|
Quote:
Aren't the media "finger-pointing" over the Norway tragedy causing even more victims in the long term? Because it seems very much like it to me. Plus the Muslim "monsters" will see it as a plus that the spotlight isn't on them for a change, which is cause for concern as the West won't be as prepared for their next atrocity. |
http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/07/2...ian-candidate/
"Breivik’s profile, and Hollywood extra photos were already on the news desks of editors within minutes of his apprehension, and if that’s not strange enough, allegedly, also, the arresting police already knew his name. This point was brought up by Channel 4 anchorman Jon Snow, who raised this oddity in a tweet, “What we don’t know is how the police knew the terrorist’s name before they arrested him”." |
Quote:
Strangely, Glenn Beck has said something about all this that could have come straight from one of your "interesting" links Glenn Beck likes "Tendencies" too I guess you are a victim of the internet in many ways, you dont have to state your actual position, you can just post links to "interesting" websites that talk about all kinds of mental theories every time a major event in the news happens and then run away saying "No no, its not my opinion, its just interesting". This isnt a political science messageboard where you get credit for telling us how interesting you find things, anyone can do that. I suspect you're afraid of stating your position on matters because you're afraid of a) ridicule and b) ever being proven wrong, so you just dance around telling us its "interesting". Sorry, that defence doesnt put you beyond criticism. |
too many wack jobs with too many guns. or, just too many guns, period
|
Quote:
Nato did invade Libya for humanitarian reasons (humanitarianism is not selfless by definition, by the way) as Gadaffi had explicitly promised to massacre the city of Benghazi. The mandate only covers the prevention of genocide, which was what Gadaffi was going to do. I would ask you what you want the Libyans and the citizens of Syria, Iran etc. to do. If you want the regimes of those countries to change (which im assuming you do) you'd much rather they rose up of their own accord and attempted to resolve the matter without outside military force being involved, right? It worked in Egypt, but what message is being sent if the only dictators who fall are the ones who DONT crush the resistance with lethal force, and the violent oppressive ones get to stay in power? We dont have to mount a full ground invasion of each and every one of these countries, we just have to support the people who want to get rid of the dictators. The UK expelled all Libyan diplomats today as a matter of fact and recognised the resistance movement as the authority, which i think is a good move. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And also this: Quote:
|
Quote:
1) Huffington Post liberal enough for ya? Maybe something from India? Or the good ol' New York Times? 2) The UN recognised a No-Fly zone "Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians" If you dont know what a no-fly zone is, it means any military forces coming into the area are allowed to be engaged. 3) In the past, definitely (assasination of Allende in Chile, many others). But look at Egypt - The Israeli lobby is very wary of the Egyptian uprising because Egypt was always a close ally of Israel under Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in influence, and the US and Israel definitely doesnt want them becoming a political force. Im not naive about the way America exerts its influence, but its not like theyre assasinating Hugo Chavez any more. (edited, i misread your point the first time) 4) Egypt; A dictatorship of 30 years has been gone for 4 or 5 months. I guess if you cant overhaul an entire societal and political culture in a fortnight its not worth bothering. Revolution is such a drag aint it? And besides, given your previous statement, why do you even give a shit what they do? 5) "Why? Who are the resistance movement? Why are they better than the present regime? They are lead by people who were Gaddafi loyalists until recently. That makes them what exactly? Representative of the ordinary people?" This is a fair point of concern, lest i appear too gung ho for you rugged libertarian types. When you have a society structured around the rule of a dictator the only people who have ANY military experience or expertise are members of the dictators' army/police/secret police. That they would risk the obvious horrors involved in defecting makes them brave, if not neccessarily secular democrats like I. Again, I dont sit in my chair demanding that the world instantly change to my tastes overnight; that would make me the politcal equivolant of the guy at the back of the indie rock show complaining that they prefer the early stuff before the original bass player left to deal with his smack habit. Practical neccessity means they are going to be a broad church however, and thats exactly what Gadaffi and all dictators like to crush to keep themselves in power. |
Anders was a cylon
|
“Thank you for allowing all of us the opportunity to see our imprisoned friend’s face. I eagerly await the day that we can see the rising of the free sun without prisons and chains.”
