So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL
Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
ManofFire United Kingdom. Aug 31 2011 16:37. Posts 140
On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote:
So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL
Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.
On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote:
So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL
Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.
Baal 100% knowing the symptoms and causes of bi-polarism just like he knows everything about every other subject. Cool story bro.
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote:
So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL
Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.
Baal 100% knowing the symptoms and causes of bi-polarism just like he knows everything about every other subject. Cool story bro.
i think most people are familiar with the bipolar disorder, you seem to be the exception tho
i was not suggesting that you are bi-polar, neither that you have stockholm lol, the stockholm part was referring for that kind of disseases that affect your social/psychological behaivour and that it has an uncommon name, but of course you have to argue that im wrong and understand things to your own benefit
1
palak United States. Aug 31 2011 22:18. Posts 4601
On August 31 2011 01:17 D_smart_S wrote:
Let's summarise:
1. BBC shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli with lots of people - all waving Indian Flags.
2. Al Jazeera shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli where the sign on the wall is very different from the original one.
3. A Serbian Crew goes to places that are reported to be battlefields ( f.x. the hospital) and they are perfectly peaceful.
4. Rebels officially state the capturing of Qaddafi's son. However, to prove them wrong he pops out in the centre of Tripoli among a huge crowd of Libyans and evidently being free. Rebels later state they have no idea how he excaped from them.
5. Qaddafi is reported dead at least once. He is still alive.
.
1. BBC is run by humans, they make mistakes. There was a live speech by a famous indian they were live recording at the time, the streams got mixed up. No ones perfect.
2. It's not different at all. Its a bit hazy to see because of the poor quality of the taping and youtube video. + Show Spoiler +
Notice the shape is directly above the small arch, just like it is in all the normal photos. The arrow in the OP you post claiming that the shape is missing is pointing at the far corner of the building, a place where the shape has never ever been.
3. The video you posted has journalists in Zliten, a city which was pro gadaffi at the time they were visiting.
During the 2011 Libyan Civil War, Zliten has been contested between forces loyal to Gaddafi, and opposition fighters who have been trying to seize the strategically located city to allow them to advance to the capital Tripoli. In mid-June 2011, the Zliten uprising by rebel fighters against the military garrison in the city was crushed.[9] The town was on the front line by July as rebels from Misrata continued their attempts to take control of the town from the loyalists based there during the Battle of the Misrata frontline.[10] In mid-July 2011, Zliten was the site of a massive pro-Gadaffi rally when thousands of Gadaffi supporters gathered on the main square in the city to show their support to the Libyan leader.[11][12]
On 5 August, the Libyan government claimed that NATO airstrikes killed 85 people, including 33 childen, 32 women and 20 men, attacking a children's Hospital near Zliten. [13] Reporters were shown 30 bodies in a local morgue, including two children. Officials claimed that the rest of the bodies were taken to other hospitals, but this could not be independently confirmed
There was never any fighting at the Zliten hospital. The hospital in which fighting occured was in Misrata and Zawiya.
ZAWIYA, Libya - The day Libyan rebels advanced into the strategic city of Zawiya, Moammar Gadhafi's forces clamped down on the local hospital.
They forced doctors to perform hours of consecutive surgeries, put snipers on the roof and an anti-aircraft gun near the entrance, two doctors who managed to escape said Tuesday.
[5:30 p.m. Wednesday ET, 11:30 p.m. in Libya] Tanks belonging to Gadhafi's forces shelled the main hospital of rebel-held Misrata this afternoon, a witness told CNN.
The push began at 8 p.m. (2 p.m. ET), when "heavy tanks for Gadhafi troops start attacking the hospital - the bombs falling here 20 meters (66 feet) around us," said one person inside the hospital. He said two deaths had occurred "around the hospital."
At one point, shelling occurred without respite for 40 minutes, he said. "Now, fortunately, no more shelling, but the situation is so serious that all the teams here - the doctors, the patients - are paralyzed, scared."
He called for international intervention to protect the civilians inside the institution. "Nobody can work here," he said. All the doctors here are completely paralyzed." Ambulances were not able to leave the hospital, which had lost its electricity and was running on generator power, he said.
The reported death of Khamis Gaddafi, the youngest son of the fugitive Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, is nothing more than "a rumour", Nato said.
"There [are] a lot of allegations and rumours about what could have happened to him and to be frank we don't know," Nato military spokesman Roland Lavoie told reporters in Naples.
On August 31 2011 10:24 palak wrote:
^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself?
As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time.
So instead of trying to see what im saying, you focus on me, trying to measure my ego, its a shame you cant see past your indoctrination, but ill humor your questions.
Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking.
So I said i had more idea about how the world works than anybody else in this thread, the same way I would say I have more idea about life and death than anybody if i were in a religious forum discussing the afterlife, that does not imply i believe i have the highest IQ in the religious forum or here.
But on your questions about how i rank myself in intellect, i consider myself very intelligent, about people i know personally well i dont consider many people i know very intelligent, there are probably more intelligent people in this forum than the ones i know personally.
People ive read well, i think Stefan is brilliant and far better than me at explaining his ideas, he is probably more read than me, and how i would rake myself world wise well, given tests results, and particular experiences in my life i am confident i am in the top 1 percentile, which in world population in the billions is far from impressive.
I ignored your talk of me being indoctrinated b/c we will just go in circles. I'll say I'm not indoctrinated, you'll say I am, it's not going to go anywhere. Plus that should prob be in the anarchy thread or something. As for intelligence, get some smart irl friends. I'm pretty sure ur views of things will change very quickly if u did.
Our current knowledge? i really didnt base my refusal of religion based on evolution or explanations of the universe, it was pretty much based on common sense for example:
- The idea of free will cannot exist when theres an omniscient being
- There cant be an all-loving god and all-powerful and there be suffering in this world (and eternal punishments)
- The bible is absurd, contradictory and there isnt the silghtest shred of evidence that what it says its true.
I do believe the indoctrination in their times were stronger, so it does give them more of an "excuse", but it shows you that even absolute geniuses are unable to discard ideas that should be thrown out with less than 10 minutes of critical thinking.
So basically, yes they had it "harder" to get over religion, yet what im saying is still true, its not necessary about sheer intelligence, people can easily shield certain beliefs from their own rationality.
I'm sure you know all of those questions have been discussed in detail by many church philosophers. Also if you were living in say Newtons time then there would be no evidence to think the bibles version of history was wrong either. Also it's a super convienent view to think that instead of it being possible that ur logic is flawed. You instead decide that everyone who disagrees with you on the issues of religion/gov't/states are just indoctrinated.
On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote:
Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky.
What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq
was in violation of every one?
They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort.
Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c.
Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land,
their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots)
aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait
Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds.
If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons?
Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation,
but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state.
so under those checkponts... lets compare the united states:
*Genocide convention: USA is arguably the most genocidal state in the entire world
*Harboring terrorist organizations: The CIA has conducted more coup detats than any other organization on the world and its definitelly larger and more powerful than any other.
*Waging war or occupying countries: Afghanistan, Iraq possibly Iran in a future, need i say more?
*Violations of nuclear threaty: USA is has the 2nd biggest nuclear armament in the world
Also, NorthKorea has violated those far worse than Iraq, also A LOT of countries have, yet they dont get invaded unless therse something to gain from it.
You should rename those as USABLE EXCUSES to get into a country and steal its resources.
Also those invations for countries that are going wild are decided by the United Nations, not by a random country with lots of weapons and ambitions
1-Name USA genocides, don't just state something w/o saying at least a few of what you perceive to be genocides.
2-"more coup detats than any other organization"...maybe, near impossible to prove. Def is most powerful, def does things which are immoral.
3. Against "neighboring states"...none of the countries are anywhere near us. However Iraqs invasion is no where near justified and was one of the dumbest moves in world politics in the last few decades. Afghanistan can be argued. We will never invade Iran.
4. Nuclear treaties are non proliferation, we have been decreasing our arsenals for decades. Also under the non proliferation treaty we are allowed to maintain an arsenal.
The United States is one of the five "nuclear weapons states" permitted to maintain a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory on 1 July 1968 (ratified 5 March 1970).
North Korea has nuclear bombs which are capable of reaching Seoul and Tokyo. They also have China as an ally. As long as they have either nukes or China as an ally North Korea will never be invaded no matter how bad they violate human rights.
Anyway that's enough of the derail off of libya. I had just been curious about that.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Last edit: 31/08/2011 23:10
1
palak United States. Aug 31 2011 23:24. Posts 4601
On August 31 2011 15:37 Baalim wrote:
*On original Topic*
Oh noes... how can that be, your government never lies to you! haha
The US person over there is not involved in the current government. His trip was personal, he's slimy, not surprised he was involved w/ bush.
The Kucinich allegation is hazy.
Overall the article isn't actual proof of anything, at least not as written. Uses words like "appears to be", "allege".
That aside there are better instances of the gov't doing dumb things. Like currently funding the Taliban
The Associated Press reported this month that U.S. military authorities in Kabul believe $360 million has ended up in the hands of the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both.
The military said only a small percentage of the $360 million has been garnered by the Taliban and insurgent groups. Most of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers.
Well i mentioned your indoctrination because if somebody appealed to something like that in what i think its true i would seriously revise it (believe it or not) i thought you might honestly do it, guess not.
Yes i am very familiar with theologist responses to those questions, they are ludicrous and absolutely irrational and have never got a remotely satisfying answer, Do you seriously believe that today scientists are atheists only because we have more historical knowledge? or it might be because the concepts of the christian god is ludicrous.
And absolutely, anyone who believes in christianity is indoctrinated and not thinking critically, simply believing in something out o faith refusing evidence is irrational.
People who have a more broad concept of god at least have some kind of flawed critical thinking but its still acceptable, just as i can discuss theoretical upsides and downsides between a good democracy and a anarchy, however somebody who defends actions of the current governments and is ok with the status quo to me is just like an indoctrinated christian incapable of critical thinking.
1.- Genocide of the Arabs, and yeah its pushing it a little bit, but how many Arabs have the US killed and how many Kurds did Hussein killed?
2.- Yes its hard to prove the CIA was behind it since they are poweful and their operations depend on being in secrecy, it would still be ridiculously naive to assume otherwise
3.- True, not neighboring countries... but really does it make a difference? the US is currrently ocupying two countries and fighting illegal wars.
4.- Yes the US isnt breaking the treaty, but how stupid it is to demand a country to not build nuclear weapons when you hold enough nuclear armament to destroy the entire planet.... it is absurd.
But most importantly, you and i both know that the united states didnt invade the countries based on that, they are simply excuses used to pursue economical goals, i mean simply in africa you see genocide and human rights violations everywhere but you dont see the US invading them unless there is something to gain, to you it seems natural for a country to do this, and i dont know i would call it natural, but i would say its indeed the standard practice, what shocks me is that instead of fighting it, you are ok with it, i simply find find it appalling that you turn a blind eye to slaughters just so you can fill up your SUV cheaply and call it natural
Oh noes... how can that be, your government never lies to you! haha
The US person over there is not involved in the current government. His trip was personal, he's slimy, not surprised he was involved w/ bush.
The Kucinich allegation is hazy.
Overall the article isn't actual proof of anything, at least not as written. Uses words like "appears to be", "allege".
That aside there are better instances of the gov't doing dumb things. Like currently funding the Taliban
The Associated Press reported this month that U.S. military authorities in Kabul believe $360 million has ended up in the hands of the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both.
The military said only a small percentage of the $360 million has been garnered by the Taliban and insurgent groups. Most of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers.
Actually i hang out with somewhat intelligent people, im the only one who doesnt have a university degree lol, at least half of them have a master degree, only two of them have PhDs tho, so im not Dan hanging out with douchebags with 5k watches and 2 digit IQ bleached blondes, but i just feel im smarter than them, one of the Ph.Ds is probably smarter than me in many areas but he is religious so he loses most of his points there.
probably less than 10% are catholics, and my country is over 90% catholic so that should give you an idea of the kind of people i hang out with, i find it unbearable to have conversations with morons, thats the reason why i barely reply to Zep
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Sep 01 2011 00:28. Posts 4601
On August 31 2011 22:36 Baalim wrote:
Well i mentioned your indoctrination because if somebody appealed to something like that in what i think its true i would seriously revise it (believe it or not) i thought you might honestly do it, guess not.
Yes i am very familiar with theologist responses to those questions, they are ludicrous and absolutely irrational and have never got a remotely satisfying answer, Do you seriously believe that today scientists are atheists only because we have more historical knowledge? or it might be because the concepts of the christian god is ludicrous.
And absolutely, anyone who believes in christianity is indoctrinated and not thinking critically, simply believing in something out o faith refusing evidence is irrational.
People who have a more broad concept of god at least have some kind of flawed critical thinking but its still acceptable, just as i can discuss theoretical upsides and downsides between a good democracy and a anarchy, however somebody who defends actions of the current governments and is ok with the status quo to me is just like an indoctrinated christian incapable of critical thinking.
1.- Genocide of the Arabs, and yeah its pushing it a little bit, but how many Arabs have the US killed and how many Kurds did Hussein killed?
2.- Yes its hard to prove the CIA was behind it since they are poweful and their operations depend on being in secrecy, it would still be ridiculously naive to assume otherwise
3.- True, not neighboring countries... but really does it make a difference? the US is currrently ocupying two countries and fighting illegal wars.
4.- Yes the US isnt breaking the treaty, but how stupid it is to demand a country to not build nuclear weapons when you hold enough nuclear armament to destroy the entire planet.... it is absurd.
But most importantly, you and i both know that the united states didnt invade the countries based on that, they are simply excuses used to pursue economical goals, i mean simply in africa you see genocide and human rights violations everywhere but you dont see the US invading them unless there is something to gain, to you it seems natural for a country to do this, and i dont know i would call it natural, but i would say its indeed the standard practice, what shocks me is that instead of fighting it, you are ok with it, i simply find find it appalling that you turn a blind eye to slaughters just so you can fill up your SUV cheaply and call it natural
There's a difference between being OK w/ the current system, and acknowledging reality. To quote Jon Stewart, "Government isn’t perfect, but some people wish it was better, not gone.”
Saying we invaded Iraq solely for oil is ludicrous. + Show Spoiler +
If our decisions were sooo based on oil we would have invaded mexico or canada.
If you count oil shales then the US has more oil reserves then the rest of the world
There are around 600 known oil shale deposits.[1] Many deposits need more exploration to determine their potential as reserves. However, worldwide technically recoverable reserves have recently been estimated at about 2.8–3.3 trillion barrels (450×109–520×109 m3) of shale oil, with the largest reserves in the United States, which is thought to have 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels (240×109–410×109 m3).[2][3][4][5] Well-explored deposits, which could be classified as reserves, include the Green River deposits in the western United States, the Tertiary deposits in Queensland, Australia, deposits in Sweden and Estonia, the El-Lajjun deposit in Jordan, and deposits in France, Germany, Brazil, China, and Russia. It is expected that these deposits would yield at least 40 liters (0.25 bbl) of shale oil per metric ton of shale, using the Fischer Assay.[6][
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
If we really wanted to go hog wild we'd invest more into oil shale extraction technology.
Economics are not the only reason we do things, yes resources and economics are one of the factors determining our actions. But they are not the sole reason, it's just one of the many factors which decide if it's beneficial. The reason why we don't go into Africa is literally b/c of the Battle of Mogadishu disaster.
Task Force Ranger—which consisted of an assault force made up of US Army Delta Force, Ranger teams, an air element provided by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, four Navy SEAL operators from SEAL Team Six and members of the Air Force Pararescue/Air Force Combat Controllers--under the command of Major General William F. Garrison executed an operation that involved traveling from their compound on the outskirts of the city to the center with the aim of capturing the leaders of the Habr Gidr clan, headed by warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The assault force consisted of nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles, including nine Humvees and 160 men.
During the operation, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by RPGs and three others were damaged. Some of the survivors wounded were able to evacuate back to the compound, but others remained near the crash sites and were isolated. An urban battle ensued throughout the night.
Early the next morning, a combined task force was sent to rescue the trapped soldiers. It contained soldiers from Pakistan Army, Malaysian Army and the U.S. 10th Mountain Division. They assembled some hundred vehicles, including Pakistani tanks (M48s) and Malaysian Condor armoured personnel carriers and were supported by U.S. MH-6 Little Bird and MH-60L Black Hawk helicopters. This task force reached the first crash site and rescued the survivors. The second crash site had been overrun by hostile Somalis during the night. The lone surviving American from that site, pilot Mike Durant, had been taken prisoner but was later released.
