How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.
I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.
Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.
At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.
Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus. And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.
I said some posts seem to read as if they are defending ISIS. This is far from silly to present as I did. That's how they read whether you care to admit it or not. I read them that way. Matts obviously did as well which motivated him to write what he did.
I said I typically despise US foreign policy- I'm glad we can agree there (even though I think you think we don't). The guy who keeps his hands clean as he blows up children is just as reprehensible as the guy on the ground with the knife. How you got me legitimizing this form of violence perplexes me a little- it seems like you have tried to make something out of nothing there?
In the interest of 'examination': I won't get into too many details, but like many other places, we have had a young man, spoiled with all the western luxuries we all share, leave our community to take up arms with ISIS. Trust me when I say people are shocked- this has been a bizarre event. Can you (or someone) explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?
Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.
Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?
When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.
The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.
I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries. As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.
I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.
Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.
At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.
Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus. And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.
I said some posts seem to read as if they are defending ISIS. This is far from silly to present as I did. That's how they read whether you care to admit it or not. I read them that way. Matts obviously did as well which motivated him to write what he did.
I said I typically despise US foreign policy- I'm glad we can agree there (even though I think you think we don't). The guy who keeps his hands clean as he blows up children is just as reprehensible as the guy on the ground with the knife. How you got me legitimizing this form of violence perplexes me a little- it seems like you have tried to make something out of nothing there?
In the interest of 'examination': I won't get into too many details, but like many other places, we have had a young man, spoiled with all the western luxuries we all share, leave our community to take up arms with ISIS. Trust me when I say people are shocked- this has been a bizarre event. Can you (or someone) explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?
Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.
Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?
When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.
The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.
I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries. As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
I was listening to U of T's radio station last night, and the host was speaking to a man who was recruited into a cult, and went from being an atheist to believing that humanity was responding to the will of Satan within a period of two weeks. Eventually, he recognized that he was drinking the Kool-Aid, and left, and now is outspoken on the topic of undue and unethical influence (or mind control). Something he made a point of mentioning was that good mind control techniques can work regardless of whether or not the recruiters and the recruited share premises. He also made a point of mentioning that it is not only weak-willed or 'dumb' people who can be controlled in this way, and that the demographics associated with cults typically include highly intelligent people.
We learn English, mathematics, science, art in school, but it wouldn't be until university that we could have an opportunity to take courses whose sole purposes are "sifting through bullshit to find meaningful and non-fallacious facts to base our alignments upon". Cults and extremist groups put significant effort into forming their controlling tactics, and we are left unprepared. Clearly, a glaring omission from our school curriculums is a course that would promote the significance of asking "why", and studying causality - a premise simple enough that even young children can understand (if this then that). To aid with teaching this notion, there are spectacularly horrific examples of the dangers of not asking why: I would imagine that almost every genocide in history has been associated with some form of unethical influence. Even though I am armed with at most a superficial understanding of two genocides (the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia), it is easy to see the associated influence that facilitated the atrocities.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?
You misunderstood. He wasn't calling for a wipe-out of IS, he was calling for the eradication of the Muslims in general. It's his whole schtick...bait and then mock.
I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.
At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.
(as you seem to see it) with the IS.
explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?
Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.
Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?
When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.
The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.
I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries. As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
As long as meaningful discussion occurs, this thread can play out any way it might. Your point works both ways: are threads any better if everyone says "I hate the US and they are responsible for... (see link)"?
You asked for a post which provides a 'specific example of a defence of ISIS'. Then you proceed to write: As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment.
Read these words. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you have written, but these words- like many others before them- tend to leave the reader with the impression (no... not 'specific'... but an impression nonetheless) that a defence can be made for the actions of ISIS if one simply took the time to understand why they have come to this position.
More alarming to me than the beheadings is the fact that ISIS is engaged in an aggressive and hostile ethnic cleansing effort. Americans aren't the only people who have motivated this group to such levels of hostility.
How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?
if I said go jump off a bridge would you do it ? or do you have enough common sense to realize I was not serious...and even better you finally got to use the B (bigotry) word and that in it self must be a real hum-dinger to a super crime fighter like yourself so run like the wind super hero ) and go catch those nasty homophobic GENOcidel biggoted blog nastys... then take it ez for a while.
Look around, ISIS's acolytes are just apprentices at atrocity
WARNING: This story contains graphic content
Neil Macdonald Senior Washington Correspondent
Back in July, Barack Obama signed an executive order punishing anyone responsible for some of the hideous excesses of the Congolese civil war.
Hardly anyone noticed Obama's order. But for the record, the people it targets have reportedly committed: mass rape (of men and women, by rebels and government soldiers) often in front of communities and families, or forcing people to rape each other, as a weapon of war; inventive torture (forcing men to copulate with holes in the ground lined with razor blades, forcing women to eat excrement or flesh of relatives); casual and varied forms of murder (including firing weapons up women's vaginas); use of child soldiers; and ethnic cleansing.
The list goes on.
The Congo war has killed five million people, directly and indirectly, since 1998 — more than the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq put together, as one national newspaper here noted recently.
Obama's punishment for the culprits? Financial discomfort.
He broadened the reach of U.S.-UN sanctions to take in a wider group of participants. (They'd better not show up in America, or open a bank account here, or they'll be sorry.)
Then, a month after he signed the order, Obama invited Congo's unsavory president, Joseph Kabila, to the White House for dinner.
Compared to the acts committed by Kabila's military and the rebels fighting it, and the interventions by neighbouring Rwanda, the 20,000 or so fighters of ISIS are tenderfoot apprentices in the atrocity business.
Yet ISIS merits what is obviously just the beginning of a full-scale American re-invasion of Iraq, and perhaps even Syria.
'The heart of darkness'
House Speaker John Boehner on the weekend became just the latest prominent American to predict the inevitable deployment of U.S. ground forces.
Meanwhile, the campaign to soften up a mildly skeptical Western public is blaring at near-feedback levels.
ISIS has now become the arch-villian, the Keyser Söze of revolutionary groups.
It is denounced as "the heart of darkness," (Obama), a "death cult" (Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott) and a genocidal terrorist caliphate (Stephen Harper).
