(Close Window)
Topic: Syria Explained
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 5, 2015 09:50AM)
Not sure who wrote this. Please give credit if you do.


President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they’re good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
Message: Posted by: Wizard of Oz (Dec 5, 2015 09:55AM)
For once, I think I actually get it.
Thank you.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Dec 5, 2015 10:03AM)
Maybe we should just bomb everything to glass everywhere, and let the cephalopods evolve to be the next dominant species.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 5, 2015 10:24AM)
Cold War, Holy Warriors Batman!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 5, 2015 11:09AM)
That's why the founding fathers said to avoid foreign entanglements.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Dec 5, 2015 12:21PM)
Magnus, that was a masterpiece; where did you see it originally? I'd be interested in knowing the author too.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 5, 2015 12:57PM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Bob1Dog wrote:
Magnus, that was a masterpiece; where did you see it originally? I'd be interested in knowing the author too. [/quote]

I read it on [url=https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com] Kevin Spraggett's [/url] chess blog (strange mixture of excellent chess analysis and girlie pictures ). He credits a reader named Eric. I googled and found a few copies of it from October and November but nothing to indicate the original source.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Dec 5, 2015 01:11PM)
Thanks Magnus. And thanks for the link to the blog. Good mix of chess and great photography. :-)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 5, 2015 01:11PM)
One of the all-time greats of Canadian chess!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 5, 2015 05:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Maybe we should just bomb everything to glass everywhere, and let the cephalopods evolve to be the next dominant species. [/quote]

That opinion may be what motivates others to acquire the means
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Dec 5, 2015 05:48PM)
Magnus, your original synopsis makes one wonder if all this could have been avoided if Assad has been dealt with at the very start.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Dec 5, 2015 06:55PM)
Good point Arthur!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 5, 2015 07:37PM)
Or if the US had never bombed Iraq...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 5, 2015 10:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, arthur stead wrote:
Magnus, your original synopsis makes one wonder if all this could have been avoided if Assad has been dealt with at the very start. [/quote]
What if ASSAD, like GADDAFI, and HUSSIEN .... was simply fighting TERRORISTS to begin with? What if the truth is that these guys have been fighting Muslim Extremism from the very beginning and other evil people tried to say they were killing civilians instead of terrorists? Gaddafi had 700 Al-Qaeda in prison. He wasn't killing his own. He was killing terrorists .. Just like Assad. This verifies what the Russian leaders (Who also fight terrorism) are saying.None of these guys are/were angels, but THEY had Jihadist terrorism under control. The 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Dec 5, 2015 11:20PM)
You're forgetting that Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people ... and I'm sure nobody is checking to see if he really got rid of all that stuff.

Also, I wouldn't believe the Russians if they say they're bombing IS. They're more interested in bombing anti-Assad rebels, who are supported by the USA.

These Arab sects (or tribes) have centuries-old gripes against each other. They don't care if someone is a good guy or a terrorist. They just want to eliminate the opposing tribe.

My thought is that their squabbles are not worth even one American life. Just leave them to their own devices and let them destroy each other.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 6, 2015 04:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, arthur stead wrote:

These Arab sects (or tribes) have centuries-old gripes against each other. They don't care if someone is a good guy or a terrorist. They just want to eliminate the opposing tribe.

My thought is that their squabbles are not worth even one American life. Just leave them to their own devices and let them destroy each other. [/quote]

But then certain people wouldn't be able to become extremely wealthy from oil deals, weapon sales and trading in political favors gathered by using their position to further their own agenda rather than actually representing their constituents; all while pretending to help the oppressed du juor, and to spread Democracy.

And we couldn't have that.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 6, 2015 11:25AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, arthur stead wrote:
These Arab sects (or tribes) have centuries-old gripes against each other. They don't care if someone is a good guy or a terrorist. They just want to eliminate the opposing tribe.

My thought is that their squabbles are not worth even one American life. Just leave them to their own devices and let them destroy each other. [/quote]

Keep in mind that many of these squabbles were created when the League of Nations partitioned the Ottoman Empire after the first world war. The modern borders were imposed by the West on peoples that didn't want them.

Things were further exacerbated by the creation of the State of Israel after the second world war. For better or for worse, the establishment of the modern Israel resulted in further divisions and enmities.

Following the creation of Israels came a period of massive external interference. The CIA (and others) assisted rebels who sought to overthrow the governments Syria and Iran. (There are suspicions that there were others, as the 1950s-70s saw an unprecedented string of coups d'état in the region.)

Enter the cold war. Now the Soviets are backing their supporters (the Assad family in Syria, for example) and the US and its allies are backing theirs (the Shah in Iran, for example). Proxy wars continue unabated until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the 1970s, OPEC discovered that it controlled the world and began using its influence to shape economic policies worldwide. The Soviets gained some independence by maintaining its favored dictators; the West gained some independence by trading military protection for corporate ownership and entrepreneurial opportunity. The Soviets protected governments with troops; the West protected corporations with troops.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to political instability, and this is where we see the modern story emerge. The power vacuum was quickly filled with independent armies--many led by religious fundamentalists--and terrorist organizations began struggling for control.

The past 20-odd years have seen numerous attempts by the West to restore security for multinational corporations with military force.

Tribal conflict? Partly. But there is significantly more than that going on.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Dec 6, 2015 12:21PM)
The east/west conflict dates back many centuries.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Dec 6, 2015 02:51PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, arthur stead wrote:
The east/west conflict dates back many centuries. [/quote]

yes, but the current crisis with Daesh is in the imperialist era. I agree with your previous reference to look at the invasion of Iraq as one of the beginnings of this current mess. An excellent PBS program links the current growth of ISIS originating in the de-Baathification of Iraq. The Baath party in Iraq was secular; but when Paul Bremer dissolved the party, guess where the military went? Thank you so much Magnus for the scorecard... the only thing I would add is that there are no 'good' guys. Lynn
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 6, 2015 05:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, arthur stead wrote:
You're forgetting that Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people ... and I'm sure nobody is checking to see if he really got rid of all that stuff.

Also, I wouldn't believe the Russians if they say they're bombing IS. They're more interested in bombing anti-Assad rebels, who are supported by the USA.

These Arab sects (or tribes) have centuries-old gripes against each other. They don't care if someone is a good guy or a terrorist. They just want to eliminate the opposing tribe.

My thought is that their squabbles are not worth even one American life. Just leave them to their own devices and let them destroy each other. [/quote]
There is no proof that Assad used chemicals against his people. It's more likely that Al-Qaeda did. Secondly... The USA STILL has 9 times more chemical weapons than ASSAD ever did! What's funny is that our PBS actually used Russian video's when saying WE were bombing ISIS held oil positions.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2015 09:27PM)
There are three sorts of politicians: Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads. All politicians, lack intellectual sincerity and moral nobility, are all men of action likely to accomplish their goals.
Message: Posted by: Wizard of Oz (Dec 7, 2015 07:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Bob1Dog wrote:
Magnus, that was a masterpiece; where did you see it originally? I'd be interested in knowing the author too. [/quote]

I read it on [url=https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com] Kevin Spraggett's [/url] chess blog (strange mixture of excellent chess analysis and girlie pictures ). He credits a reader named Eric. I googled and found a few copies of it from October and November but nothing to indicate the original source. [/quote]

Uh, now back to what really matters. Thank you Magnus for the blog link. I'm not into chess, but I'm definitely into this blog. Thank you good sir.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 7, 2015 08:47PM)
I was wondering why WE didn't destroy OUR illegal chemical weapons too??????? Assad destroyed his.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Dec 7, 2015 09:15PM)
There has been no confirmation of that ...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 7, 2015 10:23PM)
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Looks like we still have at least 3,000 TONS left.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 7, 2015 10:59PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Wizard of Oz wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Bob1Dog wrote:
Magnus, that was a masterpiece; where did you see it originally? I'd be interested in knowing the author too. [/quote]

I read it on [url=https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com] Kevin Spraggett's [/url] chess blog (strange mixture of excellent chess analysis and girlie pictures ). He credits a reader named Eric. I googled and found a few copies of it from October and November but nothing to indicate the original source. [/quote]

Uh, now back to what really matters. Thank you Magnus for the blog link. I'm not into chess, but I'm definitely into this blog. Thank you good sir. [/quote]


LOL. You're welcome.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 8, 2015 03:46AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2015, Wizard of Oz wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Dec 5, 2015, Bob1Dog wrote:
Magnus, that was a masterpiece; where did you see it originally? I'd be interested in knowing the author too. [/quote]

I read it on [url=https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com] Kevin Spraggett's [/url] chess blog (strange mixture of excellent chess analysis and girlie pictures ). He credits a reader named Eric. I googled and found a few copies of it from October and November but nothing to indicate the original source. [/quote]

Uh, now back to what really matters. Thank you Magnus for the blog link. I'm not into chess, but I'm definitely into this blog. Thank you good sir. [/quote]


LOL. You're welcome. [/quote]

Ah...uh...you might have typed NSFW, just to make sure I didn't click the link while...ah...uh...at work. :jump:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 8, 2015 08:10AM)
Just learned a new acronym. Sorry.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 8, 2015 08:49AM)
They are all off their heads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Xwcg_JAEo
Message: Posted by: Wizard of Oz (Dec 8, 2015 03:27PM)
Yikes.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 8, 2015 07:51PM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, tommy wrote:
They are all off their heads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Xwcg_JAEo [/quote]
WOW!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2015 12:51AM)
Seriously, this is news to you? Did you think the military of [i]any[/i] country was some kind of drug-free zone? Shaking my head.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2015 03:22AM)
We know, we heard it rattle.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2015 10:38AM)
LOL.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 7, 2017 02:36PM)
Looks like things are getting Syrious again...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 7, 2017 03:20PM)
Huge distraction but well timed to change the media tone by memorial day and ... see what the stock market does next week.

Folks do understand how much the locals want autocracy. Possible next move ISIS decrying foreign supported WMD use and rally for liberation. :(
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 7, 2017 03:45PM)
Suddenly T.O.C. cares about the children.

The whole thing is a disgrace.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 7, 2017 06:02PM)
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Huge distraction but well timed to change the media tone [/quote]


Yes, because nothing will get the mainstream media off of Trump like increased military action in the Middle East.

[/irony]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 7, 2017 06:26PM)
Found this story on our Secretary of State - Tillerson is off to an impressive start
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/04/06/tillerson-assad-can-no-longer-govern-n2309963
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 7, 2017 10:23PM)
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Huge distraction but well timed to change the media tone [/quote]


Yes, because nothing will get the mainstream media off of Trump like increased military action in the Middle East.

[/irony] [/quote]

The point isn't the amount of attention--the point is what the attention is being focused on.

Of course when it comes to the prospect of more murder and slaughter, the mainstream media and the *cough* opposition *cough* Party can always be counted on to cheer on whoever is in office. The elites are always willing to put aside their petty differences when there's the whiff of war in the air.

Just watch how many outlets will start saying that this decision makes the occupant more Presidential.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 7, 2017 11:30PM)
So they are cheering him on now?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 7, 2017 11:40PM)
Absolutely. Kerry, Clinton, and Schumer all came out in favor of the bombing. And from CNN, hack Fareed Zakaria:

"I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 7, 2017 11:44PM)
My lord it could just be he was right.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 7, 2017 11:52PM)
You asked a question, and I answered it.

