The News Thread

[viewerfromnihil]

i have a pdf ebook too, I find her argument that it was politically necessary for the U.S. to pit asian-americans against black-americans in the mid 20th century very out there.

As I mentioned, I haven't read her monograph. I've done a bit of research on the history of refugees in the US this semester, so I am familiar with what she's getting at, though I haven't come across this argument yet. It sounds like she's being rather presentist. The push in the 70s to accept Asian immigrants/refugees and then assimilate them was Cold War anti-communist policy, not a policy to create a model minority in order to wag the finger at African Americans. It has happened, however, as a result of this policy, that we've now turned around and propped Asian Americans up as such. Bringing in Indochinese refugees is interesting in the context of Cold War refugee policy because it signaled a move away from the Eurocentrism (Cuba being the *exclusion) of previous Cold War refugee policy as well as a move toward human rights as a criteria for accepting refugees (albeit from regions utterly destabilized by the US). Nonetheless, we didn't start accepting Africans until the 80s, and even then in numbers that paled in comparison to Asian refugees.

I haven't yet done research on immigration generally though, so I'm not sure if it contradicts our refugee policy. Suspicion tells me no, however.

 

[CF87]

What exactly do you mean by "shit handling of mental health"? Mentally ill people tend to be expensive to treat, and the US has among the highest per-person health care costs in the world (partly, I suspect, because of relatively high rates of obesity and drug use), so I think the money problem has to be factored in when judging our mental health policies.

You should go to mental health, it's the best fun you could ever have.

 

[tagradh]

I get to vote again. SO MUCH DEMOCRACY.

 

[CiG]

Isn't it mandatory there?

 

[Dak]

There are any number of possible explanations for the supposed chemical attack (including the possibility it didn't happen - I swear it seems like no one has ever heard of image and video editing programs and equipment). Regardless of the explanation, there's no direct connection to "taking action" whatsoever. Fuckin Trump, just became another politician.

http://malcolmpollack.com/2017/04/20/it-aint-necessarily-so-3/

This week an eminent academic, Theodore Postol (who is a professor emeritus of science, technology, and national-security policy at M.I.T., and a former high-level Pentagon adviser) has published an extremely detailed analysis of the administration’s report and the available evidence. He has concluded that it is, not to put too fine a point on it, rubbish. The evidence, says Dr. Postol, shows that the sarin container was not dropped from the sky, but positioned in the middle of a road and smashed open by a bomb mounted directly on top of it.

Dr. Postol’s report is technical. You can read it here. You can also read an excellent summary of the reasons to doubt the Trump Administration’s account of the attack, here.

As per usual, my reaction is increasingly vindicated.

 

[rms]

who said the sarin was dropped from the sky? all I heard was it leaked from a building that was bombed

the point is that Assad shouldn't have had any gas, he was supposed to give it all away from the 2013 deal.

LOL

but it was a terribly impulsive move, and has done serious damage to any hope of better relations with Russia

you guys are all the fuckin same it's so strange

 

[arg]

Well it supports MIC jobs, and defense companies pay taxes too, so part of those sales go to benefits recipients

so a more accurate chart would be refugee costs vs taxes paid by weapons companies

and even that is useless because we can profit off of war without taking refugees

and even that is useless because the average joe does not experience the profits of war but certainly feels its cost being ripped out of his paychecks

 

[Dak]

who said the sarin was dropped from the sky? all I heard was it leaked from a building that was bombed

the point is that Assad shouldn't have had any gas, he was supposed to give it all away from the 2013 deal.

Who said it was Assad's gas? You're so focused on Russia being a danger for some odd reason but not concerned about the inhouse problems:

I stand ready to provide the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.

you guys are all the fuckin same it's so strange

I don't understand. Is it that you want war with Russia or that you don't? Because improving relations is how you don't have war with Russia.

 

[rms]

Why the hell is the onus on us to improve relations with Russia?

Who said it was Assad's gas?

This is the problem here, you'd think it's more logical to assume Assad did the right thing and removed all the gas while also assuming some Western 'agent' planted gas there so they could bomb Syria once.

Once.

All adds up

that quote you have, which I imagine is a response from the academic to that the sarin gas was 'dropped' from the sky isn't true because i've never read anything that it was dropped from the sky. You're removing a lot of context there so i'm having to assume here.

