|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another one that hurts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Wow, that's some fine re-writing of history you've done Straggler.
Yes, let's refer back to Message 114
STRAG writes: That starts with "If we broke all ties with Saudi Arabia......" Yeah and ends with you completely nullifying it by writing:
STRAG writes: I still don't think that would stop ISIS pursuing their aims as they would consider all of that little more than a decent start to the new world order they desire. That is why I responded with the bed-time story. I mistakenly thought the moral of the story was simple enough for a young child. Yet I still got even more static from you.
STRAG writes: you seem to keep putting it forward as the sole solution to problems and issues that it wont now solve. Wow. I have been very clear in my posts that it WILL solve these problems . . . NOW: 1. It WILL solve your hypocrisy of condemning ISIS's terrorist actions while supporting Saudi Arabia's terrorist actions.2. It WILL draw attention that Saudi Arabia has the world's worst human rights record. 3. It WILL prevent Saudi Arabia from assisting ISIS tomorrow with additional military support. In addition, it will draw attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia teaches/exports the most extreme fanatical form of religion call Wahhabism. The same that ISIS practices. I concur 100% with Ringo, ISIS won't be defeated with military might alone. After 14 failed military years in Afghanistan, I would think someone would understand this by now.
STRAG writes: But don't expect that alone to solve the ISIS problem. Wow. I couldn't have been more clear:
Drone writes: Oh, I don't know, . . . how about, . . . stop supporting Saudi Arabia? This would seem to be the first step. Also wouldn't take ANY effort. "First step." Usually Straggler, when one writes 'first step" that implies there are more steps.
STRAG writes: Frankly you seem a little obsessed by this issue to the exclusion of all other factors and in ways which cause you to rail against those who largely agree that the links in question should be condemned... Wow. You believe the type of replies I've received 'largely agree' with me? From:
Phat writes: Politics makes strange bedfellows and we want Saudi Arabia in our bed as long as possible. STRAG writes: I still don't think that would stop ISIS pursuing their aims as they would consider all of that little more than a decent start to the new world order they desire. To people like Vimsey who had so much trouble calling Bush Jr a war criminal and admitting that the US had SOME responsibility for today's ISIS. to people like DrA who believes he isn't a hypocritical monster for condemning one horrific action (ISIS) while simultaneously supporting other horrific actions (Saudi Arabia). As I posted, The US and UK's support of Saudi Arabia goes back decades. Why should you be so condemning of ISIS now. Where were you all this time? And by using terms like "dodgy" you continue to marginalize what I've been writing. You Brits have been sucking the Saudi's ***** for decades. Own it, be responsible for your support of evil, stop trying to marginalize your role . . .
STRAG writes: You can post all the historical pictures you like of Western leaders looking dodgy in the company of Saudi royals. Sheesh, if these are the type of replies I have been getting from people who largely agree with me, what replies do I have to look forward to people who have voted for Bush Jr. . . . twice? Or to people who believe the current crop of blowhard war-mongering US candidates will solve all the middle east problems with the same military 'solutions' that we applied in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes:
We bomb civilians. We don't behead people for being gay or for being Christian or for being the wrong kind of Muslim. Rape and slavery are not part of our ideology. We are not the monster. We shouldn't be using our enemies as the yardstick for our own behaviour. We need to set a higher standard for ourselves. We are the only monster that we can control.
Dr Adequate writes:
Honour is where we say: I won't rape a rapist and I won't torture a torturer.
Even more if this is our fault, we cannot honorably lose. HONOR is not where we say: we fucked it up, so we must not lift a finger to put it right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
~1.6 writes:
No. I advocate keeping our hands clean for the sake of cleanliness. Cleanliness may have a cost.
Do you think that if the US practiced complete pacifist isolationism that we would not be victims of terrorism? ~1.6 writes:
IF they lose, it will be because they don't have the support of the Muslim world. Encouraging Muslims to support them is not the way to defeat them.
They are bringing about their own destruction because this kind of idiotic mentality is self defeating. The world is not ready to go back to the middle ages and bow to sharia law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Ringo writes: To late for that sorry but nice sentiment. We are in bed and there is a wet stain. Je suis de' sole'
No. I advocate keeping our hands clean for the sake of cleanliness. Cleanliness may have a cost. Ringo writes: They will lose because they do not have the support of the world. Not just Muslims. They will lose because they are nothing more than thugs with guns running amok. Once their leadership, money and ordinance runs out they will slither back into the crevices from whence they came to rebuild for another day. IF they lose, it will be because they don't have the support of the Muslim world. Encouraging Muslims to support them is not the way to defeat them."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
We don't have to wallow in filth. It's never too late to clean up our act.
