Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 97

Thread: U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base

  1. #71
    Senior Member North Vinlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, December 28th, 2017 @ 09:01 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethnic Nationalism
    Posts
    349
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    So Trump should be bombing Syria to stop Russia and China from eventually taking over the USA, and to not have to buy Syrian oil as is done from places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

  2. #72
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ingvaeonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, July 12th, 2019 @ 03:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English/German combo
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Trump-ordered/authorized U.S. missile strikes on Syrian air base: Cui bono?

  3. #73
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Which documents specifically are you referring to?
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...-version11.pdf

    Especially the following: "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition [earlier specified as 'the west', among others] want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)".

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Is it not reasonable in your view, to call the deaths of the 3 Assad soldiers killed in the airbase the other day accidental, given that destroying the base was necessary in order to save civilian lives?
    Again you're using distractions. I wasn't talking about these three soldiers.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    To not act in that situation is to condemn civilians to an unspeakable death by poison gas. Therefore to not act is not a morally valid option.
    You can leave out 'therefore'. There's a difference between acting badly and not intervening when others act badly. To equate the moral level of the two means to extend one's moral duties into the practically impossible. It's also careless when you are a. not effectively saving people (the klling as already been done) and b. your actions are bound to have results over which you don't have any control.
    Have you been inspired by Peter Singer perhaps? He uses the same type of thinking about ethics to claim that western people are obliged to continuously donate a large part of their income to the third world.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Any soldiers who are killed while the only valid moral option is being performed can be said to have been killed accidentally in my view.

    Perhaps the more usual term for these kind of deaths in war is "collateral damage". That's fine I don't see any significant difference between the terms "accidental death" and "collateral damage". I use them interchangeably.
    Well, 'collateral' doesn't necessarily mean that you did not intended for it to happen, just that it wasn't the prime objective. You can choose to take collateral damage for granted, bringing us to the following...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    That is the same rationale that Stalin used before he starved 7 million Ukrainians to death and sent 20 million of his own people to the gulags, "the ends justified the means". If killing civilians ever becomes an internationally acceptable means to an end in war, the world is doomed. Doomed.

    If that is Assad's modus operandi then he is a moral monster and the U.S has every right if not an actual obligation to do everything necessary to take him out.
    You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I have never produced any justification for anything, I merely described a situation. Whether you like it or not, it happens. Returning to the previous paragraph, all regimes that wage war create civilian casualties and it is often taken for granted because the importance of the military goal outweighs these casualties. That's why it is not about intentionality, but about the degree in which you take these casualties for granted. Using civilians as a means is the extreme end of this continuum. Before going all crazy about Assad, you'd first need to prove that this is in fact his modus operandi.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    I refer you to my previous paragraph. The only moral currency in war is lives, not "what ends you want to achieve". If what you want to achieve will clearly kill many more people than not achieving it then you have no right to move in that direction, not unless you are a legitimate government acting in defense of your nation. That is not what Assad is. That should be self-evident.
    This is not what I said. I even said that morality was about lives. Read again.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    No I don't know what you were referring to, I only read words not minds. What were you referring to Iraq, Libya? If so spit it out.
    Well, I didn't write words about those soldiers either, so you must at least have been trying to read my mind, but failed at it.
    Yes, Libya and Iraq are good examples of where removing a dictator resulted in chaos.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    If one is repeatedly forced to act in order to prevent war crimes from taking place then yes, repeated intervention into failed states is justifiable. Always assuming of course that one carries out those actions in good faith based on the best intelligence information available at the time.

    Every case is different of course but in general if you are acting to neutralise a mass murderer yet in the course of that action and in spite of all reasonable precautions to avoid it, some civilians are killed, then the argument can be made that the greater good was served.
    This is exactly what I meant by the liberal type of reasoning. As long as 'the greater good has been served', it's good. If you intervene and create chaos than you are responsible; you can talk about it how much you like, but those words don't return lives.
    However, this argument presumes that the negative consequences of such interventions are in fact the result of stupidity, which I don't buy.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    They did win though didn't they, so that's a rather moot point. You are reading too much RT.
    I hardly ever read RT. The Russians aren't behind everything; stop watching CNN!
    How on earth did they win? They wouldn't be complaining about Obama's policy if they had.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Saddam was another moral monster and his sons who would have followed him were even worse. Iraq is far better off without them. Iraq just needs to get rid of ISIS now and learn to solve their tribal differences democratically. If other countries can do it Iraq can too. Iraq is a far more hopeful place now than it was under Saddam imo.

    America unseated saddam before he grew powerful enough that his sabre rattling caused major anxiety and instability in the region, which it surely would have done if he thought he could get away with it. So, for the good of OPEC and by extension the world economy he had to go.
    Anyone thinking Iraq is heading towards some bright future clearly hasn't got a clue. I don't even know where to start.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Name dropping Carl Schmitt doesn't get you far. What is Carl Schmitts argument against the premise of "just war"?

    Even if a just war is vicious that doesn't make it unjust. A knife fight is more vicious than a fistfight but if you see a child being attacked with a knife and you have a gun it is reasonable to defend him is it not? The is analgous to the situation in syria right now.
    The last sentence about Carl Schmitt was not crucial for the point I was making, so you can still respond to it properly. It was just a little extra in case you might be interested, which I don't think you really are.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Who's this "we" you are talking about? Roybatty isn't horrified by any of it. In fact he couldn't care less. They are all just "wogs" to him. He said so a couple of posts up. I suppose he'd lift the century old ban on chemical weapons if he had his way...

    But in anycase inspite of what you and Roy might think, the civilised world has ruled differently. Poison gas is banned by the geneva convention. This is for several reasons. First, it is largely indiscriminate. It generally disperses over a wide area in the atmosphere carried by currents and killing whomever is in its path. Used in a city it is impossible for it not to kill innocents.

    Second of all, many forms of poison gas, such as the mix of sarin and chlorine reportedly used in this attack, damage the eyes. This leads to long term visual impairment in the survivors. Bullets and even shrapnel tend to be far less indiscriminate and destructive to the sense organs.

    It is for these reasons 196 countries including Syria chose to sign the Geneva convention banning chemical weapons. The fact that Assad does not feel bound by the convention signed by his predecessors is just more evidence that he is not a legitimate ruler and is beyond the pale of world opinion.
    'We' was just a reference to the West in general. It was quite obvious considering the context. You're just trying to distract from the argument again.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    I don't see any contradiction at all. The morality of a situation lets you know if you have the right to act. For instance if you have been attacked you have the moral right to defend yourself.

    The the number of possible casualties for a given course of action (so far as that can be calculated) informs the decision on which action is best to take.

    Moral justification for action is weighed in the balance against possible casualty count all the time at least by democracies it is. by dictators like Assad, not so much..

    As for me being ridiculous well really that's rich. It is you who are looking ridiculous trying to defend the use of chemical weapons. Weapons that are banned by virtually every country in the world for the last 100 years!

    You and Roybatty together would be laughed out of every town hall meeting in the developed world if you tried that tack. And rightly so.
    Stop putting words in my mouth, I haven't defended the use of chemical weapons. It's your lack of analytical capacity that makes you think so.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Ok. I don't claim to be an expert on the Vietnam War. And it is not my intention to defend every international action that the U.S ever took. In hindsight going into Vietnam was probably a mistake. That is the orthodox view anyway.

    That still doesn't mean that the use of agent orange, when it was still assumed safe for humans, is the moral equivalent of using sarin gas. That is just a nonsense view and I've wasted enough keystrokes showing why it is nonsense already.
    Didn't say that either. You simply claimed that it was used to clear the leaves and not intended to harm civilians. I pointed out that your own source claims otherwise. That's it. Cherrypicking numbers won't change that.

    I think I'm the one wasting keystrokes when all I'm doing here is repeating myself and telling you 'that's not what I said'.

  4. #74
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    GroeneWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Utrecht Utrecht
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Germanic Heathendom
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    304
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    410
    Thanked in
    222 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Before going all crazy about Assad, you'd first need to prove that this is in fact his modus operandi.
    Funny thing is that the New York Times is not referring to the 2013 attack that involved Sarin in a recent article. Also during the investigation in relation to the 2013 sarin attack suspensions arose that it where rebels that where behind it and not the Syrian military. And there where warnings that Isis had seized Libyan chemical weapons depots and have been using them.

    So why are our governments jumping to the conclusion that Assad must be behind this? Probably for the same reason as in 2013, it would serve as the perfect excuse for more open involvement, instead of just training 'moderate' rebels.
    The sense of honor is of so fine and delicate a nature that
    it is only to be met with in minds which are naturally noble or
    cultivated by good examples and a refined education.
    - Sir Richard Steele

  5. #75
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 09:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    You were inferring that it wasn't much cause for concern. Now you seem to be backtracking. Nowhere left to turn and run it seems.
    I'm not running anywhere.

    You drew a moral equivalence between the U.S's use of agent orange when they didn't know it was dangerous to humans (more of which I'll get to later) and Asaads use of sarin gas!! Are you completely nuts?

    AO was used as a chemical weapon on Vietnam. - FACT.
    I don't know if your know this but putting "FACT" after a statement of yours doesn't make it any more convincing to anybody. If anything it has quite the opposite effect.

    Agent orange was used as defoliant not as a weapon designed to harm people. That "fact" of yours is quite erroneous.

    While it might have caused an increased incidence in birth defects in the children of those exposed, that could not have been it's intended effect. Because the causal connection between orange and birth defects was only made decades after the war ended. That places it outside the normal definition of what a "weapon" is, don't you agree?

    Allow me to elaborate. Agent orange consisted of equal parts of 2 mass market herbicides. One of them 2,4-D is still on the market today and is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world for use on cereal crops, pastures, and orchards. If you've ever eaten fruit without washing it first you've probably already consumed it.

    The other constituent part was a herbicide known as 2,4,5-T. 2,4,5-T was also used widely from its discovery in the late 1940's to the late 1970's when it began to be phased out. It's use was finally discontinued in the U.S because of emerging toxicity concerns in, get this, 1985!

    Up until 1985 2,4,5-T was still being used to spray rice in the U.S! So if it was still merrily being used in 1985 to spray rice it would be completely impossible, for the U.S government, unless they had psychics on the payroll, to have known in 1965 that 2,4,5-T was a substance dangerous to humans now, wouldn't it?

    So I repeat, to draw a moral equivalence between the U.S's use of agent orange in the 60's when no one knew it was dangerous to humans and Asaads use of sarin gas last week is a bizarre claim.

    For goodness sake will you not finally concede that there is no legitimate comparison to be drawn between those two actions?


    Even today Vietnamese people suffer the consequences of being CHEMICALLY POISONED BY THE USA. - FACT.
    Some do no doubt. The data seems to suggests that exposure to agent orange increases risk of birth defects by as much as 29% for certain defects and to just above threshold level for several others. According to a survey by The March of Dimes organisation. The threshold or background level for birth defects is anywhere between 40 and 80 birth defects per 1000 births depending on the country. Vietnam sits right around the middle at 52.

