Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t help it, it’s all my unearned privileged. [/quote]

Your microaggressions are othering me in a way that makes me feel like this is not a safe space.[/quote]

Is this really the way SJW’s on tubledr actually talk to each other?

I feel like zero actual discussion takes place[/quote]

I make periodic forays into their nightmareland, just to keep tabs. It is with regret that I inform you that all of these are real and commonly-used terms. But don’t be fooled – they can be just as aggressively rude as we are around here. Well, maybe almost as rude.[/quote]

I was gonna say… I was a huge dick ( a correct one) but a huge dick in this thread. I feel like the only people they would be able to be rude too are White, Straight Men that were born that way. [/quote]

Yes indeed. They only “punch up” (Stop and consider, for a moment, the implications of the term “up.” Their own inferiority is literally built into their philosophy.) At least we punch everybody.

782

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
They only “punch up” (Stop and consider, for a moment, the implications of the term “up.” Their own inferiority is literally built into their philosophy.)[/quote]

This is one of the heart aches of having a daughter… Worrying about this bullshit infecting her.

I try. I don’t think there is a single regular here that I haven’t dusted up with.

783

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
They only “punch up” (Stop and consider, for a moment, the implications of the term “up.” Their own inferiority is literally built into their philosophy.)[/quote]

This is one of the heart aches of having a daughter… Worrying about this bullshit infecting her. [/quote]

I have a feeling that your daughter will grow up to be the kind of person who laughs at this shit when she is confronted with it in college. That’s a huge compliment.

Your bigger worry is that somewhere down the line she’ll meet the impossibly-handsome son of smh_23 and see the light of reason in his center-left politics and cutting blue eyes.

[quote]

I try. I don’t think there is a single regular here that I haven’t dusted up with. [/quote]

Me too, and it shouldn’t be any different.

784

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Your bigger worry is that somewhere down the line she’ll meet the impossibly-handsome son of smh_23 and see the light of reason in his center-left politics and cutting blue eyes.

[/quote]

So far she is just like her father, and a massive pain in the ass. Best of luck to whomever falls in love with her.

785

I recall some of our resident foreign policy experts (cough, Bismark) dismissing the possibility of boots on the ground/US forces fighting the Islamic horde known as ISIS.

Do you remember? Care to re-state your learned opinion dear oracle???

786

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How is “Obummer” even considered racist…[/quote]

In and of itself it is not racist, however as I stated when people who never used name pun before start, when they call the first black man to be president a marxist, a muslim, secret supported of islamic terrorism, when they go mad about his administrations infringement on civil liberties yet supported GW twice, there is a pattern.

As for no one caring about the fact they have a black president, this is obviously false. Just look at the hatred spewed about Obama by average white Americans online, Nigger has never rolled so effortlessly.
Just because I acknowledge that reality does not make me PC. I don’t care if you call him a Nigger and my neighbour a bog eyes irish twat. Just don’t pretend a huge chunk of America and Europe are not racist.

Patrice O’neal said it best, racism in the 2000’s is behind closed doors or anonymous online racism, most people are not overtly racist anymore it is covert. If you wanna pretend racism is gone fine, but it is just silly.

787

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It isn’t a legitimate queslion, but a false dichotomy. There existed no choice between an antebellum Gaddafi and the post-Antebellum devil we did not know. Foreign policy formulation is more often than not the art of making extremely complex decisions aimed at not the best outcome, but the least bad one.[/quote]

Not entirely true…

  1. Anyone with a brief superficial knowledge of history can look back and see for sure that any Muslim country which was ruled by a dictatorship and was overthrown was then ruled by a Theocracy or Islamist form of government.

  2. If our government did not know or forsee this, then it is a testament to their foreign policy disaster which has been in effect since Obama backed the Arab Spring.

  3. Even though Qadaffi tortured and imprisoned thousands, how on earth could anyone proclaim a state of constant civil war, and basically a non-state form of government or ISIS could be better, unless of course he prescribes to that form of government.

  4. In hindsight, it’s part of Obama’s foreign policy disaster, that’s clear.

788

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How is “Obummer” even considered racist…[/quote]

In and of itself it is not racist, however as I stated when people who never used name pun before start, when they call the first black man to be president a marxist, a muslim, secret supported of islamic terrorism, when they go mad about his administrations infringement on civil liberties yet supported GW twice, there is a pattern.

As for no one caring about the fact they have a black president, this is obviously false. Just look at the hatred spewed about Obama by average white Americans online, Nigger has never rolled so effortlessly.
Just because I acknowledge that reality does not make me PC. I don’t care if you call him a Nigger and my neighbour a bog eyes irish twat. Just don’t pretend a huge chunk of America and Europe are not racist.

Patrice O’neal said it best, racism in the 2000’s is behind closed doors or anonymous online racism, most people are not overtly racist anymore it is covert. If you wanna pretend racism is gone fine, but it is just silly.

[/quote]

All right. These are not controversial points. Europeans and Americans and Africans and Asians are, by and large, racist, meaning they prefer members of their own ethnic group over members of another, because they believe their own group to be more intelligent, more trustworthy, more fit to make decisions. This is a fact, and it is hard-wired into our DNA. We like the guy who looks like the guy in the mirror better than we like the guy who doesn’t. This goes for the other hominid primates as well, by the way, not just humans.

Speaking of which, it’s interesting that the picture you posted features the little monkey that it does, because that monkey was originally very much associated with Obama’s predecessor. After all, they are both named “George”, so it was a natural fit. In fact, no president in history, including Obama, has been compared to a chimpanzee more often and more widely than George W Bush, both in pictures, typically a collection of the president caught making silly faces, put side-by side with pictures of a chimp making similar faces, and in epithets: Chimpy, Chimpy McChimperton, and Chimpy McFlightsuit being just a representative sample.

Was this racist as well?

Before you say no, consider why you might be saying no. Taxonomically and phylogenetically speaking, Barack Obama, George Bush, you and I are all apes. We are all, in fact, monkeys. Why is it racist to compare a black man to an ape, but not a white man? Try to answer without using the word “history”.

789

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How is “Obummer” even considered racist…[/quote]

In and of itself it is not racist, however as I stated when people who never used name pun before start, when they call the first black man to be president a marxist, a muslim, secret supported of islamic terrorism, when they go mad about his administrations infringement on civil liberties yet supported GW twice, there is a pattern.

As for no one caring about the fact they have a black president, this is obviously false. Just look at the hatred spewed about Obama by average white Americans online, Nigger has never rolled so effortlessly.
Just because I acknowledge that reality does not make me PC. I don’t care if you call him a Nigger and my neighbour a bog eyes irish twat. Just don’t pretend a huge chunk of America and Europe are not racist.

Patrice O’neal said it best, racism in the 2000’s is behind closed doors or anonymous online racism, most people are not overtly racist anymore it is covert. If you wanna pretend racism is gone fine, but it is just silly.

[/quote]

All right. These are not controversial points. Europeans and Americans and Africans and Asians are, by and large, racist, meaning they prefer members of their own ethnic group over members of another, because they believe their own group to be more intelligent, more trustworthy, more fit to make decisions. This is a fact, and it is hard-wired into our DNA. We like the guy who looks like the guy in the mirror better than we like the guy who doesn’t. This goes for the other hominid primates as well, by the way, not just humans.

Speaking of which, it’s interesting that the picture you posted features the little monkey that it does, because that monkey was originally very much associated with Obama’s predecessor. After all, they are both named “George”, so it was a natural fit. In fact, no president in history, including Obama, has been compared to a chimpanzee more often and more widely than George W Bush, both in pictures, typically a collection of the president caught making silly faces, put side-by side with pictures of a chimp making similar faces, and in epithets: Chimpy, Chimpy McChimperton, and Chimpy McFlightsuit being just a representative sample.

Was this racist as well?

Before you say no, consider why you might be saying no. Taxonomically and phylogenetically speaking, Barack Obama, George Bush, you and I are all apes. We are all, in fact, monkeys. Why is it racist to compare a black man to an ape, but not a white man? Try to answer without using the word “history”.

[/quote]

Bingo… It’s just more made up nonsense.

Again, playing the “you’re racist” card only shows how utterly out of your league you are trying to argue point.

790

This, on the other hand, is blatantly racist.

Implying that the proud Wookiee race would ever interbreed with humans, or would ever be deadbeat dads, is simply beyond the pale.

791

And if you’re really clever, you’ll note that even the expression “beyond the pale” could be considered racist on the one hand, and antisemitic on the other.

793

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I hope the Libyans are happy living in a failed state being taken over by ISIS. Wait, they probably do since they were Islamist terrorists and al-qaeda sympathizers.

More the reason to either back up Qaddafi since he was playing nice to the West for 10 years or, if not, stay the hell out of it.

There’s other wars in other countries we don’t get involved with. We haven’t killed Assad? Why not? Ever hear of the Hama Massacre? He’s a killer on par with Qaddafi & Saddam yet he’s given a pass. How about Nigeria? 2000 people killed in ONE DAY and no one here discusses even trying to stop it. Not to mention Somailia.

(I know, I know, too many countries. Don’t wanna confuse people. If you want we can just stick to Libya the home of the worst Obama failed foreign policy of all time).

794

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I hope the Libyans are happy living in a failed state being taken over by ISIS. Wait, they probably do since they were Islamist terrorists and al-qaeda sympathizers.

More the reason to either back up Qaddafi since he was playing nice to the West for 10 years or, if not, stay the hell out of it.

There’s other wars in other countries we don’t get involved with. We haven’t killed Assad? Why not? Ever hear of the Hama Massacre? He’s a killer on par with Qaddafi & Saddam yet he’s given a pass. How about Nigeria? 2000 people killed in ONE DAY and no one here discusses even trying to stop it. Not to mention Somailia.

(I know, I know, too many countries. Don’t wanna confuse people. If you want we can just stick to Libya the home of the worst Obama failed foreign policy of all time).
[/quote]

We haven’t killed Assad because we are the United States of America and we do not, on principle, assassinate heads of state.

795

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

We haven’t killed Assad because we are the United States of America and we do not, on principle, assassinate heads of state.[/quote]

No, but we can bring down a country’s armed forces and have the al-qaeda supporters capture and kill him, because in all probability, had we not intervened in Libya, Qadaffi, with his armed forces intact, could have defeated the revolution and stayed in power.

After all, Assad’s still hanging on and it’s been how many years?

796

Question for Smh, Biz, magic or Musashi or whoever the hell.

Ok by your flawed reasoning the Libyan intervention by NATO was justifiable because:

  1. Thousands of people have died under the Qaddafi regime.
  2. Thousands of people were dying in the civil war in Libya.
  3. He lost control of his government (even though it took friggin NATO to take out his friggin armed forces. Not bad for someone who “LOST CONTROL” of his government!! HAHA. Right!
  4. The rebellion was a grass roots uprising against the authoritarian government.

Please feel free to correct any of these points above since I obviously don’t have a clue what I’m talking about…ok?

So what the hell? If that is reason enough to attack and destroy a county’s government, how could anyone be against, let’s say, the Iraq war. Wasn’t Saddam a brutal dictator? Wasn’t he responsible for the deaths of thousands? Wasn’t he in violation of UNSCR 1441,UNSCR 1284, UNSCR 1205, UNSCR 687, UNSCR 1194, UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154, and many many more?

Yet these same people who would back the intervention of Libya to the hilt are against the invasion and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. Why? Because a lot more people died in the occupation? In 2004 no one could have predicted an outcome such as a sectarian civil war.

How come the United States hasn’t bombed the Syrian regime? It meets all 4 of the points listed above.

Or Iran, the green movement in 2010?

Or what about troops on the ground or at least a bombing campaign against Boko Haram rebels in Nigeria? 2000 murdered in one day, that’s a lot of deaths, but our government isn’t doing a thing to stop them.

What about an invasion of Pakistan to crush the Taliban? Hell during the last 13 years check out this massive death toll:

yet I don’t see any bombing campaigns in the waziristan area and no bleeding hearts calling for intervention.

Well, why not?

797

Btw, Hama Massacre was Assad’s father, but butchery runs in the family. He’s just as bad. Now that I’ve called him a butcher, my detractors will petition the Pope to have him canonized!!

799

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

We haven’t killed Assad because we are the United States of America and we do not, on principle, assassinate heads of state.[/quote]

No, but we can bring down a country’s armed forces and have the al-qaeda supporters capture and kill him, because in all probability, had we not intervened in Libya, Qadaffi, with his armed forces intact, could have defeated the revolution and stayed in power.

After all, Assad’s still hanging on and it’s been how many years?
[/quote]

Uh huh.

We saw how well arming the Syrian rebels against Assad worked out, didn’t we.

Worst possible scenario. Assad is still in power, and those rebels took those weapons and marched on Baghdad.

Fail.

800

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question for Smh, Biz, magic or Musashi or whoever the hell.
[/quote]

This is all I need to prove that you don’t really read what anyone posts.

I haven’t even said anything on this thread for the last 2-3 pages besides respond to Musashi and respond to an article Utahlama posted.

I certainly haven’t commented on Libya. Ever. In. This. Thread.