Trump launches military strike against Syria

[steve93]

Where should the Jews go if their state does not deserve to exist?

And if they stay, what should their state be converted into?

Lets see? Europe. They are Europeans who converted to corrupted Talmudism in the middle ages. They are white the same as I am. Their white stolen-from-native-land state is no more justified that old “South Africa”.
Their “Holocaust bating” is ridiculous. What do German fascist murders have to do with the middle east? Nothing.

Can I go to some random brown country, steal the land, and terrorize the people. Of course I can! If you tell my I’m wrong, then you’re an **Inquisition ****denier **who wants to kill people with blond hair and the blood of the 30 years war, Bloody Mary, and the Dutch Council of Blood is on your hands.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it?

 

[Questioner2]

I don’t disagree with your sentiments.

What I do believe, nonetheless, is that past executive misdemeanours and costly foreign adventures have deprived a good number of people of the capacity to see when action of a military kind - albeit limited in scope and strategically justified - does warrant being undertaken.

I do hope this will be limited in scope. But I have a sense of foreboding. This will end with thousands of beautiful young people killed and physically and mentally maimed. I’m just so sick and tired of it.

 

[Vouthon]

I do hope this will be limited in scope. But I have a sense of foreboding. This will end with thousands of beautiful young people killed and physically and mentally maimed. I’m just so sick and tired of it.

I don’t believe it will come to that for us but that is the reality experienced by the Syrian people.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Nigeria and Angola would disagree with you. Not to mention the oil-producing North African states.

And both of those countries, especially Nigeria, are ravaged by western imperialism. Certainly the use of bombs is not the only way to exploit the developing world.

 

[MindyO]

Trump is now the President and has access to intel he did not have as a private citizen. He is in a different role now.

Trump is on the Globalist Bankers Neocon warmonger role.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Lets see? Europe where they came from.

They didn’t all come from Europe, though. There were always Jews in Israel. Some never left. So where do you want them to go?

 

[steve93]

Lets see? Europe. They are Europeans who converted to corrupted Talmudism in the middle ages. They are white the same as I am.

Their white stolen-from-native-land state is no more justified that old “South Africa”. They had *extensive *ties to old S.A. before it fell as well. They even had the same rifles.
Their “Holocaust bating” is ridiculous. What do German fascist murders have to do with the middle east? Nothing.

Can I go to some random brown country, steal the land, and terrorize the people. Of course I can! If you tell my I’m wrong, then you’re an Inquisition denier who wants to kill protestant people with blond hair and the blood of the 30 years war, Bloody Mary, and the Dutch Council of Blood is on your hands.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I know you are, which is is why I raised that point. Most people over here respect the decision he took, even though we don’t care for him as a man.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with him in this situation. I’m not alone either. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, the most pro-EU politician in Britain, has backed Trump publicly over this.

We live in strange times.

There’s nothing strange about liberal centrists expressing support for capitalist imperialism. That’s to be expected really.

No country or group of people is ever entirely principled all of the time.

No country is ever principled, no. I’m not merely claiming that the US alone lacks moral character. This isn’t the product of nasty leaders or nasty countries - this is the product of the rule of capital. Capitalism is imperialism, and the kind of imperialism we witness from the US and Russia are the necessary products of the capitalist mode of production. I’m just disputing that the actions of the USA are somehow positive or based on moral principles. The US has jumped on a justification to expand their imperialist intervention in the Middle East, and this will only lead to the deaths of more innocents in the same way that the US has been slaughtering innocents in the Middle East for decades.

That does not negate the fact that this particular action was principled and logical and limited and effective.

Isn’t it strange how principles only matter when it can be used as an excuse to secure imperialist interests? No liberal bothers bringing up moral principles when the US is supporting the Saudis slaughtering innocents in Yemen through the use of illegal weapons, but when Assad does the same thing the liberals are outraged that he would do such a thing!

The U.S. is both asserting its right to be a moral arbiter in the Middle East and projecting, as well as protecting, its own interests. That’s how a benevolent superpower operates. Realpolitik, with its machiavellian logic when required, and values.

The US is simply only securing its imperial interests in the region, that’s it. Moral values aren’t a part of it, and what the US is doing certainly is not moral in any sense anyway. Unless you see the further destabilization of the Middle East and the further slaughtering of innocents at the hands of the United States to be a positive thing. “Realpolitik” is the favourite euphemism of the liberals in justifying imperialism - I am reminded of Kissinger.

Interests and values, not merely interests at the expense of values as with “some”.

Simply interests, with some lip service to values occasionally being employed when it helps secure those interests.

I can think of lots of historical examples when the alternative to not going to war is worse than going to war and I’m sure you can too but I don’t want to derail the thread. As Vouthon stated, this action was proportionate and necessary because it makes another such chemical attack on civilians less likely in the future.

Preventing chemical attacks by Assad to allow more murder of Syrian civilians by US airstrikes. After all, it isn’t murdering people that’s wrong, it’s the means by which you do it!

What good is possibly to come from escalating intervention in Syria?

 

[tomarin]

That’s a good way of putting it.

Israel’s existence s complicated and involves numerous issues but wiping it out and forcing millions of people to relocate is hardly a solution that shows either merit or humanity and would be simply creating another wave of persecution.

Anyway, Israel will never allow that to happen, Steve or no Steve.

 

[Inisfallen]

And both of those countries, especially Nigeria, are ravaged by western imperialism. Certainly the use of bombs is not the only way to exploit the developing world.

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that “Africa has no oil” is far from true.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Steve, just out of curiosity, how important is being white to you? Would you say you’re proud of it/it’s part of your identity?

 

[steve93]

You say that Talmudism is not corrupted?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
It is not of God; it is fake the same as Mormonism. The true old Testament and New Testament are alone scripture.

They also broke their own law by changing real scripture (Isaiah 7:14)

If Jesus is not the Messiah, that you are saying that the Mother of God was not a Virgin, Jesus was either a liar or mad, and all the martyrs died for absolutely nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, most of the Sephardim can’t go back to where they came from either, which is other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. They wouldn’t be allowed to live there, at least not for long.

 

[steve93]

Steve, just out of curiosity, how important is being white to you? Would you say you’re proud of it/it’s part of your identity?

I am white. So what? How can I be proud of something that I didn’t do?
I brought up being white to say that some one can’t just take over some place and then claim to be a native of said place to legitimize the takeover.
Like Scots claiming to be “Irish” or Dutchmen claiming to be “African”.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I am white. So what? How can I be proud of something that I didn’t do?
I brought up being white to say that some one can’t just take over some place and then claim to be a native of said place to legitimize the takeover.
Like Scots claiming to be “Irish” or Dutchmen claiming to be “African”.

Just checking. I was picking up some unsavory notes in some of your posts, but I may have misread you.

 

[sallybutler]

I am white. So what? How can I be proud of something that I didn’t do?
I brought up being white to say that some one can’t just take over some place and then claim to be a native of said place to legitimize the takeover.
Like Scots claiming to be “Irish” or Dutchmen claiming to be “African”.

Well, if we have to go back to whatever was the beginning, we are all from the continent of Africa, most likely the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Hi cousin.

 

[Vouthon]

I know, kind of unfortunate choice to prove his point!

 

[Abba]

I can think of lots of historical examples when the alternative to not going to war is worse than going to war and I’m sure you can too but I don’t want to derail the thread. As Vouthon stated, this action was proportionate and necessary because it makes another such chemical attack on civilians less likely in the future.

I am sure you could.

 

[tomarin]

I am sure you could.

Can’t you? That is, would you rather live in a timeline in which the U.S. didn’t enter WWII, or the South was allowed to separate from the U.S. and maintain the slavery of its black citizens?

 

[JW55]

The topic has swayed somewhat from the initial thread. My biggest concern is what this strike could mean and how big our involvement will get. Syria is half way around the world. Why must we continually intervene in the affairs of these other nations? Our numerous interventions have perpetuated the unrest in these regions. The present disorder in the Middle East is primarily due to the intervention of the west over the last 70 yrs. In the Middle East they fight each other and always have. Why must we involve ourselves in this?

I am not anyway diminishing the tragic deaths of anyone there. Chemical weapons are terrible. Who used them in this episode has a great deal of uncertainty. We are quick to point the figure at Assad and not consider if there were Chemical weapons in these store houses why wouldn’t who put them there be accountable?.

The things we see happening are the result of war itself. We try to make rules of warfare like a chess game that gentlemen play. We can’t dictate the rules of war. People will do whatever they have to, to save their on hide. The best way to avoid the horrors and tragedies of war is to do everything we can to not enter in to these attacks.

Our involvement adds to the magnitude of this problem and enable an escalation of the tragedies to a world level. This goes at least back to Project Ajax in 1953 in Iran, the arbitrary division of national lines in Middle Eastern countries of tribes as in Iraq that didn’t get along. We somehow feel we can enter a country by force and they will love us so much tat they will accept western style democracy without us considering their own particular customs and beliefs.

Americans also tire very quickly of these type of wars. It seems to gain favor initially with the Tomahawks firing down on the runways as a Lone Ranger do-gooder with a white hat riding off into the sunset with the girl. The same folks who are supportive now will largely be chastising our involvement if we entrench ourselves as we did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The criticism will flow, the longer in goes. For the time being it has mildly pacified the McCains and Grahams but it won’t last long.

I pray that we don’t escalate this from where it already is.