 

[Einherjar86]

Who said it was Assad's gas?

It's your boy Mattis saying that Syria has chemical weapons.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

so a more accurate chart would be refugee costs vs taxes paid by weapons companies

and even that is useless because we can profit off of war without taking refugees

and even that is useless because the average joe does not experience the profits of war but certainly feels its cost being ripped out of his paychecks

I think there's a bigger picture not addressed in your points, but I'm impressed by your points regardless, relative to what you normally post

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That counter-argument by the MIT guy also seems to ignore that Syrian jets were apparently seen in flight over the area at the same time the chemical attack occurred. I don't really see where he's presenting evidence that it COULDN'T be an airstrike, just evidence that it could be an improvised munition. The time of day thing is meaningless; if Assad ordered a chemical bombing, he could have chosen it at the same time for the same reasons. I don't really understand his argument from the physics of it either; yes, an explosive could be used to increase pressure on a sealed pipe containing fluid, thereby causing it to rupture. Fundamentally, however, a large sealed pipe dropping at terminal velocity is going to experience a rapid increase in pressure as well as the pipe deforms upon impact. If he has evidence that dropping such a tube from such a height is insufficient to rupture it (and he almost certainly does not), he should have provided it.

 

[Dak]

Why the hell is the onus on us to improve relations with Russia?

It's called leadership. It's called relationships take two parties.

This is the problem here, you'd think it's more logical to assume Assad did the right thing and removed all the gas while also assuming some Western 'agent' planted gas there so they could bomb Syria once.

Your perspective is naive. Assad is probably a total piece of shit. I also assume he's smart enough not to pick this one time to use chemical weapons on a relative non-threat, doing very little tactical or strategic damage, right when there's an international meeting about what to do about Syria. Also, your use of "Western Agents". ISIS has its own ambitions, and how much they act as an agent of western interests is circumstantial.

that quote you have, which I imagine is a response from the academic to that the sarin gas was 'dropped' from the sky isn't true because i've never read anything that it was dropped from the sky. You're removing a lot of context there so i'm having to assume here.

It was the witness report, and not exactly hidden. It's the headline on a CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/

It's your boy Mattis saying that Syria has chemical weapons.

Whether or not Syria has chemical weapons is irrelevant to asking whether or not it was in fact a Syrian controlled chemical weapon in the recent attack. Obviously, the officlal US statement was that it was Syrian controlled. Subject matter experts have some questions about that.

 

[rms]

It's called leadership. It's called relationships take two parties.

yet you only place responsibility on one party (USA)

Assad is probably a total piece of shit. I also assume he's smart enough not to pick this one time to use chemical weapons on a relative non-threat,

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said Russia's assertion that the strikes had hit rebel chemical weapons were "pretty fanciful".

"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he told the BBC.

Experts say the explosion resulting from an air strike on a chemical weapons facility would most likely incinerate any agents. Sarin and other nerve agents are also usually stocked in a "binary manner", which means they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched.


The French envoy, Francois Delattre, meanwhile said there was "no fire" after the air strike, even though a strike on an ammunition depot "would have caused a fire".

It was also not clear why there was five hours' difference between the time of the strike reported by multiple witnesses and that stated by Russia.

Moscow's short account gave no evidence for its suggestion that a group was sending chemical weaponry to Iraq. So-called Islamic State, which has used the the blister agent sulphur mustard in Syria and Iraq, is not present in Khan Sheikhoun.

what say you?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947

It was the witness report, and not exactly hidden. It's the headline on a CNN article.

talk about correlation = causation on part of the survivor here. how isnt that flawed?

Syria denied it used chemical weapons. Russia asserted the deaths resulted from a gas released when a regime airstrike hit a "terrorist" chemical weapons factory on the ground.

I also assume he's smart enough

Assad = smart enough to not conduct a chemical attack
West/USA = dumb enough to use a chemical attack with no goal in sight

ISIS has its own ambitions, and how much they act as an agent of western interests is circumstantial.

man, there is Assad's people, ISIS and also other resistance groups that are not tied to ISIS/ISIL. I feel like you only consider two organizations in Syria, Assad and ISIS

 

[Dak]

yet you only place responsibility on one party (USA)

I didn't say "the US did it". I'm saying it makes almost zero sense that Assad did it.

