FTA69 wrote: » I'm not oversimplifying. If the US hadn't smashed the region to bits and created a militarised vacuum over a decade, chances are these muppets wouldn't have come to any sort of prominence. Likewise, Libya was untroubled by Islamic fundamentalists for decades and within a couple of years of destabilisation they are now major actors in the country. It isn't a massive extrapolation to say that invasions and destabilisations will lead to dangerous loopers emerging. It's a serious point? Why does a Middle Eastern life mean less than a Western one? A human being is a human being and every death is a tragedy. Especially those people killed needlessly in wars started over imperialist greed. I'm aware of that fact, and I oppose colonialism and imperialism.
UCDVet wrote: » That explains the long stretch of peace the middle east saw, right until the USA came in and ruined everything, right?
Eugene Norman wrote: » It was relatively peaceable. I mean the Israelis occasionally fought with their arab neighbours, and Iran fought with Iraq, hard to see what danger that caused the West.
IrishTrajan wrote: » The U.S. did what they did to protect their economic interests. The U.S. property bubble popped, and it brought the entire Western world into recession 7 years ago. You think that the petrodollar crashing wouldn't affect us and our lives? I would add an addendum to your point about extremism. Low quality of living exacerbates extremism. We've seen it in Greece with the rise of Tsipras. Austerity and "low" (comparably) standards of living will lead to extremism. The U.S. protecting the value of the dollar, and its economic viability as the world reserve currency through military force, arguably prevented extremism in the West.
IrishTrajan wrote: » After the Saudis agreed to back the dollar with oil in return for military assistance, controlling the stability of the oil trade meant quite a lot to the West.
The U.S. did what they did to protect their economic interests. The U.S. property bubble popped, and it brought the entire Western world into recession 7 years ago. You think that the petrodollar crashing wouldn't affect us and our lives? I would add an addendum to your point about extremism. Low quality of living exacerbates extremism. We've seen it in Greece with the rise of Tsipras. Austerity and "low" (comparably) standards of living will lead to extremism.
The U.S. protecting the value of the dollar, and its economic viability as the world reserve currency through military force, arguably prevented extremism in the West.
A Western life means more to me because they live the same way that I do, we speak English, we rely on each other economically, culturally, militarily. I have a greater affinity for my neighbours than I do people who do not live the same way we do. It's quite simple really.
Eugene Norman wrote: » The US by engaging in QE should, in fact, have reduced the price of the dollar. The collapse of which, by the way, would affect Americans and not Europeans. The West is not monolithic. However, given the power of the reserve currency it didn't collapse. on the general point, clearly we are not safer than we were when the Yanks started bombing the bejusus out of places with no WMD whatsoever. We are much worse off. The Yanks have managed to radicalise a significant proportion of European muslims into a frenzy of hatred towards the West, even Europe, even though the countries involved didn't engage or opposed the war. Draining the swamp my ass.
Eugene Norman wrote: » This is generally tin foil hat brigade. It really doesn't matter if oil is priced in dollars, euros, rupees, or frankfurters. If a currency is the reserve currency then that currency will be used to buy oil for the most, but not the only, part. In fact the euro is used to buy oil. As is the rupee. People think that pricing in dollars means selling only in dollars. It doesn't And the saudis have clearly acted against American interests in opening the floodgates in the recent past.
FTA69 wrote: » I'm sorry but this just comes across as cheerleading an illegal invasion that caused untold carnage on the basis that the Americans somehow had a moral right to visit destruction on poor people half way across the world because it happened to be in their interest. Similarly, the fact they told a pack of lies to their own people and fabricated imaginary reasons to garner public support shows the morally spurious basis on which they invaded.
FTA69 wrote: » Ha ha. Iraq War was necessary to stop the left coming to power is it?
FTA69 wrote: » I presume you're Irish, if so why would you place greater importance on the life of an American soldier than some Iraqi grandmother? That's ridiculous. I work with people from all over the world and have visited plenty of places which are much different to our own; funnily enough I have no problem accepting parity amongst the importance of human lives.
FTA69 wrote: » Boiled down, what you're saying is "who gives a f*ck about the brown Muslims out that direction as they're different to us." It's the worst of perspectives to have.
You laugh about the left being extremist, but look at Sweden. Militant left-wing groups. Yes, that's right. Militant Left. Ridiculous, I know.
Did I say I don't care? No, I didn't. Of course I care. If I didn't I wouldn't be keeping up with the news, would I? I wouldn't feel anger when I watch videos of men being shot, beheaded, burned alive, stoned to death, blown to pieces. I wouldn't feel untempered rage when I watch children being indoctrinated into their way of life, would I? Don't make me out to be some right wing fascistic bastard just so you can jack off your own moral position, you condescending asshat. Of course I care. I just care about Western lives more.
FTA69 wrote: » There's a few youngfellas going around getting into scraps with skinhead types. It isn't a harbinger of governmental collapse.
FTA69 wrote: » It's hilarious you're throwing a total hissy-fit over me pointing out the reality of what you're saying. You say you prioritise American lives over the lives of others in the Middle-East, despite you not coming from either area. You placing more emphasis on the lives of American soldiers etc rather than acknowledging the basic fact that all human lives have parity does a bang a bit of fascism to be honest. Personally I don't think one human being has any worth over another because they happen to have the same culture as me. Probably because I'm not a lunatic.
A lot of the people they target aren't promoting fascism or right-wing ideology. I guess violence is okay so long as it doesn't compromise political correctness
I'm not throwing a hissy fit.
Yes, I prioritize Western lives over Middle Eastern lives. Tell me, there's a neighbour who lives much the same way you do. He gets an altercation with a stranger over money, and both end up dying. The complete stranger just happens to have a different skin, which has no bearing on the premise under which they fought, merely superficial meaning. Who would you be more concerned with?
It's tribalism, a basic instinct in humanity. We're social creatures, arguing that because I care more about people like me, than people who aren't like me, makes me racist, is outright retarded.
FTA69 wrote: » I said that they are hardly a threat to political stability in Sweden, they're a small street-based group that hops off other small, street-based groups. They aren't a signal of massive destabilisation in Scandinavia or anything.
FTA69 wrote: » You are mate, firing insults such as "asshat" and "twit" (which are pretty sh*te as insults go) to total strangers on the internet is a bit silly to be honest.
FTA69 wrote: » I have neighbours from all over the world lad, on my road there are hijab-wearing Muslims, Indian Sikhs, Brits, an elderly Italian couple, a Jamaican family and a house full of taciturn Poles who chain-smoke joints in their front yard while drinking crap lager. I don't look around at them and start to prioritise who I should have greater affinity with because of their cultural background when I don't really know any of them.
FTA69 wrote: » Disregarding your example and bringing it back to the point at hand; do I place greater emphasis on a life of an American or British soldier than I do someone from the Middle-East? No, I don't. Because that's a ridiculous way to think. I work with Bengali Muslims and box with Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds and Afghans. I don't view them in a lesser category or believe I should automatically have less affinity with them than I do an American.
FTA69 wrote: » What's retarded is you claiming "affinity" with complete strangers because they happen to be from Oklahoma or Florida as opposed to Baghdad. It's an insular and stupid way of thinking.
So if you insult me, it's fine. If I insult you, I'm angry. Oh joy, arguing with children is so exciting.0
I said I prefer those living in the West to those living in the Middle East
You're so anti-American you're becoming illogical.
You see, there we differ. I do care about British and American soldiers, because when they go to war, they're not going out with the intention of fighting for an oligarch or a hegemonic power... They are fighting for the West. That is what they signed up for, to protect their country, their allies and our way of life.
Now, answer my question. What do you want us to do? This argument stemmed from me saying America shouldn't be the world police and shouldn't put troops back in Iraq. What would you have us do? Force the Yanky-doodles and the Brits back into those countries?
FTA69 wrote: » They should accept responsibility for destabilising the region on a massive basis with their invasion of Iraq. They should cease any and all interference in Syria for a start. They should end their policy of toppling governments at a whim when they believe it to be expedient á la Libya. They should also end unilateral support for Israel and try and bed down that particular crisis with the creation of a Palestinian state which would go a long way to bringing some sort of stability.
rob316 wrote: » You can be sure if George Dubya was still about he would wipe these maniacs off the face of the earth.
So, we should just let ISIS massacre people wantonly? I guess those Coptic Egyptians deserved to get beheaded, they must've been too pro-West, right? Well, aside from Egypt's falling out with the U.S., and their Ba'athist idealism.
Palestine would bring stability? Are you off your god damned rocker?
IT WAS THE PALESTINIANS WHO STARTED THE BLOODY WAR
The fact that when Britain held the British Mandate of Palestine, when they were talking about leaving, and the Arabs started massacring the Jews, causing the Jews to retaliate... That was all the Jews fault?
How can you argue for America to accept responsibility for their actions in Iraq, then blatantly ignore the fact it was Palestine's fault that they're in this predicament in the first place?!
You're not anti-Imperialist, because you're wantonly excusing the imperialism of an Arab State that caused their current problem. You're anti-Western Imperialist
FTA69 wrote: » A Palestinian state and an end to an injustice that has become a totem in the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia would probably be a big help in stabilising the region, yes. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a major factor in Middle East destabilisation and a calming (relatively) of that situation would go a long way. The only realistic way that's going to happen is with the foundation of a Palestinian state.
FTA69 wrote: » Lulz. They systematically stripped themselves of their own homeland and threw themselves off their land did they? The devious bastards. What are you on about? The British decided to allocate the majority of Palestine to Jewish immigrants and basically dispossess the Palestinian people due to European anti-Semitism they had no hand or part in.
FTA69 wrote: » Total and utter nonsense to be honest and the usual victim-blaming we often hear on that particular issue. A people who had their land robbed from under them and now find themselves ghettoised and cantonised in their own country.
FTA69 wrote: » The Palestinians are imperialist?? I was thinking earlier on you were a bit cracked but I'm sure of the fact now.
Skip ahead: In 1948, Palestine declared war on Israel. Israel won.
In the Oslo Accords, the Americans put forward peace deals.
Palestine started the war. They suffered the cost of losing that war.
Your left-wing hand wringing is disgusting. You're excusing acts of violence from Arabs to protect "their land" which was "stolen" as you said, while you are condemning Israel actually defending their home in several wars, and of U.S. protecting its vital lifelines (the oil trade) as "imperialist" and "unneeded".
You're a troglodyte, willfully ignorant and holding the West to a double standard. You sir, are what we call a libtard. That's a liberal retard.
FTA69 wrote: » You're having a giraffe mate. It's the same typical bullsh*t I often hear from people who defend the worst elements of American imperialism and the nonsense that goes with it; an effort to appear reasonable followed by defending the indefensible in the name of pragmatism or realpolitik. Only this time you've interspersed it with charming assertions about the superior value of Western lives.
FTA69 wrote: » B*llocks. The Brits allocated over half of Palestine (including all of the best land) to recent Jewish immigrants despite them being around a quarter of the population. In other words, Palestinians were to lose 60% of their country due to anti-Semitism in Europe they had no hand or part in. After the foundation of Israel, Palestinians were expelled at gunpoint by Jewish paramilitaries and this was the start of the refugee crisis we see in the area today.
FTA69 wrote: » At Oslo, the PLO recognised Israel and acknoweledged its right to exist. All they have gotten in return is more of their land stolen from them, hundreds of illegal settlements and the cantonisation of their country.
FTA69 wrote: » They handed over 60% of their country to European immigrants and then turfed themselves off their own land? Nonsense again.
FTA69 wrote: » This is actually gas. The US illegally invading a sovereign country predicated on a lie in order to secure their own interests, killing untold civilians in the process, is simply protecting a lifeline; while the real imperialists are a poor and dispossessed Palestinian people who are being oppressed by a nuclear-armed modern military.
FTA69 wrote: » Libtard? Troglodyte? It doesn't take a big man to spout off insults from behind a screen lad. And yet again you revert to the sh*ttest insults imaginable and sound like a spotty university debating type in the process. I'd have more respect for you if you just plain called me a c*nt.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Have you ever even read about the conflict?
"a big man to spout off insults from behind a screen"... Did you seriously just use that "fight me in real life m8" argument? Jesus Christ you're stupid.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Yes, me being reasonable is clearly nonsensical. Would you ever cop on, you amadán. "had no hand or part in"... So, they didn't want to keep the Jews as dhimmi. They didn't start a civil unrest campaign and murdered Jews? Get your head out of your ass, Palestine started that conflict. No, what they got in return for America tendering offers, and Israel announcing they are open to negotiations... They didn't even have the common decency to say yes, no, or offer a counter proposal. I suggest you read up. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Have you ever even read about the conflict? So, violence against an ethnic group is justified, when you want the land they bought, after you just fought several wars to take it by force? And when the group they were trying to massacre knocks them out, suddenly they person they are attacking is the bad guy? Will you go away outta that, you fool. "a big man to spout off insults from behind a screen"... Did you seriously just use that "fight me in real life m8" argument? Jesus Christ you're stupid. Just because someone uses sesquipedalian words (that's the big boy word that means "big boy words", so you know, little feller), doesn't mean those words are "sh*t". It means your vocabulary is lacking, my friends. Ah, vulgarity. "When the argument isn't going your way, use the c-word for shock value". Your posts are ignorant and superfluous, your personality is vapid and you lack critical thinking skills. I'm quite finished debating with you, good day.
FTA69 wrote: » Yes mate I have. And I've actually been there too and spent some time with the people you seem to deem lesser human beings.
FTA69 wrote: » No lad, I didn't say that at all. I just said you sound silly when you spout bucket loads of hysterical insults from behind your computer and then lecture me about vulgarity.
FTA69 wrote: » As I suspected, you're frankly a bit of an oddball. I can only hope you don't conduct discussions in real life the same way.
FTA69 wrote: » Yes mate I have. And I've actually been there too and spent some time with the people you seem to deem lesser human beings. No lad, I didn't say that at all. I just said you sound silly when you spout bucket loads of hysterical insults from behind your computer and then lecture me about vulgarity. As I suspected, you're frankly a bit of an oddball. I can only hope you don't conduct discussions in real life the same way.
Playboy wrote: » Are you having a laugh? A hasbara couldnt have written a more blinkered view on the origins of the Israeli state. Let's just forget about Zionism and its aspirations shall we? There is quite a big difference between the immigrant jews buying land from Ottomans who didnt own the land to sell in the first place and the native jews who lived their for centuries. Israel was a colonial project and you have a problem with the colonized resisting?? As to Camp David... take your own advice? Do you even know what was offered and what the Palestinians agreed to accept?? have a readhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12266139
"This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition," said the Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurei. "We refused to do so in Camp David," he added,
Playboy wrote: » I wouldnt waste your breath, his education on Israeli history is pretty similar to what Israeli's are thought at school... basically a pack of lies. They freak out when the veil is lifted