None of those leaders spends much time at all talking about the Congo (the subject was last raised in the Canadian House of Commons three years ago).
When they do, they speak in far milder terms than they do about ISIS, even framing it in the mournful abstract.
At a Francophonie summit in 2012, Harper gently asked whether Canada could help find "solutions" to advance "peace, development and democracy in the DRC," the Democratic Republic of Congo, where all the fighting is.
So why the cognitive dissonance?
Moral relativism
The most charitable view is that national leaders tend to act on the fears and desires and preoccupations of their voters, and while ISIS has terrified Americans by beheading a handful of Westerners, nobody really cares what goes on in the Congo.
It's far away, in the middle of a continent widely perceived as dirty and savage, and the victims are all, well, black Africans.
Western politicians also take their cues from news outlets, and while editors don't like to discuss such things, Africa (along with a few other wretched parts of the Earth) barely makes the news menu, if at all.
A struggling baby panda in some zoo will easily knock an African genocide off the nightly newscast.
It's not a conscious racism — journalists profess, probably sincerely, concern for suffering and death everywhere. And the level of education among editorial staff, like diplomats, can be remarkable where world affairs are concerned.
But what makes it onto front pages and newscasts and national agendas tells the story.
Passenger liners that crash in Africa barely make world briefs, or "in other news" sections voiced over by the anchor. Jets that go down carrying Europeans or North Americans stay on front pages and newscasts for days.
The current Ebola epidemic only began grabbing serious space on American newscasts when Obama said its spread had become "exponential," and declared it a threat to American national security.
Move over Keyser Söze
But even within the Middle East, where brutality and savagery are often considered normal governance, ISIS has assumed a special status as evil incarnate.
Yes, ISIS has carried out beheadings, often for apostasy, which in ISIS's book means not following its deranged interpretation of Islam.
But so has the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose princes walk hand in hand, sometimes literally, with American presidents, and are welcomed in the society salons of Georgetown.
The Saudis have beheaded 46 people so far this year, including 19 in the first three weeks of August. Like ISIS, the Saudis favour public beheadings, and have sometimes strung the decapitated corpses up to rot in public.
Grounds for beheading in Saudi Arabia include sorcery. Seriously, sorcery.
And, of course, apostasy. (The Saudian Arabian version of Islam, Wahabbism, isn't all that different from the ferocious ISIS interpretation.)
Yes, one might argue, but the Saudis are America's allies, not its sworn enemies.
Well, setting aside the fact that that hardly excuses beheading apostates, or sorcerers, in the 21st century, most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and wealthy Saudis have funded some of the most anti-Western radicals worldwide, not the least of which were the Taliban.
Incidentally, they have also funneled an awful lot of money to the opposition fighters in Syria, which of course means ISIS.
Which probably brings us to what's really at issue here: oil.
The Saudis have lots of it, and as long as they're willing to be good fellows and keep selling it on the open market, well, their virulent extremism is just the religious quirk of a close and valued ally.
ISIS, meanwhile, made the gross error of beheading some white people, and has taken over oil refineries, and sold the oil, and threatened the order of things, and there are few crimes more serious than that.
So, to war? Again?
Oh, and will someone please check up on those Congolese bank accounts?
How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?
if I said go jump off a bridge would you do it ? or do you have enough common sense to realize I was not serious...and even better you finally got to use the B (bigotry) word and that in it self must be a real hum-dinger to a super crime fighter like yourself so run like the wind super hero ) and go catch those nasty homophobic GENOcidel biggoted blog nastys... then take it ez for a while.
Godfather.
Godfather, if you told me to jump off a bridge, I'd ask you why, and you'd proceed to walk away from the conversation laughing instead of giving me a reason as with any other of your unsubstantiated claims, opinions, or proposals for action.
Your so-called jokes, as I've pointed out to you before - are not funny. It is NOT funny to tell Muslims not to get their "head wraps in a wad". It is NOT funny to propose "wiping them all out" (and backtracking to claim you were joking doesn't make it any better). It is insensitive, and amounts to barely masked racism. It is offensive. I tell the same thing to my parents when they present their bigotry. And I tell myself the same thing whenever an unfounded thought based on prejudice creeps into my head.
My raison d'être here is to learn first and to share second (and the sharing typically is just a means to more learning). Any form of nastiness, homophobia, affection for genocide or bigotry are mere obfuscations from legitimate information gathering and sharing: and that's the exclusive reason I waste my time (and I do consider it a waste since I have yet to see a semblance of a logical statement or rebuttal from you) responding. I'd love to hear the reason you post here. Is it to teach? Is it to learn? Or is it to introduce conflict and distract from meaningful conversation?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
NEO Journal makes Fox News look fair and balanced.
Yawn. Care to refute anything he says, or would you prefer to attack the source? The author has written for many alt-media outlets....tho I'm sure you'd say none of them were credible either.
OK. I would not call the Syrian army shooting down a Turkish aircraft in 2012 a fabricated story.
The NEO website does give me insight on your statements of what you believe is going on in the Ukraine.
How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?
I wish I knew.
Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.
The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?
if I said go jump off a bridge would you do it ? or do you have enough common sense to realize I was not serious...and even better you finally got to use the B (bigotry) word and that in it self must be a real hum-dinger to a super crime fighter like yourself so run like the wind super hero ) and go catch those nasty homophobic GENOcidel biggoted blog nastys... then take it ez for a while.
Godfather.
Godfather, if you told me to jump off a bridge, I'd ask you why, and you'd proceed to walk away from the conversation laughing instead of giving me a reason as with any other of your unsubstantiated claims, opinions, or proposals for action.
Your so-called jokes, as I've pointed out to you before - are not funny. It is NOT funny to tell Muslims not to get their "head wraps in a wad". It is NOT funny to propose "wiping them all out" (and backtracking to claim you were joking doesn't make it any better). It is insensitive, and amounts to barely masked racism. It is offensive. I tell the same thing to my parents when they present their bigotry. And I tell myself the same thing whenever an unfounded thought based on prejudice creeps into my head.