The exact number of Somali casualties is unknown, but estimates range from several hundred to over a thousand militia-men and others killed,[6][7] with injuries to another 3,000–4,000.[citation needed] The International Committee of the Red Cross estimated 200 Somali civilians killed and several hundred wounded in the fighting,[8] with reports that some civilians also attacked the Americans.[9] The book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War estimates more than 700 Somali militiamen dead and more than 1,000 wounded, but the Somali National Alliance in a Frontline documentary on American television acknowledged only 133 killed in the whole battle.[10] The Somali casualties were reported in The Washington Post as 312 killed and 814 wounded.[1] The film Black Hawk Down said a thousand Somalis were killed. The Pentagon initially reported five American soldiers were killed,[11] but the toll was actually 19 American soldiers dead and 73 wounded (another American soldier, Delta operator SFC Matt Rierson, was killed in a mortar attack two days later). Among UN forces, one Malaysian soldier died; seven Malaysians and two Pakistanis were wounded. At the time, the battle was the bloodiest involving US troops since the Vietnam war and remained so until the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004.
On July 24, 1996 Mohamed Farrah Aidid was wounded during a firefight between his militia and forces loyal to warlords and former Aidid allies Ali Mahdi Muhammad and Osman Ali Atto. Aidid suffered a fatal heart attack on August 1, 1996, either during or after surgery to treat his wounds.[12] The following day General Garrison retired.
After that we said nope, fuck it we are going to be less involved as far as ground forces are concerned, then all things went to hell w/ Bush being elected.
Genocide of the Arabs...really really really pushing it, not a genocide by any definition of the word. Saddam killed over 100k kurdish people.
In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites
So we are about even in Iraqis/Arabs (not that many people have died in Afghanistan.)
True we are occupying other counties (and will be for some time thx to a mentally disabled congress) but that's not a condemnation of just the US, multiple countries are in iraq and afghanistan. If you are going to talk about just powers invading each other then it happens frequently. The US from 1829-1863 was FAR FAR more brutal then the current united states.
The Trail of Tears is a name given to the relocation and movement of Native American nations from southeastern parts of the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It has been described as an act of genocide by at least one modern historian.[1] The removal included many members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, and Choctaw nations, among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory (eastern sections of the present-day state of Oklahoma). The phrase originated from a description of the removal of the Choctaw Nation in 1831.[2] Many Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease and starvation en route to their destinations. Many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Plus slavery, plus very sketchy initial invasion of mexico.
President Polk ordered General Taylor and his forces south to the Rio Grande, entering the territory that Mexicans disputed. Mexico laid claim to the Nueces River—about 150 mi (240 km) north of the Rio Grande—as its border with Texas; the U.S. claimed it was the Rio Grande, citing the 1836 Treaties of Velasco. Mexico, however, under the leadership of General Lorenzo Chlamon,[16] rejected the treaties and refused to negotiate; it claimed all of Texas. Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces. He constructed a makeshift fort (later known as Fort Brown/Fort Texas) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war. On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 16 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after Captain Thornton, who was in command.[
Saying I'm not fighting isn't true either. As I've said before, arguing on this forum isn't actually fighting anything outside of it to a large degree. Plus I'm all for democratic republics and would rather see a change in the system making the government run better then try to dissolve it. I would rather see the US government become stronger more like Norway/Sweden then weaker like say Somalia/Mexico. I see our problems in society being based more off of human greed then state societies. Corporations commit horrible atrocities.
From 1972 to 1993, Texaco operated development of the Lago Agrio oil field in Ecuador. Ecuadorian farmers and indigenous residents accused Texaco (now Chevron), of making residents ill and damaging forests and rivers by discharging 18 billion gallons of formation water into the rainforest, without any remediation. They sued Chevron for extensive environmental damage caused by these operations, which have sickened thousands of Ecuadorians and polluted the Amazon rainforest. The Ecuadorian court could have imposed a legal penalty of up to $28 billion in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Amazonian villagers in the region. Chevron claimed that agreements with the Ecuadorian Government exempted the company from any liabilities.[43][44][45] A documentary on the issue, Crude, premiered in September 2009.
