|
Crasscrab posted:So... I guess they captured a FSA vehicle? It's just asking for a friendly fire incident.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:17 |
|
PT6A posted:"The Americans" made this video? Well, color me loving surprised, because I thought it was made by a ex-con Egyptian Copt who wanted to stir poo poo up. Interesting to know that the entire country, including the diplomats and support staff for diplomatic missions which have been attacked, are in on it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
visceril posted:I don't think you can call a guy steeped in Sharia culture for his entire life a poo poo for thinking that Sharia is good. 'Wrong' and 'misguided' seem more appropriate. There're an awful lot of people who've been steeped in Sharia culture their entire lives who still manage to sport the meagre soundness of mind required to conclude that making the marrying of nine-year-olds legal is a less than excellent idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Because when I think about the US supporting a terrorist group that has attacked people we view as enemies right now, I'm absurd. If by "support" you mean "disarm and move to a country where their cult can do little if any damage". If all that it takes is to remove groups from the terrorist list to get then to disarm and renounce violence then we have one hell of a tool for peace in the world. I would make this gambit with the Taliban and a number of other terrorist groups in a second. You can always put them back on the list if they renege.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
karthun posted:If by "support" you mean "disarm and move to a country where their cult can do little if any damage". If all that it takes is to remove groups from the terrorist list to get then to disarm and renounce violence then we have one hell of a tool for peace in the world. I would make this gambit with the Taliban and a number of other terrorist groups in a second. You can always put them back on the list if they renege. The MEK is responsible for assassinating Iranian scientists: http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news...s-tell-nbc-news So no, they have not renounced violence at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Material support for terrorism has been a standard American foreign policy tool since forever.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:There're an awful lot of people who've been steeped in Sharia culture their entire lives who still manage to sport the meagre soundness of mind required to conclude that making the marrying of nine-year-olds legal is a less than excellent idea. There's no evidence for any religion at all--in some cases there's indisputable scientific evidence that disproves tenents of religion. And yet, most people still believe. Marx wrote that religion is an expression of human suffering. In the place with (arguably) the most suffering, it's understandable that more people believe and believe more fervently. Add to that the years of Western treachery, and I think there's a real chance that this guy sincerely believes there's no abuse involved in marrying a 9-year old, any evidence to the contrary is more Wesrern lies, and that it would make Allah happy and benefit everyone involved. Again, not saying he's right or that we should excuse his obviously (to us) terrible opinions. Just that with all we in these forums about dissonances, fallacies, and biases, we should understand his position, where it came from, and how to address it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Will Rice posted:The MEK is responsible for assassinating Iranian scientists: http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news...s-tell-nbc-news Like I said, I would make this gambit with the Taliban and the Taliban has killed a whole bunch of people. The MEK has 1300-1500 people sitting in a refugee camp in Iraq. They want to get the gently caress out of dodge and have their little cult thing somewhere else. Fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It's just asking for a friendly fire incident. Could have also been part of a prisoner exchange. Frankly, I'm really more surprised that the Syrian Army gives enough of a poo poo about its conscripts to do a helicopter MEDEVAC than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
RPG-7 fired from inside an apartment with the predictable results (for the apartment): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69c_1348161020
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:What's China's stake in Syria? Same as Russia's? As I gather it, China's main stake is that they're against anything which legitimizes the international community, and the West in particular, intervening in a nation's absolute right to suppress internal opposition by their means of choice. This keeps them from ever being on the list. Countering Western influence generally is in there too, but mostly it's the first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:As I gather it, China's main stake is that they're against anything which legitimizes the international community, and the West in particular, intervening in a nation's absolute right to suppress internal opposition by their means of choice. This keeps them from ever being on the list. Countering Western influence generally is in there too, but mostly it's the first. Is this a valid concern for China? China (and Russia) is a populous country with strong defensive capabilities, something that the US can't just shock and awe in a month like it did with post-sanctions Iraq. I imagine it doesn't live in fear of foreign intervention - if someone went to war with China they would precipitate WWIII. I'm thinking that China wants to do the first half of what you said, i.e. prevent legitimization of foreign intervention, in order to take away a favorite tool of Western influence. I doubt fear of invasion is a reason. karthun posted:Like I said, I would make this gambit with the Taliban and the Taliban has killed a whole bunch of people. The MEK has 1300-1500 people sitting in a refugee camp in Iraq. They want to get the gently caress out of dodge and have their little cult thing somewhere else. Fine by me. But the poster you quoted gave a source for the MEK's responsibility in assassinating Iranian scientists. The MEK also ran abusive prison camps in Iraq during the Iraq war. They have lied about disarming and have continued their terrorist activities into the present; how does this excuse them from the State terrorist list?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