Call me a cunt, but just being cynical aint good enough for me http://cyberdissidents.org/ If you think any of these people are US/Israeli stooges, please feel free to send them a message saying so. I dont agree with all of them all the time, but i take their opinions about a billion times more seriously than i do the people on this board. |
Quote:
I misread what Pookie was saying in his original point, i have gone back and corrected myself (see above). I will answer your other points in a minute |
first, my responses were to pookie's points, so bear with me, given that im sure you dont both agree on everything
1)Those articles don't indicate Gaddafi was planning a genocide, only that he was planning to attack rebel troops. Of course, it's very likely innocent civilians would get caught in the crossfire, but this is no signal that he intended to committ genocide. Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on what Colnel Gaddaffi, responsible for brutal repression of the Libyan people for 40 years, heavily implicated in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, pursuing chemical and biological weapons for years (until 2003) meant by Showing No Mercy. I think his record speaks for itself. Don't know what this is in relation to or how it is relevant. Pookie made a point about the UN mandate, in response to Pookie i posted a link to the UN website to explain this. This is a totally unfounded inferrence and unrelated to the subject of discussion. The US/UK has a history of war crimes in that region. Of course, you would learn nothing of this if your only source was the BBC. For a more accurate understanding of the intervention in Bosnia, see here: http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html And more here and here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ap...goto-a22.shtml http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2...war-nato-serbs See my above post, i misread the original post by Pookie, probably by trying to do too many things at once, and i have corrected myself. A dictatorship that was backed by the US, a dictator who was trained by the US, a dictator who was funded by the US. Yes, he's gone, but all that has replaced him is a military dictatorship. One wonders how a military dicatatorship is any better than a Mubarak led one was. Pookie said that the US and UK only get involved to ensure friendly regimes survive - One good example of that is Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But now he's gone. What do you think of the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, seeing as all I seem to be doing is answeringg questions like im the only person who has to justify my position. I put the same points to you, where do you stand? There is nothing in Pookie's posts to suggest he is a libertarian, I suspect you don't understand the meaning of this term. Then you make a totally unfounded assertion that Pookie was unreasonably demanding the world change to his own expectations from an armchair, when he did nothing of the sort and only asked reasonable questions which you are not able to fully answer.[/quote] I was making a joke based on previous posts, seeing as i have 3 of you to deal with. This debate may be more humourless than the front row of a My Bloody Valentine gig, but you cant blame me for trying. Incidentally, isolationism is a core Libertarian principle in many circles which is why so many American Libertarians opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan Once again, im not the only one who has to justify my position, are you willing to justify yours? |
Quote:
see above, i misread the point and corrected myself, my mistake |
Quote:
As i recall you made statements about me first, granted that wasnt a direct accusation towards me, but i decided to take you up on it. Forgive me if im mixing you Tesla and Pookie up I doubt that the US and Nato would clamp down on Egypt if they put in place a democratic regime. To be honest the momentum of the protests suggests that the Egyptians would know a new form of dictatorship if it tried to assert itself. Given the way that the West has supported the democratic impulse (weakly, admittedly) it would be impossible to clamp down on a reasonably representative system. Anyway; What do you think of the Iranian regime, and what strategy should we adopt to deal with it? What were your feelings when the "Arab spring" began, and what hopes/fears do you have for its future in Iran, Libya, Syria? How much should we account for the Israeli governments opinion when discussing the "Arab Spring" Ive tried to avoid these arguements on here recently as i dont hear much that challenges my opinions (though why should i expect to, i suppose) but its always good to keep the tools sharpened. |
Quote:
There was of course support for Iran after the US helped overthrow the parliamentary government and installed a dictator, helping them develop their own nuclear capabilities. Iran's major crime as far as the US is concerned, is its independence, an intolerable position for a major energy source. |
Quote:
And in this one sentence you sum up the entire reason why your attitude is abhorrant to me. Its our business to do something about Iran because there are young people being imprisoned and murdered every single day for expressing a dissenting opinion against the powers that be in Iran. If Americans were being thrown into jail for protesting against the US government you would be up in arms. So I'll narrow the parameters of the question for you; Do you care what government runs Iran, a country of 75 million people? |
Do you understand that there is already a dicatatorship in control of Egypt? How has the West supported 'the democratic impulse'?