And you can take a look at MSNBC's Brian Williams's deranged response as well, quoting Leonard Cohen!!:

[youtube]Q4n3SI81m9w[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 8, 2017 11:00AM)
Don't knock Brian Williams...he was there, fighting on the front lines against IsIs.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 8, 2017 11:41AM)
Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe the propaganda being spewed by the mainstream media and the government?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 8, 2017 12:03PM)
Could you be more specific?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 8, 2017 12:24PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe the propaganda being spewed by the mainstream media and the government? [/quote]


[img]https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder463/500x/68405463.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 8, 2017 12:35PM)
? Something different about recent content samples?
Does it look like something other than legit sponsored infotainment with the usual levels of trigger text and bait images to you?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 8, 2017 12:35PM)
[quote]
[img]https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder463/500x/68405463.jpg[/img] [/quote]

I see the price of a dozen memes has gone way down recently.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 8, 2017 02:12PM)
What can you learn from showing students with ADD the benefits of knowing the basic fallacies when you are not allowed to design tests or keep the data?

How do you measure a meme?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 12, 2017 09:02AM)
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
Absolutely. Kerry, Clinton, and Schumer all came out in favor of the bombing. And from CNN, hack Fareed Zakaria:

"I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night. [/quote]

It's about time the US has a President with a backbone. Because of his move in Syria, China now wants to work with us to stop North Korea from advancing their nuclear capabilities. Something that North Korea has been advancing for the last 8.5 years all the while laughing at the US until now! Finally!

You have a loose cannon in North Korea and if China can't get them to comply at least we can rest assured the US has an administration in charge that will protect our own interests and people!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 12, 2017 09:06AM)
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
My lord it could just be he was right. [/quote]


Absolutely not! Trump can look at a color that is blue and say it's blue but the mainstream media will say, "Can you believe Trump had to think about what color he was looking at before naming it? Besides, it's not blue, it's blue-ish with grey in it".

Journalism is dead and has been for a decade now. As Metallica states, "Sad but True".
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 12, 2017 10:01AM)
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, RNK wrote: Absolutely not! Trump can look at a color that is blue and say it's blue but the mainstream media will say, "Can you believe Trump had to think about what color he was looking at before naming it? Besides, it's not blue, it's blue-ish with grey in it". [/quote]


Come now, it is clearly Green and you are obviously focussing on the complete absence of yellow aspect only...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 12, 2017 11:53AM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
What can you learn from showing students with ADD the benefits of knowing the basic fallacies when you are not allowed to design tests or keep the data?

How do you measure a meme? [/quote]
With a sock puppet of course.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 12, 2017 11:57AM)
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
Absolutely. Kerry, Clinton, and Schumer all came out in favor of the bombing. And from CNN, hack Fareed Zakaria:

"I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night. [/quote]

It's about time the US has a President with a backbone. Because of his move in Syria, China now wants to work with us to stop North Korea from advancing their nuclear capabilities. Something that North Korea has been advancing for the last 8.5 years all the while laughing at the US until now! Finally!

[/quote]

In other words, you now agree with the stated Syria policy of the losing Presidential candidate, a policy which the current President explicitly strongly opposed and who based much of his campaign on that opposition.

"I say it's spinach and the hell with it."*

*Those readers who are not Grumpy Old Men can look up the Carl Rose cartoon reference online.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 12, 2017 01:55PM)
I think it is a rabbit hole.

While it is bad to gas children, we are not the police of the world.

I have no idea if there is a right answer. Maybe it is just the least wrong answer.

I simply don't know.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 12, 2017 02:15PM)
The enemy of my enemy got some bad publicity.

How many times...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 12, 2017 02:30PM)
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Apr 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
Absolutely. Kerry, Clinton, and Schumer all came out in favor of the bombing. And from CNN, hack Fareed Zakaria:

"I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night. [/quote]

It's about time the US has a President with a backbone. Because of his move in Syria, China now wants to work with us to stop North Korea from advancing their nuclear capabilities. Something that North Korea has been advancing for the last 8.5 years all the while laughing at the US until now! Finally!

[/quote]

In other words, you now agree with the stated Syria policy of the losing Presidential candidate, a policy which the current President explicitly strongly opposed and who based much of his campaign on that opposition.

"I say it's spinach and the hell with it."*

*Those readers who are not Grumpy Old Men can look up the Carl Rose cartoon reference online. [/quote]

Perhaps the winning candidate's statements during the election were based on the assumption that there would be no "need" for action in Syria due to the claims of his predecessor and a number of people in the former administration (including the losing candidate) that "100%" of the chemical weapons in Syria were gone.

Turns out it's hard to know with certainty when all of the WMDs are gone. Who knew?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 12, 2017 02:31PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]
[img]https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder463/500x/68405463.jpg[/img] [/quote]

I see the price of a dozen memes has gone way down recently. [/quote]


I apologize for the belated acknowledgement, but this was hilarious.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 12, 2017 06:36PM)
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
The enemy of my enemy got some bad publicity.

How many times... [/quote]

"Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see"
(Sound of Bob Dylan song)
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war]"How many times must..."[/url]

...the answer is blowing in the wind - again :(
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 13, 2017 06:02AM)
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
[quote]On Apr 12, 2017, RNK wrote: Absolutely not! Trump can look at a color that is blue and say it's blue but the mainstream media will say, "Can you believe Trump had to think about what color he was looking at before naming it? Besides, it's not blue, it's blue-ish with grey in it". [/quote]


Come now, it is clearly Green and you are obviously focussing on the complete absence of yellow aspect only... [/quote]

Well Salguod, my thoughts on the middle east, and of course they can be wrong as they are only my thoughts and I am simply an imperfect human, are that Syria and Iran are two "bad hombres" that are involved in housing terrorism spewing hate for western civilization. It was the last administration the stated Syria had no chemical weapons which we now know was false. The weakness of the last administration and their looking the other way has allowed the middle east including North Korea to become increasingly more dangerous to the US.

