Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I’ll vote for you.

Matthew 14:15
[/quote]
???[/quote]

15:14
[/quote]
I am going to regret asking this, I just know it. Why are you quoting scripture at me?[/quote]

â??The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!â??

â?? William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice[/quote]

Careful, Genghis. Antonio was talking about DA JOOOZ in that line.

The way this thread is going, someone is bound to accuse you of being a sympathizer of anti-semitism.

422

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Hitler didn’t kill a single Jew.[/quote]

Personally? With his own hands? No, you’re right. Come to think of it, I don’t believe he did.

I’ve got a feeling, though, that Stalin was, like Peter the Great before him, more of a hands-on kind of guy.

423

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I said it was safer than in 2011. And I evidenced this. Refute my numbers, show why they are inferior to some other evidence, or move along. And stop pretending that the civil war was caused by the intervention. I’m not teaching you any more about Libya Without getting paid.[/quote]

Safer than it was in 2011? Not what I’m talking about. I’m saying safer under Qaddafi in general, over the entire time of his rule.

[/quote]

I’d wager transatlantic air travelers and German disco dancers are safer without him, if we are considering “the entire time of his rule.”
[/quote]

I get what you are saying, but Smh has limited the conversation to the citizens of Libya. I would say the people of Libya had more security and prosperity under Qaddafi than under the rule of Islamic militias struggling for power, but what do I know.

424

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Hitler didn’t kill a single Jew.[/quote]

Personally? With his own hands? No, you’re right. Come to think of it, I don’t believe he did.

I’ve got a feeling, though, that Stalin was, like Peter the Great before him, more of a hands-on kind of guy.[/quote]

And of course Ivan the Terrible as well.

425

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I am not dodging anything. I am telling you outright that there isn’t a chance in hell I’m wasting my time talking with you about the Iraq War, because every time I’ve argued something with you, I’ve spent far too much time teaching you things about what you’re trying to argue, and then reiterating simple points ad nauseum while you struggle to convey a single intelligible thought. I pause here to note that yesterday you tried to argue that Obama was inciting violence by citing an article in which he was explicitly said to have pleaded for peace. This is the kind of idiocy that requires a mea culpa or, you know, an explanation, but you just pressed ahead.
[/quote]

Since you won’t answer a simple question, I’m willing to bet since you think it’s great that Obama and NATO bombed the hell out of Libya and helped bring down Qaddafi, you are a proponent of the Iraqi war as well. After all, two dictators taken down by a coalition of Western forces leaving anarchy and terrorists in their wake.

What’s not to like?

Smh- proponent of Iraq War.

426

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Hitler didn’t kill a single Jew.[/quote]

Personally? With his own hands? No, you’re right. Come to think of it, I don’t believe he did.

I’ve got a feeling, though, that Stalin was, like Peter the Great before him, more of a hands-on kind of guy.[/quote]

And of course Ivan the Terrible as well.[/quote]

Well, yeah. You don’t get a nickname like “The Terrible” by keeping your hands clean, or caring too much about your opinion polls.

427

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I am not dodging anything. I am telling you outright that there isn’t a chance in hell I’m wasting my time talking with you about the Iraq War, because every time I’ve argued something with you, I’ve spent far too much time teaching you things about what you’re trying to argue, and then reiterating simple points ad nauseum while you struggle to convey a single intelligible thought. I pause here to note that yesterday you tried to argue that Obama was inciting violence by citing an article in which he was explicitly said to have pleaded for peace. This is the kind of idiocy that requires a mea culpa or, you know, an explanation, but you just pressed ahead.
[/quote]

Since you won’t answer a simple question, I’m willing to bet since you think it’s great that Obama and NATO bombed the hell out of Libya and helped bring down Qaddafi, you are a proponent of the Iraqi war as well. After all, two dictators taken down by a coalition of Western forces leaving anarchy and terrorists in their wake.

What’s not to like?

Smh- proponent of Iraq War.[/quote]

Yes – being that the casus belli, scope, and financial and human cost of the one was, give or take a smidgen, identical to the other, this deduction of yours is near-Holmesian in its strength and unassailability.

428

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Yes – being that the casus belli, scope, and financial and human cost of the one was, give or take a smidgen, identical to the other, this deduction of yours is near-Holmesian in its strength and unassailability.[/quote]

You said taking down dictators and replacing them with no central government, anarchy and terrorists makes a country safer. If the scope, financial and human cost of the Iraq bellum was greater, it should be a greater victory for the causes of chaos, no?

Well, maybe not.

Did you support the First Gulf War? It may be more comparable to the Libyan “bellum” in that we bombed a lot more military hardware. Not as many lives were lost, & the expenditure and scope was less. Oh wait, you won’t answer a question…

Smh- proponent of bellum involving bombing military hardware and stopping dictators as long as the scope and human cost is low…

Smh-proponent of First Gulf bellum & possibly Clinton’s attack on Sudan & Afghanistan.

429

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Yes – being that the casus belli, scope, and financial and human cost of the one was, give or take a smidgen, identical to the other, this deduction of yours is near-Holmesian in its strength and unassailability.[/quote]

You said taking down dictators and replacing them with no central government, anarchy and terrorists makes a country safer. If the scope, financial and human cost of the Iraq bellum was greater, it should be a greater victory for the causes of chaos, no?
[/quote]

I said that Libya today is safer, objectively, than at the time of the invasion. I evidenced this. I also said that we didn’t replace terrorist-free order with chaos, as you continue to stupidly claim. We replaced highly violent chaos (which – pay attention now, because I keep having to remind you of this – is what a civil war is) with, ultimately, less violent chaos.

Now, my posts are attended by numbers and evidence, and my positions follow from these. You haven’t come up with something remotely resembling that kind of formula. There are, in fact, legitimate answers to my position, and if you were to give one of these answers, I could counter. And we would then have a real debate. But you can’t seem to manage that Augean task. What I’m telling you here is that I could have a better debate about Libya with myself, and, of course, with most others here, than this mess in which you continue to ask questions in substance-less posts full of non-arguments. As with each other time I’ve argued with you, you are contributing nothing while struggling, it seems, to understand even the most basic shit about the matter at hand. And I add, again, that in trying to evidence a man’s inciting others to violence, you posted, somewhere back in this sprawling sea-monster of a thread, an article in which the prenominate man was said to have registered pleas for peace. This remains unaddressed, and it really shouldn’t, because it’s a top-five PWI blunder of all time, so far as I can recall.

Anyway. That’s about it.

430

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

“According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13.”

We killed quite a lot ourselves didn’t we? [/quote]

The number you cite above is widely considered to be misinformation and propaganda from the Gaddafi government. The United Nations Human Rights Council released a comprehensive report at the end of hostilities that concluded that in total 60 civilians were killed and 55 wounded by the NATO air campaign.

There were no deaths at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. You interject policy recommendations in foreign policy discussions, yet you don’t have a grasp of international relations 101. If you did, you would know the difference between an embassy and a consulate, in addition to the salient facts of the Benghazi attack.

When vast swaths of territory in a state are under the control of a grassroots insurgency, the last thing I would call the sovereign is “in charge”. Had it not been for Operation Unified Protector, the civil war would likely have become a Syria-esque quagmire. It’s disconcerting enough that the perpetual civil war in Syria has created a jihadist beehive. Without NATO intervention, the Maghreb would have likely followed suit.

431

Saying the bombing of Libya was a great success because we replaced chaos with more chaos boggles the mind. As stupid as ignoring the fact that the president inserted himself into a situation in which he called for peace yet used the slogans of the protestors in his speech. And bis, we are in a war on terror no? Yet when kadaffi said he was battling insurgents with al Qaeda ties and we proceeded to bomb him it was as assinine as saying the attacks on the consulate (there now you can get her panties out of a bunch) was provoked by a movie.

432

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Saying the bombing of Libya was a great success because we replaced chaos with more chaos boggles the mind.[/quote]

  1. Who used the term “great success”? The country is objectively safer today than it was at the time of the intervention, and it has been for years, per explicit and direct evidence already provided to you.

  2. The point has been made again and again for you that the country’s present chaotic conflict, while not ideal, is ten-fold less severe than that at the time of the intervention.

Bearing in mind the two foregoing points: When you pretend that anyone has said that Libya was “a great success” because “we replaced chaos with more chaos,” you’re creating what is called a strawman. This is a common fallacy, and when somebody does it once – hell, I’ve surely done it before – it’s understandable. It’s something that happens from time to time. That you’ve been operating at this benthic level since this conversation began, however, makes your posts not worth responding to, so I won’t anymore.

Edited.

433

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

“According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13.”

We killed quite a lot ourselves didn’t we? [/quote]

The number you cite above is widely considered to be misinformation and propaganda from the Gaddafi government. The United Nations Human Rights Council released a comprehensive report at the end of hostilities that concluded that in total 60 civilians were killed and 55 wounded by the NATO air campaign.

There were no deaths at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. You interject policy recommendations in foreign policy discussions, yet you don’t have a grasp of international relations 101. If you did, you would know the difference between an embassy and a consulate, in addition to the salient facts of the Benghazi attack.

When vast swaths of territory in a state are under the control of a grassroots insurgency, the last thing I would call the sovereign is “in charge”. Had it not been for Operation Unified Protector, the civil war would likely have become a Syria-esque quagmire. It’s disconcerting enough that the perpetual civil war in Syria has created a jihadist beehive. Without NATO intervention, the Maghreb would have likely followed suit.[/quote]

Great post.

And great catch on “embassy.” I’m embarrassed to say that after Gkhan made the error, I responded hastily and repeated it, despite my generally trying to avoid the consulate/embassy solecism.

More importantly, this…

“When vast swaths of territory in a state are under the control of a grassroots insurgency, the last thing I would call the sovereign is “in charge”. Had it not been for Operation Unified Protector, the civil war would likely have become a Syria-esque quagmire. It’s disconcerting enough that the perpetual civil war in Syria has created a jihadist beehive. Without NATO intervention, the Maghreb would have likely followed suit.”

…is spot on. “Troubled today” =/= “Worse off than during a much bloodier civil war.”

434
435

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And great catch on “embassy.” I’m embarrassed to say that after Gkhan made the error, I responded hastily and repeated it, despite my generally trying to avoid the consulate/embassy solecism.[/quote]

Really? Is that what happened? Funny, I also responded hastily and did not avoid the consulate/embassy solecism myself.

What a coincidence.

Fast typings a bitch, ain’t it?

436

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
your posts not worth responding to, so I won’t anymore.

Edited.
[/quote]

Cool with me, I said the bombing made Libya less safe. You took it to mean for it’s citizens post 2011. When I tried to widen the scope of the argument saying that the bombing made THE ENTIRE REGION unstable because it’s now a country with no central government and home to Islamic terrorists and tried to widen the scope of the argument as to not just being about the civil war and after, but the entire length of Qaddafi’s rule, you ignored it and kept going back to worthless numbers you posted which do not prove anything besides ONE point you could actually, allegedly prove.

SMH- a country with no central government and ruled by warring militias tied to the ISlamic State and Al-Qaeda is a lot safer to the world than one ruled by a despotic strong man who gave up his nuclear weapons program, arrested terrorists and was basically at war with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for possibly 20 years.

Gotcha. No need for further argument.

At least the Libyan death tolls down for the moment.

437

I just can’t resist, I guess.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
When I tried to widen the scope… [/quote]

…i.e., when you lost round one and, without saying so, tried to move the goalposts about. But more on that “scope” here:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

SMH- a country with no central government and ruled by warring militias tied to the ISlamic State and Al-Qaeda is a lot safer to the world than one ruled by a despotic strong man who gave up his nuclear weapons program, arrested terrorists and was basically at war with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for possibly 20 years. [/quote]

At the time of the intervention, Libya did not have a central government, and it was not “ruled by a despotic strongman.” It was in the middle of a civil war – one more violent than the current conflict by a factor of ten – and the entire eastern section of the country, along with two of the three largest Libyan cities, had fallen to the rebels. You obviously aren’t aware of this, which makes this the fourth or fifth occasion (in the last day) on which you’ve failed to indicate even a passing understanding of what you’re trying to argue. Why you think it’s worthwhile to express opinions born of an almost total ignorance about something you didn’t care enough to follow closely at the time – this is the great mystery of this thread.

438

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And great catch on “embassy.” I’m embarrassed to say that after Gkhan made the error, I responded hastily and repeated it, despite my generally trying to avoid the consulate/embassy solecism.[/quote]

Really? Is that what happened?[/quote]

Yeah, it is. I never said it didn’t happen to you too.

439

Safer for Coptics?

For Oil Workers? Foreigners?

440

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Safer for Coptics?

For Oil Workers? Foreigners?

[/quote]

Ah, so now we move to the phase in which you, unable to respond to an argument built on data incorporating tens of thousands of casualties, begin Googling and posting news reports with lines like “13 dead.” You are a walking encyclopedia of fallacy.