How would a 'reasonably representative system' take power under the current military dictatorship? How on earth would this be impossible to clamp down on by the very power that backs the current military dictatorship? I don't understand how the US, who backed thr dictatorship, its secret police and its torture rendition, would tolerate any challenge to the military dictatorship now in control. One composed of many of the people that were doing all the spying and torturing and repression during the Mubarak years. As i said, thats a fair concern. But its a society that has spent 30 years under the power of an unelected dictator,. Because of this, like Libya, the only people who have any military/law enforcement expertise are the people who were in the army and police. So as i said, you cant expect an entire culture to overhaul itself overnight. In response to another of your points, I said it would be impossible for the USA to clamp down on it, not the military of Egypt. Quote: Originally Posted by the ikara cult Anyway; What do you think of the Iranian regime, and what strategy should we adopt to deal with it? I suspect the power that thinks from that perspective might try and launch a war with Iran as a military keynesianism strategy. I ask you a question, and you dont answer it. Cmon Knikknnknk, I answered all of your questions, at least try and answer mine. What do you think our strategy should be towards the Iranian regime? I talked about the situation in this region in my previous post. Id like you to elaborate, if possible [/quote] |
Quote:
I think that the trouble with intervention is that you can't trust the US and their motives for any intervention. If they cared about democracy and human rights, then why have they continually supported Israel during their illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine? Why did they support Iraq, Libya...(I could go on listing brutal regimes but we all know who they are).` |
Quote:
Good good, i share those reservations as a matter of fact. The US fucked up massively in how it dealt with postwar Iraq, the incompetance was absoulutely criminal (Just because i think it was right to remove Saddam Hussein doesnt mean i cant criticise that aspect of the war). I also have problems with the way Israel has conducted itself, although thats a whole other massive discussion. The key matter for me though is what the Iranians want. Because of the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80s, where over a million Iranian men died, there is a massive baby boomer population in Iran that was born around the same time as most of us here, and they want the same basic human rights that you and I have I would prefer you answered the question first if thats ok, seeing as ive spent this whole thread answering questions |
Quote:
it costs upwards of $300,000,000 to house and execute an inmate in California's Death Row, that is a SHITLOAD of money spent on fleeting and largely symbolic vengeance. The Norwegians are smart about their system, people in America just don't realize the paradox of the modern death penalty. In regards to this shooting, does anyone HONESTLY believe that a lone-gunman blew up the downtown and then found an obscure island political camp and managed to gun down so many people? I will also say this, notice that in a properly civilized society and police-force they can apprehend a mass-murderer at the scene of the crime for trial, just as the shooter at the Frankfurt airport was arrested, and yet here in Los Angeles the police can't seem to arrest anyone even remotely suspected of being armed without an officer involved fatal shooting? They even carry around the "ham sandwich" to plant on those poor souls who were killed yet unarmed ;( |
Quote:
You dont have an answer, do you? |
I said, quite explicitly, that it poses a threat to the people of Iran.
I did not say that this needed to involve invading Iran, which would be lunacy You havent stated your position, yet again, so can i assume that your position is we ignore Iran and dont do or say anything against the regime there? If youre gonna ask me about my position please come with a position of your own |
To all of you: This is not my radio show, i do want you to express your opinions rather than just react to mine. Thanks
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
This conversation is by definition a discussion of opinions, and i have made mine clear. Im happy to consider the matter closed. |
At what point did you decide that his removal was necessary? Throughout the west's support for his regime, particularly during the Iran-Iraq wars? Or did you decide the time was right when Bush and Blair said so?
Saddam should have been removed in 1991, but alas that didnt happen and 500,000 Iraqi children died because of sanctions. I wasnt around during the US support for him, and that was absolutely wrong, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. That fact doesnt mean that removing him in 2003 is wrong though. If you think he should have stayed in power, you have to explain what would have happened in that situation EXACTLY. And who do you think the Iranian people consider the greatest threat, their own leaders or the US? I think I know the answer to that one. If you think its the USA then youve never read anything by an Iranian blogger ever I thought I had answered the question. to be honest ive spent most of this evening answering points by you, kknik and Tesla so youve overlapped alot, and i am but a lowly unevolved homosapien. Im glad you bothered to actually engage my points at least. |
Quote:
Hallelujah youve actually expressed an opinion. I wish youd been willing to say what you think earlier, cos its getting kinda late over here now. Ive acknowleged the massive fuckups in the postwar planning, i feel i should emphasise that again. First, it was not a secular state, Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, though he utilised many Stalinist tactics during his reign (Stalinism was not secular) If Saddam stayed in power, he would have eventually died leaving the country to be fought over between Uday and Qusay Hussein, who were about as sickening as it gets, im not prepared to let people like that own people and torture them. There would also have been a massive vaccuum in various parts of Iraq for its neighbours to invade, as its quite a big country. If Saddam were still in power today, how do you think Iraq would look? |
im gonna go to sleep in a minute kids, please continue arguing on through the night
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There has been some dispute over the Lancet's figures, and the criminal incompetance of the US in the first few years of the war was as bad as it could get. Incidentally, i didnt support the war at the time ( i was 18 ) and i actually marched against Bush when he came over here to visit in late 2003. I began to change my feelings in 2007 after i worked with some Iraqi Kurds. This doesnt qualify my position of course |
Quote:
However the reason I quoted the Lancet is because the number they produced is a lot more conservative than some others. |
Quote:
there are other sources that critisise that study and its conclusions, if yoyu search for it on google its pretty easily available, its not all Fox News. You probably hate this guy anyway, but its the first article i thought of |
Can't be fucked to read all of that - read the first four paragraphs (poorly written, badly edited).
