|
PT6A posted:If it were mainly focused on military targets, you might have a point. Daesh is demonstrably not interested in following the rules of war. I forget which one it is, maybe even both, but I'm pretty sure that The Art of War or The Prince are A-Okay with blending into the civilian population and attacking when it best suits you 
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
sliderule posted:a) When counting wholes, the correct word is "fewer".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I forget which one it is, maybe even both, but I'm pretty sure that The Art of War or The Prince are A-Okay with blending into the civilian population and attacking when it best suits you You know full loving well I was talking about the Geneva Conventions in this case. It's really a pain when you and other posters deliberately misinterpret me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:"I don't see what's wrong with entrapment" Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You know full loving well I was talking about the Geneva Conventions in this case. It's really a pain when you and other posters deliberately misinterpret me. I was just making conversation, I have enough going on today without dogpiling on or arguing with you
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
I told my friend that I saw a poll that said that 60% of Canadians don't want Syrian refugees to land here and then he called me a racist and that he didn't want to talk to me anymore. Was that a racist thing to say? I asked another guy who goes to UotT as well and he agreed I'm racist and said that poll was flawed and they should poll at universities instead of wherever they did. I don't even have serious objections to the immigration of refugees to Canada I just feel like I can't talk about it without being labelled some sort of xenophobic scumbag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:The one that was set/launched/whatever to kill as many non-combatants as possible. Due to the whole 'spreading terror' part, intent is a HUGE part of terrorism. In a scenario that kills some non-combatants, does the intent of the attacker determine whether or not people are terrified?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I can see there's just no talking to you people about this issue. He says before immediately posting twice again. But PT6A does maintain the right to stomp out in an immature huff in response to any future posts. vyelkin posted:The biggest issue is that we have two perfect examples from the last fifteen years of large-scale military interventions making their region somehow even worse, more violent, less stable, and less secure than it was before. Afghanistan is still fighting what's essentially a civil war now, 14 years later, and Iraq for a long time was essentially a failed state under military occupation, and still lacks any kind of strong central governance or security apparatus 12 years later. The biggest problem with Western military intervention is not the intervention itself (the Taliban are bad, Saddam Hussein was bad, and ISIS are also bad; the world will not be a worse place for any of those people being removed from power) but the lack of any kind of political drive to actually follow through once the military campaign is over and rebuild the destroyed country into a functioning state. Basically, this. Throw on top the fact that the prevailing response is to wail and gnash our teeth when Western civilians feel any sort of blowback from our extremely aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, but Western nations have been prosecuting military interventions in the M.E. that have directly and indirectly lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths over the course of decades. It's 1) a failed and immoral policy paradigm and 2) enormously hypocritical and self-centered to claim our civilian deaths are a tragedy because they are committed by irregular military forces in an act of political sabotage while our glorious intervention kills or causes the deaths of the same number of civilians every week. To then be told that you are a "lunatic" to suggest that perhaps we don't have the moral high ground in this conflict and that it's time to find another way is just the kind of icing on the cake that "emotionally-deficient" pacifists have dealt with for almost 15 years now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:It must be a coincidence that Trudeau changed his policy exactly as all these shadow cabinet ministers have been going to the press and conservative social media pressure has been brought to bear. I seem to remember someone positing that the conservatives - and conservative social media in particular - had "virtually no power" after the October election, but I just can't remember who posted that... I'm still saying that they have no power. Pick which one of these options is more likely. 1) The Liberals, as is tradition, made a very optimistic, progressive election promise. Once in power, they realize they don't have the resources to fulfill it. They are modifying the parameters of the promise to eliminate the people who would take the most resources so they have a hope to keep it. 2) Justin Trudeau, despite having a majority, is implementing this women and children policy because of the conservative social media garbage, to make people happy who will never be happy with anything he does. He's taking the risk of discriminating against men, looking foolish to other countries who aren't doing this and looking like a hypocite so soon after the 2015 gender parity comment? Justin Trudeau is bowing to this?  I'm not saying for sure that it's 1. But if you think it's 2, I don't think it's possible to have a rational argument with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
