Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]

Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.

Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.[/quote]

Sadam was not a Stalinist and such claims of every psychotic dictator being either Stalin or Hitler is infantile.

We also did not deal with Sadam the same way we did with Hitler.
[/quote]

He certainly was a Stalinist. If not, what exactly is your definition of a Stalinist?

Didn’t deal with Saddam the same way as Hitler? Please, explain.
[/quote]

Stalinism relates to very specific people and regimes:

  1. They must be Marxist - Leninist - Anti “revisionist”.
  2. They must support state collectivisation, centralisation.
  3. They must be post left marxism and supporters of socialism in one country, a specific sect of the right wing Bolshevik split post Kronstadt.
  4. They must promote the material conception of history, ban all religious institutions and enforce public bans on organised worship.

Sadam was not a Marxist, he actually killed so many communists the Communist party of Iraq supported the U.S invasion.
[/quote]

A revolutionary psychopathic Ba’athist dictator who was very much like Stalin in his paranoia and murderous aggression and backstabbing and he was a revolutionary socialist with close ties to the Khrushev and Brezhnev Soviet regimes. Why quibble over words? Do you have anything to substantive to say? You didn’t explain what “conspiracy theories” you were talking about.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about Gadaffi giving up his nuclear program, arresting and taking on terrorists like al-qaeda, which Sexmachine and I both talked about. [/quote]

Except I didn’t ignore that. [/quote]

If you did not ignore this, it’s significance was lost because you missed the whole point. If not, your logic is flawed.

But at least less people are dying in Libya now than during the civil war in 2011. At least the civil war’s not dragged on like the one in Syria.

That’s the only points you seem to continue make.[/quote]

Not much of this makes sense (your first sentence may mean something to you, but it doesn’t convey a shred of information to me). I’ve made many other points (extent of rebel gains pre-intervention, comparative strength of Libyan/Syrian military, date of presidential finding, restrictiveness of ten years of “democracy in the ME” rhetoric, etc.), though I readily admit that many of them were, of necessity, needless and simple corrections of the horseshit bandied about on your end.

But forget that. I want to briefly note something before I take my leave. This little progression I’ve quoted (your post, my post, your post) is in many ways the quintessential exchange between us. It’s representative of your illegitimate and stupid method of argument. Allow me to elaborate. These are the first – and, in a way, most important – words of each entry in our exchange:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about…[/quote]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Except I didn’t ignore that…[/quote]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If you did not ignore this…[/quote]

This is an appalling bit of idiocy, and you do it again, and again, and again: You find something far up your own ass, retrieve it, throw it at me, and then, when it hasn’t stuck or accomplished anything, what do you do? You squint your eyes, grit your teeth, screw your courage to the sticking place and reach back up in search of more. It’s downright vulgar.

When you tell me that I ignored something, I expect you to know well and damn fucking good that I did ignore something: that…I…didn’t…address…it. I don’t expect you to be lying or fantasizing-out-loud, and I don’t expect you, if it turns out that you’ve made an error and been corrected, to open your next post with “If you did not ignore this,” going on to try something new about how, no, I didn’t ignore it, but I “missed the whole point” (which, incidentally, is nonsense). I don’t expect you to act like this is a game of whack-a-mole which I’ve agreed to play out of charity or something. You don’t get unlimited re-do’s. You don’t get your hand held.

Pay attention to this part: I am not the part of your brain responsible for making sure that what it produces is rational and correct. I am not the fact-checking arm of a newspaper you own. We are not a team that convenes at regular periods in order to figure out which of the things you’d like to say are halfway-acceptable and which are idiotic. I am not the butcher to whom you take the roadkill you find so that the useless and sickly and mangled parts can be cut away and discarded. I love debate and argument, but this is neither. This is you spraying onto the page every last delusion that comes to your mind while I pick through the mess in search of something with which to engage.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

It’s hilarious that Tunisians have been joining ISIS and taking part in the Syrian civil war & Iraq crimes against minorities. Real funny.