Now all my jargon may be that I am completely missing the absence of the yellow aspect. Very possible! My wife tells me all the time that I am colorblind!
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 13, 2017 06:14AM)
[quote]On Apr 13, 2017, RNK wrote: The weakness of the last administration and their looking the other way has allowed the middle east including North Korea to become increasingly more dangerous to the US. [/quote]


Do you think we are in more danger now than say 5,10, or 15 years ago?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 13, 2017 08:36AM)
Danger of what? A Facebook live stream or YouTube video going viral?
Being blamed for providing means of destruction to hostiles? Providing foreign aid to human rights violators?

What national interest is at risk in Syria?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 13, 2017 08:55AM)
[quote]On Apr 13, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
[quote]On Apr 13, 2017, RNK wrote: The weakness of the last administration and their looking the other way has allowed the middle east including North Korea to become increasingly more dangerous to the US. [/quote]


Do you think we are in more danger now than say 5,10, or 15 years ago? [/quote]


Yea define danger. Because certainly the world seems to get more dangerous as technology progresses and it is nobodies fault

The last 2 administration's have provided ample information that ideology is not as good as being pragmatic.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 17, 2017 07:36AM)
[quote]On Apr 13, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
[quote]On Apr 13, 2017, RNK wrote: The weakness of the last administration and their looking the other way has allowed the middle east including North Korea to become increasingly more dangerous to the US. [/quote]


Do you think we are in more danger now than say 5,10, or 15 years ago? [/quote]


I think so. As someone earlier said- TECHNOLOGY. The radicalization of Muslims through technology is one adherent adding the danger up-tick. I also feel that there is always going to be bad and good. And if the bad is not consistently addressed just like if a cold or flu is not addressed it will escalate into something more harmful. In this world there will never be peace. It just can't happen. I truly wish we could all live in peace but evil will always be here.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 17, 2017 12:48PM)
I don't think N. Korea has anything that can reach the U.S.A. and I haven't heard of any radical Islamic attacks either during the last administration.

The last incident I believe was the Boston bombing and that was rather low tech.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 18, 2017 01:49PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
I don't think N. Korea has anything that can reach the U.S.A. and I haven't heard of any radical Islamic attacks either during the last administration.

The last incident I believe was the Boston bombing and that was rather low tech. [/quote]

There has been Muslims that have become radicalized through technology. Absolutely there has- San Bernardino in 2017 and Florida gay night club shooting to name a few.

Since you missed them here is a list of occurrence's that happened under the Obama administration. Of course it's hard to hear about them since the left controls the mainstream media. http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 18, 2017 01:51PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
I don't think N. Korea has anything that can reach the U.S.A.
[/quote]

So you are under the notion (as the left is and has been the last 8 years) that since they don't have one that can reach the US YET, leave them alone and they won't keep working on it until they able to create one that can make it to the US? Not to mention reach our allies like Japan and South Korea?

Umm. Not a very good plan, agree?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 18, 2017 02:02PM)
So are you saying we should preemptive attack on North Korea just in case they are working on long range missiles; even though they haven't attacked anyone yet?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 19, 2017 06:22AM)
[quote]On Apr 18, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
So are you saying we should preemptive attack on North Korea just in case they are working on long range missiles; even though they haven't attacked anyone yet? [/quote]

I am just saying what all the world leaders know in that North Korea's leader is crazy (which he has proven by killing more than one of his own family members). This is the reason the UN and other nations have agreed on sanctions in the past years against North Korea for continuing to develop nuclear capabilities. Because once he has them it's to late. Any person that will kill his own brother and other family members should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Well, I guess you are more trusting than me Salgoud.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 19, 2017 06:32AM)
Not more trusting, N.Korea leaders have been loony for decades. If they actually attack and not continue to posture the way they have, then I have no problems dropping bombs.

However, dropping bombs because they make us feel nervous sets the wrong precedent for the U.S.A.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Apr 19, 2017 05:29PM)
[quote]On Apr 19, 2017, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Apr 18, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
So are you saying we should preemptive attack on North Korea just in case they are working on long range missiles; even though they haven't attacked anyone yet? [/quote]

This is the reason the UN and other nations have agreed on sanctions in the past years against North Korea for continuing to develop nuclear capabilities. Because once he has them it's to late. Any person that will kill his own brother and other family members should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[/quote]

N. Korea has had nukes since 2006.

Ron
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 19, 2017 05:56PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2017, RNK wrote:
I also feel that there is always going to be bad and good.[/quote]

This is what I can't understand.

Good and bad are not things, they are names we assign to the result of actions.

Why can't we take different actions?

[quote]In this world there will never be peace. It just can't happen.[/quote]

Totally disagree.
We could have peace - the absence of violence, in two generations.

Hell, we could have it tomorrow if wishes were horses.

[quote]I truly wish we could all live in peace but evil will always be here. [/quote]

Again, "evil" is not a thing.
It's a name we assign to really bad actions, and is totally subject to a persons viewpoint.

Do you think "evil" is an actual thing - a force/being operating in our shared reality?

If so, what is it's root cause?
Where does it come from?

I think it DOES exist, and I have my own opinion as to why; but I'm curious about yours.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 19, 2017 06:06PM)
Getting pseudo psychological is not useful. There will always be people who act contrary to peace. (By the way you can do the same thing with the weird peace that you did with good and evil. Why don't you go ahead and do that?)

You will never have the absence of conflict for 2 generations. It will never happen. Why don't people just act differently? Well because they have free will. Can't force peace on people can ya? So really it is a great dream and a wonderful abstract, but never going to happen.