sliderule posted:In a scenario that kills some non-combatants, does the intent of the attacker determine whether or not people are terrified? Let's ask that Pakistani kid who prefers cloudy days because seeing the sun means he might be killed by a Freedom Drone. The Duggler posted:I told my friend that I saw a poll that said that 60% of Canadians don't want Syrian refugees to land here and then he called me a racist and that he didn't want to talk to me anymore. Was that a racist thing to say? I asked another guy who goes to UotT as well and he agreed I'm racist and said that poll was flawed and they should poll at universities instead of wherever they did. Either your wording sucked or your friends need to spend less time on tumblr. You're allowed to talk about things that you don't necessarily agree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
PT6A you are the finest example of how this country still cant escape the 14th century regressive attitude we have towards mental illness and I seriously hope you never have to experience being on the receiving end of this bullshit you spew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:I'm not saying for sure that it's 1. But if you think it's 2, I don't think it's possible to have a rational argument with you. "I'm going to define the issue so that if you disagree with me, you are irrational and therefore I win."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:I told my friend that I saw a poll that said that 60% of Canadians don't want Syrian refugees to land here and then he called me a racist and that he didn't want to talk to me anymore. Was that a racist thing to say? I asked another guy who goes to UotT as well and he agreed I'm racist and said that poll was flawed and they should poll at universities instead of wherever they did. Well your friends are overreacting babies and the statements they made are ridiculous, but the poll is pretty garbage as it's a web-only one with less than 1000 responses. It's basically meaningless floor reasons of size and methodology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:PT6A you are the finest example of how this country still cant escape the 14th century regressive attitude we have towards mental illness and I seriously hope you never have to experience being on the receiving end of this bullshit you spew. You know there's people out there who are pretty messed up, and they're a danger to themselves and society, and it might in fact be better for everyone involved that they be placed into rehabilitative care. Our country just has a very expensive way of doing that. Also they are not going to be receiving rehabilitative care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
sliderule posted:In a scenario that kills some non-combatants, does the intent of the attacker determine whether or not people are terrified?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:"I'm going to define the issue so that if you disagree with me, you are irrational and therefore I win." I took it to mean "JT is not sticking his neck out and discriminating against men simply because some forever-mad blue voters are afraid of refugees", which I should hope is at least partially correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:I told my friend that I saw a poll that said that 60% of Canadians don't want Syrian refugees to land here and then he called me a racist and that he didn't want to talk to me anymore. Was that a racist thing to say? I asked another guy who goes to UotT as well and he agreed I'm racist and said that poll was flawed and they should poll at universities instead of wherever they did. Nobody would think that knowing a poll exists makes someone racist, so something tells me you're leaving some pertinent information out of here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:When that attacker publicly claims responsibility and threatens more, similar attacks against non-combatants unless whatever demands are met, absolutely. So if your house was bombed while you were out, you would not be terrified if nobody claimed responsibility?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
senae posted:Nobody would think that knowing a poll exists makes someone racist, so something tells me you're leaving some pertinent information out of here. Maybe it's the part where they say they don't have serious objections to the immigration of refugees, which means they probably trotted out the poo poo poll to back up their not so serious objections by claiming that they're part of the majority and thus right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:I told my friend that I saw a poll that said that 60% of Canadians don't want Syrian refugees to land here and then he called me a racist and that he didn't want to talk to me anymore. Was that a racist thing to say? I asked another guy who goes to UotT as well and he agreed I'm racist and said that poll was flawed and they should poll at universities instead of wherever they did. Eh, polling at universities has a lot of the problems any study where you recruit only university students has: University students are a poor representation of the general population and the idea of only polling them and getting good data is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I took it to mean "JT is not sticking his neck out and discriminating against men simply because some forever-mad blue voters are afraid of refugees", which I should hope is at least partially correct. Yes, this. It really seems obvious to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
