[Cyberyeti]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-07, 14:30, said:

Color me highly skeptical. Assad has never impressed me as being insane; a tyrant, yes, but not insane. He would surely know that using gas would provoke the world to retaliate. And he was already winning the war. And if I remember correctly, a couple of years ago Syria/Assad relinquished all of their chemical weapons, under the supervision of the Russians. So theoretically Syria should have no such weapons. This smells to me like a False Flag incident. I would like to see some actual evidence/proof to substantiate the claim that Assad was the perpetrator.

There was a strong suspicion at the time that he didn't get rid of all of them.

I've heard evidence on the radio (BBC) that the spread of the gas indicates that it would be vanishingly unlikely that this was a hit on something on the ground (unless there were lots of sites), and also that there were no blast injuries (*edit from the area where the chemicals were released, conventional bombs were dropped elsewhere at a similar time) till they bombed the hospital(s).

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-07, 14:30, said:

Color me highly skeptical. Assad has never impressed me as being insane; a tyrant, yes, but not insane. He would surely know that using gas would provoke the world to retaliate. And he was already winning the war. And if I remember correctly, a couple of years ago Syria/Assad relinquished all of their chemical weapons, under the supervision of the Russians. So theoretically Syria should have no such weapons. This smells to me like a False Flag incident. I would like to see some actual evidence/proof to substantiate the claim that Assad was the perpetrator.

Haha, I saw an article (on slate I belive) claiming that this "false flag" theory was spreading among right-wing news sites. I thought that this was a typical slate exaggeration, and that hardly anyone would be dumb enough to believe this crap. Turns out I was wrong! At least ldrews believes it!

(Also quite funny how ldrews falls for this crap but then passes it on as his own insight.)

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-April-07, 17:03, said:

Haha, I saw an article (on slate I belive) claiming that this "false flag" theory was spreading among right-wing news sites. I thought that this was a typical slate exaggeration, and that hardly anyone would be dumb enough to believe this crap. Turns out I was wrong! At least ldrews believes it!

(Also quite funny how ldrews falls for this crap but then passes it on as his own insight.)

So then you believe that Assad is dumb enough to have initiated this attack. I would really like to see some evidence. Do you have any? Or are you just posturing?

And then there is the supposed ineffectiveness of the US response. And the US notified Russia beforehand. Perhaps False Flag followed by False Response? I guess we will see.

And don't we risk a major confrontation with Russia who considers Syria an ally? Regardless of who did it, the US response seems to me to be an act of war. Certainly if Russia carried out the same type of attack on Turkey we would probably already be in a war with Russia.

[ldrews]

Thinking about the US Syrian attack a little bit more, if I were Russia I could not afford to let the US attack go unanswered. If Russia does not respond actively in some way it will lose face and standing among its allies and enemies. After all, it did not stand up to aggression against one of its allies by the US.

So it seems to me that we are probably committed to some kind of active war with Russia at this point.

[Al_U_Card]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-07, 19:08, said:

Thinking about the US Syrian attack a little bit more, if I were Russia I could not afford to let the US attack go unanswered. If Russia does not respond actively in some way it will lose face and standing among its allies and enemies. After all, it did not stand up to aggression against one of its allies by the US.

So it seems to me that we are probably committed to some kind of active war with Russia at this point.

Upthread, I posted a report by a Canadian journalist, on-site, that demonstrated clearly the US backed insurgents were the Syrian's real enemies and not Assad. That the Intelligence "community" (more like a gang...) has been running these operations since the 50's is only a surprise to the deaf, dumb and blind....

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-07, 11:04, said:

Not everyone agrees with Paul Krugman, but this time I think he nails it.

Really? He describes Trump as "less hypocritical" than most other politicians. Isn't he the racist who called himself "the least anti-Semitic person you've ever seen in your entire life" and "least racist person". And he said that to an orthodox Jewish reporter.

It just seems like Trump is speaking honestly because he doesn't censor himself like most politicians. He just lets whatever he's thinking come out of his mouth (or Twitter feed). But he still tailors his comments to the expected audience.

[y66]

 barmar, on 2017-April-07, 23:40, said:

Really? He describes Trump as "less hypocritical" than most other politicians. Isn't he the racist who called himself "the least anti-Semitic person you've ever seen in your entire life" and "least racist person". And he said that to an orthodox Jewish reporter.

