Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]knee-gro wrote:

Considering how your imagination has been working on subjects you know nothing about, perhaps it is best for you not to do so.

Anyone who knows Jack Shit knows Europe is much safer[/quote]

The UN disagrees, and I’ve linked a source.

So far, you with your nose in the air and the other rambler haven’t linked a single shred of evidence to refute it. Therefore, I have a source, the UN, backing up my position, with a peer reviewed study. You two have Jack shit backing up your opinion.

Yes, in this instance, I don’t know jack shit. I do know the reviewed study I linked though.

Fucks I give = 0.

Also, you seem to be having slight problem with rapes and shootings from a particular portion of your population lately. I’m not so sure I’d speak like this.

This is all assuming what you wrote is relevant, which it isn’t.

nice fallacy. Strong rebuttal.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you used a cliché in order to call someone else a cliché trying to be ironic?

622

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The link Beans posted is pretty damning of your position regarding Europe supposedly being safer. Read pg. 12 and on.

This ain’t some fox news link. It’s the U.N. here…[/quote]

Europeans are cultured, and have a higher literacy rate… Apparently these two dudes are the 1%, who can’t read.

624

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote] push wrote:

Could the tree of liberty in Japan “possibly” be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants in the future? Or is that unthinkable?

[/quote]

[quote]varq wrote:

Possibly.

[/quote]

How so? You just mentioned how they’d been defanged and a defanged populace with no natural right of self defense and no effective personal defense weapons would virtually render that “possibility”…into the impossible, no?[/quote]

Unarmed with firearms, maybe. Not necessarily defanged. America so dreaded the possibility of having its soldiers and Marines face a bunch of Japanese women, old people and schoolchildren armed with bamboo spears that they leveled two cities with atomic bombs. The Japanese are not inherently violent people, but believe me, as one who used to be married to one, you do not want to get on their bad side. The fangs will come out.

625

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not taking sides. I just happened to see this:

[/quote]

Yes, indeed. I finished reading the New Yorker article earlier and was wondering when it would crop up here!

My argument remains the same, though. (Big surprise, right?) I don’t deny that Libya is a mess. I don’t deny that it’s broken up and ripe for ISIS’ picking. I simply think that it would be a greater mess, more broken up, and riper for ISIS’ picking if the 2011 war had gone on without our intervention. Notice, for example, that Vox’s “one paragraph” cites, as evidence of Libya’s being chaotic, the fact that “some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year.” This number is, of course, not a good one, and certainly a marker of chaos. But it’s much smaller than that achieved by the 2011 war. The question I’m concerned with is this: Had that conflict gone on without intervention, what would we be talking about now? Three thousand, or another thirty thousand? Would ISIS be slithering in, as it is now, or would ISIS (or something like it) have flourished, home-grown, during a years-long and intense civil war in Libya as it did in Iraq and Syria.

Basically, my contention is that, other things being equal, it is in our best interest to decide or diffuse Middle Eastern wars as quickly as possible.

Edited.[/quote]

Again, totally disingenuous. We started the war in Libya. We shipped in arms and had spooks all over the place training militias and we coordinated with them to attack and bring down the Gaddafi regime. None of it would be happening without our intervention, our arms, our air strikes. But keep pretending otherwise if you like.

626

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not taking sides. I just happened to see this:

[/quote]

Yes, indeed. I finished reading the New Yorker article earlier and was wondering when it would crop up here!

My argument remains the same, though. (Big surprise, right?) I don’t deny that Libya is a mess. I don’t deny that it’s broken up and ripe for ISIS’ picking. I simply think that it would be a greater mess, more broken up, and riper for ISIS’ picking if the 2011 war had gone on without our intervention. Notice, for example, that Vox’s “one paragraph” cites, as evidence of Libya’s being chaotic, the fact that “some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year.” This number is, of course, not a good one, and certainly a marker of chaos. But it’s much smaller than that achieved by the 2011 war. The question I’m concerned with is this: Had that conflict gone on without intervention, what would we be talking about now? Three thousand, or another thirty thousand? Would ISIS be slithering in, as it is now, or would ISIS (or something like it) have flourished, home-grown, during a years-long and intense civil war in Libya as it did in Iraq and Syria.

Basically, my contention is that, other things being equal, it is in our best interest to decide or diffuse Middle Eastern wars as quickly as possible.

Edited.[/quote]

Again, totally disingenuous. We started the war in Libya. [/quote]

This ^ is disingenuous. I already addressed this nonsense:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
He did start the civil war in Libya. I’m not going to waste my time arguing it. There were some civil demonstrations then Obama shipped in arms and began coordinating attacks on the Gaddafi regime to bring down his government. [/quote]

You’re right not to waste your time arguing it, because you are simply wrong and this is easily demonstrable (this seems to be PWI’s principal fact-free thread at the moment). Your source is dated March 30 and claims the presidential “finding” to have been signed by Obama two or three weeks prior. By that time, two of Libya’s three largest cities were rebel-controlled (along with all of the eastern part of the country) and the fighting had been going on for a month. To call this “some civil demonstrations and then…” is simple ignorance of the basic manner in which the conflict unfolded, and I don’t see why we would continue with the debate if this is the level at which it’s going to be taking place. This is one of many sources you can consult if you want to scroll back to February and get this matter straight:

Edited.[/quote]

You understandably ignored that. But you don’t get to ignore it and then re-make the claim. You can keep saying we started the war, but it won’t mean anything until you figure out what actually happened and make an argument that has at least one foot in reality.