From 1977 until 1992 Texaco (Texpet), a subsidiary of Texaco Inc., was a minority member of this consortium with Petroecuador, the Ecuadorian state-owned oil company, as the majority partner. Since 1990, the operations have been conducted solely by Petroecuador. At the conclusion of the consortium and following an independent third-party environmental audit of the area, Texaco formally agreed with the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador to conduct a three year remediation program at a cost of $40 million. The government subsequently granted Texpet and all related corporate entities a full release from any and all environmental liability arising from its operations.[43] Based on the history above, Chevron believes that "this lawsuit lacks legal or factual merit." However, water and soil samples taken by an Ecuadorean scientific team after Texaco departed in 1998 found almost half still contained unsafe levels of petroleum hydrocarbons.[46]
On 15 February 2011, a court in Ecuador fined Chevron $8.6 billion over pollution to the country's Amazon region by Texaco between 1972 and 1992, with campaigners claiming loss of crops and farm animals as well as increased local cancer rates.[46][47][48] The action was brought against Chevron by 30,000 Ecuadorean people, and is the first time that indigenous people have successfully sued a multinational corporation in the country where the pollution took place.[46][47] The trial had begun in 2003.[49] The total penalty imposed on Chevron is $9.5 billion as it was ruled that the oil company must pay an additional 10 per cent legally mandated reparations fee.[47] $27 billion was the sum total requested by plaintiffs, $18.4 billion more than was eventually granted by the court.[48] The Ecuadoreans expressed happiness that Chevron was declared guilty, though also expressed dismay that the award of $8.6 billion would not be enough to make up for the damage caused by the oil company.[50] However, environmental activists wish this case to serve as a precedent against pollution causing business being carried out by firms in developing countries.[47] Nonprofit organization Amazon Watch described the outcome of the case as "unprecedented".[50] Chevron described the lawsuit as an "extortion scheme" and refused to pay the fine.[46] Chevron has no international obligation to pay, and no assets in Ecuador for the government to seize.
...
Nigeria...
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, in allowing a lawsuit brought by victims and their families against Chevron to proceed, said that there was evidence that Chevron had hired and provided transportation to Nigerian military forces known for their "general history of committing abuses."75]
Could cite more corporations being evil but ppl get the point. The idea of states being evil so they need to be dissolved could easily be applied to corporations exploitation of ppl (communism attempts to solve this). But both those methods fail b/c neither of them solve the natural human greed. Fighting against greed/abuses instead of fighting against things like gov't/corporations is a far better method imo. Also it's very natural for apes to go to war with each other for resources, as we've all seen
All that said there are limits to what are likely to happen or occurs. It's far more likely that people are opportunistic (and therefore immoral) rather then blatantly evil. There really isn't any actual evidence of many conspiracy theories, 9/11,moon landing, pearl harbor, jfk, etc. Fuck even the Reichstag fire which people constantly cite as a false flag operation actually is a heavily debated topic with most historians currently thinking that the Nazis actually had nothing to do with it and it was in fact Van der Lubbe who set the fire by himself.
According to Ian Kershaw, writing in 1998, the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire.[11] Although Van der Lubbe was certainly an arsonist, and clearly played a role, there has been considerable popular and scientific debate over whether he acted alone. The case is still actively discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Dispute_about_van_der_Lubbe.27s_role_in_the_Reichstag_fire
Things you consider "very obvious truths" are often logical leaps you are making on hazy evidence.
That's enough off a novel for now.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Last edit: 01/09/2011 00:50
1
palak United States. Sep 01 2011 00:36. Posts 4601
On August 31 2011 22:50 Baalim wrote:
Oh i forgot what you said about my friends.
Actually i hang out with somewhat intelligent people, im the only one who doesnt have a university degree lol, at least half of them have a master degree, only two of them have PhDs tho, so im not Dan hanging out with douchebags with 5k watches and 2 digit IQ bleached blondes, but i just feel im smarter than them, one of the Ph.Ds is probably smarter than me in many areas but he is religious so he loses most of his points there.
probably less than 10% are catholics, and my country is over 90% catholic so that should give you an idea of the kind of people i hang out with, i find it unbearable to have conversations with morons, thats the reason why i barely reply to Zep
One or two flaws in a persons logic should not disqualify them from being intelligent nor should it elevate you above them. Fwiw I don't consider myself in the top 10 intelligence wise of ppl i know irl. Also there are multiple ppl who i disagree almost violently with but I will admit they are more intelligent then me overall.
examples of ppl i know who i disagree w/ but I consider more intelligent then me. Catholic conservative...libertarian conservative greek orthodox sunday school teacher...mormon hardcore republican....unitarian democrat...presbyterian computer engineer...conservative jewish rabbi...etc
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
On August 31 2011 13:44 D_smart_S wrote:
There are odds only from the perspective of the unenlightened one. The truth is one.
