Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[BruceVC]

 

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains harsh language.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

 

Which actor/comedian is that? I think I recognize the person but can't place the name.

 

Is that suppose to be a real venting session, I hope not because that entire speech was just subjective diatribe .....

 

volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making. Again speaking on behalf of other people in another country 

 

Yes people like me thought Hilary was going to win, everyone assumed that. For him to think anyone would think he knew Hilary was going to lose  is just a mendacious and convenient example of social media grandstanding

 

Its okay to admit you were wrong but to learn from it

[redneckdevil]

 

 

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains harsh language.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

Which actor/comedian is that? I think I recognize the person but can't place the name.

Is that suppose to be a real venting session, I hope not because that entire speech was just subjective diatribe .....

 

volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making. Again speaking on behalf of other people in another country

 

Yes people like me thought Hilary was going to win, everyone assumed that. For him to think anyone would think he knew Hilary was going to lose is just a mendacious and convenient example of social media grandstanding

 

Its okay to admit you were wrong but to learn from it

Bruce, didn't even you tell people they were sexist for not voting for her? I'm not sure, not accusing but I even remember alot of "racist, sexist, islamicphobe" being said of people who were against Hillary and for brexit on these very forums during the presidential election and such.

 

That dude was spot on in as far as the atmosphere in the news and on social media around here. Outside of the country always gets a different view.

[injurai]

That UN video is interesting. None of them manage really capture the gravity of the situation.

 

1. The first ladies claims on what is being reported as happening inside of Syria is merely an existential one. Okay so those views exist. She presents a single view with no qualifiers as to who all is making it, no information on the sample. It's a fuzzed out aggregate of a sentiment. It's further being filtered through to expedient phrasing for the sake of the person making the argument.

 

2. No doubt conflict divides nations. But it's foolish to act as if all Syrians view themselves as strictly as Syrians and likewise all Iraqis just view themselves as strictly being Iraqis. The repeated references to the US as if it has a single intent, plan, goal, or acting constituency. Making it seem like the US's primary goal is to root out any secular muslim majority state, which is a gross misrepresentation of every aspect of the situation. Firstly, Tunisia is the state under the arab spring that which is most widely consider a success and garners the least reason to merit bellicose involvement. Turkey the bastion of secularism in the region has long been the United States best ally in the region. Close ties have also been maintained with Lebanon. The issue with Syria is that you have a dynastic leadership that allies itself with Russia, not that the leadership is nominally democratically secular. His transition to power was forced through. They lowered the minimal age of the presidency just to keep up legal appearances over the whole situation. It's no wonder the nation broke out into the Damascus spring which inevitably gives reason to rile up the islamists at the same time.

 

3. If an outside force gets involved they will cause collateral damage, and it isn't necessarily clear that the US should stay hands off. Especially given the power dynamics in the region. Continuing the double talk of the US's proxy states completely ignores all the other powers that have a hand in the regions policy, even between Arab nations. Further it downplays plays the long lasting affects that occurred as Britain attempt to colonized then promptly decolonize the region after dividing it up, leaving the US to clean up their mess. Then Russia trying to force their way into the region during the cold war. The arming of those willing to fight was never intended to militarize (in the modern sense) islamists who wholesale resist western secular liberalism. We know by the regions own resistance to secularization and westernization in the late 19th century into the 20th century that the resistance isn't merely due to "our more recent meddling" but long predates the era of western involvement in the region. There has been a long tradition of resisting secularism as the debauched values of western society that leads a people away from upholding traditional caliphate which would restore Quranic values as the means of setting society right. But that's never worked because they're has never been agreement on the interpretations of those ideals, which is a huge source of political dissidence in the regions.

 

4. I see the situation in the middle east more and more painted through the lens of recent wrongs that all parties commit or make but especially the US and the west. Which is further flavored through the intent and values of our far right, leaving less and less room for unpleasant truths and hitting problems head on. Very little is seen through the eyes of the global modernist secular movement through the late 19th early 20th century, movements that the middle east actually took part in prior to suffering opposition and spring back.

 

5. Oil can't be ignored as being part of the escalation of the tenuous situation. Once again, first starting with theocratic resistance of secularism that later is inflamed by the British presents and negligent pull out, further flamed by the Russia's hawkish advance on the region. Then comes the move by tyrannical dictators to nationalize oil at the expense of a then already free and global economy; The fallout of such a move was to be disastrous. The amount of self-scorched earth tactics of setting oil fields on fire alone just goes to show how much these nations wanted to hold the world by it's throat by ransoming the largest reserves of oil on the planet. Islamism was intentionally promoted through mudrasas and justified through the setting of Islamic teachings to given reason and meaning as to why the west was to be opposed wholesale and reclaim an idealized past. As if the US was solely concerned with itself, it also had responsibilities to keeping oil open for the whole world. It's embarrassing that OPEC allowed such power moves to be even explored by member states when they were all already benefiting from ownership rights to liquid gold.

 

6. Then we get stuck kowtowing with the Saudi's because they end up as one of the few playing "the game right" on the global economic stage. But then in turn they use that headroom to fund global Islamism. All while the US has no choice but the keep the flow of oil open for the sake of the world. This was back in the days when the US was had far less access to it's own oil reserves and natural gas, there was no option to hunker down and try tariffs or blockades to hold of the regions transgressions.

 

Look... I am all for getting the west to clean up it's own act, but it's not just our right wing. When I hear those U.N. people speak on these issues. It all sounds like nothing but talking points. Points that are only salient in a single dimension of rhetoric. A type of rhetoric that I increasingly see in the jejune, openhanded, contingent of what is mostly the left. It's no wonder then that over the past 30 years, that the worst of the right has in turn been given increased jurisdiction and influence in managing that powder keg of a situation. All that same contingent (primarily a subset of the left) finds unparalleled virtue in any foreign individual who can dance the same placating peace lily rhetoric as the ideal of what an ally is. When it comes to domestic policy I can't help but smile at the left, but with foreign policy things feel increasingly tenuous. Choosing pleasant appearances over a deep understanding of just what the problem is, and why the region continues to struggle by it's own hand and not just the United States strong arming over oil. Maybe being hands off is part of the solution, cutting our defense budget and investing more into our own country. But man is it tiring and sickening to see the UN perpetually opening wounds out of ignorance and continue to bemoan the perpetual state of having to defend their poor helpless virtuous noble peoples against the 1st world nations, the true blind party. God just look at Liberia and ask yourself if the UN actually does anything other than first responder relief to a crisis. More often then not the hobble a region for generations, while most other 3rd world nations have made tremendous strides over the past 60 years by taking up economic expediency. Honestly I see the regions future depending on global economic pressures forcing increased growth on industry giving people a future in the private sector but a modicum of stability needs to be achieved through continued bilateral support against Islamism.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains harsh language.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

Which actor/comedian is that? I think I recognize the person but can't place the name.

Is that suppose to be a real venting session, I hope not because that entire speech was just subjective diatribe .....

 

volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making. Again speaking on behalf of other people in another country

 

Yes people like me thought Hilary was going to win, everyone assumed that. For him to think anyone would think he knew Hilary was going to lose is just a mendacious and convenient example of social media grandstanding

 

Its okay to admit you were wrong but to learn from it

Bruce, didn't even you tell people they were sexist for not voting for her? I'm not sure, not accusing but I even remember alot of "racist, sexist, islamicphobe" being said of people who were against Hillary and for brexit on these very forums during the presidential election and such.

 

That dude was spot on in as far as the atmosphere in the news and on social media around here. Outside of the country always gets a different view.

 

You cheeky 

 

I asked an innocuous question that I assumed would have no impact to anyone because its not like people take my advice or follow what I say...I'm not even American so who cares what I say? But I did say " maybe its unintentional but is this anti-Hilary rhetoric fueled by the fact she is a women " This clearly upset people and I had to apologize to the Mods....I am obviously much more relevant than  what I assumed 

 

But going forward I only criticised Trump supporters like Kellyanne Conway for her blatant attempts to create a false dichotomy. I don't think I said anything about any US members. I was contemptuous of people I saw on TV  repeating idiotic Trump statements but that wasn't on this forum ?

[smjjames]

The problem with being hands off these days is because sometimes a situation calls for being hands on. Yes we screwed up by being involved in Iraq and Libya, but arguably, the West didn't get involved enough in Libya as far as establishing a stable government and possibly also screwed up in Syria by not being forceful enough. I'm not saying that we absolutely should have been involved more

 

I agree that we should be more hands off and butt out, but the problem is that there isn't a consistent point where being hands on *this* much always works out well and the entire thing is far more complex than just being somewhere on a spectrum of 'hands on'.

 

As for the UN, they definetly have lots of issues....

[Volourn]

"volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making."

 

Dude, that guy IS the left. LMAO

[smjjames]

"volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making."

 

Dude, that guy IS the left. LMAO

 

So you're saying the Left going on a rant is the problem? The left attacking itself is the problem? Hillary Clinton is the problem? It's a lot easier to just say what the left is doing wrong rather than just point to a british guy ranting off.

Edited July 9, 2017 by smjjames

[BruceVC]

 

"volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making."

 

Dude, that guy IS the left. LMAO

 

So you're saying the Left going on a rant is the problem? The left attacking itself is the problem? Hillary Clinton is the problem? It's a lot easier to just say what the left is doing wrong rather than just point to a british guy ranting off.

 

volo intentionally creates confused posts at times,....that guys is a UK  citizen, the UK left is not like the USA left and BREXIT is not the same as the Trump victory 

 

And I have strong ties to the UK as most of my indirect family  live there so Im not being nasty or being unsupportive of the UK

[BruceVC]

Look at what I have to deal with in South Africa ...this is what some white people say about other white people

 

Its the most irritating thing you can imagine...I commented at the end, I am BruceVC 

 

https://www.thedailyvox.co.za/need-act-white-privilege-systems-keep-white-people-racist-dean-hutton/

[smjjames]

Oh, I didn't know volo is British.

[BruceVC]

Oh, I didn't know volo is British.

No

 

He is Canadian but he thinks the EU is a failure and a Nazi organisation 

[majestic]

 

Oh, I didn't know volo is British.

No

 

He is Canadian but he thinks the EU is a failure and a Nazi organisation 

 

 

Wrong Bruce, Volo is Kanadian, get your facts straight. Also, the UK is a Nazi nation too, following a Nazi queen.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Oh, I didn't know volo is British.

No

 

He is Canadian but he thinks the EU is a failure and a Nazi organisation 

 

 

Wrong Bruce, Volo is Kanadian, get your facts straight. Also, the UK is a Nazi nation too, following a Nazi queen.

 

 

[Ben No.3]

Oh and of course it's the US and Israels combined evil again... (UN woman) I'll bet you a lot that this woman is a lefty. You know, if you equate anti-zionism and anti-israelism with antisemitism, the left is in all likelihood much stronger with it. I'm by now just annoyed at so many (pseudo-; but also actual) socialists portraying Hamas as this noble rebel cause when they're practically institutionalised terrorism. Anti imperialist dogma makes so many of them so blind and it annoys me.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Zoraptor]

Also, when I saw the bit about 'it's not a civil war, it's all of Syria against outsider mercenaries and terrorists', I thought "does that make most of Aleppo and it's citizens outsider mercenaries and terrorists too?"

 

Most of Aleppo's (city) citizens were and are government supporters. The rebels were quite open about 'invading' Aleppo from outside, they were successful initially precisely because there were few troops there as there was little unrest, and much of the city's population fled from rebel areas to government areas during their initial attack (indeed, while there are a lot of refugees from Syria there are far more IDPs and they are almost all in government areas). Most of the urban centres were strongly to moderately pro government, most of the anti areas were rural. The most anti government city (Hama) actually had very little violence because there were most troops there.

 

It's not primarily the US in Syria for sure, Obama was consistently fighting the loony warhawk fringe (Hillary, Power; McCain, Graham), if the US really wanted something to happen it would have irrespective of the UN or the legality of it. They have indirectly armed Al Qaeda and ISIS though (when Al Nusra/ ISIS were the same organisation as they were initially), via the CIA (but not the Pentagon) because they control most of the routes in to rebel territories- and everyone knows they take a share of supplies to other groups that travel their routes. It's no accident that they are the best armed rebel group despite being 'embargoed'.

 

The video is pretty loaded and is itself propaganda, but a lot of it is true. Things like the Al Kindi Hospital being used as an example of a hospital destroyed by the gov happened, when it was blown up by suicide bombers from Al Qaeda/ ISIS, and how the white helmets work and were formed, and the multiple 'last hospital/ doctor bombed' claims are accurate. The MSM is usually completely useless on Syria especially US outlets but that video alternative is most of the way to being biased in an exactly reverse way.

[BruceVC]

 

Also, when I saw the bit about 'it's not a civil war, it's all of Syria against outsider mercenaries and terrorists', I thought "does that make most of Aleppo and it's citizens outsider mercenaries and terrorists too?"

 

Most of Aleppo's (city) citizens were and are government supporters. The rebels were quite open about 'invading' Aleppo from outside, they were successful initially precisely because there were few troops there as there was little unrest, and much of the city's population fled from rebel areas to government areas during their initial attack (indeed, while there are a lot of refugees from Syria there are far more IDPs and they are almost all in government areas). Most of the urban centres were strongly to moderately pro government, most of the anti areas were rural. The most anti government city (Hama) actually had very little violence because there were most troops there.

 

It's not primarily the US in Syria for sure, Obama was consistently fighting the loony warhawk fringe (Hillary, Power; McCain, Graham), if the US really wanted something to happen it would have irrespective of the UN or the legality of it. They have indirectly armed Al Qaeda and ISIS though (when Al Nusra/ ISIS were the same organisation as they were initially), via the CIA (but not the Pentagon) because they control most of the routes in to rebel territories- and everyone knows they take a share of supplies to other groups that travel their routes. It's no accident that they are the best armed rebel group despite being 'embargoed'.

 

The video is pretty loaded and is itself propaganda, but a lot of it is true. Things like the Al Kindi Hospital being used as an example of a hospital destroyed by the gov happened, when it was blown up by suicide bombers from Al Qaeda/ ISIS, and how the white helmets work and were formed, and the multiple 'last hospital/ doctor bombed' claims are accurate. The MSM is usually completely useless on Syria especially US outlets but that video alternative is most of the way to being biased in an exactly reverse way.

 

Nah I dont believe much of this post, its your normal " lets blame the USA for the violence in the ME " 

 

 

For example Obama did not intervene specifically because of the UNSC veto, I don't blame them because of how people in the ME always blame the USA for something. Its a specious point to say " if the USA  wanted something to happen "....that's the point, they had no inclination in intervention 

 

And I want to see credible links around the CIA funding, why would the CIA need to fund a group that came from Iraq that had access to stolen weaponry through the tribal Sunni connection?

 

So the CIA connection is a false theory people use to blame the USA for starting the Syrian civil war and again this is just an excuse for the  turmoil and instability we are seeing in the ME

 

So unless you can produce links we will just ignore your comment 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains harsh language.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

 

Which actor/comedian is that? I think I recognize the person but can't place the name.

 

Is that suppose to be a real venting session, I hope not because that entire speech was just subjective diatribe .....

 

volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making. Again speaking on behalf of other people in another country 

 

Yes people like me thought Hilary was going to win, everyone assumed that. For him to think anyone would think he knew Hilary was going to lose  is just a mendacious and convenient example of social media grandstanding

 

Its okay to admit you were wrong but to learn from it

 

The guy is comedian, but can you please provide few lines you think are not valid?

[Ben No.3]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

[Chilloutman]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

[Ben No.3]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

 

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

 

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

neither surveillance nor corruption is inherent to communism but rather to hierarchies, wouldn't you agree?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

 

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

 

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

 

neither surveillance nor corruption is inherent to communism but rather to hierarchies, wouldn't you agree?

 

Well I don't like surveillance too much now, but its difference if its because of breaking the law or if its because you are anti establishment/political opposition

[Malcador]

Only 50m? Tsk, aiming low

[BruceVC]

[quote name="BruceVC" post="1923287"

So unless you can produce links we will just ignore your comment

 

And when you do produce links BruceVC will ignore them also as he did numerous times before so just don't bother.

No I can produce a link anytime if required and applicable. Why do you think I am always correct in our debates and why do I always come across as convincing

 

You need to start learning to create your views based on links....this way you will be comfortable having a debate