The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Sibator]

"Without resorting to ad hominem, here comes my ad hominem"

I never said any of what you did was undesirable or not necessary. In order for it to be ad hominem, it would have to be framed as an insult.

Your post is like declaring non-aggression before punching someone in the face, but since you clearly didn't get a few things about me, please allow me to inform you:

Except it isn't, because I really didn't attack you.

First, I don't criticize America at every opportunity.

Perhaps not at every one, you have lots of them, but I haven't seen a single post referencing America that hasn't been critical. Of course, I haven't seen all 10,000 of your posts, but it's a pretty common theme from what I have seen.

I criticize America's Bombing Campaigns that aren't done in self defense at every opportunity.

I would argue lots of bombings that aren't in elf-defense were necessary, but that doesn't pertain to the argument I am making. But needless to say you revert to quite a few American stereotypes, especially the Republican Party and overall American culture, while referencing non-derogatory ones at worst for Russia and its culture.

And when Russia failed by inaction in Libya, I criticized Russia too.

And immediately proceeded to rail on America, most likely claiming the bombing runs were worse than Russia's inaction, especially if someone else criticized Russia without mentioning America.

In the thread where I have the most posts, I'm heavily critical of Russia. Of course knowing that requires critical reading skills, and some memory retention skills.

You see, nothing I said was an insult. Absolutely nothing, all I stated were your posting habits. I never said you were someone you followed Russia hook line and sinker, I stated you always reference America negatively and paint Russia in an innocent light. Most of what you claim have usually been either A. in reaction to the policies of others B. the result of the Russia leader and never the culture(which of you have criticized the American counterpart) or C. admitted were wrong, but then pointed out how either America's or another one of Russia's past or present enemies pulled off even worse shenanigans.

Of course you had to pull out that insults first. At worst, what I have said to you are incorrect impressions. What you have stated was a flat out insult that can be conceived in no other capacity.

Second, by America and Russia, I don't mean the people, I mean the Governments. Believe it or not, but it's actually quite possible to live in a country with limited interaction with the Federal Governments.

Pretty sure I know that. Of course, state governments which I am certain you have a lesser opinion of interfere in your lives much more.

And even then, when Obama/Putin do something good, I give them their dues, be it Obama on education or Putin on stability.

Very rarely. II don't know why you needed to mention Putin when my argument never even came close to saying you never defended Putin.

Obama's education reforms have been largely successful.

Congratulations, now here else have you criticized the entire American culture, often using relatively offensive stereotypes, as blocking Obama's good actions?

And I highly praise California's Proposition Process. It's quite good. It's just that NSG's an online forum, and I want to talk about problems, rather than things that are going well.

Sure you do.

Third, I've heavily criticized Gulags, Purges and Collectivization.

Thank you for agreeing with me, because that's exactly what I said.

If you didn't think I have, you need reading glasses.

Not sure I need those when I'm not the one answering questions never asked.

Do I want to move back to Russia? Yeah, I do.

If I may ask, at what age did you move here?

But I also like living in California, where most of my daily interaction is with my fellow Americans who are quite pleasant, and don't get butthurt every time I go "oh please don't bomb yet another country!"

No most of your criticisms lie in places you don't reside.

Nor do they imply that I should go back to Russia,

This makes no sense with the context it was delivered.

because my views of America's bombings are more in tune with *gasps* the rest of the World, instead of Faux News, and Corporate News Network.

I see you are more interested in painting me out to be a Conservative, Bible-Thumping Nationalist.

Hint: I'm not.

And they definitely don't sound like: "You make mean posts bout Murika, go back to Rusha!"

Since that is obviously implying I said that, I'll ask you to point out where.

I am fairly certain a government needs criticism for a democracy to be effective, I was pointing out how most of your posts pain the US in negative light almost constantly while the reverse is done for Russia. And when it does, it has nothing to do with the Russian culture, it always corrupt leaders.


It really didn't.

[Disserbia]

You're in the UK now?

Already been here for a month.

Awesome, where in and how do you like it. Also, so as not to derail the thread, what do you think about their position on this issue?

[Shofercia]

Looks like our government will be getting involved after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24124896

You're in the UK now?

Yep. And they're proposing mandatory civil service. It's part of the UN Must Troll Divair Initiative, where every single time Divair moves into a country, they must propose a mandatory year's service to the Government

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Well, you could try reading my point and be constructive, but whatever tickles your pickle.

However you dress it, it is the same sort of Chauvinism that shuts up all criticism under the guise of Patriotism.

There, thank goodness someone else recognises this as well as I do.

Indeed, there is this eccentric, rather to me out-dated, complex that shuts up all forms of scrutinisation whence-ever it comes to the actions of our ruling elites towards other nations. Its as if we are not even supposed to speak out, whilst remain closed up about whilst our rulers continue their crimes elsewhere in the name of "patriotism".

FINALLY someone speaks up rightfully on this matter. Yes indeed, you can love a nation as well as its people without agreeing to its ruling elites. This includes one's own nation (such as me criticising my nation, which is France), or a nation you may live in (as Shofercia does).

I do not see any issue whatsoever with this.

Well, you could try reading my point and be constructive, but whatever tickles your pickle.

I am being constructive. My retort to your point is utterly simple: scrutinising elite twats for their crimes elsewhere, does not mean you are particularly targeting the country of said twats. Whence-ever I criticise my country's leaders, I have a right to do thus, because their actions towards other nations go against morals of all sorts. Whence I criticise American leaders, I do so for the same reason, it does not mean that I "loathe" the United States, its simply because I want to point a finger at the scoundrels that are making a bad name out of said nation with their actions. When it comes to the American people, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever. In retrospect, as far as my country France as a nation is concerned minus the mongrels & elite diasporas we have as rulers, I love my nation as well as my fellow people.

