Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
741

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

You are listing anyone who is a dictator who kills people stalinist, it is not a cover word for all bad people, it is a specific Ideology, one which Sadam did not follow, at all.
The CPI was stalinist, they were enemies of Sadam, anyone who claims Sadam was Stalinist is massively misinformed.

Being accurate is not quibbling, it is being accurate. For example Mao was a murdering monster, he however was not a stalinist and actually wrote entire books critiquing Stalin as someone who was unable to understand the Dialectic and was actually embracing metaphysics.
Being a murderer or a dictator and torturer does not make someone fascist, Stalinist, Maoist, these are actual things for very specific economic and ideological systems.

Also the conspiracy reference was to people claiming all non Americans who don’t support having guns in society are slaves and “fucking idiots”. And constant references to slavery and fascism, as if England or France are closer to some future dictatorship than America with its insane Police tanks and militarised police and whatnot.
Basically national chauvinism combined with being obsessed with guns. Alex Jones type views of the Europeans being dumb slaves and sheeple or whatever new word is being said.

742

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Damn.

Aside from Bushy, Dubya, and Slick Willie I have honestly never heard any of the other ones mentioned.

743

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Exactly…you know their argument is sinking when they throw the “race” hail mary.

744

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]

If by I’ll laugh at the source you mean that the source is not credible, then no, I won’t laugh at it, I’ll just tell you it isn’t credible. Either way, that’s how this works. You’re making a sweeping set of ahistorical claims. You can evidence them, or I can ignore them. That’s up to you. (By evidence them, by the way, I mean evidence the things you said and not some extremely-lesser set of banal claims that do not add up to your argument.)

Edited.

745

[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]

So a stable regime which tortured thousands upon thousands, imprisoned thousands for decades, hoarded wealth while many lived in poverty, supported terrorism that killed men, women and children, gave hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to fund civil wars and terror campaigns, executed anyone who dissented and broke pretty much every human rights violation under the sun was better than the current situation?

And worth defending?

This is like when liberals point out more people died from the invasion and occupation than under Sadam. So what do we do? support the continuation of despotism, genocide and killing? The Libyan case is even more morally easy, that was not an invasion but something that started as a rebellion by the Libyans themselves.

746

Selective reading here huh. I said when someone who has never used childish wordplay on presidents names now continually and boringly uses them for Obama you can bet they are racist. I mean it is no coincidence that stormfront (I post sometimes in opposing views linking scientific stuff they hate and claim is jewish propoganda) has so many people doing it like it is the most edgy thing ever.
Or maybe I am completely wrong and it is just a huge coincidence.
Yeah I am sure thats it. So are words like Tsar, king being thrown at the first black president, as are the sudden outrages by many white right wingers about civil liberty infringement, these are the same people who would call you a liberal pussy for doing the same under Bush.

748

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

The difference being I have never seen any of these names used on here but the same list of white men keep using terms like Obomber, Obummer, or the good old ; no one can criticise king lord Obama, god us white people are so victimised we are practically second class citizens.

Again though I am sure there is absoloutley zero racial or chauvinist connotations to these.

749

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

You are listing anyone who is a dictator who kills people stalinist, it is not a cover word for all bad people, it is a specific Ideology, one which Sadam did not follow, at all.
The CPI was stalinist, they were enemies of Sadam, anyone who claims Sadam was Stalinist is massively misinformed.

Being accurate is not quibbling, it is being accurate. For example Mao was a murdering monster, he however was not a stalinist and actually wrote entire books critiquing Stalin as someone who was unable to understand the Dialectic and was actually embracing metaphysics.
Being a murderer or a dictator and torturer does not make someone fascist, Stalinist, Maoist, these are actual things for very specific economic and ideological systems.

Also the conspiracy reference was to people claiming all non Americans who don’t support having guns in society are slaves and “fucking idiots”. And constant references to slavery and fascism, as if England or France are closer to some future dictatorship than America with its insane Police tanks and militarised police and whatnot.
Basically national chauvinism combined with being obsessed with guns. Alex Jones type views of the Europeans being dumb slaves and sheeple or whatever new word is being said.[/quote]

Huh? You really went off the rails there didn’t you?

750

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]

If by I’ll laugh at the source you mean that the source is not credible, then no, I won’t laugh at it, I’ll just tell you it isn’t credible. Either way, that’s how this works. You’re making a sweeping set of ahistorical claims. You can evidence them, or I can ignore them. That’s up to you. (By evidence them, by the way, I mean evidence the things you said and not some extremely-lesser set of banal claims that do not add up to your argument.)