And can you spare us the religion is the root of all problems speech this time?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 19, 2017 07:00PM)
[quote]On Apr 19, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Getting pseudo psychological is not useful. There will always be people who act contrary to peace. (By the way you can do the same thing with the weird peace that you did with good and evil. Why don't you go ahead and do that?)

You will never have the absence of conflict for 2 generations. It will never happen. Why don't people just act differently? Well because they have free will. Can't force peace on people can ya? So really it is a great dream and a wonderful abstract, but never going to happen.

And can you spare us the religion is the root of all problems speech this time? [/quote]

I'm not talking about forcing anything on anyone.

Why do we fight when we no longer have to?
Why do we destroy when we no longer have to?
What is the reason?

Even the greediest has to see that this is madness.

Get as angry as you want, the questions are valid.

Nowhere in the current diplomatic conversation is ANYONE talking about less violence.
It's all a matter of who can hurt who more.

Why?

Btw, I know I'm naive, so can you spare me the derision for once and just go onto chapter 2?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 19, 2017 07:19PM)
Why is narrative - usually after the fact.
More likely about "how much" and "or else what" type questions.

Risk?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 19, 2017 10:38PM)
[quote]On Apr 19, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 19, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Getting pseudo psychological is not useful. There will always be people who act contrary to peace. (By the way you can do the same thing with the weird peace that you did with good and evil. Why don't you go ahead and do that?)

You will never have the absence of conflict for 2 generations. It will never happen. Why don't people just act differently? Well because they have free will. Can't force peace on people can ya? So really it is a great dream and a wonderful abstract, but never going to happen.

And can you spare us the religion is the root of all problems speech this time? [/quote]

I'm not talking about forcing anything on anyone.

Why do we fight when we no longer have to?
Why do we destroy when we no longer have to?
What is the reason?

Even the greediest has to see that this is madness.

Get as angry as you want, the questions are valid.

Nowhere in the current diplomatic conversation is ANYONE talking about less violence.
It's all a matter of who can hurt who more.

Why?

Btw, I know I'm naive, so can you spare me the derision for once and just go onto chapter 2? [/quote]

Can you spare me trying to paint me as angry? It is a tired and pathetic attempt to re frame my point. The simple act of disagreement with you does not equal anger. It is called free thinking.

People have conflict because they have different values, different opinions of how to see the world.

My question is of you have someone bent on conflict how do you propose to stop it?

You yourself can't stay out of heated arguments, you can't manage to accept that other opinions are valid. You have to lie about me being angry to somehowmake your own point. That behavior alone will cause conflict. Add in some arrogance and condescension and you have reasons for conflict.

That is just an example from your own postings. Imagine including the whole world.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 02:50AM)
Sure Danny.

Why do people have different viewpoints?
We are all human. Basically we want the same things, regardless of where we're born or what we believe. We should be able to come an agreement as to what constitutes acceptable behavior.

It shouldn't be difficult, but according to some it's impossible.
Why?

What is the base of any morality which causes one person/country to initiate violence against another?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 20, 2017 04:03AM)
Agreement? Between billions of people with vastly different cultures and life experiences? Certainly you must be joking.

Why do people have different viewpoints? Precisely because they ARE humans.

Let me ask you something. Does violence exist in nature?

Sorry to say it but while it is a great ideal, they're is simply no way to get there. Utopia simply dies not exist. It is that simple.

I mean just the tone with which you wire your posts and the condescending attitude to others who disagree with you is your answer. I mean seriously I'd toy think this is all possible why don't you walk the walk?

And in your Utopia what happens when one does turn to violence because of mental imbalance? What happens when you get the small percentage who do become violent. There is no way to stop it 100%. What then?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 20, 2017 04:16AM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Sure Danny.

Why do people have different viewpoints?
We are all human. Basically we want the same things, regardless of where we're born or what we believe. We should be able to come an agreement as to what constitutes acceptable behavior.

It shouldn't be difficult, but according to some it's impossible.
Why?

What is the base of any morality which cause one person/country to initiate violence against another? [/quote]

Have you not met the human race? We are not much more than Neanderthals with cell phones...
Message: Posted by: RNK (Apr 20, 2017 09:44AM)
[quote]On Apr 19, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Not more trusting, N.Korea leaders have been loony for decades. If they actually attack and not continue to posture the way they have, then I have no problems dropping bombs.

However, dropping bombs because they make us feel nervous sets the wrong precedent for the U.S.A. [/quote]

N. Korea is not allowed to have nuclear weapons. This has been decided and agreed by 5 major countries. N. Korea is ignoring this and continues to develop them. Dialogue and sanctions have been proven not to work for many years now. Eventually there will be only one option left.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 10:10AM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Basically we want the same things [/quote]

...and the first crack in the dam appears.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 20, 2017 10:18AM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, RNK wrote:

N. Korea is not allowed to have nuclear weapons. This has been decided and agreed by 5 major countries. N. Korea is ignoring this and continues to develop them. Dialogue and sanctions have been proven not to work for many years now. Eventually there will be only one option left. [/quote]



What is that option?
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Apr 20, 2017 10:29AM)
Nuke 'em 'til they glow.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 20, 2017 10:45AM)
South Korea may not like that radioactive cloud blowing towards them.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 03:29PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Basically we want the same things [/quote]

...and the first crack in the dam appears. [/quote]

Health? Happiness?
The freedom to live our lives free from violence and oppression?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 03:51PM)
Oh, I agree that almost everybody wants SOME OF the same things, but that's not nearly enough to reach your conclusion. Not without your horse -wish transmogrifier.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 03:59PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Agreement? Between billions of people with vastly different cultures and life experiences? Certainly you must be joking.

Why do people have different viewpoints? Precisely because they ARE humans.

[/quote]

People have different viewpoints because they have different beliefs; which cause them to take different actions.