We all have a right to stand up for other nations against our leaders, in favour of hopefully having ruling establishments that do not unleash cesspool on other countries ever again, whilst still very much loving our own nations at the same time. We have perfect rights to stand by the peoples of other nations in solidarity against the criminal, hypocritical actions of our jingoistic elite-diaspora influenced governments.

[Sibator]

Actually, he doesn't.

He does indeed.

Of course you have. Saying anything else will get you creamed on this forum, and even you know that.

Writing in a sarcastic and ridiculous tone in order to imply I don't hold stated positions wins you no brownie points.

The part where you implied that? Also known as the entirety of your initial post?

Which of course, is easier that referencing anything I said.

I don't. I hate America playing the World Policeman.

You sure give off the wrong impression.

That doesn't mean that I hate America's Government in every aspect, and to think otherwise, is to be completely, totally, and utterly, deluded. Unless you want to argue that statements like this:

Obama's education reforms have been largely successful. Far more successful than anyone else's, since JFK's.

Guess it's rather fortunate I never stated you hated every aspect did I? It has been rather clear you are not declaring a war against America or its people. When I said that, it pretty clear meant you hate almost every aspect of the government, with limited exceptions. now while I am certain you don't hate every aspect, I am criticizing you constant behavior of making sure America is almost universally painted negatively, even when a single aspect is praised.

show my utter hatred for America's Government. I could also produce Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate, if you want.

More strawman. This does not advance your position.

[Evraim]

Obama's limited Strike seems to coincide with three different definitions of war. Is there a special definition that is only comprehensible to Obama and Hollande where this does not qualify as a war? If so, what is this special definition?

Yes. The more rigorous definition employed by political scientists which is used to describe a widespread and systematic effort to use military power to obtain a specific policy objective. Most often, this is met by an opposing nation's military, resulting in a dialectic of sorts, as stated by Clausewitz. Generally, one thousand casualties on one or the other side would qualify a military action as a war. A single strike, to which an opposing regime is incapable of responding, is not a war, because it is neither widespread nor dialectical. It is not a skirmish, because the other side would have a difficult time retaliating, ergo it is not dialectical. It is just what it claims to be: a strike.

Also, the United States will never return to the Monroe Doctrine, at least not if our leaders have one iota of sense. Believe it or not, we are part of a wider international community, and that comes with particular obligations and responsibilities. Shutting ourselves off from said community is not one of them, and I say this without regards to the utility or plausibility of isolationism.

[Sibator]

I am being constructive. My retort to your point is utterly simple: scrutinising elite twats for their crimes elsewhere, does not mean you are particularly targeting the country of said twats. Whence-ever I criticise my country's leaders, I have a right to do thus, because their actions towards other nations go against morals of all sorts. Whence I criticise American leaders, I do so for the same reason, it does not mean that I "loathe" the United States, its simply because I want to point a finger at the scoundrels that are making a bad name out of said nation with their actions. When it comes to the American people, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever. In retrospect, as far as my country France as a nation is concerned minus the mongrels & elite diasporas we have as rulers, I love my nation as well as my fellow people.

We all have a right to stand up for other nations against our leaders, in favour of hopefully having ruling establishments that do not unleash cesspool on other countries ever again, whilst still very much loving our own nations at the same time. We have perfect rights to stand by the peoples of other nations in solidarity against the criminal, hypocritical actions of our jingoistic elite-diaspora influenced governments.

None of what yous aid contradicts anything I said in that post.

I never said Shofercia's opinion should be repressed, or that he should leave. You continue to ignore my main criticism in favor of an argument easier to attack.

[The Godly Nations]

The substance is the basically the same as the other 'Love it or leave it' sort of argument, since being critical of the American government or criticise the behaviour of Americans is obviously something we Americans don't do unless we hate America.

You continue to burn strawmen and ignore what I said previously. I had been absolutely clear that I don't believe America shouldn't be criticized, and that doing so doesn't make you "un-American".

I don't burn strawmen, because attacking a strawman means that I must attack a position that is not your own, but a weaker one that I have made up, and then attack that instead. Instead, I have attacked your position you hold, but then deny that you hold while still holding it.

Please, point out a specific place where I even implied he should leave. I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there.

Read the red bits.

I can pull out specific quotes where I stated it does not make him "un-American", and the government does things that require criticism.

Then why are you 'wondering why he's still in America instead of packing back to Russia'?

[Disserbia]

You're in the UK now?

Yep. And they're proposing mandatory civil service. It's part of the UN Must Troll Divair Initiative, where every single time Divair moves into a country, they must propose a mandatory year's service to the Government

Eventually he will have no option but to go to the US to avoid this and when we will reinstate the draft for everyone including permanent residents.

[The Godly Nations]

He does indeed.

No I don't.

Writing in a sarcastic and ridiculous tone in order to imply I don't hold stated positions wins you no brownie points.

And neither does double-talk.

Which of course, is easier that referencing anything I said.

I can reference it, but that would mean that I have to quote everything you have written on the subject since your first post.

Guess it's rather fortunate I never stated you hated every aspect did I? It has been rather clear you are not declaring a war against America or its people. When I said that, it pretty clear meant you hate almost every aspect of the government, with limited exceptions. now while I am certain you don't hate every aspect, I am criticizing you constant behavior of making sure America is almost universally painted negatively, even when a single aspect is praised.

So, basically, you have come out and said it- you are criticising him for being critical of the United States, as everyone has been saying since your first post.

[Sibator]

I don't burn strawmen,

Yes, you are.

because attacking a strawman means that I must attack a position that is not your own, but a weaker one that I have made up, and then attack that instead.

Which is exactly what you have done.

Instead, I have attacked your position you hold, but then deny that you hold while still holding it.

An opinion held only by one who has no idea of what they are speaking, and when cornered with their lack of knowledge specified, has been forced to defend themselves or disappear.

Read the red bits.

I did, and none of what I said implied it.

After all, I am certain you have criticized a certain poster here known to favor North Korea[not the one actively responding to me] about why he relentlessly attack America, but does not move to North Korea.
No one stated he had to move, but people were rather puzzled why he did not leave. After all, no one wanted to force him to leave.

Then why are you 'wondering why he's still in America instead of packing back to Russia'?

Because it is puzzling why he doesn't, which is exactly what I said before.

[Sibator]

No I don't.

Yes you do, your entire argument has been attacking an argument you have made up from false conlusion of what I have "implied".

And neither does double-talk.

I know, which is why I don't do it unless a coherent point was made. Which of course, Shofercia was not, since he painted me out to be someone I am quite not by stereotyping me based on my argument.

I can reference it, but that would mean that I have to quote everything you have written on the subject since your first post.

You'll have a tough time finding anything then.

So, basically, you have come out and said it- you are criticising him for being critical of the United States.

The colored part was actually a typo, and thank you for pointing it out. it doesn't really make sense with the rest of what I posted, does it? It meant to say that he does not hate every aspect.

As for the rest of your statement that is not what I have stated or implied. I have criticized him for being critical of the United States and supporting Russia on a disproportionate basis.

[Evraim]

I don't. I hate America playing the World Policeman.

Most people tend to hate when other powers interfere with their own plans. This does not in and of itself serve to refute the legitimacy of an intervention, and I would argue that under certain circumstances a nation may be said to have an obligation to intervene in the affairs of another nation, either by virtue of a political contract or basic moral principles. One example of this might be seen in Rwanda, where the nations of the world would have been well within their rights to intervene, because no group has the right to commit genocide, and all have an obligation to strive in its prevention. The question is whether intervention is an obligation or permissible under the current circumstances, and my inclination is to say that it is permissible if unpopular.

[Shofercia]

"Without resorting to ad hominem, here comes my ad hominem"

I never said any of what you did was undesirable or not necessary. In order for it to be ad hominem, it would have to be framed as an insult.

It could just be an inept attack, one that's too lame to be an insult. Ad Hominem is when you attack the poster, instead of the argument that he's making, which is exactly what you did.

Your post is like declaring non-aggression before punching someone in the face, but since you clearly didn't get a few things about me, please allow me to inform you:

Except it isn't, because I really didn't attack you.

Except you did. Otherwise, what was the point of your post? To inquire about why I'm not in Russia? Why not just ask that directly, and only that?

First, I don't criticize America at every opportunity.

Perhaps not at every one, you have lots of them, but I haven't seen a single post referencing America that hasn't been critical. Of course, I haven't seen all 10,000 of your posts, but it's a pretty common theme from what I have seen.

I haven't see a bear shit in the woods. I'm fairly certain they do it. But if you even managed to read my posts in this very thread, you'd be able to find some positive things that I've said about Obama. And America.

I criticize America's Bombing Campaigns that aren't done in self defense at every opportunity.

I would argue lots of bombings that aren't in elf-defense were necessary, but that doesn't pertain to the argument I am making. But needless to say you revert to quite a few American stereotypes, especially the Republican Party and overall American culture, while referencing non-derogatory ones at worst for Russia and its culture.

Referring to stereotypes doesn't mean hating the country. You seem hellbent on attacking my credibility though, and you're doing an extremely poor job of it.

And when Russia failed by inaction in Libya, I criticized Russia too.

And immediately proceeded to rail on America, most likely claiming the bombing runs were worse than Russia's inaction, especially if someone else criticized Russia without mentioning America.

Interesting way to shift goalposts:

You: "I just want to point out you zealously defend Russia and her actions at almost every opportunity"
Me: "when Russia failed by inaction in Libya, I criticized Russia too."
You, shifting goalposts to promote your extraordinarily biased an pathetic attack against me: "And immediately proceeded to rail on America"

Did you think I wouldn't catch that giant goal post shift?

In the thread where I have the most posts, I'm heavily critical of Russia. Of course knowing that requires critical reading skills, and some memory retention skills.

You see, nothing I said was an insult. Absolutely nothing, all I stated were your posting habits.

"Your Honor, my opponent is an extraordinarily biased piece of shit. I'm not insulting him, just referring to his posting habits"

Have you tried a career in comedy? You'd be quite good at it.

I never said you were someone you followed Russia hook line and sinker...you always paint Russia in an innocent light.

You might want to work on your arguing skills. If you're placing two opposite arguments in the same quote, you aren't succeeding. You are doing what the FSA is doing, and I believe the technical term for that is "failing". Miserably so.

I stated you always reference America negatively

An extremely stupid and fallacious statement that's been disproved by facts in this very thread.

Of course you had to pull out that insults first.

"I'm going around forums, attacking posters instead of their arguments, and making shit up about them being biased, bawww, why are they so mean to me?!?!?!"

At worst, what I have said to you are incorrect impressions. What you have stated was a flat out insult that can be conceived in no other capacity.

Are you trying to flamebait me here?

Second, by America and Russia, I don't mean the people, I mean the Governments. Believe it or not, but it's actually quite possible to live in a country with limited interaction with the Federal Governments.