628

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]knee-gro wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I paid for my own school and wasn’t really taught enough history. I can only imagine how shitty the history is in “free schools”.

[/quote]

Considering how your imagination has been working on subjects you know nothing about, perhaps it is best for you not to do so.

Anyone who knows Jack Shit knows Europe is much safer and Europeans are as a whole way more cultured than than muricans, but you don’t know Jack Shit, do you? You have your head so far up your ass you barely heard about him (Jack).

I don’t know why that Musashi dude even bothers. Obama is FAR LEFT…roflmao. It’s like Fox news dropped a nuke of cliches up in this joint.
[/quote]

Statistics? Citations? References?

Until then, “Even Jack Shit knows you are talking out of your anus.”
[/quote]

Chus, you’re from America… It’s a wonder you can even read. They can’t source any of their arguments, because the culture shock would be too much for us plebs.

629

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not taking sides. I just happened to see this:

[/quote]

Yes, indeed. I finished reading the New Yorker article earlier and was wondering when it would crop up here!

My argument remains the same, though. (Big surprise, right?) I don’t deny that Libya is a mess. I don’t deny that it’s broken up and ripe for ISIS’ picking. I simply think that it would be a greater mess, more broken up, and riper for ISIS’ picking if the 2011 war had gone on without our intervention. Notice, for example, that Vox’s “one paragraph” cites, as evidence of Libya’s being chaotic, the fact that “some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year.” This number is, of course, not a good one, and certainly a marker of chaos. But it’s much smaller than that achieved by the 2011 war. The question I’m concerned with is this: Had that conflict gone on without intervention, what would we be talking about now? Three thousand, or another thirty thousand? Would ISIS be slithering in, as it is now, or would ISIS (or something like it) have flourished, home-grown, during a years-long and intense civil war in Libya as it did in Iraq and Syria.

Basically, my contention is that, other things being equal, it is in our best interest to decide or diffuse Middle Eastern wars as quickly as possible.

Edited.[/quote]

Again, totally disingenuous. We started the war in Libya. [/quote]

This ^ is disingenuous. I already addressed this nonsense:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
He did start the civil war in Libya. I’m not going to waste my time arguing it. There were some civil demonstrations then Obama shipped in arms and began coordinating attacks on the Gaddafi regime to bring down his government. [/quote]

You’re right not to waste your time arguing it, because you are simply wrong and this is easily demonstrable (this seems to be PWI’s principal fact-free thread at the moment). Your source is dated March 30 and claims the presidential “finding” to have been signed by Obama two or three weeks prior. By that time, two of Libya’s three largest cities were rebel-controlled (along with all of the eastern part of the country) and the fighting had been going on for a month. To call this “some civil demonstrations and then…” is simple ignorance of the basic manner in which the conflict unfolded, and I don’t see why we would continue with the debate if this is the level at which it’s going to be taking place. This is one of many sources you can consult if you want to scroll back to February and get this matter straight:

Edited.[/quote]

You understandably ignored that. But you don’t get to ignore it and then re-make the claim. You can keep saying we started the war, but it won’t mean anything until you figure out what actually happened and make an argument that has at least one foot in reality.[/quote]

I ignored it because I didn’t really want to bother going through it all. But if you really want to play this game I’ll go through the timeline. The Libyan opposition are all CIA affiliated exiles sent in by the West. The State Department suddenly on a whim decided to turn against Gaddafi opportunistically in response to the protests in February. This is all on the public record; open source and wikileaks. I’ll spend some time going through the details and the timeline and get back to this.

630

What is it you think you’re proving anyway smh? So, let’s assume that like you say the violence from mid February to mid March was “spontaneous”. So what? Gaddafi’s forces then regrouped and routed the opposition and prepared to besiege Benghazi. The rebels begged for air strikes; Hillary drummed up support with fake atrocity stories:

And the US and France then bombed the shit out of Gaddafi and aided the rebels. No of it would’ve happened if not for this administration. Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi. This war has been touted as a “success” by Hillary. It’s their war. Stop pretending otherwise.

631

Of course Gaddafi’s mistake was publicly supporting Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali in Tunisia. Hillary didn’t like that. She was a bigtime supporter of the Arab Spring from the start. That was Obama’s foreign policy in the ME. Back the Arab Spring. And there were liberal supporters right here at T-Nation saying so what? Don’t you believe in democracy? This is on Obama. He’s got to wear it.

632

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ll spend some time going through the details and the timeline and get back to this.[/quote]

You don’t have time for this shit. You need to get your exterior and interior colors picked out and decide on a brake package.

633

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ll spend some time going through the details and the timeline and get back to this.[/quote]

You don’t have time for this shit. You need to get your exterior and interior colors picked out and decide on a brake package.
[/quote]

Yes, I lol’ed. I would prefer to be thinking about the important stuff and paying attention earlier in life pays off; you can spend more time doing less intellectual things like hammering up through the gears in the F82.

But seriously in relation to this Libya thing; I didn’t blame Obama personally for Syria and I didn’t try to say Assad’s use of chemical weapons was Obama’s fault. But Libya and the Arab Spring is a completely different story. The Obama administration hawkishly backed the Arab Spring from the start and treacherously turned against old allies like Gaddafi - Hillary was repeating nonsense atrocity stories about Gaddafi’s “rape gangs” and she was the key figure behind the West’s push for NATO air strikes. And as I said, after the first few weeks of “spontaneous” indigenous demonstrations - that had no backing from CIA exile Libyan contras of course - Gaddafi’s forces retook most the country and prepared to besiege Benghazi; the rebel stronghold. They would’ve been starved out with no outside contact but the Obama administration backed them, sent in spooks and arms and coordinated air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces leading to him being hunted like a dog and lynched. This was an Obama administration foreign policy move that has ended in disaster. It’s on him.

635

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

A variation on “All politics is local?” :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Well, yeah, but also a recognition that Japan has been SO moderate for SO long, that any move in any direction on the political spectrum seems extreme. Remember Murayama, the evil Socialist prime minister with the sinister eyebrows who unseated the LDP from their decades-long reign? Remember the Socialist nightmare that Japan became during his tenure?

No, me neither.

I fondly think of him as the Japanese Obama. [/quote]

During Murayama’s administration, I saw a comedy group on TV here singing:

Mayuge ga sugei! to the music for the YMCA song.

Hilarious.[/quote]

Now imagine if a Russian comedy group had tried that during Brezhnev’s reign, and what kind of hilarity would have ensued.

That’s the difference.

Tyranny, in common with religion, cannot bear to be laughed at.

636

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is it you think you’re proving anyway smh? So, let’s assume that like you say the violence from mid February to mid March was “spontaneous”. [/quote]

I didn’t use the word “spontaneous,” but I am exactly right about the timeline of the war. From there my argument has been outlined half a dozen times. You’ve quoted it, in fact – though unfortunately for your refutation it revolved around this ahistorical tangent we’ve gone on about Obama having “started” the civil war in Libya in 2011.

637

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is it you think you’re proving anyway smh? So, let’s assume that like you say the violence from mid February to mid March was “spontaneous”. [/quote]

I didn’t use the word “spontaneous,” but I am exactly right about the timeline of the war. From there my argument has been outlined half a dozen times. You’ve quoted it, in fact – though unfortunately for your refutation it revolved around this ahistorical tangent we’ve gone on about Obama having “started” the civil war in Libya in 2011.[/quote]

Again, my question is what are you trying to prove? You are clearly trying to dissociate the Obama administration from responsibility for the war in Libya and the outcome. This is disingenuous. I admit that realistically the civil war in Syria is not Obama’s doing and his administration does not bear direct responsibility for the violence there. But Libya was his war. Indeed, there would be no war if not for him. It began as a rebel action led by exile Libyan dissidents with close associations with the CIA and within weeks the Obama administration was backing it to the hilt, funnelling in arms and repeating phoney atrocity stories about Gaddafi “rape gangs” and so on; pushing for NATO air strikes; coordinating with the rebels the hunting down of the Gaddafi family and his lynching. All resulting in the current state of affairs; a destabilised, weak central authority presiding tenuously over a patchwork of militias; many Islamic fundamentalists and many worrying spook goings on like Stingers being diverted care of Qatar from Libya to the Taliban in Afghanistan and so on. All tied in with Obama’s broader and key support of the Arab Spring in General which entailed turning on some of our oldest and closest allies like Hosni Mubarak and pro-Western leaders like Ben Ali in Tunisia. You cannot dissociate Obama and Hillary from this whole mess. If Bush has to own Iraq and what he did during his terms then Obama has to be held accountable for his.

638

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…

639

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Again, my question is what are you trying to prove?
[/quote]

And again, I have outlined my argument half a dozen times in the last few days. You addressed it exactly once, by offering a refutation founded entirely in ahistorical nonsense. Take another (different: that one’s been thoroughly dealt with) stab at it if you’d like, but I’m not going to continue writing the same thing.

640

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If Bush has to own Iraq and what he did during his terms then Obama has to be held accountable for his.
[/quote]

Except that you can’t figure out what Obama has done. You think he’s inciting violence without inciting violence (when, in fact [and provedly], he was explicitly calling for peace). You think he’s a communist without being a communist. And now you think he started the civil war in Libya – but, wait, without actually starting the civil war in Libya. Hold him accountable for what he did, not what the Right dreamed in its febrile fit of delusion.