Sunni militant group ISIS captures half of Iraq and Syria

[Replay]

I don't think you quite realize how vicious you are to me at this point simply for espousing a position you don't agree with - or how deeply cutting the things you accuse me of would be if directed back at you.

Because I condemn the kind of xenophobic, right-wing, anti-immigrant, anti-black violence going on in Israel right now - somehow that makes me "capable of terrorism", "racist", "mentally ill" and so on?

If so, up is down and black is white as well.

I am not the one beating African migrants in Israel right now. There have been literal apartheid protests in Israel for months now, if not years, targeting black Israelis and African immigrants. The same mobs chanting "Death to Arabs" and "Death to leftists" are also the ones attacking Africans just for being black.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/05/26/ ... en-beaten/

[kali o.]

I have been communicating like a "normal human being" this entire time.

No.

You refuse to acknowledge this because the version of history I tell you conflicts with what you are told by television cable news sources, newspapers, and indeed the official government account.

I don't care about what you are saying in the slightest - I do not feel one way or the other.

It is your side of the fence here that has already implied that *I* would be capable of domestic terrorism, called me crazy, racist, mentally ill, and worse.

All fair observations and arguably Fact (imo, of course).

You do not notice these particular cruelties because they seem quite "sane" to you. How would you feel if someone said the same things to you?

Depends who is saying them to me.

To describe the syndrome, Krishnamurti noted that it is no measure of mental health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. This perpetual atmosphere of fear around "Muslim extremism"; the idea that you can accept what you are told about ISIS by a coalition of corporate news agencies backed by a VERY small number of actual power brokers worldwide without question; the concept of perpetual conflict against terrorism becoming "normalized" along with the gargantuan military spending that goes along with it - those things seem sane to you. They seem quite mad to me.

As for the other claim - it happened to be an aside in the middle of this all; as one I don't really care much about either, at that. I don't care much whether or not certain people here are saying nasty things behind my back. You will note that I posted all of one message about it, in the middle of several here asking you all to investigate ISIS and look behind the veil to see the real backers of these wars; when you questioned me on it I posted another. It's not that big a concern to me.

You cared enough to bring it up and attack your audience with an accusation. I cared enough to call you on it. I am not interested in anything else you have to say until you address it. You owe either an apology or justification. Keep dancing around and not owning up though. Other people may not care.

Replies in bold. Don't worry, I already assume you won't "get it".

[Replay]

Actually, I do get it.

Your "I do not feel one way or the other" confirms something to me that I've suspected for a long time - that you suffer from what psychologists call "disaffect". Your emotions are severely stunted. Disaffectation is a form of what's called "alexithymia"; which is loosely speaking the inability to feel and identify your own emotional range. That's why your natural response to just about any topic of discussion is cynicism; and why you generally avoid the happier threads in any debate here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaffectation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

You do however feel certain emotions - generally speaking, sadism, a need to manipulate, and a need to exercise verbal control.

I've suspected that for a long time too; ever since I saw the way you admit to "loving the war of words" here several years ago. That's why you are able to consider allegations of domestic terrorism and racism "fair" or even "arguably fact" when you know and admit in the same breath that they are only your opinion.

I suspect you were abused as a child - your entire modus operandi here is to demean and disparage, over and over, to place yourself in a verbal position of power and authority. That's why you feel somehow that I "owe you an apology" as well - to you, it's still all about you, kali. That's why you've ignored the actual evidence I have presented in favor of strictly emotionally-based rhetoric, and why you've focused on me over and over in this discussion, and what you see as my failings, instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

But that's only my suspicion. Unlike you, I don't presume to be able to make a confident diagnosis of severe mental illness over the Internet.

[kali o.]

Actually, I do get it.

....That's why you feel somehow that I "owe you an apology" as well - to you, it's still all about you, kali...

No man...you really don't. Thread after thread, year after year...you *really* don't.

You don't owe me - you owe it to the community here. The apology of an unwell, jew hating, gay bashing, flag burning bigot does not actually matter to me. If you did man up though, I probably would have been impressed. I was just trying to help you communicate with others on a normal human level for once in your life. I failed.

Have fun responding to no one, I guess

[Replay]

"Gay bashing", eh?

As I recall, it was me who originally attempted to enforce a ban against the word "homo" - but then, of course, when the community refused, and I ended up slurring you and a few others here just so you could see what it felt like, somehow I ended up with the "gay-bashing" reputation.

"Jew-hating"?

I am Jewish...which is exactly why I condemn Israel for their war crimes and abuses. This isn't the way Moses taught me how to act. Never once have I "bashed Jews" - but because YOU don't get it, kal, you don't understand that my condemnation of Israel has nothing to do with "Jew-bashing" at all. I notice you still haven't responded to the evidence I've provided of apartheid attitudes taking root over there; nor will you - for if you have to address it, suddenly the thread is back on topic, and you can't "win the war of words" anymore.

"Flag-burning"?

Never burned the flag once in my life. Never even advocated for it. That's just the way you start lying in order to "strengthen" your own case against me; which has everything to do with the disaffect I'm talking about. In court that's called actual malice; you start saying things in order to defame without regard for whether or not they're true in the least - besides which, you are Canadian; so what is your fixation on the American flag in the first place? Is your own sense of Canadian nationalism so poor that you consider yourself to be American instead; and some kind of defender of our national colors?

-----------------

Of course, I myself forget how deep the cave of shadows runs; and how well-trained people who are stuck in it are - trained by the North American news media to see any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic"; any criticism of U.S. military-industrial policy as "flag-burning". As for "gay-bashing"; indeed I am sorry for losing my temper and calling people here "faggots" en masse after the community made a decision to keep allowing the use of the word "homo". Such a loss of temper did not strengthen my own case against bullying in the least; no matter whether or not it was meant to get you to understand what the word feels like when directed at others or not.

But, of course, you're still misrepresenting my position.

I don't even think you're doing it on purpose; I just think you're so well-trained to condemn anyone who deviates from the consensus position on these issues that you don't even have the presence of mind to know that you're doing it.

[Oracle]

Wow.

At least Daily Stuph is somewhat interesting again.

[kali o.]

I just skimmed that -- pretty sure you just wasted time defending yourself from the choice adjectives I threw in there.

You are not going to engage me in any meaningful fashion until you own up, provide a link and/or apologize to everyone else who read your exaggerated/false statement. Be a man...a stable, reasonable man for once in your life. You do understand that right? You have no chance to engage me...none, until you do what I asked. And if you don't want to engage me, then you must just want me to give you attention flaming you and we can do away with any pretense. *shrug* I may or may not oblige.

Others may want to engage you, despite the apology. I don't know. I see them clicking the thread...but not many are replying. Ball is in your court.

[Replay]

Oracle: Uncensored debate is usually interesting. It's mandatory consensus that stifles any discussion.

kali: What on Earth do you feel like I owe you?

Your hatred of me is leading you to conclusions bordering on the lunatic. According to you I am now a (formerly bisexual) gay-basher; a (Jewish) anti-Semite, and a (peace activist of ten years' standing) potential terrorist.

Do you not see how upside-down this is? What on Earth do you feel like you actually have to tell me on "being a man"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt ... _neighbour

[Replay]

I could care less about any "attention" you want to give me.

Nothing would be better for my efforts to get the truth out than to have you stop putting up resistance for the sake of putting up resistance - especially about the way the U.S. and Israel have been funding this "ISIS" bullshit for four years, just so they can now claim these are very bad people and we have to put more boots on the ground over there at hideous expense to "keep America safe".

If you won't hear it from me, listen to Sen. Kucinich; who is one of the few people in Congress not yet compromised by this hideous military-industrial shellgame.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j- ... 69964.html

[kali o.]

Lol...you really don't understand you give people zero incentive to engage you, do you?

So we've established we can't move forward, because you won't be a man and own up to your first stupid accusation (totally putting aside you talking down to people for the moment)...because I am asking you to? Ok...so what's your excuse when Shrin called you out? Is he a douchebag that unreasonably "hates" you too? He doesn't deserve an apology or retraction? How about zeus? He was vague...but I doubt he disagrees. What's his mental illness that prevents him from engaging you?

You really just don't get it...oh well, I tried (in my own way).

On topic:

[Replay]

Do you understand that I am unconcerned about whether or not you in particular choose to "engage me", kal?

I'm here to promote awareness of the information that our corporate-owned news sector chooses not to cover.

I'm not here to collect Christmas cards or have my ass kissed.