[/quote]

[quote]
FATUOUS
: complacently or inanely foolish[/quote]

And no, it wasn’t about what’s happening in Tunisia. It’s about your having listed Tunisia as a FP blunder for Obama and, when I asked you to describe how and why, you tucked your tail in and ran to Libya. That’s how we got to Libya.[/quote]

“…Surprisingly, immediately after the unexpected ousting of the tyrannical regimes following the popular uprising, Obama gave a foreign policy speech at the state department in which he praised the demonstrators, comparing their efforts in bringing about reform to the actions of the Boston Tea Party and Rosa Park in American history…” - Tunis Times

He then goes to Congress and gets an Arab Spring Marshall Plan in funds that go to the new revolutionary governments in Tunisia and Egypt. He supported the Arab Spring from the start. His fuck up in Libya. Doesn’t matter how much smarmy talk and long winded refutations of purposefully misinterpreted statements you scrawl out here. The Arab Spring is Obama’s little show and in the theatres where he got involved and fundamentally transformed things he has to bear responsibility for his actions.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“…Surprisingly, immediately after the unexpected ousting of the tyrannical regimes following the popular uprising, Obama gave a foreign policy speech at the state department in which he praised the demonstrators, comparing their efforts in bringing about reform to the actions of the Boston Tea Party and Rosa Park in American history…” - Tunis Times

He then goes to Congress and gets an Arab Spring Marshall Plan in funds that go to the new revolutionary governments in Tunisia and Egypt. He supported the Arab Spring from the start. His fuck up in Libya. Doesn’t matter how much smarmy talk and long winded refutations of purposefully misinterpreted statements you scrawl out here. The Arab Spring is Obama’s little show and in the theatres where he got involved and fundamentally transformed things he has to bear responsibility for his actions.[/quote]

You fucked Libya up too much, too ridiculously. Nothing suggests to me that Tunisia would be different. That’s not a road I’ll be going down with you.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Pay attention to this part: I am not the part of your brain responsible for making sure that what it produces is rational and correct. I am not the fact-checking arm of a newspaper you own. We are not a team that convenes at regular periods in order to figure out which of the things you’d like to say are halfway-acceptable and which are idiotic. I am not the butcher to whom you take the roadkill you find so that the useless and sickly and mangled parts can be cut away and discarded. I love debate and argument, but this is neither. This is you spraying onto the page every last delusion that comes to your mind while I pick through the mess in search of something with which to engage.[/quote]

Than answer the f****** question: Libya 1969-2010. Or 2011-2014. Which is better for the region or the world? A stable government for close to 25 years or four years of instability and anarchy?

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
When someone spells Obama as Obummer, Obomber, Osama or any other way they have never done with any other president you know they are either racist, ultra right wing fringe or both. So embarrassing.[/quote]

Never done with any other president? You are a fucking idiot. EVERY president has been made fun of. It’s not “RACIST” until we do it to Obama? (peace be upon him) LOL Give me a fucking break, you libtard.

Bush:
Dubya
King George
Junior
Baby Bush
Bush Baby
Shrub
UNcurious George
Bushie
Dumbo
Dumbya
Shrubya
Gush
Bushitler

Romney:
Mittens
Mitt the Twit
Robme
Romnuts
Myth Romney

Bill Clinton:
Bubba
Slick Willie
The cumback kid
The big dog
McPresident
Dollar Bill
Commander in thief
The Chief Sexsecutive
Puffy the intern slayer
El presidente del amor
the Unabanger
Swallow the leader
Billary Rodham

Reagan:
Ronnie Raygun
The jellie bean man
etc…

Do I really need to go on?

Obummer? That’s racist! Everyone has to respect Obama or they’re racist. Sad.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]

Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.

Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.[/quote]

Sadam was not a Stalinist and such claims of every psychotic dictator being either Stalin or Hitler is infantile.

We also did not deal with Sadam the same way we did with Hitler.
[/quote]

He certainly was a Stalinist. If not, what exactly is your definition of a Stalinist?

Didn’t deal with Saddam the same way as Hitler? Please, explain.
[/quote]

Stalinism relates to very specific people and regimes:

  1. They must be Marxist - Leninist - Anti “revisionist”.
  2. They must support state collectivisation, centralisation.
  3. They must be post left marxism and supporters of socialism in one country, a specific sect of the right wing Bolshevik split post Kronstadt.
  4. They must promote the material conception of history, ban all religious institutions and enforce public bans on organised worship.

