The News Thread

[Dak]

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

It's not a bias towards Russia. You still don't understand the importance of that port to Russia. Russia has a much greater presence in the Arctic than the US. Afghanistan is fair play. Do you remember the US funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda to stymie Russia in Afghanistan? To counter the US now would be to fund the forces the US used to fund, to counter the US by the former force they used to counter (this is how fucking retarded all this shit is). Do you remember the Ukraine was a part of Russia for decades, and the Caucuses have been Russian to some degree for however long and contain a mix of Russian and other peoples?

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

So, they want to form a fundamentalist caliphate like ISIS but not ISIS. So different.[/QUOTE]

 

[rms]

So, they want to form a fundamentalist caliphate like ISIS but not ISIS. So different.

[/QUOTE]

I just said these other groups probably aren't interested globally, that's a clear difference between them and ISIS.

it's not a bias towards Russia. You still don't understand the importance of that port to Russia.

I seem to understand the Russian perspective well. Stability of the port, under Assad, is more important than siding with the international community against Assad

Afghanistan is fair play.

Maybe, but RUS acting like we are in Afghanistan to stymie them is quite arrogant (which is then used to justify their intervention). It appears more of 'trolling' than actual geopolitical fear

Do you remember the US funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda to stymie Russia in Afghanistan?

I do not think the Taliban (today) is considered comparable to that of the muhjadeen in the 80s. I do not think the Taliban represent the Afghan identity but rather what I hear/read is that they provided a more stable state that was anti-opium

Do you remember the Ukraine was a part of Russia for decades, and the Caucuses have been Russian to some degree for however long and contain a mix of Russian and other peoples?

these states want to leave, while RUS seems to want to bring them back. think that's important to know here

 

[tagradh]

Do you remember the Ukraine was a part of Russia for decades, and the Caucuses have been Russian to some degree for however long and contain a mix of Russian and other peoples?

I like that with this sorta issue most people, at least in the West, claim to support self-determination, but in reality their political affiliation overrides this belief and so you get Russia apologists on the right and idiots that think the UK should 'give back' the Falklands and Gibraltar on the left.

 

[Dak]

I just said these other groups probably aren't interested globally, that's a clear difference between them and ISIS.

I do not think the Taliban (today) is considered comparable to that of the muhjadeen in the 80s. I do not think the Taliban represent the Afghan identity but rather what I hear/read is that they provided a more stable state that was anti-opium

If the Taliban don't represent any "Afghan identity", how come the only time/place they aren't in control is when US forces are present with guns blazing? But this is now getting far afield of Syria. There's not way to distinguish from who is No True ISISman, when the enemies and aims are the same within that Levantine area.

I seem to understand the Russian perspective well. Stability of the port, under Assad, is more important than siding with the international community against Assad

Maybe, but RUS acting like we are in Afghanistan to stymie them is quite arrogant (which is then used to justify their intervention). It appears more of 'trolling' than actual geopolitical fear

these states want to leave, while RUS seems to want to bring them back. think that's important to know here

Yes, having the port is more important that not having it. You can gtfo with this "international community" stuff. It's simply NATO, which is basically the US. If the "international community" ie the US replaces Assad, they know that port is fucking gone. Trolling is very cost effective, and it's tit for tat. These other border countries have a more complicated situation than that. The political state doesn't want to be eliminated because then those corrupt bureaucrats get replaced by different corrupt bureaucrats. But there are sizable minorities that have some interest in being back in Russia.

I like that with this sorta issue most people, at least in the West, claim to support self-determination, but in reality their political affiliation overrides this belief and so you get Russia apologists on the right and idiots that think the UK should 'give back' the Falklands and Gibraltar on the left.

It's not self-determination when you don't do it yourself. It's also not self determination when you trade out on controlling empire for another.

 

[rms]

If the Taliban don't represent any "Afghan identity", how come the only time/place they aren't in control is when US forces are present with guns blazing?

didn't say any. but people in a shitty state would rather sacrifice their personal ideology for safety isn't hard to understand. the rise of opium since the invasion is an obvious example here

There's not way to distinguish from who is No True ISISman, when the enemies and aims are the same within that Levantine area.

that likely isn't true but I wouldn't make that claim without doing the research. the chick on Maher's show last night talks about Syrian resistance before ISIS if you wanna check out that interview (youtube search Real Time and her name is Arwa Damon or something like that )

You can gtfo with this "international community" stuff. It's simply NATO, which is basically the US. If the "international community" ie the US replaces Assad, they know that port is fucking gone.

the statement "which is basically the US" is very dismissive here. There are two large political spheres in the world, US vs. RUS/CHN (while China seems to be drifting away from this side slowy) -- so to decree either side "basically the US" or "basically the RUS" is misleading and kind of intellectually dishonest.