So 90+% of the GRADUATED architects and engineers in the world are unenlighted? That's a pretty stupid statement about science my friend. And you do realize that your entire argument may have credibility if the mainstream media was the only voice we had for reasoning. But with technology like facebook and twitter and a lack of evidence from those sources of anything you claim, it's impossible to take your argument seriously. Or are you going to claim that the US government controls all that media as well?
Seriously mods, how do you ban someone for making a joke about mexicans, yet you let continuous shit like this slide? unbelievable. This is so much more offensive and provocative than a fucking joke.
Dude stop trying to think please.
"So 90+% of the GRADUATED architects and engineers in the world are unenlighted? That's a pretty stupid statement about science my friend."
that's your statement, retard. First of all, somebody told you that 90% of them are with the official story? LoL. Who? CNN said "90% of all engineers in the world were just telephoned this morning and they all say "TRUE STORY!" hahahaha. And you want facebook and twitter as sources of investigation and research? Did someone forget to give you brain when you were born? US does not control all the media. Zionists (political movement consisted of Jews and non-Jews) control the media. Please be so kind to find the names of all media moguls and list them here. All jews. And you don't need to control everything, just the masses. Masses watch massmedia. Do you see the "mass" in both? Now go to sleep, I'm not gonna reply to you cause you seem unable to use logic.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
1.- "Government isn’t perfect, but some people wish it was better, not gone.”
Government is by definition immoral
2.- Saying we invaded Iraq solely for oil is ludicrous
So you are acknowledging that Oil was PART of the reason?, well it was the main reason but yeah there are other reasons like establishing a puppet government in an otherwise hostile country, also setting up a big military base in the heart of the middle east. Also i dont you think its coincidence you invade the country with more oil reserves in the planet and the one producing 95% of the heroin in the world? ok..
3.- We dont go into africa because of the mogadishu disaster
Wait, so you kill a few thousand in somalia and you wont ever go in the continent again? you have killed hundreds of thousands in the middle east and its just perfectly fine to go there.
4.- Genocide of the Arabs...really really really pushing it, not a genocide by any definition of the word. Saddam killed over 100k kurdish people.
So you say its not genocide by any definition, then say you have killed slightly more arabs than hussein killed kurds... so eithe both are genocidists or none.
5.- I would rather see the US government become stronger more like Norway/Sweden then weaker like say Somalia/Mexico.
Ok this is just idiotic, why do you mentiong scandinavians in high govermental presence, how about China and Cuba instead? Also México is no example of low govermental presence at all, we have a big powerful corrupt government, a lot of subsidies and social aid governmental programs. Somalia when it had no goverment was the country with the biggest growth in almost every aspect in the entire fucking history of africa.
6.- The idea of states being evil so they need to be dissolved could easily be applied to corporations exploitation of ppl (communism attempts to solve this). But both those methods fail b/c neither of them solve the natural human greed. Fighting against greed/abuses instead of fighting against things like gov't/corporations is a far better method imo.
Except that corporations dont steal your money at gunpoint, they dont have a monopoly of violence like the government do.
7.- There really isn't any actual evidence of many conspiracy theories, 9/11,moon landing, pearl harbor, jfk, etc. Fuck even the Reichstag fire which people constantly cite as a false flag operation actually is a heavily debated topic with most historians currently thinking that the Nazis actually had nothing to do with it and it was in fact Van der Lubbe who set the fire by himself.
Dont lump the moon landing idioticy with other conspiracies, as i said many times the moon landing can easily be verified with a laser, there is strong evidence of 911 you simply wont acknowledge it and i dont think we should go there again. the fact that "history" doesnt acknowledge certain thing doesnt mean its not true, history has taught us that very often the truth is found centuries ago when the leaders are no longer in control of whats peddled for truth.
