[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

As sad as a tragedy like this inevitably is, I'm glad for once the blame won't be put on the coterie of Muslim ''monsters'', which would have the only effect of causing even more victims in the long term. Both physically and as a poisonous side effect of finger-pointing.

Aren't the media "finger-pointing" over the Norway tragedy causing even more victims in the long term? Because it seems very much like it to me. Plus the Muslim "monsters" will see it as a plus that the spotlight isn't on them for a change, which is cause for concern as the West won't be as prepared for their next atrocity.

[tesla69]

http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/07/2...ian-candidate/
"Breivik’s profile, and Hollywood extra photos were already on the news desks of editors within minutes of his apprehension, and if that’s not strange enough, allegedly, also, the arresting police already knew his name. This point was brought up by Channel 4 anchorman Jon Snow, who raised this oddity in a tweet, “What we don’t know is how the police knew the terrorist’s name before they arrested him”."

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by tesla69

the ikara cult said: Just when i thought you might be above carting out your paranoid conspiracy theories about the world, you bring it up in reference to this. Bravo Tesla, you've really outstripped yourself on this one, i just hope the black helicopters have time to explain how much bollocks you talk before they shoot you in the head
the ikara cult said: Spare yourself the worry, he's a fucking bellend

- once again the frightened boardies resort to their name calling when the links scare them.
Go back to your corporate media, they have everything figured out for you.

How many fucking times do I have to tell you dopes I post these links to show tendencies, I don't know for sure they are correct, but I sure know the reporting on ABC is a fucking lie. No one as ever forced you to look at any of them, but you can't help yourself, can you. Why don't you just go back to Glenn Beck's board where its all nice and neat for you.

Go back to your friendly world of surveillance where your every email and phone message is sorted and categorizd, hey I'm "paranoid" because I recognize this and object ot it, you're normal because you buy into it and like it - I bet you make faces at surveillance cameras as you past them. You enjoy interacting with the nazis.

Strangely, Glenn Beck has said something about all this that could have come straight from one of your "interesting" links

Glenn Beck likes "Tendencies" too

I guess you are a victim of the internet in many ways, you dont have to state your actual position, you can just post links to "interesting" websites that talk about all kinds of mental theories every time a major event in the news happens and then run away saying "No no, its not my opinion, its just interesting".

This isnt a political science messageboard where you get credit for telling us how interesting you find things, anyone can do that. I suspect you're afraid of stating your position on matters because you're afraid of a) ridicule and b) ever being proven wrong, so you just dance around telling us its "interesting". Sorry, that defence doesnt put you beyond criticism.

[ilduclo]

too many wack jobs with too many guns. or, just too many guns, period

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

Telsa makes the same point everytime, last time he used the term 'interesting' this time it was 'tendencies'. But the fact is, that the CIA/Norwegian intelligence had NOTHING to do with Anders decision to go murder people. So there are no tendencies other than in tesla's fantasy world.

The problem is, that posting completely bs things like this is not an attempt to discern the truth, it's an attempt to create a fictional narcissistic narrative for yourself to inhabit, and then kicking sand at anyone that challenges it.

I would never object, no sane person would, if tesla posted links that actually showed that there WAS some sort of state involvement in this. But there wasn't. It's simply bogus to even infer that their might be.

Then tesla discredits himself and starts calling people nazi supporters etc. If he was really serious about anything he posted, he wouldn't do this. But it demonstrates exactly how this is a narcissitic RPG for him. Tesla against the world. When we don't agree that he should post utterly false 'speculations' to fit his own quasi religious view of the world, he lambasts us as 'corporatists' or supporters of the very evil he rails against. It's exactly the same tactics fundamentalist christians use when people object to their false world view no? Project the evil you seek to fight onto those that disagree with you. We must be fans of state surviellance etc.

That's exactly the kind of thing you would say if you wanted to preserve your ideal of yourself as a rugged individualist truth seeker fighting against the common scum who are all in bed with a corrupt system that is robbing you of your rightful glory.

Of course, for someone like Ikara, what tesla does is intolerable, because this is someone who believes that nato invaded Libya for selfless humanitarian reasons, and buys the official party line on Iraq etc.