Assad = smart enough to not conduct a chemical attack
West/USA = dumb enough to use a chemical attack with no goal in sight

#1: Doesn't have to be "the west".
#2: The goal is justifying intervention against Assad. I don't know how this isn't painfully obvious.

man, there is Assad's people, ISIS and also other resistance groups that are not tied to ISIS/ISIL. I feel like you only consider two organizations in Syria, Assad and ISIS

"Some other resistance groups". No, I'm not giving much consideration to something so vague and even if existent, ultimately rather inconsequential in terms of power.

 

[rms]

I didn't say "the US did it". I'm saying it makes almost zero sense that Assad did it.

you're forgetting where this started

Dak : Is it that you want war with Russia or that you don't? Because improving relations is how you don't have war with Russia.

me : Why the hell is the onus on us to improve relations with Russia?

Dak : It's called leadership. It's called relationships take two parties.

me : yet you only place responsibility on one party (USA)

#2: The goal is justifying intervention against Assad. I don't know how this isn't painfully obvious.

Man, there is already enough justification against Assad. But this hasn't been used to justify intervention so this theory is based on concepts that have not manifested nor would even require it IMO

"Some other resistance groups". No, I'm not giving much consideration to something so vague and even if existent, ultimately rather inconsequential in terms of power.

ISIL/ISIS is a relatively small group in the resistance man =/

The war is being fought by several factions: the Syrian government and its allies, a loose alliance of SunniArab rebel groups (including the Free Syrian Army), the majority-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front) who cooperate with the Sunni rebel groups, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

 

[Dak]

you're forgetting where this started

Man, there is already enough justification against Assad. But this hasn't been used to justify intervention so this theory is based on concepts that have not manifested nor would even require it IMO

Using something as justification =/= doing the thing used as justification. Any number of parties could be responsible with the intent to trigger the US.

ISIL/ISIS is a relatively small group in the resistance man =/

The war is being fought by several factions: the Syrian government and its allies, a loose alliance of SunniArab rebel groups (including the Free Syrian Army), the majority-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front) who cooperate with the Sunni rebel groups, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

In Syria and Iraq both Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS[41] have been described as Salafist-jihadist. Jabhat al-Nusra has been described as possessing "a hard-line Salafi-Jihadist ideology" and being one of "the most effective" groups fighting the regime.[42] Writing after ISIS victories in Iraq, Hassan Hassan believes ISIS is a reflection of "ideological shakeup of Sunni Islam's traditional Salafism" since the Arab Spring, where salafism, "traditionally inward-looking and loyal to the political establishment", has "steadily, if slowly", been eroded by Salafism-jihadism.[41]

Your own wiki link ties al Nusra, ISIS, Sunnis, and Salafiss together.

 

[rms]

Using something as justification =/= doing the thing used as justification. Any number of parties could be responsible with the intent to trigger the US.

ok you've apparently missed the fact that you consider improving relations between RUS and USA to be conducted by the US, not RUS and USA shared

Your own wiki link ties al Nusra, ISIS, Sunnis, and Salafiss together.

does not mean they are ISIS/ISIL

 

[Dak]

ok you've apparently missed the fact that you consider improving relations between RUS and USA to be conducted by the US, not RUS and USA shared

Obviously Russia has to play a part, but the way I understand you and pretty much most people as delineating Russian overtures is that they need to do everything the US wants. That's a nonstarter for a "relationship".

does not mean they are ISIS/ISIL

Ok, what exactly is the important difference then? Who the general is? It doesn't appear to be means nor ends, and may not even define force differences. Organization seems rather loose.

 

[rms]

RUS would rather back Assad than any interest in improving relations with the U.S., so it's quite clear what part they feel like playing in improving relations. Or now backing, with Iran, groups in Afghanistan to just fuck with us. Or fucking with Ukraine/caucasus. Or the oil in the Arctic ocean

"a part" is so passive -- i just don't get how you do not notice your obvious positive bias towards the rooskies

and I imagine if muslim extremists who do not call themselves members of ISIS are not interest in global presence but rather establishing a conversative or fundamental caliphate in X country