senae posted:Nobody would think that knowing a poll exists makes someone racist, so something tells me you're leaving some pertinent information out of here. I'm really not. He said I'm racist and that he went to a downtown (Toronto) march for refugees and almost everybody supports bringing refugees in. People even had signs! I said what about people who weren't at the rally and he told me he doesn't want to talk to me anymore. University ruined my friend 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Mmann posted:Maybe it's the part where they say they don't have serious objections to the immigration of refugees, which means they probably trotted out the poo poo poll to back up their not so serious objections by claiming that they're part of the majority and thus right. I don't think anyone should have the right to carry that avatar. It made my heart skip.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:PT6A you are the finest example of how this country still cant escape the 14th century regressive attitude we have towards mental illness and I seriously hope you never have to experience being on the receiving end of this bullshit you spew. Hmm. PT6A posted:Mental health treatment would be better than imprisonment. PT6A posted:Supervised mental health treatment would be a better idea than incarceration, though. Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I took it to mean "JT is not sticking his neck out and discriminating against men simply because some forever-mad blue voters are afraid of refugees", which I should hope is at least partially correct. Let's not throw away the context of my original post. The ability to set and nudge the tone of a media narrative in one direction or another is a potent form of power that the Conservative Party, conservative traditional media outlets, and conservative social media continue to possess, regardless of the outcome of the October election. Do I believe that the violence in Paris as well as the conservative framing of the issue as well as calls for Trudeau to "reconsider" or "moderate" his position on refugees influenced the bizarre policy shift to "no singles dudes allowed". Absolutely, and I'm not irrational to make that connection given the timing of recent events. Also, it's no surprise that Ikanski would rush to reframe the issue because to admit that conservative media strategy influenced the nigh-unassailable Liberal Majority would be to admit that his assertion that the conservatives had little to no power would be demonstrably wrong. ETA: If your statement above is only "partially correct" then the conservative's do not have "virtually no power" to dictate and influence the policies of the Canadian government. PhilippAchtel fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Mmann posted:Maybe it's the part where they say they don't have serious objections to the immigration of refugees, which means they probably trotted out the poo poo poll to back up their not so serious objections by claiming that they're part of the majority and thus right. Nah. I brought it up because I thought we could actually talk about the issues and benefits like two reasonable people. We both are on the same side I just wanted to have a discussion about it because it's cool and fun to challenge your own opinions on things and delve into popular political issues sometimes. He asked me about what I thought about the 25,000 number and I quoted that lovely poll for some reason and that was basically it. He didn't even ask me what my feelings werr 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
sliderule posted:So if your house was bombed while you were out, you would not be terrified if nobody claimed responsibility? Why do you think the definition of terrorism should be so broad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:Nah. He asked you what your feelings were when he asked you what you thought about bringing in 25,000 refugees. Where you went wrong was by not responding with your feelings but with a dumb bad poll. Try to imagine the conversation from his point of view. You: Hey man, can we talk about Syrian refugees? Him: Sure. What do you think about Canada bringing them in? You: Well, there's this poll that says Canadians don't want to bring them in, so... Him: Okaaay, well, that's a pretty bad and dumb poll and maybe you are bad and dumb for bringing it up as your opening to this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:Terrified? No. Angry, most likely, but ultimately my home and possessions can be replaced; my life cannot (supporting refugges is good and super important). If there was, however, a note where my house once stood that said any future house I had - as well as the people in them - might be bombed again unless I did something, then yes, I would probably be terrified. This is pretty much the definitive response to this line of thought: flakeloaf posted:Let's ask that Pakistani kid who prefers cloudy days because seeing the sun means he might be killed by a Freedom Drone. Source for good measure: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Panas posted:Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about intervening in Syria? Is it because civilians might die(they're already dying and will keep on doing so), or that WE might kill civilians that you're so against intervention? Most of the more populated areas are under Assad control and after the Russians intervening on his side it's pretty clear we won't be engaging with that part of the country. I've not been following this argument, but my rough argument is that Canada shouldn't be involved because civilians will die. More pragmatically, dead civilians are a great recruitment tool and make Canada a target for attack as well. My broader argument is that by being involved there we become part owners of a conflict that will likely be lasting for some time and has potential to get a lot uglier than it is now. Bombs are not going to "solve" this problem, generals, presidents and civilian analysts all seem to agree on this. The problem, at least a bit part of it, is disaffected Sunnis, and bombing their territory or sponsoring other groups to conquer it, or being it back under the control of unfriendly central governments will not make this problem go away. I'm not a fan of the training missions, for slightly different reasons. If somehow (not likely) a UN peacekeeping mission could be sent once a ceasefire was agreed upon, I'd advocate sending Canadian forces even if this put them at significant risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
quote:Good Monday morning to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He asked you what your feelings were when he asked you what you thought about bringing in 25,000 refugees. Where you went wrong was by not responding with your feelings but with a dumb bad poll. Oh well when you put it that way I can see how I came off like an idiot. I didn't think I said it as if I was supporting my own viewpoint, more like "can you believe this", but I guess opening with that was pretty dumb