    So according to the March of Dimes's chart a Vietnamese person exposed to agent orange might have their risk of having a child with a birth defect bumped up to about 65 or 70 per 1000 births. Or about the same as for a citizen of a country like Egypt or Tunisia.

    In 2006, Anh Duc Ngo and colleagues of the University of Texas Health Science Center published a meta-analysis that exposed a large amount of heterogeneity (different findings) between studies, a finding consistent with a lack of consensus on the issue.[47] Despite this, statistical analysis of the studies they examined resulted in data that the increase in birth defects/relative risk (RR) from exposure to agent orange/dioxin "appears" to be on the order of 3 in Vietnamese funded studies but 1.29 in the rest of the world. With a casual relationship near the threshold of statistical significance in still-births, cleft palate, and neural tube defects, with spina bifida being the most statistically significant defect.The large discrepancy in RR between Vietnamese studies and those in the rest of the world has been ascribed to bias in the Vietnamese studies.
    So agent orange exposure while potentially very serious for th eoffspring of those exposed does not exactly equal the near certain death of poison gas now does it?;

    The sailent point here is that the U.S did not and could not have known that the mass-market herbicdes that comprised in agent orange would cause any birth defects in humans, because at the time no one knew.

    If the U.S had known of the possible danger to humans I am sure they would not have used it. They haven't used it since, have they? on the other hand I think you would have to agree that Asaad would use agent orange in a hot second if it suited his purposes.

    The USA uses chemical weapons against countries it commits acts of aggression against. FACT.
    Please give an example where the U.S used chemical weapons against an enemy? I think I've already shown to the satisfaction of all impartial observers that agent orange doesn't count.

    That dispels the nonsense you were previously spouting.
    Again Roy I'm sorry but just placing the word "FACT" after statements you would like to be true doesn't magically make them so. You will still have to come up with some actual evidence if you hope to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

    The US has no business lecturing other countries on "chemical weapons", or any other BS for that matter.
    Because being opposed to the use of Sarin gas is just "BS" is it? I'm guessing though, that if the U.S did ever use sarin gas you would be among the first to decry that action as barbarism. And you'd be right. At least in the same way as a stopped clock is right twice a day. You and Noam Chomsky both.

    I know you don't like to hear this but the use of chemical weapons is against the Geneva convention, which has been signed by 196 countries including Syria and Russia. So its just U.S and the 195 other countries that are opposed to it then. Looks like you and Assad are in a bit of minority on that score at least out there in the real world, where it counts.

    The entire "chemical weapons" nonsense is a US / EU / Globalist charade and excuse put forward to destroy and jihad Syria today, Iran tomorrow, Central Asia the day after.
    Have you any actual evidence to support that theory other than paranoia and conspiracy?


    Well... I never claimed otherwise but I fail to see how dying from, or being attacked by chemical means is much different to ones limbs and organs blown off.
    Well you may not see it, I'll take your word on that, but chemical weapons were banned by the Geneva convention because it was judged that the methods by which they killed and maimed their victims were especially cruel when compared to conventional weapons.

    A mortal wound from a bomb or bullet will generally cause a relatively quick death from shock due to blood loss. Immediately after the initial wound is inflicted adrenaline floods the body so that the victim might not actually feel much pain at all in their final moments.

    This probably has something to do with the fact that humans evolved in an environment where injuries causing laceration and blood loss were a common enough occurrence. So human physiology has developed ways to deal with that type of wound, both physically as well as psychologically. Those that survive these injuries even with the loss of a limb often remain fairly systemically healthy and live a full lifespan after they recover.

    None of the above applies to poison gas however. Chlorine gas attacks the eyes and the lungs. Most people naturally have a special fear of both blindness and suffocation, and poison gas typically causes both. There is very little that battlefield medicine can do to lessen the terror and misery of someone that is in the last stages of respiratory arrest due to having their lungs destroyed, short of knocking them unconscious, which will probably only hasten their demise.

    The survivors of gas attack are often blinded or rendered partially-sighted for life and while they will retain their limbs they may be unable to use them efficiently because their lungs have been permanently damaged by the gas. So their general health may be severely diminished and they may die younger than they otherwise would have.

    If all of that wasn't enough poison gas is indiscriminate. It cannot be directed accurately, it blows on the wind killing whomever is in its path. It is almost invisible, so it cannot easily be avoided and it moves through buildings so one cannot easily take cover from it. All of this adds up to poison gas being regarded by all who first experienced it in WWI as a nightmare weapon and in large part is why it has been banned the world over ever since.


    The USA blows up civilians with impunity on a daily basis. That fact doesn't seem to bother you at all, because all you seem to care about is "how horrendous chemical weapons attacks" are as if this is some kind of special kind of offense. And apparently, this deserves some kind of "US World Police response".
    It always bothers me when civilians are killed. I wouldn't be here discussing it if it didn't bother me. But please give a specific example where the U.S has blown up civilians with "impunity".

    You must provide a specific example to usefully discuss that accusation. Otherwise it is just slander.

    You can't claim to abhor chemical attack terrorism yet applaud or claim that bombing people, as the US does 24/7, is somehow less evil and more moral.
    Again where is the U.S targeting civilians? Give specific examples please.

    And therein lies the hypocrisy of your stance.
    Meanwhile, your claim if i have it right, is that a self-interested dictator who uses banned chemical weapons against his own civilians is the moral equivalent of a democratically elected government engaged in the act of defending those very civilians from him! As a position to hold that to me seems little short of nuts.

    Your justification of Asaads warcrimes on the basis that the U.S is "just as bad" is like something Lex Luther or some other comicbook villain would come up with as justification for a plot to hold the world to ransom.