Question: Iraq was a fucking wreck. 'Our' (which is not 'our' in any meaningful sense) 'intervention' (which was, in fact a massacre) was still preferable to the continued atrocity of the last 30 years [hence we've not been into, say, Saudi]. My question is whether there is any mild rational [as in ratio-nal] or quantitative [as in 4m vs 6m] or qualitative [which you're incapable of, so fuck off] measure by which you might, theoretically, say that it's probably better that Saddam isn't there but it's better that 'we' [so called] aren't? Answer must be without reference to my faith. Thanks [not thanks - actually, fuck you, you useless, self-involved prick]? |
I answered your questions. You didn't like the answers. So you had a hysterical fit.
Now. Would you reply to my post, please? |
Or fuck off. The latter is preferable.
|
kknik you are now down with Tesla, hats off to you
|
No, I answered your questions. As you know. It was an unequivocal yes.
Are you going to answer my question? Or would you rather fuck off? Because I for one would really appreciate your taking your boring arse-hair twiddling, juvenile fuckwittery elsewhere. Obviously, my saying that only indulges your massive inability to get away from your mild and limpid incapacity to ignore bollocks that people natter on the internet, but seriously - you have absolutely nothing to say that is of any interest to anyone but yourself. As you have problems reading (it's ok - lots of people do) I'll repeat that - you have absolutely nothing to say that is of any interest to anyone but yourself. |
Unequivocal yes. I can't make it clearer. Is it trolling or the possibility that someone might, perhaps, have a different outlook on the world to you?
Also, your 'anti-violence' thing is clearly bullshit, except you have a narrow ontology of violence. But you're not really interested in discussion, are you dear? |
You're cute. Your questions were about impossible materiality [Marxist] with a limited ontology [Hegelian]. And that involves me giving you a lot more rope than you gave me yourself. To which I continue to answer yes. You don't understand that yes because you're young and a bit stupid. But you don't know how to interrogate that yes. Because you're a fuckwit. A fuckwit who's had the misfortune to read some books with some big words, and a fuckwit who's had the misfortune to think you've understood them. Which you haven't.
Of course, I've left gaping holes in that yes, which you could've interrogated and exposed. But rather than do that, you angrily and hostily shut them down, rather than point out, as some very intelligent Atheists (note the capital A) have done, that I'm talking bollocks [with a limited context]. You don't, essentially, have anything to say and really need to work on your ability to engage with society. Nasty, perhaps, but also true. |
Oh, little Nick. With your lovely little inability to actually engage with anyone who criticises you - even slightly - it's really cute.
Except. You actually just spend all of your time throwing out criticisms of people which they ignore. And you spend your time throwing out naif-anti-capitalist stuff that everyone vaguely agrees with but, ultimately, everyone else on this board [with the solitary exception of you and who ever else is less than 18] just goes 'yeah - but in fairness, I need a job/ education/ something other than whinging at fictional internet nobodies'. You're not trolling me. I'm pissed, and have had a grand night tonight. I'm amusing myself. Check my sig - it's what I do. What you're doing is piling more and more self-hatred upon yourself. I'm good with words - I'm glad you've noticed. I think the majority of this board has. You've replied several times to a pissed Glice - we're all trolls. You're aware of the chans - you know that no-one is the victor in the trolling [or, at least, you're aware that Herr Slowly knows the rules better than anyone]. You don't have anything to say and no-one is trolled by you - they just find you boring. They do. Really, really, they do. KIS is a better troll than you. You'll probably not notice that for a while, but s/he really is. |
i didn't read the thread so i'll just leave this here
 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth