ISIS on the offensive in Iraq [Archive] - Page 3

Ironside

09-07-2014, 16:27

Huh? What are you talking about? Especially the last line, I have no clue what you are saying. May I point out that the Democrats were the ones fighting the civil right movement. It was Republicans who voted to end segregation. Eisenhower is the one who sent the National Guard to make sure a black student got into a regular school. The Tea Party does not support segregation or discrimination against minorities. It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for. And taking a moral stand against something such as homosexuality is NOT discrimination. Our government being based on Christian principles, accepting homosexuality is not according to the teachings of Christ or his followers. Homophobia is a made-up term designed to put a negative connotation on something contrary to the views of the left-wing news media.

Southern strategy, remember. Now I've actually red up on how the chain of events was. The Democrats started to accept desegregation, so the "dixicrats" who wanted segregation stopped voting at all. Enter the Republican Barry Goldwater, also known as "mr Conservative" and is credited to be influencial on the libertarian movement (he was certainly for a small goverment). He lost badly 1964, but the interesting part is this: He won the South and (almost) nothing else. He was the anti-Eisenhower in voting patterns. He won states that had been voting only Democrat since 1872. He won the dixicrats.

The influence of the religious right is later (starts during Regan) and something Goldwater opposed.

Nixon made this shift into something that could win elections and the name comes from his time. After that, the south starts to vote mostly Republican.

That's the link between what happened to the pro-segregation people in US politics, who also like low goverment influence and the Republicans and the Tea Party. Add having influences from the religious right (that isn't libertarian, but are a part of the Tea Party) and the Tea Party got a some wells that taints their libertarianism to draw upon.

And Husar produced the link that illustrates this perfectly with images. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php) Lincon won the states, that are part of today's democratic core

And Christ and his followers said nothing about homosexuality. The Biblical mention is Sodom(y) and Gomorrah, aka the Old Testament.

Viking

09-07-2014, 22:26

EDIT: Found a picture (http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AZ-border-closed-1.jpg)

Why Do They Have to Capitalise It Like That? Fire The Sign Maker!

Brenus

09-08-2014, 07:06

“A phobia is an irrational fear” So using homophobes is accurate: Irrational fear of gays and lesbians. So irrational that they want to punish a sexual orientation based on fear generated by a book of fiction, that what I call an irrational fear.

“I have no clue what you are saying” Yes you do. And the proof of it is you try to answer it.

“It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for.” Conservatives in the past always backed-up slavery, anti-Semitism, anti-unions and so one. They are still against States and Taxes but are happy to have Police Forces, Justice and Law-enforcement Agencies to protect their properties and businesses, they are happy to use roads to carry their goods, schools to train their workers but not to pay for it etc. They are in favour of stability (meaning them to keep the upper position) and crushed (and crush) any opposition. And to call of a need of victims from the left is denying reality. Minorities need protection from the State in an oppressive majority in order to gain just equality. And your sentence about gay marriage and “Christian based country” (which by the way is utterly wrong and false) proves it.

Vincent Butler

09-08-2014, 22:26

This is all Constitutional. Put down the Bible and read some SCOTUS rulings. One (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html) Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)

This is an accusation, provide a link (proof) about this. Also Obamacare care does allow for waivers for states that request one, like Vermont which is setting up its own single payer plan. Read the bill yourself (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm). Specifically Section 1332. It specifies that waivers must be sent to the Secretary, by which I assume it means the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet member under Obama. So yes, Obama's Administration can approve waivers. Congress passed the law, SCOTUS reviewed it, it is Constitutional.

Presidents have the ability to issue executive orders, and every president has used executive orders beginning with George Washington. Executive Orders have been used from the very beginning to promote agendas. Guess what, Andrew Jackson put out an Executive Order back in 1836 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie_Circular) that the US government needs to be paid with gold or silver only. Oh I'm sorry, that sounds like a law Congress should have passed. But they didn't pass it, and yet it was treated as law and every President can make executive orders dictating new directives as long as there is sufficient cause from the Constitution to promote this new directive.

EDIT: Btw, Obama is still 100 Executive Orders behind Bush's number. And three hundred behind Dwight D. Eisenhower.

You didn't listen to me when I talked about the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). It's a real thing, you should give it a read. Prohibiting store owners from discriminating based on someones background is illegal as it subjects people to an unequal protection under the laws.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court actually stated the opposite. Promotion of Christianity in public schools, even if non-denominational violated the First Amendment as it still promoted a specific sect of Abrahamic religion. Engel v. Vitale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale). Give that one a read as well.

That one is legitimate. What? Did you expect me to refute everything you said?

The Federal SCOTUS has already ruled that police can search your car if there is probable cause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was in the first paragraph stating that they are simply affirming that Pennsylvania constitution does not provide protections greater than the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, thus it upholds the SCOTUS precedent (http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-5-2013oajc%20-%201017924602181959.pdf?cb=1). Probable cause is specified within the 4th Amendment, so it is completely Constitutional as dictated by the SCOTUS.

Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.

Lot of things to respond to, I will do it in order. First, put down the Bible? Why? It wasn't even a part of that argument. And it is the basis of everything I believe, and what our country was founded on. Read the words of our founders, we WERE established on Christian principles, here is are two remarks by John Adams.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
Here is a link if anyone cares to read more.
http://faithofourfathers.net/

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.
Second Amendment. Look at the meaning of the word "infringed", especially in an older dictionary (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/infringe). Now certain people such as criminals forfeit those rights by committing crimes, I think everybody agrees that criminals, especially such as murderers, should lose at least their freedom. So some people lose their rights based on their actions; the mentally ill, I am kind of torn on that one. It would not be good for the criminally insane to get their hands on a gun, so my dilemma. Back then, though, the insane were locked up, so I guess that was grounds for losing freedom. But restricting where I can carry a gun is definitely not according to the Second Amendment.

The waivers I am talking about, I did not mean for states, I meant for certain groups, such as the ones who "passed" Obamacare (I know they have their own insurance plans already), and they changed definitionsdefinitions of who qualified (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596) for an exemption. Besides, as our illustrious Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, ruling the fine if you don't get coverage as a tax, that makes it a revenue bill, which should have originated in the House of Representatives. It originated in the Senate. Oh, and what about delaying implementation of certain parts of the bill such as the employer mandate? That is changing the law, which Congress alone can do.
Onto executive orders. Yes, the President has executive power for when immediate executive action is needed. Executive orders are never specifically granted, by the way, but are implied. But if Congress is not doing what he wants, he does NOT have the power to create a law by executive order. If he has that power, that makes him a dictator, and Congress is then irrelevant. It is not, "the President wants, the President gets". Obama has stated he will bypass Congress if necessary with executive orders. That is against the Constitution, and if he tries it he will have violated his oath of upholding the Constitution.

14th Amendment. The STATE cannot deny those rights, individuals can refuse service. Many stores say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And homosexuality is not just condemned in the Old Testament. Read Romans 1, homosexuality is still wrong. Read Jude verse 7. Read 1 Corinthians 6. Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
Schoolchildren being told not to talk about Jesus, or punished for praying over their food. First Amendment guarantees right to FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Children being allowed to talk about their faith is not a government promoting any religion. And besides, the context of the First Amendment was the institution of a state religion. While we are on religion in schools, the Supreme Court has ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html) as well. Hmm.

NSA spying, um…free from unlawful searches. The founders would turn over in their graves if they found out the government was spying on citizens (and our allies, including Chancellor Merkel's cell phone). Listening to calls going out of country may have some legality, I don't know all the laws associated with that, but on normal citizens? Definitely not. At least not according to original intent, not without probable cause. And the Pennsylvania ruling essentially gives officers carte blanche to search cars at will, all the officer has to do is come up with some reason. And would our founders have consented to allow search without warrants? We are not the founders, but my personal opinion is that they would not, though that is subjective. The warrant would be issued upon probable cause, and then the search.
Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.
Brennus, it is a particular phrase I don't get, I get most of what he is saying, and that is what I am answering.

Pannonian

09-08-2014, 22:54

Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.

So why did you point to that as an example of America no longer being democratic? What's a court ruling to do with democracy? Would you prefer your democracy to override your republic, since your republic is coming with stuff you don't like?

a completely inoffensive name

09-09-2014, 01:15

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison). Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

EDIT: So unless this is not clear, let me explain further. Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent (http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff03.htm):

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right.

Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.

Vincent Butler

09-09-2014, 01:47

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison). Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent (http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff03.htm):

Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

a completely inoffensive name

09-09-2014, 01:55

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-09-2014, 02:27

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/madison-jefferson1/)suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

Vincent Butler

09-09-2014, 02:36

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.
Pannonian, sorry, I forgot to reply to your last post. The people get their will passed through the legislature and the ballot box. A court overruling a law that the state legislature passed or the people voted on, if that issue was not mentioned in the Constitution, the court cannot say it is unconstitutional. No, I would not like a democracy overruling a republic just because I don't like what is wrong with the republic. No law will make everybody happy, just take the bad with the good, and vote how you want things. Just don't start rioting when things don't go your way, not saying that is what is causing riots, just noticing that riots are becoming the fashion lately.

Pannonian

09-09-2014, 02:47

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/madison-jefferson1/)suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

In any case, AFAIK when amendments supersede items of the constitution, the amendments hold sway. Unless VB still holds by the old reckonings of representation of the inhabitants of the US.

a completely inoffensive name

09-09-2014, 02:54

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/madison-jefferson1/)suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.
It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

a completely inoffensive name

09-09-2014, 02:59

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.

One last time, the Supreme Court under original intent can't strike down laws because the constitution doesn't give them the power under original intent. Original intent is impossible to implement. Under original intent, there is no interpretation to be made.

Vincent Butler

09-09-2014, 03:10

It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

Pannonian, the Constitution was called the Great Compromise, not everybody was happy. Until they started their sessions with prayer, for the first five weeks, nothing was getting done. And still not everybody got what they wanted, Patrick Henry did not even want a federal government. And yes, the new amendments hold sway. Else why make the provision for new amendments, I guess if new things come up.
ACIN, the Constitution was allowed to be changed, that is why there are amendments. But if the law keeps changing, your country has issues. And Jefferson was considered a liberal for his day, too.
EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting.

One last time

Agreed, I think this topic has been beaten to death. Besides, my homework beckons.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-09-2014, 14:22

...EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting....

Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.

Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.

Vincent Butler

09-09-2014, 17:36

Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.

Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.

I believe I have resolved the issue. It was a valid point, and needed to be resolved, partly for my own curiosity. I remember this actually coming up a while back in a conversation I had with my somebody, I think my mother, and I had forgotten about it. The Constitution is the guideline for the law. If a law is deemed unconstitutional by a court, or any body, really, it cannot strike it down, it is up to Congress to change the law if indeed it is unconstitutional. Indeed, if it is against the Constitution, it is not a law. I just saw a quote by William Jasper, a Revolutionary War hero, stating that a Supreme Court decision is not a law. Now I know he is not a founding father, but he is right, judges cannot legislate from the bench, the Constitution clearly gives Congress and Congress alone power to make law. As resolution, here (http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Topic/27) are some statements from America's early history regarding the supremacy of the Constitution. Oh, and Seamus, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, so I am still struggling with that first step. I am done on this topic.

Now can somebody please return this thread to topic? ISIS needs their tails kicked, preferably by Iraqis, but anyone is fine. It'll be funny if they pick on Russia. (Russian Accent) Boris, I hear ISIS is attacking us.
Hang on, Ivan, I am almost done with this nuke.

Hax

09-09-2014, 23:14

It's already happened (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/03/report-credible-information-isis-aqap-planning-11-anniversary-attack-abroad/).

As for a nuke in the Middle-East: yeah, that's hilarious, I'm sure they can handle one devastating act of war more.

EDIT: lrn2url

HopAlongBunny

09-10-2014, 06:22

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/09/savagery-war-20149855139774596.html

Seamus Fermanagh

09-10-2014, 13:51

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/09/savagery-war-20149855139774596.html

He's coloring the discussion for his agenda, but his points cannot be dismissed outright -- there is an element of truth to his take.