It just seems like Trump is speaking honestly because he doesn't censor himself like most politicians. He just lets whatever he's thinking come out of his mouth (or Twitter feed). But he still tailors his comments to the expected audience.

I think Krugman is right about the hypocrisy thing. One of the best pieces of writing from 2008 titled "The End" by Michael Lewis which wound its way into "The Big Short", includes this story:

Quote

Danny Moses, who became Eisman’s head trader, came third [third guy hired by Steve Eisman]. Danny had worked as a salesman at Oppenheimer and Co. and had pungent memories of Eisman doing and saying all sorts of things that sell-side analysts seldom did. In the middle of one trading day, for instance, Eisman had walked to the podium at the center of the Oppenheimer trading floor, called for everyone’s attention, announced that “the following eight stocks are going to zero,” and then listed eight companies that indeed went bankrupt. Raised in Georgia, the son of a finance professor, Danny was less openly fatalistic than Vinny or Steve, but he nevertheless shared a general sense that bad things can and do happen, especially on Wall Street. When a Wall Street firm helped him to get into a trade that seemed perfect in every way, he asked the salesman, “I appreciate this, but I just want to know one thing: How are you going to ***** me?” Heh-heh-heh, c’mon, we’d never do that, the trader started to say, but Danny, though perfectly polite, was insistent. We both know that unadulterated good things like this trade don’t just happen between little hedge funds and big Wall Street firms. I’ll do it, but only after you explain to me how you are going to ***** me. And the salesman explained how he was going to ***** him. And Danny did the trade.

Trump will do whatever it takes to close a deal, including lie up the wazoo which is what con-men do. But if asked point blank as a condition for closing the deal to explain how he's going to ***** the other party, I think he would be happy to explain. A hypocrite wouldn't. In kenberg's favorite anecdote about realtors and wall-to-wall carpet, I feel sure Trump would have smiled and said you're right, so-and-so screwed up that part of the ad (even though he knows so-and-so listed it exactly as instructed), we can carpet that if you want. Ryan, on the other hand, would have refused to concede that he was ***** the other party because he believes that if it's not illegal it's not *****.

[jogs]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-07, 14:23, said:

Moderators - isn't this about enough hateful, spiteful spewing of alt-right garbage?

When has it become unconstitutional to report the truth? This is Newspeak from the left to silence everyone who doesn't agree with their message and is willing to report the inconvenient truth.

[Cyberyeti]

 jogs, on 2017-April-08, 08:05, said:

When has it become unconstitutional to report the truth? This is Newspeak from the left to silence everyone who doesn't agree with their message and is willing to report the inconvenient truth.

I think you should check your facts, there is NO evidence of any great numbers of these things, particularly since Sweden doesn't actually publish the relevant statistics, so anybody quoting them is making them up. (source http://www.loonwatch...muslim-rapists/) This is not a website I frequent, was just the furst one that happened to come up on a search and gives the similar figures from Denmark.

[Trinidad]

 Trinidad, on 2017-April-07, 08:57, said:

Is there anybody who still thinks that Trump shouldn't apologize to the Swedes?

Stupidity is not merely stupid and/or funny. It has consequences.

Rik

 jogs, on 2017-April-07, 13:09, said:

Will the Swedes apologize to all the Swedish women who have been raped and sexually harassed by Muslim men?

At least Trump's stupidity is funny.

Rik

[jogs]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-08, 08:19, said:

I think you should check your facts, there is NO evidence of any great numbers of these things, particularly since Sweden doesn't actually publish the relevant statistics, so anybody quoting them is making them up. (source http://www.loonwatch...muslim-rapists/) This is not a website I frequent, was just the furst one that happened to come up on a search and gives the similar figures from Denmark.

There is strong evidence the left refuses to allow the police to properly record the crimes.
This is happening in 300 sanctuary cities in America.

Islam under Sharia Law is the 7th century religion of human right abuses. Women are treated like property.

By 2050 many regions in Europe will be under Sharia. By then it will be too late.

[jogs]

This Middle East mess was created by you Europeans.
There are no Syrians. There are no Iraqis.
This are made up countries by you Europeans.

There are Shiites. There are Sunnis. And there are Kurds.
Each group must be given their own country.