    One of the major differences between him and the U.S is that Assad has no democratic mandate at all even within his own country. On the other hand it is arguable that the U.S has a moral obligation as the worlds only superpower to try to maintain some semblance of order and civilisation in the world.

    What is certain is that if the U.S were to gather it's forces from around the world tomorrow and retreat within its own borders there would be a tidal-wave of instability unleashed at once. Not just across the middle east but worldwide. You would have 3 or 4 powerful countries all scrambling for world dominance without any one of them being strong enough to assume stable control.

    It would threaten chaos without end. Thank god for U.S hegemony in the middle east and elsewhere is all I can say. long may it last. Because when it eventually declines what replaces it will likely be a whole lot less reasonable.

    In any case, it is by no means proven nor even likely that the Syrian Govt used chem weapons, either recently or some years ago when the Obongo regime attempted to use a similar incident as an excuse to attack Syria.
    You couldn't honestly put it past him though could you? Anyway most news organisations are saying he did it. There are photos of what look very like Russian made chemical weapons containers at the airbase that was bombed. What were they doing there?



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-attacks.html

    That's a pretty bold statement and claim - one which you cannot hope to prove.
    It's laughable that you even make such claims.
    It is famously impossible to prove a negative, that much is true. But has a claim ever been made to the contrary? Can you show me where it has been claimed by anyone, ever, that the U.S killed a prisoner by waterboarding? I'm yet to hear of it.

    Another bizarre conclusion to be drawn from such a statement is that it's OK to torture people, "as long as they don't die". That's just crazy man.
    Crazy is it? We aren't talking about some hypothetical situation here. Waterboarding as practiced by the U.S military is a procedure that leaves the subject (in all reported cases a violent terrorist I might add) completely unharmed afterwards. That is hardly the moral equivalent or exposing innocents to deadly poison gas, now is it? To try to claim as you do that it is, shoots straight over the first 10 levels of "crazy" and lands in the middle of clinically bonkers!!!




    So what. They've certainly used white phosphorus.
    That's different. White phosphorous is carried by many armies as a tool for creating smoke screens or as an incendiary to be used against enemy equipment. As long as the chemical properties of the phosphorous are not used directly to burn or destroy human tissue, it's use is non-controversial.

    Poison gas on the other hand has no legitimate use and no legitimate reason for being acquired or stockpiled. So again, no equivalence.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Agent orange is not the equivalent of nerve gas, are you really so dense that you can't see that?

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    Straw man argument. I know it isn't the equivalent of nerve gas. It has different properties introducing a different kind of hell to people. That doesn't make it any less horrific.
    I meant to say "moral equivalent" in which case I would not be strawmaning your argument because as far as I can see, that is exactly what you are claiming.

    You are claiming that exposure to agent orange, which was a combination of two mass market herbicides and which never killed anyone outright (unless perhaps they happened to drink a pint of it) it is just as horrific as exposure to poison gas?

    For the sake of argument lets say maybe 1 in 100 people exposed to agent orange went on the have children that had birth defects as a result (in reality it isn't anywhere near that high, the true figure is barely within an order of magnitude of 1 in 100)

    For that 1 in 100th person maybe there would be equivalence between orange and poison gas. However if 100 people were exposed to poison gas most of them will not be having children at all, because they will be dead! Saddam for instance wiped out entire villages with poison gas. Hardly a soul surviving.

    So really there isn't much of an equivalence at all is there? It's like at most a 1% equivalence where agent orange is about 1% as dangerous as poison gas and then only to the next generation and then only if the person that was exposed goes on to have children afterwards.


    The flaws with that theory is that Congress is filled with bandits, thieves, whores and psychopaths and expecting such a cabal to uphold standards of human decency is akin to putting the Vatican in charge of acting out against sodomy and pedophilia.

    It just doesn't work. Even an amoeba could understand that.
    Well then you must be an amoeba! Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

    The reality is that every country has a certain level of political corruption but the U.S has less than any of its possible successors (I'm thinking of you China/Russia/India). That is even if those alternatives had the power to take the reigns, which they don't. So the only likely alternative to U.S hegemony is worldwide chaos with regional powers jostling for control. And that means considerably more war, not less.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    your defense of Assad a morally bankrupt tyrant and the puppet and Putin another morally bankrupt tyrant is what is ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    Both of them are a whole lot better than the Bush or Clinton clans, Miss Lindsey or McCain.
    So Bush and Clinton would be worse guys to have as president than Putin or Assad? You know I suspect you actually believe that, god help you. Well that fantasy of yours would last just as long as it took your to realise that the singular freedom remaining to you under such a dictatorship was the freedom to agree with the tyrant (which is no freedom at all of course).And if you stepped out of line by criticising him *puff* your gone. As happens to some of Moscows more promising journalists every so often.

    Anyway Hilary isn't President Trump is. That's the power of democracy over dictatorship. If your don't like what you've got at least you know other people might be feeling the same and you can all band together to kick him out after 4 or 8 years or whatever it is and vote in someone new. With dictatorship you are almost guaranteed that the most brutal possible candidate gets the job and keeps it until he is either murdered himself or dies of old age. That's not a great system either now is it?




    You're just spouting MSM fantasies here. Try again.
    Yeah sure ,main stream media is all fantasies and paranoia. No facts there, so sir, none that are to your liking anyway...

    What may I ask would be your favoured news source? Is it Russia Today, or do you prefer to get your facts from Pravda?



    I find your love for faggot, kike, jihadist & nigger loving democracy much more disturbing.
    Roy, the degree of your antisemitism and general hatred of almost everything is truly a thing to behold. In it's own way it is like a perfect diamond. A diamond formed from condensed bullshit to be sure, but a diamond nonetheless!