US "side" has Saudis, Turkey, and I think most if not all western Nations. While RUS has Iran and likely a large contingent of Middle Eastern countries who fear ISIS's rise in wake of yet another pile of authoritarian shit overthrown.

But there are sizable minorities that have some interest in being back in Russia.

I think keyword here is minorities

 

[Dak]

didn't say any. but people in a shitty state would rather sacrifice their personal ideology for safety isn't hard to understand. the rise of opium since the invasion is an obvious example here

that likely isn't true but I wouldn't make that claim without doing the research. the chick on Maher's show last night talks about Syrian resistance before ISIS if you wanna check out that interview (youtube search Real Time and her name is Arwa Damon or something like that )

There are always malcontent minority groups. Look at Libya and Iraq. The US aided the malcontents and that has turned out splendidly. Generally speaking, the malcontents willing to turncoat are pieces of shit incapable of delivering anything even approximating the previous situation, much less improving on it, and that's with copious amounts of foreign assistance.

the statement "which is basically the US" is very dismissive here. There are two large political spheres in the world, US vs. RUS/CHN (while China seems to be drifting away from this side slowy) -- so to decree either side "basically the US" or "basically the RUS" is misleading and kind of intellectually dishonest.

US "side" has Saudis, Turkey, and I think most if not all western Nations. While RUS has Iran and likely a large contingent of Middle Eastern countries who fear ISIS's rise in wake of yet another pile of authoritarian shit overthrown.

So, I'm being dismissive by not recognizing a terrorist supporting state and a semi-authoritarian regime which is only peripherally in NATO.

I think keyword here is minorities

Why do you hate Russian minorities (as in, actual Russian in other countries), and love malcontents in other countries? You're putting zero critical thought into this man.

 

[rms]

The US aided the malcontents and that has turned out splendidly.

we've already gone over that the largest problem in the middle east is that there's nothing positive trailing in 2nd for apparently any country, not that the action forces these failures or something.

So, I'm being dismissive by not recognizing a terrorist supporting state and a semi-authoritarian regime which is only peripherally in NATO.

no, you're being dismissive because any geopolitical action is either "US side" or "RUS side" -- I rarely if ever see any kind of middle ground or 'indepedent' action

Why do you hate Russian minorities (as in, actual Russian in other countries), and love malcontents in other countries? You're putting zero critical thought into this man.

by calling one side "actual Russians" and the other "malcontents" hides you realizing the stark difference, the ethnic status of these groups. I wouldn't love mexicans coming here and trying to establish a mexican state but I have no problem with an indian nation establishing and maintaining sovereignty in their area.

 

[Dak]

we've already gone over that the largest problem in the middle east is that there's nothing positive trailing in 2nd for apparently any country, not that the action forces these failures or something.

Well I'm glad you acknowledge there's nothing positive trailing for 2nd. This is a great argument for not intervening. Syria is not better off being bombed to shit just to install some more shitty replacement to run a bombed out husk.

no, you're being dismissive because any geopolitical action is either "US side" or "RUS side" -- I rarely if ever see any kind of middle ground or 'indepedent' action

Welcome to geopolitics.

by calling one side "actual Russians" and the other "malcontents" hides you realizing the stark difference, the ethnic status of these groups. I wouldn't love mexicans coming here and trying to establish a mexican state but I have no problem with an indian nation establishing and maintaining sovereignty in their area.

I said actual Russians because there are Russians in place like South Ossetia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–South_Ossetia_relations

If you do any reading on the Libya situation, Libya had it relatively good and you had some hinterland tribal leaders that didn't like it. The US went in bombing shit and Libya has been a shithole ever since. Kind of like Iraq except instead of tribal leaders it was more direct Sunni-Shiiite conflict.

 

[rms]

Welcome to geopolitics.

so why did you write that statement and wonder why it's dismissive?

This is a great argument for not intervening.

Syria is not better off being bombed to shit just to install some more shitty replacement to run a bombed out husk.

Yes, it is a counter point against intervening but that is why my original question to our last discussion was "should we do the right thing even if the outcome is unfavorable(and unfavorable because of them not us)?" IE disposing a shitty leader because he's a shitty leader but realizing it's likely another shitty leader will be in line next.

I said actual Russians because there are Russians in place like South Ossetia.

I'm not denying that there are ethnic Russians not in present day Russia but it's irrelevant since it's not their country. They were likely forced to migrate there during the Soviet economic expansion and now are like "wtf this used to be under Russia now it's X shit country?"

I don't know why you're going to Libya now, haven't really talked about it at all.

 

[Dak]

so why did you write that statement and wonder why it's dismissive?

I can't follow your train of thought on this, sorry.