I actually rather enjoyed the interactions with both Zeus and Shrin; mostly for the very simple reason that they're NOT still here on this thread giving me a tremendous degree of Hell as we speak, the way you are, and going out of their way to call me a "potential terrorist".

You are the one here promoting a libelous and rather violently right-wing ideology at present, not me - so what's the comparison with Colbert and O'Reilly supposed to be about?

Bill happens to be the one on your side of the fence as regards Israel, you know. He also rather bizarrely thinks they do no wrong, ever, and that anyone who is critical of them is "anti-Semitic"...despite the profusion of racist and apartheid evidence to the contrary.

Please keep telling me how moral and just the Israeli Defense Forces are. I mean, really.

[Replay]

I really had no idea that you subscribed to all this right-wing lunacy about "being a man", that anyone critical of the U.S. military-industrial complex is "burning the flag", and so on.

Is Israeli soldier David D'Ovadia "more of a man" than I am for shooting thirteen Palestinian children and threatening genocide against Muslims?

Please tell me how this works, if you would.

[kali o.]

Do you understand that I am unconcerned about whether or not you in particular choose to "engage me", kal?

In particular I'd love to hear what your response is...

...give me an answer

Any response on my questions?

Please tell me how this works, if you would.

Getting mixed messages here

Just to be clear, one last time, you won't be able to engage anyone until you apologize and change your posting style. Imo, of course. Since you say you aren't here to make friends, just talk *at* people, I suppose you will be successful at that...kind of like a spam bot for batshit conspiracies. Cool, I guess?

PS - I also love how you seem to be getting my various stance on issues, even though I've said absolutely nothing (here at least, it is possible I am saying things in your head. KILLTHECHILDRENREPLAY).

[Replay]

Oh kal. I asked several of those questions long before you went off on this rant about "engagement". And those that are more recent were intended to prove you were unwilling to answer them - certainly more so than to pursue the lost cause of engagement with someone who clearly hates me and always will.

Originally I would have liked to see you try to answer the questions because I genuinely wanted to see if you could or would address them; but by now, I quite frankly don't care if you answer them. You have made it clear that you are not willing to. YOU actually do keep choosing to engage - more so than anyone else here, in fact - you just keep choosing to engage in a way that ignores all the original debate points; and to "win" as many points psychologically as you can, via things like your little "KILLTHECHILDRENREPLAY" note there.

Your entire "debate" strategy has, for years here, relied on one primary set of rules:

1) Ignore the original post to the greatest extent possible; instead use emotionally based ad hominem attacks to defame the poster you disagree with.
2) Look for any molehill you can reasonably turn into a mountain, especially if it helps you with the strategy addressed in 1) above.
3) Anger trolling, anger trolling, anger trolling. Use jibes and insults to get people too angry to discuss things on anything but an emotional basis.

It's getting a bit old to me, in fact. Three days of this is enough for anybody.

And there's no win associated with actually getting you to "man up" and have a debate based on something other than emotionally based language and ad hominem attacks. I don't exactly magically get the needed prosecutions against the Bush family for a hundred years of collaboration with the Rockefellers on oil murders, trading with the Nazis in World War II, defrauding the country in the S&L crisis, and 9/11, if you suddenly wake up.

I already got what I wanted - which was to give this community a chance to see through yet another set of military-industrial lies. You can take it or not. Whether or not you choose to "engage" again is of no matter to me. I have long ago accepted that I cannot FORCE anyone to look at anything they do not want to see; and with that I'll bid you a good day. For my own life is actually going surprisingly well right now; indeed well enough I have to wonder why I even keep coming back to choose to waste any time on people who fear or hate me.

[Julius Seeker]

I see a lot of US political talk about "We should be strong and attack ISIS" on the republican side, and "We have attacked them hundreds of times" on the Democrat side.

The big problem right now is that the whole situation in the west is being treated much like a cultural war of west vs. Islam, when in fact the actual war is the Islamic world vs. fanatics.

Just as a reminder:
A Jordanian fighter pilot was executed by ISIS, and the country declared war on ISIS.
21 Coptic Christians from Egypt were executed by ISIS, and Egypt has declared war on ISIS (Yeah, it's kind of like the Vatican declaring war against a fanatical group called JESUS... Umm, the Jihadist European Soldiers of the United Sultanate).