Assad did not gas his own people. Assad gassed the Sunnis and Kurds.

[Winstonm]

As usual, people who see the world as a binary place where only right and wrong reside are easy prey for propagandists and sloganeers.

There is no black and white divide between Muslims and the rest of the world - that is the propaganda. Is ISIS an enemy? Yes. Are Muslims the enemy? No.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-09, 10:15, said:

As usual, people who see the world as a binary place where only right and wrong reside are easy prey for propagandists and sloganeers.

There is no black and white divide between Muslims and the rest of the world - that is the propaganda. Is ISIS an enemy? Yes. Are Muslims the enemy? No.

In the wild not all lions are dangerous, just some. In the wild, if you encounter a lion, what is your assumption?

In the world not all Muslims are dangerous, just the jihadists and groups like ISIS who have established a history of terrorism. Since Muslims do not wear a sign indicating their affiliations, when you encounter a Muslim in the world, what is your assumption?

[Cyberyeti]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-09, 11:26, said:

In the wild not all lions are dangerous, just some. In the wild, if you encounter a lion, what is your assumption?

In the world not all Muslims are dangerous, just the jihadists and groups like ISIS who have established a history of terrorism. Since Muslims do not wear a sign indicating their affiliations, when you encounter a Muslim in the world, what is your assumption?

Not all Christians are bigots and homophobes, WBC are, so do I assume every Christian is a bigot and a homophobe ?

My assumption is that a Muslim (particularly in my country) is one of the say 99.9% not the 0.1%.

[ldrews]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-09, 12:34, said:

Not all Christians are bigots and homophobes, WBC are, so do I assume every Christian is a bigot and a homophobe ?

My assumption is that a Muslim (particularly in my country) is one of the say 99.9% not the 0.1%.

If you think your life or family's safety depends on it, then perhaps it would be wise to do so until you find out otherwise. If you don't think your life or your family's safety depends on your assumption, then no. The problem is you may not know the answer until it is too late.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-09, 14:43, said:

If you think your life or family's safety depends on it, then perhaps it would be wise to do so until you find out otherwise. If you don't think your life or your family's safety depends on your assumption, then no. The problem is you may not know the answer until it is too late.

You're infinitely more likely to be killed in a car accident than murdered by a terrorist. By your logic you shouldn't drive because of the risk to your life.

Good luck trying to live life without any risk.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2017-April-09, 14:54, said:

You're infinitely more likely to be killed in a car accident than murdered by a terrorist. By your logic you shouldn't drive because of the risk to your life.

Good luck trying to live life without any risk.

I think you misunderstand ldrews' way of life. He chose to live in Mexico, and he thinks Trump's greatest achievement is keeping more Mexicans out of the USA. The guy presumably despises and distrusts everyone he meets. (I always thought "misanthropic" is a theoretical over-the-top construct, but obviously ldrews fits the description perfectly, and there is no other single word describing him better.)

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-09, 11:26, said:

In the wild not all lions are dangerous, just some. In the wild, if you encounter a lion, what is your assumption?

In the world not all Muslims are dangerous, just the jihadists and groups like ISIS who have established a history of terrorism. Since Muslims do not wear a sign indicating their affiliations, when you encounter a Muslim in the world, what is your assumption?

I guess I am unlike you in that I do not enounter "Muslims" but people, some good, some bad.

On that point, I just got back from a trip to Lisbon where we stayed in an airbnb apartment that we had to walk up to and down from every day, passing, on a very narrow street, a Muslim restaurant and many street sellers from North Africa. I never once felt concerned for my safety.

People are people. There are crazies, sure. Most people, though, are just trying to live their lives and get by.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-09, 16:07, said:

I guess I am unlike you in that I do not enounter "Muslims" but people, some good, some bad.

On that point, I just got back from a trip to Lisbon where we stayed in an airbnb apartment that we had to walk up to and down from every day, passing, on a very narrow street, a Muslim restaurant and many street sellers from North Africa. I never once felt concerned for my safety.

People are people. There are crazies, sure. Most people, though, are just trying to live their lives and get by.

In general I agree with you. But just like there are sections of Chicago that I avoid because the risk/reward ratio is not good, there are now classes of people/culture I would avoid for the same reason.