karthun posted:Like I said, I would make this gambit with the Taliban and the Taliban has killed a whole bunch of people. The MEK has 1300-1500 people sitting in a refugee camp in Iraq. They want to get the gently caress out of dodge and have their little cult thing somewhere else. Fine by me. Taking them off the list probably has more to do with preventing well-connected, wealthy lobbyists for the MEK from going to prison than anything the MEK is actually doing. If a group that actively carries out assassinations in a foreign country is not a terrorist group, what is? edit: what proof do you have of them actually disarming?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Is this a valid concern for China? China (and Russia) is a populous country with strong defensive capabilities, something that the US can't just shock and awe in a month like it did with post-sanctions Iraq. I imagine it doesn't live in fear of foreign intervention - if someone went to war with China they would precipitate WWIII. I'm thinking that China wants to do the first half of what you said, i.e. prevent legitimization of foreign intervention, in order to take away a favorite tool of Western influence. I doubt fear of invasion is a reason. It's not so much fear of invasion so much as heading off precedent for sanctions, support for their own opposition groups, interference with those in their own sphere of interest, condemnations of their human rights record, and all of that. It's not just opposing invasion, China's interest is that the rest of the world should unconditionally butt out when a country represses rebellions and dissidents no matter how brutally, because that's how they want to be treated when they do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Invalido posted:RPG-7 fired from inside an apartment with the predictable results (for the apartment):  Dude, my apartment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
flatbus posted:But the poster you quoted gave a source for the MEK's responsibility in assassinating Iranian scientists. The MEK also ran abusive prison camps in Iraq during the Iraq war. They have lied about disarming and have continued their terrorist activities into the present; how does this excuse them from the State terrorist list? Because they want to get the gently caress out of dodge. First off the MEK is held in the prison camp by the Iraqi government. The MEK only "ran" the camp in the sense that Iraq put all of the people associated with the MEK behind barbed wires and told them to figure life out for themselves. Rajavi's want an exit strategy that would allow for the 3500 or so MEK refugees in Iraq to get out and head to a western democracy where they can hopefully live their lives out in peace (and part of Rajavi's freaky cult). There are other factions of the MEK who disagree (and sometimes violently) with the Rajavi's faction. I am pretty sure that there are factions of the MEK who still want to lead a violent revolution in Iran just like there are factions on both sides that opposed the Good Friday Agreement. So loving what? We can always put the MEK back on the terrorist list. In fact part of this refugee process is the declaration of bank accounts and the processes that they funneled money to avoid the sanctions. It aint perfect or even good but it is a hell of a lot better then what the political realities currently are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Will Rice posted:Taking them off the list probably has more to do with preventing well-connected, wealthy lobbyists for the MEK from going to prison than anything the MEK is actually doing. If a group that actively carries out assassinations in a foreign country is not a terrorist group, what is? They won't be allowed to carry their weapons into the undeclared western democracy that they will be moving to. The Rajavi faction of the MEK wants to leave the middle east, they want to give up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
I've been following the MEK situation for a while on the wikileaks cables. Essentially my understanding is that US policy is to facilitate the phased disbanding of the MEK. This move is part of that. For example:quote:EXTERNAL RESETTLEMENT OF MEK REFUGEES ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- ¶10.(C) The MEK leadership has expressed its willingness to be resettled to Europe (see ref A), and Yassery asked for USG support in encouraging EU governments to accept the MEK. Yassery also asked the USG to consider accepting some MEK defectors as refugees. ¶11.(C) COMMENT: GOI Ashraf committee officials continue to hint that the resettlement of a few hundred Ashraf residents to European countries would substantially reduce the political pressure on the Maliki government to move the MEK from Ashraf in the near future. EU missions in Baghdad have been largely non-committal to GOI requests. EU missions have stated their willingness to consider the cases of MEK members who have nationality ties to their countries, but little beyond that (see ref B). Yassery requested USG support in encouraging EU governments to resettle some MEK members. ¶12.(C) ACTION REQUEST: Post requests that the Department consider encouraging EU missions in Washington to accept properly vetted MEK defectors for refugee resettlement, Qproperly vetted MEK defectors for refugee resettlement, particularly those that have nationality ties to EU countries. In addition, Post requests clarification on the U.S. legal prohibitions to resettlement of MEK refugees in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:
I hope his Persian rug is alright 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I think there's a real chance that this guy sincerely believes there's no abuse involved in marrying a 9-year old, any evidence to the contrary is more Wesrern lies, and that it would make Allah happy and benefit everyone involved. Is there actually a surah or verse which can be interpreted as a positive "thou shalt let dudes marry babies," or is this guy is the religious equivalent of the referee from Air Bud?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
The big thing about the Salafis is trying to live their lives as close to the Prophet's as possible, so to some of them, I'm pretty sure this is no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It's not so much fear of invasion so much as heading off precedent for sanctions, support for their own opposition groups, interference with those in their own sphere of interest, condemnations of their human rights record, and all of that. It's not just opposing invasion, China's interest is that the rest of the world should unconditionally butt out when a country represses rebellions and dissidents no matter how brutally, because that's how they want to be treated when they do that. I think recent events may have made it look like that, but the Iraq sanctions were passed by the UN Security Council and China didn't veto that. This was in the early 90s with the USSR just having fallen apart and Tiananmen square a fresh memory. China also let the UN up its sanctions on North Korea in 2009 right after they detonated a nuke. These positions don't sound like those of a country that uniformly want others to butt out of internal affairs. I don't know much about China's interest in Syria, if there is any. China-Syria trade doesn't amount to a number large enough for China to care. karthun posted:Because they want to get the gently caress out of dodge. Well, specifically those who wanted to stop fighting, as you mentioned. I agree with you that those who want to leave, should. Those who remain and fight should still be considered terrorists. Speaking of which, Fangz posted:I've been following the MEK situation for a while on the wikileaks cables. Essentially my understanding is that US policy is to facilitate the phased disbanding of the MEK. This move is part of that. If each individual has been properly vetted for disarmament and relocation to the EU, then it sounds like all of the people who had given up and wanted to leave, left. That's a good outcome. However, there are still enough MEK operatives working such that they could pull off targeted assassinations. By removing the MEK from the terror list, doesn't that give the entire organization a blank pass? An ideal solution would be to let those who want to leave the Ashraf camp leave after renouncing the MEK, and still keep the organization on the terror list for its members who are actively engaged in terrorism. Is that not feasible because of Ravaji would refuse to give up the MEK organization? Edit: commas are confusing flatbus fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Is this a valid concern for China? China (and Russia) is a populous country with strong defensive capabilities, something that the US can't just shock and awe in a month like it did with post-sanctions Iraq. I imagine it doesn't live in fear of foreign intervention - if someone went to war with China they would precipitate WWIII. I'm thinking that China wants to do the first half of what you said, i.e. prevent legitimization of foreign intervention, in order to take away a favorite tool of Western influence. I doubt fear of invasion is a reason. It's not so much a fear of invasion as it is a fear of foreign involvement in an internal conflict. China, despite the brave unified front it tries to present, is a fairly volatile place, and the large the middle class grows the more dissident it gets towards the party. They have to be careful what they do if they don't want to push the people into an eventual rebellion, and if that rebellion ever did occur, the last thing they would want is western powers supplying and aiding the insurrection. e;fb
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
flatbus posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well being removed from the list didn't mean it can't be put back on if they renege on the deal. Taking them off the list creates leverage to compel them to behave, and eases legal/political issues in the short term, and avoids rubbing their nose in the failure of their movement. So why not? I was under the impression that the US trained and worked with MEK members during the Iraq war. So from my perspective, it's not so much as giving the MEK an incentive to behave nice as it is revoking any legal objections to keep using them as an intelligence arm. Did the US have a change of heart regarding the MEK?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
