiracy site you visit regularly has whipped you up into a frenzy.