Pretty sure I know that. Of course, state governments which I am certain you have a lesser opinion of interfere in your lives much more.

You shouldn't be certain about anything when it comes to me, considering that were just proven dead wrong about me. So please, stop making up bullshit about others, and then playing the victim card. It's getting truly pathetic.

And even then, when Obama/Putin do something good, I give them their dues, be it Obama on education or Putin on stability.

Very rarely. II don't know why you needed to mention Putin when my argument never even came close to saying you never defended Putin.

To show that I view Putin and Obama in an equal light on certain issues, which completely destroys your absurd claim about me. I expected you to miss that, and you lived up to my expectations.

Obama's education reforms have been largely successful.

Congratulations, now here else have you criticized the entire American culture, often using relatively offensive stereotypes

How so?

And I highly praise California's Proposition Process. It's quite good. It's just that NSG's an online forum, and I want to talk about problems, rather than things that are going well.

Sure you do.

Pretty sure I do. I even had a thread on it. Not that I'd expect you to find it.

Third, I've heavily criticized Gulags, Purges and Collectivization.

Thank you for agreeing with me, because that's exactly what I said.

Really?

you always paint Russia in an innocent light

I've never seen someone contradict themselves twice in their very own response. It's very unique.

If you didn't think I have, you need reading glasses.

Not sure I need those when I'm not the one answering questions never asked.

Hence the "if".

Do I want to move back to Russia? Yeah, I do.

If I may ask, at what age did you move here?

You may ask.

But I also like living in California, where most of my daily interaction is with my fellow Americans who are quite pleasant, and don't get butthurt every time I go "oh please don't bomb yet another country!"

No most of your criticisms lie in places you don't reside.

Indeed. I do not reside in a bomber's cockpit.

because my views of America's bombings are more in tune with *gasps* the rest of the World, instead of Faux News, and Corporate News Network.

I see you are more interested in painting me out to be a Conservative, Bible-Thumping Nationalist.

Bible thumping? How do you... even remotely... whatever.

And they definitely don't sound like: "You make mean posts bout Murika, go back to Rusha!"

Since that is obviously implying I said that, I'll ask you to point out where.

Your initial post. Would you like me to repost it?

I am fairly certain a government needs criticism for a democracy to be effective, I was pointing out how most of your posts pain the US in negative light almost constantly while the reverse is done for Russia. And when it does, it has nothing to do with the Russian culture, it always corrupt leaders.

I'm against Sirs Bombalot. America has a lot more Sirs Bombalot than Russia, ergo I'm more critical of the US on those issues. Additionally, Soviet/Russian leaders, sucked. Putin's the best since Csar Alexander the Liberator. In the past two centuries, Russia only had four decent leaders, including Putin and Medvedev. That's problematic. When discussing Russia, it's important that I point that out.

[The Godly Nations]

Yes, you are.

No, the gramatically correct form should be 'Yes, you do [burn strawmen]', and no, I don't.

Which is exactly what you have done.

And how have I done so by simply reiterating your point, and pointing out that it is informed by the same jingoist chauvinism as the argument (to use that word loosely) of the 'Murika, love it or leave it' type creating a strawman?

An opinion held only by one who has no idea of what they are speaking, and when cornered with their lack of knowledge specified, has been forced to defend themselves or disappear.

Exactly your opinion, then.

I did, and none of what I said implied it.

Eramus once rephrase the sentence 'Tuae litterae me magnopere delectarunt' in 195 ways, without changing its meaning, let's see how Sibator rephrase 'America, if you don't love it, why are you even here':

I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there.

And how it is usually found:

'Murica, love it or leave it

And, if you are not into brevity, his entire first post.

After all, I am certain you have criticized a certain poster here known to favor North Korea[not the one actively responding to me] about why he relentlessly attack America, but does not move to North Korea.

I don't recall I have, but if I did, then I would be in the wrong.

No one stated he had to move, but people were rather puzzled why he did not leave. After all, no one wanted to force him to leave.

Which is bascially 'America, love it or leave it'.

Because it is puzzling why he doesn't, which is exactly what I said before.

It's puzzling why you claim to respect criticism of the American government, and then follow that with 'Why are you even here if you don't love America?', the implication being 'Why don't you pack up and leave you fucking commie?'

[The Godly Nations]

Yes you do, your entire argument has been attacking an argument you have made up from false conlusion of what I have "implied".

No, I said that your argument is in the same spirit and vien as those of the 'America, love it or leave it' type, which you only demonstrated more and more, while disclaiming any kinship.

I know, which is why I don't do it unless a coherent point was made. Which of course, Shofercia was not, since he painted me out to be someone I am quite not by stereotyping me based on my argument.

Of course, all the points made herein are coherent, and thus, by your own admission, you are using double talk.

For example, in your last post:

I am criticizing you constant behavior of making sure America is almost universally painted negatively, even when a single aspect is praised.

And from the post before:

I have made it clear that I believe people should be able to criticise the American government.

Since this is obviously double-talk, it must follow, because you admit to only using double talk in the face of coherent argument, that the argument we have provided are coherent and logical. QED.

You'll have a tough time finding anything then.

I'll have a tough time for precisely the opposite, there is so much of it that the burden of it would leave my post composed entirely of your entire contribution since your first post on this subject.

The colored part was actually a typo, and thank you for pointing it out. it doesn't really make sense with the rest of what I posted, does it? It meant to say that he does not hate every aspect.

No, it is not a typo, because you said that prior to outright saying that you are criticising him for being critical of the American government.

As for the rest of your statement that is not what I have stated or implied. I have criticized him for being critical of the United States and supporting Russia on a disproportionate basis.

