Russian Ambassador To Turkey Shot Dead...

[seanD]

More like another instance of selective autism on your part.



Did you even read the op? He explicitly states " "Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria! As long as our brothers are not safe, you will not enjoy safety." Since I doubt he views himself as a terrorist most likely he is talking about ethnic turks and/or muslims in Syria, since that's the main reason why the Turks are opposed Assad and shot a russian plane down. And Assad probably is killing a lot of muslims, terrorist or otherwise. It's impossible to avoid in that kind of conflict.

Rather than go for the obvious motive though you had to inject a dumb conspiracy theory about it being a western plot without a shred of evidence and now you're shifting goalposts and doing everything to avoid backing up your unsubstantiated thesis.

The west is a supporting al-qaeda (and probably ISIS) terrorists, the same Islamic religious group that attacked us on 911. That much we do know. How's that for a conspiracy theory? I don't put nothing passed US intelligence insanity at that point. All bets are off the table at that point. And I haven't shifted the goalposts. If Russia and Turkey made a pipeline alliance in Syria, and are working towards joint efforts in that country, the heck makes you think Russia killing ethnic Turks in Syria is the obvious motive? I mean, sure anything's possible in that crazy scenario, but that really isn't the "obvious" choice. The guy was muslim who also apparently shouted allah akbar. His "brothers" are the Islamic jihadist in Syria fighting against Assad. That's most likely what he meant.

[Darth Executor]

If Russia and Turkey made a pipeline alliance in Syria, and are working towards joint efforts in that country

lol the US can't even find someone to translate "reset" in Russian, your claim that they had a turkish cop in their pocket ready to sacrifice his life so... they could stop a pipeline that doesn't actually inconvenience anyone other than Ukraine. Maybe you think the Ukrainians are calling the shots in the Ankara underworld? Your theory is prima facie stupid. Just because the CIA would be willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve something doesn't mean there's something worthwhile for them to achieve here.

The guy was muslim who also apparently shouted allah akbar. His "brothers" are the Islamic jihadist in Syria fighting against Assad. That's most likely what he meant.

It's not just jihadists getting blown up in Syria, it's every civillian in their territory. Assad happily bombs even formerly held cities without discrimination once they end up in enemy hands. Do you seriously think this guy was selectively outraged only about the jihadists being killed?

[seanD]

lol the US can't even find someone to translate "reset" in Russian, your claim that they had a turkish cop in their pocket ready to sacrifice his life so... they could stop a pipeline that doesn't actually inconvenience anyone other than Ukraine. Maybe you think the Ukrainians are calling the shots in the Ankara underworld? Your theory is prima facie stupid. Just because the CIA would be willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve something doesn't mean there's something worthwhile for them to achieve here.



It's not just jihadists getting blown up in Syria, it's every civillian in their territory. Assad happily bombs even formerly held cities without discrimination once they end up in enemy hands. Do you seriously think this guy was selectively outraged only about the jihadists being killed?

Naturally the pipeline IS in US interest if that's what started the whole thing. You recognize the CIA is willing to "go to extreme lengths," like arm al-qaeda terrorist groups, over a pipeline in Syria, yet you find it unbelievable that they wouldn't go to equal extreme lengths to block a pipeline deal in Syria they're not involved in? That's a contradiction unless you actually believe we're arming radical terrorist groups in Syria for the reason Obama's admin gives us -- for humanitarian reasons lol.

[Darth Executor]

Naturally the pipeline IS in US interest if that's what started the whole thing. You recognize the CIA is willing to "go to extreme lengths," like arm al-qaeda terrorist groups, over a pipeline in Syria,

A pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe, sure.

yet you find it unbelievable that they wouldn't go to equal extreme lengths to block a pipeline deal in Syria they're not involved in?

Yes. Why would they care? It's like saying they'd blow up a hot dog stand in taiwan because they don't get their cut. The cost/benefit calculus is completely out of whack. They'd risk world war 3, according to you, to what, help starving Ukrainians steal gas? It's a stupid conspiracy, not really even worth all the typing I've done on the subject given that there isn't even any evidence of CIA involvement in the first place.

That's a contradiction unless you actually believe we're arming radical terrorist groups in Syria for the reason Obama's admin gives us -- for humanitarian reasons lol.

I doubt Obama knows what he's doing at all. "We" are arming radical terrorist groups in Syria because the war is a proxy war between Iran and Gulf Arabs and we're on the arab side of the conflict.

[seanD]

A pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe, sure.



Yes. Why would they care? It's like saying they'd blow up a hot dog stand in taiwan because they don't get their cut. The cost/benefit calculus is completely out of whack. They'd risk world war 3, according to you, to what, help starving Ukrainians steal gas? It's a stupid conspiracy, not really even worth all the typing I've done on the subject given that there isn't even any evidence of CIA involvement in the first place.



I doubt Obama knows what he's doing at all. "We" are arming radical terrorist groups in Syria because the war is a proxy war between Iran and Gulf Arabs and we're on the arab side of the conflict.

I don't really know for sure CIA is directly involved, I don't know who's involved (apparently the same sources that would arm terrorist groups in the first place), but it makes more sense that this serves western interests than to believe it was some cryptic message about ethnic turks, particularly when Russia and the Turks were beginning to cooperate in Syria. And you just contradicted yourself again between the two bold sentence fragments. There's no point for me to continue this asinine discussion if you're just going to talk in circles apparently just for the sake of arguing.