HopAlongBunny

09-10-2014, 17:05

Seamus Fermanagh

09-10-2014, 17:53

Coloring?
The US did create the context.
The terror prisons did create a core of jihadis and radicalized the population.
The imposed regime certainly did not act to "win friends and influence people"; it was more narrowly focused than Saddam's old gov't.
And, finally the West did ignore the terror being perpetrated against the local populations until ISIS went on a land grab.

All good points he made. He is glossing over the common tendency for all nation-states to pursue their interests somewhat haphazardly in response to shifting public opinion and perceived saliency. He's calling for a consistency that never really happens.

This doesn't undercut his point, I am just offering a comment.

HopAlongBunny

09-10-2014, 23:32

I liked the article for its concise summation of the situation.
The failing it has...like almost all opinion on the matter...is the complete lack of a discussion on the way forward.
Removal of ISIS is a distraction; it won't "solve Iraq!"; I would like to see something coherent about how to chip the way forward to a solution.

rory_20_uk

09-11-2014, 10:10

For borders to be "solved" in the middle east would require the countries in the middle east to put what the people want in front of their own wants - and that would mean we'd see a couple of new states and Turkey, amongst others, loosing a large amount of land.

I very much doubt this is going to happen - and external players will only make things worse by becoming hated by everyone.

Africa is another land mass that needs to redraw borders from the arbitary colonial ones which replaced the arbitary ones that preceeded them.

ISIS is the latest and nastiest creation from this area. Not the last and as long as the loonies from elsewhere decide to fight (and hopefully die) there they'll not be here.

~:smoking:

HopAlongBunny

09-11-2014, 12:13

The gift that keeps on giving, indeed :creep:

Rhyfelwyr

09-11-2014, 13:17

rory_20_uk

09-11-2014, 13:47

Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.

But indulging in ethnic / religious genocide / mass exodous oes appear to be the preferred approach with several minorities being displaced or culled.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

09-11-2014, 13:49

But indulging in ethnic / religious genocide / mass exodous oes appear to be the preferred approach with several minorities being displaced or culled.

~:smoking:

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

rory_20_uk

09-11-2014, 13:56

But once they're gone, often they're gone. Given that Sunnis view at least two groups in the area as Devil worshipers or Apostates it doesn't really fill me with hope.

The locals might still be getting on with each other as well as they ever had, and it is persons from elsewhere in the world coming into the area that are doing these things - with modern communication making this so much easier.

Alexandria was a centre of Christianity for a long time - then was razed to the ground in a very short time.

~:smoking:

Fragony

09-11-2014, 15:11

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

Wouldn't call it a natural state of afairs, insanity would be a better word, but IS is just doing what their holy book tells them to do. That there are some disputes on how and what doesn't change that. I doubt the Shia's would be any less barbaric.

HopAlongBunny

09-11-2014, 20:06

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

But now you have people with plans for the population/area and the people with plans have guns.
So...ya fer us or ag'in us!
Think carefully.
Mao had some appropo comments about this.

HoreTore

09-12-2014, 08:10

Wouldn't call it a natural state of afairs, insanity would be a better word, but IS is just doing what their holy book tells them to do. That there are some disputes on how and what doesn't change that. I doubt the Shia's would be any less barbaric.

If they are, the middle east christians would have been wiped out 1500 years ago.

Mao is actually relevant(for once). A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-12-2014, 16:41

...A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.

Pannonian

09-12-2014, 17:04

I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-12-2014, 19:12

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

Pannonian

09-12-2014, 19:55

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

That's why I think Deng Xiaoping has been incredibly liberal by Chinese standards, even with the Tiananmen Square massacre on his record. Chinese dynasties have tended to start with mass bloodshed followed by a period of stability while the memory of said bloodshed was still fresh in everyone's mind, with periodic upheavals with each succession. Deng managed to recover from the poverty and stagnation of the Mao period (probably as low as China had ever been without being at war), and lift the country to a level where, for the individual Chinese who doesn't aspire to electing the national government, life is comparable with that of westerners in liberal democracies. And what's more, most of this was achieved long after he was dead, whilst following the direction he'd set. A quite remarkable administrator.

I read an American paper a while back (I found it whilst looking for Glantz's study of the Soviet offensive in Manchuria) examining the Sino-Vietnamese war, where PLA traditionalists wanted to demonstrate the validity of their ideas. Deng's faction disagreed and favoured a more slimline, modernised army, but gave the traditionalists their way against the Vietnamese. The PLA got thrashed by the Vietnamese reservists, without ever achieving their tactical aim of forcing the regular Vietnamese army regiments to commit and get pinned down. A regular unit did get involved late on because they got bored and wanted some of the action before it was over. In the end, the Chinese did reach their objectives and declared victory, the Vietnamese inflicted punishing losses on the Chinese with minimal losses and minimal risk without risking any of their regular army and declared victory, while Deng achieved complete political victory over his dissidents but didn't bother declaring it. As a point of interest, the Chinese declared their objectives beforehand, together with their intention not to use their air force, so as to reassure everyone (not least the Vietnamese) that this was to be a limited operation. Basically they stated their objective and their intention to use land forces only, pushed forward with exorbitant losses until they reached the objectives, declared victory and returned home, all for the purpose of settling an internal debate in the Chinese government. Hilariously incomprehensible to our western perspectives.

drone

09-12-2014, 21:49

Obama had the chance to force the Republican hawks in Congress to put up/shut up on extended action against ISIS and he either blew it or just doesn't want to give up his ill-gotten extended executive powers. Fails as both a Chicago politician and a Constitutional scholar. :no:

Relevant thread ambience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KdSSfYG7M

HoreTore

09-13-2014, 02:07

Pannonian

09-13-2014, 02:47

Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.

Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.

I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.

Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.

Deng Xiaoping was liberal by Chinese standards. I challenge you to find a Chinese ruler/government more liberal than his since Kang Xi that was also successful. That's 300 years of Chinese government for you to look at to find one that was more liberal.

And when I talked about chaos, I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor. The very top of the elite remaining in place is not stability when you have millions being purged. As far as internal repression goes, Deng's biggest purge was the several thousand (upper limit) who were offed in the Tiananmen affair, either during the initial massacre or afterwards. That's small fry by Chinese standards.

Brenus

09-13-2014, 08:49

"I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor." Excepted of course there is no evidence that the "holodomor" was political and not a bad political decision based on political/economical prejudices/pre-conceptions (as in the Indian and Irish Famines where "the free market economy" should have auto-regulated. Well, technically, it did in killing millions).
However, the Cultural Revolution was clearly a political crack-down.

Viking

09-13-2014, 18:41

If they are, the middle east christians would have been wiped out 1500 years ago.

Mao is actually relevant(for once). A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

The Uyghurs don't think China is that terribly united.

I am sure dictator powers can help a country become de-facto united, but once the dictatorship ends, it may all come apart (think Soviet Union).

Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.

The creation of separate states can encourage a (relatively) peaceful disentanglement. Typically, there are border areas where the mixing is fairly even, but beyond those there is typically one group that dominates.

I am not sure how viable Sunni-Iraq and Shia-Iraq are as separate states, but I think any attempt at a united Iraq runs the risk of becoming another Somalia. In the recent decade, Iraq has at times not been too terribly far away from this scenario, anyway - the status quo is just a new record.

My prediction at this moment, is that without foreign ground-intervention, IS will not be defeated. It may gradually warp into something else (which would be a pretty natural development, should it survive for a longer period of time), or split into smaller groups; but it will not be defeated. Neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian state is strong enough.

IS and the areas under its control will probably turn into some sort of miniature Taliban-Afghanistan, and once there are no minorities left - either because they're fled or dead - the world will stop caring as much as it does now. In this scenario, the de facto, if not de jure, Shia-Iraq may be relatively stable, depending on how much split there is among the Shiites in this part of Iraq.

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

There is no natural state of affairs for any place. As time passes, the mechanisms and order of things constantly change.

And when I look at history, I sure see a lot of slaughter - modern history or old.

Noncommunist

09-14-2014, 01:31

The creation of separate states can encourage a (relatively) peaceful disentanglement. Typically, there are border areas where the mixing is fairly even, but beyond those there is typically one group that dominates.

I am not sure how viable Sunni-Iraq and Shia-Iraq are as separate states, but I think any attempt at a united Iraq runs the risk of becoming another Somalia. In the recent decade, Iraq has at times not been too terribly far away from this scenario, anyway - the status quo is just a new record.

My prediction at this moment, is that without foreign ground-intervention, IS will not be defeated. It may gradually warp into something else (which would be a pretty natural development, should it survive for a longer period of time), or split into smaller groups; but it will not be defeated. Neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian state is strong enough.

IS and the areas under its control will probably turn into some sort of miniature Taliban-Afghanistan, and once there are no minorities left - either because they're fled or dead - the world will stop caring as much as it does now. In this scenario, the de facto, if not de jure, Shia-Iraq may be relatively stable, depending on how much split there is among the Shiites in this part of Iraq.

While Iraq and Syria might not be strong enough to take out IS, Iran probably could help them enough to eventually kick them out. That and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistans. And if they ever did take out Syria, they would border Israel which probably wouldn't suffer that sort of state to sit on their borders for very long.

Viking

09-14-2014, 14:56

While Iraq and Syria might not be strong enough to take out IS, Iran probably could help them enough to eventually kick them out. That and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistans. And if they ever did take out Syria, they would border Israel which probably wouldn't suffer that sort of state to sit on their borders for very long.

There is a problem with motivation. AFAIK, the Iraqi forces could have held their ground in Mosul if they had wanted to.

The Shias want to protect their turf, and the Kurds their - but to go beyond those areas? It's not their land, after all; and they may even meet fierce local resistance some places if they do.

HopAlongBunny

09-16-2014, 00:17

Well they better not mess with Texas!:

http://wonkette.com/560381/crazy-fox-friends-sheriff-will-make-isis-pee-themselves-ayup

Fragony

09-16-2014, 06:55

Seamus Fermanagh

09-16-2014, 14:52

Looks like even Al Quaida has kinda had it with the bloodlust of these guys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/alan-henning-alqaeda-appealed-to-isis-to-release-british-aid-worker-following-kidnap-9734598.html

Seems to me that they were more concerned with making a point about Sharia then about Hennings per se or the violence of ISIS. Much as John Adams defended the Brit soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre -- there was a principle involved that superseded the individual.

Still, glad the chap is alright -- others have been less fortunate.

Fragony

09-19-2014, 12:01

Don't know if it is true but this sounds a bit bad. Kobane? Drag me to hell, must be a pretty cozy place as all evil is already here.

Crandar

09-19-2014, 14:56

Don't know if it is true but this sounds a bit bad. Kobane? Drag me to hell, must be a pretty cozy place as all evil is already here.
It's not a coincidence that the Kobane faction of the Syrian Kurds is threatened the most.
They managed to ruin any diplomatic relations they had, by actively fighting Assad and the Islamists, while Turkey and the West (at least, on papaer) they consider them terrorists, as a part of the PKK, and therefore unacceptable for military aid.
Their only "ally" was the Free Syrian Army and now, with the fall of the Syrian airbase, they are an easy target for ISIS.

a completely inoffensive name

09-23-2014, 09:39

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

Pannonian

09-23-2014, 10:05

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

Dunno if it's news to you, but Tony Blair is a gobshite.

Viking

09-23-2014, 12:06

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

I don't think much has really happened. A few bombs dropped here and a few bombs dropped there is called tickling in my vocabulary.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-23-2014, 13:53

Fragony

09-24-2014, 00:37

Or maybe those that said that the arab spring would be an islamist winter were right from the go.

