149 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

Wanting Russia to take the heat is like wanting North Korea to suddenly start doing the bulk of the world's Humanitarian services. Why does the U.S. have to give away 80 billion dollars a year, huh? Why can't North Korea pitch in! 

 

It's wishful thinking, but to actually hope for this in international politics is to ask for danger. They're never going to do it right.

[Manoka]

Their target will be whoever is waging war on the Muslim world. If that's Russia, the ire will shift to them. Contrary to right-wing media's breathless assertions, they do not "hate us for our freedoms." They hate us because we fuck with them.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda do not make up the "Muslim world", and they attacked other people first, which is what started this whole conflict. 

[the rebel]

Lol Manoka talking shit and spreading lies like usual, no surprise there then.

So, it's a lie that Israel hasn't killed hundreds of thousands, used nerve gas, or started the conflict?

Yeah, whatever bro.

You simply saying I'm "lying" doesn't make it so.

Yes Israel has killed hundreds and thousands of civilians over the years.
Yes Israel has used weaponry banned by the UN in civilian populated areas.
And yes.

Manoka, you're a moron simple as, you're the equivalent of a holocaust denier. No that's too harsh on holocaust deniers because they at least have intelligence unlike a fucking retard like you. No that's too harsh on retards being compared to you.

Careful when playing with your guns might hurt yourself.

Now go away little child intelligent adults are talking in here, so play with your toys like a good boy and don't piss your pants again.

[Manoka]

 

Lol Manoka talking shit and spreading lies like usual, no surprise there then.

So, it's a lie that Israel hasn't killed hundreds of thousands, used nerve gas, or started the conflict?

Yeah, whatever bro.

You simply saying I'm "lying" doesn't make it so.

Yes Israel has killed hundreds and thousands of civilians over the years.
Yes Israel has used weaponry banned by the UN in civilian populated areas.
And yes.

Manoka, you're a moron simple as, you're the equivalent of a holocaust denier. No that's too harsh on holocaust deniers because they at least have intelligence unlike a fucking retard like you. No that's too harsh on retards being compared to you.

Careful when playing with your guns might hurt yourself.

Now go away little child intelligent adults are talking in here, so play with your toys like a good boy and don't piss your pants again.

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either. 

 

It would be great if you had a shred of information, of sources, to back anything you say up, but once again, I realize that's expecting too much. Until you have evidence to back up what you say, it's effectively meaningless. 

[Thrash]

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either. 

 

They don't have nukes either. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either. 

 

They don't have nukes either. 

 

Not yet.

[the rebel]

Lol Manoka talking shit and spreading lies like usual, no surprise there then.

So, it's a lie that Israel hasn't killed hundreds of thousands, used nerve gas, or started the conflict?

Yeah, whatever bro.

You simply saying I'm "lying" doesn't make it so.

Yes Israel has killed hundreds and thousands of civilians over the years.
Yes Israel has used weaponry banned by the UN in civilian populated areas.
And yes.

Manoka, you're a moron simple as, you're the equivalent of a holocaust denier. No that's too harsh on holocaust deniers because they at least have intelligence unlike a fucking retard like you. No that's too harsh on retards being compared to you.

Careful when playing with your guns might hurt yourself.

Now go away little child intelligent adults are talking in here, so play with your toys like a good boy and don't piss your pants again.

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either.

It would be great if you had a shred of information, of sources, to back anything you say up, but once again, I realize that's expecting too much. Until you have evidence to back up what you say, it's effectively meaningless.

Over 2,000 killed
Over 17,000 injured.
In one month in 2014.

http://www.theguardi...year-since-1967

And that's based on a UN report.

Now I've got something better to do, rather than argue in circles with an moron who ignores facts and has the intelligence of a goldfish, like you who wouldn't know the truth if it bent you over and arse fucked you dry.

You're wrong like 99.99% of the time. Deal with it.

[Manoka]

 

 

 

Lol Manoka talking shit and spreading lies like usual, no surprise there then.

So, it's a lie that Israel hasn't killed hundreds of thousands, used nerve gas, or started the conflict?

Yeah, whatever bro.

You simply saying I'm "lying" doesn't make it so.

Yes Israel has killed hundreds and thousands of civilians over the years.
Yes Israel has used weaponry banned by the UN in civilian populated areas.
And yes.

Manoka, you're a moron simple as, you're the equivalent of a holocaust denier. No that's too harsh on holocaust deniers because they at least have intelligence unlike a fucking retard like you. No that's too harsh on retards being compared to you.

Careful when playing with your guns might hurt yourself.

Now go away little child intelligent adults are talking in here, so play with your toys like a good boy and don't piss your pants again.

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either.

It would be great if you had a shred of information, of sources, to back anything you say up, but once again, I realize that's expecting too much. Until you have evidence to back up what you say, it's effectively meaningless.

Over 2,000 killed
Over 17,000 injured.
In one month in 2014.

http://www.theguardi...year-since-1967

And that's based on a UN report.

Now I've got something better to do, rather than argue in circles with an moron who ignores facts and has the intelligence of a goldfish, like you who wouldn't know the truth if it bent you over and arse fucked you dry.

You're wrong like 99.99% of the time. Deal with it.

First of all, it was a year, not a month. Second of all, the U.N. Report doesn't say it was all by Israel, it said it was the total deaths in the conflicts, which includes Israeli citizens and soldiers. Second of all, that isn't in the hundreds of thousands. 

 

So no, none of what you just showed me was proof Israel has done anywhere near the same kind of damage as Syria, deliberately targeted civilians, or used nerve Gas. Thanks for playing, though. 

 

 

https://www.ochaopt....glish_final.pdf

 

Page 5. 

[Thrash]

 

Based on what? They haven't killed hundreds of thousands, let alone in the 2-3 year timespan of the Syrian civil war. They haven't used WMD's, and the white phosphorous they used was in smoke bombs, not in incendiary weapons, so that's not accurate, either. 

 

They don't have nukes either. 

 

Not yet.

 

Oh, you thought I was being serious?

[Haflinger]

Wait, Al Nusra is backed by the CIA?

Yes.

I've heard that Fox is doing a reboot of The X-Files, you should seriously consider submitting a script.

Also, normally I don't buy the whole "smoking pot makes you crazy and gives you a ridiculous worldview" thing that some people advocate, but you are beginning to suggest they may have a point.

At least, for you.

 

It's not just freedom, this guy was massacring his own civilians. I know Russia doesn't think that counts for much, they want to see Yanukovych back in the Ukraine, but it matters and it's a terrible way to foster any kind of peace in the region.

'Course peace in the middle east isn't what Russia wants. Radical Muslims thrive in the current chaotic environment and they're mostly angry with the west.

When the rebels choose to hide and fight in towns and cities, civilians die. If that's an accepted excuse for Israel then its an accepted excuse for Syria. You can't be flip flopping the US government.

Though its hilarious for the US to call out Russia's actions, at least they're assisting an ally and not illegally bombing another country like the US which is basically a declaration of war in everything but name.

He was massacring his own civilians before there was much of a rebellion at all. You need to look closer at the facts here, Assad is a baby version of Pol Pot.

I agree about the US though, the whole approach the Americans have taken to dealing with the Muslim world since the invasion of Afghanistan (which was the right thing to do, to make myself clear) has been completely half-assed. It's like they don't have a clue what they're doing. Which is probably the case.

[the rebel]

He was massacring his own civilians before there was much of a rebellion at all. You need to look closer at the facts here, Assad is a baby version of Pol Pot.

I agree about the US though, the whole approach the Americans have taken to dealing with the Muslim world since the invasion of Afghanistan (which was the right thing to do, to make myself clear) has been completely half-assed. It's like they don't have a clue what they're doing. Which is probably the case.

A baby version of pol pot? I defo want what you've been taking.

America seems distraught with Russian airstrikes as they have been targeting amongst other things CIA trained and supplied rebels so much so that those very same groups are starting to plead for America to supply better anti aircraft missiles to shoot down those Russian jets.

Anyone else find it funny that they said Russia should be very careful not to target civilians then the very next day they bomb a hospital in Afghanistan killing dozens including several doctors from the doctors without borders charity.

[Manoka]

He was massacring his own civilians before there was much of a rebellion at all. You need to look closer at the facts here, Assad is a baby version of Pol Pot.

I agree about the US though, the whole approach the Americans have taken to dealing with the Muslim world since the invasion of Afghanistan (which was the right thing to do, to make myself clear) has been completely half-assed. It's like they don't have a clue what they're doing. Which is probably the case.

A baby version of pol pot? I defo want what you've been taking.

America seems distraught with Russian airstrikes as they have been targeting amongst other things CIA trained and supplied rebels so much so that those very same groups are starting to plead for America to supply better anti aircraft missiles to shoot down those Russian jets.

Anyone else find it funny that they said Russia should be very careful not to target civilians then the very next day they bomb a hospital in Afghanistan killing dozens including several doctors from the doctors without borders charity.

Funny...? That's not the word I'd use. 

 

Other than the complete lack of evidence that this is a CIA back terrorist group, there'd be no logical incentive to do so, since they have the Free Syrian Army and a host of other more stable groups to get behind that also have superior equipment and training. 

 

 

Assad began a genocidal campaign, and has since slaughtered hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. Course of events. 

 

Protests began in opposition to the oppressive government. Assad violently suppressed them, and outlawed "public gatherings" of larger than 5 people. By the end of May 2011, 1,000 civilians had been killed. Armed insurgency started after this violent repression of the protests, and within a year he had already embarked on a campaign that kills 10's of thousands of innocent people. Now, there's several hundred thousand. But uh, sure, Assad all great, and America is super ebilsz and makes terrorist groups like ISIS for the fun of it while Russia which, bans virtually all speech about homosexuals, "non-traditional" values, and that's brutally repressing it's own people, you know those guys, they're only in to save lives, except for the fact they're supporting Syria, Iran, and numerous other evil peoplesz.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I'm surprised to hear Haf say that the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I thought he was a peacenik. Not that I am saying it was the wrong thing to do, mind you. I think that's a complicated subject, and one for a different thread.

 

The main reason that Americans are upset about the Russian military strikes is that it wounds our national pride. Ever a study in contradictions, we dislike foreign entanglements but at the same time want to feel like the biggest badass on the globe. You can't have it both ways.

 

Our (by which I mean the US' response; no offense meant to my non-American readers) response to the Russian presence in Syria depends on what is our final goal. If "stability" is the goal, then we should be glad the Russians are there propping up Assad. After all, aside from the occasional gassing of civilian populations, Syria has been relatively stable for years, at least compared to its current state. If the goal is the destruction of ISIS, then once again the Russian presence could be seen as a boon; by targeting the regime's other enemies it frees up Syrian resources to focus on ISIS. But if the goal is the removal of Assad and the installation of a more Western-friendly government, well...

 

This is the game of international geopolitics. Russia now has a foothold in the Middle East, which the United States has treated as its private playground for decades. If Assad survives and the Russians stay in Syria, say with permanent military bases like the US has in the region, the old Cold War enemies will be facing off once again. To quote Wings Hauser from Red Dawn, "Two toughest kids on the block — sooner or later they're gonna fight."

[Manoka]

Assad started the conflict, there'd be no Syrian civil war without him. ISIS didn't start it, has contributed little in comparison, and is small potatoes compared to a government willfully eradicating all the non-alawite muslims. 

 

The U.S. has not been the only country in the middle east, to name but a few, there's the UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, Canada, even France at some intervals, and plenty more. Pretty much all of NATO. What with the London Train Bombings, Mombassa attacks, various terrorist attacks around the world, it's brought more than just the U.S. in to the fray. 

 

The reason most people are opposed to it is the mass murder he's committing and the other horrible atrocities. Nerve gas and so on. This doesn't promote stability or help the citizens, as it only incites more attacks against them. Nobody but those without concerns for the lives of innocent people would support Assad. 

 

 

Whether you want to think we're evil or not, we think we're the good guys. It's not about whether or not we get upset that someone else is in our "playground", it's about the perceived injustices. The U.S. doesn't believe they're as bad as Assad, Russia, or any of these other groups, and the humanitarian crisis demands action in a lot of ways that's difficult to fulfill without fighting off the enemy forces first. In general I don't believe that the U.S. is as bad either, but you're missing the pulse of the nation if you think otherwise. We think we're the good guys, for better or for worse. I don't think what we've been doing is that horrible, but even if you do, it's likened to people who used to do blood letting or lobotomies back in the old days. They weren't deliberately evil, they were just stupid. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Everyone thinks they are the good guys.

[Manoka]

Everyone thinks they are the good guys.

Actually, Hitler didn't, he liked the idea of being a bad guy. He went in with the expressed intent to slaughter millions of innocent Jewish people. Stalin threw millions in gulags who opposed his regime, even communists, and killed several of his best friends to get to power. Mao killed millions, enslaved a third of his population. 

 

But America is going in with the expressed intent to help for humanitarian purposes. We see the tragedies and we want to help. The argument is that we may do more harm than good, but that's a different argument entirely than deliberately eradicating a race of people or people of whom we simply disagree with. 

[Haflinger]

Hitler was psychotic. Let's not get into discussing the morality of psychotic individuals.
 

I'm surprised to hear Haf say that the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I thought he was a peacenik. Not that I am saying it was the wrong thing to do, mind you. I think that's a complicated subject, and one for a different thread.

I am kind of a peacenik, but there are limits. When people crash planes into your skyscrapers full of civilians, you are correct to view it as a declaration of war - and a war crime to boot - and go out and hunt them down.
 
I hold to the mainstream Canadian opinion, which is that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do and should have been better-funded, while the war in Iraq was a disastrous sideshow that should have been avoided completely.
 

The main reason that Americans are upset about the Russian military strikes is that it wounds our national pride. Ever a study in contradictions, we dislike foreign entanglements but at the same time want to feel like the biggest badass on the globe. You can't have it both ways.

You'd be correct if the American public was upset about it. I don't think they are.

 

Obama however is upset about it because Russia is acting like Turkey, trying to use IS as a cover to advance its own agenda. He's already got enough problems dealing with one Turkey, he doesn't need two.
 

Our (by which I mean the US' response; no offense meant to my non-American readers) response to the Russian presence in Syria depends on what is our final goal. If "stability" is the goal, then we should be glad the Russians are there propping up Assad. After all, aside from the occasional gassing of civilian populations, Syria has been relatively stable for years, at least compared to its current state. If the goal is the destruction of ISIS, then once again the Russian presence could be seen as a boon; by targeting the regime's other enemies it frees up Syrian resources to focus on ISIS. But if the goal is the removal of Assad and the installation of a more Western-friendly government, well...

If the Russians really do prop up Assad, then I'll be surprised. That would mean a deployment of the Russian Army and probably treating Syria as a giant version of Chechnya. I can't even begin to guess what the death toll on Russian troops would be.

 

Plus the terrorists would start to really target Russians. As opposed to the current situation, which is that the FSB targets Russians when it needs to invent a terrorist threat to justify some war Putin has planned.

 

No, I think they want to keep Syria unstable. They don't want to lose Assad but at the same time keeping the Middle East unstable is in their best interests.
 

This is the game of international geopolitics. Russia now has a foothold in the Middle East, which the United States has treated as its private playground for decades. If Assad survives and the Russians stay in Syria, say with permanent military bases like the US has in the region, the old Cold War enemies will be facing off once again. To quote Wings Hauser from Red Dawn, "Two toughest kids on the block — sooner or later they're gonna fight."

Russia's had a foothold in the middle east for a long time, it's called Iran. Other than that, your analysis is generally correct. But I doubt the Russians will really move into Syria.

[HordeLorde]

why wouldnt they move in? everyone else is moving out....tons of real estate available. 

[Manoka]

I think Canada is going to take over Syria, and everyone is going to be like "wat" and then they're going to be like "Fuck yeah!" and everyone will cheer them on. 

 

And Russia will try to attack Canada and the U.S. and Europe will defend them, and then Russia will back down after some rough exchanges. 

[Molagbal]

Supporting Assad is the best way to go at this point, that is the better option of the shitty options available to the US.