My raison d'être here is to learn first and to share second (and the sharing typically is just a means to more learning). Any form of nastiness, homophobia, affection for genocide or bigotry are mere obfuscations from legitimate information gathering and sharing: and that's the exclusive reason I waste my time (and I do consider it a waste since I have yet to see a semblance of a logical statement or rebuttal from you) responding. I'd love to hear the reason you post here. Is it to teach? Is it to learn? Or is it to introduce conflict and distract from meaningful conversation?
Benjs this seems to be very important to you and I'm sorry you and I can't see these issues in the same way,we have two very different ideas and opinions on many issues but nobody's right if everybody's wrong .......yes I stole that, and I have a habbit of saying things that some people want to say but are afraid to, I and others get angry at what is going on and we don't want to read / hear excuses I / we have every right to my/our opinion just as you and others do right ?
edit: fucking draft feature and the way this board quotes is going to get me in trouble someday. So much f'n text in the box that once I hit quote I can't tell if I have a draft mixed in. ugh.
NEO Journal makes Fox News look fair and balanced.
Yawn. Care to refute anything he says, or would you prefer to attack the source? The author has written for many alt-media outlets....tho I'm sure you'd say none of them were credible either.
OK. I would not call the Syrian army shooting down a Turkish aircraft in 2012 a fabricated story.
The NEO website does give me insight on your statements of what you believe is going on in the Ukraine.
Don't remember seeing that in the article I posted. I've said here before and will again - much of the information I get comes from globalresearch.ca It's a consortium of journalists, bloggers, and profs, with a focus on globalization and the wars waged to continue toward that goal. The reporting there is sometimes sensational, but always backed up, often footnoted and researchable. Not bullshit sound bytes. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read alternative news sources and I think the reporting is much more accurate than the mainstream corporate media in North America. But I still read it critically. Soooo...instead of more cheap shots at my views, and vague comments on the website - try disputing a claim. Saying you disagree and leaving it at that gives you about as much credibility as...that other guy. Let's hear WHY you think whatever you read, was wrong.
I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.
At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.
(as you seem to see it) with the IS.
explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?
Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.
Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?
When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.
The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.
I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries. As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
As long as meaningful discussion occurs, this thread can play out any way it might. Your point works both ways: are threads any better if everyone says "I hate the US and they are responsible for... (see link)"?
You asked for a post which provides a 'specific example of a defence of ISIS'. Then you proceed to write: As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment.
Read these words. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you have written, but these words- like many others before them- tend to leave the reader with the impression (no... not 'specific'... but an impression nonetheless) that a defence can be made for the actions of ISIS if one simply took the time to understand why they have come to this position.
More alarming to me than the beheadings is the fact that ISIS is engaged in an aggressive and hostile ethnic cleansing effort. Americans aren't the only people who have motivated this group to such levels of hostility.
you didn't provide the specific examples we asked for; instead you asked me how anyone would feel the need to fight for ISIS....then you use my answer as your example? haha...bait much?
edit: fucking draft feature and the way this board quotes is going to get me in trouble someday. So much f'n text in the box that once I hit quote I can't tell if I have a draft mixed in. ugh.
NEO Journal makes Fox News look fair and balanced.
Yawn. Care to refute anything he says, or would you prefer to attack the source? The author has written for many alt-media outlets....tho I'm sure you'd say none of them were credible either.
OK. I would not call the Syrian army shooting down a Turkish aircraft in 2012 a fabricated story.
The NEO website does give me insight on your statements of what you believe is going on in the Ukraine.
Don't remember seeing that in the article I posted. I've said here before and will again - much of the information I get comes from globalresearch.ca It's a consortium of journalists, bloggers, and profs, with a focus on globalization and the wars waged to continue toward that goal. The reporting there is sometimes sensational, but always backed up, often footnoted and researchable. Not bullshit sound bytes. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read alternative news sources and I think the reporting is much more accurate than the mainstream corporate media in North America. But I still read it critically. Soooo...instead of more cheap shots at my views, and vague comments on the website - try disputing a claim. Saying you disagree and leaving it at that gives you about as much credibility as...that other guy. Let's hear WHY you think whatever you read, was wrong.
The article stated non specific Turkish border incidents in 2012 as being fabricated. The downing of a Turkish airplane was the most significant incident of 2012, so when a journalist makes reference of significant 2012 Turkish / Syria incidents that they interpret are fabricated, they should make clear when stating if fabricated incidents include a potential war inciting incident by the shooting down of a Turkish airplane.
Drowned Out ... I appreciate your views even though half of them make my head twirl. My perspective is that your view of US policy may factor in your opinions, but I'm confused why you are so ready to back Eastern policy. I will acknowledge US policy downfall, probably 50/50 on this site (ok maybe 25% / 75%). Putin and his KGB policy are fighting a proxy war and you (I perceive) are in favor of it. I could be wrong.
Anywho, PJ rocks, you seem cool, and I'd love to hammer a beer before a PJ concert with you. If you are going to be in Minnesota in a few weeks, send me a PM.
I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.
At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.
(as you seem to see it) with the IS.
explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?
Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.
Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?
When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.
The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.
I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries. As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
As long as meaningful discussion occurs, this thread can play out any way it might. Your point works both ways: are threads any better if everyone says "I hate the US and they are responsible for... (see link)"?
You asked for a post which provides a 'specific example of a defence of ISIS'. Then you proceed to write: As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment.
Read these words. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you have written, but these words- like many others before them- tend to leave the reader with the impression (no... not 'specific'... but an impression nonetheless) that a defence can be made for the actions of ISIS if one simply took the time to understand why they have come to this position.
More alarming to me than the beheadings is the fact that ISIS is engaged in an aggressive and hostile ethnic cleansing effort. Americans aren't the only people who have motivated this group to such levels of hostility.
you didn't provide the specific examples we asked for; instead you asked me how anyone would feel the need to fight for ISIS....then you use my answer as your example? haha...bait much?
Huh?
I consistently said there was nothing 'specific'... mentioning only the fact that there was an 'impression' left on readers that some seem to deny.
