BREAKING: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

[Fairy In Boots]

3 minutes ago, Panflute said:

It is always the same tactic. No matter if it's Iraq, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea or Ukraine, the narrative is always that their regional problems are our problems and we have to strike now. And when we did, the result has always been unmitigated disaster.

How about trying to leave countries alone for a while and see how that works.

I'd certainly agree with Syria, not with North Korea though and that's purely because of the Nukes. If there was no nuclear armament I'd advocate leaving them to it.

[Panflute]

5 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Total agreement with this.

Even in the crazy case that that would mean a "Islamic Caliphate" in the middle east.  Let them just get on with it, it's their land and it should be their autonomy until otherwise where it effects our way of living where we live.  If those living where we live want that, then they can move there too.

We in Britain supposedly departed from the EU so as to become sovereign.  If this is the case, then let others be so to.

An Islamic Caliphate would never have emerged without encouragement, preparation, supplies and active military and medical assistance from the West.

[Panflute]

11 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I wouldn't dispute that, but they're a threat with a nuclear weapon. Every country with Nuclear weapons is a threat and in the case of the states I'd say it's better the devil we know

I'd say the bigger threat is the country with globalist, imperialist, neo-colonialist aspirations. That country isn't North Korea.

[Fairy In Boots]

Just now, Panflute said:

I'd say the bigger threat is the country with globalist, imperialist, neo-colonialist aspirations. That country isn't North Korea.

No argument as to globalist ambition being a big threat, nuclear warfare is a bit more of a fatal threat for me and us all though. 

2 minutes ago, Panflute said:

An Islamic Caliphate would never have emerged without encouragement, preparation, supplies and active military and medical assistance from the West.

I think it would have given time, there's always some nut trying it, the various groups like Boko Haram had it as an ambition, I'd agree in the case of ISIS we've helped it expand so quickly and get off the ground though.

9 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Total agreement with this.

Even in the crazy case that that would mean a "Islamic Caliphate" in the middle east.  Let them just get on with it, it's their land and it should be their autonomy until otherwise where it effects our way of living where we live.  If those living where we live want that, then they can move there too.

We in Britain supposedly departed from the EU so as to become sovereign.  If this is the case, then let others be so to.

it would be duty bound out of their ideology to be expansionist so we'd have to tackle it in some form.

[SirBalon]

I maintain that the main danger with Islam is the "Wahhabi" form and here in Britain because of now being ostracised by the EU we've been totally hypocritical and dealt with them.  It's disgusting, perverted and I don't want to listen to any rhetoric associated with damning Islam.

[Panflute]

38 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I think it would have given time, there's always some nut trying it, the various groups like Boko Haram had it as an ambition, I'd agree in the case of ISIS we've helped it expand so quickly and get off the ground though.

These "nuts" don't just arise by themselves. They arise because the Americans provide them with fertile ground, and because the entire West gives them their blessing, with Israel using jihadists to forward their regional interests against Libanon, Syria and Iran. Just today the NYT posted an op-ed in which their columnist proposed forming an alliance with ISIS.

Wahhabism (the most toxic form of Sunni extremism) itself would probably have been a long-forgotten desert cult if it weren't for British influence.

Trying to dictate to others how they live is the essence of globalism. If a country decides it wants to stone people to death for adultery, that may be disgusting, but it is their business. What we should act against is countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding mosques in the West and sending clerics here.

If these problems do arise, they will most likely be dealt with on a regional scale. If the US are serious about putting an end to ISIS (which they aren't because they're on the same side), they should work together with Assad and the Russians.

No argument as to globalist ambition being a big threat, nuclear warfare is a bit more of a fatal threat for me and us all though.

You have to ask yourself why and when they would use nukes. One of the reasons why North Korea has not been invaded (even this talk of them being a nuclear threat has been going on for decades) is that unlike Libya, DPRK could inflict massive casualties on its enemies. As said, the behaviour of the US and its vassals justifies DPRK having a nuclear program time and again.

[Machado]

I don't believe there will be an all out World War III unless there is an attempt to overthrow Kim Jong-Un.

The notion of a war that has a beginning, a middle, and a declared end with full capitulation by one side does not exist today. That's a good thing, because if "we" were engaged in any such war, it would be infinitely bloodier than what we are engaged in now. Such a war might come to happen at some future point, but given the nuclear option, the only way an end to any “war” is with nuclear armageddon. The nuke bomb completely changed the nature of war over 70 years ago.

What we have today is not “war” as we knew it. What we have is chronic offensive and defensive struggle… a struggle which will never, ever end. Perpetual wars for the perpetual profit of some.

 

 

ISIS and Al CIAda were created and sustained by the CIA, the Mossad, some other 3 letter agencies, plus funded by countries like Saudi Arabia. There is no interest in putting an end to world (mainly middle-east) conflict. Where else would the US test its new toys and sell arms to?

Smedley Butler (probably rolling on his grave) said it.... War is the only business in which the profit is calculated in dollars and the losses in lives. War is a racket.

 

 

 

[Spike]

4 hours ago, Panflute said:

The reason North Korea feels the need to arm itself with nuclear weapons is because the US and its many vassals are trying to devour the entire world.

You say that as if NK is a rationale nation that is protecting its ideals. More like the family and cohorts that run the nation are afraid their luxuries will be stripped from them and the starving prisoners will be freed. 

[Panflute]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

You say that as if NK is a rationale nation that is protecting its ideals. More like the family and cohorts that run the nation are afraid their luxuries will be stripped from them and the starving prisoners will be freed. 

Yeah and I'm sure dropping a nuke on Seoul out of nowhere will help maintain those privileges.

Try your neocon talking points on someone else.

[Spike]

An Islamic Caliphate would follow the laws of Sharia to a T. if it were controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. It'd be a throwback to the middle-ages. What if in Europe Spain still practised the religious and social persecution of the Inquisitions? Jews, heretics, homosexuals, apostates, etc would all  be brutalised by a theocratic dictatorship. Would it be okay if the rest of Europe sat idly by and allowed such a perversion of human rights to occur?

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Yeah and I'm sure dropping a nuke on Seoul out of nowhere will help maintain those privileges.

Try your neocon talking points on someone else.

The fuck? Did you really just stretch my point so far that you reached up your own arse and pulled out nuclear warfare as a criticism against me? Holy shit dude, get a clue.

[Kowabunga]

1 hour ago, Machado said:

I don't believe there will be an all out World War III unless there is an attempt to overthrow Kim Jong-Un.

The notion of a war that has a beginning, a middle, and a declared end with full capitulation by one side does not exist today. That's a good thing, because if "we" were engaged in any such war, it would be infinitely bloodier than what we are engaged in now. Such a war might come to happen at some future point, but given the nuclear option, the only way an end to any “war” is with nuclear armageddon. The nuke bomb completely changed the nature of war over 70 years ago.

What we have today is not “war” as we knew it. What we have is chronic offensive and defensive struggle… a struggle which will never, ever end. Perpetual wars for the perpetual profit of some.

ISIS and Al CIAda were created and sustained by the CIA, the Mossad, some other 3 letter agencies, plus funded by countries like Saudi Arabia. There is no interest in putting an end to world (mainly middle-east) conflict. Where else would the US test its new toys and sell arms to?

Smedley Butler (probably rolling on his grave) said it.... War is the only business in which the profit is calculated in dollars and the losses in lives. War is a racket.

 

Indeed. And that's where US and European interests clearly diverge.

The conundrum of the transatlantic alliance.

 

[Panflute]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

The fuck? Did you really just stretch my point so far that you reached up your own arse and pulled out nuclear warfare as a criticism against me? Holy shit dude, get a clue.

I was talking about the reason why North Korea has a nuclear programme in the first place and responded to you in that context. The virtues/sins proper of the North Korean regime are wholly irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Panflute]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

An Islamic Caliphate would follow the laws of Sharia to a T. if it were controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. It'd be a throwback to the middle-ages. What if in Europe Spain still practised the religious and social persecution of the Inquisitions? Jews, heretics, homosexuals, apostates, etc would all  be brutalised by a theocratic dictatorship. Would it be okay if the rest of Europe sat idly by and allowed such a perversion of human rights to occur?

Yes.

[Spike]

Just now, Panflute said:

Yes.

Would it be okay if you saw your next door neighbour raping a child because it is their culture and their business? Just because the middle-east doesn't affect me doesn't mean that the culturall subjectivity of it justifies itself. Just because X exists doesnt intrinsically mean that it deserves to.

If we applied laissez faire to anything it automatically disregards collective human rights. 

[Spike]

5 minutes ago, Panflute said:

I was talking about the reason why North Korea has a nuclear programme in the first place and responded to you in that context. The virtues/sins proper of the North Korean regime are wholly irrelevant to the point I was making.

I wasnt talking about the virtue/sins of NK either. I was pointing out that its a corrupt system with a feeble existence that relies on fear to sustain itself.'If the citizens and neighbours werent threatened by the NK government it wouldnt exist.

[Panflute]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

Would it be okay if you saw your next door neighbour raping a child because it is their culture and their business? Just because the middle-east doesn't affect me doesn't mean that the culturall subjectivity of it justifies itself. Just because X exists doesnt intrinsically mean that it deserves to.

If we applied laissez faire to anything it automatically disregards collective human rights. 

You're making false comparisons. I believe a state can only function if/when it has full sovereignty, i.e. the ability to formulate its own legal system and enforce it within its borders. This is what the concept of a nation-state is hinged on, and faux human rights interventions are what has turned the entire world into a playground of United States interests.

The Islamic State is, however, not a real state (let alone a nation-state), meaning that I do want to see it collapse. But that is up to the Syrian government, which should be supported in dealing with the problem, the opposite of what the West has been doing since the beginning.

North Korea is a state, one of the last sovereign ones left in the world in fact, and therefore I think it should be left alone whatever we may think of it.

As for human rights, that is a legal concept based on Protestant theology and I don't believe in it, as it is merely another tool for the US to impose its nefarious will upon the world.

[Panflute]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

I wasnt talking about the virtue/sins of NK either. I was pointing out that its a corrupt system with a feeble existence that relies on fear to sustain itself.'If the citizens and neighbours werent threatened by the NK government it wouldnt exist.

I still fail to see why countries from the other side of the world should forcibly remove this regime.

[Panflute]

For reference, this is the line of thought I'm going with:

 

[Spike]

Just now, Panflute said:

I still fail to see why countries from the other side of the world should forcibly remove this regime.

You feel no empathy towards people that are forced to starve, work, and die in a state that abuses them? Their only guilt was being born on the wrong piece of land? A state exists to protect the rights of it's people, not restrict them and remove their representation. If representation isnt a right, than what right does the state have to enforce its will? What gives the powers of NK the right to force their will upon its people but not a foreign power?

[Fairy In Boots]

4 hours ago, SirBalon said:

I maintain that the main danger with Islam is the "Wahhabi" form and here in Britain because of now being ostracised by the EU we've been totally hypocritical and dealt with them.  It's disgusting, perverted and I don't want to listen to any rhetoric associated with damning Islam.

Wahhabism is Salafism although they'll split hairs about it. It or its various incarnations have peaked and dipped within Islam throughout its history. We say oh it's the "Wahhabis"  now and I completely agree they're the problem at present. But it's a cop out, the doctrine lends itself to extreme interpretation, there's been more movements than just Wahhabism. I'd personally like the UK to cease dealing with Saudi. The EU still deal with Saudi, although the real customers are the Chinese, we matter little nowadays. 

3 hours ago, Panflute said:

These "nuts" don't just arise by themselves. They arise because the Americans provide them with fertile ground, and because the entire West gives them their blessing, with Israel using jihadists to forward their regional interests against Libanon, Syria and Iran. Just today the NYT posted an op-ed in which their columnist proposed forming an alliance with ISIS.

Wahhabism (the most toxic form of Sunni extremism) itself would probably have been a long-forgotten desert cult if it weren't for British influence.

Trying to dictate to others how they live is the essence of globalism. If a country decides it wants to stone people to death for adultery, that may be disgusting, but it is their business. What we should act against is countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding mosques in the West and sending clerics here.

If these problems do arise, they will most likely be dealt with on a regional scale. If the US are serious about putting an end to ISIS (which they aren't because they're on the same side), they should work together with Assad and the Russians.

 

 

You have to ask yourself why and when they would use nukes. One of the reasons why North Korea has not been invaded (even this talk of them being a nuclear threat has been going on for decades) is that unlike Libya, DPRK could inflict massive casualties on its enemies. As said, the behaviour of the US and its vassals justifies DPRK having a nuclear program time and again.

Firstly  regarding Wahhabism as much as we love to blame ourselves in the west. The real thing that fucked it was allowing the Saudi their independence to nationalise the resources. If it was still under British control we wouldn't have half the shit we have now I'd bet. The irony of imperialism being potentially good in this context. 

Secondly I'm normally along the lines of leave them to it, I'd back Assad along with the Russians and I'd not have gone into Iraq, Afghan or Libya. I'm all for leaving states to it, apart from genocide & nuclear capability even then I want a global effort with reestablishment of peace. As much as they may seem frustrating at time global outlines on warfare and acceptable treatment of citizens is a good thing. However I do agree these geopolitical concerns are often biased proxies of the American machine. Amazingly if it wasn't for nuclear weapons I'd advocate leaving NK to it, I think the Americans would not give half as much of a fuck to. NK will bring this on themselves by perseverance of the weapons program 

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

You feel no empathy towards people that are forced to starve, work, and die in a state that abuses them? Their only guilt was being born on the wrong piece of land? A state exists to protect the rights of it's people, not restrict them and remove their representation. If representation isnt a right, than what right does the state have to enforce its will? What gives the powers of NK the right to force their will upon its people but not a foreign power?

I feel empathy, but as a Westerner I have no right to impose my will on a sovereign nation, which is even ignoring the fact that I don't think getting involved there would result in a better situation. Your line of thinking is what led people to support intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria, all of which have been undeniably disastrous.

[Spike]

12 minutes ago, Panflute said:

You're making false comparisons. I believe a state can only function if/when it has full sovereignty, i.e. the ability to formulate its own legal system and enforce it within its borders. This is what the concept of a nation-state is hinged on, and faux human rights interventions are what has turned the entire world into a playground of United States interests.

The Islamic State is, however, not a real state (let alone a nation-state), meaning that I do want to see it collapse. But that is up to the Syrian government, which should be supported in dealing with the problem.

North Korea is a state, one of the last sovereign ones left in the world in fact, and therefore I think it should be left alone whatever we may think of it.

As for human rights, that is a legal concept based on Protestant theology and I don't believe in it, as it is merely another tool for the US to impose its nefarious will upon the world.

It isnt a flase comparison. All a state is a collection of people that the enforce cultural will of the people or of the powers that be upon its citizens. What difference is a collection of people abusing others and a single person lauding their power over another? Their isnt a difference outside of the scope. The same applies for any organisation or collective with a social hierarchy. What right does any being, state or otherwise have to enforce its will and laws upon those that had no choice in the matter. A citizen of a nation has no more choice to be born on a piece of land than a child does to be born i to a family of abusers. Some people may want to live in NK or a sharia state, that is okay but not every person will and to restrict them from leaving is a violation of any human right. Murder and imprisonment for fleeing and death for apostasy. 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Panflute said:

I feel empathy, but as a Westerner I have no right to impose my will on a sovereign nation, which is even ignoring the fact that I don't think getting involved there would result in a better situation. Your line of thinking is what led people to support intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria, all of which have been undeniably disastrous.

Just because I follow that line of thinking doesnt mean I aporove of their methods. I am not guilty by association. 

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

It isnt a flase comparison. All a state is a collection of people that the enforce cultural will of the people or of the powers that be upon its citizens. What difference is a collection of people abusing others and a single person lauding their power over another? Their isnt a difference outside of the scope. The same applies for any organisation or collective with a social hierarchy. What right does any being, state or otherwise have to enforce its will and laws upon those that had no choice in the matter. A citizen of a nation has no more choice to be born on a piece of land than a child does to be born i to a family of abusers.

A state has the right to impose its legislature on its people because otherwise it wouldn't be a state. This is very simple. If the laws of a country are perceived to be unjust by the vast majority of the country, eventually it will be toppled from with in, or with the help of regional powers.

In any case, all of this ignores the fact that America does not give, or has ever given a shit about human rights, and we are discussing the merits of the window-dressing they use to forward their geopolitical interests.