Originally posted by Christianbookworm
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Slaughtering our Kurdish allies
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostHas the middle east ever not had conflict?Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI think in 2003 for the Iraq war.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI think in 2003 for the Iraq war.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Turkey Begins Syria Attack, Targeting Militia Backed by U.S.
By Ben Hubbard
Oct. 9, 2019
Updated 10:43 a.m. ET
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Turkey launched a planned military operation in northeastern Syria on Wednesday aimed at flushing out a Syrian militia backed by the United States, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wrote on Twitter.
Mr. Erdogan said the operation aimed to “prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border,” but provided no other information about whether Turkish ground troops had entered Syria or how far in they would go.
A spokesman for the United States-backed militia, the Syrian Democratic Forces, said that Turkish warplanes had begun carrying out airstrikes.
The SDF has previously said they would abandon the prisoner camps where ISIS troops (including European nationals) were being held if Turkey began an offensive against them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostDems and Reps must quickly team up to dump Trump. Vamos!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
The Kurds may use human shields
Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.
The story itself has numerous hyperlinks and various photos and graphics.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThere is a cunning plan in office to permanently remove him from office on January 20, 2024. I think it just might work.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostThis is difficult.
Trump campaigned on getting out such entanglements. But ISTM we have never really lived up to commitments we made to the Kurds decades ago.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe Kurds may use human shields
Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.
Now the fighters which normally guard them are being sent to the border to prepare for a Turkish assault.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNaturally. You've defended worse from Trump rougue. I've even started threads saying - effectively - surely people can't support THIS - and sure enough, a good many of you do.
This has been pointed out to you more than once.
Originally posted by oxmixmuddMany time you and others have chastised me severely for pointing our what he is doing is immoral, after all, you didn't elect a saint.
2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.
3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.
Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.
tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.
Originally posted by oxmixmuddSo I can't even count on the immorality of his actions as any indication you would be likely to reject them. So yes, if you don't explicitly say you are against what he is doing, I assume you are with what he is doing.
Jim
...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostNo, that's a misrepresentation. People disagree with you over the substance of what you think Trump actually did, so they don't have a problem with it. Since they don't think he did what you think he did, they don't draw the conclusion you draw. You have to get them to agree on the premises (what he did) BEFORE you can get them to agree on the conclusion you draw from those premises.
This has been pointed out to you more than once.
1. See above. Until there is agreement on what he actually did, there won't be agreement on whether it is immoral or not.
2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.
3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.
Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.
tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostTake a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
While both positions are understandable, I do not find the latter position as reasonable as the former.
Neither do I find the Washington Beacon's failure to update their piece with additional facts that have come to light consistent with standard editorial review.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI stand by my reasons fo believing rogue will be supporting Trump on an issue, and especially in light of posts that do not directly criticize him. And I dont believe there is any post by rogue in this thread that would provide justification for changing that as my default expectation.
Jim
More substantively, the same should be acknowledged for Lindsey Graham.
But more directly, it is not reasonable in my view to continue to defend an initial judgment at odds with Rogue's direct denial of support in this instance. The proper course, in my view, is to gracefully admit to being wrong, learn from the experience, and move on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostWhen is the last time the USA actually bothered declaring war?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe Kurds may use human shields
Actually, if the human shields are ISIS, I don't think I object.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Lindsey Graham's twitter account, pinned tweet
4:45 PM · Oct 9, 2019
I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement with Senator @ChrisVanHollen on severe sanctions against Turkey for their invasion of Syria.
While the Administration refuses to act against Turkey, I expect strong bipartisan support.
EGduEjaX0AYzT1d.jpeg
EGduEjZWoAAfVHh.jpeg
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
122 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
295 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
365 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:37 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
370 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment