Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Imperializt Russia]

What the fuck is 'freedom' to you anyway?

Security of person and property.

A hundred years ago, women, blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised from their ability to own significant property, which was a requirement to vote.

[Genivaria]

You...don't do this logic thing very well do you?

Far be it from me to argue logic with someone who has almost forty thousand posts on NationStates General, you are blaming colonialism for the actions of its enemies, on grounds that if colonialism just surrendered on day 1 maybe its enemies needn't have been so horrible. Which is exactly the same as to say that, had Wilson not brought America into WWI, Germany would have won it and there would have been no Holocaust. It's possible that that's not even true, but assuming it is, doesn't make anything like the moral case you are trying to make. As I said, simply absurd.

You don't do reading comprehension very well either I see.
You clearly don't understand my position or you're deliberately being obtuse.

What the fuck is 'freedom' to you anyway?

Security of person and property.

Freedom is not political power. If your goal is political power for this or that ethnic group, then yes, Vietnam is more free than it was a few decades ago, despite the fact that its government maintains power by precisely the same methods (shooting protesters - oh but that's impossible and can never work!). If freedom means the ability to work, own what you earn, and live in peace with others, communism was a massive step backwards, and Vietnamese are only recently slowly recovering the freedom the French gave them.

You have a very Orwellian idea of what freedom means.
That actually explains alot right there.

[HMS Vanguard]

Security of person and property.

A hundred years ago, women, blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised from their ability to own significant property, which was a requirement to vote.

There were no restrictions on any of those groups owning property in the UK.

[HMS Vanguard]

Far be it from me to argue logic with someone who has almost forty thousand posts on NationStates General, you are blaming colonialism for the actions of its enemies, on grounds that if colonialism just surrendered on day 1 maybe its enemies needn't have been so horrible. Which is exactly the same as to say that, had Wilson not brought America into WWI, Germany would have won it and there would have been no Holocaust. It's possible that that's not even true, but assuming it is, doesn't make anything like the moral case you are trying to make. As I said, simply absurd.

You don't do reading comprehension very well either I see.
You clearly don't understand my position or you're deliberately being obtuse.

I understand your position, and think it's absurd. It's the refuge of someone with no real arguments left.

Security of person and property.

Freedom is not political power. If your goal is political power for this or that ethnic group, then yes, Vietnam is more free than it was a few decades ago, despite the fact that its government maintains power by precisely the same methods (shooting protesters - oh but that's impossible and can never work!). If freedom means the ability to work, own what you earn, and live in peace with others, communism was a massive step backwards, and Vietnamese are only recently slowly recovering the freedom the French gave them.

You have a very Orwellian idea of what freedom means.
That actually explains alot right there.

Orwellian being a term describing a communist system without security of person and without any private property.

[Novus America]

Umm the USfreer today than a hundred years ago. Women and souhern blacks can vote now.

Which no doubt brings to them tremendous psychic joy. But actual, practical freedom?

And you again go massively generalizing the Third World. It is again not some war plagued heart of darkness for the most part, abeit with exceptions.

No. Most of the world today is not beset by war. At all. Just a few places.

And the colonial wars were inside and outside of Europe both!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_war#Wars

Huge numbers of small colonial wars as well as massive wars were fought during the colonial era

Yes, there are always small wars. Lumping of colonialism with WWI and WWII, as if the one caused the other, is absurd. European wars had European causes and were mostly confined to Europe. The Japanese War is the only exception, of course not caused by Europeans, nor European politics, and officially anti-colonialist.

The era of mass devastation in the Third World however does not begin until the second half of the twentieth century when the anti-colonialists get their claws into Africa and East Asia. There is no colonial equivalent of Mao's hungry ghosts or Pol Pot's Killing Fields. Zimbabwe and Congo Free State can be compared, but at least there was only one Congo Free State, and the colonialists didn't go backwards. 1950-1980 is the Third World's 1914-1945.

The end of segregation was practical freedom.

Do you have a citatation that there were more wars after? And there are much fewer now, it is no longer the 70s you know. After the Soviet Union fell death from war massively dropped. It is coming back again as we move back towards a multipolar world.

