Moderator: Community Team
Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
saxitoxin wrote:Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
There is no religious conflict; that's the USA Today colorful charts version. It is a conflict between Islamic fundamentalists on one side, and secular Arabs (including Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze, and the Non-Religious) on the other side. It is a battle between Modernism or Tradition; a Republic or a Beardocracy.
The U.S. has been attacking Modernism (not because it's opposed to Modernism, just because that's who happens to be on the wrong side of its goals); leaders that introduced equal rights for women and protection of the rights of religious minorities such as in Syria, pre-invasion Libya, and pre-invasion Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. defends and arms the traditional (read: stone-age) societies of the fat, cocaine-addicted kings of the gulf emirates who preach hadith while having orgies with 14 year olds.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
GabonX wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
There is no religious conflict; that's the USA Today colorful charts version. It is a conflict between Islamic fundamentalists on one side, and secular Arabs (including Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze, and the Non-Religious) on the other side. It is a battle between Modernism or Tradition; a Republic or a Beardocracy.
The U.S. has been attacking Modernism (not because it's opposed to Modernism, just because that's who happens to be on the wrong side of its goals); leaders that introduced equal rights for women and protection of the rights of religious minorities such as in Syria, pre-invasion Libya, and pre-invasion Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. defends and arms the traditional (read: stone-age) societies of the fat, cocaine-addicted kings of the gulf emirates who preach hadith while having orgies with 14 year olds.
Do tell us more Saxi, about how the Husseins and Assads are such wonderful arbiters of human rights
FAFO wrote:Women in Syria enjoy their rights more than in most Arab and Islamic countries. This has been the result of a large scale of opening-up to contemporary civilization at an early stage in which only Egypt and Lebanon have preceded Syria. The government in Syria is keen on empowering women, capable of this, and practices it. Therefore, the official public orientations always include a persistence on equality between men and women.
http://www.fafo.no/ais/middeast/syria/s ... SW-Jabbour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fafo
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
GabonX wrote:If you ignore the mass killings the Baathists in Iraq and Syria carry out against their opposition your post sounds kinda good.
BigBallinStalin wrote:They're very likely to be an unintended consequence of US foreign policy's tampering with the region, so I'd rule out the first possible conspiracy theory you mentioned.
Other than that, I'm not sure. They look like a bunch of guys with guns who (1) tell people to follow the extreme rules of some silly book, (2) take other people's resources, and (3) are so far successful in their territorial conquests. (But that sums up what the media has been generally blabbing about for awhile, so I'm sorry, DY).
BigBallinStalin wrote:They're very likely to be an unintended consequence of US foreign policy's tampering with the region, so I'd rule out the first possible conspiracy theory you mentioned.
Other than that, I'm not sure. They look like a bunch of guys with guns who (1) tell people to follow the extreme rules of some silly book, (2) take other people's resources, and (3) are so far successful in their territorial conquests. (But that sums up what the media has been generally blabbing about for awhile, so I'm sorry, DY).
saxitoxin wrote:The unfortunate reality is that ISIS is unstoppable and unbeatable.
saxitoxin wrote:Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
There is no religious conflict; that's the version the Historic Bloc [the U.S. and its satellites] sells to try to downplay what's coming next, to make it seem a ho-hum routine of age-old war...
shickingbrits wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:They're very likely to be an unintended consequence of US foreign policy's tampering with the region, so I'd rule out the first possible conspiracy theory you mentioned.
Other than that, I'm not sure. They look like a bunch of guys with guns who (1) tell people to follow the extreme rules of some silly book, (2) take other people's resources, and (3) are so far successful in their territorial conquests. (But that sums up what the media has been generally blabbing about for awhile, so I'm sorry, DY).
Unintended consequences of US foreign policy?
Kind of like Mali? Gadafi enjoyed overwhelming support in Libya. He had turned it into one of the richest countries in Africa, guaranteed everyone a house, higher education domestically or abroad and maintained peace. But he challenged US hegemony by trying to introduce a gold standard to trade oil in.
The US then funded opposition. They provided support to Abu Sufian bin Qumu, a former guest at Gitmo. The media was so kind as to attend pro-Gadafi rallies and describe them to the greater public as pro-rebel rallies. 90% of the population gathered to show support for Gadafi. The media was also so kind as to release footage of Gadafi being sodomized to death with a bayonet.
Last spring, our sponsored "freedom" fighters (Al Qaeda) then marched on Mali. Canada and others intervened. Canada was given rights to their gold for intervention.
The "unintended consequences" of these actions miraculously provided the US and it's allies with what they wanted.
ISIS is another example of "unintended consequences" that will provide the US with exactly what it wants. It's almost like funding them makes them do our bidding...
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's possible that the US funded elements of ISIS, but I haven't seen anything definitive. It's an unintended consequence because it's not like the US foresaw all of this happening when they destabilized the entire region by taking Iraq, AFG, by bombing Libya, and by funding insurgents in Syria. Of course, something bad was increasingly becoming more likely, but the usual argument against that is "it won't be that bad" or "we did the best we could" or "well, it would've been even worse had we not intervened."
The bar for arguing that the US intended for all of this to happen is much higher. You'd need more evidence. Also, it's government; they're quite incompetent in (a) post-war reconstruction, (b) generating sustainable wealth and institutions through foreign aid, (c) promoting the 'public good' within their own borders, etc. The problem with conspiracy theorists, which you seem to be, is that there's a paradox where government is in reality very incompetent but somehow awesome at pulling off even more complicated plans abroad.
GabonX wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
There is no religious conflict; that's the USA Today colorful charts version. It is a conflict between Islamic fundamentalists on one side, and secular Arabs (including Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze, and the Non-Religious) on the other side. It is a battle between Modernism or Tradition; a Republic or a Beardocracy.
The U.S. has been attacking Modernism (not because it's opposed to Modernism, just because that's who happens to be on the wrong side of its goals); leaders that introduced equal rights for women and protection of the rights of religious minorities such as in Syria, pre-invasion Libya, and pre-invasion Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. defends and arms the traditional (read: stone-age) societies of the fat, cocaine-addicted kings of the gulf emirates who preach hadith while having orgies with 14 year olds.
Do tell us more Saxi, about how the Husseins and Assads are such wonderful arbiters of human rights
Ray Rider wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Ray Rider wrote:it's mainly a continuation of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam
There is no religious conflict; that's the version the Historic Bloc [the U.S. and its satellites] sells to try to downplay what's coming next, to make it seem a ho-hum routine of age-old war...
Actually I've never heard that it was a Sunni/Shia religious conflict from Western media; that is what I learned from speaking directly to Muslim Arabs in Jordan, Israel, and Egypt on my recent trip to the Middle East. That is what the locals there whom I met describe it as.
shickingbrits wrote:The problem with your theory is that:
1. You have assumed that I consider the US government incompetent,
2. You assume the US government is incompetent.
You cannot prove 1, because it is not true. I consider the government extremely competent in carrying out its intentions. As to why moves us to 2.
shickingbrits wrote:The only way you can call the US government incompetent is thus: The US government is the most incompetent government, except for all the other governments in the world. The US in the sole superpower, defeating all competitors. How does this equate to incompetence?
shickingbrits wrote:False flag operations were described in the Art of War, a 2500 year old text which is mandatory reading for all officers in the US military. Is the US so incompetent that it could not pull one off (remember the US has the most competent military in the world) or made of stronger moral stuff (the US have overthrown more than 100 democratically elected governments)?
shickingbrits wrote:Saying that the US government's annual sales of $681bn of war to the US people is incompetence is like saying Apple is a charity that just happens to get really good donations.
BigBallinStalin wrote:shickingbrits wrote:The problem with your theory is that:
1. You have assumed that I consider the US government incompetent,
2. You assume the US government is incompetent.
You cannot prove 1, because it is not true. I consider the government extremely competent in carrying out its intentions. As to why moves us to 2.
So, how do you explain the failure of post-war reconstruction in Iraq and AFG?
[Note: if you change the goal posts by saying, "well X wasn't the REAL intention of government," then your theory becomes completely arbitrary. For example, whatever contradicts your theory of government, you'll rubber stamp as "not their TRUE intentions," and whatever you want government to intend, you'll simply state that's what they intend].shickingbrits wrote:The only way you can call the US government incompetent is thus: The US government is the most incompetent government, except for all the other governments in the world. The US in the sole superpower, defeating all competitors. How does this equate to incompetence?
Here's a better standard: efficiency. You can also compare government-induced order to other governments (e.g. liberal democratic governments like GER, FRA, etc). And you can also compare government-induced order and govt-provided goods to market provided goods and market provided order.
If the goal is: SUPREME DOMINATION, then I guess you got me there, but I doubt each bureaucrat and politician goes to work and thinks, "how can I make US a global hegemon?"shickingbrits wrote:False flag operations were described in the Art of War, a 2500 year old text which is mandatory reading for all officers in the US military. Is the US so incompetent that it could not pull one off (remember the US has the most competent military in the world) or made of stronger moral stuff (the US have overthrown more than 100 democratically elected governments)?
I'm pretty sure the government can pull off some percent of 'false flag ops', but it doesn't mean that every event you see is the direct result of the US government. "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like nail," as the saying goes.
You keep saying the government is competent because it topples government. You're overlooking the history of government's incompetence in the arenas which I've already mentioned. If you disagree, please explain how government excels in aiding the poor, creating optimal health care policies, etc.
Or better yet: read some books and get back to me.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users