This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 214215216 217218 ... 502
6451
« on: March 31, 2015, 10:08:03 AM »
'Greeted as liberators' sure contradicts that notion. Don't be so fucking facile. While I do think the establishment of an Iraqi democracy was a good thing in the sense that it gave autonomy to the Kurds and the Shi'a, which is an extension of our imposition of no-fly zones over the north and south to protect them when Saddam was still in power. But it was hasty, and poorly done, I think. And Nouri al-Maliki's failure is testament to that. But, I'm sure you quite clearly understand that liberation is not equivocal to democratisation. Or better yet, find somewhere that's more deserving of our attention first. Who the fuck is more deserving than a country which has the potential to cripple the world economy and, who by a happy coincidence, we have been intimately involved in for a long time. North Korea is probably in more dire straits, from a humanitarian perspective, but you can't say to me that picking your battles is not a valid strategy. "One of the most justified wars in the history of Western warfare."
Stop contradicting yourself. Yeah, it was. Again we come back to this problem you seem to have with people being nuanced. Why do you insist on relentlessly conflating support for the war, for support for Bush? I kind of like Bush for prosecuting the war, but it would've been better if Clinton had done it. And I don't like Bush for giving it a bad name. But fucking forget Bush; liberating Iraq is the focal point here. Fearmongering that was made possible due to 9/11 I'm sorry, do you have a stutter? Either way, it hurt our standing in a huge way. Right, and so do the NSA programmes, as if every other developed nation doesn't spy on their people. Geopolitics is a theatre, the only difference is that people's lives are involved. I don't think the diplomatic damage even comes close to outweighing the positives. What? I'm talking about this, what are you talking about? Big whoop, he was dumb and put a sign on an aircraft carrier. Let's not underplay these issues here. A much wanted war criminal was put on trial, the Kurdish and Shiite majority were rescued from the threat of renewed genocide from a State apparatus with a proven record of such intentions, people weren't fucking murdered for owning a satellite dish, the Mesopotamian Marshes have recovered, fresh oilfields were found and investments made, a federal state was established until Nouri al-Maliki fucked it up with his sectarianism, the Kurds were provided their own semblance of self-government and Qaddafi likely wouldn't have handed over his stockpile which allowed us to trace the network and accomplish what is probably the biggest anti-proliferation victory to date.
Why are we to blame for the instability clearly exacerbated by fundamentalist militants and their delusionally theocratic and pornographic views of what the world should be like? You need to ask yourself what a post-Saddam Iraq would look like without a coalition present. The Sunni-Shia sectarianism that exploded because of al-Maliki's idiocy? Nothing to temper it. The Jihadists already there would've been active and without proper opposition, even if they weren't funded by Iran. And Iran, by the way, probably would've pushed its own interests harder for the Shi'a majority, maybe even with some involvement from Hezbollah. The Saudis, of course, would have their own vested interests in the Sunni minority--and of course Iraq being a keystone oil state. And then the Turks would be stroking their wet fundamentalist cunts over the prospects Kurdistan afforded them.