All the problems we face as a species are connected. At the base of all of them are flawed world views stemming from flawed beliefs, which focus on the differences between us.
No one wants to address this because feelings get hurt; and the people who sell the weapons think it's just dandy.
No need to enslave those who put the chains on willingly.

I have never used the word utopia. That's just you.

I'm just talking about what should be a natural result of our collective learning.

Instead we do stupid things. We destroy when we should create. We make new problems and let old ones go unaddressed.

[i][b]Why?[/b][/i]

You, and many others, appear to have given up. That's fine - you do you.
I haven't because, ironically, I have faith.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 04:10PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Oh, I agree that almost everybody wants SOME OF the same things, but that's not nearly enough to reach your conclusion. Not without your horse -wish transmogrifier. [/quote]

We could try education instead of indoctrination, if just for the new experience.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 20, 2017 04:18PM)
Flawed according to which standard exactly?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 04:57PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Oh, I agree that almost everybody wants SOME OF the same things, but that's not nearly enough to reach your conclusion. Not without your horse -wish transmogrifier. [/quote]

We could try education instead of indoctrination, if just for the new experience. [/quote]

If you think that mass education will lead to universal agreement, I think it's actually indoctrination that's your only shot.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 06:24PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flawed according to which standard exactly? [/quote]

Objective standards.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 06:34PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Oh, I agree that almost everybody wants SOME OF the same things, but that's not nearly enough to reach your conclusion. Not without your horse -wish transmogrifier. [/quote]

We could try education instead of indoctrination, if just for the new experience. [/quote]

If you think that mass education will lead to universal agreement, I think it's actually indoctrination that's your only shot. [/quote]

I'm not talking about "mass" education, or some sort of instant agreement.
I'm talking about shedding the dogma that sets us against each other, and allows they very few to lead the credulous many around by the nose.

I've never seen a baby that hated anything or anyone. We're taught to hate.

Why?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 06:57PM)
Your baby example doesn't prove, or even suggest that we're "taught to hate." Babies don't have the capacity to engage in moral reasoning or judgment. When those capacities are developed, they lead people in different - sometimes radically different - directions.

And always will.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 20, 2017 07:14PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flawed according to which standard exactly? [/quote]

Objective standards. [/quote]

What active social process would you give as example of an objective standard?

Just to make sure we're on the same planet here rather than Tlon or some eUtopia... Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 07:25PM)
The feathers, which are not measured in Troy weight.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 20, 2017 08:37PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flawed according to which standard exactly? [/quote]

Objective standards. [/quote]

Whose objective standards?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 09:53PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flawed according to which standard exactly? [/quote]

Objective standards. [/quote]

Whose objective standards? [/quote]

Not whose Danny.

Can anyone who professes to be good disagree that it is wrong to initiate violence, mental or physical, against another.
I don't think so, but all the dogmas that too many base their moral code on allows for it - based on difference or disagreement - in one way or another.

To me they are all inherently flawed and need to be weeded out. ALL of them set some "us" against some other "them".

There are rules, standards of conduct, that rational people could agree on as being fair to all. We just need to stop passing down nonsense to new generations. But far to many would rather die, or kill, than admit they might be wrong.

And there are many con men who see a world full of the credulous and lick their chops.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 10:11PM)
Just as a for instance, is abortion legal in objectiveopia?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 10:14PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Your baby example doesn't prove, or even suggest that we're "taught to hate." Babies don't have the capacity to engage in moral reasoning or judgment. When those capacities are developed, they lead people in different - sometimes radically different - directions.

And always will. [/quote]

Then where does the hate come from?

What influences that development? They live what they learn.

In a world of equalized opportunity, free from violence, and the threat of it, I think you'd see a lot less divergence.

Face it, by the time they reach the age of reason they are already poisoned by their parents nonsense; just as their parents were.
To me the hardest thing about being a parent was to keep my worldview out of my son's thought processes - to let him think and decide for himself.

I'm around a lot of children and their parents. By FAR the best parents are those who have the courage to ask their kids what they think; instead of what they should think.

Have you ever met a cynical four year old? I have, far too many times.
They didn't get that way on their own.

"Always will"? Says who? Those who preach doom, so we might as well kill as many of the others before we go?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 10:23PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Just as a for instance, is abortion legal in objectiveopia? [/quote]

Stop with the opias. I'm not talking about that and never will.

Which groups, or mindsets, are against it - and more importantly WHY?

What is the basis of their so-called belief that they have the right to dictate what others do with their lives?
It certainly isn't a belief based on anything objective.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 20, 2017 10:27PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Flawed according to which standard exactly? [/quote]

Objective standards. [/quote]

What active social process would you give as example of an objective standard?

Just to make sure we're on the same planet here rather than Tlon or some eUtopia... Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers? [/quote]

The way things are? Not many.

It's not a matter of the processes, but of what should be at the base of what those processes stem from.

Btw, I'm on earth.
I have no idea which planet, or dimension, you are from.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 20, 2017 10:30PM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Just as a for instance, is abortion legal in objectiveopia? [/quote]

Stop with the opias. I'm not talking about that and never will.

Which groups, or mindsets, are against it - and more importantly WHY?

What is the basis of their so-called belief that they have the right to dictate what others do with their lives?
It certainly isn't a belief based on anything objective. [/quote]

Who is "they"?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 20, 2017 11:13PM)
[quote]Basically we want the same things, regardless of where we're born or what we believe[/quote]

We may all want the same for ourselves, but not necessarily want the same for others...and in that, we may be the same.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 21, 2017 12:45AM)
Couldn't stop yourself from religion being the root of every problem could you? Can't you just have an idea without blaming someone and accusing them off being the problem?

Your blinders are very effective. You have your truth and everyone is an idiot.