Sadam was not a Marxist, he actually killed so many communists the Communist party of Iraq supported the U.S invasion.
[/quote]
How about a list of some Stalinist dictators? If Saddam wasn’t a Stalinist per se, he barrowed a lot from it.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about Gadaffi giving up his nuclear program, arresting and taking on terrorists like al-qaeda, which Sexmachine and I both talked about. [/quote]

Except I didn’t ignore that. [/quote]

If you did not ignore this, it’s significance was lost because you missed the whole point. If not, your logic is flawed.

But at least less people are dying in Libya now than during the civil war in 2011. At least the civil war’s not dragged on like the one in Syria.

That’s the only points you seem to continue make.[/quote]

Not much of this makes sense (your first sentence may mean something to you, but it doesn’t convey a shred of information to me). I’ve made many other points (extent of rebel gains pre-intervention, comparative strength of Libyan/Syrian military, date of presidential finding, restrictiveness of ten years of “democracy in the ME” rhetoric, etc.), though I readily admit that many of them were, of necessity, needless and simple corrections of the horseshit bandied about on your end.

But forget that. I want to briefly note something before I take my leave. This little progression I’ve quoted (your post, my post, your post) is in many ways the quintessential exchange between us. It’s representative of your illegitimate and stupid method of argument. Allow me to elaborate. These are the first – and, in a way, most important – words of each entry in our exchange:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about…[/quote]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Except I didn’t ignore that…[/quote]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If you did not ignore this…[/quote]

This is an appalling bit of idiocy, and you do it again, and again, and again: You find something far up your own ass, retrieve it, throw it at me, and then, when it hasn’t stuck or accomplished anything, what do you do? You squint your eyes, grit your teeth, screw your courage to the sticking place and reach back up in search of more. It’s downright vulgar.

When you tell me that I ignored something, I expect you to know well and damn fucking good that I did ignore something: that…I…didn’t…address…it. I don’t expect you to be lying or fantasizing-out-loud, and I don’t expect you, if it turns out that you’ve made an error and been corrected, to open your next post with “If you did not ignore this,” going on to try something new about how, no, I didn’t ignore it, but I “missed the whole point” (which, incidentally, is nonsense). I don’t expect you to act like this is a game of whack-a-mole which I’ve agreed to play out of charity or something. You don’t get unlimited re-do’s. You don’t get your hand held.

Pay attention to this part: I am not the part of your brain responsible for making sure that what it produces is rational and correct. I am not the fact-checking arm of a newspaper you own. We are not a team that convenes at regular periods in order to figure out which of the things you’d like to say are halfway-acceptable and which are idiotic. I am not the butcher to whom you take the roadkill you find so that the useless and sickly and mangled parts can be cut away and discarded. I love debate and argument, but this is neither. This is you spraying onto the page every last delusion that comes to your mind while I pick through the mess in search of something with which to engage.[/quote]
Than answer the f****** question: Libya 1969-2010. Or 2011-2014. Which is better for the region or the world? A stable government for close to 25 years or four years of instability and anarchy?[/quote]

You already tried this illegitimate horseshit, and you were already told just how and why it was illegitimate horseshit. We didn’t intervene in 2010. The choice was not between the iron-fisted dictator and war – the war was already begun. The choice was not between a fucking stable government and “instability and anarchy.” I have spent literal days making this clear to you, teaching you how the 2011 war unfolded, explaining how and why this line of reasoning is bad.

I mean, look at this. I write a long post explaining exactly how you’ve been doing a bad job of this – how you’ve been ignoring your mistakes, posting nonsense for me to sift through instead of sifting through it in your own head first, circling back to old lines of reasoning that have already been defeated – and your response is to do an even worse job of it?