Oh, and now, i'm a Glenn Beck fan!

Nato did invade Libya for humanitarian reasons (humanitarianism is not selfless by definition, by the way) as Gadaffi had explicitly promised to massacre the city of Benghazi. The mandate only covers the prevention of genocide, which was what Gadaffi was going to do.
I would ask you what you want the Libyans and the citizens of Syria, Iran etc. to do. If you want the regimes of those countries to change (which im assuming you do) you'd much rather they rose up of their own accord and attempted to resolve the matter without outside military force being involved, right? It worked in Egypt, but what message is being sent if the only dictators who fall are the ones who DONT crush the resistance with lethal force, and the violent oppressive ones get to stay in power? We dont have to mount a full ground invasion of each and every one of these countries, we just have to support the people who want to get rid of the dictators. The UK expelled all Libyan diplomats today as a matter of fact and recognised the resistance movement as the authority, which i think is a good move.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Nato did invade Libya for humanitarian reasons (humanitarianism is not selfless by definition, by the way) as Gadaffi had explicitly promised to massacre the city of Benghazi.

No he didn't. Unless you can provide a link to prove this.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

The mandate only covers the prevention of genocide, which was what Gadaffi was going to do.

Again this information came from the US backed rebels only.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

I would ask you what you want the Libyans and the citizens of Syria, Iran etc. to do. If you want the regimes of those countries to change (which im assuming you do) you'd much rather they rose up of their own accord and attempted to resolve the matter without outside military force being involved, right?

This is the only way it should be. US/UK only ever get involved to insure US/UK friendly regimes are installed/maintained.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

It worked in Egypt,

Not yet it hasn't!

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

The UK expelled all Libyan diplomats today as a matter of fact and recognised the resistance movement as the authority, which i think is a good move.

Why? Who are the resistance movement? Why are they better than the present regime? They are lead by people who were Gaddafi loyalists until recently. That makes them what exactly? Representative of the ordinary people?

And also this:

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

Gaddafi was removed from power because he was planning to socialize his industries, stop using the dollar and start selling his oil to eastern countries. This was a powerplay by the US who want to make inroads in Africa before the Chinese get too strongly established there.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

1) No he didn't. Unless you can provide a link to prove this.

2) Again this information came from the US backed rebels only. This is the only way it should be.

3) US/UK only ever get involved to insure US/UK friendly regimes are installed/maintained.

4) Not yet it hasn't!

5) Why? Who are the resistance movement? Why are they better than the present regime? They are lead by people who were Gaddafi loyalists until recently. That makes them what exactly? Representative of the ordinary people?

1) Huffington Post liberal enough for ya?
Maybe something from India?
Or the good ol' New York Times?

2) The UN recognised a No-Fly zone
"Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians"
If you dont know what a no-fly zone is, it means any military forces coming into the area are allowed to be engaged.

3) In the past, definitely (assasination of Allende in Chile, many others). But look at Egypt - The Israeli lobby is very wary of the Egyptian uprising because Egypt was always a close ally of Israel under Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in influence, and the US and Israel definitely doesnt want them becoming a political force. Im not naive about the way America exerts its influence, but its not like theyre assasinating Hugo Chavez any more.
(edited, i misread your point the first time)

4) Egypt; A dictatorship of 30 years has been gone for 4 or 5 months. I guess if you cant overhaul an entire societal and political culture in a fortnight its not worth bothering. Revolution is such a drag aint it? And besides, given your previous statement, why do you even give a shit what they do?

5) "Why? Who are the resistance movement? Why are they better than the present regime? They are lead by people who were Gaddafi loyalists until recently. That makes them what exactly? Representative of the ordinary people?"

This is a fair point of concern, lest i appear too gung ho for you rugged libertarian types. When you have a society structured around the rule of a dictator the only people who have ANY military experience or expertise are members of the dictators' army/police/secret police. That they would risk the obvious horrors involved in defecting makes them brave, if not neccessarily secular democrats like I. Again, I dont sit in my chair demanding that the world instantly change to my tastes overnight; that would make me the politcal equivolant of the guy at the back of the indie rock show complaining that they prefer the early stuff before the original bass player left to deal with his smack habit. Practical neccessity means they are going to be a broad church however, and thats exactly what Gadaffi and all dictators like to crush to keep themselves in power.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

Anders was a cylon

[the ikara cult]

“Thank you for allowing all of us the opportunity to see our imprisoned friend’s face. I eagerly await the day that we can see the rising of the free sun without prisons and chains.”

Call me a cunt, but just being cynical aint good enough for me

http://cyberdissidents.org/

If you think any of these people are US/Israeli stooges, please feel free to send them a message saying so. I dont agree with all of them all the time, but i take their opinions about a billion times more seriously than i do the people on this board.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

This is a totally unfounded inferrence and unrelated to the subject of discussion.

The US/UK has a history of war crimes in that region. Of course, you would learn nothing of this if your only source was the BBC.

For a more accurate understanding of the intervention in Bosnia, see here:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html


And more here and here:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ap...goto-a22.shtml
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2...war-nato-serbs

I misread what Pookie was saying in his original point, i have gone back and corrected myself (see above). I will answer your other points in a minute

[the ikara cult]

first, my responses were to pookie's points, so bear with me, given that im sure you dont both agree on everything

1)Those articles don't indicate Gaddafi was planning a genocide, only that he was planning to attack rebel troops. Of course, it's very likely innocent civilians would get caught in the crossfire, but this is no signal that he intended to committ genocide.

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on what Colnel Gaddaffi, responsible for brutal repression of the Libyan people for 40 years, heavily implicated in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, pursuing chemical and biological weapons for years (until 2003) meant by Showing No Mercy. I think his record speaks for itself.

Don't know what this is in relation to or how it is relevant.

Pookie made a point about the UN mandate, in response to Pookie i posted a link to the UN website to explain this.

This is a totally unfounded inferrence and unrelated to the subject of discussion.
The US/UK has a history of war crimes in that region. Of course, you would learn nothing of this if your only source was the BBC.
For a more accurate understanding of the intervention in Bosnia, see here:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html
And more here and here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ap...goto-a22.shtml
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2...war-nato-serbs
See my above post, i misread the original post by Pookie, probably by trying to do too many things at once, and i have corrected myself.

A dictatorship that was backed by the US, a dictator who was trained by the US, a dictator who was funded by the US. Yes, he's gone, but all that has replaced him is a military dictatorship. One wonders how a military dicatatorship is any better than a Mubarak led one was.

Pookie said that the US and UK only get involved to ensure friendly regimes survive - One good example of that is Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But now he's gone. What do you think of the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, seeing as all I seem to be doing is answeringg questions like im the only person who has to justify my position.
I put the same points to you, where do you stand?


There is nothing in Pookie's posts to suggest he is a libertarian, I suspect you don't understand the meaning of this term. Then you make a totally unfounded assertion that Pookie was unreasonably demanding the world change to his own expectations from an armchair, when he did nothing of the sort and only asked reasonable questions which you are not able to fully answer.[/quote]

I was making a joke based on previous posts, seeing as i have 3 of you to deal with. This debate may be more humourless than the front row of a My Bloody Valentine gig, but you cant blame me for trying. Incidentally, isolationism is a core Libertarian principle in many circles which is why so many American Libertarians opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan

Once again, im not the only one who has to justify my position, are you willing to justify yours?

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

After posting I see you have edited point 3 and now said this:



The idea that these tactics have somehow ceased in recent years is absurd, a fiction concocted on your part as a result of wishful thinking.

The muslim brotherhood does not have enough influence to form a political party anywhere close in size to the other political parties formed in the wake of the revolution. It's influence is neglible, and whatever influence it has now only came about as a consequence of the revolution itself.

They never did assasinate Chavez, they did kidnap him and try to oust his government, but they failed. Relations with Chavez have not improved and the US is likely to try to organize another coup against him or whoever replaces him in the future.

see above, i misread the point and corrected myself, my mistake

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

None of that is evidence that he was planning a genocide, which is the original point you made.