And there you have it, you admit to criticising him for being critical of America and 'supporting Russia', and then wondering 'why the fuck is that commie Rushkie still doing in America?' Didn't you say, before, that you respect criticism against the American government?

[Shofercia]

Actually, he doesn't.

He does indeed.

Nope. He's calling you out on bullshit that you've stated. That's a good thing.

Of course you have. Saying anything else will get you creamed on this forum, and even you know that.

Writing in a sarcastic and ridiculous tone in order to imply I don't hold stated positions wins you no brownie points.

If, (again note the if,) so, if you think that was sarcastic, you don't get to give out any brownie points.

The part where you implied that? Also known as the entirety of your initial post?

Which of course, is easier that referencing anything I said.

You keep using that word, "reference". Do you know what it means?

I don't. I hate America playing the World Policeman.

You sure give off the wrong impression.

How does saying "US please don't get involved" in a thread about US possibly intervening in a war in Syria" gives off the impression that I'm not against US playing the World's Cop? Conversely, how can someone assume that I hate an entire government, because I oppose a single policy of said government?

That doesn't mean that I hate America's Government in every aspect, and to think otherwise, is to be completely, totally, and utterly, deluded. Unless you want to argue that statements like this:

Obama's education reforms have been largely successful. Far more successful than anyone else's, since JFK's.

Guess it's rather fortunate I never stated you hated every aspect did I?

Really?

I stated you always reference America negatively

It has been rather clear you are not declaring a war against America or its people.

When I said that, it pretty clear meant you hate almost every aspect of the government

I don't. Can you stop making up bullshit about your fellow posters and playing the victim now? Probably not, but I figured it was worth asking.

I am criticizing you constant behavior of making sure America is almost universally painted negatively

I'm only painting America negatively when it comes to bombing other countries and similar bullshit. I want my taxdollars spent on schools, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. Thus, criticizing American on issues like Foreign Intervention is actually quite Patriotic.

[can you] show my utter hatred for America's Government

More strawman. This does not advance your position.

I asked if you could show where I have utter hatred for America's Government, as you're claiming. You've yet to do that.

[Shofercia]

I am being constructive. My retort to your point is utterly simple: scrutinising elite twats for their crimes elsewhere, does not mean you are particularly targeting the country of said twats. Whence-ever I criticise my country's leaders, I have a right to do thus, because their actions towards other nations go against morals of all sorts. Whence I criticise American leaders, I do so for the same reason, it does not mean that I "loathe" the United States, its simply because I want to point a finger at the scoundrels that are making a bad name out of said nation with their actions. When it comes to the American people, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever. In retrospect, as far as my country France as a nation is concerned minus the mongrels & elite diasporas we have as rulers, I love my nation as well as my fellow people.

We all have a right to stand up for other nations against our leaders, in favour of hopefully having ruling establishments that do not unleash cesspool on other countries ever again, whilst still very much loving our own nations at the same time. We have perfect rights to stand by the peoples of other nations in solidarity against the criminal, hypocritical actions of our jingoistic elite-diaspora influenced governments.

None of what yous aid contradicts anything I said in that post.

I never said Shofercia's opinion should be repressed, or that he should leave. You continue to ignore my main criticism in favor of an argument easier to attack.

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

You continue to burn strawmen and ignore what I said previously. I had been absolutely clear that I don't believe America shouldn't be criticized, and that doing so doesn't make you "un-American".

I don't burn strawmen, because attacking a strawman means that I must attack a position that is not your own, but a weaker one that I have made up, and then attack that instead. Instead, I have attacked your position you hold, but then deny that you hold while still holding it.

Please, point out a specific place where I even implied he should leave. I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there.

Read the red bits.

I can pull out specific quotes where I stated it does not make him "un-American", and the government does things that require criticism.

Then why are you 'wondering why he's still in America instead of packing back to Russia'?

Thank you

I don't. I hate America playing the World Policeman.

Most people tend to hate when other powers interfere with their own plans. This does not in and of itself serve to refute the legitimacy of an intervention, and I would argue that under certain circumstances a nation may be said to have an obligation to intervene in the affairs of another nation, either by virtue of a political contract or basic moral principles. One example of this might be seen in Rwanda, where the nations of the world would have been well within their rights to intervene, because no group has the right to commit genocide, and all have an obligation to strive in its prevention. The question is whether intervention is an obligation or permissible under the current circumstances, and my inclination is to say that it is permissible if unpopular.

Of course. And in terms of Rwanda, I completely agree with you, I'll just add that the thing that made Rwanda feasible, is that the US had the power to carry out an intervention with an over 90 percent chance of success. I'm played through the Rwanda Sim, I can get you the details on it if you like. So if there's clear evidence of massive Human Rights Violations and if the intervention will do much more good than harm, one should intervene. Rwanda is the posterboy example of that.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

No I don't.

Yes you do, your entire argument has been attacking an argument you have made up from false conlusion of what I have "implied".

And neither does double-talk.

I know, which is why I don't do it unless a coherent point was made. Which of course, Shofercia was not, since he painted me out to be someone I am quite not by stereotyping me based on my argument.

I can reference it, but that would mean that I have to quote everything you have written on the subject since your first post.

You'll have a tough time finding anything then.

So, basically, you have come out and said it- you are criticising him for being critical of the United States.

The colored part was actually a typo, and thank you for pointing it out. it doesn't really make sense with the rest of what I posted, does it? It meant to say that he does not hate every aspect.

As for the rest of your statement that is not what I have stated or implied. I have criticized him for being critical of the United States and supporting Russia on a disproportionate basis.