But the interesting thing is the way you post here is very aggressive, condescending and in the right place in the real world would get your teeth loosened. Isn't that part of the very problem you complain so loudly about? If even you, apparently the only prophet of this idea, can't manage to pull it off how can you expect to inflict this idea upon an unsuspecting world?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 21, 2017 04:37AM)
[img]http://babiesntoddlers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cheap-playpens-for-babies.png[/img]

Playpens are designed to predispose and encourage babies to embrace violent Octagon* Fighting...






*[i]Babies can't count.[/i]
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 06:18AM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Just as a for instance, is abortion legal in objectiveopia? [/quote]

Stop with the opias. I'm not talking about that and never will.

Which groups, or mindsets, are against it - and more importantly WHY?

What is the basis of their so-called belief that they have the right to dictate what others do with their lives?
It certainly isn't a belief based on anything objective. [/quote]

Who is "they"? [/quote]

There are many "they's"
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 06:57AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Couldn't stop yourself from religion being the root of every problem could you?[/quote]

It isn't religion Danny.

[quote]Can't you just have an idea without blaming someone and accusing them off being the problem?[/quote]

Problems have causes Danny. Can't you just read a post without attacking the messenger? For once.

[quote]Your blinders are very effective. You have your truth and everyone is an idiot.[/quote]

The hypocrisy needed for YOU to make that statement is mind boggling.

[quote]But the interesting thing is the way you post here is very aggressive, condescending and in the right place in the real world would get your teeth loosened. Isn't that part of the very problem you complain so loudly about?[/quote]

I'm not complaining loudly about anything. Thinking that I am is your damage.

Part of the problem is that anyone would think about loosening anyone's teeth over an opinion.
You just thought of it - violence in response to words you disagree with. Why?

Btw, I am the same in "the real world" as I am here.

[quote]If even you, apparently the only prophet of this idea, can't manage to pull it off how can you expect to inflict this idea upon an unsuspecting world? [/quote]

I am not a prophet. Don't be rude.

I'm just a person who runs his life using common sense.
And I'm not the only one who is thinking about what is wrong, on a macro level, and the root cause of the problem. So the world is not "unsuspecting".
I'm also far from the only one who thinks that actual peace - the absence of violence - is not just an abstract concept.

What's interesting to me is that the only way you can see change coming about is by inflicting - forcing - an idea.
Don't you have any faith in humanity? Don't you think we can change our behavior?

Why all the derision?
I'm just pointing out that there is a different possible way to live together.

What is SO WRONG with that?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 06:58AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
[img]http://babiesntoddlers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cheap-playpens-for-babies.png[/img]

Playpens are designed to predispose and encourage babies to embrace violent Octagon* Fighting...






*[i]Babies can't count.[/i] [/quote]

Ok, now I'm triggered. Where's my safe space? :)
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 07:03AM)
[quote]On Apr 20, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]Basically we want the same things, regardless of where we're born or what we believe[/quote]

We may all want the same for ourselves, but not necessarily want the same for others...and in that, we may be the same. [/quote]

What makes some want what's good for them, while thinking others don't deserve it?

What's at the root of THAT mindset?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 07:20AM)
Language: Them, deserve...vs eminent domain, no,

Simpler to presume there will be conflict of interests and focus on how one addresses a conflict and what others accept as greater good.

How much rancor, triggered how reliably? claimed as essential vanity? Zeus said so. Cthulhu agrees.

The devil you know ... Stopgap measures.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 21, 2017 08:02AM)
What proposition are you debating at this point? Whether peace is better than war? Whether it's acceptable to show your displeasure with a government by bombing civilians? I've lost track.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 09:04AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What proposition are you debating at this point? Whether peace is better than war? Whether it's acceptable to show your displeasure with a government by bombing civilians? I've lost track. [/quote]

I'm saying that peace can't be achieved at the point of a gun - no matter how big.

I'm also saying that we supposedly keep trying to achieve it that way because the root of what most base their morality on, is fatally flawed. It's not religion. It's far deeper and more insidious because - "Hey, what's the big deal?"

Do you ever stop to ask yourself why it's possible for so few to control so many, so easily.
It's obviously what's (been) happening and it's obviously wrong. What makes it possible?

Although it's less and less acceptable to show my disagreement with the despicable actions of my government, I'll continue to do so for as long as it's allowed. Which probably won't be very long.
I'll do it no matter how many tell me that the only way to deal with those who do things differently is to kill them all, or make them afraid that we will.
Or "nuke them until they glow." Smdh.

Syria? North Korea?
Just the latest boogeymen, necessary so the weapons can keep flowing while the credulous stand in groups saying YEAH!!, with their fists flying up in the air.

Like they're holding onto something that's invisible there.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 21, 2017 09:42AM)
Again with the "boogeyman" theme. I suppose Hitler and Stalin were fictitious entities that gullible people were taught to fear, too.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 09:43AM)
So communicate effectively. What do you offer in place of what you find offensive?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 21, 2017 09:53AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
So communicate effectively. What do you offer in place of what you find offensive? [/quote]

To whom was this post directed?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 10:25AM)
@nyctwister, methinks.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 10:38AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@nyctwister, methinks. [/quote]

Which offensive thing are you specifically talking about?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 10:46AM)
You're asking how want becomes condoned rancor.

I'm saying you'd do better to address the wants than to complain about the larger celebrity rancor events.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 11:18AM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
You're asking how want becomes condoned rancor.

I'm saying you'd do better to address the wants than to complain about the larger celebrity rancor events. [/quote]

No, I'm asking what's at the root of any moral code that condones the initiation of violence.

You're a smart man.
What do you think is the root of those moral codes?
Why do they persist beyond any need for them?

The vanity of the credulous?