Can't say we weren't warned

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 00:46

Strategic bombings are like Christmas morning. I hope that we do it right and target Assad, al-Nusra, and IS. There is no reason that a moderate islamist or secular front feels that it is a good idea to align with any of those three. The only reason that it has gotten this bad is because we had refused to act for so long. We can make up for it, but we need boots on the ground to help with discernment and really get things moving back into the direction that we need it to move in.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-24-2014, 02:40

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 02:45

Its like presents in a way. A whole cascade of them.

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 04:28

We should have become involved earlier - when the "red line" was crossed, we would have a much stronger secular resistance than we have today and we would have had clearance to attack Assad as well.

Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are refugees. Countless others are casualties. This is as bad as it is because people didn't listen and needed to ensure that the price tag was higher before they became involved.

The world needs war. It seems to need huge amounts of killing. Its like a fever that we need in order to break the backs of tyrants. Tyrants on the medium scale like Assad, on the small scale like leaders in the IS and al-nusra movements, and maybe even on the large scale like Putin. We are humans, we are meant for freedom and war. We should harness this need to attack anyone anywhere who uses force to curtail choice or expression. Maybe one day we will get tired of it. Nobody is tired of it yet.

HoreTore

09-24-2014, 08:56

Giovanni Gentile approves.

Fragony

09-24-2014, 09:56

HoreTore

09-24-2014, 11:47

Who is tired of what, just asking. Our enemies are allready here, by the grace and handshake of leftist immigration policy

Yes, and because of this we are living in a warzone with daily bomb attacks on every corner.

No, wait. We don't.

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 11:47

Interesting position. Please, do elaborate, dawg. Why does the world need war? Why is your interpretation of social Darwinism any less repugnant than some better known ones I'll refrain from mentioning (not because I don't want to, but because you seem to be paraphrasing liberally on your own...) ...? Why do you think if we'd intervened earlier it would have been better? Surely if we had the political means to intervene meaningfully then, we also have the means to do so now, and did in 2003, and 2001. Its a square peg in a round hole, man. All the intervention is going to do is kill some bad guys and stir up the hornets' nest some more. I'd like to be wrong, though.

:2thumbsup:

I don't know why we love it so much. Why do squirrels collect nuts? We love conflict and competition. I think this love, combined with the fact that war solves problems like nothing else can (even though it creates new ones on a massive scale)

We have dueling desires. On the one hand, collateral damage deeply disturbs us. On the other hand, there is really no end to how many innocent people might die in order for us to eviscerate our enemies.

Anyway, I am in favor of an endless series of wars that uses the treasure of western economies to destabilize and destroy the worst offenders around the globe. I view these situations as "our business" and people everywhere as my people. I would support war against Assad if he was a republican warlord in the midwestern US and I support it in Syria, where my fellow human beings live. We share a culture, history, genes, and a future. Their lives are being destroyed and I would like to spend my tax dollars fighting along side them. Of course, structural global charity and economic openness is a bigger part of the solution, but nothing satisfies like lobbing ordinance into a small room of fascists and picking off the ones who escape, right? If we can join them for the long slog, we might as well join them for the party and fireworks.

Pannonian

09-24-2014, 12:39

I don't know why we love it so much. Why do squirrels collect nuts? We love conflict and competition. I think this love, combined with the fact that war solves problems like nothing else can (even though it creates new ones on a massive scale)

We have dueling desires. On the one hand, collateral damage deeply disturbs us. On the other hand, there is really no end to how many innocent people might die in order for us to eviscerate our enemies.

Anyway, I am in favor of an endless series of wars that uses the treasure of western economies to destabilize and destroy the worst offenders around the globe. I view these situations as "our business" and people everywhere as my people. I would support war against Assad if he was a republican warlord in the midwestern US and I support it in Syria, where my fellow human beings live. We share a culture, history, genes, and a future. Their lives are being destroyed and I would like to spend my tax dollars fighting along side them. Of course, structural global charity and economic openness is a bigger part of the solution, but nothing satisfies like lobbing ordinance into a small room of fascists and picking off the ones who escape, right? If we can join them for the long slog, we might as well join them for the party and fireworks.

You favour destabilising your allies as well.

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 12:41

You favour destabilising your allies as well.

I do, however we can do it with kid gloves on. I am happy that Mubarak's regime collapsed, if that's what you're asking.

rajpoot

09-24-2014, 12:45

HoreTore

09-24-2014, 13:28

And the mastermind behind is all is our own resident Kurd who will become the leader of the new Kurdistan.
Now that would be one awesome novel. Let's come up with a good title for it. Something involving, Kurds, Total War, Europa Barbarorum and Conspiracies.
:hide:

TotalEurope KurdishBarbarianWarConspiracy Invasion.

Has a nice ring to it.

Kadagar_AV

09-24-2014, 15:01

I keep having this stray thought that ISIS is a Kurdish plot.

I know this is NOT the case....such things are the silly plots of barely plausible novels.

But ISIS must be met by boots on the ground and the only force, so far, that seems to be willing, positioned, and disciplined enough to do so are the peshmurgah chaps.

All of which earns the Kurds hero points....exactly at a time when Iraq seems too fragmented to work anyway.

It almost seems like ISIS was tailor-made as a way for Kurds to "prove" themselves on an international stage and beget greater autonomy, or even independence if this latest Iraqi coalition government degenerates.

The Kurds have been willing and organized for pretty much all time. However, it's only now that the surrounding environment has elad to them actually having a chance to fight back successfully. Fight Saddam and the Iraq army? No chance.

Fight ISIS on your home turf... Now we start to talk about actual liberation chance. One of the guys from my platoon went straight from the army to fight for Kurdistan, this was already back in 2001. They have skilled personnel and willing fighters, and now they have the chance to use them on more fair terms.

I would be surprised had the Kurds NOT risen. I also of course think there is no need for the tinfoil at this stage :stare:

Pannonian

09-24-2014, 16:05

I do, however we can do it with kid gloves on. I am happy that Mubarak's regime collapsed, if that's what you're asking.

You'd have been even happier had the UK fallen apart as well.

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 17:17

You'd have been even happier had the UK fallen apart as well.
I'm not sure about that. The UK is a great ally. Dev max is different from civil war. I don't think any western country needs a violent confrontation at all. I was talking about our Saudi and other regional alies in particular. I am hopeful that their autocracy will have a more controlled and planned dissolution, under the constant friendly pressure of their western friends and allies, of course.

HoreTore

09-24-2014, 17:29

You'd have been even happier had the UK fallen apart as well.

I love the smell of cross brits in the morning...

HopAlongBunny

09-24-2014, 19:15

Instead of looking at various conspiracies involving ISIS and the Kurds I would look no further than American domestic policy.
The situation supports the American preferred mode of social welfare (defense spending) gives moderate support to oil prices when the world is awash (and the US is looking to sell) is a convenient threat narrative deflecting attention from real social spending priorities.
Conspiracy!? Who needs it when there are ample real reasons.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-24-2014, 22:46

You favour destabilising your allies as well.

No, we do not favor it. We're just ham-handed enough and Bull-in-a-china-shop subtle enough to accomplish the destabilization anyway.

ICantSpellDawg

09-24-2014, 23:13

What the frak are you talking about, Dawg? Since when are you such a nihilist? Either you've totally lost it, or you've decided to abandon any and all subtlety in your trolling.

What nihilism? I've just said that everyone should be concerned with everyone else. Saying that humans are also naturally obsessed with killing one another is just acknowledging truth. Not nihilism. I don't believe in a God that has a problem with Just killing, even on a massive scale. I also don't think that war has any relationship with compassion. Everyone dies, when they die for something it is better than living for nothing.

I like people and want them to be free to do what they want. People like Assad, IS, and al-Nusra; in violently denying others that right, kindly provide us with targets on which to focus our natural, and hopefully Just bloodlust. We should send them a thank you card.

Pannonian

09-25-2014, 20:18

No, we do not favor it. We're just ham-handed enough and Bull-in-a-china-shop subtle enough to accomplish the destabilization anyway.

The you in that instance was singular and directed. Greyblades explained well enough the mentality behind it (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142656-Scottish-Independence-now-a-no-go%21&p=2053617632&viewfull=1#post2053617632).

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2014, 00:56

The you in that instance was singular and directed. Greyblades explained well enough the mentality behind it (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142656-Scottish-Independence-now-a-no-go%21&p=2053617632&viewfull=1#post2053617632).

Fair enough. I still stand by my estimate of our foreign policy effectiveness with our allies. I would prefer it if more US political leaders interpreted the phrase "special relationship" as referring to a partnering choice rather than seeing the words "discount price."

Fragony

09-26-2014, 08:26

Something positive comming out of IS? Even Al Quaeda is saying chill the fuck up, but now also a lot of (supposedly) highly influentual clerics.

HopAlongBunny

09-29-2014, 21:59

Actually (at least here) clerics have been calling for support against radical groups for quite some time.
The latest manifestation of support is a handy-dandy bathroom book:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/united-against-terrorism-handbook-being-released-at-winnipeg-mosque-1.2781062

Its taken officials a long time to take the issue seriously, I only hope they're taking real measures behind the scene.

Rhyfelwyr

10-01-2014, 09:24

We've heard all the stories about Western jihadis going to fight with extremist groups.

But, as my Kurdish friend has brought to my attention, it looks like some Westerners might now by going to fight against them. An American ex-Marine appears to have joined Kurdish forces (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6da_1412091526) to fight against ISIS. He also has a facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jordan.matson.3?fref=ts).

Husar

10-01-2014, 10:29

Fragony

10-01-2014, 10:34

Hi Facebook page lists Warhammer 40k: Eternal Crusade as one of his "Games and Apps". :inquisitive:

He also looks like a stereotypical killer-super-marine-guy from a movie or TV series.
And I wonder what made him go there and do that if it wasn't the idea of eternal crusade.

Not such a bad idea really. I stunned myself when I bought my first stun-gun because I just had to make sure it actually works (it works) so it's a bad idea, but I applaud him. Nobody deserves a straight face while knowing what cruelty is going on. We are watching a genocide and go back to work and wonder what's for dinner. Arab-spring cheermonkeys lost all interest since it turned out to be something completily different. Screw them so much, all real experts warned for this, but were laughed at.

Wrong as usual.

Husar

10-01-2014, 10:50

Not such a bad idea really. I stunned myself when I bought my first stun-gun because I just had to make sure it actually works (it works) so it's a bad idea, but I applaud him. Nobody deserves a straight face while knowing what cruelty is going on. We are watching a genocide and go back to work and wonder what's for dinner. Arab-spring cheermonkeys lost all interest since it turned out to be something completily different. Screw them so much, all real experts warned for this, but were laughed at.

Wrong as usual.

Things like this have been going on for centuries and we often didn't even know about them. Why should I care more now because the internet makes the information arrive here a little faster than the salesmen on the silk road did? Not to forget that Assad has problems stopping them because the US supplied the rebels with weapons and the Iraqi army couldn't stop them because the actually somewhat decent Iraqi army with some semblance of morale was disbanded by eh, the will of god I think, after all GWB said god told him to invade Iraq so I guess it's all fine.

rory_20_uk

10-01-2014, 11:11

All societies have a background "loony" rate. Many of them want to kill the general public many want to kill other groups of "loons".

The more that can be facilitated to undertake "care in the community" abroad with hopes, dreams, and a second hand assault rifle who with any luck won't return home the better - rather they kill and be killed over there rather than undertake massacares over here - if the Oslo chap had been bough a ticket alongside those two persons who killed a soldier with a machete in the street the world would be a slightly better place.

The Foreign Legion is another great rehabilitation for past offenders who are slightly less loony - take all comers and at the end of it a clean sheet. Why on earth a criminal record precludes joining an organisation which practices killing people is beyond me.

~:smoking:

Fragony

10-01-2014, 11:13

Things like this have been going on for centuries and we often didn't even know about them. Why should I care more now because the internet makes the information arrive here a little faster than the salesmen on the silk road did? Not to forget that Assad has problems stopping them because the US supplied the rebels with weapons and the Iraqi army couldn't stop them because the actually somewhat decent Iraqi army with some semblance of morale was disbanded by eh, the will of god I think, after all GWB said god told him to invade Iraq so I guess it's all fine.

Do I really have to explain why you are idiot, the political left exported millions because they usually vote leftist, bad idea no, now they don't know where to find a 99% white school. Look at the state Europe, especially in the UK and France. But also in Sweden and Norway. Once really good countries but now unsafe for women as they can get grabbed anywhere.

Get it through your head, muslims don't think like you do.

Fragony

10-01-2014, 11:14

Things like this have been going on for centuries and we often didn't even know about them. Why should I care more now because the internet makes the information arrive here a little faster than the salesmen on the silk road did? Not to forget that Assad has problems stopping them because the US supplied the rebels with weapons and the Iraqi army couldn't stop them because the actually somewhat decent Iraqi army with some semblance of morale was disbanded by eh, the will of god I think, after all GWB said god told him to invade Iraq so I guess it's all fine.

Do I really have to explain why you are an idiot, the political left exported millions because they usually vote leftist, bad idea no, now they don't know where to find a 99% white school. Look at the state of Europe, especially in the UK and France. But also in Sweden and Norway. Once really good countries but now unsafe for women as they can get grabbed anywhere.

Get it through your head, muslims don't think like you do.

HoreTore

10-01-2014, 11:20

Do I really have to explain why you are idiot, the political left exported millions because they usually vote leftist, bad idea no, now they don't know where to find a 99% white school. Look at the state Europe, especially in the UK and France. But also in Sweden and Norway. Once really good countries but now unsafe for women as they can get grabbed anywhere.

Get it through your head, muslims don't think like you do.

You do realize that back in the days of entirely white europe, there were all sorts of contraptions for women to protect themselves from sexual harassment in the dark when the train went through a tunnel, right?

Yeah, those muslims are completely different to us.

And calling Norway and Sweden "unsafe for women" is just nonsense.

rory_20_uk

10-01-2014, 11:29

Males of practically all species on the planet - and indeed even hermaphradites - are sexually aggressive towards sexually mature females. Females in turn have adapted traits to reduce the rate of pregnancy from unwanted males.

Oddly enough, such traits have not been completely eradicated in the last 50 years in either gender - many young women want to appear sexually attractive and many young men want to act upon this, be that fighting off other males or making themselves attractive in turn.

~:smoking:

Fragony

10-01-2014, 11:33

You do realize that back in the days of entirely white europe, there were all sorts of contraptions for women to protect themselves from sexual harassment in the dark when the train went through a tunnel, right?

Yeah, those muslims are completely different to us.

And calling Norway and Sweden "unsafe for women" is just nonsense.

You are safer in a township in South-Africa, Scandinavian towns are rape-havens for immigrants, you know that but you don't want to say it because your religion doesn't allow it. Everybody knows that the rape statistics in Scandinavia are the highest of the world when it comes to the ones doing it. You can lie to yourself I don't mind. But I know better.

Sir Moody

10-01-2014, 11:42

You are safer in a township in South-Africa, Scandinavian towns are rape-havens for immigrants, you know that but you don't want to say it because your religion doesn't allow it. Everybody knows that the rape statistics in Scandinavia are the highest of the world when it comes to the ones doing it. You can lie to yourself I don't mind. But I know better.

god Fragony you get worse as time goes on...

South Africa is no 1 most dangerous in the world for Rape - Sweeden is no 6 and the rest of the Scandinavian Countries are in the 20's - for comparison the US is 14th

and that only includes REPORTED rapes so unreported will throw things even further out

While Sweeden does look dangerous at no 6 the truth is they have some of the most progressive laws regarding Rape which means a lot of these reported Rapes wouldn't be considered Rape outside of Sweeden which throws the stats

Husar

10-01-2014, 11:44

Do I really have to explain why you are idiot, the political left exported millions because they usually vote leftist, bad idea no, now they don't know where to find a 99% white school. Look at the state Europe, especially in the UK and France. But also in Sweden and Norway. Once really good countries but now unsafe for women as they can get grabbed anywhere.

Get it through your head, muslims don't think like you do.

What does that have to do with what I said? Is ISIS raping women in Norway now? Did they invade from the sea or did I miss them when they walked through here?

I assume you agree with Lindsey on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAkfd7StBY4

HoreTore

10-01-2014, 12:49

rory_20_uk

10-01-2014, 13:24

god Fragony you get worse as time goes on...

South Africa is no 1 most dangerous in the world for Rape - Sweeden is no 6 and the rest of the Scandinavian Countries are in the 20's - for comparison the US is 14th

and that only includes REPORTED rapes so unreported will throw things even further out

While Sweeden does look dangerous at no 6 the truth is they have some of the most progressive laws regarding Rape which means a lot of these reported Rapes wouldn't be considered Rape outside of Sweeden which throws the stats

I'd not call them "progressive", more like "draconian" where accusation is almost proof of itself.

~:smoking:

Fragony

10-01-2014, 13:25

What does that have to do with what I said? Is ISIS raping women in Norway now? Did they invade from the sea or did I miss them when they walked through here?

I assume you agree with Lindsey on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAkfd7StBY4

It's islam, simple as that. IS is just showing the world what the islam is, hopefully in time. Bedroomstory-moms, get a nap yourselsve. This IS islam. Somethingwe have been fighting for centuries. No the nice guy with the shoarma doesn't count, only the ones that laugh at any weakness we have. Result is obvious everywhere.

Husar

10-01-2014, 14:07

It's islam, simple as that. IS is just showing the world what the islam is, hopefully in time. Bedroomstory-moms, get a nap yourselsve. This IS islam. Somethingwe have been fighting for centuries. No the nice guy with the shoarma doesn't count, only the ones that laugh at any weakness we have. Result is obvious everywhere.

Which one of "our" weaknesses did they laugh at when they took parts of Iraq from the Iraqis? Our extremists are currently all leaving for Iraq to fight for their own extremist haven there, maybe we should just let them have it like we did with the jews and then they leave us to go there on their own if they don't like it here. Problem solved.