The most peaceful era was the one of most US dominance.

And denying the scramble for Africa and Asia were major causes in both WWI and WWII is absurd. You know both saw lots of fighting in Africa too?

[Genivaria]

A hundred years ago, women, blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised from their ability to own significant property, which was a requirement to vote.

There were no restrictions on any of those groups owning property in the UK.

Then you're either ignorant or a liar.

[Genivaria]

You don't do reading comprehension very well either I see.
You clearly don't understand my position or you're deliberately being obtuse.

I understand your position, and think it's absurd. It's the refuge of someone with no real arguments left.

You have a very Orwellian idea of what freedom means.
That actually explains alot right there.

Orwellian being a term describing a communist system without security of person and without any private property.

You've shown you don't understand mine or anyone else's position who disagrees with you, and I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding.

[HMS Vanguard]

There were no restrictions on any of those groups owning property in the UK.

Then you're either ignorant or a liar.

Any particular reason? (of course not)

The UK never had any restrictions on blacks or the poor owning property. There were restrictions on the ability of women to own property independently of their husbands when married, but these were removed in 1882, several decades earlier.

[Imperializt Russia]

A hundred years ago, women, blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised from their ability to own significant property, which was a requirement to vote.

There were no restrictions on any of those groups owning property in the UK.

Well we were talking about the US in the first instance, and women were not freely able to purchase some goods without the signature of a man until the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which no doubt brings to them tremendous psychic joy. But actual, practical freedom?

What the fuck is 'freedom' to you anyway?

The ability to buy a machine gun, milspec smoke grenades and suppressors through the mail like the days of old?

You should probably veer back towards the topic though, this doesn't have much to do with Daesh.

[HMS Vanguard]

There were no restrictions on any of those groups owning property in the UK.

Well we were talking about the US in the first instance, and

Since this is determined at state level, US law is impossibly byzantine, and as you are 1. not American and 2. can't even use words like "enfranchise" correctly, I did not see any point talking about the situation in the US with you.

women were not freely able to purchase some goods without the signature of a man until the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

That is an extraordinary claim that I am certainly not willing to take at face value. It may be that it was legal for a shop to refuse to sell to a woman until this Act was passed, not that it was illegal for a woman to buy.

[Imperializt Russia]

women were not freely able to purchase some goods without the signature of a man until the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

That is an extraordinary claim that I am certainly not willing to take at face value. It may be that it was legal for a shop to refuse to sell to a woman until this Act was passed, not that it was illegal for a woman to buy.

Then they were not freely able to do so.

And apparently I don't have to justify this claim to you as you are not willing to do so for me on American topics.

[HMS Vanguard]

That is an extraordinary claim that I am certainly not willing to take at face value. It may be that it was legal for a shop to refuse to sell to a woman until this Act was passed, not that it was illegal for a woman to buy.

Then they were not freely able to do so.

A shop may still legally refuse to sell to me on grounds that I have blonde hair yet it would be somewhat misleading to say that, "Blondes may not purchase certain items without the signature of a brunette.". Apart from anything else, it's perfectly true the other way around as well - a shop could refuse to sell to a man.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then they were not freely able to do so.

A shop may still legally refuse to sell to me on grounds that I have blonde hair yet it would be somewhat misleading to say that, "Blondes may not purchase certain items without the signature of a brunette.". Apart from anything else, it's perfectly true the other way around as well - a shop could refuse to sell to a man.

Yet the refusal to sell to women, unless with a male chaperone (usually expected to be the husband, probably) was specific. It was the one that had to be outlawed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

There are a myriad of reasons why a sale can be refused but as the Act points out - one of these was "you have tits, love."

[HMS Vanguard]

A shop may still legally refuse to sell to me on grounds that I have blonde hair yet it would be somewhat misleading to say that, "Blondes may not purchase certain items without the signature of a brunette.". Apart from anything else, it's perfectly true the other way around as well - a shop could refuse to sell to a man.

Yet the refusal to sell to women, unless with a male chaperone (usually expected to be the husband, probably) was specific. It was the one that had to be outlawed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

There are a myriad of reasons why a sale can be refused but as the Act points out - one of these was "you have tits, love."

The way you have phrased this makes it sound an awful lot like a shop is still allowed to refuse to sell to a man, but not a woman. That would mean a previously equal situation is now unequal.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yet the refusal to sell to women, unless with a male chaperone (usually expected to be the husband, probably) was specific. It was the one that had to be outlawed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

There are a myriad of reasons why a sale can be refused but as the Act points out - one of these was "you have tits, love."

The way you have phrased this makes it sound an awful lot like a shop is still allowed to refuse to sell to a man, but not a woman. That would mean a previously equal situation is now unequal.

They were unable to refuse a sale, or an inequitable sale, on the basis that the purchaser was a woman. Much like subsequent, and recent consolidating, legislation makes it so that it is illegal to deny sale or give inequitable sale of goods and purchases because the purchaser is a certain race or sexual identity etc.

Section 28 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975:

29.-(1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the
provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services
to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against
a woman who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities
or services-
(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with
any of them, or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with
goods, facilities or services of the like quality, in the
like manner and on the like terms as are normal in his
case in relation to male members of the public or (where
she belongs to a section of the public) to male members
of that section.

[HMS Vanguard]

The way you have phrased this makes it sound an awful lot like a shop is still allowed to refuse to sell to a man, but not a woman. That would mean a previously equal situation is now unequal.

They were unable to refuse a sale, or an inequitable sale, on the basis that the purchaser was a woman. Much like subsequent, and recent consolidating, legislation makes it so that it is illegal to deny sale or give inequitable sale of goods and purchases because the purchaser is a certain race or sexual identity etc.

Section 28 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975:

29.-(1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the
provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services
to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against
a woman who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities
or services-
(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with
any of them, or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with
goods, facilities or services of the like quality, in the
like manner and on the like terms as are normal in his
case in relation to male members of the public or (where
she belongs to a section of the public) to male members
of that section.

Then this law turned an equitable system based on freedom of trade into one that unfairly privileges women, albeit in a practically irrelevant way.

[Imperializt Russia]

They were unable to refuse a sale, or an inequitable sale, on the basis that the purchaser was a woman. Much like subsequent, and recent consolidating, legislation makes it so that it is illegal to deny sale or give inequitable sale of goods and purchases because the purchaser is a certain race or sexual identity etc.

Section 28 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975:

Then this law turned an equitable system based on freedom of trade into one that unfairly privileges women, albeit in a practically irrelevant way.

So, women being denied provision of goods or services for being women, and having that rectified, is unfair privilege on women.

kek
What fucking universe are you from, mate.

[HMS Vanguard]

Then this law turned an equitable system based on freedom of trade into one that unfairly privileges women, albeit in a practically irrelevant way.

So, women being denied provision of goods or services for being women, and having that rectified, is unfair privilege on women.

kek
What fucking universe are you from, mate.

One in which equality means treating people the same.

[Imperializt Russia]

So, women being denied provision of goods or services for being women, and having that rectified, is unfair privilege on women.

kek
What fucking universe are you from, mate.

One in which equality means treating people the same.

What this law introduced then.

[The United Dark Republic]

Yes, but only if we go for the heart of ISIS: the oil.

Such an American thing to say, I know, but it's kind of the truth. Otherwise, I say leave it to Middle-Eastern countries.

[HMS Vanguard]

One in which equality means treating people the same.

What this law introduced then.

This law made it mandatory to extend any offer of goods or service to men to women, but not vice-versa.

[Novus America]

One in which equality means treating people the same.

What this law introduced then.

We are way off topic. Wishing for 1900 to magically come back is not going to fix the Middke East problems. Not is the reintroduction of colonialism a realistic idea.

[Imperializt Russia]

What this law introduced then.

This law made it mandatory to extend any offer of goods or service to men to women, but not vice-versa.

Nice to know you didn't bother reading it when I quoted it.

[Valaran]

Yes, but only if we go for the heart of ISIS: the oil.

Do you mind elaborating? As in, would you send ground troops to take and hold specific petroleum installations and oil fields?