Conveniently, or ironically, you promptly provided yet another mild rationalization (for lack of better description) of the ISIS mindset for the moment. My question was not designed to solicit a response that I could use as ammunition against you. This was a serendipitous event that I took advantage of- so relax.
Unless you wish to continue with this... I like Dignin's post (ignored to this point) with his reference to our indifference towards Africa and their struggles throughout the last few decades. I had the good fortune to see Romeo Dallaire speak on the Rwandan genocide- I'm sure you recall he was the UN appointed commander to the peace-keeping operation overseeing the Rwandan crisis. Rwanda affected me greatly back in the early 90s.
He spoke to a couple of items that were very interesting and thought-provoking. In particular, he stated that 9-11 was an expression of rage and at some point in time, the world will bear witness to a profound expression of rage from Africans.
I need to look more into the Congo situation. I have read extensively on the Rwandan genocide and have studied Liberia, but- sad to say- I feel I am in the dark somewhat regarding what I read in Dignin's post. I guess I'm stating the fact that I'm a victim of mainstream media more than I'd care to admit.
I consistently said there was nothing 'specific'... mentioning only the fact that there was an 'impression' left on readers that some seem to deny.
Conveniently, or ironically, you promptly provided yet another mild rationalization (for lack of better description) of the ISIS mindset for the moment. My question was not designed to solicit a response that I could use as ammunition against you. This was a serendipitous event that I took advantage of- so relax.
Unless you wish to continue with this...
I'm relaxed man...not sure why you think I was fired up...aside from my bitching about the drafts/quotes here. that does piss me off lol I think maybe the impression you mention might be more of a personal thing than a common attitude amongst the readers here. or maybe I'm misunderstood. My comments are about empathy, as I mentioned before...not sympathy. Seems a bit of a common theme in your capital punishment threads as well...trying to gain insight to crime is portayed (non-specifically) as sympathy. This implication stifles discussion - makes it about the author's beliefs. You even say you don't disagree with me, so what is your point? As ben mentioned earlier, examining causality is an important and often under-emphasized part of effecting change.
The article stated non specific Turkish border incidents in 2012 as being fabricated. The downing of a Turkish airplane was the most significant incident of 2012, so when a journalist makes reference of significant 2012 Turkish / Syria incidents that they interpret are fabricated, they should make clear when stating if fabricated incidents include a potential war inciting incident by the shooting down of a Turkish airplane.
Drowned Out ... I appreciate your views even though half of them make my head twirl. My perspective is that your view of US policy may factor in your opinions, but I'm confused why you are so ready to back Eastern policy. I will acknowledge US policy downfall, probably 50/50 on this site (ok maybe 25% / 75%). Putin and his KGB policy are fighting a proxy war and you (I perceive) are in favor of it. I could be wrong.
Anywho, PJ rocks, you seem cool, and I'd love to hammer a beer before a PJ concert with you. If you are going to be in Minnesota in a few weeks, send me a PM.
PEACE!
Hey...there is so much disinformation in the world that to believe something without a TON of research is folly.....but I admit to getting off on the head-twirling....if I can make yours stop twirling at 75%/25% once in a hundred spins, I'm happy ) I don't back Eastern policy...but I can see why you'd think that based on my news sources. They are definitely critical of western policy moreso than eastern. But you can't tell me that western policy is not a bazillion times more invasive, pervasive, and aggressive than eastern. As I've mentioned before, Russia's military disputes in recent history have almost exclusively dealt with Soviet satellite states, and countering NATO encroachment into their historical territories. I've admitted in the Ukraine threads that yes, I have zero doubt that Russia is involved in a proxy war there, and that it would be beyond naïve to think they are being 100% honest about their intentions and actions. But we've been provided a smoking gun to confirm the US backed the coup in an important, traditionally Russian-heritage state that borders and feeds Russia proper, and provides the main shipping corridors to Europe for their resources....and I perceive that you are in favour of that. For what reason? I think you alluded at some point to something about the brutality and/or their subservience to Moscow of the previous government? Well there have been a ton of reports of war crimes - mass graves etc, from the new government. Anyway - we're off topic now.
Now -the Turkish military plane thing. While I agree that it is a pretty big omission - one that I missed when reading the article (thanks for pointing it out), I can understand why the author chose to omit it if he believes it was a fabrication or a setup. It would have been a huge tangent to explain why he believes this. I took some time to read up on the incident the other night because I had only a vague recollection of it, and you called it the most significant story of 2012 (!?)...first - this was one in a series of events that happened between Turkey and Syria in the lead up to a Syrian civil war that Turkey has had it's hands all over. It wasn't an isolated provocation by Syria...there were a series of incidents on both sides that had people concerned about all-out war between the two states. Turkey essentially hijacked a Syrian commercial airliner a couple months later....forced it down with fighters and stole it's cargo. I read a series of measured responses to the downing of the Turkish military plane from most of the world....and then there was the US - calling for Assad to be ousted in retaliation. Keep in mind that they have been working to sell the world on regime change in Syria for years, and 2012 was when it kicked into hyper drive. The US media consistently omitted and obfuscated the fact that the plane was shot down over Syrian air space, after 'coming in low and fast' (later justified as a radar systems test.....lol), and we should be asking why they would omit that. Kind of crucial to the story. By this standard, the recent downing of the two Syrian military jets over occupied Golan should be the most significant story of 2014; a huge international scandal worthy of demanding Nettanyahu's head over, no?
Anyway - my point to all of this is not to try to always be right, because I have no idea if I am half the time ) I try to provide different perspectives to the news in the west is all. globalresearch provides that in spades. Although it does link to articles by RT, PressTV, and other outlets from 'the other side'....the majority of their contributors are western-based. They also take the time to compare their stance to those provided in western media. They pick apart mainstream articles in their analysis. Never do you hear the Eastern side of world events in our mainstream media, let alone a thorough examination of it.
Enjoy your show(s?) Jason - wish I could tip a few with ya (would like that), but it's looking like 2013 will be my first PJ-less year since 07 :( cheers!
Drowned out... Matts made the initial post that referred to the 'impression' that was left on him after reading various posts. I concurred that this 'impression' was left upon me as well after reading the same posts.