8.- If our decisions were sooo based on oil we would have invaded mexico or canada.
Ok now that is a retarded thing i would expect from Zep, not you, you are perfectly aware that you simply cannot invade Mexico or Canada, hell it might even set a world war against the US
On August 31 2011 22:50 Baalim wrote:
Oh i forgot what you said about my friends.
Actually i hang out with somewhat intelligent people, im the only one who doesnt have a university degree lol, at least half of them have a master degree, only two of them have PhDs tho, so im not Dan hanging out with douchebags with 5k watches and 2 digit IQ bleached blondes, but i just feel im smarter than them, one of the Ph.Ds is probably smarter than me in many areas but he is religious so he loses most of his points there.
probably less than 10% are catholics, and my country is over 90% catholic so that should give you an idea of the kind of people i hang out with, i find it unbearable to have conversations with morons, thats the reason why i barely reply to Zep
One or two flaws in a persons logic should not disqualify them from being intelligent nor should it elevate you above them. Fwiw I don't consider myself in the top 10 intelligence wise of ppl i know irl. Also there are multiple ppl who i disagree almost violently with but I will admit they are more intelligent then me overall.
examples of ppl i know who i disagree w/ but I consider more intelligent then me. Catholic conservative...libertarian conservative greek orthodox sunday school teacher...mormon hardcore republican....unitarian democrat...presbyterian computer engineer...conservative jewish rabbi...etc
It doesnt disqualify them, it makes them lose a lot of points, if you believe in santa claus im sorry but you simply will look like a fool to me.
Im sorry but all those you mentioned are idiots, a Mormon? a guy who believes in an intergalactic Jesus and that blacks are sub-humans being punishment for their undecition... sorry but that guy is a fucking idiot.
Even if that Mormon is a brilliant mathematician then he is at best some kind of pseudo-savant, an absolute idiot who happens to be really good at something in particular.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 01/09/2011 10:45
1
palak United States. Sep 01 2011 11:06. Posts 4601
Government is by definition immoral
No it's not.
So you are acknowledging that Oil was PART of the reason?, well it was the main reason but yeah there are other reasons like establishing a puppet government in an otherwise hostile country, also setting up a big military base in the heart of the middle east. Also i dont you think its coincidence you invade the country with more oil reserves in the planet and the one producing 95% of the heroin in the world? ok..
Or the human rights violations and mistreatment of woman.
The only thing I saw is that Iraq in 2008 claimed to have the largest reserves based on new estimates
Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
Also to sum up with the mexico canada thing, the whole idea is that it was stupid. To show that there is more to our decision making then oil, world politics is a much larger part.
Are you seriously suggesting we invaded Afghanistan for the heroin?
3. Whole point was about interests and resources playing more of a role in overall deciding now-a-days when to directly intervene vs when to stand around. Hence going into Iraq/Libya instead of say Egypt/Congo/Rwanda.
Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."
The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.
4. We have probably killed as many arabs as Saddam killed Kurds. If you want to call the gov't murdering that's one thing. But to say genocide would be to say that we are killing iraqi civilians b/c they are iraqi and not due to the war or other reasons, just solely them being iraqi. Murdering sure I can see a claim for that, genocidal no.
5. I was mentioning Norway/Sweden b/c they are examples of strong governments with low corruption rates which are my ideal. Whereas China/Cuba/(Mexico?) are examples of governments with high corruption rates. Super strong corrupt governments w/o corporations lead to problems just as corporations w/o governments lead to problems. Hence USSR super corrupt government. I don't name countries b/c they arn't ideal, I don't deny that a strong government when combined w/ corruption is bad.
Edit: Proof somalia grew? Only report I've seen is from Cato which would mean I could cite heritage saying they didn't grow since both are think tanks with well known bias. I'm not denying they didn't grow and I'm not denying that there are instances in which an anarchy can flourish compared to other countries which are pretty much all running one form or another of a state sponsored genocide.
Will finish up the rest of this post tonight.
Cliffs will be...corporations use force to steal money also...so when u disagree w/ historians u just claim fuck it the majority of historians are wrong, do u ever stop to consider maybe u were misinformed instead?...will post sources n crap tonight.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
75] 