[Scrawly]

The west is a supporting al-qaeda (and probably ISIS) terrorists, the same Islamic religious group that attacked us on 911. That much we do know.

Sean, can you please cite your evidence for this?

[seanD]

Sean, can you please cite your evidence for this?

This is pretty much common knowledge now if you're at all familiar with the Syrian conflict (though ISIS was a little more controversial), but here. I linked to a source in that post.

[Scrawly]

This is pretty much common knowledge now if you're at all familiar with the Syrian conflict (though ISIS was a little more controversial), but here. I linked to a source in that post.

I think your sources mostly contain hearsay written by those who uncritically accept the veracity of wikileaks, etc.. The fact of the matter is that America and the allied forces are in a state of war against fanatically minded groups with visions of an Islamic conquest. The situation is complex and requires shrewdness. Perhaps those with a penchant for equating America with Satan fail to see the very real possibility that the American government has strategic plans in place in order to produce global stability and disrupt the agenda of the soldier's of Allah. Maybe just maybe America has good reasons and intentions for what they do despite the myopic view of individuals like Tulsi Gabbard and company. Sometimes a powerful government like America needs to behave just a little different from the average citizen in order to prevent global mobilization of the soldiers of Allah from invading other nations en masse.

In other words, even if America is funding terrorist groups in some sense (which is far from proven beyond reasonable doubt; and even if there is compelling evidence, the reasons behind their activity are utterly more nuanced and strategic than anti-American conspiratorial rhetoricians make it to be), it's not simply a matter therefore of America being the "bigger terrorist". So once again, Gabbard and company would do well to be more careful in understanding the possible and probable reasoning behind the scraps of (credible?) information they get all alarmist about and avoid creating a narrative based on ignorance of the inner workings of complex realities like the war against Islamism.

[seanD]

I think your sources mostly contain hearsay written by those who uncritically accept the veracity of wikileaks, etc.. The fact of the matter is that America and the allied forces are in a state of war against fanatically minded groups with visions of an Islamic conquest. The situation is complex and requires shrewdness. Perhaps those with a penchant for equating America with Satan fail to see the very real possibility that the American government has strategic plans in place in order to produce global stability and disrupt the agenda of the soldier's of Allah. Maybe just maybe America has good reasons and intentions for what they do despite the myopic view of individuals like Tulsi Gabbard and company. Sometimes a powerful government like America needs to behave just a little different from the average citizen in order to prevent global mobilization of the soldiers of Allah from invading other nations en masse.

In other words, even if America is funding terrorist groups in some sense (which is far from proven beyond reasonable doubt; and even if there is compelling evidence the reasons beyond their activity are utterly more nuanced and strategic than anti-American conspiratorial rhetoricians make it to be), it's not simply a matter therefore of America being the "bigger terrorist". So once again, Gabbard and company would do well to be more careful in understanding the possible and probable reasoning behind the scraps of (credible?) information they get all alarmist about and avoid creating a narrative based on ignorance of the inner workings of complex realities like the war against Islamism.

The fact the west, along with its mid-east allies, is supporting al-qaeda linked terrorists in Syria isn't based on wikileaks. In fact, wikileaks is not even mentioned in the article.

[Scrawly]

The fact the west, along with its mid-east allies, is supporting al-qaeda linked terrorists in Syria isn't based on wikileaks.

Right, it's based on hearsay and ignorance of strategic war.

In fact, wikileaks is not even mentioned in the article.

Wikileaks was a source of one of the sources in the article.

[seanD]

Right, it's based on hearsay and ignorance of strategic war.



Wikileaks was a source of one of the sources in the article.

The link source cited the Dailycaller which was citing both a speech Hillary made to GS and a wikileaks email she sent in regards to radical jihadists in Syria. So? Are you saying both those sources aren't credible? I mean, what's your argument here? And that's not the only source Gabbard is basing it on.

[Scrawly]

The link source cited the Dailycaller which was citing both a speech Hillary made to GS and a wikileaks email she sent in regards to radical jihadists in Syria. So? Are you saying both those sources aren't credible? I mean, what's your argument here? And that's not the only source Gabbard is basing it on.

My argument is don't be too quick to hit the panic button while piecing together scraps of information, some of which with dubious origins. Also, don't construct a narrative that makes America and it's allies out to be demonic entities hell bent on causing chaos for personal power. You and many other's are not privy to the reasoning behind why the government(s) do what they do - and I'm sure we can agree that some of those reasons are for the good of humanity - like preventing the spread of Islamism.

[seanD]

My argument is don't be too quick to hit the panic button while piecing together scraps of information, some of which with dubious origins. Also, don't construct a narrative that makes America and it's allies out to be demonic entities hell bent on causing chaos for personal power. You and many other's are not privy to the reasoning behind why the government(s) do what they do - and I'm sure we can agree that some of those reasons are for the good of humanity - like preventing the spread of Islamism.

Arming, training, and funding radical jihadis to tear down established moderate regimes isn't "preventing the spread of Islam," regardless of what you and I want to believe about the intent

[One Bad Pig]

Arming, training, and funding radical jihadis to tear down established moderate regimes isn't "preventing the spread of Islam," regardless of what you and I want to believe about the intent

Actually, that WOULD help to prevent the spread of Islam - keeps them busy knocking off each other.

[seanD]

Actually, that WOULD help to prevent the spread of Islam - keeps them busy knocking off each other.

Doesn't seem to be working though, does it? You'd think a strategy would be to not disrupt the mid-east, thus you keep them all in one place, as opposed to them scattering in all directions across the continent. But, hey, that's just me.