Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Argus said:

No, it would moronic. At best it would lead to continuous war all across the middle east  andat worst nuclear war. Got any more dumb ideas?

That war has been going on for the last 20+ years.. or have you not noticed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened s

I agree that if big business is the only beneficiary of action then it should not be done.

I can't believe people posting and opposing attack on Bashir Assad's bases!!!!. Wake up people who are claiming to defend the defenseless. Responsible for chemical attacks or not, Bashir Assad is a pr

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Let me know when Saudi Arabia is taken to task and we might have a leg to stand on.

Let me know when you take yourself and anyone but Israel or the US to task...but guess what, you'd still have no leg to stand on. Its stuck up yer wazoo when it comes to being

credible on anything to do with the Middle East let alone life as its known in this dimension.

Hey gather your advisors, Hudson, Marcus, Kactus, Eye, Muhammed, Abdul, whatever the names are and discuss Syria and Muslim on Muslim violence. Yah. Hah. Lol. etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey now let's shit on Israel again and quickly change this topic.

Its Trump's fault.

Its Israel's fault.

Its the fault of Zionists.

Its Jews that did it.

Its white men.

Its Westerners.

Its Christians.

Its people from Tonga.

Yabba Dabba Doo blame in a Yank, whitey or Jew.

So what else is knew.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

That war has been going on for the last 20+ years.. or have you not noticed?

Will it make you feel better if it spreads to every nation in the middle east?

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

Hey gather your advisors, Hudson, Marcus, Kactus, Eye, Muhammed, Abdul, whatever the names are and discuss Syria and Muslim on Muslim violence. Yah. Hah. Lol. etc.

 

...Stop baiting and start debating.... Linking me to muslims and terrorists is not gonna get you brownies. On the contrary it is a personal attack and you are blatantly being provocative! 

Edited by kactus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

Its Trump's fault.

Its Israel's fault.

Its the fault of Zionists.

Its Jews that did it.

Its white men.

Its Westerners.

Its Christians.

Its people from Tonga.

Yabba Dabba Doo blame in a Yank, whitey or Jew.

So what else is knew.

What is missing from the list:

It is US's fault.

It is the British.

Nobody is pointing to the real faults,

The Damn Russians.

The post-Islamic violent middle eastern cultures where murderous regimes are ruling by terror.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rue said:

Let me know when you take yourself and anyone but Israel or the US to task...but guess what, you'd still have no leg to stand on.  (removed stupid text)

I don't trust the US leadership and I sure d not trust the Israeli leadership.  Maybe you can tell me why Israel is violating sovereign Syrian airspace with their fighter jets.

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Will it make you feel better if it spreads to every nation in the middle east?

It's already all over the Middle East, and a good deal of Africa.  Since 9/11 I have not seen LESS war in the M.E. , it has increased a lot in the last 20 years. So I guess people are not really paying attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Argus said:

No, it would moronic. At best it would lead to continuous war all across the middle east  andat worst nuclear war. Got any more dumb ideas?

Yes.   You're going to get your world war anyway, kid, and quite soon.   Why not keep a bit of dignity as you die and stop murdering people of whom you know nothing first?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

 You're going to get your world war anyway, kid, and quite soon.  

How is it "his" world war when he's advocating against continuous war in the ME ?


It's fine to criticize moralistic hypocrisy, and the tendency of the west to depict itself as morally impervious... but the opposite is just as flawed.  Once more: it's a mix of self-interest and altruism that drives these things just as it works for you and me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is it "his" world war when he's advocating against continuous war in the ME ?


It's fine to criticize moralistic hypocrisy, and the tendency of the west to depict itself as morally impervious... but the opposite is just as flawed.  Once more: it's a mix of self-interest and altruism that drives these things just as it works for you and me.

I don't live in the Middle East, and nobody there is going to listen to me.    It is 'his' world war because he was talking about it and because it will kill him just like the rest of us.    Heil Trump and the Big Sleep!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

I don't live in the Middle East, and nobody there is going to listen to me. 

That's irrelevant.  We're listening to you and trying in vain to figure out what you're saying.

Quote

 It is 'his' world war because he was talking about it and because it will kill him just like the rest of us.   

Then say it's "our" war.  By calling it "his" you make it sound like he wants to have it.

Quote

 Heil Trump and the Big Sleep!

Complete non-sequitur.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's irrelevant.  We're listening to you and trying in vain to figure out what you're saying.

Then say it's "our" war.  By calling it "his" you make it sound like he wants to have it.

Complete non-sequitur.  

If you're  colonised and victimised Muslims, why should I argue you ought not to fight the killers, since none of you are here to listen?     As you know, you supporters of yet more imperialism have been interfering and stealing from other people's countries for centuries and grown fat and stupid on your thievings, so now you are too stupid to avoid destroying humanity, which you will do by whatever senseless posturing you choose, quite soon.    Blame me for it if it makes you feel better, do!    Hardly time for you to grow up now, is there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

If you're  colonised and victimised Muslims, why should I argue you ought not to fight the killers, since none of you are here to listen?  

Trying to pull this sentence into parts that fit together is... difficult.

"If you are colonised [sic] and victimised [sic] Muslims" = If Argus and I are colonized and victimized Muslims, which we are not and never claimed to be, I guess you are saying if "one" is a victimized Muslim

"why should I argue you out not to fight the killers" = why should you argue we [Argus and I as victimized Muslims, which we are not] shouldn't fight "the killers" who are ???

"since none of you are here to listen" = we [Argus and I as victimized Muslims, which we are not] should not be argued with because we aren't here to listen either.  It begs the question: what does our victimization have to do with it if we're not here to listen anyway.  Also, since we're responding to you we ARE listening.

That was a tiring sentence.

Quote

 As you know, you supporters of yet more imperialism have been interfering and stealing from other people's countries for centuries and grown fat and stupid on your thievings, so now you are too stupid to avoid destroying humanity, which you will do by whatever senseless posturing you choose, quite soon.    Blame me for it if it makes you feel better, do!    Hardly time for you to grow up now, is there?

 

What have we said to import imperialism ?  As far as I can tell we're explaining the pragmatism of not invading Saudi Arabia.  You have, owing to that, pinned Argus for wanting a world war and now are saying we're imperialists.

I'm not blaming you, and I'll take criticism of my viewpoints any time, but 1) we are only explaining an idea and 2) we didn't blame you either, I don't think.

Your thinking and communication are cloudy, I think.  I sort of get what you are trying to say but you need to spend a few minutes composing your posts before you click 'Submit' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Trying to pull this sentence into parts that fit together is... difficult.

"If you are colonised [sic] and victimised [sic] Muslims" = If Argus and I are colonized and victimized Muslims, which we are not and never claimed to be, I guess you are saying if "one" is a victimized Muslim

"why should I argue you out not to fight the killers" = why should you argue we [Argus and I as victimized Muslims, which we are not] shouldn't fight "the killers" who are ???

"since none of you are here to listen" = we [Argus and I as victimized Muslims, which we are not] should not be argued with because we aren't here to listen either.  It begs the question: what does our victimization have to do with it if we're not here to listen anyway.  Also, since we're responding to you we ARE listening.

That was a tiring sentence.

 

What have we said to import imperialism ?  As far as I can tell we're explaining the pragmatism of not invading Saudi Arabia.  You have, owing to that, pinned Argus for wanting a world war and now are saying we're imperialists.

I'm not blaming you, and I'll take criticism of my viewpoints any time, but 1) we are only explaining an idea and 2) we didn't blame you either, I don't think.

Your thinking and communication are cloudy, I think.  I sort of get what you are trying to say but you need to spend a few minutes composing your posts before you click 'Submit' 

Try a communications course somewhere!  :)   Since you are an imperialist mug, you'll believe what you are told by your masters anyway, obviously, and never think about grammar!

Edited by Penderyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

Try a communications course somewhere! 

Yes, I have taken many such courses.  The first thing that they tell you is that communication requires receiver and sender to check off on what was communicated.  I'm providing you feedback on my troubles in understanding your language.  You are welcome.

Quote

 Since you are an imperialist mug, you'll believe what you are told by your masters anyway, obviously, and never think about grammar!

You have no evidence that I am an "imperialist mug" because, well, I am not one.  The main thing you don't understand is that us pointing out problems with an idea (eg. invading Saudi Arabia, for some reason) says nothing about whether we support the idea or not.  I see Canada has problems too, but I still support the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I have taken many such courses.  The first thing that they tell you is that communication requires receiver and sender to check off on what was communicated.  I'm providing you feedback on my troubles in understanding your language.  You are welcome.

You have no evidence that I am an "imperialist mug" because, well, I am not one.  The main thing you don't understand is that us pointing out problems with an idea (eg. invading Saudi Arabia, for some reason) says nothing about whether we support the idea or not.  I see Canada has problems too, but I still support the idea.

So why do you want me to run down Muslim countries that aren't here?

Why, if you are not an imperialist mug, are you asking me to write bullshit about your colonies?   we were colonised from 1536, so we knows, perhaps, rather more about the process. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Penderyn said:

So why do you want me to run down Muslim countries that aren't here?

I don't.  I have asked you to clarify, so now I invite you to ask me to clarify if I have ever said that I want to run down Muslim countries, or something like that.  Perhaps I have been unclear.

Just now, Penderyn said:

Why, if you are not an imperialist mug, are you asking me to write bullshit about your colonies?   we were colonised from 1536, so we knows, perhaps, rather more about the process. :)

I don't know who "we" is.  I haven't said anything about colonization either way, just explained the point of view of those powers who commit actions on the world stage.  I think the moral framework I have outlined, if flawed, does reflect their reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't.  I have asked you to clarify, so now I invite you to ask me to clarify if I have ever said that I want to run down Muslim countries, or something like that.  Perhaps I have been unclear.

I don't know who "we" is.  I haven't said anything about colonization either way, just explained the point of view of those powers who commit actions on the world stage.  I think the moral framework I have outlined, if flawed, does reflect their reality.


' It's fine to criticize moralistic hypocrisy, and the tendency of the west to depict itself as morally impervious... but the opposite is just as flawed.  Once more: it's a mix of self-interest and altruism that drives these things just as it works for you and me.'

 

What do you consider to be 'the opposite', and how is it relevant?   'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, and I'm not really into weighing that against the fact that the tortured and murdered often swear before they go, which is about the level of this particular 'balance', as far as I can see.   But sorry if I've misunderstood you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:

'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, 

Certainly the West and capitalism have their issues, but "all that is evil" seems hyperbolic to me.  Along with the bad, there has been much good in the way the Western world has developed over the past few hundred years.  It may be true that we are on the downslope of our particular civilization, but painting it as "all bad" is no more accurate than painting the Middle East as irredemiably evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Certainly the West and capitalism have their issues, but "all that is evil" seems hyperbolic to me.  Along with the bad, there has been much good in the way the Western world has developed over the past few hundred years.  It may be true that we are on the downslope of our particular civilization, but painting it as "all bad" is no more accurate than painting the Middle East as irredemiably evil.

II tend to use 'bad' and 'evil' to mean different things.   There were good things in the concentration camps - sometimes -  but they were what capitalism leads to, which is everywhere evil

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:

 

What do you consider to be 'the opposite', and how is it relevant?   'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, and I'm not really into weighing that against the fact that the tortured and murdered often swear before they go, which is about the level of this particular 'balance', as far as I can see.   But sorry if I've misunderstood you.

It was submitted that not acting against Saudi Arabia or even China as we would Syria is a hypocrisy.  So the opposite is saying that countries must always act globally, ie in the global interest.

The most advanced area of capitalism incorporated elements of socialism in the early 20th century.  Are you saying it was less evil before it socialized itself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It was submitted that not acting against Saudi Arabia or even China as we would Syria is a hypocrisy.  So the opposite is saying that countries must always act globally, ie in the global interest.

The most advanced area of capitalism incorporated elements of socialism in the early 20th century.  Are you saying it was less evil before it socialized itself?

Socialism is rule by the working majority.   Where did that happen except where it was followed by mass-murder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

II tend to use 'bad' and 'evil' to mean different things.   There were good things in the concentration camps - sometimes -  but they were what capitalism leads to, which is everywhere evil

Yeah, I have to admit, you can't move for them here in Alberta.

Give me a Gulag any day...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I have to admit, you can't move for them here in Alberta.

Give me a Gulag any day...

Same thing - all capitalism leads to mass murder.    They'll get around to you if you grow balls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Penderyn said:

Same thing - all capitalism leads to mass murder.    They'll get around to you if you grow balls.

If there's nothing else, why worry?  There are billions of people they haven't gotten around to yet, so I'm hoping to die old and happy before they get me in their sights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...