You want to argue that Saddam wasn’t a Marxist? The intellectual founder of Ba’athism was Michel Aflaq. He was a Communist and Ba’athism was a revolutionary socialist / pan-Arab nationalist movement and they studied Marxism and socialist economic and social theory. So yes, it’s correct to talk about him as a Marxist.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Obummer? That’s racist! Everyone has to respect Obama or they’re racist. Sad.[/quote]

Things you CANNOT criticize King Obama I or one is dismissed as “racist”:

  • His middle name
  • His religious upbringing
  • His father
  • His mentors
  • His college records
  • His drug use
  • His meddling in local police matters (martin, brown, garner, et al)
  • His wife and kids.
  • Valarie Jarret
  • His inability to say “Radical Islam”
  • His connection to the Muslim Brotherhood
  • His foreign policy in general
  • His policies on immigration
  • His relationship with Al Sharpton

This is exhausting.

Obama was deeply involved in a plot to oust Gaddafi long before the protests in 2010. This is all bullshit. Wikileaks cables revealed much of the treachery and the reasons behind it. Gaddafi threatened to nationalise his oil and has in the midst of negotiations over new finds - Obama backed a figure in the Gaddafi oil and gas company and a number of exile dissidents; some closely associated with the CIA.

The “protests” of any significance were armed militias backed by Western intelligence, specifically the CIA. And not only that but a host of front groups(yes, front groups) and Google. Yes, Google and the CIA were instigating “protests” in Eastern Europe, Tunisia, Egypt etc. They use social media to blare in propaganda and Soros is mixed in with it all and the usual Democrat foreign policy think tanks and NGOs. But again, you will just ignore the substance of all the criticism and pretend you are riding some epic victory over some nonsense or other. You’re really losing your game. This is very subpar.

Didn’t you know these “protests” are largely incited by the CIA on social media sites with help from local dissidents and so on? You naive git you.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The choice was not between the iron-fisted dictator and war – the war was already begun. The choice was not between a fucking stable government and “instability and anarchy.”[/quote]

I’ll delete most of the quotes later but correct. To continue is absolutely pointless. Have a good one.

It’s not the Arab Spring it’s the Obummer Spring. Then now the Summer of ISIS. Obama is probably happy with his little mess. He probably wants to see some sort of fundamental change in the region and I don’t think Israel is supposed to play any part in it. No, as I said in the other thread Obama has a strong affinity for the religion of his father and he’s not happy with the way things are in America. Too many damn white people in charge. But Obama is going to change that. He’s bragged about bypassing Congress and radically transforming the demographic make up of the country. Yes Obama doesn’t share any values with most Americans. He despises them. He despises everything they believe in. And it shows in everything he says and does. Even his foreign policy. An utter mess is the most generous, magnanimous way you could describe it.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

EDIT: I was tempted to address each line in your post above, with a snarky reference to the American equivalent of each item, but decided against it. It’s pretty depressing when one is tempted to justify the mild tyranny of his adopted country by pointing out the similar tyranny in his home country, while dreaming about the delights of a country that has them both beat in terms of governmental abuse. I’m going to bed.[/quote]

I wasn’t sure if he was talking about Japan or America for a while there myself. [/quote]

Etu, Beansie? :-)[/quote]

I love her… But I am hard on her too.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Didn’t you know these “protests” are largely incited by the CIA on social media sites with help from local dissidents and so on? You naive git you.[/quote]

Yeah you already tried this. You said that Obama started the war (ridiculously citing as evidence a finding signed in mid-March), that the extent of the conflict before Obama turned it into an uprising was “some civil demonstrations and then,” that the CIA/SD turned “a few dozen” protesters into a rebellion. You were told to evidence this and backed away. Nice try though.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
You stay classy there Fella!
[/quote]

As long as you stay ignorant, we’re going along just fine.

I like how you’re completely ignoring the fact you fell fall on your face with the gun rights talk. It’s hilarious.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
When someone spells Obama as Obummer, Obomber, Osama or any other way they have never done with any other president [/quote]

Wow, you literally love to just make shit up out of thin air don’t you?

Can you prove this has happened with anyone in this thread?

And you complained about other’s being conspiracy theorists.

You’ll just laugh at the source. It just so happens much of it came from wikileaks and was reported by socialist media sources. I’m sure you can find it. I’ve given you the names of some of the key groups. But not naive methinks. Playing dumb.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

The Chief Sexsecutive
Puffy the intern slayer

Swallow the leader

[/quote]

Wow, these are solid gold, lol.