Yes, the example of Mubarak only confirms his point, because now that Mubarak has gone a military dictatorship has taken his place.

It is doubtful to me if the Egyptian people would be strong enough to repel the brutal repression that would come there way should they try to self determine their future in contrary to US/NATO interests. However, this does not mean that this will be impossible in the future, particularly considering the potential for US military overstretch and defeat in the region. However it's possible an attempt to do this would result in them meeting a similar fate as Iraq. The US would not hesitate to bomb large numbers of civilian targets in order to keep down an uprising. This might be more difficult for them to do considering the popular support for the uprising around the world. It's likely they will continue to use propaganda to whip up fear about a Muslim Brotherhood uprising. I can only speculate as to what will happen.

I think the revolution is an encouraging sign from the perspective of the Egyptian people but I am unsure what it will lead to. If the revolutions across the middle east are a sign of a recognition amongst the masses that US/UK/NATO countries have been keeping them divided and fueding for a long time, and that a unified middle east could become a major superpower and threat to said forces, then they might finally be getting somewhere. However, grassroots power in the middle east would be heavily dependent on control of dwindling oil reserves which will at some point dry up completely. Also, climate change forecasts more bad weather, thus food shortages (which were the primary cause of the revolution) in the middle east. The question becomes what can rebelling populations do to address these problems?

A strong middle east would require the technology to deal with the coming food and water shortages that are likely to blight the region. They would also need technology that could ensure the continued functioning of modern technocratic states after the oil runs out. It's unlikely that much innovation in these areas will come from the middle east itself, since most of it is obviously not capable of this kind of research. China and the rest of the world are the likelier source of a solution for these problems.

But as I've said before, it's likely that Chinese/NATO interest in the middle east will be drastically reduced once the oil and plunderable resources have all been used up.



Noone has asked you to justify opinions, we have been querying the facts you assert. It's not clear what subjects you're asking me about here.

As i recall you made statements about me first, granted that wasnt a direct accusation towards me, but i decided to take you up on it. Forgive me if im mixing you Tesla and Pookie up

I doubt that the US and Nato would clamp down on Egypt if they put in place a democratic regime. To be honest the momentum of the protests suggests that the Egyptians would know a new form of dictatorship if it tried to assert itself. Given the way that the West has supported the democratic impulse (weakly, admittedly) it would be impossible to clamp down on a reasonably representative system.

Anyway; What do you think of the Iranian regime, and what strategy should we adopt to deal with it?

What were your feelings when the "Arab spring" began, and what hopes/fears do you have for its future in Iran, Libya, Syria?

How much should we account for the Israeli governments opinion when discussing the "Arab Spring"

Ive tried to avoid these arguements on here recently as i dont hear much that challenges my opinions (though why should i expect to, i suppose) but its always good to keep the tools sharpened.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Anyway; What do you think of the Iranian regime, and what strategy should we adopt to deal with it?

In this one sentence you sum up the entire reason why the attitude in the west is abhorrent to me. Why do you think it is any of our business to do anything about Iran? They are no threat to us and the only real threat they pose is to their own people.

There was of course support for Iran after the US helped overthrow the parliamentary government and installed a dictator, helping them develop their own nuclear capabilities. Iran's major crime as far as the US is concerned, is its independence, an intolerable position for a major energy source.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

In this one sentence you sum up the entire reason why the attitude in the west is abhorrent to me. Why do you think it is any of our business to do anything about Iran? They are no threat to us and the only real threat they pose is to their own people.

And in this one sentence you sum up the entire reason why your attitude is abhorrant to me. Its our business to do something about Iran because there are young people being imprisoned and murdered every single day for expressing a dissenting opinion against the powers that be in Iran. If Americans were being thrown into jail for protesting against the US government you would be up in arms.

So I'll narrow the parameters of the question for you;
Do you care what government runs Iran, a country of 75 million people?

[the ikara cult]

Do you understand that there is already a dicatatorship in control of Egypt? How has the West supported 'the democratic impulse'?

How would a 'reasonably representative system' take power under the current military dictatorship? How on earth would this be impossible to clamp down on by the very power that backs the current military dictatorship?

I don't understand how the US, who backed thr dictatorship, its secret police and its torture rendition, would tolerate any challenge to the military dictatorship now in control. One composed of many of the people that were doing all the spying and torturing and repression during the Mubarak years.

As i said, thats a fair concern. But its a society that has spent 30 years under the power of an unelected dictator,. Because of this, like Libya, the only people who have any military/law enforcement expertise are the people who were in the army and police. So as i said, you cant expect an entire culture to overhaul itself overnight.
In response to another of your points, I said it would be impossible for the USA to clamp down on it, not the military of Egypt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the ikara cult
Anyway; What do you think of the Iranian regime, and what strategy should we adopt to deal with it?


I suspect the power that thinks from that perspective might try and launch a war with Iran as a military keynesianism strategy.

I ask you a question, and you dont answer it. Cmon Knikknnknk, I answered all of your questions, at least try and answer mine. What do you think our strategy should be towards the Iranian regime?

I talked about the situation in this region in my previous post.

Id like you to elaborate, if possible
[/quote]

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

And in this one sentence you sum up the entire reason why your attitude is abhorrant to me. Its our business to do something about Iran because there are young people being imprisoned and murdered every single day for expressing a dissenting opinion against the powers that be in Iran. If Americans were being thrown into jail for protesting against the US government you would be up in arms.

So I'll narrow the parameters of the question for you;
Do you care what government runs Iran, a country of 75 million people?

So what do you think we should do?

I think that the trouble with intervention is that you can't trust the US and their motives for any intervention. If they cared about democracy and human rights, then why have they continually supported Israel during their illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine? Why did they support Iraq, Libya...(I could go on listing brutal regimes but we all know who they are).`

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

So what do you think we should do?

I think that the trouble with intervention is that you can't trust the US and their motives for any intervention. If they cared about democracy and human rights, then why have they continually supported Israel during their illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine? Why did they support Iraq, Libya...(I could go on listing brutal regimes but we all know who they are).`

Good good, i share those reservations as a matter of fact. The US fucked up massively in how it dealt with postwar Iraq, the incompetance was absoulutely criminal (Just because i think it was right to remove Saddam Hussein doesnt mean i cant criticise that aspect of the war). I also have problems with the way Israel has conducted itself, although thats a whole other massive discussion.

The key matter for me though is what the Iranians want.
Because of the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80s, where over a million Iranian men died, there is a massive baby boomer population in Iran that was born around the same time as most of us here, and they want the same basic human rights that you and I have

I would prefer you answered the question first if thats ok, seeing as ive spent this whole thread answering questions

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

this man will surely get what he deserves ---- all 21 years of the maximum sentence.

it costs upwards of $300,000,000 to house and execute an inmate in California's Death Row, that is a SHITLOAD of money spent on fleeting and largely symbolic vengeance. The Norwegians are smart about their system, people in America just don't realize the paradox of the modern death penalty.

In regards to this shooting, does anyone HONESTLY believe that a lone-gunman blew up the downtown and then found an obscure island political camp and managed to gun down so many people?

I will also say this, notice that in a properly civilized society and police-force they can apprehend a mass-murderer at the scene of the crime for trial, just as the shooter at the Frankfurt airport was arrested, and yet here in Los Angeles the police can't seem to arrest anyone even remotely suspected of being armed without an officer involved fatal shooting? They even carry around the "ham sandwich" to plant on those poor souls who were killed yet unarmed ;(

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

I don't think you asked any of these questions for any other reason than to divert from being unable to respond to the challenges made to the mixture of unfounded conjecture and wishful thinking you were questioned on before. You now want to pass this off as merely your "opinions" and ask me for my opinions so that this becomes nothing but the exchange of relativistic personal points of view, points that you before tried to pass off as face. I don't want to be drawn into that.

I have no interest in speaking from the perspective of some "we" that thinks it needs to "deal" with the Iranian regime.

You can reread the post I referred you back to, again, i'm not going to be drawn into something that attempts to frame this from the perspective of relativistic opinions.

You dont have an answer, do you?