[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
(Links?)
[/quote]
You lost this on literally every front, and every time you did, you just tried something new. And now you need a link for the basic shit we said about the state of Libya at the time of the intervention?
…So you don’t have a fucking clue about this thing you’ve been wasting my time arguing for the last day?
Not that this is news.[/quote]
I didn’t lose anything buddy, Obama’s bombing of Libya was a failure, a foreign policy disaster.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.[/quote]
I think beans was just pointing out his socialist tendencies too. Besides, it’s not “evolving right-wing terminology”. It’s quite correct to identify socialism as a form of Communism. It’s Communism lite. It’s a semantic game whoever you are arguing with. He’s a Commie. A Western Marxist and a European socialist constitute Commies in my book and always have.[/quote]
I don’t care about your personal terminology any more than I care about the Left’s. That;s why when you “clarified,” I stopped addressing you on this issue. You’re saying “he’s a commie, but oh I use the term commie to mean something that it doesn’t from any legitimate historical or ideological perspective.” Go ahead.[/quote]
I am using the correct historical terminology. When I say Commie I mean the same damn thing that Joe McCarthy meant and he was right as I explained earlier in this thread.[/quote]
No, you aren’t using it remotely correctly, and no, you dont mean the same thing he did. He was talking about Commmunism. This is a ludicrous post and the end of my involvement here.[/quote]
Okay, but I stand by my terminology. European style socialism is just Bolshevism lite. Ask anyone from Eastern Europe or Latin America who fled real, Communist terrorism what they think of Obama. They all hate him and see him as another Chavez type socialist / Commie. I’m not going to mince words. It’s the same thing we’ve been fighting since the French Revolution; Jacobinism, Bolshevism, Western Marxism - all just mildly different manifestations of the same destructive impulse to tear down the social and / or economic structure; class warfare; division; stasis.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Okay, but I stand by my terminology. European style socialism is just Bolshevism lite. Ask anyone from Eastern Europe or Latin America who fled real, Communist terrorism what they think of Obama. They all hate him and see him as another Chavez type socialist / Commie. I’m not going to mince words. It’s the same thing we’ve been fighting since the French Revolution; Jacobinism, Bolshevism, Western Marxism - all just mildly different manifestations of the same destructive impulse to tear down the social and / or economic structure; class warfare; division; stasis.[/quote]
Serious as shit, I met a guy from a communist country, don’t exactly remember if it was Russia, but it was definitely from Eastern Europe. The guy lived under Communism. He said he tried all his life to escape that system, came to the United States and now sees the same thing going on here. And he was talking about Obama’s leadership.
If I remember correctly it may have been at an early Tea Party rally in my home town. I get to go a lot of things like that not that I condone it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Okay, but I stand by my terminology. European style socialism is just Bolshevism lite. Ask anyone from Eastern Europe or Latin America who fled real, Communist terrorism what they think of Obama. They all hate him and see him as another Chavez type socialist / Commie. I’m not going to mince words. It’s the same thing we’ve been fighting since the French Revolution; Jacobinism, Bolshevism, Western Marxism - all just mildly different manifestations of the same destructive impulse to tear down the social and / or economic structure; class warfare; division; stasis.[/quote]
Serious as shit, I met a guy from a communist country, don’t exactly remember if it was Russia, but it was definitely from Eastern Europe. The guy lived under Communism. He said he tried all his life to escape that system, came to the United States and now sees the same thing going on here. And he was talking about Obama’s leadership.[/quote]
Yes and the same thing was happening in the 50’s as I mentioned before. The Labor Anti-Communist party here that split from Labor had a huge contingent of Eastern Europeans who had fled Stalinism, were familiar with the insidious tactics and psychological warfare of the Soviets and recognised the same forces within the mainstream left in the largest political party in the country. These forces are always there under the surface festering away and they sow division and take advantage of it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
(Links?)
[/quote]
You lost this on literally every front, and every time you did, you just tried something new. And now you need a link for the basic shit we said about the state of Libya at the time of the intervention?
…So you don’t have a fucking clue about this thing you’ve been wasting my time arguing for the last day?
Not that this is news.[/quote]
I didn’t lose anything buddy, Obama’s bombing of Libya was a failure, a foreign policy disaster.
[/quote]
Read over the last couple of pages for a view of reality. You literally lost each point you tried to bring up, and you lost each on grounds of hard evidence and historical fact, again and again and again. From casualty numbers to the “central government” and “strongman” you dreamt up in a war-torn, patchworked battleground enormous swaths of which belonged to the rebels along with 2 of the country’s 3 largest cities.
But I can’t really blame you: you just learned all this. You admitted, just about explicitly, that you don’t have the first fucking clue about anything I’m talking about.
But, despite your not having made one cogent point throughout this mess, and despite your open ignorance of the bare facts on which you’re opining, this isn’t the stupidest part of your participation in this thread. That honor goes to your still unacknowledged citation, in trying to show that Obama incited violence, of an article alleging him to have pleaded for peace. I am harping on this because – and this is not hyperbole – it’s the stupidest non-trolling thing I’ve seen on PWI in a long long time, and you think that if you don’t address it, it didn’t happen. It did.
Back to Libya. Read a lot about it, and then come back for an argument if you want to. Otherwise, do yourself the favor…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Back to Libya. Read a lot about it, and then come back for an argument if you want to. Otherwise, do yourself the favor…[/quote]
All you’ve done is attack me.
What about the points I brought up?
You yourself said Libya was not a success. What is the opposite of success? Failure.
A failed state is in no way a success.
Obama failed because he hastened the country into the hands of extremists.
I linked articles, which obviously went right over your head, showing this.
Since it was not about the ONE TOPIC you choose to argue about you simply ignored it or do not know the relevance of what I was posting.
Figures.
Question: (not that I’ll ever get an answer, you’ll just tell me how safe Libya is, though obviously not for Coptics, foreigners, Consulates, Oil Workers or the general public…)
Is the country better off under Qaddafi or Isis?
What makes you think I’m going to keep answering your questions, or explaining why they are stupid, when you continue to deal in fallacy? I have explained a pathetic number of times now that I didn’t say Libya is safe, I said it is safer than at the time of the intervention. I added data and evidence to this – data and evidence you didn’t refute (and hadn’t been aware of, which I know because you have said in a few different explicit and implicit ways now that you don’t understand this issue on even a basic level).
Your response was a small but thorough compendium of fallacious reasoning, including what you’ve added here again: the “not safe for X” line, which relies on a couple things you Googled (like a story about a dozen or so dead people) , and which, as I’ve already explained, does NOTHING to an argument built of data about tens of thousands of casualties. (But not just that: there are also the historical facts about Libya’s state at the time of the intervention. The ones you learned today.)
All this, and you think I’ll just go along with pretending you’re doing OK here and allowing you to forget all the stupid shit you’ve tried so that we can take another step and see what more stupid shit you can come up with? No, I’m pretty sure you’re trolling now.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
CASUS BELLI!
Had to.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I have explained a pathetic number of times now that I didn’t say Libya is safe, I said it is safer than at the time of the intervention. I added data and evidence to this – data and evidence you didn’t refute (and hadn’t been aware of, which I know because you have said in a few different explicit and implicit ways now that you don’t understand this issue on even a basic level).[/quote]
Funny thing, this isn’t even the issue.
I have explained the issue several times in numerous points, but this is what you keep coming back to: Libya is safer than in the time in the intervention. Fine. You’ve proven your ONE point.
The intervention STILL opened the door to an invasion by ISIS which any moron could have seen happening a mile away, which I proved by linking articles which you choose to ridicule because their meaning clearly went over your head.
The intervention was a failure because it’s sole goal was to take down the military of the government of Libya so one side could not wage war thereby opening the door to the revolution of the country by terrorists and the current failed state status endangering the region and the world.
But it’s all good because Libya’s safer for the extremists living there now before the intervention. Ok, well good.
Bonam diem, buddy.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
Here’s the one I meant to post.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I have explained a pathetic number of times now that I didn’t say Libya is safe, I said it is safer than at the time of the intervention. I added data and evidence to this – data and evidence you didn’t refute (and hadn’t been aware of, which I know because you have said in a few different explicit and implicit ways now that you don’t understand this issue on even a basic level).[/quote]
Funny thing, this isn’t even the issue.
I have explained the issue several times in numerous points, but this is what you keep coming back to: Libya is safer than in the time in the intervention. Fine. You’ve proven your ONE point.
The intervention STILL opened the door to an invasion by ISIS which any moron could have seen happening a mile away, which I proved by linking articles which you choose to ridicule because their meaning clearly went over your head.
The intervention was a failure because it’s sole goal was to take down the military of the government of Libya so one side could not wage war thereby opening the door to the revolution of the country by terrorists and the current failed state status endangering the region and the world.
[/quote]
This has also all been addressed, and, as you seem not to have noticed, it is linked inextricably with the material on the violence and intensity and duration of the fighting.
This is the very short version (the longer version incorporates the stuff you hadn’t known about what Libya looked like in 2011, plus other stuff about the LIFG): Without the intervention, the civil war as it looked and acted in 2011 drags on, yes? And with the civil war dragging on, and the status quo of daily war further calcifying, the conflict looks more like that in Syria – yes? – with a continuous, intense, and bloody war between a government and a patchwork of various (and variously ideological) rebel groups. And what has Syria taught us about such protracted, bloody civil wars in the Muslim Middle East circa 2015? That they are the the wet, dank shitholes in which extremism thrives like fungal infection. Without the intervention, we could well have today, instead of Isis spreading westward into Libya, Isils (note the spelling) flowing out of all three war-torn terrorist training grounds. Counterfactuals are really bullshit, though, so suffice it to say that we know that, other things being equal, the bloodier and longer the civil war in the 21st-century Islamic country, the greater its generation and output of extremist, Utopian Caliphatist cancer.
But you can go on with your I-watched-Hannity-once, know-nothing, literally evidence-free argument by asking some or another rhetorical question, or linking to an article you found on Google and half-read.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it ~six times in the last two days, explicitly explaining why it was so stupid, and just now you’ve become curious enough to see what I was talking about? To discover that you “grabbed the wrong one”? If you’re arguing with someone about something, there are certain things you can’t do. You can call him a dick, you can tell him he’s delusional or stupid. But this kind of shit – ignoring specific attacks on your terrible evidence, and then going back and pretending that it was just a little mix-up once it becomes clear it isn’t going away – is a big no.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it ~six times in the last two days, explicitly explaining why it was so stupid, and just now you’ve become curious enough to see what I was talking about? To discover that you “grabbed the wrong one”? If you’re arguing with someone about something, there are certain things you can’t do. You can call him a dick, you can tell him he’s delusional or stupid. But this kind of shit – ignoring specific attacks on your terrible evidence, and then going back and pretending that it was just a little mix-up once it becomes clear it isn’t going away – is a big no.[/quote]
Just like mixing up embassy with consulate is only a big deal if I do it?
Right.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it ~six times in the last two days, explicitly explaining why it was so stupid, and just now you’ve become curious enough to see what I was talking about? To discover that you “grabbed the wrong one”? If you’re arguing with someone about something, there are certain things you can’t do. You can call him a dick, you can tell him he’s delusional or stupid. But this kind of shit – ignoring specific attacks on your terrible evidence, and then going back and pretending that it was just a little mix-up once it becomes clear it isn’t going away – is a big no.[/quote]
Just like mixing up embassy with consulate is only a big deal if I do it?
Right.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a big deal if you do ot. It isn’t a big deal at all. It isnt a big deal at all, and it’s not remotely comparable to what I described above. It’s the fucking opposite, in fact: I was owning my having repeated it, because you were called on it and I hadn’t been. You don’t seem to be following this discussion, which is weird, because your one of two engaged in it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
instead of Isis spreading westward into Libya, Isils (note the spelling) flowing out of all three war-torn terrorist training grounds. [/quote]
And we have this now? No?
YES the intervention stopped a long drawn out civil war, and YES there are less deaths due to fighting now so you are correct on those two points, but ISIS ISIL or ISIL or WTFYWCT, are still in Libya and still killing people.
Possibly if we hadn’t eliminated Qaddafi’s military, (YES the war would have dragged on longer,) he may have been able to crush the rebellion (he said he was fighting al-Qaeda after all, proved he was willing to play ball with the West by giving up his nuclear program, arresting terrorist suspects and taking on al-Qaeda, so why’d we turn on him?) and the region wouldn’t be in the mess it is today.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it ~six times in the last two days, explicitly explaining why it was so stupid, and just now you’ve become curious enough to see what I was talking about? To discover that you “grabbed the wrong one”? If you’re arguing with someone about something, there are certain things you can’t do. You can call him a dick, you can tell him he’s delusional or stupid. But this kind of shit – ignoring specific attacks on your terrible evidence, and then going back and pretending that it was just a little mix-up once it becomes clear it isn’t going away – is a big no.[/quote]
Just like mixing up embassy with consulate is only a big deal if I do it?
Right.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a big deal if you do ot. It isn’t a big deal at all. It isnt a big deal at all, and it’s not remotely comparable to what I described above. It’s the fucking opposite, in fact: I was owning my having repeated it, because you were called on it and I hadn’t been. You don’t seem to be following this discussion, which is weird, because your one of two engaged in it.
[/quote]
In any event, I posted another article whether you want to believe it is the one I originally wanted to post but didn’t by mistake is entirely your prerogative but did you even read it? The real article, that is? You know, the one I posted a couple back?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
YES the intervention stopped a long drawn out civil war, and YES there are less deaths due to fighting now so you are correct on those two points, but ISIS ISIL or ISIL or WTFYWCT[/quote]
I was not correcting your use of the term. I was inventing a new hypothetical name (the “L” was Libya) for the group vis-a-vis the counterfactual. This was pretty obvious.
The region wouldn’t be in the mess it is today? This is ludicrous. Lots of things can follow “possibly.” What we know about these protracted civil wars in Muslim countries circa 2015 is what I said said we know about them. Go back and re-read that if you want to, I’m not re-making arguments for you anymore. There is every reason to believe that a longer and bloodier civil war, like Syria’s, would have had a similar effect in Libya. Either way, you can certainly see now that tossing the word “Libya” into a Gish Gallop about all teh failurez is not the great argument you think it is, and that an understanding of, at the very very least, a matter’s most basic details must precede an argument about it. I no longer have the time to do this, so that’s it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obama-and-the-roots-of-the-ferguson-rage/
I went back and re-read the article you said I posted and you are right. I must have grabbed the wrong one.
[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it ~six times in the last two days, explicitly explaining why it was so stupid, and just now you’ve become curious enough to see what I was talking about? To discover that you “grabbed the wrong one”? If you’re arguing with someone about something, there are certain things you can’t do. You can call him a dick, you can tell him he’s delusional or stupid. But this kind of shit – ignoring specific attacks on your terrible evidence, and then going back and pretending that it was just a little mix-up once it becomes clear it isn’t going away – is a big no.[/quote]
Just like mixing up embassy with consulate is only a big deal if I do it?
Right.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a big deal if you do ot. It isn’t a big deal at all. It isnt a big deal at all, and it’s not remotely comparable to what I described above. It’s the fucking opposite, in fact: I was owning my having repeated it, because you were called on it and I hadn’t been. You don’t seem to be following this discussion, which is weird, because your one of two engaged in it.
[/quote]
In any event, I posted another article whether you want to believe it is the one I originally wanted to post but didn’t by mistake is entirely your prerogative but did you even read it? The real article, that is? You know, the one I posted a couple back?
[/quote]
You think I want to get back into the “incitement” thing I beat you up on days ago? No. I asked for a quote of his inciting violence. You didn’t give one. That’s it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You think I want to get back into the “incitement” thing I beat you up on days ago? No. I asked for a quote of his inciting violence. You didn’t give one. That’s it.[/quote]
No problem. You win. There wasn’t an actual quote per se, except for the fact that he used the same rhetoric as Sharpton who was clearly inciting violence, but if that’s not important, or something not to alarmed about so be it. We have a president who clearly plays to one segment of the population.
"Last month Obama took the most outrageous step to date to incite racial violence against whites.
Obama openly identified with and encouraged the violent race hustlers who are desperately trying to start racial riots in Florida under the pretext of Trayvon Martyn . Instead of urging peace and calm and doing all possible to reconcile race relations and foster peace Obama instead gave the signal that all racial violence will be encouraged.
â??If I had a son he would look like Trayvonâ?? Said Obama and the message went out loud and clear. â?? I need you cause racial riots so I can get electedâ?? was the not so subtitle subtext .
We now see the shoots of Obamaâ??s seeds of hatred.
Chicago â?? Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday."
I know, doesn’t matter…no quote.
"In his syndicated column today, Pat Buchanan decries President Obama for supposedly ?stoking the fires of racial resentment? with his remarks on the ongoing controversy surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
Citing dubious reports that Brown ?smashed? officer Darren Wilson?s eye socket, Buchanan criticized the notion that Brown?s death had anything to do with race, warning that if ?a St. Louis officer is wounded or killed in revenge for Brown, President Obama will deserve a full share of the moral responsibility.?
What, other than its racial aspect, can explain why Obama is so hung up on Ferguson? At the Congressional Black Caucus dinner Saturday, he was back stoking the embers.
?Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black or driving while black ? judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.?
Obama is here implying that Michael Brown was profiled, judged ?guilty of walking while black,? when shot and killed.
But that is false, and Barack Obama knows it is false."