    Stay classy.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  6. #76
    Senior Member RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 08:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Roy, the degree of your antisemitism and general hatred of almost everything is truly a thing to behold. In it's own way it is like a perfect diamond.
    Let's clear up some facts:

    A Semite / Semitic person is generally held to be somebody with racial origins from certain parts of the Middle East. Palestinians such as Yasser Arafat are examples of Semites.

    Khazar Juden (who make up the vast majority of Israel's population) from the former Soviet Union, Chicongo, New Yawwk or the Central and Eastern European ghettos who invaded Palestine are for the most part not "Semites". There are of course Jews with Semitic traits, for example Sephardic Jews but they are a small minority. A handful of "Semites" doesn't make the whole cabal "Semitic". Far from it.

    The anti-semite slur is not only a tired and harrowed old cliche, it is a meaningless strawman accusation, invented by a Cryptojew from Germany who posed as a Germanic chauvinist. (Wilhelm Marr)

    Nice try with the "anti-semite" slur, but as with most of your Zionist political arguments, it's another sad fail. Oi vey.
    Last edited by Juthunge; Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 at 10:20 PM. Reason: Rule 3.
    ~ **** Democracy! It's 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

  7. #77
    Senior Member Mööv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, October 28th, 2019 @ 04:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Donauschwaben
    Subrace
    Keltic nordid/Alpinid
    State
    Danube Swabian Community Danube Swabian Community
    Location
    Wigrid
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Single parent
    Occupation
    Mad scientist
    Politics
    Politically incorrect
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,393
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    666
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    184
    Thanked in
    115 Posts
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Lieber tot als Sklave!

  8. #78
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 09:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...-version11.pdf

    Especially the following: "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition [earlier specified as 'the west', among others] want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)".
    The allegation that the U.S would actively try to set up a Salafist province in Syria looks quite damning. But your source for this, "JudicialWatch"is rather suspect.

    According to politifact and snopes Judicalwatach is highly biased and unreliable. They have misreported important facts in the past.

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/judicial-watch/

    Snopes says the same.

    http://www.snopes.com/dhs-quietly-vanloads-border/

    Judicial watch isn't a news organisation at all btw. It's a right wing pressure group. They just post salacious articles in order to attract attention. Their real raison d'etre is to sue the democrats, lol. But the majority of their lawsuits get dismissed.

    So you will need to come up with a credible source to corroborate that story if you expect me to give it any credence. As it stands you might as well have quoted an article from infowars...

    Again you're using distractions. I wasn't talking about these three soldiers.
    Ok so you were talking about Iraq/libya. So am I to take it from that that you don't hold the U.S morally responsible for those 3 soldiers deaths?

    You can leave out 'therefore'. There's a difference between acting badly and not intervening when others act badly. To equate the moral level of the two means to extend one's moral duties into the practically impossible. It's also careless when you are a. not effectively saving people (the killing as already been done) and b. your actions are bound to have results over which you don't have any control.
    All actions can have unforeseen consequences, that is not an argument against taking action. You make the best calculation you can and then you take action that's how it works.

    And we are not talking about individuals but about a superpower, the greatest ever known, with bases in every region in the world. It is well within the U.S's ability to intervene to prevent war crimes taking place in regions where their hegemony prevails. And if they don't do it no one else will be able to. That is why moral responsibility is arguable in the case of Asaad.

    Have you been inspired by Peter Singer perhaps? He uses the same type of thinking about ethics to claim that western people are obliged to continuously donate a large part of their income to the third world.
    Never heard of him.

    Well, 'collateral' doesn't necessarily mean that you did not intended for it to happen, just that it wasn't the prime objective. You can choose to take collateral damage for granted, bringing us to the following...
    I accept that some casualties may be necessary in war in order to save a greater number of lives ultimately. But not for most other ends like the purpose of propping up an unelected ruling dynasty.

    You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I have never produced any justification for anything, I merely described a situation. Whether you like it or not, it happens.
    Ok, I have no problem with that statement.

    Returning to the previous paragraph, all regimes that wage war create civilian casualties and it is often taken for granted because the importance of the military goal outweighs these casualties. That's why it is not about intentionality, but about the degree in which you take these casualties for granted. Using civilians as a means is the extreme end of this continuum. Before going all crazy about Assad, you'd first need to prove that this is in fact his modus operandi.
    Apart from barrel bombs and the Sarin gas, Assad is also heavily involved in torture. There is an FBI report involving some 27,000 photographs showing the mutilated bodies of prisoners of the Assad regime. In all, it is believed that these photographs show 11,000 civilians in the process of being tortured to death in Asaads prisons between 2011 and 2013. And he has 150,000 more prisoners who may well meet the same fate before long.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-death-machine

    This is the link to some of the photographs

    So yeah, I'd say he has a fairly "ends justify the means" MO, i.e he's a moral monster who should be gotten rid of if at all possible.

    This is not what I said. I even said that morality was about lives. Read again.
    Ok. I'll have another go. For the benefit of others, this is the statment I am rereading;

    Originally Posted by Bernhard
    The problem with civilians dying in a war is that they stand in the way of what you're trying to achieve. The concept of intentionality looses its purpose. Morality is degraded to the 'amount of f*cks given' about their lives. Both the US and Assad have to make choices in which they weigh the consequences for civilians against the amount of success they will gain to reach their political goal.
    Well frankly, I don't think Assad gives any "f*cks" at all about civilians lives other than as means to his ends. I think, and all the indications are that he cares about holding on to power and nothing else. If you think that the U.S is on anything like Assad's level of callousness and cruelty then that is where we differ.

    Well, I didn't write words about those soldiers either, so you must at least have been trying to read my mind, but failed at it.
    Yes, Libya and Iraq are good examples of where removing a dictator resulted in chaos.
    If you had to choose would you rather live the rest of your life in Baghdad as it is today or Baghdad as it was under saddam? I'd rather the former. I'd say the Kurds shia and Marsh Arabs are fairly happy with it too. Libya appears to be quite chaotic still admittedly.

    This is exactly what I meant by the liberal type of reasoning. As long as 'the greater good has been served', it's good. If you intervene and create chaos than you are responsible; you can talk about it how much you like, but those words don't return lives.
    My belief is that if by military action you ultimately save lives by delivering an entire nation out of the hands of a Tyrant and replace his rule with something better then it is justifiable. If you can't replace it with something better then obviously it is not. What is "better" or "worse" is subjective of course. But I think Iraq is a better place today for most of its citizens than it was under Saddam. It's also a far better neighbour to other countries in the region.

    However, this argument presumes that the negative consequences of such interventions are in fact the result of stupidity, which I don't buy.
    The middle east is a complex place. I don't think anyone in 2002 could have predicted the rise of ISIS.

    I hardly ever read RT. The Russians aren't behind everything; stop watching CNN!
    They are behind Assad though. Without their intervention he'd have been overthrown by now which would have been a far better outcome than the current situation.

    How on earth did they win? They wouldn't be complaining about Obama's policy if they had.
    My mistake I misread "Syria" as "Libya". I believe the reason Obama didn't give more aid to the Syrian rebels (which on the face of it would have been the right thing to do) is that Turkey wouldn't allow it.

    Turkey is a Nato "ally" as well as the gatekeeper to Europe. The U.S could not afford to alienate Turkey beyond a certain point. Arming Kurdish rebels in northern Syria might have crossed the line with Turkey, both literally and metaphorically, i.e Turkey's southern border could be threatened.

    Anyone thinking Iraq is heading towards some bright future clearly hasn't got a clue. I don't even know where to start.
    Well, I think the future is probably better than the past for Iraq. Maybe i'm an optimist. The Kurds will have their own state as soon as Mosul is liberated from ISIS. Which won't too too long now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future...nce_referendum

    The Sunni's, the vast majority of whom are no supporters of ISIS will demand and I think, with enough western prodding, be given regional autonomy around Mosul similar to what the Kurds enjoy. The Government in Baghdad will be mostly Shiite controlled. At that point we'd be heading for a Federal Iraq. That would be my hope. There is still the issue of the Shia militias backed by Iran. Thy will have to be Iraq will take a long time to right itself but if it does it will be far better than under Saddam.

    The last sentence about Carl Schmitt was not crucial for the point I was making, so you can still respond to it properly.
    So your contention is that my view of evil is superficial because I don't take into account the amount of suffering/evil caused as a by product of military interventions, even assuming the objectives of those interventions i.e to depose a tyrant might be morally valid.

    Before I go to the trouble of responding to it, have I stated you contention accurately?

    It was just a little extra in case you might be interested, which I don't think you really are.
    I'm mainly interested in a discussion about what's happening in Syria now. If you know an argument of Carl Schmitt's that is relevant to the discussion at hand then by all means restate it, but don't expect me to start pouring over Schmitt's entire opus myself in the hopes of stumbling upon something relevant!

    Stop putting words in my mouth, I haven't defended the use of chemical weapons. It's your lack of analytical capacity that makes you think so.
    What do you mean you haven't defended the use of chemical weapons? You have sought to place chemical weapons on a par with conventional weapons, such that their use is not a justification for military intervention. That's defending them and those who wield them!

    I am simply pointing out that virtually the whole world disagrees with you! It is generally accepted that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. It also generally considered legitimate to intervene in a conflict in order to prevent war crimes from taking place. Therefore if Assad has used chemical weapons it is acceptable to, at the very least, deprive him of that ability. isn't that what this entire discussion is about?

    Didn't say that either. You simply claimed that it was used to clear the leaves and not intended to harm civilians. I pointed out that your own source claims otherwise. That's it. Cherrypicking numbers won't change that.
    Ok, since you have such a keen analytical mind please explain; How can it be considered that a substance (Agent Orange) was used as a weapon when at the time, and at least until 1970, nobody suspected it was even potentially harmful to humans, hmm?

    I think I'm the one wasting keystrokes when all I'm doing here is repeating myself and telling you 'that's not what I said'.
    It seems to me you've used a lot of words yet managed to say surprising little. Little that I can pin you down on anyway.

    According to you all weapons that can cause death should be considered roughly equal. The use of sarin gas therefore is not a war crimes because all weapons kill people. And that in war the intention for entering the war is irrelevant.

    I think your perception of what war is rather lacking in nuance.

    About the only thing I can pin you down on, (because it is one of the few items in this discussion that is objectively either true or false) is your assertion that agent orange was used as a Weapon.

    I have shown that that is impossible, because in order for something to be said to have been used as a weapon there has to have been an intention to use it as such. Which in the case of agent orange could not have existed, because it was not then known to be harmful to humans. And you can spin that any way you like, it always comes up the same.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  9. #79
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Fire Sprite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 13th, 2019 @ 01:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    English
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Cancer
    Politics
    Anti-debt
    Religion
    Muse Worship
    Posts
    134
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    BBC News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attack In Syria

    Slightly older, but shows what is happening now. All the shilling in forums & news, even here, thinking their was a chem attack.

    BBC News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attack In Syria

  10. #80
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    The allegation that the U.S would actively try to set up a Salafist province in Syria looks quite damning. But your source for this, "JudicialWatch"is rather suspect.