To late for that sorry but nice sentiment. We are in bed and there is a wet stain. ~1.6 writes:
They don't need the support of the world.
They will lose because they do not have the support of the world. ~1.6 writes:
Exactly. They will rebuild for another day.
Once their leadership, money and ordinance runs out they will slither back into the crevices from whence they came to rebuild for another day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If I get what you're generally saying then I agree with much of it, but if you're ruling out the possibility of an Islamic leader then it's making it more difficult for me to follow your arguments. Islamic is not Islam.
quote: There are no leaders of Islam. There are Muslim leaders and Islamic leaders. But Islam does not. Should we stone adulterers to death? Some scholars say yes, others say no. It's down the individual Muslim to decide. There are often scholars who are the leading thinkers of a certain school of thought, but a Muslim can pick and choose to their hearts content. There is no compulsion, as they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I understand that you prefer semantic argument over practical and pragmatic facts but to say that there is no such thing as an Islamic leader when you've just been shown a whole theocratic state full of them is pushing what little argument you had into the absurd. It's your choice. You've already basically agreed with the non-semantic argument. But in a world of propaganda, words matter.
Again, another word game. The law of numbers requires the possible existence of a homosexual, atheistic, apostate Taliban leader. You decided to tell me that you would bet I was wrong ('there are no atheist Taliban leaders.'. I'm glad my argument has persuaded you otherwise. Lawnmower, please Not a word game, you've just lost sight of the whole point. There may well be non-peaceful Atheists in the Taliban, but dollars to doughnuts, the Muslims rationalize their actions, at least in part, through 'greater good' type arguments with a view to 'long term peace'.
But I'm betting that he gets on his knees and points towards Mecca at the required times. Seems a daft bet, of course he does. Just like atheist Presidents say 'God bless America' and atheist Popes say 'in nomine padre, spiritus sanctum' or whatever they say. I'm not sure how this intersects with the discussion. Isn't it almost a tautology to say that a non religious person who has been given a position of authority that requires religious convictions - must engage in deceptions that persuade others that they have religious convictions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Whilst I too condemn the hypocritical support our respective governments give to Saudi Arabia I'm afraid that I think your naively simplistic conclusion that ceasing this alone would solve the ISIS problem, is pure fantasy.
You are too obsessed by this single issue to see beyond it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
how about, . . . stop supporting Saudi Arabia? I fear that the consequences would bankrupt us. I agree with you that it is moral not to support them. I feel, however, that in order to remain a global superpower we must be on good terms with them. How much are we the people willing to sacrifice simply for being morally the good guys? This would seem to be the first step. Also wouldn't take ANY effort.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Modulus writes: It's your choice. You've already basically agreed with the non-semantic argument. But in a world of propaganda, words matter. Cobblers. I've demonstrated that you're just plain wrong - there are hundreds of Islamic leaders in an Islamic state, they can be named and their religious and political positions and job descriptions can be described. You have fallen for the propaganda that you say matters.
Not a word game, you've just lost sight of the whole point. There may well be non-peaceful Atheists in the Taliban, but dollars to doughnuts, the Muslims rationalize their actions, at least in part, through 'greater good' type arguments with a view to 'long term peace'. Of course it's a word game. It's also a silly and pedantic argument. You can not produce an atheist Taliban leader and you know that the chances of there actually being one is slight to non-existant. You accept that even if there was one, he'd disguise his non-belief and look exactly like all other Muslim terrorist making the entire nonsensical argument moot. [Moot - the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.] If you have any point in pursuing this losing argument, it can only be as apologetica for a religious system built on some very dangerous ideas. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
dronestar writes: Wow. I have been very clear in my posts that it WILL solve these problems . . . NOW: No it won't.
1. It WILL solve your hypocrisy of condemning ISIS's terrorist actions while supporting Saudi Arabia's terrorist actions. I have often condemned Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism. That apparently solved my "hypocrisy" problem (translation: failure to fully agree with dronestar on any subject during discussions of other subjects), but it failed to have any effect on Saudi Arabia. They support the Islamic schools, fundamentalists and training camps for existenstial reasons: else they become a target. They wouldn't stop that support, because they'll still be rich and fearful; they would, however, lose any constraints they feel due to their alliance with the West.
2. It WILL draw attention that Saudi Arabia has the world's worst human rights record. Their record is terrible, but they have strong competition for the sobriquet of "world's worst" including North Korea, China, and another dozen states that are outside of the limelight, and the world is fully aware of Saudi Arabia's record. Regardless, all that attention and more wouldn't bother ISIS tomorrow.
3. It WILL prevent Saudi Arabia from assisting ISIS tomorrow with additional military support. They would remain rich and powerful. Armaments are available on a global market. How would our renunciation prevent their purchase? Again, you offer nothing with immediate effect. You would be morally and politically gratified by the U.S. cutting ties with Saudi Arabia, but ISIS would merely celebrate the alienation of another Muslim state from the West. You can't bring yourself to propose or approve any efforts to defend against the terrorists who want to kill thousands of your fellow citizens. Your holier-than-thou politics on this point betray a moral hypocrisy that exceeds the hypocrisies you condemn."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
STRAG writes: Whilst I too condemn the hypocritical support our respective governments give to Saudi Arabia . . . Music to my ears. A huge thank you!
STRAG writes: . . . I think your naively simplistic conclusion that ceasing this alone would solve the ISIS problem, is pure fantasy. You are too obsessed by this single issue to see beyond it. Huh? I've repeatedly and clearly explained to you this was a first step. Meaning other steps will be involved:
Drone writes: Oh, I don't know, . . . how about, . . . stop supporting Saudi Arabia? This would seem to be the first step. Also wouldn't take ANY effort. And yet you keep mis-writing that I believe this ONE act alone will solve the world's problems? Wow. A charitable explanation is that you may have mental problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Omnivorous writes: No it won't. Yes, YES it will.
Omnivorous writes: I have often condemned Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism. That's all good and well, but you're not understanding what I am writing. I have repeatedly wrote about OUR (US/UK/West) support of terrorists/dictatorships/human-rights-violators. Do you want me to list all the terrorists/dictators the US has supported in the past 50 years. When we actively support terrorists/dictatorships/human-rights-violators, for the past 50 years, ISIS is what happens.
Omnivorous writes: the world is fully aware of Saudi Arabia's record. Are you kidding me? Phat wrote that the US should stay bed-fellows with the Saudis for a long time! Perhaps the world is, but Brits and especially americans are incredibly ignorant (sorry Phat). If our media put pictures of everyday beheadings and stonings of Saudi woman, I can assure you our politicians would be acting differently. Because the citizens are ignorant, the politicians are free to make cruel actions.
Omnivorous writes: They would remain rich and powerful. Armaments are available on a global market. How would our renunciation prevent their purchase? So you are saying, since ISIS can get the weapons anywhere, the US might as well sell the weapons directly to ISIS? Huh?
Omnivorous writes: Your holier-than-thou politics on this point betray a moral hypocrisy that exceeds the hypocrisies you condemn. That's non-sensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
dronestar writes: Omnivorous writes: They would remain rich and powerful. Armaments are available on a global market. How would our renunciation prevent their purchase? So you are saying, since ISIS can get the weapons anywhere, the US might as well sell the weapons directly to ISIS? Nope.
Huh? Indeed."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You've already basically agreed with the non-semantic argument. I've demonstrated that you're just plain wrong Really? Here is that non-semantic argument again:
quote: there are hundreds of Islamic leaders in an Islamic state Message 231 You can not produce an atheist Taliban leader and you know that the chances of there actually being one is slight to non-existant. quote: Psychopathy makes up about 1% of the human population approximately. My understanding is that religious conviction among psychopaths is diminished, or non-existent. Are Afghanistanis less psychopathic that Westerners?
You accept that even if there was one, he'd disguise his non-belief and look exactly like all other Muslim terrorist making the entire nonsensical argument moot. Not sure how it makes my argument moot, I'm afraid. If there is a psychopathic atheist in the Taliban - he may well not give a flying fuck about peace. But the Muslims in the Taliban? They probably do justify their actions as being towards the furtherance of peace.
If you have any point in pursuing this losing argument, it can only be as apologetica for a religious system built on some very dangerous ideas. quote: a) Islam has no leadersbut if we assume you meant 'Islamic leaders' or 'Muslim leaders' then b) They probably do agree that Islam is the religion of peace.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024