flatbus posted:I was under the impression that the US trained and worked with MEK members during the Iraq war. So from my perspective, it's not so much as giving the MEK an incentive to behave nice as it is revoking any legal objections to keep using them as an intelligence arm. Did the US have a change of heart regarding the MEK? I don't think so. The MEK were closely aligned with Saddam and were actually bombed during the Iraq war. More recently they may have been more cooperative with providing intel on Iran, but the overwhelming impression I have is that the US is primarily interested here in placating the Iraqis without them committing some kind of embarrassing (to the Americans) atrocity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Just saw this on the Reuters twitterquote:Libyan pro-government demonstrators enter HQ of Islamist militia in Benghazi to evict fighters - witnesses #breaking [edit] There's some Tweets suggesting they've started to shoot protesters. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Those human rights? Eh. Not for us. Muslim children have no need of a right not to be raped. If he's saying human rights might not fit for Muslims doesn't he realize he's inadvertently(?) saying Muslims aren't people?  Not that anyone who wants to marry(and rape) 9 year old girls is likely fit to live any civilized society. flatbus posted:Is this a valid concern for China? China (and Russia) is a populous country with strong defensive capabilities, something that the US can't just shock and awe in a month like it did with post-sanctions Iraq. I imagine it doesn't live in fear of foreign intervention - if someone went to war with China they would precipitate WWIII. I'm thinking that China wants to do the first half of what you said, i.e. prevent legitimization of foreign intervention, in order to take away a favorite tool of Western influence. I doubt fear of invasion is a reason. China isn't worried about shock and aw because it would result in a billion patriotic fanatics. China's worried about a couple hundred million impoverished citizens rising up and throwing the country in to chaos because of how utterly terrible their lives have been made by being made in to slave laborers and living in toxic hellholes. They don't try to pretend things like Tienanmen Square didn't happen because they're worried about The West making a fuss over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:46
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:There're an awful lot of people who've been steeped in Sharia culture their entire lives who still manage to sport the meagre soundness of mind required to conclude that making the marrying of nine-year-olds legal is a less than excellent idea. Most of these Sharia scholars are probably fine with child marriages so long as it occurs after puberty, or at least isn't consummated until after puberty. Evil Fluffy posted:If he's saying human rights might not fit for Muslims doesn't he realize he's inadvertently(?) saying Muslims aren't people? The OIC actually created their own "human rights" document that makes sure to mention that human rights are okay as long as they don't violate Sharia (aka no women's equality). az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/loadNews/25579/Glenn-Beck-Goonswarm-a-CIA-Front I'm not even sure that I have an appropriate comment for this, other than god dammit Glenn Beck! tl;dr Glenn thinks that Vilerat was a CIA Agent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
First time Glenn Beck has pissed over the memory of someone I actually knew (even if it was just on a internet forum), how especially annoying and disrespectful. Meanwhile, in Libya quote:Libyan pro-government activists storm Islamist headquarters [edit] Twitter reports suggest multiple Salafist and Islamist type bases are being stormed by protesters. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:46
|
|
quote:Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:First time Glenn Beck has pissed over the memory of someone I actually knew (even if it was just on a internet forum), how especially annoying and disrespectful.  I always knew Libya would fight back against any attempts of subverting their victory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:56
|
|
The anti-militia protests from today in Libya, nicknamed "Rescue Benghazi" Anti-militia writing- "We won't stop except for the police and army" 
az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Here's a news report from Libyan TV about the militias getting stormed across Benghazi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzyvJbLt4LQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
If it is any consolation, I think Vilerat would be laughing his rear end off at Glenn Beck right now. You know what? I hope he really is laughing his rear end off right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Sorry, I didn't specify which Iraq war and which Bush. I meant Iraq war II and Bush II: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html quote:The site, some sixty-five miles northwest of Las Vegas, was once used for nuclear testing, and now includes a counterintelligence training facility and a private airport capable of handling Boeing 737 aircraft. It’s a restricted area, and inhospitable—in certain sections, the curious are warned that the site’s security personnel are authorized to use deadly force, if necessary, against intruders. Looks like the US switched its position on MEK between the two Iraq wars. No reason it can't switch again. My impression of the MEK as a US proxy in Iraq is a bit off then; it was only a proxy of convenience, which would explain why the US didn't do anything when Iraqi soldiers raided the Ashraf camp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
This get's truer every day. They are cancelling "Cowboys & Terrorists". It jumped the shark when Gaza elected Hamas and the West refused to recognize them. I don't know what is going to fill the airtime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
When has training outside forces- who are not loyal to your own ideals- in special guerrilla warfare operations ever been a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
I don't know, but it apparently has never stopped us doing it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:38
|
|
