Jump to content

Elerond

Members
  • Posts

    2,619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Elerond

  1. 3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    Also it doesnt matter if civilians are killed  by the US and its allies by a mistaken target or a legitimate target but with civilians in the vicinity the response will always be the same by the Zora\Comrade brigade. " Outrage and disgust " because ostensibly innocents die and this bothers them

    But other countries can kill innocents in the ME and you  wont hear anything from most of the world when it comes to outrage . Russia bombed the city of Aleppo to the ground in Syria to help Assad win the war, thousands of Syrian civilians died , hospitals were directly targeted due to the Russian intervention and Putin doesnt even bother to justify it and it wasnt  a mistake unlike this tragedy. So yes the inconsistency with how certain  people respond to events when Western countries are involved in collateral damage is nothing new 

    You want to see something truly jarring, take a look at these images from Aleppo during the Russian intervention

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2016/oct/11/destruction-in-aleppo-in-pictures

     

    There are trade, economic and political sanctions against Russia because of its actions, where non-exist towards USA or its allies

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/07/04/deaths-hospital-vaccinated-uk.html

    @Zoraptor and others that understand much about this virus 

     What do you make of  this link, basically someone sent it to me based on a view that " vaccinations lead to more deaths or an equal number of deaths ". I dont understand if its true based on  what the article is saying?

     

     

    That writer of that article has clear agenda.

    As vaccination prioritization was that oldest and those who belong risks groups were first to be vaccinated and those who have lowest risk from the disease get vaccination in last. So people who had received two dozes of vaccination in June 14 had higher risk to die to covid than most of those who were unvaccinated. Death rate among this group before vaccination was in England from 1.9% to 24%, from which it is dropped to 0.6%. Death rate among non-risk groups were from 0.0001% to 0.066%. So among risk groups death rate has dropped massively and death rate of unvaccinated people is higher than what death rate was during worst times of pandemic among non-risk groups.

     

     

    • Thanks 1
  3. 7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

    So basically you absolve the pro-choice side of taking care of those things? As pro-choice scream hypocrisy on the other side they don't seem see their own when they use this argument only against pro-life and not actually care about those either. 

    I didn't say anything about pro-choice.

    But they are ones who support personal freedom and that matter is personal. So hypocrisy in this issue is almost totally on 'pro-life' side

    Also pro-choice politicians seem to mostly support improving social benefits, making schooling free, free health care, parental leaves, preventing firing pregnant people. Where pro-life politicians are mostly against these things.

  4. 1 hour ago, teknoman2 said:

    the simple fact is that the media are corporations and corporations have interests and agendas and political affiliations. so if they can spin a story in a way that promotes their point of view they will do it.

    46% of hospital doctors here are against mandatory vaccination if you hear one news report and in another they say that its just a 1% of conspiracists. meanwhile in a tv channel, a representative of the doctor's union said that all hospitals are currently severely understaffed because unvaccinated doctors were suspended and in a different channel a government representative said that the healthcare system is ready to deal with the 4th covid wave. when you have so much conflicting information, someone's have to be lying 

    there are some corporations among media, but big sunk of media aren't corporations

    0.5% of hospital doctors are against mandatory vaccinations here, so that percentage probably is misinformation based on inaccurate survey

    EDIT: Also less than 1% of doctors specialize field where they get more than basic information about vaccinations so your average doctor usually doesn't know that much about vaccines or how they actually work, which surveys about vaccines that target whole medical doctorate are more than bit questionable as policy guideline 

    • Thanks 1
  5. Just now, Gfted1 said:

    Oh, were just theory crafting? It is my understanding that Plan B is considered a pregnancy preventer, not aborter. So do you think TX will also include other birth control methods such as condoms, "the pill", IUD, etc.?

    It is, but that does not prevent anti-abortion people claiming that it is abortifacient 

    here an example

    https://lozierinstitute.org/plan-b-abortifacient-and-other-risks/

    Prescribing information for Plan B points out that the drug works by “preventing ovulation” or “possibly preventing fertilization.”  Or it may alter the endometrium and thereby “inhibit implantation.”[1]  This refers to implantation of any newly conceived human individual/zygote in the mother’s womb.  Hence, the complete clinical pharmacology of Plan B demands that the drug product be duly recognized as an abortifacient – or potential abortifacient – and not merely described as “emergency contraception.”

    and here another

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

    3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.

     

     Science does not matter in these questions and laws implemented to ensure that their ideology is heeded

  6. 2 hours ago, teknoman2 said:

    cac747364c0b0220f4b693fb9d3fc5158ac8f2c0

    here's an example. stores looted, cars and buildings on fire, dozens of dead, a complete disregard for covid lockdowns and media companies like CNN called the protests peaceful... and as soon as Trump was out, it all was swept under the rug as if the problems that triggered this situation never existed.

     

    A medium is not media, to prove that media does something you need to prove that all the mediums do something.

    Also you make false statements about those protest which CNN is reffing as there were no deaths in said protest.

    Also even with questionable caption, CNN did show live footage from protest showing burning cars and they mentioned looting that occurred. So they actually reported everything that happened in protest. Meaning that it is questionable if there was actually any misinformation in that example you provided, it mostly show that person who made info graphic that day has questionable view what peaceful means

  7. 38 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

    Yeah, I get the notion, but what would be the substance of the lawsuit though? If I understand correctly it would be a civil suit and civil suit needs to have something that the suing side wants from the side they are suing. Mostly it's a monetary compensation for something (like damages), but those need to be accounted in real stuff. For example if a neighbour throws a bottle in my backyard and hits my car and the repair will cost 10k$ I can sue for those 10k$ because that's the cost I would have to pay for repairs. But for me to sue my neighbour if he damages the other neighbour car then this is illogical because he didn't made any damages to me. So this law is a little baffling in that regard.

     

    The idea is to give people bounty to expose abortion that have happened after six weeks, and people get that bounty by suing suspected law breakers in civil court and I they can show that they were breaking Texas' ban for abortions after six week then they are rewarded with 10k dollars bounty/compensation.

    As most abortion seekers are poor and there are lots of rich people on anti-abortion side, you will see lots of court case against even people who followed Texas law just to cause them financial burden in order to scare people seeking or providing abortions. 

    Law gives purposely unspecified right to sue those who are suspected to help in seeking or providing illegal abortion, so that people would be hesitant to offer any assistance to people seeking legal abortions. As purpose is to effectively create total ban of abortions in Texas.

     

    EDIT: This article gives good explanation of the what is the idea behind the law

    https://qz.com/2054552/a-new-abortion-law-in-texas-turns-citizens-into-bounty-hunters/

  8. 3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

    Elerond the truth is you cannot implement gun control in the US in the way you can in other countries, I know your post is raising another issue but  I just saying that the reality and solution to mass shootings is not ever going to be about  " banning guns " as this legislation will never pass Congress 

    You can invest more in the US in mental healthcare but that is all that you can do that will be realistically implemented in the majority of states 

    Question is state legislative (like New York) to allow to people to sue anyone linked to sale of gun used in crime for damages even if person suing didn't suffer from the crime same way as Texas now allows people to sue abortion providers and people who helped person to abortion provider. 

  9. Texas is now shown how states can ban guns  they will just allow anyone to sue person buying gun or anyone that helped person to buy gun for damages. Like for example gun is used in robbery then everyone in that state can sue shop that sold gun, manufacture that build the gun, truck company that shipped gun to store from which it was bought, and anyone that can be linked to help person to buy the gun in fist place.

    So technically guns are legal but anybody selling / manufacturing / transporting them can face billions of dollars damages if gun is ever used in crime.

    With same logic you probably will able to ban anything that is protected in constitution without actually banning them.

     

    • Hmmm 1
  10. 13 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

    It all boils down to money.  If they can't find other ways to reinvigorate the Afghan economy like China's BRI for instance (Remember, China is much more powerful economically and politically than it was 20 years ago) then yes probably.

    I'll go out on a limb and say that the Taliban is probably more interested in foreign partnerships now and opium trade will remain curbed significantly.  The world has changed quite a bit in 20 years and a new generation is up and coming.

    The thing is that Talibans can be against opium production all they want but they don't have resource to prevent afghan clans from producing it and after UN cut economic compensation to afghan farmers not to grow opium and as Afghanistan's economy is crashing it is inevitable that farmers will start again grow opium in order to survive. Also there are lots of smugglers who are seeking new business now as Taliban don't need weapons and other goods to smuggled to them. 

    It is difficult to control 38 million people who are facing starvation.

  11. 8 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

    False.  Terrorist groups are funded by all extremist Sunni followers with any amount of wealth, all across the ME.  Some have high influence in various governments such as Saudi Arabi, some are just lay-lows with money to spare.  Nationality is not really a factor.

     

    *Ahem*

    The Taliban now control one of the largest lithium deposits on the planet (tekdeeps.com)

    Actually correct: ISIS-K gets almost all its funding from Pakistan. Majority of Taliban's fund also come from Pakistan and Iran is second and after that comes Saudi sources (Qatar as largest source). Iranian sources also fund lots of other terrorist organisations (as Taliban is till classed as terrorist organization) in Afghanistan. Funds don't come at least directly from governments but wealthy patrons in those countries.

    Article should say one of the largest suspected lithium deposits. Some one would actually need to do geological survey first to make sure that there are actually lithium there.

  12. 13 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

    Not sure if sarcasm,  but Afghanistan is certainly of geopolitical significance, it's not only sandwiched between China and its allies but it also contains trillions of dollars of natural resources such as copper, petroleum, and lithium, the latter which is used to power car batteries and cell phones aka a crucial resource for the 21st century.

    Why else would the U.S. spend 2 decades in there?  Not just for ideological reasons, but economic ones as well.  Same as Iraq. If China's approach to foreign policy is successful where the U.S. has failed, it would be both a financial and moral catastrophe for the West.

    Probably not natural resources as they have allowed China to buy and control  Afghanistan's oil, gas and copper reserves for 10 years (Afghanistan's oil reserves were founded in 2010 and in 2011 Afghanistan signed an oil exploration contract with China National Petroleum Corporation three and currently only oil fields there).

    Currently it is only suspected that there are rich lithium resources in Afghanistan because of its geologic setting, currently there are little lithium production in Afghanistan.

  13. Terrorist groups in Afghanistan are mainly funded by people in Pakistan and Iran

    Talibans are extremists Sunnis where Iran is controlled by nationalist Shias. Talibans have long history of oppressing people in Hazara minority which Afghanistan's largest Shia population (4 million), and there are  Hazara population also in Iran (500k) and Pakistan (1 million).

    China will not stop oppressing Uyghurs which will feed extremist Sunnis in neighboring countries.

    Russia has it own Lithium sources and mines in Afghanistan are against its economic interests

    Anti-sentiment is not long living when those who are against aren't around (as democrats infighting in US show us). 

    Stabilization of Afghanistan requires major effort and is expensive and excepted returns aren't at least yet big 

  14. China's silk road project (their project to acquire natural resources from middle east) forces them to try to stabilize Afghanistan, but there is quite little will in China's leadership to undertake any military operation, so they main strategy will most likely to just throw money to it (meaning that they will give funds Taliban so that they would handle it) and hope that everything works out. But there is high risk that it just causes more problems for them thanks to high levels of corruption that Afghanistan is plagued of and lack of any forces that actually could try to control population of 31 million which is facing starvation and economical collapse.

    Russia will put their spoon in the mix as it is in their interest to prevent extremist to get foot hold in Uzbekistan and Tadžikistan 

    Also Iran and Pakistan have their own interest in the area and they aren't necessary stability of governance in Afghanistan

×
×
  • Create New...