    According to politifact and snopes Judicalwatach is highly biased and unreliable. They have misreported important facts in the past.

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/judicial-watch/

    Snopes says the same.

    http://www.snopes.com/dhs-quietly-vanloads-border/

    Judicial watch isn't a news organisation at all btw. It's a right wing pressure group. They just post salacious articles in order to attract attention. Their real raison d'etre is to sue the democrats, lol. But the majority of their lawsuits get dismissed.

    So you will need to come up with a credible source to corroborate that story if you expect me to give it any credence. As it stands you might as well have quoted an article from infowars...
    What!? The source is the Pentagon. I just searched google for a quick reference so you could read it; these guys merely put a copy of it on their website. You can search the wikileaks database for yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Ok so you were talking about Iraq/libya. So am I to take it from that that you don't hold the U.S morally responsible for those 3 soldiers deaths?
    You're confusing different concepts. You were talking about whether it was reasonable. That's something else than moral responsibility. Of course they are morally responsible. the question is about the extent to which the context justifies it, this includes future developments that are caused by it.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    All actions can have unforeseen consequences, that is not an argument against taking action. You make the best calculation you can and then you take action that's how it works.

    And we are not talking about individuals but about a superpower, the greatest ever known, with bases in every region in the world. It is well within the U.S's ability to intervene to prevent war crimes taking place in regions where their hegemony prevails. And if they don't do it no one else will be able to. That is why moral responsibility is arguable in the case of Asaad.
    The problem is that they don't make the best calculations, or perhaps they do, but it's exactly their aim (see the pentagon document).
    It has almost become a general consensus that Iraq was a bad idea (that's why Hillary tried to distance herself from it), but the US just keeps doing the same. Everybody knows the consequences, not to mention the emerging conflict with Russia; whether you like Putin or not, it's downright evil to risk a world war or even a war between the two major superpowers just because 'we should do the right thing'. On behalf of the moralists it's selfish, because they sacrifice lives in order to feel good about themselves. At least american strategists are aware of their interests in destabilizing the rest of the world, they're not lying to themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Ok, I have no problem with that statement.
    Good, now try to understand why this implies that you're black and white vision of killing with good intentions vs killing with bad intenstions doesn't apply in war. And, as a disclaimer, this doesn't at all exclude the possibility that some are morally less justifiable than others. Just that the difference is one of gradation, not of principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Apart from barrel bombs and the Sarin gas, Assad is also heavily involved in torture. There is an FBI report involving some 27,000 photographs showing the mutilated bodies of prisoners of the Assad regime. In all, it is believed that these photographs show 11,000 civilians in the process of being tortured to death in Asaads prisons between 2011 and 2013. And he has 150,000 more prisoners who may well meet the same fate before long.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-death-machine

    This is the link to some of the photographs

    So yeah, I'd say he has a fairly "ends justify the means" MO, i.e he's a moral monster who should be gotten rid of if at all possible.
    Using civilians as a means is not the same as ‘the end justifies the means’. The latter also applies to collateral damage.
    So in the case of torture one would still have to ask why these people were arrested and whether there was any reason to suspect them of engaging in anti-government activities. Using civilians as a means would more apply to actions like those of ISIS who are claimed to use human shields. Anyway, if torture is your criterium, should the US also attack Egypt, a country which the Trump administration has no problem with? Or perhaps themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Ok. I'll have another go. For the benefit of others, this is the statment I am rereading;

    Well frankly, I don't think Assad gives any "f*cks" at all about civilians lives other than as means to his ends. I think, and all the indications are that he cares about holding on to power and nothing else. If you think that the U.S is on anything like Assad's level of callousness and cruelty then that is where we differ.
    Well, this text was part of my argument about your use of the concept of intentionality, which I dealt with above. If you ‘think’ he cares about civilian lives for 0 percent, that’s okay. But I don’t consider such a wild guess reliable enough for policy. There are many things that even prove otherwise, like the evacuation of rebels (not just civilians) to safe areas under their own control after Assad defeated them in a specific area (Wadi Barada and al-Wa’ar district in Homs f.e.). If his power was al that mattered, it would have been better to just kill them all.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    If you had to choose would you rather live the rest of your life in Baghdad as it is today or Baghdad as it was under saddam? I'd rather the former. I'd say the Kurds shia and Marsh Arabs are fairly happy with it too. Libya appears to be quite chaotic still admittedly.
    I’d take Saddam over endless amounts of terrorist attacks throughout the city.
    Consider also the fact that christians do not trust their muslim neighbours anymore, the amount of ISIS militants that blend into everyday life, the sectarian conflict that is emerging between shiites and sunni’s, the revenge actions taking place by shiite iraqi’s. The Kurds are the only ones who are well off, because they’ve managed to stay out of the mess that came about. The rest of the country is a mess. It’ll take ages for social stability to return in such a divided country.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    My belief is that if by military action you ultimately save lives by delivering an entire nation out of the hands of a Tyrant and replace his rule with something better then it is justifiable. If you can't replace it with something better then obviously it is not. What is "better" or "worse" is subjective of course. But I think Iraq is a better place today for most of its citizens than it was under Saddam. It's also a far better neighbour to other countries in the region.
    Yeah, the califate is such a nice place to live.
    The problem is that the US has proved over and over again not to be capable to replace someone’s rule with something better. At least, not for the people; only for themselves because they remove all strong powers that stand in the way of US global rule and local Wahabi rule. The latter is also bad for us, because they are the one’s behind the spread of Islam in Europe as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    The middle east is a complex place. I don't think anyone in 2002 could have predicted the rise of ISIS.
    At least the Pentagon did in 2012, but that didn’t stop them from continuing their work.
    It didn’t stop them from doing the same in Libya either.

