Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alleged chemical attack in Syria

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    omg what armies, have you and aussie smoke too much of the same today?
    it may look like that for you and I wish it was the case, but unfortunately my waterpipe is totally clean.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by VaselineBasket View Post
      We must also remember that Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government. In contrast of the United States. Therefore, your comparison is not correct.


      We think that the Syrian armed forces two days before the capture of the city and owning 85% of the territory of the country should not even think logically and tactically about such a step. But I have not seen Lauri for a long time, so Syrian Brigadier General Lauri could come up with such a creative and unexpected step. I belive in his mind. Any other person wouldn't do it, because he use logic.

      The city's about three miles in the other way. https://youtu.be/Vzfrrkv3meI
      Oh yeah and the US is in Afghanistan at the iventation of the Afghan government. Russia will not let Assad loose power regardless what he does to his own people, they want to ensure that there navy base stays open.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        I'm no part of this problem at all. I wash my hands from all of it, officially.
        Ignoring it won't make it go away.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        You won' sell me this. Oh sure leader of first power in Europe was manipulated by those bad sneaky islamists
        Yes. You're the one describing Merkel as an idiot.

        And yes, stuff like this at the Serbian-Hungarian border definitely was very much manipulating Merkel at a direct and personal level:



        This is what they themselves came up with, this is not from $5000 a day marketing consultants.

        Oh yes, people actually do fall for propaganda and even purportedly intelligent and worldly ones. The classic case from the Syrian Civil War is "Bana":

        http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...leppo-for-real

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        It's not. Syria is thousands km from me and it should stay that way. Its only because of stupid western actions that islamic refugees are now right behind my border.
        Hint 1: they're at the borders precisely because of communication on internet?

        Hint 2: How do you think they organised the protests at the Hungarian-Serbian border so well?

        Hint 3: How do you think the media were able to come so quickly to record media stunts such as one of the few children among the "refugees" holding up the "ma ma Merkel" sign?

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Sure, becaus I'm ignoring thing irrelevant to this discussion. We might as well include greenhouse effect to the reasons why refugees are now here and it will the same sense.
        You were asking why there were far more "refugees" from this round of "western intervention".. you got your answer which you responded to with a waffling line of crap. If you were going to properly respond, you would have actually addressed what I had specifically said and which was a central plank in my argument - the role of internet and easy money transfer in facilitating "refugees" to pass through Europe and up to the Hungarian-Serbian border.

        Please try the proto-lawyer tricks on someone else...

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Bullshit.
        You keep demonstrating that your knowledge of this conflict and other related matters is at best highly superficial.

        See below regarding the image you had posted. You demonstrated pure cluelessness. If you are going to argue regarding "evil West destroying Middle East", at the least you might have chosen an image showing bombing damage by Western aircraft if you wanted to illustrate your point...

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Existentialist threat? You must be joking, so what do you propose, to kill them all? Leave them alone for starters and there is no threat anymore.
        You leaving them alone doesn't mean that they will leave you alone. Ask all the women on Interpals who get a continual stream of harassing messages from such people...

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Ummm, yes. Nothing to discuss about that. Were there western armies in ME. Yup, last time couple days ago. Without any reason. No one even looks at UN anymore.
        I would kindly ask to stop with this crap. If you want me to respond to all you write, let's start with this: "it's not "Western intervention" that drives it but the conditions on the ground and almost 1400 years of Islam. The West merely and ultimately is a provider of the toys of mass destruction that competing Islamist gangs can play and mass murder with while screaming "Allahu Akbar!".
        By far, the main protagonists fall into the categories of either Sunni nutters/aligned such as Al Qaeda -aligned or ISIS or Shia nutters such as Hezbollah or Iran:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

        In the larger scheme of things, others are essentially minor bit players providing a few aircraft and the occasional squad of troops.

        Yes, it would seem that you are either ignoring "inconvenient" details which blow your argument out of the water or that you are simply intellectually lazy.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Do you really justify going to war with "they would be killing each other anyway"? Are you feeling somehow superior to ME people? This is very close to nazi attitude and their "subhuman" kind of thinking.
        Ummmm no. I feel fortunate not to be trapped in a cult such as Islam. Furthermore, as I have said many times before, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.

        Ignoring a conflict "because they are savages far away and it is of no concern of ours" sounds rather like a Nazi attitude from what I know about Nazis....

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        And talking about intelligence, please stop insulting mine. You way of discussing this matter makes it obvious that you represent some kind of agenda. Maybe a zionist one as Tux is saying, maybe not. But there is some for sure.
        Actually my "agenda" is getting to the truth of what is happening. That I want evidence-based and not kook theories which are logical and self-consistent, I guess, counts as "agenda" if one has an agenda oneself.

        I'm not into faith-based shit.

        Hint: a "Zionist agenda" would have been one completely avoiding any negative mention of Sunni headchoppers. These are the ones who are countering Iran presently in Syria.. Israel-Iran is the big conflict coming up for Israel.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        You are not substantive this time and try to trick me into ridiculous way of thinking that migrants tricked Merkel and she is just good and trying to help.
        So what is the basis for Merkel's decision apart from kook conspiracy theories? It might seem strange to you, but people have this habit of making crap decisions not because of some grand conspiracy theories, but making decisions on crap premises. Merkel in part thought she was being nice and humanitarian to "suffering" people.

        Do note that the evidence indicates that Merkel's Germany is really trying to go into reverse gear to clean up the shit right now.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Then and now? Storming Hungarian border and building a fence started just about two years ago. Nothing like that was happening before.
        I've already told you about "refugees" trying to storm Australia's shores a couple of decades ago on boats from Indonesia. Exactly the same sort of shit was getting played out by them in terms of social engineering, sticking the proportionately very few women and children in front of cameras and so on. Instead of the border fence backdrop we see in Hungary, it was all getting played out on the Indian Ocean.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        No it did not. At least not here.
        Merely to refute your statement regarding "taking part in conflicts and you get "refugees". Australia had hardly if at all participated in conflicts that these "refugees" claimed to flee from - such as Rohingya - yet we still got them trying to dumping themselves in high male demographic numbers on our doorstep.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        You must be joking, I don't need more arguments than this
        https://www.liberationnews.org/wp-co...5/09/syria.jpg
        You need much better and consistent arguments than that specific image...

        The image that you posted here is of Homs before and after the Syrian Civil War started.

        The destruction of Homs had nothing to do with the West - it was mainly about Sunnis, and to a large extent Al Qaeda affiliated nutters verses Assad forces.