I am not saying that the west should ignore threats to their own country; but, if the US doesn't get involved, if Europe doesn't get involved, it means that a coalition of Middle Eastern nations will have landed a decisive victory against fanaticism in the middle east, and not some Western coalition that wins instead. This would be both a psychological victory for peace in the Middle East, as well as a psychological victory against growing bigotry and prejudice in the West. The other major difference is that once ISIS is defeated, there will be no need to wonder when the troops are going to pull out, because the ones who won the war will already be near and in their homeland, they're already home.

If the west wants to help the middle east, why not help countries like Jordan to support the huge numbers of refugees from Iraq, Syria, and Palestine. Help facilitate peace talks, and give strong support to moderates, lower the stresses rather than contribute to them, and create opportunities for the people living in those countries. Stop organizing rivalries, and organize friendships instead; we know already from WW1 that organized rivalries can have terrible consequences.

Here pictured is Voyager Science Officer Abdullah II, currently leading Jordan as King in anti-ISIS war efforts:


And Queen Rania's speech

[Replay]

Do you not find it strange, Seek, that "ISIS" goes thousands of miles out of its way to attack targets in Europe and yet has made no move against Israel whatsoever?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leade ... al/5391593

[Julius Seeker]

An update on this ISIS thing.

Russia has crushed ISIS forces in Syria, and the country is beginning to stabilize.

[kali o.]

An update on this ISIS thing.

Russia has crushed ISIS forces in Syria, and the country is beginning to stabilize.

Russia knows how to fight a war -- they don't set up shop and bankrupt their country for 10+ years.

[Don]

Russia is brutal but they get the job done, while the US way of fighting basically wants all the bad guys to step up so they can only kill those guys and have no collateral damage whatsoever.

I mean sure Russia didn't do well in Afghanistan, but that's because the opposition was supported by US. I don't really get where people, mostly people of western origins, seem to think that guerilla warfare is some kind of magic solution against an advanced army. Yes bombing the place to stone age will probably have repercussions later, but if you don't plan on occupying the territory or at least not to do any significant development with it, that is quite effective at winning a war.

I saw this article by a guy saying if we step up effort on taking out ISIS after the Belgium bombing it'd play into ISIS hands because sending people to fight them means people might die, so apparently the best way to deal with a terrorist attack is to pretend nothing happened. I mean I get that nobody actually wants to go and fight ISIS which is why you've ideas like that in the first place, but trying to spin it is just sad. At least the Russians just bomb the opposition to oblivion, and that also guaranteeds almost nobody on your side is going to die out of freak accidents.

[Julius Seeker]

There's a key difference between the US and Russian strategies: working with the Syrian government. The US strategy was to bomb ISIS and maintain the insurrection to keep the the government from functioning. The Russian strategy was the opposite: take out ISIS and co-operate with the Syrian government to secure the region. The Russian strategy worked, because it stabilized the region. The US strategy failed because the insurgents spread the instability.; the rebel groups were incapable of securing and stabilizing anything. ISIS thrives in unstable regions because there isn't any kind of government force for them to worry about; with armed mercenaries all over the place for hire, there's always new troops to replenish the ranks.

It's better to appeal to governing bodies, not destroy them.

Obama's Iran strategy is working much better; even with the Republicans constantly sticking their asses into it; even when pretty much everyone hated then US until recently due to aggressive policies by the US. It's working because he is working with their government by conducting diplomacy, he's not pulling a Syria and burning down the house.

[Don]

Well the Syrian government isn't exactly a bunch of nice guys but this whole notion of how western friendly democratic governments will suddenly pop up in areas that have been quite resistant to western democracy is pretty dumb. Sometimes you got to just go with the least insane guy.

The dealing with Iran at least recognizes that for the western world and especially US with its unchallenged conventional army that they should only be concerned about nuclear weapons. I mean I see people saying how the nuclear deal doesn't stop Iran from supporting terrorism or testing ballistic missiles and that's all true but honestly none of that really matters in a war so far as US is concerned because it's not like US would ever lose a conventional war against Iran for military reasons, and you're not going to get better terms than Iran offer unless you manage to invade and conquer them (and in that case you wouldn't need to negotiate in the first place). It's actually pretty funny to hear the guys saying they'd just have tougher sanctions, never mind that Iran does hates US's guts so they try to have as little to do with US as possible in terms of trade which means an unilateral sanction from US without the cooperation of other nations would be quite ineffective because Iran was never interested in selling/buying with the US.