Shofercia is only doing what we as Westerners should actually do more often. Putin exists as a necessary counter to the jingoistic behaviour of our elites, whether you like him or not, this is the most important reason why its necessary that Moscow take strong foreign policy stances. Now into the context of this thread. Is it hegemonic in character? No. Is its relation with Syria unequal? Definitely not. Indeed, the Syrian-Russian relationship, as well as the Syrian-Iranian one, has been compared to, by persons on either side of these two exchanges, an exquisite, well off mutual marriage.

Russia threatened to leave the Middle East completely if it lost Syria as an ally. Is this the hegemonic behaviour you would expect? No. Both nations are sincerely very good allies, have been in this special relationship for decades. Do not expect that to end sometime soon.

Furthermore, Russia, China, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Algeria, amongst a plentiful of others are all nations very much crucially needed for their strong stances against neo-colonialism. Its because of them, that our elites have not gone a step over board to completely go on an insane rampage of neo-colonialism. Their counter-policing is a necessary balance, a necessary contribution to a paradigm shift in favour of an egalitarian, multi-polar world where all nations equally hold a strong voice without being on top of the other. Without these above nations, as well as numerous others, Syria would have been bombed, Balkanised, as well as utterly blown into failed-state oblivion, ruled by sectarianised-genocidal insurgent tyrannical Emirs. Without these above nations, far more destabilisation conflicts would have emerged to keep Tri-Continental nations (Asia (including Russia & Eastern Europe), Africa, Latin America) (as Che calls them) from ever being stable nor fully sovereign. Far more wars in the false name of "spreading democracy" would arise, which to me is indeed reminiscent of the old-era "spreading civilisation" rhetoric (which unfortunately for humankind, said rhetoric is still being utilised by some extreme megalomaniacs today, such as that infamous pastor comparing the invasion & occupation of Iraq to being a 'necessary religious war', or Winston Churchill justifying utilising chemical weapons on 'uncivilised tribes' in a flagrantly racist reference to the Kurdish people).

Without the above nations I mentioned, we would see a renewal of the colonial era, in the form of corporations committing the abuses, in the form of private military corporations (that however would not be too different from the East India companies of old) spreading chaos wherever they wish for profit, as well as in the utter form of financial giants leeching the bloody hell out of Tri-Continental nations in unequal agreements for loans (IMF, World Bank).

It has not gone this far, to the bloodiest extent just yet, because of people like Putin. However they cannot do that (maintaining a multi-polar balance) on their own, its also up to us Western civilians to speak out in favour of a multi-polar balance, as well as keeping the roving actions of neo-liberal/neo-conservative idealists in check.

None of what yous aid contradicts anything I said in that post.

I never said Shofercia's opinion should be repressed, or that he should leave. You continue to ignore my main criticism in favor of an argument easier to attack.

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

Thank you.

[The Godly Nations]

Yes. The more rigorous definition employed by political scientists which is used to describe a widespread and systematic effort to use military power to obtain a specific policy objective. Most often, this is met by an opposing nation's military, resulting in a dialectic of sorts, as stated by Clausewitz. Generally, one thousand casualties on one or the other side would qualify a military action as a war. A single strike, to which an opposing regime is incapable of responding, is not a war, because it is neither widespread nor dialectical. It is not a skirmish, because the other side would have a difficult time retaliating, ergo it is not dialectical. It is just what it claims to be: a strike.

So, as long as it is one-sided enough, it is a strike. In that case, Israel is having a strike against the Palestinians.

Also, the United States will never return to the Monroe Doctrine, at least not if our leaders have one iota of sense. Believe it or not, we are part of a wider international community, and that comes with particular obligations and responsibilities. Shutting ourselves off from said community is not one of them, and I say this without regards to the utility or plausibility of isolationism.

If our leaders have an iota of sense, they wouldn't go about bullying about other nations to their bidding and throwing a temper fit every time things don't go their way.

[San-Silvacian]

Yes you do, your entire argument has been attacking an argument you have made up from false conlusion of what I have "implied".


I know, which is why I don't do it unless a coherent point was made. Which of course, Shofercia was not, since he painted me out to be someone I am quite not by stereotyping me based on my argument.



You'll have a tough time finding anything then.


The colored part was actually a typo, and thank you for pointing it out. it doesn't really make sense with the rest of what I posted, does it? It meant to say that he does not hate every aspect.

As for the rest of your statement that is not what I have stated or implied. I have criticized him for being critical of the United States and supporting Russia on a disproportionate basis.

Shofercia is only doing what we as Westerners should actually do more often. Putin exists as a necessary counter to the jingoistic behaviour of our elites, whether you like him or not, this is the most important reason why its necessary that Moscow take strong foreign policy stances. Now into the context of this thread. Is it hegemonic in character? No. Is its relation with Syria unequal? Definitely not. Indeed, the Syrian-Russian relationship, as well as the Syrian-Iranian one, has been compared to, by persons on either side of these two exchanges, an exquisite, well off mutual marriage.

Russia threatened to leave the Middle East completely if it lost Syria as an ally. Is this the hegemonic behaviour you would expect? No. Both nations are sincerely very good allies, have been in this special relationship for decades. Do not expect that to end sometime soon.

Furthermore, Russia, China, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Algeria, amongst a plentiful of others are all nations very much crucially needed for their strong stances against neo-colonialism. Its because of them, that our elites have not gone a step over board to completely go on an insane rampage of neo-colonialism. Their counter-policing is a necessary balance, a necessary contribution to a paradigm shift in favour of an egalitarian, multi-polar world where all nations equally hold a strong voice without being on top of the other. Without these above nations, as well as numerous others, Syria would have been bombed, Balkanised, as well as utterly blown into failed-state oblivion, ruled by sectarianised-genocidal insurgent tyrannical Emirs. Without these above nations, far more destabilisation conflicts would have emerged to keep Tri-Continental nations (Asia (including Russia & Eastern Europe), Africa, Latin America) (as Che calls them) from ever being stable nor fully sovereign. Far more wars in the false name of "spreading democracy" would arise, which to me is indeed reminiscent of the old-era "spreading civilisation" rhetoric (which unfortunately for humankind, said rhetoric is still being utilised by some extreme megalomaniacs today, such as that infamous pastor comparing the invasion & occupation of Iraq to being a 'necessary religious war', or Winston Churchill justifying utilising chemical weapons on 'uncivilised tribes' in a flagrantly racist reference to the Kurdish people).

Without the above nations I mentioned, we would see a renewal of the colonial era, in the form of corporations committing the abuses, in the form of private military corporations (that however would not be too different from the East India companies of old) spreading chaos wherever they wish for profit, as well as in the utter form of financial giants leeching the bloody hell out of Tri-Continental nations in unequal agreements for loans (IMF, World Bank).

It has not gone this far, to the bloodiest extent just yet, because of people like Putin. However they cannot do that (maintaining a multi-polar balance) on their own, its also up to us Western civilians to speak out in favour of a multi-polar balance, as well as keeping the roving actions of neo-liberal/neo-conservative idealists in check.

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

Thank you.

yeah Belarus stands against western imperialism all the time. just the other day i was in Belarus and they totes were having anti america rallies dispite the fact they have 1000000 more important issues to attend to.

[Sibator]

It could just be an inept attack, one that's too lame to be an insult.

Whatever makes make you get excited about yourself.

Ad Hominem is when you attack the poster, instead of the argument that he's making,

My entire argument as not been in the form of an insult or attack. My primary thesis had been in the form of a question, about why you were in America when, by the observation of your posting patterns, you so clearly view the government in such a negative light.

which is exactly what you did.

Except it wasn't.

Except you did. Otherwise, what was the point of your post? To inquire about why I'm not in Russia? Why not just ask that directly, and only that?

Because that would have in no way fed into the exact same argument you have been making about supposedly wishing that you leave, wouldn't it?

First, I don't criticize America at every opportunity.

I haven't see a bear shit in the woods. I'm fairly certain they do it. But if you even managed to read my posts in this very thread, you'd be able to find some positive things that I've said about Obama. And America[/quote]
I'm sure you can. of course, such posts are either A. defending Russia in the same breadth or B. going on to criticize them at the same time.

Referring to stereotypes doesn't mean hating the country.

No it's just offensive. If I started making stereotypes about Russians being drunks, you would most certainly make a stereotype in response or refute it.

You seem hellbent on attacking my credibility though, and you're doing an extremely poor job of it.

Of course you would say that, because admitting I'm correct you would mean all the time you've spent trying to refute my point with your worthless prattle would have been wasted.

Interesting way to shift goalposts:

Quite interesting, considering I didn't.

You: "I just want to point out you zealously defend Russia and her actions at almost every opportunity"
Me: "when Russia failed by inaction in Libya, I criticized Russia too."
You, shifting goalposts to promote your extraordinarily biased an pathetic attack against me: "And immediately proceeded to rail on America"

I suppose to someone who can't quite comprehend English this would be true. But had you read my first post clearly enough to see more than blurry line you would have noticed you admit that Russia has done bad actions, and then immediately rail against America and/or Russia's enemies. I mean for fuck's sake, are you even trying? This was in my first post.

Did you think I wouldn't catch that giant goal post shift?

I had assumed you do not see things that don't exist.

"Your Honor, my opponent is an extraordinarily biased piece of shit. I'm not insulting him, just referring to his posting habits"

If your attempt at completely misrepresenting my argument in this line was your goal, it was a complete success.

Have you tried a career in comedy? You'd be quite good at it.

I would most likely do quite a bit better then the shity sarcastic tone you have been launching at me.

You might want to work on your arguing skills. If you're placing two opposite arguments in the same quote, you aren't succeeding. You are doing what the FSA is doing, and I believe the technical term for that is "failing". Miserably so.[/quote]
I advice you take some of your own pills doctor, cause I don't follow the advise of doctor's who don't know what they're talking about. You have not even refuted a single thing I've said in those post, and have now entirely focused on trying to misrepresent my argument. Literally, every line up to this point as been exactly that.

As for your nonsensical claim, they don not contradict. Were you following Russia hook- line and sinker, you would never, ever criticize Russia. For instance, apologists do not have to agree with everything their government tells them, but they will always paint it in a positive light.

An extremely stupid and fallacious statement that's been disproved by facts in this very thread.

Except, it has not, and statements have been growing increasingly desperate. I would suggest you talk this out to someone, because you are really trying not to even stick to the discussion at this point.

"I'm going around forums, attacking posters instead of their arguments, and making shit up about them being biased, bawww, why are they so mean to me?!?!?!"

My first post was not hostile, and if it was perceived as so, you could have simply pointed it out and I would have apologized for it for hostility not intentioned. But instead, you decided to being launching insults right out of the gate, and you get what you receive.

Are you trying to flamebait me here?

No, if you are feeling anger, it is probably the result of the hostility that you basically asked for.

You shouldn't be certain about anything when it comes to me, considering that were just proven dead wrong about me. So please, stop making up bullshit about others, and then playing the victim card. It's getting truly pathetic.

Of course I can't, nothing I judged you by has been from anything but what you have publicly stated.