        In fact, the destruction of Homs is one of the reasons give as to why the West should intervene in Syria... to stop all this and presenting the affront to "humanity".

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        While it should not be at all.
        In many respects, many commentators are correct to describe Syria as "World War 3" - just about every one is there in some capacity.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Sure sure war is good, let's have two or three more, the more the merrier.
        Don't worry, ignoring such threats gets you 2 or 3 times as many wars as dealing with them in the early stages. If you care to look at any map of conflicts around the world - virtually every conflict around the world presently has at least one Islamic protagonist. Substantial numbers of conflicts have more than one Islamist protagonist such as the Syrian conflict in question.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Paranoia.
        Describing every opinion or statement as "part of a Zionist conspiracy" also would constitute paranoia of the highest order

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        No the next step is just them sitting on their ass and working on welth of their countries, just like everyone else.
        Ummmm no, you don't know very much history do you? You also seem to be demonstrating something of an intellectual laziness regarding dealing with the details of debate and argument.

        Hint: take a particular look at Ottoman history from about 1300 to about 1400 and the history of Asia Minor from about 1100 to 1300 also. There are also other historical periods worth looking at.

        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
        Sure, everyone is is useful idiot and islamists are the most cunning of all, tricking everyone including US intelligence, EU officials and country leaders, everyone
        I'm sure Islamists in Afghanistan did a great job on the CIA in the 1980s in a pretty much identical manner that Islamists in the 2010s did the same in Syria. Also, I'm sure there would have been rounds and rounds of "we believe in the same god after all" going on in Syria just like there were in Afghanistan from the Mujahadin when they were sweet-talking the CIA then.
        Last edited by aussieinbg; 04-16-2018, 08:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

          Yes. You're the one describing Merkel as an idiot.
          Because she harms her own nation with her stupid decision. Not because she's clueless. A nation leader won't survive that long if he/she has no idea what he/she is doing. I think she knows what she is doing. In fact she knows much more than she reveals.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          And yes, stuff like this at the Serbian-Hungarian border definitely was very much manipulating Merkel at a direct and personal level:



          This is what they themselves came up with, this is not from $5000 a day marketing consultants.
          You must be joking.


          This was widely available on YT during Hungary's action. It is literally impossible that a country leader is provided with just one side of a view and manipulated in such kindegarten way.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

          Hint 1: they're at the borders precisely because of communication on internet?

          Hint 2: How do you think they organised the protests at the Hungarian-Serbian border so well?

          Hint 3: How do you think the media were able to come so quickly to record media stunts such as one of the few children among the "refugees" holding up the "ma ma Merkel" sign?
          Still irrelevant. Such factors only affect efficiency of their actions. But it has nothing to do with the real reason why these people are here.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          You were asking why there were far more "refugees" from this round of "western intervention".. you got your answer which you responded to with a waffling line of crap. If you were going to properly respond, you would have actually addressed what I had specifically said and which was a central plank in my argument - the role of internet and easy money transfer in facilitating "refugees" to pass through Europe and up to the Hungarian-Serbian border.
          Sure, because internet and money transfers were invented yesterday do they? No, this is not why so many refugees came to EU borders. There are two real reasons: 1) Merkel invited them and 2) No one took adequate means to stop them

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Please try the proto-lawyer tricks on someone else...
          Actually you are the one who tries to use lawyer tricks here. One of the basic is to flood the court with baseless motions and unrelated arguments just to water down the bottom line of a case.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          You keep demonstrating that your knowledge of this conflict and other related matters is at best highly superficial.
          I don't need to know anything about this conflict to claim that this is just unlawful unjustified western interference into the business of sovereign countries.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          See below regarding the image you had posted. You demonstrated pure cluelessness. If you are going to argue regarding "evil West destroying Middle East", at the least you might have chosen an image showing bombing damage by Western aircraft if you wanted to illustrate your point...
          So, you agree as to the bottom line, but argue about my choice of a photo? Ok I will choice another one.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          You leaving them alone doesn't mean that they will leave you alone. Ask all the women on Interpals who get a continual stream of harassing messages from such people...
          Weak example. You cannot forbid someone write messages just because he's a muslim.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          By far, the main protagonists fall into the categories of either Sunni nutters/aligned such as Al Qaeda -aligned or ISIS or Shia nutters such as Hezbollah or Iran:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

          In the larger scheme of things, others are essentially minor bit players providing a few aircraft and the occasional squad of troops.

          Yes, it would seem that you are either ignoring "inconvenient" details which blow your argument out of the water or that you are simply intellectually lazy.
          Now you just take me for plain idiot.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...n_against_ISIL "On 15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition. The U.S. Air Force has carried out around 60 percent of all strikes. Among them, F-16s performed 41 percent of all sorties, followed by the F-15E at 37 percent, then the A-10 at 11 percent, the B-1 bomber at eight percent, and the F-22 at 3 percent. The remaining 40 percent has been carried out by the US Navy and allied nations.[343]
          On 20 January 2015, the SOHR reported that al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, had been wounded in an airstrike in Al-Qa'im, an Iraqi border town held by ISIL, and as a result, withdrew to Syria.[344]
          On 21 January 2015, the US began coordinating airstrikes with a Kurdish launched offensive, to help them begin the planned operation to retake the city of Mosul.[345]
          On 21 July 2015, it was reported that nearly 44,000 sorties have flown since August 2014.[346]
          Throughout 2015, the vast majority of bombs and missiles launched by the US (approximately 22,000 of 23,000 total) were directed at targets in Iraq and Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations"

          This is NOT small number.




          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Ummmm no. I feel fortunate not to be trapped in a cult such as Islam. Furthermore, as I have said many times before, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.

          Ignoring a conflict "because they are savages far away and it is of no concern of ours" sounds rather like a Nazi attitude from what I know about Nazis...
          Not savages. They are citizens of sovereign states who have the right of self determination. If they want to fight their leader, please do. It is noone's business.


          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Actually my "agenda" is getting to the truth of what is happening. That I want evidence-based and not kook theories which are logical and self-consistent, I guess, counts as "agenda" if one has an agenda oneself.

          I'm not into faith-based shit.

          Hint: a "Zionist agenda" would have been one completely avoiding any negative mention of Sunni headchoppers. These are the ones who are countering Iran presently in Syria.. Israel-Iran is the big conflict coming up for Israel.
          If Israel touches Iran, it will be clear to me that the whole mess in the ME is inspired by zionism.


          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          So what is the basis for Merkel's decision apart from kook conspiracy theories? It might seem strange to you, but people have this habit of making crap decisions not because of some grand conspiracy theories, but making decisions on crap premises. Merkel in part thought she was being nice and humanitarian to "suffering" people.

          Do note that the evidence indicates that Merkel's Germany is really trying to go into reverse gear to clean up the shit right now.
          You waon't escape from the conspiracy theories because they're too probable in this situation. But if you insist on ignoring them, Germans need millions of workers for their economy. That is the most logical reason of Merkel decisions.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          I've already told you about "refugees" trying to storm Australia's shores a couple of decades ago on boats from Indonesia. Exactly the same sort of shit was getting played out by them in terms of social engineering, sticking the proportionately very few women and children in front of cameras and so on. Instead of the border fence backdrop we see in Hungary, it was all getting played out on the Indian Ocean.
          So what, this only proves they are trying to manipulate. But it needs real stupidity to fall for this. Or maybe I should rule Germany if I noticed it and Merkel did not

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Merely to refute your statement regarding "taking part in conflicts and you get "refugees". Australia had hardly if at all participated in conflicts that these "refugees" claimed to flee from - such as Rohingya - yet we still got them trying to dumping themselves in high male demographic numbers on our doorstep.
          Sure, economic immigration is not really related to causing wars, but that still moves us away from the main topic here.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          You need much better and consistent arguments than that specific image...

          The image that you posted here is of Homs before and after the Syrian Civil War started.

          The destruction of Homs had nothing to do with the West - it was mainly about Sunnis, and to a large extent Al Qaeda affiliated nutters verses Assad forces.


          In fact, the destruction of Homs is one of the reasons give as to why the West should intervene in Syria... to stop all this and presenting the affront to "humanity".
          Sure, here's a different photo
          http://www.southeastradio.ie/wp-cont...7/03/syria.jpg

          http://i.hurimg.com/i/hdn/75/0x0/5a2...209ccf13d9.jpg
          ^ you think this shots with flowers?

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          In many respects, many commentators are correct to describe Syria as "World War 3" - just about every one is there in some capacity.
          Wait a minute so they are "minor players" or there's a WW3, please make up your mind.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Don't worry, ignoring such threats gets you 2 or 3 times as many wars as dealing with them in the early stages. If you care to look at any map of conflicts around the world - virtually every conflict around the world presently has at least one Islamic protagonist. Substantial numbers of conflicts have more than one Islamist protagonist such as the Syrian conflict in question.
          Presently. Because west is trying to destroy them.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Describing every opinion or statement as "part of a Zionist conspiracy" also would constitute paranoia of the highest order
          Not every. Just particular and selected ones.

          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Ummmm no, you don't know very much history do you? You also seem to be demonstrating something of an intellectual laziness regarding dealing with the details of debate and argument.

          Hint: take a particular look at Ottoman history from about 1300 to about 1400 and the history of Asia Minor from about 1100 to 1300 also. There are also other historical periods worth looking at.
          Omg, seriously? Who's using rhetoric tricks on who? I know history well enough. What makes you think that if Ottomans did something in the past, they will certainly do the same now? Are you a wizard and can predict it? Not to mention that historic recurrence is just one of possible theories on how historic process operates.

          Behind all this nonsense and smokescreen, there is one clear message that I can see. Everyone can unite, except for islamic world. We need to keep them divided because it serves our interest.

          Last edited by jordan_rudess; 04-16-2018, 05:19 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Because she harms her own nation with her stupid decision.
            Yes, it was a totally braindead decision.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Not because she's clueless.
            She was definitely clueless about Islam for sure - but has been getting catchup lessons on it.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            A nation leader won't survive that long if he/she has no idea what he/she is doing.
            Totally destructive clueless idiots have remained in power for decades in many instances - they know how to manipulate their populations to think that shit sandwiches taste like chocolate. It doesn't mean they know anything else about economics, history or any other field.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            I think she knows what she is doing. In fact she knows much more than she reveals.
            So who was behind her ultimately? Zionists or Freemasonary?

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            This was widely available on YT during Hungary's action. It is literally impossible that a country leader is provided with just one side of a view and manipulated in such kindegarten way.
            Trump gets his news feed primarily off Fox, Hilary Clinton got hers off CNN so yes it's most definitely possible.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Still irrelevant. Such factors only affect efficiency of their actions. But it has nothing to do with the real reason why these people are here.
            It's totally relevant - braindead political decision + the means and logistics to do it.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Sure, because internet and money transfers were invented yesterday do they?
            The internet for the wider masses in the Middle East is very new actually. Money Transfers via companies such as Western Union have really only recently been becoming extremely popular in the Middle East.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            No, this is not why so many refugees came to EU borders. There are two real reasons: 1) Merkel invited them and 2) No one took adequate means to stop them
            They might have had the invitation. You still need the taxi, a taxi driver who can get you from point A to B and the fare to pay the taxi driver to get there.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Actually you are the one who tries to use lawyer tricks here. One of the basic is to flood the court with baseless motions and unrelated arguments just to water down the bottom line of a case.
            I've been giving arguments providing supporting evidence for my statements. Most of your statements are unqualified and without any evidence. When evidence is forthcoming from you, it's inevitably wrong - such as we saw of your claims of "Western interference" pics being a city destroyed by opposing sides and as we will see below.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            I don't need to know anything about this conflict to claim that this is just unlawful unjustified western interference into the business of sovereign countries.
            You need to know what basis in law you can claim to define it as being "unlawful".... you're the one who is supposed to be the lawyer here, but you give no basis one way or the other.

            Hint: The lawyers who are into international law really have their knickers in a twist on questions regarding intervention in the region.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            So, you agree as to the bottom line, but argue about my choice of a photo? Ok I will choice another one.
            You're building a bit of a history here of being clueless about what is going on in Syria. You even needed prompting in order to consider finding an alternative photo which better illustrates your case.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Weak example. You cannot forbid someone write messages just because he's a muslim.
            Strong example.Very tangible case where whole groups sitting in an Islamic country are crossing over into the West uninvited and are essentially attacking someone for what they are - western and female - and in a very specific and Islamic manner.

            So much for your assertions that they will somehow magically stay within their own countries and not affect those in other countries.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Now you just take me for plain idiot.
            You're making it extremely hard for me not to, particularly when you quote stuff like the following to support the idea that airstrikes on Syria by the West are hugely significant in relation to the total context of the war in Syria:

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...n_against_ISIL "On 15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition. The U.S. Air Force has carried out around 60 percent of all strikes. Among them, F-16s performed 41 percent of all sorties, followed by the F-15E at 37 percent, then the A-10 at 11 percent, the B-1 bomber at eight percent, and the F-22 at 3 percent. The remaining 40 percent has been carried out by the US Navy and allied nations.[343]
            On 20 January 2015, the SOHR reported that al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, had been wounded in an airstrike in Al-Qa'im, an Iraqi border town held by ISIL, and as a result, withdrew to Syria.[344]
            On 21 January 2015, the US began coordinating airstrikes with a Kurdish launched offensive, to help them begin the planned operation to retake the city of Mosul.[345]
            On 21 July 2015, it was reported that nearly 44,000 sorties have flown since August 2014.[346]
            Throughout 2015, the vast majority of bombs and missiles launched by the US (approximately 22,000 of 23,000 total) were directed at targets in Iraq and Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations"
            You are well and truly comparing apples and oranges. Firstly you are giving the combined total for Iraq + Syria. Secondly, just about all of that was against ISIS - invaders from Iraq and invited by no party in the Syrian Civil War and hence something of a separate conflict all together.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            This is NOT small number.
            In the context of going on 7 years of Syrian civil war, many millions of artillery rounds, thousands upon thousands of tonnes of explosives detonated by various means and not to mention the munitions dropped from Syrian and Russian aircraft. Even neglecting that the vast bulk of it was against ISIS - still very small potatoes. All very small-scale particularly when you consider that of the order of 1/2 million people have already died in the Syrian conflict. Only a tiny fraction of that number have been killed by Western bombings and even if you take bombings of ISIS into consideration.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Not savages. They are citizens of sovereign states who have the right of self determination. If they want to fight their leader, please do. It is noone's business.
            You really are clueless.

            Hint: Believing Muslims don't believe in "sovereign states" in the manner that you define them.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            If Israel touches Iran, it will be clear to me that the whole mess in the ME is inspired by zionism.
            Why would that be? Sunni and Shia have been ripping into each other almost continually for more than a full millennium before Zionism appeared on the scene. This is very central to the conflict in Syria - as it is for the conflicts in Yemen and Iraq. Furthermore, it is pivotal to the mess in Lebanon

            It doesn't take much brains to realise for an Israeli why Iran is such a threat, Iran has very explicitly said on multiple occasions promises about destroying Israel and killing Jews in general. Islamic dogma is very clear about Muslims murdering Jews and how good this would be. Any Jew - Zionist or not Zionist - would therefore intelligently regard Iran as an existentialist threat.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            You waon't escape from the conspiracy theories because they're too probable in this situation.
            Especially when the completely clueless are continually commenting on the Syrian War with unsubstantiated rhetoric and a total lack of understanding about the history of the region or about Islam....

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            But if you insist on ignoring them, Germans need millions of workers for their economy. That is the most logical reason of Merkel decisions.
            They need educated workers for their economy. Germany got a bunch of semi-literate (even in Arabic) "refugees". If you wanted educated workers, you'd go to the refugee camps and cherrypick the best workers.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            So what, this only proves they are trying to manipulate. But it needs real stupidity to fall for this. Or maybe I should rule Germany if I noticed it and Merkel did not
            Don't put down to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Sure, economic immigration is not really related to causing wars, but that still moves us away from the main topic here.
            War is the ultimate motivator of economic immigration - especially for immigrants who get the opportunity to play the sympathy card and get in through the back door.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Again, you are very much off the mark - these are shots of the Americans in action against ISIS. This is really not the Syrian Civil War per se but a group which invaded Syria via Iraq (but of course you would understand that if you had half a clue about the conflict and wider issues there).

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Wait a minute so they are "minor players" or there's a WW3, please make up your mind.
            Different players in a world war have different different levels of involvement. For example, not every nation in WW2 was expending their last man and currency unit on doing battle...

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Presently. Because west is trying to destroy them.
            Bullshit. Islamists are fighting everywhere - the South of Thailand and in many countries in Africa and Central Asia just to name a few. And there's very limited western influence and involvement in these regions... It's very much a case of Islamists trying to destroy everyone else - Western or Nonwestern.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Omg, seriously?
            Yes

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Who's using rhetoric tricks on who?
            You - your noise to signal ratio is evidently extremely high on this topic.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            I know history well enough.
            Definitely not history in the Middle Eastern region. It's clearly evident regarding how clueless you are about the Syrian conflict - particularly the reoccurrence of Islamic nations and empires throughout history there, hence your inability to comment substantively on this.

            You exhibit the same baseless shallow idiocy we see from postcolonialist fanboys like Lauri - that it's "The West" that somehow caused all the problems in the Middle East.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            What makes you think that if Ottomans did something in the past, they will certainly do the same now?
            Because it repeats over and over with Islamic civilisations and empires. Same pattern over and over again from a cult whose very stated aim is ultimately world domination. What ultimately drove Ottoman conquest and how the Ottomans acted and ruled was very much Islamic - hence I offered that as an example for you to comment on. However you were not able to even make any sort of a substantial comment regarding that demonstrating an opinion one way or the other.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Are you a wizard and can predict it?
            I merely look at what happened historically and see what happened previously and see what happens now. Just about exactly the same shit - apart the more contemporary military fatigues and weapons which are better at killing and blowing up things along with instantaneous communications.

            The basis of this all - The Quran, the Hadiths (respective for Shias and Sunnis) and Muhammad's biography remain virtually unchanged and can never do so without giving rise to a new religion.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Not to mention that historic recurrence is just one of possible theories on how historic process operates.
            Empty and pretty much meaningless rhetoric from you - you demonstrably know next to nothing about either even the basics of the contemporary situation in Syria or the history of this region. This is clearly evident in you not even being able to pick links, texts or pics that properly and accurately demonstrate your side of the argument in spite of unfettered access to Google. Hence you are totally unqualified to comment one way or the other.

            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Behind all this nonsense and smokescreen, there is one clear message that I can see. Everyone can unite, except for islamic world. We need to keep them divided because it serves our interest.
            You know next to nothing about a highly complex situation and are making guesses on that basis.

            It's little wonder you deal in conspiracy theory bullshit either way on topics such as gas attacks in Syria.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

              Totally destructive clueless idiots have remained in power for decades in many instances - they know how to manipulate their populations to think that shit sandwiches taste like chocolate. It doesn't mean they know anything else about economics, history or any other field.
              If they know how to manipulate their population, they are not idiots. The populations is idiots.

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              So who was behind her ultimately? Zionists or Freemasonary?
              How should I know? I'm not a fortuneteller unlike others

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Trump gets his news feed primarily off Fox, Hilary Clinton got hers off CNN so yes it's most definitely possible.
              How do you know such things? I thought that Trump gets his news off his advisors, and government analytics, but ok.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              The internet for the wider masses in the Middle East is very new actually. Money Transfers via companies such as Western Union have really only recently been becoming extremely popular in the Middle East.
              They must be quite ambitious then. The first time I got my internet, I used it to find photos of sexy chicks. They go to plans for conquering world right away

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              They might have had the invitation. You still need the taxi, a taxi driver who can get you from point A to B and the fare to pay the taxi driver to get there.
              Leftist idiots very much participate in the whole taxi thing, especially Italian ones dominate here.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              You need to know what basis in law you can claim to define it as being "unlawful".... you're the one who is supposed to be the lawyer here, but you give no basis one way or the other.
              Sorry, I thought I was talking about the obvious. There is such UN organ, Security Council. According to international law it must allow foreign intervention in a sovereign country. Any actions without UNSC permission are unlawful in fact military agressions on a territory of other state.

              [/QUOTE]

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Hint: The lawyers who are into international law really have their knickers in a twist on questions regarding intervention in the region.
              Bullshit. Literaly every half brain individual know that this is unlawful. Article 42 of UN Charter: "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."
              The whole NATO and U.S. in particular fights with this since at least 1990s.
              http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/24/nato.un/
              It is only because U.S. needs to have their war all over the world and cannot wait that long for UN approval to be granted.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Strong example.Very tangible case where whole groups sitting in an Islamic country are crossing over into the West uninvited and are essentially attacking someone for what they are - western and female - and in a very specific and Islamic manner.
              You must be joking. They are using internet exactly in a way it was designed to use - to connect people all over the world

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              So much for your assertions that they will somehow magically stay within their own countries and not affect those in other countries.
              My assertion stays correct, and seriously example with interpals messages is ridiculous. If anything this is the result of islamic culture and how it treats women like crap. Nothing to do with their "plans of world domination"



              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              You are well and truly comparing apples and oranges. Firstly you are giving the combined total for Iraq + Syria. Secondly, just about all of that was against ISIS - invaders from Iraq and invited by no party in the Syrian Civil War and hence something of a separate conflict all together.

              In the context of going on 7 years of Syrian civil war, many millions of artillery rounds, thousands upon thousands of tonnes of explosives detonated by various means and not to mention the munitions dropped from Syrian and Russian aircraft. Even neglecting that the vast bulk of it was against ISIS - still very small potatoes. All very small-scale particularly when you consider that of the order of 1/2 million people have already died in the Syrian conflict. Only a tiny fraction of that number have been killed by Western bombings and even if you take bombings of ISIS into consideration.
              It's is only your point of view. Objectively speaking 40.000 bombs is able to cause enourmous damage. And obviously I was quoting data for this unlawful actions as a whole, not only concerning Syria.

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Hint: Believing Muslims don't believe in "sovereign states" in the manner that you define them.
              Speaking about unsupported statements. Please provide results of a poll that prove it.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Why would that be? Sunni and Shia have been ripping into each other almost continually for more than a full millennium before Zionism appeared on the scene. This is very central to the conflict in Syria - as it is for the conflicts in Yemen and Iraq. Furthermore, it is pivotal to the mess in Lebanon

              It doesn't take much brains to realise for an Israeli why Iran is such a threat, Iran has very explicitly said on multiple occasions promises about destroying Israel and killing Jews in general. Islamic dogma is very clear about Muslims murdering Jews and how good this would be. Any Jew - Zionist or not Zionist - would therefore intelligently regard Iran as an existentialist threat.
              All muslim countries are saying such thing, nothing unusual here. Now if I see such rhetoric, that Iran is suddenly "existentialist threat" for Israel I know what is about to happen soon ; )
              No, muslim countries are no threat to Israel and please read history to find out why. Your own type of argument.

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Especially when the completely clueless are continually commenting on the Syrian War with unsubstantiated rhetoric and a total lack of understanding about the history of the region or about Islam...
              It's my thread. So I will keep commenting it if you please.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              They need educated workers for their economy. Germany got a bunch of semi-literate (even in Arabic) "refugees". If you wanted educated workers, you'd go to the refugee camps and cherrypick the best workers.
              Bulshit, They need uneducated workers exactly. To perform the crappiest jobs. Exactly the same as Poland which invited Ukrainians, just Germans need much much more than we.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Again, you are very much off the mark - these are shots of the Americans in action against ISIS. This is really not the Syrian Civil War per se but a group which invaded Syria via Iraq (but of course you would understand that if you had half a clue about the conflict and wider issues there).
              You wanted photos that support my claim that west is destroying ME. So you got one. I'm not talking about Syria only.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Bullshit. Islamists are fighting everywhere - the South of Thailand and in many countries in Africa and Central Asia just to name a few. And there's very limited western influence and involvement in these regions... It's very much a case of Islamists trying to destroy everyone else - Western or Nonwestern.
              Please stop presenting thing that are relative as if they were being objective. Poland does not have any significant history of wars with islam. The major problems I remember we've always had are with Germany and Russia. We came to fight with muslims in 1683 and we kicked their ass. Wherever islamists are fighting it is their fighting and their problem.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Definitely not history in the Middle Eastern region. It's clearly evident regarding how clueless you are about the Syrian conflict - particularly the reoccurrence of Islamic nations and empires throughout history there, hence your inability to comment substantively on this.

              You exhibit the same baseless shallow idiocy we see from postcolonialist fanboys like Lauri - that it's "The West" that somehow caused all the problems in the Middle East.
              It is possible that I can sometimes (once in 1000 years) agree with Lauri. But this is not arguent at all that I should change my mind. My comment was very substantive here. Let me put it simply: I reject the idea that history goes in circles. Because it's ridicoulous.

              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Because it repeats over and over with Islamic civilisations and empires. Same pattern over and over again from a cult whose very stated aim is ultimately world domination. What ultimately drove Ottoman conquest and how the Ottomans acted and ruled was very much Islamic - hence I offered that as an example for you to comment on. However you were not able to even make any sort of a substantial comment regarding that demonstrating an opinion one way or the other.
              Your example can convince only someone who supports such recurrence concept. To me, history goes in a non linear way. And if something repeats it is pure coincidence. It is pure idiocy to give example of a past like 500 -1000 years ago as a proof that soemthing must happen now. You are ignoring tons of variables, Non very scientific of you.


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              The basis of this all - The Quran, the Hadiths (respective for Shias and Sunnis) and Muhammad's biography remain virtually unchanged and can never do so without giving rise to a new religion.
              That is why secularity needs to be promoted in the ME. Not destruction because they are existentialist threat. Yes they are, for zionists, you said yourself ; )


              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
              Empty and pretty much meaningless rhetoric from you - you demonstrably know next to nothing about either even the basics of the contemporary situation in Syria

              You know next to nothing
              I know next to nothing and I am still right. Think what would happen if I knew something
              Last edited by jordan_rudess; 04-17-2018, 09:15 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                If they know how to manipulate their population, they are not idiots. The populations is idiots.
                Agree with the idea that they are not idiots if they can manipulate a population, not totally at least, however it doesn't mean the population is idiot at all, if you don't have any access to the "truth" (or an education that make you walk away from critical thought), how come you couldn't be manipulated?
                Polish are manipulated as well, and they aren't idiots

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                  Agree with the idea that they are not idiots if they can manipulate a population, not totally at least, however it doesn't mean the population is idiot at all, if you don't have any access to the "truth" (or an education that make you walk away from critical thought), how come you couldn't be manipulated?
                  Polish are manipulated as well, and they aren't idiots
                  What I mean there is always available to reach for the other view, because internet. Unless of course you live in some totalitarian shithole like North Korea.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post

                    What I mean there is always available to reach for the other view, because internet. Unless of course you live in some totalitarian shithole like North Korea.
                    I understood, yet you have to get the idea to search around... If your education is all about "this is the absolute truth" since you are 2yo, it will be difficult to think otherwise, being dumb or not. My point here is mostly to say that propaganda is a very strong tool and everyone can fall into it (especially the ones who think they are above this shit), something like the third wave tends to show it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      If they know how to manipulate their population, they are not idiots. The populations is idiots.

                      How should I know? I'm not a fortuneteller unlike others
                      Already responded to quite well.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      How do you know such things?
                      It's reported often + very evident in how he uses Twitter without connecting fingers to brain for example.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      I thought that Trump gets his news off his advisors, and government analytics, but ok.
                      That's one of the very basic problems - he's unable to handle copious amounts of data and information generally.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      They must be quite ambitious then. The first time I got my internet, I used it to find photos of sexy chicks. They go to plans for conquering world right away
                      Already responded to by another poster..

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Leftist idiots very much participate in the whole taxi thing, especially Italian ones dominate here.
                      Now what was that you were saying before about "idiots" and propaganda?

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Sorry, I thought I was talking about the obvious. There is such UN organ, Security Council. According to international law it must allow foreign intervention in a sovereign country. Any actions without UNSC permission are unlawful in fact military agressions on a territory of other state.

                      Bullshit. Literaly every half brain individual know that this is unlawful. Article 42 of UN Charter: ["Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."
                      Ummmmm no.

                      Hint: Google for "genocide" and "self-defence" among other reasons for military action that don't require UN security council approval (which incidentally is the only UN body that can actually issue binding resolutions).

                      As I was saying, these matters are much more complicated than people think

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      The whole NATO and U.S. in particular fights with this since at least 1990s.
                      http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/24/nato.un/
                      It is only because U.S. needs to have their war all over the world and cannot wait that long for UN approval to be granted.
                      Quoting CNN - that media organ of those leftists you so much despise

                      i've found CNN's reporting on the Middle East and matters related to Islam clueless and laughable to say the least.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      You must be joking. They are using internet exactly in a way it was designed to use - to connect people all over the world
                      Jihad in the modern era requires all sorts of communications connections..

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      My assertion stays correct, and seriously example with interpals messages is ridiculous. If anything this is the result of islamic culture and how it treats women like crap. Nothing to do with their "plans of world domination"
                      Someone's already beaten me to responding to that.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      It's is only your point of view. Objectively speaking 40.000 bombs is able to cause enourmous damage. And obviously I was quoting data for this unlawful actions as a whole, not only concerning Syria.
                      You're shifting the goalposts here - you OP the topic about Syria and shift it to Syria + Iraq to try and pad the numbers out.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Speaking about unsupported statements. Please provide results of a poll that prove it.
                      Here you are:

                      A Gallup poll of Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia conducted in 2006 found that 65% of those surveyed wanted to unify all Muslims under a Caliphate. A poll of British Muslim students by The Daily Telegraph in 2008 found 33% of respondents desired a Caliphate.
                      https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga...hristians-care

                      Thing is, you''re almost certainly pretty clueless as to what "Ummah" and "Caliphate" mean in an Islamic context, so the poll result might not mean anything to you. I'll let you educate yourself for a change...

                      Let's see you actually supporting a few of your statements...

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      All muslim countries are saying such thing, nothing unusual here. Now if I see such rhetoric, that Iran is suddenly "existentialist threat" for Israel I know what is about to happen soon
                      Islam terrorism has been around for many decades now. Iran has not just out of the blue become "an existentialist threat" - they've been making promises of destruction for a long time.

                      Israel's position on Iran is very analogous to the one that Poland has with Russia...

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      No, muslim countries are no threat to Israel and please read history to find out why. Your own type of argument.
                      I guess you don't know what Hamas or Hezbollah are?

                      Hint: who is providing each of these with the bulk of their funding?

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      It's my thread. So I will keep commenting it if you please.
                      Once you OP it, you're stuck with what you've written - unless of course you want to change the text in the body of it. Title can't be changed... It said Syria in the title if I remember correctly..

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Bulshit, They need uneducated workers exactly. To perform the crappiest jobs. Exactly the same as Poland which invited Ukrainians, just Germans need much much more than we.
                      Then the Germans can bring in more and better educated Poles, Ukranians and Russians to do the crappy jobs more efficiently if they are of such need of unskilled labour. Syrian "refugees" are going to be a burden on the German economy for decades to come - assuming that they have not been thrown out back to Syria in the meantime.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      You wanted photos that support my claim that west is destroying ME. So you got one. I'm not talking about Syria only.
                      You're now "not talking about Syria only" - you shifted the goalposts to include Iraq because you most likely are barely if at all able to differentiate these two particular conflicts.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Please stop presenting thing that are relative as if they were being objective. Poland does not have any significant history of wars with islam. The major problems I remember we've always had are with Germany and Russia. We came to fight with muslims in 1683 and we kicked their ass. Wherever islamists are fighting it is their fighting and their problem.
                      You had a close shave in 1683. If Vienna had fallen, then you were quite probably next in the firing line. In any case, Poland and the Ottomans had many other wars, e.g,

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...620%E2%80%9321)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...633%E2%80%9334)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...672%E2%80%9376)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...683%E2%80%9399)

                      Usually, Poland was on the losing side of these conflicts. You also seem perhaps somewhat quite clueless about Polish history. Or are you just embarrassed to talk about it?

                      Oh, by the way, Poles were also getting enslaved by the Ottomans in large numbers:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...Ottoman_Empire

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      It is possible that I can sometimes (once in 1000 years) agree with Lauri. But this is not arguent at all that I should change my mind. My comment was very substantive here.
                      Substantive??? On a Lauri level

                      I want to see much more evidence than merely empty statements.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Let me put it simply: I reject the idea that history goes in circles. Because it's ridicoulous.
                      When the conditions repeat themselves, then similar things happen.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      Your example can convince only someone who supports such recurrence concept. To me, history goes in a non linear way. And if something repeats it is pure coincidence. It is pure idiocy to give example of a past like 500 -1000 years ago as a proof that soemthing must happen now. You are ignoring tons of variables, Non very scientific of you.
                      You're making the statements here - you need to provide the evidence that it is never repeating itself under the conditions

                      We see the repetition of exactly the same things in Syria - Shia verses Sunni and Sunni and Shia groups fighting it out among themselves like gangsters.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      That is why secularity needs to be promoted in the ME. Not destruction because they are existentialist threat. Yes they are, for zionists, you said yourself
                      I totally agree with you here - secularism definitely needs to be promoted in the ME. Now, we have a bit of a paradox here... promoting secularism in these "sovereign nations" you are fond of talk about is by definition "interfering".

                      The rising number of Atheists in these Islamic countries is potentially the circuit breaker for the endless cycle we have seen in the Islamic world since peadophile Muhammad came on the scene. The game at this point changes considerably.

                      Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                      I know next to nothing and I am still right. Think what would happen if I knew something
                      I'll let that "statement" speak for itself...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                        You had a close shave in 1683. If Vienna had fallen, then you were quite probably next in the firing line. In any case, Poland and the Ottomans had many other wars, e.g,

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...620%E2%80%9321)

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...633%E2%80%9334)

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...672%E2%80%9376)

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...683%E2%80%9399)

                        Usually, Poland was on the losing side of these conflicts. You also seem perhaps somewhat quite clueless about Polish history. Or are you just embarrassed to talk about it?

                        Oh, by the way, Poles were also getting enslaved by the Ottomans in large numbers:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...Ottoman_Empire
                        First this, aussieinbg, because this is the most important. Please read your own links. They say as follows:
                        -indecisive (1)
                        -status quo (2)
                        -armistice (3)
                        -decisive Holy League victory (4)

                        Based on this and Vienna 1683 which was total victory of Polish troops you form conclusion that Poland was usually the loosing side?
                        And I am clueless. Please stop babbling nonsense and read about history of my country yourself, before you advise me.

                        In that era the use of hussars, Polish elite cavalry unit, meant almost guaranteed win, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hodów
                        In the period 1500-1625 Poland did not loose any battle that involved hussar units.

                        The rest later, because I've got to go to the classes.


                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post

                          First this, aussieinbg, because this is the most important. Please read your own links. They say as follows:
                          -indecisive (1)
                          -status quo (2)
                          -armistice (3)
                          -decisive Holy League victory (4)

                          Based on this and Vienna 1683 which was total victory of Polish troops you form conclusion that Poland was usually the loosing side?
                          And I am clueless. Please stop babbling nonsense and read about history of my country yourself, before you advise me.

                          In that era the use of hussars, Polish elite cavalry unit, meant almost guaranteed win, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hodów
                          In the period 1500-1625 Poland did not loose any battle that involved hussar units.

                          The rest later, because I've got to go to the classes.

                          The nett result nevertheless was loss of Polish territories.

                          And so much for your claims that "Poland never had much interaction with Islam". It did.

                          Furthermore, the retreat of the Ottomans after their 1683 defeat was almost certainly the groundwork for a Polish victory in that battle in 1694.
                          Last edited by aussieinbg; 04-17-2018, 04:46 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                            Ummmmm no.

                            Hint: Google for "genocide" and "self-defence" among other reasons for military action that don't require UN security council approval (which incidentally is the only UN body that can actually issue binding resolutions).

                            As I was saying, these matters are much more complicated than people think
                            It would be good to quote something as a basis for such claim, first time I hear actually.
                            Genoceide or self defence does not seem to apply to west who is not under islamic genocide. Self defence sound equally ridiculous in this case.


                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            Quoting CNN - that media organ of those leftists you so much despise

                            i've found CNN's reporting on the Middle East and matters related to Islam clueless and laughable to say the least.
                            A source just like any other. Please explain what exactly is factually wrong in the text I posted.


                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            You're shifting the goalposts here - you OP the topic about Syria and shift it to Syria + Iraq to try and pad the numbers out.
                            I'm not shifting anything. This is all related in a logical sense. Destruction of Syria by west and destruction of ME in general by west.


                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            Here you are:



                            https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga...hristians-care

                            Thing is, you''re almost certainly pretty clueless as to what "Ummah" and "Caliphate" mean in an Islamic context, so the poll result might not mean anything to you. I'll let you educate yourself for a change...

                            Let's see you actually supporting a few of your statements.
                            Your link refers to muslims uniting under "a caliphate". Ok, so let them unite, where exactly is the problem?


                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            Islam terrorism has been around for many decades now. Iran has not just out of the blue become "an existentialist threat" - they've been making promises of destruction for a long time.

                            Israel's position on Iran is very analogous to the one that Poland has with Russia...
                            Sure, but only if Israel = Russia

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            I guess you don't know what Hamas or Hezbollah are?

                            Hint: who is providing each of these with the bulk of their funding?
                            This is nothing. The real military capacity of Israel could be noticed already in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
                            Please stop pretending you don't know about it.
                            As I said, no ME country poses any real threat for Israel. And no kind of threats from any ME country can be justification for entering with military and destroying everything.

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            Once you OP it, you're stuck with what you've written - unless of course you want to change the text in the body of it. Title can't be changed... It said Syria in the title if I remember correctly..
                            Oh sure, so you can go offtopic to the extent of refering to 17th century history of Poland while I cannot mention other western interventions in ME in thread about Syria.

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            Then the Germans can bring in more and better educated Poles, Ukranians and Russians to do the crappy jobs more efficiently if they are of such need of unskilled labour. Syrian "refugees" are going to be a burden on the German economy for decades to come - assuming that they have not been thrown out back to Syria in the meantime.
                            From what I know it's still not enough. There's about 1,5 million Poles in Germany while they need like 10x this number.

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            I want to see much more evidence than merely empty statements.
                            Sure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
                            This is about just one particle
                            Here we have hundreds of millions of people and 1000 years of progress and development of culture

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            When the conditions repeat themselves, then similar things happen.
                            These are not the same conditions

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                            You're making the statements here - you need to provide the evidence that it is never repeating itself under the conditions
                            I did not say "never". I said you cannot be sure something will repeat itself to any reasonable extent or certainty.

                            Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                            I totally agree with you here - secularism definitely needs to be promoted in the ME. Now, we have a bit of a paradox here... promoting secularism in these "sovereign nations" you are fond of talk about is by definition "interfering".
                            Sure, then influence them with culture, economy, build fucking McDonalds, etc etc
                            Much better way than causing havoc
                            Last edited by jordan_rudess; 04-17-2018, 10:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              It would be good to quote something as a basis for such claim, first time I hear actually.
                              Genoceide or self defence does not seem to apply to west who is not under islamic genocide. Self defence sound equally ridiculous in this case.
                              All states have an obligation to even preemptively act against genocide:

                              http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevent...-humanity.html

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              A source just like any other. Please explain what exactly is factually wrong in the text I posted.
                              Not all sources are created equal. This one was the usual CNN shit.

                              Hint: the start of the article doesn't give the basis upon which the US and France agreed to act without UN approval and does not at all state a lack of a basis being given. Therefore, there is an inherent blatant bias in this article. Other bullshit pseudo-journalism can also be found in that article easily enough.

                              Funny how before you were implying how immune you were to propaganda yet you fell for something that was very much classical propaganda.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              I'm not shifting anything. This is all related in a logical sense. Destruction of Syria by west and destruction of ME in general by west.
                              They destroy themselves - it all comes back to the Sunni verses Shia thing that's been running almost 1400 years.

                              Then they whine when the West provide them with the weapons that they begged so hard for. Of course they forget to mention that if it weren't the West they were getting them from, then it would be the USSR/Russia, if not them then China and so on.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              Your link refers to muslims uniting under "a caliphate". Ok, so let them unite, where exactly is the problem?
                              If you're not part of the Caliphate and not undergoing conversion to Islam, then you are the enemy.

                              If you want a taste of what things are like under a Caliph, you only need look at far as ISIS. ISIS were only doing what is very explicitly stated in Islamic dogma and people were shocked. I wasn't.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              Sure, but only if Israel = Russia
                              Learn what the word "analogy" means.

                              Hint: certain features are the same in each situation but they are not identical.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              This is nothing. The real military capacity of Israel could be noticed already in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
                              Please stop pretending you don't know about it.
                              As I said, no ME country poses any real threat for Israel. And no kind of threats from any ME country can be justification for entering with military and destroying everything.
                              I'd actually recommend reading the links that you post. Israel was not merely at war with neighbouring countries but with the wider Sunni Islam world in 1967. Furthermore, take a look at how the militaries stack up on paper. Finally, Israel actually had a legitimate reason for attacking them and the opposing countries were actually working very hard for Israel to attack them - statements inviting Israel to attack as well as of course the blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

                              It's also interesting this article from another perspective - after the Six Day War, just about all Islamic countries kicked out most of their Jewish inhabitants, even those who had been there almost 2 thousand years and in fact much longer in many cases than the Arabs who were doing the booting. This should be remembered when and if it comes time to boot out Islamists from Europe when they whine about being booted.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              Oh sure, so you can go offtopic to the extent of refering to 17th century history of Poland while I cannot mention other western interventions in ME in thread about Syria.
                              Yes it was off-topic. I was refuting something you said that was in itself not merely off-topic but patently bullshit.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              From what I know it's still not enough. There's about 1,5 million Poles in Germany while they need like 10x this number.
                              Evidence for your statement?

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              Sure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
                              This is about just one particle
                              Here we have hundreds of millions of people and 1000 years of progress and development of culture
                              If you want to play the quantum physics uncertainty game, then we can consider 100s of millions of people in groups to be very analogous to what are known as "statistical ensembles".

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

                              If you choose 5 atoms / people at random, it will be rather highly unpredictable how they react/interact with each other. On the other hand, put them together by the million under defined conditions and you get results which are predictable to a high degree of accuracy.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              These are not the same conditions
                              Same driving cultist ideology which forms the boundary conditions stressing the society.

                              OTE=jordan_rudess;n3048954]
                              I did not say "never". I said you cannot be sure something will repeat itself to any reasonable extent or certainty.[/QUOTE]

                              On the other hand, if a sledge hammer hit has broken blocks of ice of a certain size into pieces on many occasions before, then you can be pretty sure it will do it again. You are not able to determine to the atomic scale the exact nature of the cracks and the pieces formerly making up the block of ice, however you can probably say something about the size distribution of the pieces of ice you get afterwards for hits of the same force.

                              Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                              Sure, then influence them with culture, economy, build fucking McDonalds, etc etc
                              Much better way than causing havoc
                              This is precisely what they are all whining about. McDonalds is far more preferable for just about any sane person to 5 times a day headbanging in mosque.

                              Thing is, if they didn't have McDonalds crap food places to complain about, then they'd whine about "cultural imperialism" regarding Western movies. If all cinemas were banned, then they'd blame it on the West for allowing internet to stream all those cultural imperialist films to believer computer screens and iphones.

                              This is how Islamists create a pretext to do things.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                                Hint: there's a reason why unlimited mobile phone access is not allowed in migrant detention centres in Australia right now. Think about it.
                                Since I'd posted that, take a look at what has happened in Austria (not Australia!!!):

                                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43823166

                                For sure it will make it harder for these "refugees" to lie about which countries they have been through and so on. The real benefit is that it breaks the easy lines of communication that people smugglers and other illegal immigrants have with people already in the country they are targeting to "be refugees" in.

                                As for the money confiscations. It was never really about "paying for asylum seeker upkeep" - it was all about making monetary transactions more trackable by providing massive disincentives to keep physical cash which can be easily moved without tracking.

                                You'd better get smart and very quickly about how to deal with "refugees" if you don't want them invading in any substantial numbers your precious Poland. Putting your head in the sand and whining "it's in the ME" doesn't cut it.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X