Edited.[/quote]

Okay I give up. The US State Department wasn’t a key instigator of “protests” in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring using social media and CIA backed Libyan exile dissidents and publicly support the Arab Spring from the start and siphon off funds to revolutionary Arab Spring governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and arm militias and being down the Gaddafi government leading to the chaos there and the encroachment of ISIS. That’s all a conspiracy theory. I give up.

751

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Also the conspiracy reference was to people claiming all non Americans who don’t support having guns in society are slaves and “fucking idiots”. And constant references to slavery and fascism, as if England or France are closer to some future dictatorship than America with its insane Police tanks and militarised police and whatnot.
Basically national chauvinism combined with being obsessed with guns. Alex Jones type views of the Europeans being dumb slaves and sheeple or whatever new word is being said.[/quote]

Translation:

I lost the gun debate with Beans so I had to resort to personal attacks in some lame attempt to try and be relevant at all.

752

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Exactly…you know their argument is sinking when they throw the “race” hail mary.
[/quote]

Sinking? That ship sunk posts ago, lol.

753

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Also the conspiracy reference was to people claiming all non Americans who don’t support having guns in society are slaves and “fucking idiots”. And constant references to slavery and fascism, as if England or France are closer to some future dictatorship than America with its insane Police tanks and militarised police and whatnot.
Basically national chauvinism combined with being obsessed with guns. Alex Jones type views of the Europeans being dumb slaves and sheeple or whatever new word is being said.[/quote]

Translation:

I lost the gun debate with Beans so I had to resort to personal attacks in some lame attempt to try and be relevant at all. [/quote]

How did I lose, lost what? What are you talking about? You went on a rant about Europeans being fucking idiots and I said you should talk like an adult, when did I debate you on guns?

754

You have over 21 thousand posts, you constantly congratulate yourself and claim victory, you swear every other sentence and attack anyone who disagrees with you. You are compensating and acting like a child.

756

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
The difference being I have never seen any of these names used on here but the same list of white men keep using terms like Obomber, Obummer, or the good old ; no one can criticise king lord Obama, god us white people are so victimised we are practically second class citizens.

Again though I am sure there is absoloutley zero racial or chauvinist connotations to these. [/quote]

It’s because this board is predominantly Republican/conservative, and strongly at that. I’m pretty sure if you went to a strongly left-leaning board you’d see lots of inventive insults flung at GWB.

Plus, if you just recently joined the board, wouldn’t it make sense that you’d only see people insult the CURRENT president and not the past ones?

757

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

How did I lose, [/quote]

You posted zero facts, and zero refutation of any point I made, and only commented on me, which you continue to do.

You blatantly failed to read or acknowledge the UN study presented to you.

lol

Why are you playing dumb? You know all that shit is just pages back and people can actually read it.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
You have over 21 thousand posts, you constantly congratulate yourself and claim victory, you swear every other sentence and attack anyone who disagrees with you. You are compensating and acting like a child. [/quote]

Translation:

I have nothing. So I make personal attacks.

758

[quote]magick wrote:

Plus, if you just recently joined the board, wouldn’t it make sense that you’d only see people insult the CURRENT president and not the past ones?[/quote]

You’re talking about someone who ignores a UN study because it doesn’t fit in his bias.

This sort of obvious observation is so outside his scope of reason it isn’t even funny.

I’m thinking this is the new zecarlo screen name, given the make shit up out of blue tendency.

759

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

The difference being I have never seen any of these names used on here but the same list of white men keep using terms like Obomber, Obummer, or the good old ; no one can criticise king lord Obama, god us white people are so victimised we are practically second class citizens.

Again though I am sure there is absoloutley zero racial or chauvinist connotations to these. [/quote]

Oh this is rich!

You are referring to me lad, are you not?

Who says I’m a white man? I might be an Asian female.

I have referred to our El Presidente as “Obummer” for quite some time now. It seems you are just now catching up. Tsar. I like that one! I think I’ll steal it.

Which mosque do you attend?

760

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
Selective reading here huh. I said when someone who has never used childish wordplay on presidents names now continually and boringly uses them for Obama you can bet they are racist. I mean it is no coincidence that stormfront (I post sometimes in opposing views linking scientific stuff they hate and claim is jewish propoganda) has so many people doing it like it is the most edgy thing ever.
Or maybe I am completely wrong and it is just a huge coincidence.
Yeah I am sure thats it. So are words like Tsar, king being thrown at the first black president, as are the sudden outrages by many white right wingers about civil liberty infringement, these are the same people who would call you a liberal pussy for doing the same under Bush.

[/quote]

You do know that the only way to cure this sentiment is to declare war on White Privilege. You do understand its White Privilage, colonialism and the theft of resources that are responsible for the rise of opposition groups such as ISIS.

You do know this right? They do teach this in Europe, correct??