And I'm not complaining. I'm stating my opinion -just like everyone else.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 11:28AM)
Please, it's "justified response to provocation"..."national interests" ..."safety and security"

At least use recognizable mediabites in correct bureaucratic declension. ;)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 11:37AM)
@Vanity of the credulous; I wish it were mere vanity so that each emporer could enjoy their new clothes. I believe it's base hunger and fear which want discussion.

What is the good? that which gets not only survives but gets rewarded. Got better?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 21, 2017 12:03PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
You're asking how want becomes condoned rancor.

I'm saying you'd do better to address the wants than to complain about the larger celebrity rancor events. [/quote]

No, I'm asking what's at the root of any moral code that condones the initiation of violence.

You're a smart man.
What do you think is the root of those moral codes?
Why do they persist beyond any need for them?

The vanity of the credulous?

And I'm not complaining. I'm stating my opinion -just like everyone else. [/quote]

What do you think is a true the root of your own moral code? To some, it is "violence" and injustice to abort a pregnancy; to others, it is "violence" and injustice to be prevented from being able to do aol. This is a.moral ifference that divides tens of millions of people in one relatively small country. They're not divided because of a lack of education; they're divided by a fundamental moral difference that has serious consequences regardless from which way it's adjudicated.

Violence is condoned as a response to extreme injustice in most moral codes. Build yourself a time machine and go back to 1865 and find some African Americans in the south and try to sell them on the idea that war and violence never solve anything.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 01:04PM)
[bait]a magical morality separates those at cause from their effects[/bait]

Are lost performatives going the way of socks in the wash or they are the baby in the bathwater?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 01:24PM)
@lobo, my time machine is stuck in the design phase of development. May I borrow yours for that experiment?

:innocent:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 21, 2017 02:54PM)
Without resolving the issue of moral conduct for all people at all times, perhaps we can come to a tentative conclusion about bombing civilians in 2017.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 21, 2017 03:00PM)
How about we don't do it as a starting point?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 21, 2017 05:52PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about we don't do it as a starting point? [/quote]

I agree. Not sure that argument has worked before, but it does seem to have an objective on moral high ground.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 21, 2017 06:33PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about we don't do it as a starting point? [/quote]

I agree. Not sure that argument has worked before, but it does seem to have an objective on moral high ground. [/quote]

3/3. I'm feeling encouraged.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 06:37PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
You're asking how want becomes condoned rancor.

I'm saying you'd do better to address the wants than to complain about the larger celebrity rancor events. [/quote]

No, I'm asking what's at the root of any moral code that condones the initiation of violence.

You're a smart man.
What do you think is the root of those moral codes?
Why do they persist beyond any need for them?

The vanity of the credulous?

And I'm not complaining. I'm stating my opinion - just like everyone else. [/quote]

What do you think is a true the root of your own moral code?[/quote]

Like I said, I'm naive.

The Golden Rule works for me.
I stay away from masochists and pretty much everything seems to go the way I expect it to.

[quote]To some, it is "violence" and injustice to abort a pregnancy[/quote]

Why is it considered violence to some?
Be honest, how many of those who feel that way came to that conclusion on their own?

[quote]to others, it is "violence" and injustice to be prevented from being able to do aol.[/quote]

I don't agree, and I don't do aol.

[quote]This is a.moral ifference that divides tens of millions of people in one relatively small country. They're not divided because of a lack of education; they're divided by a fundamental moral difference that has serious consequences regardless from which way it's adjudicated.[/quote]

Yes, I know. That's my point.

[quote]Violence is condoned as a response to extreme injustice in most moral codes.[/quote]

Doesn't make it right, and only gets you more.

If you're talking about situations where people just can't stand anymore, I think the better question to ask is what allowed the extreme injustice to exist in the first place.

[quote]Build yourself a time machine and go back to 1865 and find some African Americans in the south and try to sell them on the idea that war and violence never solve anything. [/quote]

That's only a manifestation of the problem - which has existed since almost the beginning of history.

I'd go back much further.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 21, 2017 06:41PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Without resolving the issue of moral conduct for all people at all times, perhaps we can come to a tentative conclusion about bombing civilians in 2017. [/quote]

Gladly.

How about we stop doing it.
At least until we can restock from the last time we bombed them.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 21, 2017 06:52PM)
I agree. You're naive.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Apr 22, 2017 06:21AM)
Yep, and I ask silly questions too.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Apr 22, 2017 11:46AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 6, 2015, arthur stead wrote:

These Arab sects (or tribes) have centuries-old gripes against each other. They don't care if someone is a good guy or a terrorist. They just want to eliminate the opposing tribe.

My thought is that their squabbles are not worth even one American life. Just leave them to their own devices and let them destroy each other. [/quote]

But then certain people wouldn't be able to become extremely wealthy from oil deals, weapon sales and trading in political favors gathered by using their position to further their own agenda rather than actually representing their constituents; all while pretending to help the oppressed du juor, and to spread Democracy.

And we couldn't have that. [/quote]

Bingo! This is what it's all really about. Money, money, money... very dirty money.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Apr 22, 2017 11:53AM)
There is a missing paragraph at the end:

There is, however, one thing that ties this all together in a nice neat little bow (good). That is that all of this results in a handful of people making a bunch of deals (mostly bad) and a boatload of money (good?... not so much).
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Apr 22, 2017 12:40PM)
Perhaps we should get rid of money and just use oranges... ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 22, 2017 08:20PM)
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Apr 21, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about we don't do it as a starting point? [/quote]

I agree. Not sure that argument has worked before, but it does seem to have an objective on moral high ground. [/quote]

3/3. I'm feeling encouraged. [/quote]

I think, that under further probing, it will be found that not everybody really agrees with this.

There will be conditions, exceptions, asterisks, fine print...
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Apr 22, 2017 10:41PM)
[quote]On Apr 22, 2017, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Perhaps we should get rid of money and just use oranges... ;) [/quote]

And avocados.