That's as much as I want to get into this- it's become a petty argument now (one that I have helped build). It's unfortunate that we couldn't teletransport to a location to discuss these things sometimes. I feel much is lost in translation that wouldn't be if one could see facial expressions, read body language, and not infer as much.
Drowned out... Matts made the initial post that referred to the 'impression' that was left on him after reading various posts. I concurred that this 'impression' was left upon me as well after reading the same posts.
That's as much as I want to get into this- it's become a petty argument now (one that I have helped build). It's unfortunate that we couldn't teletransport to a location to discuss these things sometimes. I feel much is lost in translation that wouldn't be if one could see facial expressions, read body language, and not infer as much.
word! I agree man. Tho I would be exposed as a dumb-ass fraud without google at my fingertips
Obama's approval rating has went up 8% since we started dropping bombs.
Is that true?
I wasn't totally clear. The approval rating of his military handling of ISIS has gone up 8 points. Not sure if his overall approval rating has changed.
Obama's approval rating has went up 8% since we started dropping bombs.
Is that true?
I wasn't totally clear. The approval rating of his military handling of ISIS has gone up 8 points. Not sure if his overall approval rating has changed.
Again, and after reading the responses to my post, it's a sad world. Self appointed know it also still justify Isis. Whether they realize it or not, they are. Blame this, blame that. It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way? Some of you may not realize that you are justifying their actions with saying "but" or "in the past". Let's get over that and face the world for what it is?
Again, and after reading the responses to my post, it's a sad world. Self appointed know it also still justify Isis. Whether they realize it or not, they are. Blame this, blame that. It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way? Some of you may not realize that you are justifying their actions with saying "but" or "in the past". Let's get over that and face the world for what it is?
Maybe you mite need to face the world for what it REALLY is.
Again, and after reading the responses to my post, it's a sad world. Self appointed know it also still justify Isis. Whether they realize it or not, they are. Blame this, blame that. It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way? Some of you may not realize that you are justifying their actions with saying "but" or "in the past". Let's get over that and face the world for what it is?
In regards to IS, I think you need to zoom out a little bit and look at the bigger picture here. Let's get a few premises straight here:
1) IS is disgusting in their actions, and their actions are worthy of strong and unwavering global condemnation. 2) IS ought to be be destroyed.
And this is where we reach the divide.
Interventionist premises include:
1) America is a humanitarian force with the capability of destroying great evil. 2) "With great power comes great responsibility" (Yes, I do believe Obama's foreign affairs policy is largely inspired by Spiderman).
Anti-Western Interventionist premises include:
1) Interventionism has been demonstrated historically to reset cycles of extremism 2) Dealing with a byproduct (or effect) instead of the trigger (or cause) in a problem ensures it will repeat, and not gradually extinguish over time.
By the way, you have done several things worth bringing to your and everyone else's attention here: 1) "It's a sad world". In this, you have expressed a bleakness of the world we all live in, with an attempt of presenting a dour and hopeless global landscape. "It's a sad world" should not affect whether I take an interventionist or non-interventionist approach to this particular political situation. 2) It is a fallacious attack on people to call them "self-appointed know-it-alls" when they go out of their way to share others' opinions from a litany of sources, express their own opinions and allow themselves to be swayed when alternative logic (i.e. with evidence) is presented. Honestly, this far, all I've seen you do here is actually condemn people for that reason. Maybe looking critically at yourself is something that you might want to try, at least in parallel to looking critically of everyone else (if not way before). 3) "Whether they realize it, they are". In this sentence, you present the majority of the board here as not only indoctrinated, but unaware of this fact. By using "they", you pigeon-hole everyone who isn't you into this group, and by effect, place yourself on a moral pedestal because everyone else is now lower and "out of control" of our thought process. 4) "It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way?" In these sentences, you mock the notion of empathy when applied to people who you disagree with. This is only my opinion, but I practice empathy to even the most disgusting of human beings. Very few sane people kill just for killing's sake, if only for the reason that we typically bow down to the almighty dollar, and a killing for killing's sake doesn't generate profit. As for the insane people - they're typically not too concerned with the press: they're just happy to kill. Universal empathy takes you away from societal indoctrinations, and allows you to seek out an opinion without prejudice, come to conclusions, and start to recognize the causality and potential solutions with less of the fog of bias. 5) "Let's get over that and face the world for what it is". In this sentence, based on your context, you seem to be suggesting that we stop observing cause and effect relationships, and focus on destroying the effects. Also, you also introduce the notion that if we do not focus on byproducts instead of triggers, we have a skewed and deluded sense of what the world is. Again, this is fallacious: it is simply an opinion which does not mirror yours.
Again, and after reading the responses to my post, it's a sad world. Self appointed know it also still justify Isis. Whether they realize it or not, they are. Blame this, blame that. It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way? Some of you may not realize that you are justifying their actions with saying "but" or "in the past". Let's get over that and face the world for what it is?
In regards to IS, I think you need to zoom out a little bit and look at the bigger picture here. Let's get a few premises straight here:
1) IS is disgusting in their actions, and their actions are worthy of strong and unwavering global condemnation. 2) IS ought to be be destroyed.
And this is where we reach the divide.
Interventionist premises include:
1) America is a humanitarian force with the capability of destroying great evil. 2) "With great power comes great responsibility" (Yes, I do believe Obama's foreign affairs policy is largely inspired by Spiderman).
Anti-Western Interventionist premises include:
1) Interventionism has been demonstrated historically to reset cycles of extremism 2) Dealing with a byproduct (or effect) instead of the trigger (or cause) in a problem ensures it will repeat, and not gradually extinguish over time.
By the way, you have done several things worth bringing to your and everyone else's attention here: 1) "It's a sad world". In this, you have expressed a bleakness of the world we all live in, with an attempt of presenting a dour and hopeless global landscape. "It's a sad world" should not affect whether I take an interventionist or non-interventionist approach to this particular political situation. 2) It is a fallacious attack on people to call them "self-appointed know-it-alls" when they go out of their way to share others' opinions from a litany of sources, express their own opinions and allow themselves to be swayed when alternative logic (i.e. with evidence) is presented. Honestly, this far, all I've seen you do here is actually condemn people for that reason. Maybe looking critically at yourself is something that you might want to try, at least in parallel to looking critically of everyone else (if not way before). 3) "Whether they realize it, they are". In this sentence, you present the majority of the board here as not only indoctrinated, but unaware of this fact. By using "they", you pigeon-hole everyone who isn't you into this group, and by effect, place yourself on a moral pedestal because everyone else is now lower and "out of control" of our thought process. 4) "It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way?" In these sentences, you mock the notion of empathy when applied to people who you disagree with. This is only my opinion, but I practice empathy to even the most disgusting of human beings. Very few sane people kill just for killing's sake, if only for the reason that we typically bow down to the almighty dollar, and a killing for killing's sake doesn't generate profit. As for the insane people - they're typically not too concerned with the press: they're just happy to kill. Universal empathy takes you away from societal indoctrinations, and allows you to seek out an opinion without prejudice, come to conclusions, and start to recognize the causality and potential solutions with less of the fog of bias. 5) "Let's get over that and face the world for what it is". In this sentence, based on your context, you seem to be suggesting that we stop observing cause and effect relationships, and focus on destroying the effects. Also, you also introduce the notion that if we do not focus on byproducts instead of triggers, we have a skewed and deluded sense of what the world is. Again, this is fallacious: it is simply an opinion which does not mirror yours.
Comments
evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t
Godfather.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.
As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
We learn English, mathematics, science, art in school, but it wouldn't be until university that we could have an opportunity to take courses whose sole purposes are "sifting through bullshit to find meaningful and non-fallacious facts to base our alignments upon". Cults and extremist groups put significant effort into forming their controlling tactics, and we are left unprepared. Clearly, a glaring omission from our school curriculums is a course that would promote the significance of asking "why", and studying causality - a premise simple enough that even young children can understand (if this then that). To aid with teaching this notion, there are spectacularly horrific examples of the dangers of not asking why: I would imagine that almost every genocide in history has been associated with some form of unethical influence. Even though I am armed with at most a superficial understanding of two genocides (the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia), it is easy to see the associated influence that facilitated the atrocities.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You asked for a post which provides a 'specific example of a defence of ISIS'. Then you proceed to write: As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment.
Read these words. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you have written, but these words- like many others before them- tend to leave the reader with the impression (no... not 'specific'... but an impression nonetheless) that a defence can be made for the actions of ISIS if one simply took the time to understand why they have come to this position.
More alarming to me than the beheadings is the fact that ISIS is engaged in an aggressive and hostile ethnic cleansing effort. Americans aren't the only people who have motivated this group to such levels of hostility.
then take it ez for a while.
Godfather.
Look around, ISIS's acolytes are just apprentices at atrocity
WARNING: This story contains graphic content
Neil Macdonald
Senior Washington Correspondent
Back in July, Barack Obama signed an executive order punishing anyone responsible for some of the hideous excesses of the Congolese civil war.
Hardly anyone noticed Obama's order. But for the record, the people it targets have reportedly committed: mass rape (of men and women, by rebels and government soldiers) often in front of communities and families, or forcing people to rape each other, as a weapon of war; inventive torture (forcing men to copulate with holes in the ground lined with razor blades, forcing women to eat excrement or flesh of relatives); casual and varied forms of murder (including firing weapons up women's vaginas); use of child soldiers; and ethnic cleansing.
The list goes on.
The Congo war has killed five million people, directly and indirectly, since 1998 — more than the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq put together, as one national newspaper here noted recently.
Obama's punishment for the culprits? Financial discomfort.
He broadened the reach of U.S.-UN sanctions to take in a wider group of participants. (They'd better not show up in America, or open a bank account here, or they'll be sorry.)
Then, a month after he signed the order, Obama invited Congo's unsavory president, Joseph Kabila, to the White House for dinner.
Compared to the acts committed by Kabila's military and the rebels fighting it, and the interventions by neighbouring Rwanda, the 20,000 or so fighters of ISIS are tenderfoot apprentices in the atrocity business.
Yet ISIS merits what is obviously just the beginning of a full-scale American re-invasion of Iraq, and perhaps even Syria.
'The heart of darkness'
House Speaker John Boehner on the weekend became just the latest prominent American to predict the inevitable deployment of U.S. ground forces.
Meanwhile, the campaign to soften up a mildly skeptical Western public is blaring at near-feedback levels.
ISIS has now become the arch-villian, the Keyser Söze of revolutionary groups.
It is denounced as "the heart of darkness," (Obama), a "death cult" (Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott) and a genocidal terrorist caliphate (Stephen Harper).
None of those leaders spends much time at all talking about the Congo (the subject was last raised in the Canadian House of Commons three years ago).
When they do, they speak in far milder terms than they do about ISIS, even framing it in the mournful abstract.
At a Francophonie summit in 2012, Harper gently asked whether Canada could help find "solutions" to advance "peace, development and democracy in the DRC," the Democratic Republic of Congo, where all the fighting is.
So why the cognitive dissonance?
Moral relativism
The most charitable view is that national leaders tend to act on the fears and desires and preoccupations of their voters, and while ISIS has terrified Americans by beheading a handful of Westerners, nobody really cares what goes on in the Congo.
It's far away, in the middle of a continent widely perceived as dirty and savage, and the victims are all, well, black Africans.
Western politicians also take their cues from news outlets, and while editors don't like to discuss such things, Africa (along with a few other wretched parts of the Earth) barely makes the news menu, if at all.
A struggling baby panda in some zoo will easily knock an African genocide off the nightly newscast.
It's not a conscious racism — journalists profess, probably sincerely, concern for suffering and death everywhere. And the level of education among editorial staff, like diplomats, can be remarkable where world affairs are concerned.
But what makes it onto front pages and newscasts and national agendas tells the story.
Passenger liners that crash in Africa barely make world briefs, or "in other news" sections voiced over by the anchor. Jets that go down carrying Europeans or North Americans stay on front pages and newscasts for days.
The current Ebola epidemic only began grabbing serious space on American newscasts when Obama said its spread had become "exponential," and declared it a threat to American national security.
Move over Keyser Söze
But even within the Middle East, where brutality and savagery are often considered normal governance, ISIS has assumed a special status as evil incarnate.
Yes, ISIS has carried out beheadings, often for apostasy, which in ISIS's book means not following its deranged interpretation of Islam.
But so has the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose princes walk hand in hand, sometimes literally, with American presidents, and are welcomed in the society salons of Georgetown.
The Saudis have beheaded 46 people so far this year, including 19 in the first three weeks of August. Like ISIS, the Saudis favour public beheadings, and have sometimes strung the decapitated corpses up to rot in public.
Grounds for beheading in Saudi Arabia include sorcery. Seriously, sorcery.
And, of course, apostasy. (The Saudian Arabian version of Islam, Wahabbism, isn't all that different from the ferocious ISIS interpretation.)
Yes, one might argue, but the Saudis are America's allies, not its sworn enemies.
Well, setting aside the fact that that hardly excuses beheading apostates, or sorcerers, in the 21st century, most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and wealthy Saudis have funded some of the most anti-Western radicals worldwide, not the least of which were the Taliban.
Incidentally, they have also funneled an awful lot of money to the opposition fighters in Syria, which of course means ISIS.
Which probably brings us to what's really at issue here: oil.
The Saudis have lots of it, and as long as they're willing to be good fellows and keep selling it on the open market, well, their virulent extremism is just the religious quirk of a close and valued ally.
ISIS, meanwhile, made the gross error of beheading some white people, and has taken over oil refineries, and sold the oil, and threatened the order of things, and there are few crimes more serious than that.
So, to war? Again?
Oh, and will someone please check up on those Congolese bank accounts?
Your so-called jokes, as I've pointed out to you before - are not funny. It is NOT funny to tell Muslims not to get their "head wraps in a wad". It is NOT funny to propose "wiping them all out" (and backtracking to claim you were joking doesn't make it any better). It is insensitive, and amounts to barely masked racism. It is offensive. I tell the same thing to my parents when they present their bigotry. And I tell myself the same thing whenever an unfounded thought based on prejudice creeps into my head.
My raison d'être here is to learn first and to share second (and the sharing typically is just a means to more learning). Any form of nastiness, homophobia, affection for genocide or bigotry are mere obfuscations from legitimate information gathering and sharing: and that's the exclusive reason I waste my time (and I do consider it a waste since I have yet to see a semblance of a logical statement or rebuttal from you) responding. I'd love to hear the reason you post here. Is it to teach? Is it to learn? Or is it to introduce conflict and distract from meaningful conversation?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The NEO website does give me insight on your statements of what you believe is going on in the Ukraine.
Benjs this seems to be very important to you and I'm sorry you and I can't see these issues in the same way,we have two very different ideas and opinions on many issues but nobody's right if everybody's wrong .......yes I stole that, and I have a habbit of saying things that some people want to say but are afraid to, I and others get angry at what is going on and we don't want to read / hear excuses I / we have every right to my/our opinion just as you and others do right ?
Godfather.
Don't remember seeing that in the article I posted.
I've said here before and will again - much of the information I get comes from globalresearch.ca
It's a consortium of journalists, bloggers, and profs, with a focus on globalization and the wars waged to continue toward that goal. The reporting there is sometimes sensational, but always backed up, often footnoted and researchable. Not bullshit sound bytes. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read alternative news sources and I think the reporting is much more accurate than the mainstream corporate media in North America. But I still read it critically.
Soooo...instead of more cheap shots at my views, and vague comments on the website - try disputing a claim. Saying you disagree and leaving it at that gives you about as much credibility as...that other guy. Let's hear WHY you think whatever you read, was wrong.
Drowned Out ... I appreciate your views even though half of them make my head twirl. My perspective is that your view of US policy may factor in your opinions, but I'm confused why you are so ready to back Eastern policy. I will acknowledge US policy downfall, probably 50/50 on this site (ok maybe 25% / 75%). Putin and his KGB policy are fighting a proxy war and you (I perceive) are in favor of it. I could be wrong.
Anywho, PJ rocks, you seem cool, and I'd love to hammer a beer before a PJ concert with you. If you are going to be in Minnesota in a few weeks, send me a PM.
PEACE!
I consistently said there was nothing 'specific'... mentioning only the fact that there was an 'impression' left on readers that some seem to deny.
Conveniently, or ironically, you promptly provided yet another mild rationalization (for lack of better description) of the ISIS mindset for the moment. My question was not designed to solicit a response that I could use as ammunition against you. This was a serendipitous event that I took advantage of- so relax.
Unless you wish to continue with this... I like Dignin's post (ignored to this point) with his reference to our indifference towards Africa and their struggles throughout the last few decades. I had the good fortune to see Romeo Dallaire speak on the Rwandan genocide- I'm sure you recall he was the UN appointed commander to the peace-keeping operation overseeing the Rwandan crisis. Rwanda affected me greatly back in the early 90s.
He spoke to a couple of items that were very interesting and thought-provoking. In particular, he stated that 9-11 was an expression of rage and at some point in time, the world will bear witness to a profound expression of rage from Africans.
I need to look more into the Congo situation. I have read extensively on the Rwandan genocide and have studied Liberia, but- sad to say- I feel I am in the dark somewhat regarding what I read in Dignin's post. I guess I'm stating the fact that I'm a victim of mainstream media more than I'd care to admit.
I think maybe the impression you mention might be more of a personal thing than a common attitude amongst the readers here. or maybe I'm misunderstood. My comments are about empathy, as I mentioned before...not sympathy. Seems a bit of a common theme in your capital punishment threads as well...trying to gain insight to crime is portayed (non-specifically) as sympathy. This implication stifles discussion - makes it about the author's beliefs. You even say you don't disagree with me, so what is your point? As ben mentioned earlier, examining causality is an important and often under-emphasized part of effecting change.
Hey...there is so much disinformation in the world that to believe something without a TON of research is folly.....but I admit to getting off on the head-twirling....if I can make yours stop twirling at 75%/25% once in a hundred spins, I'm happy
I don't back Eastern policy...but I can see why you'd think that based on my news sources. They are definitely critical of western policy moreso than eastern. But you can't tell me that western policy is not a bazillion times more invasive, pervasive, and aggressive than eastern. As I've mentioned before, Russia's military disputes in recent history have almost exclusively dealt with Soviet satellite states, and countering NATO encroachment into their historical territories. I've admitted in the Ukraine threads that yes, I have zero doubt that Russia is involved in a proxy war there, and that it would be beyond naïve to think they are being 100% honest about their intentions and actions. But we've been provided a smoking gun to confirm the US backed the coup in an important, traditionally Russian-heritage state that borders and feeds Russia proper, and provides the main shipping corridors to Europe for their resources....and I perceive that you are in favour of that. For what reason? I think you alluded at some point to something about the brutality and/or their subservience to Moscow of the previous government? Well there have been a ton of reports of war crimes - mass graves etc, from the new government. Anyway - we're off topic now.
Now -the Turkish military plane thing. While I agree that it is a pretty big omission - one that I missed when reading the article (thanks for pointing it out), I can understand why the author chose to omit it if he believes it was a fabrication or a setup. It would have been a huge tangent to explain why he believes this. I took some time to read up on the incident the other night because I had only a vague recollection of it, and you called it the most significant story of 2012 (!?)...first - this was one in a series of events that happened between Turkey and Syria in the lead up to a Syrian civil war that Turkey has had it's hands all over. It wasn't an isolated provocation by Syria...there were a series of incidents on both sides that had people concerned about all-out war between the two states. Turkey essentially hijacked a Syrian commercial airliner a couple months later....forced it down with fighters and stole it's cargo. I read a series of measured responses to the downing of the Turkish military plane from most of the world....and then there was the US - calling for Assad to be ousted in retaliation. Keep in mind that they have been working to sell the world on regime change in Syria for years, and 2012 was when it kicked into hyper drive. The US media consistently omitted and obfuscated the fact that the plane was shot down over Syrian air space, after 'coming in low and fast' (later justified as a radar systems test.....lol), and we should be asking why they would omit that. Kind of crucial to the story. By this standard, the recent downing of the two Syrian military jets over occupied Golan should be the most significant story of 2014; a huge international scandal worthy of demanding Nettanyahu's head over, no?
Anyway - my point to all of this is not to try to always be right, because I have no idea if I am half the time
Enjoy your show(s?) Jason - wish I could tip a few with ya (would like that), but it's looking like 2013 will be my first PJ-less year since 07 :( cheers!
That's as much as I want to get into this- it's become a petty argument now (one that I have helped build). It's unfortunate that we couldn't teletransport to a location to discuss these things sometimes. I feel much is lost in translation that wouldn't be if one could see facial expressions, read body language, and not infer as much.
thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/02/Obama-s-Approval-Rating-Climbs-More-We-Bomb-ISIS
Bear in mind I know of no one who has ever taken part in any of these so-called polls.
In regards to IS, I think you need to zoom out a little bit and look at the bigger picture here.
Let's get a few premises straight here:
1) IS is disgusting in their actions, and their actions are worthy of strong and unwavering global condemnation.
2) IS ought to be be destroyed.
And this is where we reach the divide.
Interventionist premises include:
1) America is a humanitarian force with the capability of destroying great evil.
2) "With great power comes great responsibility" (Yes, I do believe Obama's foreign affairs policy is largely inspired by Spiderman).
Anti-Western Interventionist premises include:
1) Interventionism has been demonstrated historically to reset cycles of extremism
2) Dealing with a byproduct (or effect) instead of the trigger (or cause) in a problem ensures it will repeat, and not gradually extinguish over time.
By the way, you have done several things worth bringing to your and everyone else's attention here:
1) "It's a sad world". In this, you have expressed a bleakness of the world we all live in, with an attempt of presenting a dour and hopeless global landscape. "It's a sad world" should not affect whether I take an interventionist or non-interventionist approach to this particular political situation.
2) It is a fallacious attack on people to call them "self-appointed know-it-alls" when they go out of their way to share others' opinions from a litany of sources, express their own opinions and allow themselves to be swayed when alternative logic (i.e. with evidence) is presented. Honestly, this far, all I've seen you do here is actually condemn people for that reason. Maybe looking critically at yourself is something that you might want to try, at least in parallel to looking critically of everyone else (if not way before).
3) "Whether they realize it, they are". In this sentence, you present the majority of the board here as not only indoctrinated, but unaware of this fact. By using "they", you pigeon-hole everyone who isn't you into this group, and by effect, place yourself on a moral pedestal because everyone else is now lower and "out of control" of our thought process.
4) "It's not their fault right? Wouldn't you react the same way?" In these sentences, you mock the notion of empathy when applied to people who you disagree with. This is only my opinion, but I practice empathy to even the most disgusting of human beings. Very few sane people kill just for killing's sake, if only for the reason that we typically bow down to the almighty dollar, and a killing for killing's sake doesn't generate profit. As for the insane people - they're typically not too concerned with the press: they're just happy to kill. Universal empathy takes you away from societal indoctrinations, and allows you to seek out an opinion without prejudice, come to conclusions, and start to recognize the causality and potential solutions with less of the fog of bias.
5) "Let's get over that and face the world for what it is". In this sentence, based on your context, you seem to be suggesting that we stop observing cause and effect relationships, and focus on destroying the effects. Also, you also introduce the notion that if we do not focus on byproducts instead of triggers, we have a skewed and deluded sense of what the world is. Again, this is fallacious: it is simply an opinion which does not mirror yours.
The irony is that in another thread (http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/238361/imagine-really-imagine-what-the-world-would-be) you seem to be presenting thought control as hugely dangerous. Then, over here, you post this, which as I've suggested up above this, is straight out of the undue and unethical indoctrination handbook, and is littered with fallacies. If you care to dispute them, here's a great site (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster16x24.pdf).
I've found: strawman, black-or-white, slippery slope, false cause, ad hominem, bandwagon, no true scotsman, appeal to emotion.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1