Why Iraq as opposed to any other place, like Darfur? Darfur saw barely an acknowledgement from the US and the situation was unarguably worse than anything that would have happened under Saddam. I know, I mentioned Darfur later in my comment. I'm not sure I'd say it was worse than Saddam's Iraq, and I honestly don't know which country was more deserving in humanitarian terms. But, like Rwanda and Burma, it's a fucking tragedy that nobody paid any goddamn attention to it. But the fact that we, tragically, ignored Darfur is not an argument for why not ignoring Iraq was a bad course of action. The US didn't even give a damn about most of what you said--it was acting in its own paranoid interests of self-preservation and democracy at gunpoint. The US never had any interest in the bigger picture--those were simply convenient side-effects Who cares? I don't care if Bush did it because he liked to wank over the bodies of dead Iraqi soldiers and insurgents. The consequences are what matters. Saying I should care that the US never intended to do those things is like saying I should oppose that new Indiana law even if it causes bigoted businesses to go bankrupt. "...and the world just fuckin' watched." I know, and it's fucking horrendous. We're still cleaning up the mess caused in Iraq. Just because the old problems were prevented doesn't mean there isn't a shitload of new ones in their wake. The mess in Iraq--meaning ISIS--is only our fault to the extent that as we left, it allowed them to make a push for eastern Syrian oilfields and take swathes of Iraq, as well as--I think--the newly-found oilfields in the Sunni areas of the country. Sectarianism is to blame for ISIS's current existence. But, like I said, it ain't a five-year job. It sucks that we're still there, but the French experience in Mali has shown it is indeed possible to fight insurgencies. And there will be a lot more insurgencies to fight in the future, and we will fuck up along the way. But this isn't just a geopolitical fight, it's a moral one too. Everybody's worried about what the Jihadists might think when we do something, I'd rather they worry about what we have to think.
6452
« on: March 31, 2015, 09:41:46 AM »
das boomp
6453
« on: March 31, 2015, 01:06:19 AM »
That's another remarkable failure in an ongoing bloody chapter where the West was involved.
IS actually existed back during Saddam Hussein's rule, and really became powerful due to Syrian support. So you can thank Assad for IS.
Them existing back during Saddam Hussein's rule?
They were organized first in 1999. Of course proto-IS is completely unrecognizable compared to the IS we all know and love today. And why would a Sunni militant group arise to combat a Sunni-dominated Government in between 1991 and 2003?
Hell, not even that. They only really kicked it into gear when the Sunni Sons of Iraq were actively marginalised.
6454
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:57:26 PM »
The Caliphate of Londonistan, obviously.
6455
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:53:54 PM »
Holy fucking Christ this thread is bringing my depression back.
6456
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:43:58 PM »
Do bongs count?
6457
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:39:12 PM »
If Saddam Hussein stayed in power, Iraq would have exploded worse than Syria right now. So I'm actually somewhat grateful for the US/UK for ending Saddam Hussein before Iraq could have been totally destroyed by him.
This.
Obviously we can't know for sure what might have gone down had he lived and ruled until natural death, but it would not be good.
I imagine it would be somewhat like what went down in the Balkans after Tito croaked, probably worse.
I kind of agree and disagree as this is well based on hypothethical decisions.
People who think Iraq-- IRAQ--would've been more stable after Sta- sorry, Saddam kicked the bucket don't know what they're talking about. I mean, I posted a story today about Iran suddenly refusing to hand over her nuclear stockpiles as part of the nuclear talks. This is not a stable, trust-able region in the world.
6458
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:23:18 PM »
This is the most ironic thing you've said in this entire thread. Don't talk down to yourself like that. You've been arguing that case throughout this entire discussion, and now you're pretending that it's somehow not your argument? This is the kind of (logical) gymnastics that would give Mary Lou Retton a run for her money. What the fuck are you talking about? You do realise people can support wars and not be braindead, partisan neocons. . . Right? I don't think we can spread democracy throughout the Middle East with bombs and bullets for the same reason we aren't primarily to blame for ISIS's current "achievements". Believe it or not, events in countries with brown people aren't totally determined by the actions of us whiteys. The way you're handwaving all of their fuck-ups is basically doing just that. Except I'm not. You should know Iraq is one thing I support Bush on, and even then only marginally. And I'm no New Labour shill. What exactly do you want me to do? Get down on my hands and knees and promise to the Lord that I don't like Bush and Blair for what they did? Or do you want me to explicitly pick a side, because I'm in it for the interests of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs primarily. CONS OF INVADING IRAQ:
-Post 9/11 fearmongering Around a declaration made in 1998. Sucks, but hey, at least we know it wasn't an underlying cause of the prosecution of the war. -Countless lies by the Bush administration Which I condemn. -Mass surveillance caused by said fearmongering Which I also condemn. I don't why you think people lack enough nuance to actually differentiate between certain events. Although, mass surveillance -Countless abuse scandals that also hurt our standing Right, a few tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib begins to compare to the suffering, destitution and murder in the hundreds of thousands committed by Saddam. I mean, come on, have some fucking proportion. What do you think Saddam did in those prisons? -A false declaration of the 'end of combat operations' that made a farce of the military and the US in general Pretty sure Turkey dealt with that. -Boots still on the ground 12 years later Pretty sure I dealt with that. PROS OF INVADING IRAQ:
-Saddam go bye-bye (but for some reason Iraq is the only time this will happen, because non-reasons)
-Look, we found a penny WMDs that did not fit the adminstration's narrative and were consequently covered up, thus denying troops the necessary medical treatment
-Oh, and a slight majority the Iraqis feel good about the economy Let's not underplay these issues here. A much wanted war criminal was put on trial, the Kurdish and Shiite majority were rescued from the threat of renewed genocide from a State apparatus with a proven record of such intentions, people weren't fucking murdered for owning a satellite dish, the Mesopotamian Marshes have recovered, fresh oilfields were found and investments made, a federal state was established until Nouri al-Maliki fucked it up with his sectarianism, the Kurds were provided their own semblance of self-government and Qaddafi likely wouldn't have handed over his stockpile which allowed us to trace the network and accomplish what is probably the biggest anti-proliferation victory to date. And you want to compare this with Abu Ghraib and say it wasn't worth it? What the fuck are you smoking? You really want to try and balance something like 3,800 unfortunately and wrongly tortured prisoners with hundreds of thousands of murders, a lot of which with chemical weaponry? Why are we to blame for the instability clearly exacerbated by fundamentalist militants and their delusionally theocratic and pornographic views of what the world should be like? You need to ask yourself what a post-Saddam Iraq would look like without a coalition present. The Sunni-Shia sectarianism that exploded because of al-Maliki's idiocy? Nothing to temper it. The Jihadists already there would've been active and without proper opposition, even if they weren't funded by Iran. And Iran, by the way, probably would've pushed its own interests harder for the Shi'a majority, maybe even with some involvement from Hezbollah. The Saudis, of course, would have their own vested interests in the Sunni minority--and of course Iraq being a keystone oil state. And then the Turks would be stroking their wet fundamentalist cunts over the prospects Kurdistan afforded them. This disgusting idea that we somehow have no moral obligation to the people of Iraq and their suffering under one of the most brutal dictators in history is abhorrent. Much of our choice had already been forfeited in this matter, we were deeply involved in the death throes of Iraq way before 2003, and you think it would've been appropriate to let it play out? We've seen the results of the sort of things you're advocating, even if you say you would've supported intervention in places like Bosnia or East Timor. We've seen them in Rwanda, Burma and Darfur. And we're seeing them in places we unfortunately don't really have a good enough impetus to involve ourselves in like the Central African Republic and even North Korea. But I'll be fucked if I sit by and watch countries like Iraq turn into Sudan.
6459
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:44:31 PM »
None of the European NATO countries except for France and the UK are powerful enough to make invasion a bad idea on their own,
Don't be so kind. We're slipping below the 2pc.
6460
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:36:26 PM »
lol
He isn't wrong. The US has essentially been subsidising European defence since the Cold War.
6461
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:35:49 PM »
Literally no European Union whatsoever
Can you imagine the chaos? Yes, all the chaos of no undemocratic bureaucrats or ill-thought-out economic problems. Terrifying. Also, I'm not sure if increasing legislative powers of the EU Parliament=more sound overall financial system. The problem lies elsewhere when we examine the financial crisis. I didn't say it would. And the problem with the financial crisis were excessive levels of government debt coupled with a tight monetary policy. As I laid out in the OP.
6462
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:04:50 PM »
what are the positives of being part of the EU?
standing as a united bloc against the likes of Russia.
I don't see how you list that as a positive when NATO exists for that purpose.
Which is one of the reasons it's not substantial enough for me to think it game-changing. I'd rather see NATO strengthened.
6463
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:53:33 PM »
what are the positives of being part of the EU?
If I had to give two big positives it would be the protection of online privacy and standing as a united bloc against the likes of Russia. I don't think they're substantial enough to counteract the errors mentioned in the OP, but I have to give them credit for it. Flee could probably tell you more about the legal stuff.
6464
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:45:06 PM »
Oh!
Also, the cunts outlawed menthols.
Remember meta. Be a minty flavored cigarette drug lord.
I'll be a British version of Walter White. But instead of Blue Sky. . . Green Leaves. Yes. I like it.
6465
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:38:51 PM »
Oh!
Also, the cunts outlawed menthols.
6466
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:21:30 PM »
inb4 jidf shill flee
6467
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:08:26 PM »
Seemed fitting given the new avatar, and the potential referendum we Brits will have in a couple of years' time. The Eurozone, since 2008, has categorically remained the weakest link in the world economy. Despite historic praise for the economies of Germany and France, consumer confidence remains weak, and stagnation is a very pressing reality. For years, the influence of Germany has been exerted over other European nations; austerity has been single-mindedly implemented--especially in periphery nations like Greece, where debt is very high. And yet, only this year has the economy seen any pick-up with Mario Draghi's announcement of QE, much to the ire of the Germans. Austerity without monetary offset--especially imposed wholesale across a supranational economy--is one of the best recipes for disaster you could ever have. As an aside, it has the fortunate consequence of proving me essentially correct in my assertion that the economic problems we face are monetary, not financial, debt-based or structural. Depression-level unemployment rates eat at the social and economic hearts of various peripheral countries; 14pc in Portugal, 25pc in Spain and Greece. 10pc in Ireland and 12pc in Italy. The International Monetary Fund basically apologised in 2013 for its austerity recommendations. Despite, of course, fiscal austerity being a valid response to sky-high deficits and unsustainable levels of debt, provided monetary expansion. And, as I said, the Bundesbank has made sure the ECB stays tighter than a nun's cunt. One of the problems, of course, of monetary policy failures is that they're imposed upon the whole economy. If the Federal Reserve underestimates the need for liquidity in the economy (as it did in late 2007 and 1929) it can spark off a recession. If you combine that with a looming debt crisis (as it did in 2008) it can throw the whole financial system into chaos. The problems are only magnified with monetary unions. And, of course, when you have a serious looming problem with sovereign debt--as with Greece--which is again combined with monetary tightness: problems. Not only did the Recession tip the Greek debt issue over the edge, but the Greek debt issue futher contributed to Europe's debt problems as a whole, as financial intermediation was thrown under the bus and confidence-based expectations in the market were destroyed. In terms of politics, the European Union is undemocratic. The European Parliament is no parliament; it lacks the ability to propose legislation, which itself comes from the unelected European Commission. While the powers of the Parliament have been strengthened in recent years to hold the Commission accountable, it simply isn't enough. The European Commission encouraged the Portuguese government to ignore a ruling by the Constitutional Court which rejected the austerity measures, on the threat of reduced funding. In order for the European Union to actually work, it would need significant power at its centre--which is also accountable--a union on fiscal policy and a continent-wide safety net. None of these are even feasible, or worth their potential costs by any metric. It's a failed experiment, and it's time we treated it like one. Spoiler >europe is the weakest link in world economy
>austerity has been single-mindedly applied and failed miserably
>unemployment remains sky-high
>debt problems were exacerbated by the european central bank
>all as a result of having a collegial international arrangement
>it is undemocratic and inserts itself into other countries' systems of governance
6468
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:36:33 PM »
You've just now seen this?
No, I just wanted to bring it back up.
6469
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:35:29 PM »
Ukraine, easy.
Also, I might just do a post on why I hate the European Union.
6470
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:21:39 PM »
Anglosphere military/trade organization when
when based farage is PM
6471
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:10:52 PM »
Then we can have a good EU.
We can never have a good EU.
6472
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:06:46 PM »
Father who blamed police for not stopping his daughter joining ISIS screams 'burn USA' - and stands just feet from Lee Rigby's killer - at Muslim demoHis face twisted in fury, Abase Hussen punches his fist into the air and launches into an Islamic war cry.
‘Burn, burn USA,’ he yells from his prime spot at the front of one of the most notorious rallies in recent times.
Once the crowd is whipped into a fever, an American flag is set on fire and held aloft by a fanatic. Video footage shows Mr Hussen desperately trying to hold the burning flag as the chanting behind him intensifies.
He manages to grab the flag briefly before being forced to drop it because of the power of the smoke and flames.
As the remainder of the flag burns on the ground, Mr Hussen chants ‘Allahu Akbar’.
He pushes the palm of his hand repeatedly toward the embers, rejoicing at the destruction of the stars and stripes.
Mr Hussen – the father of one of the three schoolgirls who fled Britain to join Islamic State – then turns his attention to a burning Israeli flag on the floor and begins to chant and gesture toward it.
He is one of a dozen fanatics standing behind a banner which proclaims: ‘The followers of Mohammed will conquer America.’ Behind him, hundreds of fanatics repeatedly chant incendiary slogans while holding menacing black jihadi flags.
Among the rabble-rousers was notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary, who has led a number of Islamist groups that were subsequently banned.
Alongside him stood Michael Adebowale, one of the two Muslim converts who murdered and almost beheaded Fusilier Lee Rigby in the name of Allah eight months later.
Abu Izzadeen, infamous for heckling former Home Secretary John Reid in 2006, also led some of the chanting.
But last month Mr Hussen gave evidence to Parliament refusing to accept any responsibility for the three schoolgirls’ actions, instead seeking to blame the police, teachers, Turkish officials and others.
In an extraordinary exchange at the home affairs select committee, Mr Hussen, who was with the families of the other two girls, denied even knowing what Islamic radicalisation was.
‘As for me, I don’t know the symptoms even — what radicalisation is,’ he told MPs.
Mr Hussen also repeatedly blasted the Metropolitan Police for handing a letter to his daughter requesting parental permission to speak to the girls about a friend who had earlier travelled to Syria. He said police officers should have given it directly to the families.
He said: ‘I strongly disagree with the letter being given to 15-year-old girls. The word “police” by itself and “terrorism” or “counter-terrorism”, as global issues – it is a heavy burden for a 15-year-old to deal with that. We also feel that we are neglected as parents.
‘We are supposed to know these things. We are the guardians. The letter destructs our daughter, destructs our family and terrorises our children. What we want to know is: apart from this letter, what was the verbal conversation with this child? I know my daughter. She is the kind of girl who, if it is sunset, she will call me to pick her up.
‘How on earth she travelled abroad to join ISIS, is a very difficult question for us to answer – even to predicate. The letter terrified my daughter.’
The families were led by their lawyer Tasnime Akunjee, once the representative of a close associate of the Woolwich killers, who repeatedly demanded an apology.
Mr Akunjee, who has posted extremist views on his Facebook page, accused Scotland Yard of a catalogue of errors in its handling of the disappearance of the trio in February and their close friend in December.
In a 45-minute grilling in front of the families, Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe was forced to apologise for failing to communicate more directly with the families. Giving evidence to the committee, Mr Hussen claimed he did not know that his daughter Amira might have been exposed to radical views.
Chairman Keith Vaz pressed him on this point, asking him: ‘Did it come to your attention in any way that they were involved in the kinds of things that it is alleged that they were involved in following this becoming public?’ Mr Hussen replied: ‘Not at all. Nothing.’
What the MPs were not told was that Mr Hussen was caught on camera in one of a wave of demonstrations that took place across the world in September 2012.
Thousands had taken to the streets to protest against an obscure film called Innocence of Muslims, criticised for ridiculing Islam.
In London, more than 150 clashed with police outside the US embassy. They included Luton radicals Abu Rahin Aziz, who is fighting for Islamic State, and Saiful Islam, who was the subject of a Channel 4 exposé called Proud and Prejudiced.
Rahin Aziz has called for Theresa May to be executed, suggested that Islamic State-style executions take place in Trafalgar Square and threatened to blow up Big Ben.
Last night members of the Commons committee expressed their shock and astonishment over Mr Hussen’s activities.
Labour MP Ian Austin said: ‘It is extraordinary that this man blamed the police, the Government, the school, the Turkish government and everyone else for his daughter’s decision to go to Syria but failed to mention his own involvement in an appalling Islamist rally. Perhaps the committee should invite Mr Hussen back so he can explain what he was doing.’
Tory MP Michael Ellis, who also sits on the committee, said: ‘This will come as a surprise to those who heard criticism of the police and school. This raises serious questions about the potential negative influence on an impressionable young mind.’
Mr Vaz said: ‘It is clear that families and communities need to take greater responsibility for protecting young people who could be at risk of radicalisation.
‘Witnesses before the committee are responsible for their own statements. When Mr Hussen gave evidence, he said he had no idea that his daughter had been involved in radicalisation or had been radicalised.’
Amira fled with her friends Shamima Begum, 15, and Kadiza Sultana, 16, from their homes in east London to Syria last month.
The trio were following in the footsteps of Sharmeena Begum, who left their school, Bethnal Green Academy in East London, to go to Syria in December.
Scotland Yard said it would examine the footage to see if any offences had been committed. Disgusting cunt.
6473
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:58:42 PM »
The BNP is! With their creepy-ass adverts.
6474
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:49:26 PM »
Would you meet with me if I went to Birmingham?
FAKKEN ELL GUVNOR I might do, actually, depending on when I'm free or if I can get there. Aren't you meeting Gatsby in London sometime soon, too?
6475
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:45:52 PM »
I think you're massively underselling the extent of conversation and discussion among intelligent people, and overselling the power of a movie to influence the way people think.
I don't know how it goes in the UK but here in America, that couldn't be more untrue.
We have a pretty politicised education system here. Most teachers are unionised, openly critical of the current Conservative government, my history teacher is pretty anti-UKIP and my politics teacher has a big problem with Israel and Republicans. But, nobody really cares. It's not supposed to be politicised, but teachers are people too and everybody I know seems willing enough to look past the obvious left-wing bias among teachers here.
6477
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:36:39 PM »
Have you seen this movie? The fact that it's a terrible movie completely aside, calling it a "conservative movie" is quite the understatement. The entire movie has been critiqued for being a massive straw man, a piece of propaganda with the sole purpose of casually ignoring any sort of critical thinking and providing a staggering display of twisting facts. It is a populist appeal to emotion that has no place in an educational program without there being a proper counterweight. As if that doesn't already exist, and kids aren't already exposed to that. For comparison's sake, would you have the same reaction if this was a pro EU film? I wouldn't care. I'm actually capable of making up my own mind. I used to have a science teacher in Middle School who would relentlessly show us The Day After Tomorrow and, essentially, present it as a factual account of what would occur if global warming weren't dealt with. It's not a good idea, but it's absolutely nothing to begin calling authoritarian. I think you're massively underselling the extent of conversation and discussion among intelligent people, and overselling the power of a movie to influence the way people think.
6478
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:29:18 PM »
I'm actually going to watch the movie right now.
EDIT: Scratch that, Youtube upload is a bust.
6479
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:13:11 PM »
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. Country of the free indeed.
Having kids see a conservative movie is now a violation of their freedom? They're seeing a movie with a certain slant on American history, not attending the Two Minutes Hate.
6480
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:08:23 PM »
I really don't see a problem with it.
So the kids get to see a movie that offers a different perspective on America. Big fucking deal.
Pages: 1 ... 214215216 217218 ... 502
|
Show Posts