    This (http://www.mintpressnews.com/2007-ve...-syria/218083/) looks interesting as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    My mistake I misread "Syria" as "Libya". I believe the reason Obama didn't give more aid to the Syrian rebels (which on the face of it would have been the right thing to do) is that Turkey wouldn't allow it.

    Turkey is a Nato "ally" as well as the gatekeeper to Europe. The U.S could not afford to alienate Turkey beyond a certain point. Arming Kurdish rebels in northern Syria might have crossed the line with Turkey, both literally and metaphorically, i.e Turkey's southern border could be threatened.
    Those rebels were supported by Turkey as well, so this is nonsense. The only ‘rebels’ that are disliked by Turkey are the Kurds, and the US has never had a problem supporting them.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Well, I think the future is probably better than the past for Iraq. Maybe i'm an optimist. The Kurds will have their own state as soon as Mosul is liberated from ISIS. Which won't too too long now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future...nce_referendum

    The Sunni's, the vast majority of whom are no supporters of ISIS will demand and I think, with enough western prodding, be given regional autonomy around Mosul similar to what the Kurds enjoy. The Government in Baghdad will be mostly Shiite controlled. At that point we'd be heading for a Federal Iraq. That would be my hope. There is still the issue of the Shia militias backed by Iran. Thy will have to be Iraq will take a long time to right itself but if it does it will be far better than under Saddam.
    The Kurds might have a brighter future in Iraq, I agree, that’s the only positive development, one we still can’t say much about. The Shia-Sunni relations are terrible in Iraq though.
    But even if there is sufficient reason to be optimistic now, your position does remind me a lot of Trotsky’s when confronted by the countless human lives that were being destroyed, answered that it was only a small price that had to be payed for the revolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    So your contention is that my view of evil is superficial because I don't take into account the amount of suffering/evil caused as a by product of military interventions, even assuming the objectives of those interventions i.e to depose a tyrant might be morally valid.

    Before I go to the trouble of responding to it, have I stated you contention accurately?
    Sums it up alright, although your wording still assumes a dichotomy between ‘justified/accidental killing’ and ‘intentional killing’ which I have showed you to be invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    I'm mainly interested in a discussion about what's happening in Syria now. If you know an argument of Carl Schmitt's that is relevant to the discussion at hand then by all means restate it, but don't expect me to start pouring over Schmitt's entire opus myself in the hopes of stumbling upon something relevant!
    I never asked you to. You could’ve just ignored the last sentence and focus on what I was saying, but (like usual) you decide to focus on what isn’t essential so you can draw away the attention from your failing arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    What do you mean you haven't defended the use of chemical weapons? You have sought to place chemical weapons on a par with conventional weapons, such that their use is not a justification for military intervention. That's defending them and those who wield them!

    I am simply pointing out that virtually the whole world disagrees with you! It is generally accepted that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. It also generally considered legitimate to intervene in a conflict in order to prevent war crimes from taking place. Therefore if Assad has used chemical weapons it is acceptable to, at the very least, deprive him of that ability. isn't that what this entire discussion is about?
    I have tried to show that our emotional response to this alleged example of the use of chemical weapons is disproportionate to what distinguishes them from other weapons when you look at the casualties, to demonstrate that these humanitarian arguments are perfect to be exploited politically (I advise you to read Schmitt on this as well).
    I have also pointed out that action and inaction do not posess the same moral value. Not intervening militarily doesn't mean I approve of it. I don't approve of child marriage either, just because I don't travel to Yemen to save little girls.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Ok, since you have such a keen analytical mind please explain; How can it be considered that a substance (Agent Orange) was used as a weapon when at the time, and at least until 1970, nobody suspected it was even potentially harmful to humans, hmm?
    Putting the word ‘weapon’ in italics doesn’t make it mine. You’re doing this on purpose are you?
    I only addressed the spraying of crops and yes, I reckon that they knew that the lack of food would be harmful to people. That’s probably also why they told their soldiers that it weren’t crops they were spraying. It’s all in your own source.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    It seems to me you've used a lot of words yet managed to say surprising little. Little that I can pin you down on anyway.
    That’s true. Everything I had to say was written down in my first post to you. You just keep making me explain it over and over again. It didn’t turn out as a rewarding endeavour though.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    According to you all weapons that can cause death should be considered roughly equal. The use of sarin gas therefore is not a war crimes because all weapons kill people. And that in war the intention for entering the war is irrelevant.

    I think your perception of what war is rather lacking in nuance.

    About the only thing I can pin you down on, (because it is one of the few items in this discussion that is objectively either true or false) is your assertion that agent orange was used as a Weapon.

    I have shown that that is impossible, because in order for something to be said to have been used as a weapon there has to have been an intention to use it as such. Which in the case of agent orange could not have existed, because it was not then known to be harmful to humans. And you can spin that any way you like, it always comes up the same.
    You’re just lying on purpose. Again, all I said was that it caused a famine and malnourishment and that this was the result of deliberate spraying of crops. Read your own source and do it thoroughly, instead of thinking of lies with the sole objective of winning an argument.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Samson Option: Israel's Missiles on on European Cities
    By Ralf in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2012, 08:48 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Thursday, April 14th, 2011, 02:20 PM
  3. Spy Photos Reveal 'secret Launch Site' for Iran's Long-range Missiles
    By Guntwachar in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 11:52 AM
  4. Russia Sends Tor-M1 Missiles to Iran
    By Agrippa in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 05:08 AM
  5. Swastika-Shaped US Base
    By Yavolod in forum The United States
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Friday, January 27th, 2006, 10:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •