Garry77777's Waterfall
I know you're not serious but just in case I thought I'd reaffirm the fact that the real Ahmadinejad is very far from what the West has protrayed him to be, he may be a semi-crackpot, but in reality he's not much worse than most political leaders.
I find the notion of waiting for the final day of judgement quite hilarious, you don't have to wait to see hell, just to go some parts of the third world, people (by "people" I mean crazy evangelicals) in the West have the luxury of being able to anticipate hell, some people aren't so lucky;-)
That reminds me of a joke:
"This guy is driving his car in the desert. He notices this guy jumping along the road. He's naked and his hands and feet are tied with rope. The guy stops his car and asks the guy, 'Hey, buddy, what's the matter?' And the guy tells him, 'Well, I was driving along and I saw this bastard hitch-hiking so I stopped and the son-of-a-bitch pulls a gun on me, takes my clothes away and then ties me up. Then the dirty son-of-a-bitch reams me in the ass!' 'Oh yeah?' says the guy getting out of his car. 'Yeah, that's what that dirty son-of-a-bitch did!' says the man. 'Well,' says the guy unzipping his fly, I guess this just isn't your lucky day!' ""
Sorry I hadn't realised you replied to this, I'll try to get around to the one about Urinating on corpses as well.
"Ron Paul never said the United States was the world's largest terrorist group."
Of course he didn't, he's american, he doesn't think like that, nor has he suffered in any way from your countries actions, but he got accused of providing justification for 9/11, he said he wasn't, he said he just wanted people to understand the motive instead of them being convinced it was due to there (supposed) freedom.
"Comparing yourself to Ron Paul, won't do you any good"
I think the comparison is quite valid actually, please explain to me how it isn't.
"That's exactly what you've done. Saying "It's the only way they can resist" is a justification,"
Well, then saying they blew up the twin towers because you keep Isreal's genocide going, and have military bases on their holyland, and have supported brutal dictators is also a justification, so ya, I was justifying it, in the same way Ron Paul was justifying 9/11.
"a false one at that"
How else could they resist? They either employ guerrilla tactics or face irrevocable destruction.
"You said "Innocent of what?"."
Yes, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought they were guilty of.
"Your denial will cost you this debate."
I don't deny it, justification doesn't imply support, if it did Ron Paul would be an Al Queda supporter.
"Why am I not surprised that you were unaware of this?"
Because you falsely beleive you know far more about this than I do.
"No, this is not an isolated incident."
I have done the necessary research and I have to say I conceed this point entirely, I could try to argue that the Taliban have denied this (probably because of the shame), and that they are not used regularly (only 7 in 2009), but these are meaningless details, the fact that they are used for this purpose at all is the only crucial detail.
"Like I said, the Taliban has a fucked up ideology."
I have never argued against this point.
"If that aim was getting rid of Americans, I'm sure they probably did have a majority support at one point,"
Not just at one point, for the overwhelming majority of the conflict, thus far.
"that support has since eroded."
30% doesn't imply 100% erosion, and at the rate you keep indiscriminately killing their civilians while the Karzi government tolerates it (7 children died in an air raid recently), the more support they generate.
"The more important point to make is that the Taliban ideology has always been a minority view."
This is true, the reason the Taliban came to power in the first place was because the USA and Russia used it as their war games playground, when your influences left there was complete anarchy, war lords ruled certain sectors with an Iron fist, the people welcomed the Taliban originally (despite their extremist ideology) because they restored order to their society, that is also why I beleive many have completely turned on the Taliban i.e. they are starting to realise they can have order without extremism.
"The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban long before the U.S. came in."
I agree, I could write far more, but I don't to write too much unnecessarily.
"Not when you harbor and give safe haven to the world's most wanted man,"
He was only placed number 1 on your most wanted list, you don't speak for the world, this is yet more american exceptionalism seeping out without you even realising it.
"Not when you train and support the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks."
Osama's involvment is almost certainly true, but lets not speak like all the facts are out in the open and the evidence is as clear as day, while I don't consider myself a 9/11 truther, it would be utterly illogical of me to exclude the possibility of some government collusion (possibly willful ignorance). Al Queda is a US creation, and there is evidence currently beginning to suface that suggests you may be supplying them in Syria. Could there have been a plot by a small number of powerful individuals to take down the twin towers by using some US proxy forces, again, while it may not be extremely likely based on what is known, given the way the commission was conducted, given the all the other unaccounted for facts, as I said, it would be utterly illogical to exclude it. Or rmaybe they simply ignored the warning, and intentionally let it happen, there are strong reasons to support this claim also.
Governments are in the business of lying, think of the Iraq justification (you even beleived A Queda was found in Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
"You mean like saying that the United States Invaded Afghanistan for it's non-existent oil?"
I've already outlined Afghanistan geostrategic importance, and I have already provided ample evidence i.e. US state departments documents, testimony from officials who were privy to the sensitive details of negotiations between the US and Taliban prior to the invasion.
Please let's disupte the facts, a country doesn't have to have oil to be very important, having privileged access to the oil pipeline adversely affected Russian influence while simultaneously enhancing your own.
"Not according to Osama Bin Laden. "
Osama Bin Laden didn't speak for any country, how can you not see that? His support came from people radicalised by religion and your ill treatment of them.
"According to him, it was a war against the Great Satan, and a war against the Infidels."
Ya, I'm sure we could find plenty of white supremacists in your country who want to wipe out all africans or muslims in some big biblical war, it doesn't mean Zambia or Turkey have the moral right to invade and occupy the US, your inability to see that doesn't stem from lack of insight, it stems from the grip your ideology has on you.
"Ever since the cold war, there has been this irrational fear of communism,"
This was intentionally created in order to instill fear in the population. Submission to authority is created by fear, which is why there is so much scare mongering and war mongering in the US mainstream media. The media job is to manufacture consent for government policy, it used to mould people’s minds in order to create compliant, pliable, and heavily indoctrinated individuals, and you (or I for that matter, but to a lesser extent) are no exceptions.
Militant radical Islam is simply a replacement for communism.
"many conservatives believed that countries one-by-one would fall to communism and that The US would be swallowed up."
Please wacth the clip I provided from 0:40-1:27, it s a segment from a half hour documentary on americas hisotry by americas greatest historian (and possibly greatest author), Gore Vidal. I would also strongly recommend you watch teh whole thing.
"They adopted policies to oppose communism by any means necessary, and sometimes that meant supporting brutal groups like the Contras."
This inane rationalisation is not even worthy of response, I hope you are not too blind to see why.
"He was charged with lying to federal agents and for falsifying his immigration papers"
And not blwoing up a commerical airliner that killed over 70 civilians.
"then held in an Texas Jail for nearly 5 years"
He was jailed for 3 years in Panama until american pressure got him released, when his presence in the US was realised hundreds of thousands of people poured onto the street of Havana demanding justice, he was detained by Homeland security while they tried to find a friendly nation that would give him asylm, Venzueala sought his extradition, it was denied on the grounds that he would be tortured (hypocrisy at its finest), he was released in 2007 and was essentially free, he faced another trial in 2010 in which he was cleared of all charges. Not too sure where you're getting your info. from.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"He was ruled innocent of those crimes."
Shock :O
It's called a PR show
"Hell, the Taliban constructed training camps for Bin Laden's soldiers in Afghanistan."
Bin Laden paid for everything I can assure you, all they did was allow him in their country, the principle is exactly the same.
"Luis posada, was one man."
He was just the pertinent example, the document history of hired US terrorist and henchmen is too long to detail.
"Osama Bin Laden had a small army."
Evidence?
I would advise you watch a documentary called "the power of nightmares" by renowned documentary film maker Adam Curtis.
"he Taliban seized military control of Afghanistan with Pakistani militia soldiers, weapons, and supplies."
I didn't mean they were voted into power, I meant the people welcomed them and the security they brought.
"And without this Pakistani support it probably would have failed."
I don't deny that.
"The Taliban also launched rockets into cities, burned crop fields, denied UN food to 160,000 starving people dragged people out of their homes and executed them."
Ya, they have done mnay horrible things, but your country has done far worse to Afghanistan, I'm not even talking aboiut the war in '01.
"This caused people to flee the country."
I'm not saying the people didn't turn on them once they realsied the kind of society the Taliban had in mind, but to neglect the fact the many supported them prior to taking power doesn't due justice to history.
I disagree, the movie calls to attention the degradation in culture that has taken place in the Western world. Pop/celebrity culture is an embarrassment to the human race, I don't beleive this culture should be encouraged as it has very little artistic or creative merit, it is anti-intellectual, it is completely neurotic, it glorifies the ego in way that forces people to conform to highly destructive (to the mind, personal happiness, freedom etc.) mode's of thought and behaviour.
This movie looks fucking amazing, I'm downloading it right now, finally the undercurrent of cyncism at western worlds cultural garbage reaches the big screen.
As usual your response is laden with american exceptionalism masquerading as decency.
"Bullshit you're not. Should we review past comments"
You know this was the exact same insult levied against Ron Paul when he tried to explain the motivation for 9/11, typical.
"When I questioned you about the Taliban using children as suicide bombers you said and I quote: "it is the only way they can resist...", Please tell me what this is if not a justification?"
I'm not trying to justify the act itself, it is quite obviously deplorable, and I was even unaware they used such practices, this is first time I've heard of Taliban strapping bombs to children, are you sure this is a routine practice and not an isolated incident?
Also, I don't have to condone their savagery to understand it.
"When I questioned about them using IEDs in heavily populated areas you again said: "the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence"
Because they do, it doesn't mean I support them.
"You think this is a war between countries?"
Well, maybe not anymore, but for most of the war the population supported the aims of the taliban against the foreign invaders, so yeah, when the majority of a countries people despise the invaders and what to rid themseves of them, and they simultaneously support the force that is trying to accomplish that, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to describe it as a war between two couintres (aolbeit an unconventional one), one very small and weak, another very large and agressive. Up to about three years ago that's exactly what it was.
"And the Taliban doesn't have either the moral nor the legal high ground."
Actually as the legal government of the country when it was invaded they have the legal high ground, I can assure you.
"The Taliban was part of the Al Qaeda support structure, the U.S. was perfectly within it's right to take out that support structure"
Can you not even realise when you make such stupid statement that directly contradict the fundamental tenets of international law? You are unbeleiveable. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist, not the ruler of a country. To show you how stupid you sound like me hihglight one of the many terrorist and foprmer cia mass murderers currently provided with asylm in the USA e.g.
http://rt.com/usa/news/
Now, by your logic, since he is responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths across latin american (e.g. in Cuba and Venezuala most notably), they have the legal right to invade the US, is this not directly comparable to Afghanistan granting asylm to Bin ladn and few associates?
Do not see your own inherent hypocrisy? I don't think you do, I think it's like programming, it's hardwire into you, you run on an operating system called "american exceptionalism 2.0"
To quote Chomsky, "terrorism" is only what other people do.
"What do you think the Taliban has been doing since they came to power?"
The Taliban are an indigenous group that came to power with popular backing in Afghanistan in 1992, they may have proved to be unpopular subsequent to that but I think we both know there is a qualitative difference between them enforcing something and you enforcing something.
"Telling people how to live their lives."
I admit that the principle's of democracy don't allow for tranny of the majority, but we have no right (legal or moral) to force our ideals upon them, watch the Robert Fisk interview.
"Remember what I said earlier, the Taliban represents a minority ideology and any who opposes that is threatened with violence or even death."
They maybe a minority now, but it has taken almost 11 years of war for that to happen, and they still have the support of probably a third of country, so really, it isn;t exactly a tiny minority, and they rose to power with popular backing. They will be a political force in Afghanistan again, i just hope their ideology get's watered down by the presence of other more moderate politcal elements.
"this however does not require me to agree with your assessments."
Would you support an aggresive invasion of Iran if Isreal decides to knock out their nuclear facilities?
"Well if everybody knew about it then it wouldn't very well be clandestine, then would it?"
It also wouldn't help with the false image the US paint's of itself, and then successfullly sells to the population, and much of the rest of the western world, although in recent times your atrocious crimes have become much harder to conceal.
"This issue is much more complex than I think you are willing to admit."
Yes, it's all very complex, just like the Stalinist Russian, there the little truth with a small t (i.e. actual truth, purges, Gulags etc.), but then there's the big truth with a big T(Soviet ideal tommorrow).
"Does the U.S. government support and fund rebel/insurgent forces in other countries. Yes."
And these are the very same groups that cut the heads off civilians and post it online, and you back them with guns and money, and provide offices for their politcal wings in washington.
"The US Government has a history of backing rebel/insurgent groups"
You have a history of backing them against democractically elected governments, yes, and they are called terrorists, cause their job is to create terror in order to fufilll a politcal aim, and let me make clear that you have no bones about doing the dirty work yourselves (i.e. US military) if the objective is important enough, you only use these brutal terrorists (that are just as bad as any Al Queda) when the PR hit isn't worth the reward.
"if it perceives the Dictatorship which it is rebelling against as being the greater of the two evils."
This is classic grade A america BULLSHIT, this is the very propaganda washington is so good at peddling, unfortunately it bears no relation to the truth e.g.
Were the Sandanistas an unelected dictatorship?
What about President Salvador Allende in Chile?
What about Mohammad Mosadegh?
What about Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala?
What about Patrice Émery Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
I could on and on and on, you have a consistent policy of overthorwing any government that is not aligned with your interests, you don't mind dictatorships, you don't mind democracies, you really don't care as long as they are subservient to your interests.
"Most of the time though the dictatorships are worse than the rebel/insurgent groups backed by the U.S."
I can see why you have to beleive that bullshit, I mean your views would become quite tenuous if you didn't.
"Time will tell."
Time has already told, the West used the false justification of a "supposed" blood bath that was about to occur to remove Gaddafi for something more pliable (the NTC), they have proven to be no better than Gaddafi himself, they are guilty of atrocious war crimes, Libyan civilian are no better off, in fact they are worse as it has become as lawless place, but you won't see that on any Western news station, fuck no.
"As I pointed out and as you neglected, the support was only for the --aims-- of the Taliba"
As I pointed out, that still meant that they supported them and not you, you were the foreign invaders.
"even then it was still a minority."
No, they had majoity support for a long time, let's not distort history here, they have a monirity now, but it is a recent development.
"Apparently you don't realize that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil of it's own. It has to be imported into the country."
Perhaphs you are unaware of the strategic importance of Afghanistan i.e.
"One of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed “gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions” about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan."
The US planned on invading long vefore 9/11 ever happened, interviews from people in know have proved this i.e.
"He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik"
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/
"They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one".
"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris. "
Source: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/
"I would like to see it."
It can be hard to see anything when you're blinded by nationalistic propaganda.
---------------------------------------
"Therein lies the problem. You can justify any atrocity so long as it's committed by the losing side in the conflict."
I'm not trying to justify anything, I merely recognise the problem of big countries thinking they have some God given right to invade smaller weaker ones.You are classic imperialists, but your inability to realise that sad fact doesn't really matter, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
"but the only clear way to distinguish a legitimate force from an illegitimate one is the moral boundaries they are willing to cross in the process."
I don't beleive this to be the case, their is a moral, legal, and principled dimension to any conflict, you fail on all of these fronts. I will admit that that the Taliban are far worse on the moral front however.
"The Taliban doesn't have the support of the International Community precisely because of how it treats women and children."
You have an elementary misunderstanding of what action you are justified in carrying out, one of the real problems is that we (in the West) feel that we are the superior people, and we have the right to tell others how to live their lives, e.g. quote from Robert Fisk (paraphrasing) on Afghanistan:
"your NGO's go into a Afghan village announce that there will be equality of education between sexes, the men rightfully see that as an attack on their society, their culture, and their religion. I'm not saying that equaliity is not right, but they are the ones that need to make the decisions that shape their society, and if it takes another 100 years for them to modernise, well we just have to put up with it that"
Source: http://www.youtube.com/
"I am doing no such thing. I have no 'beef' with Iran."
The government and military which you support does, and if you support them you must support their policies, otherwise how could you support them?
"As much as Iran may hate us, they know in a war (either conventional or Nuclear) they would lose and they have expressed no desire to engage the United States in Conflict, contrary to what some Politicians may claim."
If Isreal attack's Iran, you will follow them into the abyss.
"The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of these types of clandestine operations and are conducted without our consent"
I wonder why they are unaware, could that be intentional at all?
I doutbt even you are aware of the depth of them, I suggest reading the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/
"they would lose and they have expressed no desire to engage the United States in Conflict, contrary to what some Politicians may claim."
You completely glossed over my point, which I made in some detail, and left three separate links for. Let me remind you that you are currently funding militarily and financially groups that are just as bad as the ones that that so trouble you morally. You use this as some jsutuficationfor invading small weak countries while simultaneously funding groups that are equally savage, and even providing them with offcies in washington, your countries hypocrisy is breathtaking. I'm not surprised you don't want to comment, after all, what you can you say?
You see the US government has a policy of supporting terrorism in as much as it does in carrying it out, this the ultimate hypocrisy of the so called "war on terror", we both know it was a war of terror that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and not to make any US citizen any safer.
"The poll you linked to stated that only 29% of afghans are sympathetic to the aims of the Taliban."
Yes, current data suggests their support has dried up, but this is a recent development, for most fo the war they have had significant support, obviously now that situ is impreoving they are realising that they don;t need the Taliban for the their security.
"You cannot give the U.S. credit, even when Credit is due."
You think you deserve credit? You are clearly ignorant of your countries involvment in the history of that country, but fair enough, you must be doing something right, I'll admit that, but you didn;t invade for betterment of the Afghan people, you invaded to secure oil and gas interests, and develop your strangle hold on the ME, keeping the population relatively appeased is something any imperial force would be wise to take heed of.
"So you think the United States rigged Afghan elections to elect a man that dislikes us? Evidence?"
No, I'm saying you are largely responsible for allowing him and his puppet regime to come to power, and now that he has it, he can maintain it, but it really doesn't matter, if you want him to go he'll go, if you need somebody willing to jump through a certain hoop that he won't jump through, he'll be gone in a second.
"Holy Christ man, I would like to have a conversation without it turning into a novel."
Ya, I kinda got a litte too caught up with that response, word or warning, when you reply to me with a fairly lengthy reponse chances are my reply will be at elast twice as long.Take a look at my response on the Taliban Urinating on Marines, that one even shocked me when I posted it.
"I simply don't have the time to respond to all of this."
I don't blame you, skim and respond to what to think is most relevant, it isn;t that mucbh longer than some of your own responses . If you take out all the quotes and the bold it's fairly manageable
"I wouldn't use InfoWars as a source if I were you. Alex Jones is a well known conspiracy nut"
I know that, however they were quotes from the washington post, although though I couldn't verify that as they don't archive before 2005.
"I very much doubt Americans would strap suicide bombs onto children, use human shields, decapitate civilians on video or plant IEDs in busy marketplaces."
You'd be surprised what fragmented groups lacking any other effective means of resistance will do when their backs are against the wall, you say that with such certainty but it's quite obviously wrong, we are all human, and we all the same capacity to commit evil acts, although I admit when hideous attacks are mandated by your ideology (especially if it's religious) it can increase their savagery .
"But to give you some perspective, the insurgency especially in Afghanistan isn't just an anti-occupation force."
I know.
"Imagine if China invaded the US, now imagine a corrupt and violent Radical religious group has taken control of the country and was recruiting Americans to fight against the Chinese Occupiers."
First of all the Taliban are what they are, and they still have a lot of support, even though it has been declining recently i.e.
"The survey released by the Asia Foundation found the number of people who said they sympathized with the aims of the Taliban had dropped to 29 percent, compared to 40 percent last year and 56 percent in 2009."
Now, aside from that, I really just can't stand your pontificating, you are currently backing and sponsoring any insurgent or terrorist group that will try to overthrow the elected government of Iran. You support the very groups you claim are cutting the heads off people and post it online, you will give these groups financial and military aid as long as they work as your proxies, that my friend is the worst form of hypocrsy imaginable. As an example the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) whose politcal wing (the the National Council of Resistance of Iran) have offices in Washington, Paris and other european capitals, so please spare me.
http://rt.com/usa/news/
But why should we be surprised, you'll support any group as long as their aims are aligned with your's, think of the Contras in Nicaragua, and all the other terrorist leaders that were traned at the notorious terrorist training camp the school of the americas, a perfect exampkle is this man who worked for your CIA for decades:
http://rt.com/usa/news/
http://rt.com/usa/news/
He was responsible for downing a civilian airliner (killing 78) with approval of the cia, very similar to 9/11, would you say so? He was responsible for plaining many bombings on civilian's targtes. He was granted asylm in the USA since arriving there, despite Venezuela seeking extradition. Cuba has called him the Osama Bin Laden of of Latin america, but he's your Bin Laden, even though Bin Laden himself was once your Bin Laden.
"that the average afghan would never support and under the Taliban Afghans have suffered"
The Taliban still have significant support, and it is only recently that it has begun to wain as the polling data indicates so please let's not try to paint a false picture of the US being liberators, when you invaded they had significant support, and may still significant support.
"The only reason we have anywhere near the level of support we have now is because of how we operate (not in spite of it)."
This is probably true, for most of the war though the US simply let the warlords the Taliban had originally recused the people from back into power, but the US doesn't give a fuck a Afghanistan, Russia and the US have been ravaging that land for decades, any country that get's caught up in those geopolotical games is the real loser.
"Oh yes, because President Karzai loves us {Rolls eyes}. "
I admit that even in recent time Karzi has come against the US on certain issues, particularly drone attacks against his own people (that even killed his own cousin), so ya recently he had to come out against you in order to maintain what little credibility he has even though he's rigged every election he's stood in and only rose to power because of you, his regime has been a classic puppet regime from the day you created it.
Fair enough, I wasn't sure, what were you saying then?
"You double-posted by the way."
I know, my connection was slow when I posted that, wasn't sure whether it posted the first time.
The title of this debate is fundamentally flawed, america's foreign policy has never been about policing the world, it has been about maintaing and advancing their global hegemony.
Maybe someday China will invade your country and then US citizens will take up arms against them if your military is defeated, then self righteous Chinese people can post statistic like about US insurgents.
"are caused by anti-government forces."
Oh yes, the government that was put into power witbh US backing, ya, there not a corrupt puppet regime at all, they have popular mandate, don't they?
"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."
Still waiting on that evidence that links Al Queda and Saddam's regime, I mean if the Bush administration couldn't find it, what makes you think you can?
Although that was statement of fact, so clearly you've bought into official lies.
"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."
Still waiting on that evidence that links Al Queda and Saddam's regime, I mean if the Bush administration couldn't find it, what makes you think you can?
"According to this graph not a single insurgent, Sectarian extremist, Militant, Iraqi soldier or afghan soldier was killed in the course of the whole conflict, which is obviously false."
Agreed.
"You mean the Taliban?"
I was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, why not trying to defend the Iraqi invasion as well.
"Except for harboring, training, and supplying Al Qaeda forces. Besides decapitating civilian hostages and videotaping it and posting it on the internet. Besides planting IEDs where civilians live and work. Besides using children as suicide bombers. Besides assassinating Government officials. Besides spraying battery acid in the face of little girls who dare to go to school. Girls are not allowed to go to school according to Taliban Theology."
Wow, steady on there tiger, let me make a fairly crucial qualification before I start dissecting each point you just made. I was talking about the justifcation for the invasion, 80% of what you've typed above are the crimes you would blame them for after you occupied their country. Do you agree? Cause I don't remember the Taliban planting any IED's in Kansas prior to the invasion, do you? Okay, let me deal with it point by point->
"Except for harboring, training, and supplying Al Qaeda forces."
This is pretty much the only real crime that in any way justifies your hanus actions, this and this alone is your countries sole justification for invading Afghanistan, installing a puppet regime and occupying it for the last 11 years.
Okay, so 9/11 happened, and it was beleived a group called Al Queda were largely responsible, but Al queda aren't a country, so even if you considered it an act of war, it wasn't perpetrated by the Taliban, and thus your justificaiton for invading was pretty tenuous. The people responsible could have been hunted down, but you see it wasn't about hunting them down and making america safer, official US documents as well the testimony of numerous people have proven this to be nothing more than a comforting fair tale for US citizens.
The Taliban were willing to give Bin Laden up, this is clear from recently released state department documents:
"It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued “until just days before” the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, “State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.”
Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, “We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’” Bearden added, “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” but this “never clicked” with U.S. officials."(1)
Even after the 9/11 attacks the Taliban would have happily handed him over if simply let them i.e.
"In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.
Some Afghan experts argue that throughout the negotiations, the United States never recognized the Taliban need for aabroh, the Pashtu word for "face-saving formula." Officials never found a way to ease the Taliban's fear of embarrassment if it turned over a fellow Muslim to an "infidel" Western power.
"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."(2)
You see, the real reason Afghanistan was invaded wasn't because the Taliban harboured Al Queda, or because it harboured the man beleived to be their leader, Bin Laden, it was because:
"One of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed “gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions” about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan."(1)
Another curious fact is that no american administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, even though it was known that Bin Laden was shacked up there with the majority of his Al Queda force (whose danger will go down in history to be one of the most widely exaggerated myths ever told) , why do you think that is? It's most likely due to the fact that had they put them there it would have been impossible for any American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for the pipeline.
Sources:
(1) http://www.informationclearinghouse.
(2) http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/
"Besides decapitating civilian hostages and videotaping it and posting it on the internet"
Ya, what's your point, by that logic you have the right to invade a lot of countries.
"Besides planting IEDs where civilians live and work."
I don't support those or any of these barbaric actions, and I wish the Taliban would simply dissappear so Afghanistan could modernise and join the rest of the world, but the sad fact is the Taliban are a force in Afghanistan precisely because they have a lot of political support, the US never really acknowledged that, and so the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence, and striking back at their enemy, and those who co-operate with the US are obviously considered viable targets. A group like the Taliban can either fade out of existence or resort to gruesome guerilla tactics i.e.
Quote from Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, when asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and civilian collaborators, he answered, "if the French will give us some of their helicopters, some of their aero planes, we will give them our baby carriages."
"Besides using children as suicide bombers."
See above quote, I don't have to like to it understand it, it is the only way they can resist, I despise them for who they are and what they represent, but I admire and respect theie resilience.
"Besides spraying battery acid in the face of little girls who dare to go to school."
Again, abolsutely disgusting, some of the worst behaviour imaginable, but you know what disgusts me almost as much, when things like that are going on in Saudi Arabia and other US allies, but then they are conveniently used as justifcation for illegal invasions that in reality have nothing to do with morality, or democracy or any other US fairy tale, and have very littel to do with Bin LAden as well.
"Girls are not allowed to go to school according to Taliban Theology."
Why not trying to loosen your own grip on your nationalistic idelogy before judging others, your country has actively prevented the middle east from becoming modernised, you see, your country likes being able to point out these things about Arabs, the US doesn't want smart well educated Arabs capable of governing their own countries, the US wants the status quo i.e. corrupt kings and dictators backed and propped up by the US that sell their own people out
"This in addition to Al Qaeda forces and Al Qaeda leaders, (those directly responsible for 9/11) that have been found in both countries."
I think I've already shown above how Al Queda leaders being accomodated in Afghanistan had little to do with teh actual invasion, the US were considering on invading way before 9/11.
As for Iraq, please provide with a single shred of evidence showing how Al Queda leaders were given asylm in that country. This should be very interesting. You did say both ciountries, right?
"As well as foreign Radical Islamic militia groups that bolster Taliban forces."
You what I hear when I read what you've written:"blah blah blah", have you forgotten all the terrorist groups your own country sponsors? Do you even have any idea just how many terrorist groups you are fund?
"Congratulations you are an apologist for the of Islamic Extremism."
Not true, but go ahead and tell yourself if it makes you feel better.
That's a nice statistic, it would interesting to see the one for Iraq, but since we still don't even know how many people were killed it would be fairly worthless, also, i feel it neglects the following little piece of info. that applies to Afghanistan just as much as does Iraq:
"Civilians in an occupied country have no obligation of loyalty towards the Occupying Power
regardless of the motives of the invading forces. The only obligations they have relate to their
civilian status: civilians are protected by applicable human rights law as well as by Geneva
Convention IV relating to civilians and the provisions relating to civilians in Protocol Additional
I. A civilian who takes ups arms against the Occupying Power loses rights as a civilian, but takes
on the rights and obligations of combatant forces. This is the situation of the classic levee en
masse: the Geneva Conventions recognize the combatant status of persons who spontaneously
take up arms on the approach of the enemy.7
This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of selfdetermination,
a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign
occupier.8 The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not
part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take
up arms as insurgents against any occupier.9 As protected combatants they have the right to take
up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that
violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who
spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered
“terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or
oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.
The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically
no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labeling
of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”10
If you truly beleive that completely self-indulgent BS then all I can say is that you are suffering from a severe propaganda induced delusion, and that your idea of reality has been willingly turned upside down.
Hey, you know that country your government gives more military aid to than all other countries combined so tyhey can maintain their apartheid regime and continue their genocide,look what they do with human shields.
"It says nothing about terrorists, taliban and insurgents... which makes me think that this graph is highly flawed."
Do you doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who suffered and died at the hands of your countries hideous aggression were civilians?
"terrorists taliban and insurgents are innocent"
Innocent of what? If you mean innocent of committing an aggression against the US, and doing nothing substantial to provoke or antagonise the US into invading their respective (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) countries, then yes, they are/were innocent. The only thing they are guilty of is taking up arms against foreign invaders, but that makes them terrorists, doesn't it? Yes, they are in no way morally equivalent to the US, the fine upstanding US who is responsible for the greatest genocide of the past decade.
I had to post my approval of this, an upvote simply wouldn't do.
A reduced rate of metabolism has a lot to do with it as well, that's why it's a constant fight against the tide to stay slender, especially if you weren't naturally slender to begin with, that' why most middle aged people just settle down with someone and say, fuck it!!!!!!
"According to Gary77777, the U.S. tried forcing Iraq into democracy. Evil!"
Yep, that quote expresses my view perfectly, down with the great satan, by the will of Allah we shall have sharia in the US yet, Insha'Allah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As much as it goes against my beliefs the juxtaposition of the top two pictures made me laugh quite hard so im this on side;-)
"The thing is though, religion often fuels desparity"
I don't beleive this is correct, at least not in the context in which i think you meant it, religion is an opiate used as a remedy for desparation.
"Non-issues are being depicted as something we should despair over, causing fear in the minds of many people"
People are only susceptible to this kind of fear if they are unwilling to critically analyse their own existence, the reality is far too many people are contented with their servitude, i do beleive Aldous Huxley's vision is coming true.
I am just glad that teh OWS movement has emerged to counteract mainstream discourse to degree.
"I was brought up a Christian and know that parts of the bible are as bad or worse than parts of the Qur'an."
Fair enough, i can agree with that completely, i just thought you might be one of those people who lovs to criticise Islam but fails to recognise the religious fundamentalism in his own soceity.
I think people too easily forget about the danger posed by religous fundamentalism in the west, instead choosing to focus on the east, take for instance Iran who may or may not be developing a nuc, you have people calling for war, and even a pre-emptive nuclear strike, and we don't even know if their building one.
I mean Goerge W Bush openly stated he heard vioces from God, and that was part of what led him to Iraq, and 1.2 million died as a result.
Religious fanatacism in our culture is just as much as a danger as in the ME, amybe even more the technology and expertise to wipe out the planet many times over, look the republican GOP candidates, thee are some crazy people up there who could potentially inhabit one of the worlds foremost positions of power, that thought scares me more than a country like Iran (which ive been to BTW) gaining a nuc.
"And I have no obligation to respect your religion."
Nor does anyone have any obligation to respect anything.
"I think Islam and the Qur'an disgusting and I find its teachings immoral"
And whats your opinion of Chrsitianity?
"What other than a calling from god would cause sane people to kill themselves and others in acts of terrorism?"
Actually many terrorist groups have used suicide to inflict casualties without the belief that God asked them to do it, or the promise of 72 virgins, although instances of this are less numerous.
While i will concide that religious fanaticism greatly increases the willingness (and thus frequency) to kill oneself in angry, i think desperation is also a primary cause.
You see desparation is the fuel of religion, and the more extreme the religious views the better.
"Wikipedia is full of false information "
Thats probably why he included a link to national geographics website supporting his opinion.
"Animals have got it into there brain that they need the opsite gender."
Of course they have if they didn't the species would die out, any species whose genes told them to sleep only with members fo same sex are nto around to tell their story for that exact reason i.e. natural selection deselected them from the gene pool
Homosexuality is frequently displayed in nature, to blindly refuse to acknowledge the truth when its staring you in the face, and couldn't be any clearer is incredibly ignorant.
Well it should be obvious, its because they lack alternative military options, when all else fails your body is an effective weapon.
This sums it up nicely:
When Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, was asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and their collaborators, he answered:
"If the French will give us some of their helicopters, some of their aeroplanes, we will give them our baby carriages."
"no, an oxymoron is when you say, "I'm a smart liberal"
Thans for the correction;-)
How about the top 1%, im sure they've got plenty of room in their houses, i imagine they're quite large, plus most of them probably have multiple houses all over the country and they can't be in two places at the same time (law of conservation of mass) so why don't the homesless shack up in those houses, if you think about it its a much more practical solution;-)
"If a small part of the "99%" change everything they want to change without considering the voices of the rest of the 99% they are just as bad as the street they hate."
Actually one of their main goals is to achieve real democracy(so the rest of the 99%'s vioices can be heard), not the fake kind you have at the moment where every year the two parties come out and give the illusion of choice in some pointless election. Then later the interests of the 1% are served, there your point is moot.
Ya it was developed largely by fundamentalist wackjobs from Britain, Germany, Holland etc., if it wasn't for the hispanic, irish, mexican (and others) influence on american the coutnry would have no fucking soul, look at your country before the sixties, really is that a place you'd want to live in, fuck id barely live there now, you know your country and China have the largest per capita execution rates than any other country in the world. Not a stat id be very proud of, especailly since you pontificate about all these backward countries, and then go kill them to show them how they should be living.
Without those hippies you hate sp much the civil right movement would have never occured, i dread to think what kind of country the US would be if that 60s never happened, you should be commending these people.
Yes it does actually...............................
"Garry does love to do that."
Really, this is news to me, how many times have i even responded to you, couldn't be mroe than 4-5.
" The thing I hate most is that in every argument he has to make some personal attack on either your intelligence or affiliations."
No you do that all on your own.
"If he claims to be as smart or educated as he claims to be"
I don't ever remember saying anything to you about being smart or educated, please show me exactly the quote where i said anything to you about my education or level of intelligence, you've been reading my other posts, now whose the stalker?
Seriously, when did i ever bring IQ or education into an argument with you, or even Sierrastruth,or anyone for that matter, i don't think i did, cause i wouldn't use my education as some pathetic tool to win an argument, arguments are won and lost on the merits and demerits of someones posts, not on what level of education they claim to have so ive never engaged in a tactic like that, i was asked recently in an argument what level of education i had and what i was studying in college, and i duly responded but that wasn't adressed to you or Sierrastruth.
I know plenty of people who are practically illiterate but have insight and knowledge i can never hope to possess, thats why i don't bring it into arguments, i even insinuated that some was stupid it wasn't because i beleive their unintelligent its because i find their views stupid.
If you're going to accuse someone of something at least make sure there is some truth to it, for instance you could easily have said i treated you like fool in our debates, thats true, and makes me look bad, but you didn't, you decided to accuse me of something im not even guilty of. That my friend makes you look bad.
First of all i know this may come as a shock but i have better things to be doing than following you around on this site, the only reason i even did that once is cause you called me an idiot and a psycho, and said you weren't going to reply to me, so naturally i went around to every comment of yours i could and psoted my reply there. Now you can think whatever you want of me, label whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter me i won't be wasting anymore time on a person who won't even admit that killing 1.2 million people in Iraq was illegal.
I am neither actually...............................
No it really doesn't, you see the reason Isreal have so many Palestian's (not terrorists) is because the extremist state of Isreal routinely captures Palestians and imprisions them without trial or any reason for being capture, its called interment and the British did it the catholic population of Northern Ireland in the 70s,and 80s until it was outlawed.
Thats why the Isreal have so many Palestians in prison, no other reason.
Now i admit that many being held in prison without trial have done somehting wrong, but in most cases its no more than trying to defend his home from being stolen out from under him, or throwing stones at armoured vehicles as they bull doze through his village.
They are referring to the fact that 1% of the american population control 40% of the countries wealth, there saying were the 99% who you've been fucking these last few decades taking more and mroe and more from, pretending that this bullshit system treats everyone equal when in reality it does the opposite, so maybe you should correct your debate title. BTW im not surprised you didn't realise that 1% of your population control 40% of the wealth, and the top 10% control 90% of the wealth, i dunno maybe you fall into the 10% category.
Ya not the feather Indians cause we all know there pretty hard to find these, wonder why that is?
"Israel, with its population of 7.5 million, has won the same number of Nobels as India"
The state of Isreal has never and will never represent all Jews, the Jews that formed Isreal did not represent the vast majority of Jews at the time, and they don't now. This is another tool used by the propagandists to convince people that Isreal = Judaism, therefore is you dislike Isreal or its hanus actions in anyway your an anti-semite (e.g. Jimmy Carter), and most likely a holocaust denier as well.
"WHY THE FUCK WOULD AMERICA BOMB ITS OWN BUILDINGS THREE TIMES! "
Fear is an excellent tool to manipulate the masses, people need to beleive that fear which is perpetuated by the media isn't simply irrational, therefore it is entirely conceivable that a false flag event, even of the scale of 9/11, could be carried out. This should always remain a possible exaplantion as long as there are unanswered questions, and in the case of 9/11 there are a lot of unanswered questions.
http://www.youtube.com/
George Orwell was one of the first people to put this in print, in his most fampus book 1984 he describes a dystopian future society modelled on the USSR in which fear and coercion are used to keep people in line. You should read this book as its easily one of the greatest ever written, and will give you great insight into the question you posed even if you don't fully grasp its nuances and subtleties.
"THOES 15% are fudging stupid like fo realz but idk "
You should never ridicule something you do not have a proper understanding of.
"GOD BLESS US OF A"
You should try to cultivate a natural distrust of all things ideological, this can be done by questioning every answer you receive.
I honestly deep down don't beleive in political actions, i think the system contracts and expands as it wants to and accomodates certains changes, i think the civil rights movement was an accomodation on the part of those who own the country, i think they see where their self interest lies, they see a certain amount of freedoms as good, an illusion of liberty, give these people a voting day every year so we have the illusion of menaingless chioce that we go like slaves, and can then say" oh i voted", the limits of debate in this country are established long before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalised or made out to be a communist or some kind of disloyal person, a cook, and now its a conspiracy theorist, they've made that something that should not be even entertained for one minute, that powerful people might actually get together and make have a plan, doesn't happen, you're a cook, youre a conspiracy buff!!!!!!!!!
- George Carlin R.I.P.
"Maybe they shouldn't go to war and behave themselves "
Ya they should behave themselves, they should be good little slaves, they should bend over and take that big 15 inch US dick and like it, isn't that right. The cheek of these people demanding things like freedom, the right not be occupied by foreign powers who only want to steal their resources, the right not to be killed indiscriminately. You said it Joe, they've got some fucking neck!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Because developed nations never fight each other?"
I think we both know that in the vast majority of cases strong opponents generally fight much weaker ones that cannot adequately defend themselves (i.e. the entire history of US foreign policy since the end of WW2), whereas opponents that present a major threat due to their strength are rarely attacked i.e. US vs. USSR is case in piont
" Nor undeveloped nations fight each other?"
The debate subject is concerned with drone warfare, the fact is underdeveloped countries are never going to have the finances to develope significant number of drones for their military,therefore when impoverished countries go to war, as they often due, they won't have drones are their disposal, therefore my piont stands, and your reply doesn't.
That isn't to say they won't use drones but they will most likely be unable to acquire enough of them to give themselves a serious military advantage, and even if they did, your original piont about all done armies fighting other drone armies really falls flat on its ass when applied to impoversihed countries, i think most people would agree with that.
"If someone is at risk of killing civilians of their own country, or serving men of mine,"
Did you even read what i wrote, you are killing civilians, generally when you kill people their families don't like it, so they resist, when they do this you call them terrorists, what would you do if flying drones were sending missiles into your town, would you say oh it serves us right for not bending over and taking that big US dick up our ass when the they decided they were going to invade our country.
"Their personal finances are irrelevant."
Actually the opposite is true, the fact is if your finances were equal you would be able invade their country and kill them cause they'd have the money to defend themselves, you have no idea what your taking about, tunr back whatever propaganda you watch, im sure it will tell you how to feel and think about this exchange cause your clearly incapable of doing so yourself.
" but I am adamant that humans are not responsible, it is just the natural cycle of the earth."
And what exactly are you basing that opinion on?
"First of all, correct punctuation and capitalization makes reading your arguments much easier."
No offense friend but i don't need your advice, i like to write my arguments in a frenzy of typing that i rearly check and that ain't changin any time soon, so if you don't like don't read it.
"Secondly, there needs to be a legitimate amount of evidence in support of global warming for there to be any changes at all to the United States' infrastructure. "
What are you even trying to say here?
"The fact is, America is in a horrible place right now."
I think some fo the coutnries you have destroyed by warfare both military and economic are much wrose places to be.
" The last thing we need is to be paying way too much for light bulbs and who knows what else"
Listen my friend i hold two masters degrees in engineering, and one is in sustainable energy engineering you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
" Even if global warming is true, why is it such a huge problem"
Again a clear demonstration that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
"We as humans are incredible at adapting to different environments"
Really try going to Dehli in the summer when it approaches 52 degrees celsius, see how adaptable you are to that, then try to picture it 4 degress hotter.
If your saying you don't mind 5 or billion peoepl dying during the process of adpatation fair enough.
"And also, the burden of proof lies with those who claim there is global warming"
Ya thats why there is an unending supply of evidence that prioves it, please stop trying to debate on an issue you clearly no nothing about.
"The ones that think it doesn't exist don't have to prove anything"
Do you spread this kind of vile misinformation often?
You should read into Gaia theory proposed by the scientist James Lovelock, it really does open your eyes to how pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can change how this planet regulates itself.
"Anyone who doesn't think global warming or now (climate change) is hog wash is a moron."
Really, wow, i guess ive got it all wrong, i mean i was going to go like the sheep i am with the general concensus of the entire worlds scientific community, and the stacks of irrefutable evidence ive examined but hey if you say that makes me a Moron i better change my opinion.
Ive been absolutely amazed at how corporate power in the US have successfully twisted the reality of anthropogenic warming, and have used what little evidence exists to the contrary to completely cloud the american publics perception of which side is correct. Im not going to say Global warming is a scientific law, or even a theory but fucking hell its a lot more likely than the opposing view, and the sad reality is we can't risk continuing business as usual and having to find out the hard way that actually ya we are all just a bunch of ignorant assholes, and because of that lots, and lots of people are going to suffer, and die for our mistakes
"I refuse to agree with anything you ever say even if you're right."
Wow, i think thats the definition of ignorance right there, i mean seriously you call yourself a debator yet you openly admit that you'll never conceed anything even if you're wrong. Small mindedness like yours is the reason this world will never change my friend.
I know thats the problem................................
So your hope that you'll have something better by then is unfounded.
I don't take you seriously but i still want you to be informed on exactly what it is you're talking about, just in case you're not.
Eventually all war fighting will be done by unmanned machines."
Correction: "eventually all war fighting will be done by wealthy developed countries using unmanned drones against impoverished underdeveloped nations, and their populations"
At that stage China in alliance with Russia will be the new global superpower, and the US (and the rest of the west) will most likely be licking their bootheels, unless of course WW3 breaks out before then. Why do you think the US are building all those missile "defense shields" in eastern europe, turkey etc., adn doing likewise in South Korea, Japan etc.
The US is attempting to contain Russia and China, and doing it under the guise of the bullshit excuse of the danger posed by Iran and North Korea but anyone with a brain can see whats really going on.
I hope you realise those enemy combatants mainly consist of dirt poor Afghan, Yemeni, and Pakistani civilian's i.e.
"The former chief counter-insurgency strategist for the US State Department has estimated that drone attacks kill 50 non-targeted persons for each intended target."
“We have opened up a new realm of warfare, a new realm of breaking, breaching international and domestic law,” says Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002-2005."
Source:http://rt.com/news/drone-us-pakistan/
3000 people were killed during the 2004-2007, the cia claimed that 80% of these eaths were islamic militants, while even the most groups not associated with the US government will admit that they kill about 10 civlians for every 1 militant, either way the uS is illegally killing lots people in another country. Something like 500 have already been killed in pakistan alone so far this year
No there a rule for that as well it just can't be fitted nicely into the ryhme i.e. i before e except after c or the combination is being pronounced as an 'A', in which case it is ei
I remember being church when i was every young thinking i wish it was the olden days when Jesus was alive cause apparently magic was possible then, i was agnotic by the time i was 13, militant athiest by the time i hit 17, and panthiest by the time i hit 20.
ya i happen to agree with Troy8, did you enjoy your ego wank? I before e except after c :-)
"It does, though."
It doesn't and ive already pionted out why.
"if that's not what you meant, fine."
Of course it wasn't, how can an idea or a concept violate anything, it exists only in the mind, how could even think thats what i meant.
"Ghosts are commonly regarded as continuations of consciousness after death"
Commonly regarded? Commonly regarded by who? You think you can find a peer reviewed scientific paper claiming they have proved that ghosts are continuations of consciousness after death. Can you provide me with a scientific paper that eludcidates what constitutes their chemical make-up, thats describes concisely and irrefutably the natural forces and mechanisms that allowed them to come into existence. Is there a scientific peer reviewed paper that derives axiomatically using the known laws of physics how their incorporeal form permeates this physical plane. No there is not, as the existence of ghosts is neither provable nor falsifiable, thats why they are classified as supernatural.Please stop.
"It can be explained why a consciousness wouldn't persist after death according to known mechanisms"
Nobody really knows what consciousness is, ive done a reasonable amount of leisurely is this area, and i can tell you one of the biggest failures of science in the 21st century is its comprehension of consciousness, and the human mind. Nobody can prove using the fundamental laws of science why it is impossble for a person consciousness to go on existing after their dead, not just because nobody really understands consciousness but also because nobody have any idea what happens when you die. I agree with the reductionist view of the dissolution of conciousness after death, but it isn't provable or falsiable.
"Ghosts are still supernatural."
Because it is impossible using to science to disprove the possiblity of their existence.
"I've made one if a convincing case is made but I don't see one."
How do you not see one?
"thing and say that pulls it out of the realm of the supernatural."
Well think about it for a second, if somehow somebody managed to prove the non-existence of the Judeo Christian God do you think that version of God would still qualify as supernatural?
"If it violates the laws of nature in order to exist, then it is supernatural."
No not necessarily, the difference is clear, we can explain why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist in this reality, we cannot explain why a ghost cannot exist in this reality, its really that simple, you have a clear misunderstanding of science can you not simply conceed to my superior understanding?
"I didn't say "Is the impossibility of a machine that exists on an endless source of energy not beyond scientific understanding?", and that is the question you answered."
The question you asked was ambiguous, and strayed from the piont of contention in the sense that it had more than one right answer but i shall answer in a way that is relevant to this debate. Your question:
"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding"
Firstly, it is beyond scientific understanding to comprehend anything that doesn't exist, but it is not beyond science to disprove the existence of a source of energy that is immune to entropy, the physical property entropy is fundamental to our universe, as we know the universe cannot exist as we know it cannot exist in its absense. And we can prove this in a way that goes way beyond scepticism, and approaches axiomatic truth. Ghosts however cannot be disproved in this way thats why they are categorised as supernatural while perpetual motion machines are not.
"Again, to explain why something is impossible according to the laws of nature doesn't make it not supernatural."
If something is classified as supernatural the idea of it relies on our inadequate understanding of existence. The tools we have developed in order to understand our existence are grossly ill equipped to be able to disprove scientifically anything that qualifies as supernatural.
"the obviousness of something that would have to exist beyond nature being supernatural"
Heres the problem, nobodies knows what beyond nature or beyond existence means, thats why ghosts, and the Christian god can get in the door (so to speak). Now if perpetual motion machines can exist "beyond nature" then we'd have a pretty good scientific basis for understanding what exists beyond nature. Do you see what im getting at? Thats why they are not classified as supernatural.
"but I'm not going to say I don't think something like this is supernatural when I don't really think it is. "
You're clearly not willing to conceed to what i beleive is my superior expertise on this subject, i would ask you to try to consult somebody else with a serious background in science (i.e. masters or phd) as you clearly don't have any expertise yourself.
Ask them the same question, i would put my house on the fact that they will provide more or less the same answer i.e. perpetual motion machines are not supernatural
"Here is a paper mathematically disproving the possibility of vampires existing among humans"
I have come across papers like these before all you're demonstrating is your inferior grasp of science. It doesn't mathematically disprove anything. The paper dispells popular myths, explaining scientifically why the existence of those creatures according to the myths invented by humans could not exist in the way they are portrayed to exist due to the physical limitations of reality.
The problem with anything supernatural though is you always have an ace up your sleeve, all you have to say is their existence relies on somehting beyond scientific understanding, thats why the paper deals with the myths, and not the actual idea of a ghost or a vampire because its impossible to disprove the idea of their existence, thats the fundamental difference. We can explain scientifically why it impossible for a human to transfrom into a bat, or into smoke, or whatever, but as soon as someone says but vampires are supernatural they are immediately placed into this nebulous region where scientific understanding cannot venture, adn where it cannot disporve anything, perpetual motion machines do not qualify as supernatural as they are falsifiable, therefore they come under the umbrella of scientific understanding, and thus qulify as science, as soon as somehting becomes falsifiable it is no longer supernatural, it is scientific. Perpetual motion machines meet this criteria, and are thus not supernatural.Your semantic error is clear, you need to accept it.
"So are vampires no longer supernatural?"
No, they are supernatural, and they always will be as their existence is completely unfalsifiable, thats why the understandeing of them will always lie outside the domain of science. Thats why they will always remain supernatural, but perpetual motion machines are completely falsifiable.
"There are many, many supernatural things that can be shown not to exist according to the laws of physics."
Nothing supernatural is falsifiable, this is a complete fallacy, thats why it is supernatural, thats exactly why is resides outside the domain of science. Again you demonstrate your inadequate grasp of science. You need to do some serious study on the philosphy of science. Karl popper the eminent 20th century philosopher of science set out the lines of demarcation for what is and is not consdered scientific. Essentially if something cannot be falsified it is not scientific, supernatural entities cannot be falsified ergo...., and by their name, never will be scientific by virute of the name supernatural, and if by some strange twist of fate or paradigm shift they become falsifiable they will cease to be classifed as supernatural. You have committed a semantic error and you really need to realise it at this, i understand not wanting to conceed if there is even a little doubt that the other perons is right but i can tell you i have explained exactly why you are wrong, you just need to accept it.
"That's what makes something supernatural - if it is scientifically possible for it to exist, like Bigfoot for example, then it would be cryptozoological or something else."
Again i don't mean to insult but all you are doing is highlighting your inferior grasp of science, being scientifically possible to exist it not what makes something supernatural. The fact is everything that cannot be falsified is possible as there is no such things as pure objective knowledge or truth in science. Even the most fundamental axioms of mathematics do not qualify as purely objective knowledge, even though thats about as close as humans have come to obatining it. So i suppose in that sense you are correct, i mean who am i to tell you that some strange perpetual motion machine doesn't exist in some hyperdimensional universe where hamburgers eat people, i mean its completely unfalsifiable, but by the same token im a giant duck that happens to rule the 5th dimension with an iron duck fist, all bow down to the great overlord quacky. Try to prove me wrong, you see the problem? But we can say that perpetual motion machines cannot exist within this reality that we are presented with, we cannot say the same about ghosts.And as i stated previously if they existed in some other reality we'd have a scientific basis by which to understadn that reality, this is why they are not considered supernatural, this is why you would find a reference to perpetual motion machines in a book on the occult, you will find them in a thermodynamics textbook, you won't find any references to ghosts in a physics book though but id bet you'd find them in a book on the occult.
Look, Bertrand Russell's famous argument against theism is his floating teapot, essentially it states that if he suggests that there is a tiny china teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars it does not make any sense for anyone to doubt him as they cannot prove him wrong as long as he assumes it is not detectable using any of our instruments.
The same is true of anything supernatural, you cannot doubt it as it is not falsifiable, nothing supernatural is falsifiable.
I understand your mistake because supernatual is a quite ill defined and ambiguous word in the english language, and there are many contrasting views on exactly what it does mean, i was wrong in a previous post when i suggested it had a very specific meaning but you need to realise if nothing else that you cannot group concepts like perpetual motion into the same category as ghosts. Just like you can't call dark matter supernatural.
Carl sagans dragon in my garage is another classic example used to demonstrate the ridiculousness in beleive in anything supernatural:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/
Now, no scientists beleive in anything supernatural as supernatural phenomena lie outside the domain of science. Now i have a masters to do, i really shouldn't have devoted this much time to this debate but i can never resist a good argument. This will be last post on this argument (at least for next good couple of weeks until my masters has drawn to a close) reagardless of whether you conceed or not.
I just want to leave by saying that you are not simply arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific orthodoxy. I have studied enough science in my life, and achieved enough in the field to know when someone is misunderstanding the fundamentals, go ask a credible scientist (like me) i guarantee you he will not agree that perpetual motion machines qualify as supernatural.
"I am reluctant to concede that something that fits the definition of a word does not fit the definition of that word."
But it doesn't fit the definition of the word thats what you seem to be having enormous trouble comming to terms with.
"I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion,
"Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept."
- You
Then you will have to restate that, because that seems to be exactly what you are saying. "
Im sorry if i wasn't completely clear in my previous post, i acknowledge i used the idea of a perpetual motion machine and the physical reality of one interchangeably but only because a perpetual motion machine only exists as an idea. I understand your confusion but you're really clutching at straws if you think i meant an idea can violate the laws of physics.
"We know why ghosts are impossible given current scientific understanding but they are still supernatural entities."
No we really don't know exactly why the existence of ghosts is impossible because nobody knows scientifically what a ghost is, what it would be composed of, how it could have acquired the necessities of existence, how it could possible subsist on this physical plane. However we know exactly why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, thats why it is not supernatural.
"If you're trying to tell me you feel like I'm talking down to you, I don't really care."
Look i don't want to sound arrogant i really don't, i have no idea what your qualifications are, you maybe a scientist aswell for all i know, even though id be very surprised as there aren't many scientists that would make an error like this, and if they did they would immediately realise it if it was explained to them but i don't just think im right, i know im right.
"I am going to state my arguments as simply as I can and address any information I feel should be included."
Thats admirable, whats also admirable is being capable to admit when your wrong, you made a simple semantic error, anyone could have made, but you really need to realise when you've been beaten, again im trying not to sound too arrogant (hopefully succeeding).
"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding?"
This is a very vague sentence, i mean nobody even knows what energy is, the answer thats revelant to this debate is no, it is not beyond our current scientific understanding of existence to explain why a machine that produces more work than it consumes is impossible, and cannot exist.
"1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. "
Even though it doesn't highlight your error as explicitly as the defintion i provided it certainly doesn't "work for you", you can't simply provide another definition to a word and think you are vindicated, the word supernatural has a very specific meaning.
This is the key part of the definition:
"unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"
Perpetual motion and the impossibility of its success if applied in practive (and not theory) is explainable by natural law, its as simple as that really.
"Maybe we should agree on a definition of supernatural to use for this."
Supernatural has one definition, it doesn't matter what we agree it means, we can imbue the word with whatever mean you want but it only has one worldwide accepted defintion although it can be worded in a variety of ways. Unfortunately for you none of those variants support your argument as it is semantically false.
"When supernatural things are primarily defined by their violations of laws, why add the stipulation of how well its been studied?"
How are not getting this??????? I don't want to sound like im putting you down but you are extremely stubborn. Ok, its very simple, if some scientist proved mathematically by the laws of physics why ghosts cannot exist, in the same way as has been done for perpetual motion machines, Carnot heat engines etc. etc. etc. Then ghosts would cease to be classified as supernatural, they would merely fall into the category of a useless product of the human imagination that has been conclusively disproven. Now im quite done explaining why you're wrong, if you're unable to except it at this stage you never will.
Nothing really, i should have just posted the comment, sorry :-(
I really thought my previous statement would put this argumkent to bed but your clearly reluctant to admit you made a semantic error.
"This doesn't in any way support the statement that ideas themselves violate the laws of physics."
I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion, the reason those ideas can never be implemented successfully is precisely because they would violate the laws of physics
"They exist, there is a known mechanism that allows for them to exist,"
Yes i agree its called the human mind
"so they are not supernatural. "
You're the one trying to convince me that a perpetual motion machine is a machine that meets the criteria for being classified as supernatural, im telling your wrong.
"How can you agree to this- which is pretty much the definition of supernatural- but not concede that a perpetual motion machine is supernatural?"
I gave a reasonably concise explanation in my previous response, ill try to elucidate further, a pertual motion machine was a well understood idea from the moment of its inception, basically you had early post renaissance scientists building machines and asking questions like, what if there was no force of resistance (i.e. friction, limits of elasticitym tensile and compressive stresses etc.), this gave birth to the idea of a perpetual motion machine, this is a well studied and understood, the results of which give us the boundary or limit of much much we can exploit the physical world (as characterised by the known laws of physics) to our favour.
This is gas turbines are being continually made bigger and with more heat resistant materials because the hiher the temperature of combustion the greater the actual turbine efficiency approaches the Carnot efficiency.
Supernatural concepts by definition are unknowable, and cannot be understood with something like science, but concepts like perpetual motion are very well understood, this is the difference, you made a simple semantic error.
"I'm not trying to say it does exist, just that science cannot truly prove its nonexistence.Science is only equipped to analyze the evidence or lack of evidence for things that play by the rules of nature. "
Yes i know, im well aware of that, i happen to have a masters in Chemical and Biopharmaceutical engineering, and im currectly studying for a masters in sustainable energy engineeering, so you really don't need to explain to me what science is or isn't equipped to do.
Science cannot really prove the non-existence of anything, thats was the essence of Bertrand Russells orbiting teapot, but we can grasp what we are ecountered with (i.e. objective reality), our ability to imagine is what has allowed us to get to out current stage of technological advancement.
"It cannot exist according to the currently understood laws of physics which is exactly what would make it supernatural. "
su·per·nat·u·ral/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
The highlighted part shows the origin or your semantic error.
First if all its quite disrespectful to simple post a link as a response, especially considering this is such an old debate. Are you afraid to give me your opinion just in case you say something stupid?
Ive seen all the arguments, you article presents no new information, and proves absolutely nothing, there is scientific concensus on global warming.
The US have already made known their intention to veto any move towards state hood in UN, pretty strange for country that says it supports a two-state settlement yet won't allow the other state to actually become one, don't ya think.
"When did anyone one of those organizations launch rockets at anyone? ;)"
I can't rememeber the last time another country invaded the vatican, occpuied its land, and slaughtered its people either;)
"How exactly do ideas and hypotheticals violate the laws of physics?"
Well because ideas and hypotheiticals in science are normally used to describe an ideal state that can never be replicated under any conditions in reality, and thus if implemented would fail. This is precisely because they violate the known laws of physics, but they can complrehended .
"In order for the machine itself to exist, not the notion of the machine, it would have to violate the laws of physics. "
Agreed , but it does not exist, and it cannot exist.
"This, I believe, puts such a machine in the realm of the supernatural."
Look im sorry to tell this but you are wrong. The word supernatural not only implies that something isn't scientifically observable, and that it resides outside the laws of nature or physics or whatever, but it also implies that is it something beyond scientific understanding. A perpetual motion machine is a scientific concept used by designers as an ideal reference state to benchmark their designs.This type of machince although impossible in reality is well understood, as are all ideal states, in fact in science you rarely understand reality with its infinite quirks, nuances, and physical limitations until you have a good grasp of the ideal reference state. This is why what you are saying is false.
You see you cannot place concepts like this in the realm of the supernatural, its like saying a Carnot steam cycle is a supernatural steam cycle, its ridiculous, and semantically false.
Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept. Much of science use the ideal state as the reference state from which models can be built, it doesn't make that reference.
Listen my friend im sorry to tell you that you have misinterpreted what Stephen Hawking's and this "pantheon of astrophysicists" have said.
No scientist would say conclonsively there is no God, there are no absolute's in science (there are no absolutes period, but religion tries to make you belevie that there are), science is a best guess, and the best guess based on available evidence is that the creation myth from whatever religion you want to specify is just that, a myth.
Even Richards Dawkins attempted in a seminar i saw to quantify his degree of certainty of the non-existence of god, he gave a figure like 98%.
"If so, I think a machine like that would meet the criteria"
Well you'd be wrong to think that based on our current understanding of the laws of physics. The existence of a perpetual motion mahince would violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics .
"and science is not equipped to prove the existence or nonexistece of things it cannot measure or observe."
I agree in fact it isn't equipped to prove anything conclusively, but your intial assertion is wrong.
What are you talking, atheism is lack of faith due to the absence of credible evidence, it is quite foolhardy to make a statement like;"I do not believe there is no God I KNOW based on scientific fact," because i can tell you there isn't a single scientist in the world that would agree with it, and that includes myself.
No its not its, Ireland is and has always been irish, we are distinct physically and culturally, and economically (since we left the commonwealth) from Britain.
We have completely separate identity that is immediately obvious to anyone who visits both countries.
I am amazed you think Al Gore is lsong the debate last time i checked he has a global scientific consensus supporting his position, you know that means that the majority of the worlds scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
"Does Hamas care about their own people"
Yes unlike fatah they are not in the pockets of US power and they were unwilling to sell their people down the river in the recent palestian paers revelation covered on Al Jazeera
"why dont other Islamic nations come to their aid"
A combination of fear of US and Isreali repression adnd the fact that the US can control the actions of most of them as they are their puppet government and thus the US has unrivaled soft power in the region which is being threatened by the recent arab spring which the us IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT IN FAVOUR OF E.G. the US removed Egypt from the conflict at camp david as they knew they were a force to reckoned with, thei was done by installing the right opeople in power (i.e. Mubarak) and offering enormous reparation to the corrupt egyptian elite.
This is the second half of my response, you decided to make your response to me fairly long so i had to do likewise, unfortunateoly it didn't all fit into one post:
"Without American aid they would not have even been able to push them back."
What??? They were already successfully pushing them back before US aid arrived, ahve you foegotten this, it seems you are not averse to making things up to support your argument, the battle of moscow took place without US aid, here let me quote from the wiki page on that famous battle:
"Initially, the Soviet forces conducted a strategic defence of the Moscow Oblast by constructing three defensive belts, and deploying newly raised reserve armies as well as bringing troops from the Siberian and Far Eastern Military Districts. Subsequently, as the German offensives were halted, a Soviet strategic counter-offensive and smaller-scale offensive operations were executed to force German armies back to the positions around the cities of Oryol, Vyazma and Vitebsk, nearly surrounding three German armies in the process."
"This victory provided an important boost for Soviet morale, with the Wehrmacht suffering its first defeat. Having failed to vanquish the Soviet Union in one quick strike, Germany now had to prepare for a prolonged struggle. Operation Barbarossa had failed."
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"his is what is most likely to have occurred: the USSR would fail to be restrengthened by American aid and therefore not be as strong as they were in the real WW2."
Yes exactly but that can mean many things of which a complete soviet defeat is in my mind highly unlikley.
"Japan would help Germany since that is what allies do for each other. "
Ya of course thats what allies do for each other, its got nothing to with self interest, its all altruitic as long as there allies, thats why even though the USSr and Germany were allies...wait a minute...oops!!!
"US declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. "
Im well aware of the history, when they did that the Axis powers were in a fairly formidable position, plus theres big difference in declaring war on someone when it looks like your winning and actually coming toi your allies aid when it looks like your losing.
"Japan would have all of the oil it needs and therefore be stronger than it was in reality."
Not true, id like to see you justify this.
"Britain would not have been able to stop attacks by U-boats"
Now you're just taking out your ass, one of the main reasons Britain was never invaded was due to their Naval superiority.
"The British would have been starving to death as they would not be getting any food from the US. "
Yes thats it weave your tapestry of bullshit, rationalise it all to yourself, of course the US was needed otherwise the Nazis would have been unstoppable, the US effectiveoly saved the day, isnt that what you want to hear, you've been fed a lie that all americans beleive, the problem is when you scrutinise that version of events (i.e. the US coming in on a big whote horse) it kind of falls apart, if any country can be attributed with having won WW2 it is the Soviet Union and they paid a fucking high price for it.
"In summary, the Allies would be much weaker against a much stronger enemy."
No again your wrong, its not both its either/or ,without the US the allies would be weakened, and thus the Axis powers would be strengthened, what you wrtoe implies that the allies would be weakened but the Axis powers would be simulataneously strengthened somehowm the y would be exactly the same they would just be facing a weaker enemy. Anyway ive justifed my position, ive mad it clear that i don't agree that without amkerican the Nazis could not have been beaten let alone your ridiulous notion that the Nazis would definitely have won without american, i find that to be quite stupid actually
"Right since you can't actually see enough of the people. lol"
Well that and fact that they intentionally left out thenumbers involved and instead used vague orwellian terminolgy like vast in order to give the false impression that huge numbers had turned out when they clearly hadn't, plus the politcal motivation in making an article like that, i mean do you think articles never get exaggerated? Especially a story like that one.
"It was ten years ago. Why would someone expect to find more than one article on that subject?"
Because sometimes when news stories are deemed significant more than two media outlets (BBC and Time) cover them, the fact that no other stories of this are out there only reaffirms my belief that the story was a complete exaggeration, if you can't see that fair enough, if you think that makes me a conspiracy theorist fair enough, i really don't care, ive seen this kind of thing being done far too much not to smell a rat when the stench presents itself.
Take 9/11 itself that was a significant story so lots of media outlets covered, all of them in fact, in fact id say even the people in North Korea heard about it, so thats why i expected to find more sources on the topic, as if it really was as significant as you want to beleive then there would be a plethora of evidence supporting it, do you disagree with this?
"You could literally say that about ANY article that uses the word vast. I am not taking your argument seriously...."
No you cannot i can give you an infinite number of articles that use the word vast that you cannot say that about, do you know why, because they back up their claim of seeing vast crowds with actual evidence of vast crowds, you see the problem yet you are patently unwilling to acknowledge it instead choosing to cling to the beleif that everything you read in the news is fact, no wonder you beleive what you do.
"Im sorry do you have something to prove that there aren't a lot of people there?"
No but i feel i should remind you are the one trying defending the evidence that you choose to present in order to support your argument that has already been effectively disproved by the Us think tank article, obviously i cannot say with 100% certainty that there weren't any vast crowds but i can say that a lack of credible evidence suporting that claim makes me incredibly suspicious as it should.
"Again, you could say this about any article"
No you cannot for a many of reasons;
firstly as i mentioned significant stories tend to be replicated across the board so if the event was as significant as you would like to beleive then there would exists corroborating articles and most likely corroborating evidence,
secondly other articles present incontrovertible statements such as "Over one million Egyptian protesters staged a rally in Cairo's", you see if this is proved wrong (i.e. 1 million did not protest) then the news outlet loses credibility (obviously as its spreading lies) but when you use vague terminology like "vast" you have plausable deniability because "vast" doesn't quantify anything, vast can be interpreted in whatever manner you want, and thats why they used it,
thirdly most really credible articles present some form of evidence of their claims, this can take many forms, it can even be a politcal figure who corroborates the story but in this case all that is present are pictures which show clearly how many people attended and its about 50 or so.
Look the piont isnt that story is untrue as it is, it definitely happened, the BBC wouldn't have reported otherwise (there not so bad that they completely fabricate stories) but it looks as though it was exaggerated.
"This is not a plausible defense."
In saying that it is likely a certain article is exaggerated it is a very plausible defense.
"Just yelling "PROPAGANDA!" at any article that presents opposing data is not going to help."
Thats not what im doing and you know it, the artivle is true, people did turn out in Tehran to pay their respects for the victims of 9/11 (unlike any other country in the ME), this doesn't actually surprise me as the people there are so warm and caring (thats also why it would be such a travesty for the US to invade), but the assertion that vast crowds of people attended must be met with suspicion for the reason already outlined.
"Well you despise Western media so I wouldn't be surprised since your opinion is biased."
I don't despise Western media, in fact thats where i get alot of information, but if you want to think otherwise your more than welcome.
"blah, blah, blah"
Theres nothing blah blah blah about it actually, if you knew even a fraction of the destruction and suffering those corporations and institutions are responsible in the name of making the rich and powerful richer and more powerful you wouldn't be so flipant.
"Here's my evidence: basic human morals. Neither Africans nor Asians have a reason to be apathetic about planes crashing into buildings full of people, therefore they were sympathetic for those who died."
Yes of course they were, i have never disputed this, the overwhelming majority were sympathetic for those who died but you cannot escape the fact that many (although the regretted the senseless loss of life and sympathised with the victims and their families) felt the US had finally tasted some of the terrorism the so frequently dish out onto the rest of the world, this would be particularly true of countries that have suffered directly under US foreign policy (and they are many).
"It literally means nothing."
So a US think tank funded by the US government to inform the US military on public opinoin in determining foreign policy mean nothing?
Let me just quote from their wiki page:
"RAND has approximately 1,600 employees and three principal North American locations: Santa Monica, California (headquarters); Arlington, Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The RAND Gulf States Policy Institute[7] has offices in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi. RAND Europe [8] is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Brussels, Belgium. The RAND-Qatar Policy Institute[9] is in Doha, Qatar. RAND's newest offices are in Boston, Massachusetts, Abu Dhabi, The United Arab Emirates, and Mexico City, Mexico, a representative office."
"To date, 32 recipients of the Nobel Prize, primarily in the fields of economics and physics, have been involved or associated with RAND at some point in their career"
"RAND was incorporated as a non-profit organization to "further promote scientific, educational, and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and security of the United States of America." Its self-declared mission is "to help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis", using its "core values of quality and objectivity"
"Since the 1950s, the RAND has been instrumental in defining US military strategy.[citation needed] Their most visible contribution is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), developed under the guidance of then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and based upon their work with game theory"
So you think that a few words of condemnation from worlds leaders and an unbeleivably vague (and most likely exaggerated) article qualify as credible evidence but this does not?
"You have no idea how many of the people or what percentage of the population reacted this way."
As i said its not a poll or survey but uts as good as is available on this issue, the fact is this big research companies spend alot of time effort and money in assessing public opinion in order to inform military decisioin making so when they say the gerneral reaction to the 9/11 attacks in the arab and muslim world were: "• Satisfaction that the United States tasted what it had allegedly dished out to the Arab world (and the poorer countries globally) for years.
• Condemnation of the attacks as criminal and anti-Islamic but a natural result of
U.S. foreign policy, which was primarily to blame for the attacks.
• Spreading of conspiracy theories that asserted the attacks were the work of
American domestic extremists, the U.S. government, or Israel’s Mossad intelligence
service.
• Rejection of claims that the perpetrators were Arab or Muslim, based on the argument
that Muslims would not commit mass murder or that the terrorist operation"
you kind of have to accept that as being close to the facts of the matter, keep in mind that these opinions are not mutually exclusive as you seemed to suggest in a previous post, the fact is these opinions were probably held by most arabs, the opinions were held simultaneously as none of them are conflciting with oneanother, i don't think you realised this, or else you did and trying to evade having to admit your wrong by using any means necessary.
"You have no idea how many of the people or what percentage of the population reacted this way."
Well the general concensus is that the entire population reacted this way, these are the reults of the report, you can disagree with them if you wish but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are as close to truth as is obtainable, and whats more these results didn't come as a surprise to me as i haven't filled my head with fanciful notions related to 9/11, if you bomob a country back to the stone and systematically rape and pilage it and in the rpocess kill many of its inhabitants don't expect to share your view when you finally get a taste of your own medicine, thats just ignorant as i have been stating from the beginning.
"There was no reason for me to think, at the time, that someone would shit their pants at such a simple phrase considering that feeling bad for the victims of 9/11 is actually good and normal."
You said the eorld wept, if you admit that was a complete exaggeration fair enough but i still doubt you have any idea of what the reaction really was as you have no appreciation for what the actions of your country have done to the world.
"therefore I am right."
No you're really not, you were caught out by the source i provided and your clearly not willing to admit it, i was making the same claims as the source before i found that it and you were calling me an idiot and pionting to your source on world leaders words of condemnation, now your saying the source proves you right, why not stop being so ignorant and just admit that you were surprised to learn that much of the arab and muslim world (and probably many other parts of the world) were somehwat happy to learn that the US had suffered for a change.
"recognized that the attack was morally wrong."
Yes i know that, of copurse they did but that doesn't mean they were a little satisfied that those morally wrong attacks that are so frequently dished out upon them and their peoples were finally being dished out to the american people.
"Then, unfortunately, your point cannot be proven. "
Oh right, a few words of condemnation from world leaders and vague & exaggerated BBC article proves your piont conclusively i.e. "I have all the necessary evidence to say that my opinion on the situation is a fact. If you cannot logically put the evidence I have given to you into application, then you are an idiot." but my report that informs the US military in setting out foreign policy is just far too uncertain to make any claimsand therfore cannot be trusted, is that what your saying?cause thats pathetic
"My point is simple: for the most part, the world felt bad for Americans on 9/11;"
Its funny how your postion has slowly evolved in the light of credible conflicting evidence i.e. ""The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive."
So now its "for the most part" as you've been proven wrong on your intial ridiculous and unsubstatiated statement (im paraphrasing you there if you can't tell), and its changed from "wept" to "felt bad". Nice you almost had me fooled.
"you can try to make it seem as though nobody cared that the US got attacked,"
No as i saif at the beginning many felt very bad about the attacks, and many did sympathise but nothing close to what you would like to beleive.
"but saying all of my evidence is propaganda simply isnt working."
I have only stated that one of the piece of infromation you supplied was exaggerated which can be construed as being propaganda but i feel have justified my position.
"Lol there is nothing to weasel out of."
Well you've been proven wrong on a number of things you claimed at the start of this debate, and you calle me an idiot for not agreeing with you and know that you have been proven wrong you refuse to acknowledge it so ya id say "weaseling out of it" is a pretty apt description of what you're doing, just in case you doubt me let me again rem,ind you of some of exchanges:
me:"Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out"
you:"It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions."
"That doesn't make terrorist attacks of that magnitude commonplace."
What the fuck are you taking about the Iraq war has been one giant terorist attack, the scale of destruction is virtually incalculable.
""You need to understand that in saying that the Allies could never have won, implies that they would lose."
Not in this instance, the intial quote from Stalin doesnt necessarily imply its opposite is true, you're are falsely assmuing that the opposite of the statement must be true (mainly because you want it to be) but this is axiomatically and demonstrably false i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 which is axiomatically true but two plus two does not equal four is axiomatically false, therefore the opposite of the statement cannot be taken as true.
"what would have happened if there was a stalemate and France was left under German control while Hitler kept killing Jews? That is an undeniable defeat, not a victory"
Again you insist on engaging in speculation, fair enough, my piont is that hind sight is wonderful, we can look back now and say well if the Nazis were left in control of this amount of the ladn they captured it would have been a defeat but the fact is the pread of facism would have been halted, and if 9 million Jews died instead of 6 million would that really make the victory a defeat? Plus france was never going to left in control of the Nazis.
"If Hitler took over the rest of Europe why wouldn't he go keep going after Britain and Russia as well?"
What? And exactly how was he going to take over the rest of europe after being so serverly weakened by his supposed stalemate with the Soviets, keep inmind that the Britain still a had most of their military intact (and their famous Navy which was superior to Hitlers) and were gearing up to attack the Nazis, what you are saying just isnt as plausible as you think, besides this is all speculation, no matter what you say there is always something i can say that disporves it, the number of possible outcomes when you're not actually discussing the actual outcome are infinite, i don't beleive however that without american aid the whole of europe and russia would have fallen to the Nazism, that for me seems very far removed from the reality of the war prior to the arrival of americn aid.
"Your standards for a victory are way too low."
You really don't get it do you, Barack Obama doesnt need to inavde another country your empire stretches far and wide, globalisation, propping up brutal dictators and free market economics means that you don't have to invade another country to control it and its resources (in most circumstances). Now the Standards for victory are defined after the war when the results of the conflcit can be calculated, i have no doubt that if the majority of Europe was recaptured and the Nazis were effectively neutralised it would be viewed as a victory today.
"Again, saying that he could have never won implies that Hitler would have won."
not really a stalemate is term used to define battles in which either army hasn't been strong enough to vanquish the other, niether side could have won but both can be viewd as voctors or th defeated.What you're implying is simply false.
""well I lost about 20 million people and have stopped Hitler from killing more Soviets although he is still in control of Europe and continues to kill millions of other innocent people, and he is regaining his strength and he still continues to build an atomic bomb while the Japanese are getting ready to help him destroy me and the rest of the Allies, but I still havent lost.""
Im really getting sick of these hypotheticals, the fact is Hitler would be effectively vanquished in a stalemate, as would the Soviets, therefore the British (not the amercans although if they hadn't joined the war at that stage they would) could move in and defeat Hitler quite easily, liberate the French and what was left of their military, and defeat the Japanese and the Italians (who put up a pathetic desplay in WW2 adn were more of a hinderance to Hitler than a help) (defeat here doesn't imply vanquished what i mean is once the Japs realised that a significant army still existed to oppose them and Hitler's force was effectively neutralised i don't think invading europe and comitting themselves would have been on the cards.
"Well I know that nothing is certain but all we have in this hypothetical situation is what is most likely to occur. What I said is the most realistic option, therefore it is the option that is most likely to have come true, therefore that is what would have happened,"
Not necessarily, the Japanese may have decided to conquer asia but okay lets assume you right the japanese would have immediately come to the aid of their ally Hitler, don't you think if a world power like Japan was getting involved in Europe that would have illicted a response from Britain who at that piont weren't really heavily involved. Again you assume that because the Americans are ther to fight Jaopan that the Axis would have won, you have no way of knowing that, and the available information tells us that is unlikely at best as Hitlers army was already beginning to retreat from russia. yes i admit there would have been far more casualities and both sides, far more destruction, and it would have dragged on for another few years i imagine before some cessation to the fighting was reached but assuming Nazis Germany would have won is false, i will admit it is a possible outcome but given the available infromation it is one of the most unlikely outcomes.
"Dont you think that if Hitler needed help, he would have called his ally and asked for help? And since Japan is his ally, do you think that it would have refused to help him?"
Well the USSR was just as much of an ally to Germany as Japan was before Hitler decided to invade so no idon't beleive you can make such an assertion either, you greatly overestimate what being an ally means, Japan would have intervened if it was in their interests to do so, if they thought it was a bad move militarily (which it may well have been) then no they would not have come to Hitlers aid.
"13 out of the 15 locations used in the project were within the United States"
Ya because it was the obvious place to build the dam thing, it was completely untouched by the war and was the only palce that was virtually assured not to be invaded.
"with largely American scientists. "
Are you fucking kidding? Most of the scientists were european exiles, in fact of the 90 scientists that are recognised as having contributed to the bombs development over 24 were from Britain alone, seriously where did you find that lie id like to see the source for it. If you don't beleive me do your own investigating, here are the 90 scientists:
http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HICC/
"I am not saying that the US did it alone"
My God your arrogance astounds me, ok let me tell you something that should be immediately obvious, the US wasn't always the world leader in science and technology, in fact it was only after WW2 that it became so, before this Europe was the most technologically advanced continent on earth , therefore the US could not have developed the bomb alone but the allies (i.e. the european scientists opposed to Hitler) may have been able to deveop the bomb without the US as they had the necessary know how, although the lack of funding and industrial capacity may have prevented them but they had the know how not the US. If you doubt this read this quote: "By 1939, two decades of research into the structure of the atomic nucleus by European scientists led them to the discovery that very large nuclei (especially those of the heaviest naturally – occurring element, uranium) could be made to split apart or “fission” when struck with a high – energy neutron. Nuclear theory, soon verified by small – scale experiments, proved that this fission reaction released a previously unimaginable amount of energy, many millions of times greater than the most violent chemical reaction.By then, most European nuclear scientists were refugees from Nazism, and were frightened that Hitler’s scientists might find a way to turn this enormous atomic fission energy into a weapon of terrifying power. A number of them prevailed upon a reluctant Albert Einstein to write a letter to President Roosevelt warning him of the danger and advising him to begin atomic research in America along similar lines."*
Source:http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/
The two things preventing the europeans was funding and the capacity to set up the nuclear program, washington provided this along with some of their most prominent scientists but it is the europeans who had the know how, the americans didn't even beleive the thing was feasible until the europeans showed them their research, come on for fucks sake!!!
So its all a big conspiracy, i should have known, your devious, truly devious.
"upon reading an article of Western media origin"
Actually much of western media is pretty reliable, i didn't just dismiss it because it is western, i think the BBC and guradian in Britain are two very trustworthy sources, much more so than many others, Sometimes it depends on the particular journalist (e.g. Robert Fisk for the Independent) but i question all media, regardless of its origin.
"automatically assumes propaganda is at work and there are only lies within the article."
Thats not it at all and you know it, i openly admitted the article was true i just think it is most likely highly exaggerated, and FYI i didn't automatically assume it i looked carefully at the article, at the claims made within the articel, the evidence within the article to back up those claims and then i did a fair substantial internet search to see if there was any corroborating articles out there, there was not.
"No because a normal person wouldn't think the author is lying"
Lying and exaggerating are two very different things, the fact is you can't say there were any lies in the article as it was structured in such a vague way that even if you were able to determine exactly the number of people that held the vigil the BBC would still have plausible deniability. I never claimed there were any leis in the article so please stop putting words in my mouth!!!!
"well the normal person cant tell the difference between propaganda and real news but I can and I know they are lying. See? "
No it is not, my argument is the following, i beleive the probability that the article is exaggerated is high due to the limited information (photographic or otherwise) presented in it, and due to the political moitvation to paint the Iranian people as being on the side of the West, i may be wrong, but words such as VAST don't mean anything unless you have a picture of a crowd of a few thousand people to back it up.
"I am saying what has been recorded"
Beleive me i know exactly what has been recorded, and its not a whole lot, you have nothing to prove what you are saying, the article simply proves your own gullibility in beleiving something you want to beleive.
Let me ask you a question how many people do you think turned out?
"Whatever it says in the article."
The number of people who turned out isnt stated in the article, ive checked quite carefully it only using vauge word e.g.vast, these are common orwellian tactics
"Because that was a record of the event that took place. "
Im not disputing the event took place, im disputing the scle of the event i.e. the number of people you claim (or want to beleive) actually attended, i just seriously doubt it was very many.
"You have no credible defense so just stop arguing about it."
What im not defending anything, you'r the one trying to you that patheitically vague (and most likely exaggerated) article as a basis by which to claim that the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran were distraught at the events of 9/11.
"Do you have a source for that"
well i provided you with a source that proved you wrong about the middle east i.e. (P. 50, the muslim world after 9/11, Rambasa, M. A. et al., RAND project airforce)
Avaiable at:http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/
What makes you think Africa and Asia sympathised anymore, most of those countries have suffered due to US foreign policy, or the economic institution rthe US setup after WW2 to rape the world e.g. IMF, WORLD BANk etc. etc. or US corporations e.g. Monsanto
"lol why do I even ask anymore? You only argue with your opinions."
I admit im sepculating when it comes to the reaction of people in Africa and Asia but you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. BTW since th estart of this debate i have provided far more evidence and source than you have in support of my arguments, the evidence has also been a lot more credible despite what you think, but ill let anyone reading this make up their own minds.
"Oh and what do you have?"
A report by a massive US government funded think tank that informs the US military on policy measures, why do i need to keep reminding of this?
"The first reaction probably deals with a minority of the population."
On basis do you make such an obviously stupid claim, keep in mind that i cwas clmaining this was the case in the middle east from the very beginning of this debate long before i found that piece of highly credible evidence to back it up.
"The second reaction sides with me that people felt bad about the attacks. "
So it doesnt side with my own opinion, is that what your saying???I never people were happy at the senseless loss of innocent life but i claimed from the beginning that you were completely over estimating the level of worldwide sympathy for attacks, and you were completely overlooking the fact that many gained some sense of satisfaction knowing you had finally tasted a relatively small amount of your own medicine.
I feel i should remind you of some of our former correpondance my friend:
me:Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out
you:It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions.
"The fourth sides with me as well since they do not want to accept that people like them could commit such a heinous attack on the American people"
What the fuck are you talking saying this side s with me because, im not saying you don't beleive it but you seem to be falsely (and stupidly) insinuating that therefore it works against me???? Of course the peoples of no arab country wanted to accept responsibility for the attacks, they were well aware of the brewing shit storm that the US military was gearing up for, they all wanted to distance themselves from the attacks in roder to distance themselves from the american response.
"recognizing that the attack was bad"
Everbody recognised the attacks were bad this is meaningless.
"There are no numbers or percentages here "
Thats because as i said beofre there are no polls or surveys of public opinoin available on this, thats why i took issue with your completely unsubstantiated and gradiose claim the world wept with you on 9/11 (i.e. "The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive.")This report is probably close to the best evidence available on this subject as the US military is rarely given bad intel, unless its on purpose i.e. WMDs
"you have no idea which of these reactions are most commonplace."
No actually the report is reasonably specific as to what the prevailing opinion is i.e. "Most Muslims were horrified by the death and destruction wreaked by the September 11 attacks, but many—particularly in the Arab world—found some satisfaction in the idea that America’s nose had been bloodied and that the United States had felt some of the pain that they believed had been inflicted on Muslims."
- More or less what i have been saying from the beginning
"In reality, all of these reactions can even be found in the US so I'm not surprised that they were found there."
Yes thats it try to weasel your way out it.
"Is it common for thousands of people to die at the same time in a terrorist attack? Is that commonplace? Nope."
Your country has completey destroyed Iraq and kcaused the deaths of approximately 1.2 million people the process, is that large enough for you? You need to eucate yourself: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/
"In absence of American aid the Allies would have been incapable of gaining a victory within any time span. That is the only credible interpretation of that quote."
I agree completely with that interpretation, what you fail to realise is that doesnt imply a Nazis victory it only implies that the Nazis would not have been comprehensibly defeated in the manner in which they were.
"There is literally nothing there about winning a certain way"
Im well aware of that, the reason there isnt is because the vents transpired the way they did and not any other way but think hypopthetically for a moment, if the Nazis were on partially defeated e.g. still commanded a resonably sizeable chink of europe relative to what they had prior to WW2 (e.g. they still had Austria, the rheinland and maybe poland) but they were effectively neutralised and the spread of facism was prevented, would this not be called a victory?
"In other words, nobody else in the history of the world would know better than him, in regards to this situation. "
Yes i know but what i am saying is that his quote doesnt imply what you want it to, i.e. if he were asked afterswards: does that mena that without american aid the USSR would have fallen completely and totally under the control of Nazis Germany? I can with some confidence that his answer would have been a resounding NO!!!! despite what you want to beleive.
"Along with the other information, however, it does."
No you see you are going way to far with your argument as you deprately want to beleive that US action was decisive in determining the outcome of WW2, your desire to beleive that without US aid a Nazis victory was assured is quite ridiculous and you should know better.
"They were probably more intelligent than that. They probably recognized that an Allied victory would inevitably lead to offensive of Asia "
The use of the word probably twice indicates that despite the fact that your argument is well grounded in the reality of the situation (i admit that) it is still speculation, you have no way of knowing what effect Japan would have had on the war if the US didn't get involved, besides they were always going to be invloved in some capacity, it just wasn't feasible in the end for them to stay out of it.
"ook over China, as an Axis power, and just remained there."
The piont i was making is that the Nazis may have been severly weakened by the time japan finished conquering Asia, anyway this is all speculation.
"The only other country that was close to developing the bomb was Germany and we both know who would have won the war had it succeeded."
Look your really missing the piont, the technology for the bomb was avaiulable therfore if nazi Germnay were making one im sure the allies would have done likelwise with or wothout america.
"It would not be a victory for the Allies if they simply just stopped Germany from moving any further."
No not stopped them from moving any further but pushed them back significantly before a stalemate occurred.
"Germany would continue to kill Jews and probably develop the atomic bomb on its own and destroy the other Allies."
Really even if it was crippled militarily? and what you think they'd be the only in a position to develop the bomb, and thus they would have destroyed the allies? Come on man none of these arguments are proving anything.
"This says nothing about them being in favor of the USSR being conquered."
I never said they were in favour of the USSR being conquered but that is what would have happened if they had won, they merely wanted the Soviet threat neutralised (as they beleived Germnay would win as did the germans) and hoped a sufficiently weakened Germany would not be able to stand up to the combined might of both their militaries.
"They wouldn't just be able to leave Hiter in control of all of that land."
No shit sherlock, ive been saying that from the beginning. they hoped he would be severly weakened which he was, he just didn't defeat the Soviets in the process which is one of the main reasons for the cold war. but they re-wrote most the hostory to make themselves look really good and pure and altruistic, thats just wasnt the reality of the war, you should read Howard Zinn on the topic, he was a bombardier in the war, his views are quite interesting on the topic.
"Hitler was basically insane so I wouldn't be surprised if he overextended himself in trying to conquer the world"
As true as that maybe Hitler was also an incredibly intelligent leader and tactician (nobody would dispute that) and im sure if it was calculated that they couldn't beat the Soviets they wouild not have invaded, i mean the guy wasn't that stupid, and neither were his military generals, the fact is the Soviets surprised everyone in that war, even the ordinary people fough the germans at every turn with dogged tenacity.
"Then you agree with me."
Yes but the piont is by the time they assisted the Nazis may have been severly weakened, again were in the territory of complete speculation, the piotn is what you are saying isn't the only possible outcome, far from it in fact.
"Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. "
I openly acknowledge this is a strong argument in favour of just how crucial american aid was to the war effort and the Nazis evetual defeat but i just doesnt porve that without the Nazis would have been victorious.The Russians were caught completely by surprise by the invasion as Stalin and Hitler were allied and this is why they conceeded so much ground at the beginning of operation barberossa but the Soviets managed to move their heavy industry to the Urals and central Asia(wikipedia).Once this was achieved they were up and running again and able to create their own military hardware so there s no reason to say that this would not have been enough to defeat the Nazis, as i quoted previously: "In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis, with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft." (See V. Sipols, The Road to a Great Victory, p. 132.)
You simply cannot say that without american aid the Nazis would have won, it simply isnt true, the liklyhood of Nazis victory after the Russian pushed them back became ever more improbable, and they were being pushed back long beofre american aid arrived, these are facts, like them or lump them.
"Because you don't see a lot of people in the picture there aren't a lot of people there?"
Think about for one second (and not to let your unbeleiveable bias get in the way) if there were vast crowds of people don't you think that BBC paid photographer would have gotten a photo of them? Ask yourself this question there really is only one answer to it, the answer is if the crowds were as large as the article tries to get you to beleive then they would have a photo or teo of those crowds instead four photos shoing 2 or 3 poeple and one photo showing about 50 people which probably constituted the majority of those that turned out.
"Even though the article says theres a lot of people,"
Define a lot, cause the article definitely doesn't, it merely says vast crowds held a vigil, ive learned over the years to mistrust all media and spot hyperbole and i can say with a high degree of certainty that some form of hyperbole is being used here, the fact that they have given no estimate of the numbers tells me they were very small as if they were not they would have given an estimate, how can you not see this?
"t should be concluded that there aren't a lot of people at the event because you can't see enough of them in the picture. You're ridiculous."
What im ridiculous for claiming that article that appear in the media may be exaggerated to suit a political agenda, really, you see what would be ridiculous would be to claim that the story isn't true becasue it most certainly is but it is anything but ridiculous to conclude that it is hihgly exaggerated.
"That was a very different situation for which you have no facts."
What do you mean i have no facts??? You talk about facts yet you are willing to beleive that vast crowds of people littered the streets of tehran in the wake of 9/11 despite that fact that no evidence exists to prove this (and ive checked). Let me ask you a question how many people do you think turned out? And please don't reply with "many" or "vast crowds" or large numbers of people", im an engineer and ive been taight that in order to gaugae an effect you quantify it, the fact that the article aviods doing this tells me they are playing an orwellian game, one that you cannot see through due to your own inherent bias.
"for which you have no facts."
What do you mean? There is no evidence that proves conclusively either way that Iran's election was fraudulent, it simply hasn't been proven because if it had been Western media would be all over it, im not saying there was no fraud im saying it hasn't been proven either way, in fact it is highly likely there was but as i suggested it was probably no worse than what goes on in the west (again i refer you to the Al Gore and George Bush election). Here make up your own mind:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8099115.stm
http://www.guardian.co.
http://www.wired.
Now in relation to the Iranian protests it is a widely known albeit unreported fact that they only really took place (or were highly concentrated) in Tehran, the media painted a picture of a country in revolt, this again was completely false.Ive been to Iran, it makes perfect sense that Tehran was the only place to really experience large scale protests as it is the most liberal and secular part of the country, it has a cosmopolitan air to it, and thus the discontent withint th ecountry was concentrated there to say the least. If you do not beleive me here is a litmus test, try finding a picture of the 2009 protests in a town outside tehran. If you notice there was never any news of any protests other than in Tehran, go check it out, if you falsely beleive that the entire country was protesting try to find some shred of evidence that proves the protests weren't just concentrated in Tehran, Good Luck!!!
Also, if your interested heres a very fair debate on discontent in Iran:http://rt.com/programs/crosstalk/
"Also, all Iranians were not sad about it."
No, none of them were.
"I am saying that most of the world felt bad about 9/11,"
I am saying most of the world didn't feel that bad about it, in fact the only part of the world other than the US that really sympathised was Western Europe.
"Look, I know you are fueled by some deep hatred for the Western World to continue on arguing about how many people felt bad after 9/11,"
I am not motiavedt by some hatred for the western world, no matter how many times i say this you won't beleive me but its the truth, i am motivated by finding the truth.
"most of it had nothing to do with the original debate."
Lots of things we discussed didn't have a lot to do with the original debate, you were the one who decided to bring 9/11 into it, don't blame for using examples, debates evolve most of time the orginal debate topic goes out the window by the 4th or 5th post.
"inherent predisposition to disagreeing with Western media;"
I scrutinise and disagree with all media outlets actually as they are all motivated by some self interested agenda, its about realising what that agenda is, and then based on that being able to spot inconsistencies in the reporting that are in some way related to that agenda.
"even on small articles such as that on candlelit vigils you believe that Western propaganda is at work."
Look im not saying that the artivle is exaggerated with 100% certainty byt i think the chances are pretty high especially considering how little evidence they have presented i.e. no photographic evidence, no estimates of the numbers, pretty much nothing, how can you expect me to beleive somthing like that?
"Just so you know, the West is not the only part of the world which produces propaganda, basically every country does it."
Yes i am extremely well aware of that, in fact i beleive the news on Europe and Russia is some of the best and most unbiased you will find, the US is probably the worst of any democratic country though.
"You have no evidence to prove me wrong"
You have no evidence to prove yourself right, all you have presented is a bbc article about a conadle light vigil and a minutes silence at a stadium and a few words of condemnation from world leaders, i don't what gave you the idea this constitutes evidence.
"but you attack my evidence with your opinions, which does nothing."
What are you talking about i provided you with a source that is infinitely more reliable than anything you have presented, here just in case your selective memory has forgotten it:
he following is an excerpt from a global policy tink tank ( the RAND corporation ) report that provides research and analysis to the US armed forces and is financed by the american government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
(P. 50, the muslim world after 9/11, Rambasa, M. A. et al., RAND project airforce)
Avaiable at:http://www.rand.
I exculded the quote to save space. This is a report from an organisation funded by the US government to inform the US military in setting out policy measures, so i think your claim that i attack your evidence with opinion is quite deceitful, and please don't say that you were talking about teh arab world cause we both know you were, you pretty much said as much, the fact you convinced yourself Iranians sympathised with you on 9/11 only demonstrates how deluded you are.
"The truth is, even without the muslim world"
So you admit that my source preoves you wrong about the muslim world?
"most of the world felt bad when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers."
Of coruse they did, nobody likes to see innocent civilians being killed but i think you have seriously overestimated the world response, this kind of terrorism is commonplace in the world and your own country is more to blame than any other.
"Its the truth and thats all I'm saying."
I accept what you are saying, and i agree witht the sentiment.
"It is generally accepted among normal society that the US did not deserve 9/11."
Im not so sure about this, again a survey would have to conducted of all the asiatic countries, the middle eastern countries, and the african countries, and the european countries, south america etc.. If you mean by normal society: north america, europe, canada, and australia then yes i would probably agree that the reulst would favour your opinion but these countries contain a fraction of the worlds population.
"This does not mean that the Allies might have won eventually, it literally means that they could have never won; regardless of the time they had"
I dont beleive the quote can be interpreted that way as the facts simply don't bear that reality out, saying they could never have won and that Nazis Germany would have won the war without american aid is a serious embellishment of the quote, as i said this doesnt mean the allies would have won eventually as they may not have but to assume that Germany would have won based on this quote is just plane stupid especially in light of the available evidence.
"That is what he is saying. You misinterpreted it."
I know exactly what he is saying, he is saying that the allies could never have won the war without american aid, and thats true, the war could not have been won in the manner in which it was eventually won without american aid, this is a perfeect interpretation of what he is saying, you seem to think however that without american aid we would all be speaking German, thats just wrong, Nazis Germany was in a fairly weak position beofre any aid arrived to the soviets, and thus to claim that they would have come back and defeated the entire red army conquered all of Rissia and Europe without american aid from that position as i have said is just dosn't fit in with the reality on the ground at the time.
"Not only would the other Allies be without much needed supplies"
This is true but again doesnt prove your piont.
"but a stronger Japanese military would be attacking them"
How do you know, the Japanese were interested in conquering asia, this is complete speculation.
"There would also be no atomic bomb. "
Again complete speculation, america wasn't the only country deveoping the bomb at that time.
"The Allies would not have been able to win."
It depends on how you define winning, the fat is you have a very cut and dry or back and white way of looking at the war, innumerable outcomes could be called a victory for as long as Nazis Germany didn't establish the empire they set out to establish then the war could be viewd as a victory for the allies.
"So you dont have any sources."
No i have no official government sources that say they were infavour of the USSR being beaten by the Nazis as it would have been absolutley ridiculous for anyone to document such wishes, i gave two sources however, would you like me to repeat them:
"At the time, not many gave the Soviet Union much chance of survival, and the results of the first few months of fighting seemed to bear out those estimations."
" Simply put, Britain and the United States were only too happy to see Europe’s two great totalitarian powers bleed themselves white on the plains of Central Europe."
Source:http://www.nationalreview.com/
"The policies and tactics of the British and American ruling class in the Second World War were not at all dictated by a love of democracy or hatred of fascism, as the official propaganda wants us to believe, but by class interests. When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, the British ruling class calculated that the Soviet Union would be defeated by Germany but Germany would be so enfeebled that it would be possible to step in and kill two birds with one stone"
Source:http://www.marxist.com/
"Just because Hitler thought he was strong enough to conquer the USSR, doesn't mean that the Allies thought he was strong enough as well."
What so you think if Hitlers military tacticians calculated that the USSR would fall to Nazis germany that western tacticians would arrive at a different outcome, if what you are suggesting is ture then why was the opening of the second front delayed for almost 4 years while the USSR effectively defeated the Nazis single handedly?
"If you have no evidence, then don't try to argue."
Your unbeleivable ignorance and rudeness astounds me, its funny how your lack of evidence hasn't prevented you from making ridiculous unsubstantiated claims, the sources i presented above that favour my opinion are much more valid than the pathetic BBC op-ed about a candle light vigil and minutes silence, and a few words of condemnation from a few world leaders, my sources for the above argument are quotes from a historian, and political scientist, Alan Woods, and journalist, Jim Lacey.
As much as you like to use the word evidence i really don't think you have any idea what actually constitutes evidence
"Even if Germany was crippled in its gain of Russian territory,"
Theres no if this is exactly what happened, the only thing that didn't happen as expected was a sovet defeat.
"which Im not suggesting he would have been, do you really think that he wouldn't have the resources to back himself up again?"
Im not quite sure what you are getting at, i assume "he" is "they", and that "himself" is "themselves", and i don't beleive this argument proves what you think it does, germnay was completely focused on the USSR they had virtually all their resources focused on the USSR so when you ask if i think they (germany) would have the resources to back themselves up again i say no they probably would not, and let me remind you of the reality of the war at that time from this quote:
"In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious." (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p. 133.)"
this was at during the period of 1942-1943, then late in 1944 this was the reality: "Before it was over at least 25 million Russians and other Soviet subjects had perished, the majority of them civilians. In the process, the Red Army ground the Wehrmacht into dust. In June 1944, the Allies confronted 59 German divisions in France, while the Russians were fighting more than three times that number. Moreover, in late July, while the Allies were struggling to make headway against 20 German divisions holding them at bay in Normandy, the Russians swept away that many in a mere two weeks of Operation Bagration."
Source:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/
"And if the US had not been involved, they would have been attacking."
How do you know, i mean if you don't have any evidence you should be arguing right?, this is unsubstantiated speculation, i agree that the Japanese would have assisted the Nazis at some stage btu who knows maybe they would have tried to conquer the rest of asia first.
"Well you completely misinterpreted what he said so I am not surprised you think this"
No i beleive it is you who seems to want to draw false conclusions from a quote, you can't say he thought that the war would have been won by the Nazis without american aid, the quote simply doesn't imply that, despite what you want to beleive.
"Here's the difference between me and you: the leader of the USSR said he could not have won without America and you're guessing that he's wrong."
Again this is not true, i agreed that wothout US aod the war could not have been won but you must understand this is in the manner within which it was eventually won, you seem to think the quote impies that Stalin meant the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis without US aid, you simply can't draw that conclusion.
"but I dont care enough to continue arguing about it."
If i recall it was you who was brazen enough to come to this debate and label me an idiot because i wouldn't buy into the ridiculous claims you concluded from your unbeleiveably flimsy evidence, now that you realise defending those claims is bceoming more and mroe problematic you are thinking about throwing in the towel, well if you don't reply to me ill take it as a sign of your inability to defend those claims, and thus formal acknowledgment of your defeat as is normally the case on this site.
No but i wish i was, also how did you get past the 50 character limit.
"but then again Gary does too, but of course in Gary's case, it's just because he types fast... it's just a huge coincidence"
Do you actually have anything to add to this debate or are you here soley to question my grammer and spelling skills?
"that he always uses the two words "a" and "lot" as one word."
Ya thats common spelling error of mine, you think if i create a argument of the length below that im going to go through it with a fine tooth comb correcting every spelling and grammer error?
"I gave you something better: action by muslims to mourn the deaths of those lost in 9/11. "Vasts crowds" of people participated in candlelit vigils for 9/11 victims."
I don't beleive the crowds were as vast as you think they were, look at the pictures you sent me, ive done a good few searches and they seem to be the only ones available on the subject, they show hand fulls of people holding candles, one picture shows roughly 50-100 people holding candles with the desciption; "September 18, 2001: Young and old unite in Tehran's Mohseni Square to show their respect for the dead in the sudicide hijack attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington"
But i wouldn't call this crowd vast, in fact i wouldn't even call it large, more people end up fitting into my local pub on a friday night for fucks sake and this is the picture with the most people, all the others show only two or three, the real question you need to ask yourself is if the crowds were as vast as you think they were, why is there no photographic evidence, i mean really think about it, if they had lets say even 2000 people (a reasonably respectable number but still not large enough to prove your assertion) doing what you say they were doing don't you think Time magazine or the BBC would have gotten a photo of them? and don't you think that they would have stated that there was at least 2000 poeple, the use of the word vast is complete hyperbole in this instance and the only reason you cannot see this is because you want desparately to beleive this exaggeration. Do i beleive people morned the deaths of the 9/11 victims in Iran, yes of course i do,many people across the world morned the senseless loss of life, do i beleive those people represent the majority of Iranian public opinion, of course i don't, that's simply ridiculous.I really don't know how you can beleive what you have sent me proves what you are saying, it simply does not, and it also doesn't give you the right to call me an idiot but ill let anyone who reads these posts be the judge
"What reason do they have to exaggerate the number of people who participated?"
The same reason they (Western media) exaggerated the Iranian protests and claimed that the elections were fraudulent (i.e. they want to show that the Iranian people are on the side of the west), the truth uis that while massive protests did occur in Tehran (primarily orchestrated by the disaffected youth, the numbers estimate over a million) there are very few accounts of any protests taking place outside the capital, yet western media presented it as a country wide revolution, this was simply false.
Sources:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/are-iran-s-protests-manufactured-1.72885
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/
As for the elections, were they fraudulent? did Ahmadinejad win or what it Mosavi, to tell you th truth im not sure, some form of tampering may have taken place, it hasn't been proven either way but to be honest based on the avilable evidence it seems likely that it was a very close race and more than likely Ahmadinejad did win as there is no doubt that he has massive support in the country, and i should know as ive been there, the truth is the elections were probably no more fradulent than US elections, i mean look the George Bushes victory of Al Gore for fucks sake, in the light of that travesty can any respectable american media outlet call the Iranian elections fraudulent without being called unblievable hipocrites, remember now how so many media outlets sided with Bush and proclaimed his victory before the votes were even counted.
Source:http://www.wired.
The piont of this rant is to show you that the story of the Iranians who wept for america after 9/11 is more than likely politically motivated(i.e. they want us to beleive they are on our side, just like the Irais were happy to be overun by the US in roder to rid themselves of Saddam, another complete myth), and even if it isnt, it doesn't even come close to proving what you are asserting, saying that it proves that all of Iran was weeping on 9/11 only shows what you are prepared to beleive once you have some extremely tenous evidence. Look ive been to Iran, i know how anti-american they are, and they are that way for very good fucking reasons i.e. they expect to be invaded
"This is a more thoughtful response than any survey could provide"
How, i mean how in your head is this more credible than a survey of [ublic opinion, this again only highlights your naivety, surveys give ballpark estimates of the opinion of entire populations, there is nothing more credible than surveys aside from going out and literally asking everybody their opinion individually.
"sixty thousand people participated in a moment of silence for the victims."
Look i been to Iran, ive seen how dignified, respectful and hospitable the people are so if a minutes silence is being held for the deaths of innocent civilians at a football game they will observe it no matter what nationality those civilians are, it simply doesnt prove what you want it to, Iranisna aren't so disrespectful that they would interrupt a mimutes silence for the victumes of 9/11 regardless of what opinions they hold on the matter, again this just doesnt porve anything.
"They didn't just tell some poll worker who came to their house that they feel bad for 9/11 "
Polls are anonymous thats why they are reliable, only by surveying parts of the coutnry and extrapolating based on the observed trends can you really gain an appreciation for the diversity of opinion on any issue, i cannot beleive you arguing that your unbeleivably flimsy evidence which consists of a BBC piece a few Iranians lighting candles and minutes silence upheld by 60,000 football fans qualifies as more reliable evdidence that a survey of public opinion in a country, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
"victims, they left their homes and prayed for them."
The people who lit the candles did alright, the entire 50 or so people that turned out, while the people at the football match were just there for the game, again the lengths you are willing to read into those stories astounds me.
"What takes more effort and thought?"
Well if millions of people went onto the streets in candle light vigil for the 9/11 victims you'd be entirely correct as that obviously takes much more effort and thoughtfulness, im not disputing that, but as i have said already the number of people who did that was more than likly very small, given that both articles refuse to setimate the number of people while at the same time only produce photo's showing at the most handfuls of people, i mean do you not think if the kind of vast crowds, you so desparately want to belive had tnurned out, actually had turned out that they wouldn't have taken a photo?
"Im sorry do you have a poll or statistical survey of public opinion to back this up?"
No its just an opinion, it may right or it may be wrong, people were worried what your response was going to be, most western coutnries sympathised with you but it is my assertion that most arab countries were quite happy that you had finally tasted your own medicine, and i have a fairly reliable source to prove this. The following is an excerpt from a global policy tink tank ( the RAND corporation ) report that provides research and analysis to the US armed forces and is financed by the american government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation#Achievements_and_expertise):
"Effect of September 11 and the War on Terrorism
The September 11 terrorist attacks were clearly catalytic with regard to the United
States’ perception of its own security and its relations with the Muslim world. Threat
perceptions in the United States changed. Issues that before September 11 loomed
large in the U.S. bilateral relationship with countries in the Muslim arc from Morocco
to Mindanao receded in importance, and cooperation in the global war on terrorism
became a preeminent U.S. interest.
But did September 11 bring about a quantum change in Muslim attitudes? A
common view among our interlocutors is that September 11 opened a new era in the
United States and Europe, but not in the Muslim world. As an Egyptian interlocutor
told us, September 11 was an American event whose consequences America has visited
upon Muslims. Most Muslims were horrified by the death and destruction
wreaked by the September 11 attacks, but many—particularly in the Arab world—
found some satisfaction in the idea that America’s nose had been bloodied and that
the United States had felt some of the pain that they believed had been inflicted on
Muslims.70 So condemnation of the attacks was common but conditional. The public
Arab reaction to the attacks usually included some combination of the following:
• Satisfaction that the United States tasted what it had allegedly dished out to the
Arab world (and the poorer countries globally) for years.
• Condemnation of the attacks as criminal and anti-Islamic but a natural result of
U.S. foreign policy, which was primarily to blame for the attacks.
• Spreading of conspiracy theories that asserted the attacks were the work of
American domestic extremists, the U.S. government, or Israel’s Mossad intelligence
service.
• Rejection of claims that the perpetrators were Arab or Muslim, based on the argument
that Muslims would not commit mass murder or that the terrorist operation
was too complex to have been carried out by some of their own." (P. 50, the muslim world after 9/11, Rambasa, M. A. et al., RAND project airforce)
Avaiable at:http://www.rand.
This kind of flies in the face of what you beleive, does it not? And these are the finding of an idependent rearch group funded by the US government to inform them on public opinion in setting out policy measures so its kind of hard to dispute.
"Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
I was referring to the candle light vigil, the fact that 60,000 football supporters observed a mintuees silence is meaningless, i have observed a minutes silence for many things it doesent reflect my opinion on the matter it maerely shows im capable of repecting a minutes silence. I mean exactly do you think the minutes silence proves, that all those Iranians felt really bad about 9/11? Cause thats a very big leap to take from such an innocuous event, you really are clutching at straws and the sad thing is you can't even see that.
"The Iranians were doing it, why wouldn't the Libyans be doing something similar?"
My God, first you think that those sources you provided prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the entire country of Iran wept for the victims of 9/11, that in itself amazes me, how you can convince yourself of something based on such incredibly flimsy evidence that really proves nothing at all, but you go even further and say this also proves that all the Libyans were weeping for the victims of 9/11, i don't often say disrespecetful things to the people i am debating but you really need to get a grip on reality my friend.
"Oh, nice evidence by the way."
Do i really need evidence to claim that Gaddafi wasn't distraught by the events of 9/11? I mean seriously do you really think he cried salty tears when he saw those towers falling, remember this is a man who is attributed with having orchestrated (or giveing the go ahead to) many similar terrorist attacks against the US e.g. Pan Am Flight 103, so let me ask you again do i really need evidence to say that Gaddafi wasn't heart broken at the events of 9/11, and is he wasn't heart broken do you really think his people were? Get a grip my friend.
"The only reason you got that impression is because I am an American and you don't like America."
No, thats not it at all, i deeply regret any atrocities that take place but i also oppose people like you who try to claim that somehow this was the worst thing that ever happened in human history, and thus based on that you have carte blanche to inavde the middles east, those events as regretable as they were gave you no right to invade any country. This has nothing got to do with me not liking america, i happen to like america a great deal and people there despite what you want to believe.
"How is that different? He literally said that if America did not help the Allies, then the Allies would not have won the war."
No he said: (1) "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
this is qualitatively different from: (2) ";"Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany"
(1)You see the first quote means that american aid was required in defeating the nazis when they did, as in it was necesasry for the war effort (on all sides not just that of the USSR thats why he uses United Nations) to defeat the Nazis in the timeline withint which they defeated the Nazis, and there is no doubt that this is true without american aid the war would have defineiely dragged on, and who knows maybe the Nazis wouldn't have been completely defeated in themanner in which they were but again they were already very much on the backfoot before the aid was deleivered.
(2)The second statement that you invented claims that without american aid the Soviets (not the united nations) would not only not have been able to defeat the Nazis in the time that they did but they would have been beaten by the Nazis and thus the Nazis would have been victorious and conquered al of europe and russia, this is absolutely preposterous, the USSR had the Nazis on very much on the backfoot, no american historian no matter how sympathetic to the significance of his countries involvement in the war would dare make such a statement.
"If your not going to disagree with what he said, then you are, in effect, agreeing that America was needed to win WWII."
Im agreeing with the fact that america was required in order to beat the Nazis in the manner in which they were eventually beaten yes, without american support they would not have been defeated so comprehensively in the time in which they were defeated but that is very different from saying american was required to win WW2, or america was required to defeat the nazis, which means the Nazis would have won without america, the quote doesnt prove any of these assertions despite what you so desparately would like to beleive (and what so many americans do beleive due to the lies fed to them about WW2). It seems to be that you latch onto a tenous piece of evidence and somehow convince yourself it proves everthign yiou want it to prove.
"You see British and american rulers calculated that the USSR would eventually be defeated by the Nazis
Source please."
This fact is very well known, Hitler calculated that he would be victorious over the USSR as did the allies, this really isnt up for dispute. I don't have any government sources proving this as there wouldn't be any, the fact is everyone expected the Soviets to lose against the Germans i.e.
"Along an 1,800-mile front, 4.5 million soldiers of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its allies commenced Operation Barbarossa, launching themselves against Stalin’s Communist regime. At the time, not many gave the Soviet Union much chance of survival, and the results of the first few months of fighting seemed to bear out those estimations."
"Churchill, who despised Stalin and was keenly aware of the threat Communism posed to the free world, was once called to account for his support of the Soviet Union in World War II. He replied, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Roosevelt, meanwhile, never forwent an opportunity to materially and morally prop up the Soviets and “Uncle Joe,” as he naïvely referred to Stalin. Simply put, Britain and the United States were only too happy to see Europe’s two great totalitarian powers bleed themselves white on the plains of Central Europe."
Source:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/
"The policies and tactics of the British and American ruling class in the Second World War were not at all dictated by a love of democracy or hatred of fascism, as the official propaganda wants us to believe, but by class interests. When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, the British ruling class calculated that the Soviet Union would be defeated by Germany"
Source:http://www.marxist.com/History-old/
"So you're saying that American and British leaders thought that the Germans would value the defeat of the Soviets enough to destroy themselves in their effort to conquer the USSR? That doesn't even make sense."
No they beleive that the resulting war of atrition would cripple both sides paving the way for their won military success, this makes perfect sense, how can you not see that?
"I am just going to skip all of the stuff about America's motivation for joining WWII because its irrelevant to the original debate and I don't have a lot of time; pretty much all of it is unsubstantiated anyways."
So your just going to say what i wrote is wrong and not beother trying to explain why? here are some insights into the US motivation in entering WW2, i can assure you there was nothing altruistic about it:
"When the U.S. entered the war at the end of 1941, it did so with clearly formulated goals. As early as 1940, study groups set up by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations were laying plans for a new global order dominated by the U.S. The Council, which collaborated with the government, produced high-level memoranda examining prospects for the consolidation and integration of trade and investment within the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. By 1942, ideas for an international monetary fund, a world bank, and a new league of nations were germinating in the State Department. U.S. war aims were perhaps best summed up by Henry Luce, owner of the Time-Life propaganda empire, who, in his 1941 book, The American Century, lamented that at the close of World War 1 the U.S. bourgeoisie had let slip a “golden opportunity, an opportunity unprecedented in all history, to assume the leadership of the world....” Such an opportunity, he and many others in the bourgeoisie argued, should not be missed again. Of course, in reality the opportunity had not yet fully developed after World War 1, but Luce's point was obvious nonetheless. Though the principal concern of U.S. leaders was the defeat of the Axis powers, they were also dedicated to the subordination of their erstwhile allies, especially after the tide of battle turned in 1943. Indeed, for the U.S., the Second World War was a multifront conflict: not just against Japan and Germany but, in a different way, against the British as well, and, in still another way, against the Soviet Union."
Source:Excerpted from America in Decline by Raymond Lotta,
Banner Press, 1984, pages 209-211
"The question is not whether USSR halted the German advance but whether or not the German advance could have been halted indefinitely."
You are right that is a good question, i beleive that the soviets had Germany on the back foot, they were churning out huge amounts of military hardware and they had no shortage of men as they receiveed excellent intelligence that Japan did not intend to attack them thus they had greater reserves, there is no doubt that american aid sped up the Soviet victory but characterising it as " the USSR's fuel to defeat Germany" is completely false and is based only on your own infalted sense of self worth in wanting to beleive that your contribution in WW2 was more significant than it actually was.
"Whether you like it or not, the leader of the USSR would agree with me that the Soviets would not have been able to keep the Germans away forever"
No i can assure you with 100% certainty that the leader of the USSR would not agree that they wouldnt have been able to keep the germans at bay, they had them on the run, yes it would have taken more time, and more soviets deaths and who knows it may have even ended in a stalemate had it not been for US aid, that is a real possibility, but saying that the Soviets would have been beaten without US aid is just flat out wrong, and your quote as i have already explained doesn't mean that stalin shared this view.
" Unless you can provide a source to dispute Joseph Stalin, then your argument cannot be taken seriously."
What you fail to realise is you have taken that quote completely out of context, anyone can see that although i doubt you will be able to.
I wasn't informed that you had responded to this argument so i never replied, since you are banned from this debate its probably a bit unfair of me to dispute it but i suppose you can respond to me in another debate.
"I believe the source I gave you examined that. I could give you more if you wish."
I don't beleive the source proves anything, and i already told you why (i.e. world leaders responded in exactly the way that was expected, they condemned the attacks, the fact that Gadhafi condemned them aswell only proves that he was sucking up to the US at the time (to his own detriment, i bet they wouldn't be dropping bombs on him now if he hadn't given up his nuclear weapons program to try to cosy up to the west), comments from world leaders does not reflect public opinion it reflects the opinion of the elites and they just say what they are supposed to say, and what they are expected to say. If you disagree that the views of world leaders aren't aligned with those of the general public id be happy to write extemporaneously on the issue to prove my point but you should really be well aware of this fact.
If you can give me a poll or statistical survey of public opinion in a predominantly muslim country proving what you assert (i.e. the hearts of everyone in the world melted at the tragedy of 9/11) i will accept your claims, and i would also be very very impressed. The truth is people were more worried and scared of the US response after 9/11 than anything else as they were worried you were going to go full retard with your military, and thus WW3 would ensue.
"My argument is backed up by sources. Your argument is a guess as seen with the word "probably.""
What you fail to realise is that those sources don't prove anything, maybe you think they do but they don't.
"In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium."
"Iranian women light candles in Tehran's Mohseni Square in memory of the victims of the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Even the most hardline Islamic clerics, who despise the United States, have been shocked into silence by the attacks"
Again i have to reiterate this doesnt prove what you seem to think it does, nobody was going to praise the attacks, no country is that extreme, also the lack of specific details leads me to beleive that these stories are exaggerated as there is no mention of the numbers, either way Iran was merely playing a geopolitical game, nothing more, if you think any Iranian people wept at 9/11 you're are very naive indeed, i think the more relevant quote (and the one that is reflective of real public opinion in Iran) is: "Anti-American protests in Tehran are a regular event"
Look im not saying nobody cared about 9/11 but you give me the impression that you think its the only atrocity ever to be committed, all you americans tend to overplay the event as its really the only time you've had to deal with the kind of terrorism you are so often inflict on peoples of other countries ,i can tell you your own great nation has done far worse to far more people, to say that the world wept with you is simply false, other westernised countries sympathised as it was as much an attack on western civilisation as it was on the US but again i feel you are really overstating this, if the world really wept in the way that you seem so desparate to want to beleive why did world opinion turn so dramtically against you once you started iniating your imperialistic foreign policy with 9/11 beign the excuse i.e. http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm37.html
"Oh of course. Better to not try I guess..."
Ok, so you actually beleive this statement:"If an extremist like Moammar Gadhafi called that attacks horrifying and called for aid for the US, then it would be highly probable that his citizens would feel the same way"
You think that when Gadhafi proclaimed his sadness at the 9/11 tradgedy that the rest of the country was thinking the same, i mean the fact that you even think Gaddafi gave half a shit about 9/11 amazes me, and then you demonstrate your incredible naivety by assuming his people were going through the exact same thing, WOWis all i can say.
"Source please."Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,791211,00.html "
I think we can both agree thats a little different from ;"Stalin said that without American aid the USSR would have fallen to Germany"
I knew when i read that statement that it had to be false, i knew you had either made it up or manipulated it in some way, now im not going to disagree with what he actually said, the munitions and military equipment supplied by the US to the USSR (in particular) played big part in the USSR being able to win the battle of the eastern front (which effectively won the war) but the majority of their war machine was produced from the industrialization of the Urals and central Asia. You see american aid made a difference to the soviet troops theres no doubt about that but this comprised only a fraction of their arsenal the reality is that the existence of a nationalised planned economy and stalins 5 yr plan allowed the soviets to rapidly build up their military and industrial capacity i.e.In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis, with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft. (See V. Sipols, The Road to a Great Victory, p. 132.)
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"The US gave away $760 billion(adjusted for inflation) and asked for none of it back; that doesn't seem very "self interested" to me."
You really need to look past what they did and start asking why they did it, if you would allow me i will explain what i mean. You see Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) and Moscow immediately and repeatedly called for a second front to be opened up against the Nazis but Britain was in no hurry and america hadn't even joined the war. You see British and american rulers calculated that the USSR would eventually be defeated by the Nazis but that the defeat would cripple the Nazis militarily thus killing two birds with one stone (its no secret the level of mistrust that existed between the soviets and the western imperial powers), this is also why america supplied the USSR (i.e. in order to keep the blood flowing on both sides not for some greater good as im sure you'd like to believe), but the allies underestimated the soviets, their resolve, their military capacity, and the amount of men they were willing to sacrifice in order to obtain victory. This is part of the history that was re-written by the west during the cold war. The second front was opened up in 1944 which was after the USSR had already beaten the Nazis on the Eastern front with the turning piont at Stalingrad and the decisive blow being dealt at Kursk in July 1943.The truth is the allies were afraid of the advance of the red army, keep in mind (f you doubt what im saying) that as quoted fron wikipedia;
"The Eastern Front of World War II was a theatre of World War II "
"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history",
"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."
"It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
So when the USSR defeated the Nazis (single handly if you exculde the aid given the USSR which i already established was mainly given to keep the blood flowing on both sides to produce a stalemate or a soviet defeat so that the allies could then come in and defeat a severly weakened Germany) in the greatest military offensive in human history and then began to advance across Europe Washington and London were rightly worried, this is the reason the second front was opened up in France as the British and americans knew that if they didn't the red army would advance all the way towards the english channel.
The following quote tells its own story; "In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious." (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p. 133.)
Even the american chief of staff during the war George Marshall admitted the second front was primarily setup to stop the soviet advance, he expressed the hope that Germany would "facilitate our entry into the country to repel the Russians", the British was rightly against it thats why it took until 1944 to materialise. I have no doubt you see WW2 as being a just war fought by the "good" guys to defeat facism and protect democracy, the reality (that any realist can see) is that there were no good guys in the war, it was a war fought by great power and everybodies actions were motivated by their own self interested agenda.The US wanted to replace Britain as the worlds leading power after Germany and Japan were defeated, this is no secret, and is the reality of what eventually transpired.
"We produced equipment and supplies for the Allies for free and lost more money and over 400,000 soldiers fighting the Axis. That doesn't seem very advantageous."
What are you talking about do you seriously beleive that anything the US did in WW2 was done for the benefit of others, this is a fantasy, you actions as always were motivated by pure self interest, as was all the powers in WW2, the history taught to us in school in the west and perpetuated by the media and culture (e.g. moives like saving private ryan) complete neglects the reality of the war i.e. it was largely a war fought between the USSR and Germany, for most of the war the British and american were mere spectators. The victory of the USSR surpised everyone in WW2, the allies (mainly the US as you rightly piont out) supplied the USSR but this was only to weaken Germany and themselves as they never believed the USSR would succeed over the advanced, organised and sophisticated military might of Germany. Keep in mind that this was probably the greatest military ovctory in history and it was won by the USSR, their economic and military success generated alot of fear amongst the allies i.e. *"The outstanding fact [that] has to be noted is the recent phenomenal development of the heretofore latent Russian military and economic strength – a development which seems certain to prove epochal in its bearing on future politico-military international relationships, and which is yet to reach the full scope attainable with Russian resources." (FRUS, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, pp. 107-8.)
They even planned on going to war with Russia before Hitler was defeated but they correctly realised that even with Britain on side they could not defeat the USSR.
"World War II destroyed the nations more powerful than the United States. Our manufacturing processes were not harmed and we were able to expand production to supply other countries in need. Was it planned for other countries to be destroyed so the US could build them back up again? No."
Although this argument is not without substance it just doesnt explain what the US did to solidify their power, the MArshall plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Early_criticism) was put in place to rebuild europe but what was the real effect of the marchall plan? I think if you watch the following video you will gain a greater understanding of US motivation and action post WW2. Nothing done by the US was altruist or for the greater good i.e. http://www.youtube.com/
"Then why are you agreeing that "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the war(WWII)"?"
Im not i don't think the contribution of the US or Britain really mattered that much relative to that of the USSR, the question should really be whether the USSR needed Britain or americas help to defeat the Nazis, this would be alot more true to the actual war, in fact i found a good post about this very question with some very interesting views if you have the time to read it:
"Refer to the source I gave you on Stalin's comments."
Again Stalins comments refer to war as it transpired, if the US had not intervened the war would have dragged on for another couple of years but i do not beleive there intervention was necessary to defeat the Nazis. It is standard practive among historian motivated more by political consideration than historical truth (and there are many) to exaggerate the importance of things like American aid to the Soviet Union.The fact is that the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow – before any supplies had reached the USSR from the USA, Britain or Canada.The soviets would still have been able to defeat the Nazis but at a much greater cost.
"I have all the necessary evidence to say that my opinion on the situation is a fact."
Really, exactly what evidence are you talking about as i would very much like to see it, also exactly what situation are you referring to.
"If you cannot logically put the evidence I have given to you into application, then you are an idiot."
Again i must ask exactly what evidence you are referring to, is it the quotes from world leaders that you posted in our previous debate (i.e.http://www.september11news.com/
"You need to understand that its either one or the other; there was no gray area in that debate. "
Yes but the debate made specific reference to Britain needing americas help, i don't think it did or didn't as that didn't determine the outcome of the war, now im sorry if you think there is no gray area but i can tell you that no matter what debate you go onto here very few people agree completely with the side they choose in the for or against debates, they merely put down their opinion aslong its its not too of topic (and a lot of the time it is very off topic), i beleive what i wrote was right on topic even though i didn't complete side with either options.
"Either the US was needed in World War II or it wasn't."
To be honest i would have to do a hell of lot of research on this in roder to be able to say with real confidence whether the US was needed or not, the fact is the US was always going to be involved even if not militarily, if you put a gun to head i would say NO the US was not needed to defeat the Nazis but it would have taken a lot longer (few years), and greatly increased damage (both human and material) on all sides.
"If the only conclusion that you were trying to make was that the USSR deserves a lot of the credit for WWII, then all of your arguments on that debate were irrelevant."
Thats not true at all, in fact if what im saying is correct a lot of your views simply become wrong e.g. "The success of the USSR in WWII was based upon American intervention."
You posted this, i beleive based on availabel evidence this is simply false, in fact its a complete fantasy created by the West due to the cold war, its just not true.
""to be honest he propbably does have a bit of a piont" while failing to give any consideration to my side"
No to be honest after reading both your posts i wouldn't consider either one of you to have more of point.
"There was a reason why you used the "agree" tag on that debate."
I don't know exactly what you're trying to insinuate but i can tell you i had no alterior motive in posting the argument other than i disagreed with what you were saying, if Axmeister thinks im on his side then he clearly hasn't read my posts.To be honest i agreed because of the reason i stated above to the question of whether the US was needed or no, again i didn't really agree with either side but if pushed i was slightly more inclined to the agree side, its probably about a 60:40 split.
"So, you shouldn't be disputing my arguments where I am saying that you do not like the Western World.........."
I would very much like to know how you arrived at that conclusion, just because i dislike the actions of rapcious and imperial power (nowhere more concentrated than in the US) does not mean i dislike the Western wolrd as you have suggested.
Im going to include my response to your comment in the WW2 debate here just in case you aren't informed of it, i wasn't informed of your reply and thats why it has taken so long to answer it.
"What I said was neither ignorant nor conceited."
Calling me an idiot based on the fact that you disagree with my opinions is ignorant whether you want to admit it or not, and i beleive hidden within hides your over inflated sense of self worth (i am prepared to admit that the latter maybe more based on my own annoyance at being called an idiot than evidence from your posts)
"The debate was called something like "Britain didn't need Americas help to win the War(WWII)" and all of your arguments were on the "agree" side."
I made my position very clear at the beginning that i didn't agree with either position so either you didn't read my posts or you know you are wrong, if i post on a debate with two very narrow options it doesnt mean i beleive whole heartedly in either one, i made my position on the topic very clear so this really doesn't hold any water.
"it doesn't matter that you think its petty because its the perfect example to prove that you do not like the US."
When i said petty i was referring to your attack on me and my views, i beleive many people on this site have simply categorised me as being someone who hates the western world as it's that explains why i hold the views i do, the reality is my views stem from observation of how western power has systematically raped and pilaged the third world.
"I think he is really from the western world, yet he can't admit it."
Im from Ireland, ive admitted it since i joined this site, i love my home country, i don't know what gave you the idea i haad some shame in admitting where i am from.
"Garry77777 is probably the person who likes the western world the least on this website. Both being the idiots that they are, "
Your simple snide derision can hardly conceal your unbelievable ignorance and conceit.
"they tried to say that the US deserved no credit for its work in WW2."
I said no such thing and i challenge you to produce a statement proving the above accusation, i said that america (and Britain) deserves very little credit relative to the USSR. Also i consider the accusation quite petty and it probably stems from your dislike of my views.
You only see two sides Isreal and Hamas, this is very narrow minded way of looking at things it completely neglects the palestian people, the provisional IRA was formed due to justifiable greivances and the suffering of the northern irish catholics, an organisation as extreme as Hamas was formed for the exact same reasons.
"I am puzzled as to why you think Islam is so great."
WTF are you talking about i never said anything like that, i have no more of an interest in Islam than i do in Judaism
"You talk about me being closed minded"
You're not close minded, you were close minded a long long long long time ago way back when you were young, i have no idea what age you are but im guessing your ready to hit middle age, and you are a perfect example of indoctrination and a twisted ideology.
"every been to the Middle East?"
Yes i was in iran for two months and i loved it, you will not meet kinder more hospitable people no matter where you go, and thats coming from a person who has done a lot of travelling.
"And tell me where in the world Christians are convincing, brainwashing their kids to be suicide bombers? "
You are blind to all around you.
"And I am not saying all Muslims believe in terrorism. Those living in democratic countries....are bound by the laws there. Their hands are tied and they can't live like those in Islamic countries do."
You are a twisted individual.
"Islam has always been a religion of violence. Muslims commit acts of terrorism IN OBEDIENCE to the word of Muhammed and when Christians do it, it is in opposition to Christ. Christ said to love even your enemy. If people don't do this, they are breaking Gods commandment to love. "
You should feel deeeply ashamed of yourself for trying desparately to smear another religion and culture, ine that has been far more tolerant and respectful of Christianity down through the ages.Let me ask you; you spew this disgusting hatefilled filth and you actually expect people to take you seriously?
"Freedom to accept Christ or reject him."
Christ was a man, flesh and blood, and he was no more the son of God or God himself than you or I, i can assure you of this.
"There is hatred on both sides"
Ya i know and you seem to think perpetuating that hatred is a good thing, the fact is the Islamic faith has far more justifcation to feel insecure , the US has inhabited and control those countries thorugh proxy regimes for the last 100 yrs preventing democracy, they have caused incalculable suffering to the populations there, you are blinded by your corrupt ideology.
"They want worldwide domination.......for allah."
Ya ya whatever go tell someone who cares, actually these poeple would probably love to hear from you ->
"So if they are NOT a force for good, then why should anyone trust them when they say that "
Because no force is a force for "good", you are clearly living with the false western interpretation of good and evil, this is a result of your unending exposure to corrupt Western (mainly american) ideology. The fact is good and evil are the same thing, yin and yang, this isnt mumbo jumbo, this is how it is, within us there is evil and good, and they are expressed collectively through our actions, is the state of Isreal evil, NO, is it an extremist state, YES i beleive it is rapidly becoming one. Are Hamas a force for good, in their current form probably not but they exist to defend themselves and their people, this means they cannot be a force for good, the IRA were not considered a force for good when they were ambushing Britishing soldiers and shooting them dead while they went to the Market with their families on a Sunday, but with hindsight we can say they were justified, as they had no other option, also as a side note Michael Colins pretty much invented modern guerilla warfare.Things must be black and white for you, like most americans, there has to be the bad guys and the good guys as that is the diet you have been raised on, well the word doesnt work that way no matter how much you want it to.
"You talk in circles."
I think if you trudge your way back through our posts you'll find that you repeatedly used the same justifcation's to maintain your views just packaged differently despite my insistance that you actually refer to some unquestionable sources, i simply provided the same replies, you know i figured if i said it enough maybe it wouuld fucking sink in.
I have to remind you it was you who orginally referred to post as containing "blatantly stupid shit" to which i justifiably took alot of offense to and which you subsequently proceeded to tell me why in the form of four posts, so please don't engage in my debates if you don't want your mind to be changed.
If you do support Isreal in this conflict you should be aware of just how unjustifiable that position is.