All you have been doing is spitting shit at me in a desperate and futile attempt to cover the flaws in your own argument. Honestly, if anything here is pathetic, and it has been your statements.

To show that I view Putin and Obama in an equal light on certain issues, which completely destroys your absurd claim about me. I expected you to miss that, and you lived up to my expectations.

Except, I never stated you did. Your post included the post about supporting Putin, which was completely pointless and trite considering what I have been arguing.

How so?

Pretty much every "Fuck yeah America" stereotype you use insults American culture and many citizens.

Pretty sure I do. I even had a thread on it. Not that I'd expect you to find it.

And in that thread, at what point to you admire anything about American culture or its people? I am fairly certain within that thread you criticize the obstructionism of Congress that leads to the mishandling of Obama's education policy. I am certain this thread is not only abut positives, and will backhand the institutional structure of the US government within the same breadth.

Really?

Yes, although you should stop looking so dumbfounded, since it will cause people to make assumptions.

I've never seen someone contradict themselves twice in their very own response. It's very unique.

I have also never seen someone so pathetically and desperately attempt to defend their argument like this, especially going so far as to see things that aren't there.

Since you apparently need to take remedial English classes, allow me to point out what that means. When you paint Russia out in an innocent light, you are improving their position. You can still criticize them, but usually it only follows positions that extremely unsupportable, and even then you focus the hatred and hostility on the enemy's actions. In the very argument, you constantly mentioned the Nazi prison camps, claiming(I do not necessarily disagree) that they were worse than the Gulags.

Hence the "if".

For once you are correct.

You may ask.

At what age did you move here?

Indeed. I do not reside in a bomber's cockpit.

Nor do you reside outside California.

Bible thumping? How do you... even remotely... whatever.

Why else would you mention Fox News without trying to paint me out as that caricature?

Your initial post. Would you like me to repost it?

Go right ahead, seeing as how nothing in my post goes in line with much of anything you have claimed.

I'm against Sirs Bombalot. America has a lot more Sirs Bombalot than Russia, ergo I'm more critical of the US on those issues.

Because the Russian policy on Chechnya did not include lots of bombs right?
Additionally, Soviet/Russian leaders, sucked. Putin's the best since Csar Alexander the Liberator. In the past two centuries, Russia only had four decent leaders, including Putin and Medvedev. That's problematic. When discussing Russia, it's important that I point that out.[/quote]
Ok?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Yes. The more rigorous definition employed by political scientists which is used to describe a widespread and systematic effort to use military power to obtain a specific policy objective. Most often, this is met by an opposing nation's military, resulting in a dialectic of sorts, as stated by Clausewitz. Generally, one thousand casualties on one or the other side would qualify a military action as a war. A single strike, to which an opposing regime is incapable of responding, is not a war, because it is neither widespread nor dialectical. It is not a skirmish, because the other side would have a difficult time retaliating, ergo it is not dialectical. It is just what it claims to be: a strike.

So, as long as it is one-sided enough, it is a strike. In that case, Israel is having a strike against the Palestinians.

Also, the United States will never return to the Monroe Doctrine, at least not if our leaders have one iota of sense. Believe it or not, we are part of a wider international community, and that comes with particular obligations and responsibilities. Shutting ourselves off from said community is not one of them, and I say this without regards to the utility or plausibility of isolationism.

If our leaders have an iota of sense, they wouldn't go about bullying about other nations to their bidding and throwing a temper fit every time things don't go their way.

This. Not being aggressive does not mean "isolating from the international community", that beloved term our leaders in the West just love utilising. Its just about stopping the immature sabre rattling, in favour of a really constructive international community where all nations can peacefully co-exist together as well as learn to share the world.

[Sibator]

No, the gramatically correct form should be 'Yes, you do [burn strawmen]', and no, I don't.

It is always a good sign of things to come when you decide to correct your opponent's grammar in the first line.

And how have I done so by simply reiterating your point, and pointing out that it is informed by the same jingoist chauvinism as the argument (to use that word loosely) of the 'Murika, love it or leave it' type creating a strawman?

And how have I done so by simply reiterating your point,

You haven't.

Exactly your opinion, then.

You an try harder than that, the only advantage you can try and pull at this point is humor, otherwise you're simply stating inane pointless facts.

Eramus once rephrase the sentence 'Tuae litterae me magnopere delectarunt' in 195 ways, without changing its meaning, let's see how Sibator rephrase 'America, if you don't love it, why are you even here':

I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there.

It's also important to note that who have now changed your original contention from me implying "America, love it or leave it" to "America, if you don't love it, why are you even here?"

And how it is usually found:


And, if you are not into brevity, his entire first post.

I am into accuracy, which through clear partisanship and personal bias you appear not to be a fan of.

I don't recall I have, but if I did, then I would be in the wrong.

As is the majority of NSG, including Shofercia.

Which is bascially 'America, love it or leave it'.

I suppose it is if you completely mutilate both the meaning and the wording.

It's puzzling why you claim to respect criticism of the American government, and then follow that with 'Why are you even here if you don't love America?',

You quite often like to paint out my argument as something it is not. None of what I said has anything to do with love, it has to do with hate. Since I believe Shof hates the majority of the US government and its actions, why would he stay here through choice, when the rarely criticized Russian government is often praised and defended.

the implication being 'Why don't you pack up and leave you fucking commie?'

[/quote]
If you are going to resort to this buffoonery you may as well just concede.

[Sibator]

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

To a 3 three year old who can't read, perhaps.

Thank you

You see why it is pretty much impossible for either you or him to admit their wrong even if, as you believe, you two are correct?

No matter what truths are launched at you, you will constantly try to refute them. You and Hardcore Conservatives have a lot in common.