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:If there was, however, a note where my house once stood that said any future house I had - as well as the people in them - might be bombed again unless I did something, then yes, I would probably be terrified. Say it was a foreign state that had bombed your house, and they televised that bombing would continue in your area until your local government had surrendered. Would you be any less terrified?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:Let's not throw away the context of my original post. The ability to set and nudge the tone of a media narrative in one direction or another is a potent form of power that the Conservative Party, conservative traditional media outlets, and conservative social media continue to possess, regardless of the outcome of the October election. They definitely have the power to give the conversation a nudge, just as the majority government has the power to give that nudge instructions to piss off and let the grownups talk. Their power is limited to causing outcry on the people who can apply pressure to the government, and the possible damage that could do to LPC interests is definitely not zero, but if creating a talking point were enough to steer our government away from insanity then the Conservative record would not be nearly as awful as it is. The perpetrators of the violence in Paris were not Syrian refugees, so there's no reason why that attack should give us any reason to vary our policy on Syrian refugees. The reasons for deciding to exclude unaccompanied males for legitimate security reasons could very well have existed before last week. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I hope the government litigates those appointments and turfs everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:PT6A you are the finest example of how this country still cant escape the 14th century regressive attitude we have towards mental illness and I seriously hope you never have to experience being on the receiving end of this bullshit you spew. On the basis that we should just let suggestible mentally ill people run amok until they blow something up or cut a man's head off and nibble on it a bit? I agree that prison is not the right option, but we can't be having these folks, who are ill, running around without treatment. Illness or not. If someone had a dangerous "physical" disease like Ebola, we'd compel them to be quarantined and treated; that doesn't mean our society has a hatred of the Ebola-infected, just that it needs treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If we ended the insane maze of funding and proxy wars, do you think Syria would then simply pull itself out of the insane situation it's currently in and stabilize? No, we need to do that and combine it with military intervention with only two sides: Daesh and everyone else. The problem here is there are more than two sides. Does hypothetical support for Assad involve bombing Kurds?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
quote:Former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet quietly stacked government agencies and Crown corporations with dozens of “future appointments,” and early appointment renewals in the dying days of its regime, many of which were only scheduled to go into effect long after the Conservatives were defeated, iPolitics has learned. As our Elizabeth Thompson reports, 49 appointments were made in recent months but scheduled to only take effect after the Oct. 19 election. Of the 49 appointments, 15 went into effect between election day and November 22. Six take effect today. Rather than talking about how PT6A wants to kill some terrorists for the 13'th time, can someone explain how this could possibly be legal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:They definitely have the power to give the conversation a nudge, just as the majority government has the power to give that nudge instructions to piss off and let the grownups talk. Their power is limited to causing outcry on the people who can apply pressure to the government, and the possible damage that could do to LPC interests is definitely not zero, but if creating a talking point were enough to steer our government away from insanity then the Conservative record would not be nearly as awful as it is. Again, you're missing the context of my remark, but perhaps you didn't read that discussion about how individuals with conservative sensibilities by and large control media organizations that set the tone of these public debates, and that the window of acceptable political opinions is skewed so far in the conservative direction that we shouldn't expect the left to have the same potency with its talking points that the right tends to. Anyway, arguing this point by proxy with you makes no sense. My comment was directly aimed at Ikanski, who knows and is now trying to weasel out of the statements and discussion I'm referring to. flakeloaf posted:The perpetrators of the violence in Paris were not Syrian refugees, so there's no reason why that attack should give us any reason to vary our policy on Syrian refugees. The reasons for deciding to exclude unaccompanied males for legitimate security reasons could very well have existed before last week. Well, one wouldn't expect the Trudeau government to come out and say, "In response to the changing perceptions regarding Syrian refugees, we have decided to moderate our position, precisely as conservative leaders and columnist have been demanding." But sure, the "ongoing concerns around security" could be entirely divorced from the events in Paris and resultant media narrative in Canada. I find it unlikely given there was no indication that such a policy existed prior to last week, but it's possible. But you don't need to think that the conservative bloggers are pulling the strings of the Trudeau government to agree with the point I was making, which is that media narrative is important, it does affect the decisions that even majority governments make, and that this might be - I would wager is - a prime example of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 20:04
|
|