Yes, it is a counter point against intervening but that is why my original question to our last discussion was "should we do the right thing even if the outcome is unfavorable(and unfavorable because of them not us)?" IE disposing a shitty leader because he's a shitty leader but realizing it's likely another shitty leader will be in line next.

I don't know why you're going to Libya now, haven't really talked about it at all.

Because Syria is likely to be the new Libya if intervention occurs. Empirical example.

I'm not denying that there are ethnic Russians not in present day Russia but it's irrelevant since it's not their country. They were likely forced to migrate there during the Soviet economic expansion and now are like "wtf this used to be under Russia now it's X shit country?"

So whose country is it? Some random bumfucks?

 

[rms]

So whose country is it? Some random bumfucks?

ethnic majority? most countries not named the U.S. have a clear ethnic majority that is in power and has been in power. why are you acting like this doesn't exist almost everywhere?

You can gtfo with this "international community" stuff. It's simply NATO, which is basically the US. If the "international community" ie the US replaces Assad

I can't follow your train of thought on this, sorry.

from the start you've decided to dismiss the term 'international community' because it's spearheaded by the U.S. That is dismissive because all international actions are either us or Russian, so to not acknowledge international political pressure is dismissive and dishonest for your own sake

Because Syria is likely to be the new Libya if intervention occurs.

that is possible, but it appears the best thing for middle eastern nations is to accept the democratic idea of nationalism rather than relying only on religious ethnic history. if this mindset does not change, one where religious ethnic identity supersedes nationhood, there is no hope for any state in the region

 

[Dak]

ethnic majority? most countries not named the U.S. have a clear ethnic majority that is in power and has been in power. why are you acting like this doesn't exist almost everywhere?

What are the ethnic majorities though? What is the ethnic majority in Georgia? "Georgians"? WTF are Georgians? Some small portion of Iberian descendants with a bunch of mixing of other things. Iraq is mostly Arab, but then you have the Kurds cutting across several borders because they received the shaft in the Sykes-Picot divisioning, and no one gives a shit about that.

from the start you've decided to dismiss the term 'international community' because it's spearheaded by the U.S. That is dismissive because all international actions are either us or Russian, so to not acknowledge international political pressure is dismissive and dishonest for your own sake

I'm dismissive because it isn't "international". It's essentially NATO, which consists of 28 countries, most of whom are too small to matter. If you think the opinions of Estonia, Luxembourg, Croatia, Belgium, etc matter, I have some water front property in Florida you should buy.

if this mindset does not change, one where religious ethnic identity supersedes nationhood, there is no hope for any state in the region

The latter sentiment is a reality no amount of bombs is going to change, unless it's an eradication. Now, it's possible other methods would work, but quarantine is necessary in any case imo.

 

[rms]

WTF are Georgians? Some small portion of Iberian descendants with a bunch of mixing of other things.

Sounds like they have an ethnic identity to at least the 4th century

but then you have the Kurds cutting across several borders because they received the shaft in the Sykes-Picot divisioning, and no one gives a shit about that.

there is recognition of a "Kurdistan" in the north to some folks

'm dismissive because it isn't "international".

one, there seems to be some confusion on what international means.

two, this style of arguing is so horseshit. Yeah, Luxembourg ain't shit but there's Canada, France, Italy, UK, Turks and the Germans. Those are all large players in the global world. NATO is international

The latter sentiment is a reality no amount of bombs is going to change, unless it's an eradication.

the hell do you think the intention of bombing is? Christ dak this shit is so tiring and aggravating. i'm done man

 

[Dak]

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...rths-early-atmosphere-yields-all-4-rna-bases/

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers

If only Oregon had Stand Your Ground laws. Remember when GOP voters were paranoid under Obama and they overreacted by buying too many guns? I guess they should have just bought a lot of bats, bottles, and kerosene, and threatened to use them.

 

[CiG]

Portland seems like an Antifa hub or something.

 

[arg]

the french are idiots. oh well it's fine with me that Macron got elected. more french girls will be pushed into prostitution by globalization; more for Aug to fuck

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/09/james-comey-fbi-fired-donald-trump

“Today, President Donald J Trump informed FBI director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office,” a White House statement read.

“President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”

Comey’s firing comes days after he testified on Capitol Hill about the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the US election and possible connections between Russia and Trump’s campaign.

Gotta get rid of the people who might pose a threat to your governance, I suppose...

Quote from the NYT:

President Trump has dismissed the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” Mr. Trump said in a letter dated Tuesday to Mr. Comey.

“It is essential that we find new leadership for the F.B.I. that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,” Mr. Trump wrote.

 

[rms]

the amount of firings has to be at an all time high for a president, right?

 

[Dak]

The best people. Tremendous people. You won't believe it.