I've also heard that they are supposedly spawned by Assad, at least the guy from the Syrian opposition who was on the Daily Show from Monday claimed that. Of course he might also have his own agenda that makes him say that.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-01-2014, 14:08

god Fragony you get worse as time goes on...

South Africa is no 1 most dangerous in the world for Rape - Sweeden is no 6 and the rest of the Scandinavian Countries are in the 20's - for comparison the US is 14th

and that only includes REPORTED rapes so unreported will throw things even further out

While Sweeden does look dangerous at no 6 the truth is they have some of the most progressive laws regarding Rape which means a lot of these reported Rapes wouldn't be considered Rape outside of Sweeden which throws the stats

As any information consumer should be aware, there are three forms of prevarication (in increasing order of infamy).

Lies

Damned Lies

Statistics

Greyblades

10-01-2014, 14:18

So why are we still futzing around in the middle east again?

Kagemusha

10-01-2014, 14:34

So why are we still futzing around in the middle east again?

Because those missiles dont sell themselves. :yes:

Fragony

10-01-2014, 17:33

Sarmatian

10-01-2014, 18:58

And we all know who does it, don't lie, you know

The rapists?

HoreTore

10-01-2014, 20:09

[QUOTE=Sir Moody;2053619211]god Fragony you get worse as time goes on...

South Africa is no 1 most dangerous in the world for Rape - Sweeden is no 6 and the rest of the Scandinavian Countries are in the 20's - for comparison the US is 14th

/QUOTE]

i know that, that is why it's such a great thing to say. Numbef six, wow, almost seems like Sweden doesn't has a problem.

And we all know who does it, don't lie, you know

Immigrants are in a clear majority.

In one of the rape categories.

The category which in 2012 consisted of 29 rapes in Norway. Out of 10.000 or something(1500ish reported).

Yeah, clearly it's dem dirty moslems who are doin' it. The top rapists in Norway and Sweden are.... *drumroll*

1. Daddy.(or uncle, or friend of the family, or that nice man who lives next door who is really good with kids, or - you get the point)
2. Me. (or male friend between the age of 20 and 40 who may or may not have sexual relations with the victim in the past)
3. The boyfriend. Current or recently ex'ed.

Sorry Frags, but kicking out the brownies won't do much. Yup, immigrants certainly do account for a slightly higher percentage of rapists than the average population, which is to be excepted as they come from areas where feminism is non-existent. But unfortunately for you, they are not a major factor. The undisputed top 3, the dad, the friend and the boyfriend, are usually ethnically Norwegian or Swedish. Which is unsurprising, as the vast majority of dads, friends and boyfriends are Swedes or Norwegians.

There is one clear difference between an immigrant rapist and a native rapist though: the immigrant is sent to prison. If I choose to rape someone, I won't go to prison.

Strike For The South

10-01-2014, 23:43

Husar

10-02-2014, 01:52

I think the real question is why do these sons of immigrants feel isolated from a society that they were supposed to readily assimilate to?

Its strange that European migrants (Poles and Serbs, generally) don't seem to have a hankering for the old country like these guys do. Why is Muslim extremism basically negligible in America?

Doesn't that depend on a lot of factors? We do have some problems with the treatment of refugees and some immigrants, we had people migrate here who were working class while the US usually lets more educated, higher class people in. You're also not always on the friendliest terms with the working class people who come in anyway. And the Poles and Serbs who migrate to america probably love America even before they arrive there, just like a lot of the other Europeans who migrate to America because it's obviously a better continent from an objective point of view.

Ironside

10-02-2014, 07:43

I'd not call them "progressive", more like "draconian" where accusation is almost proof of itself.

~:smoking:

With a 1,7% conviction rate (108 out of 6 320)? Cases going to court was 169, or 64% conviction rate. Normal conviction rate is in courts are appearently 95% (the selection evidently occurs earlier in the case process).

The extended definition of rape is eating into what other countries classify as sexual assult.

Sarmatian

10-02-2014, 08:25

I think the real question is why do these sons of immigrants feel isolated from a society that they were supposed to readily assimilate to?

Its strange that European migrants (Poles and Serbs, generally) don't seem to have a hankering for the old country like these guys do. Why is Muslim extremism basically negligible in America?

A year ago or so I thought of moving somewhere else, and naturally I asked around about experiences of other people who moved to other countries. An overwhelming majority advised me to move to Canada or Australia, and a slightly lesser extent to US, and almost everyone advised against moving to some European country. They told me that whichever country I choose in Europe - Germany, Austria, Switzerland, England, France, Scandinavian countries... - I will be a second class citizen in that country for the rest of my life, and that, at best, my children will be treated as normal citizens.

With that in mind, I'm inclined to agree that problem is with host countries rather than immigrants.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2014, 09:31

Fragony

10-02-2014, 09:53

[QUOTE=Fragony;2053619257]

Immigrants are in a clear majority.

In one of the rape categories.

The category which in 2012 consisted of 29 rapes in Norway. Out of 10.000 or something(1500ish reported).

Yeah, clearly it's dem dirty moslems who are doin' it. The top rapists in Norway and Sweden are.... *drumroll*

1. Daddy.(or uncle, or friend of the family, or that nice man who lives next door who is really good with kids, or - you get the point)
2. Me. (or male friend between the age of 20 and 40 who may or may not have sexual relations with the victim in the past)
3. The boyfriend. Current or recently ex'ed.

Sorry Frags, but kicking out the brownies won't do much. Yup, immigrants certainly do account for a slightly higher percentage of rapists than the average population, which is to be excepted as they come from areas where feminism is non-existent. But unfortunately for you, they are not a major factor. The undisputed top 3, the dad, the friend and the boyfriend, are usually ethnically Norwegian or Swedish. Which is unsurprising, as the vast majority of dads, friends and boyfriends are Swedes or Norwegians.

There is one clear difference between an immigrant rapist and a native rapist though: the immigrant is sent to prison. If I choose to rape someone, I won't go to prison.

Yes there is a difference between home abuse and assault rape. ALL recorded assault rapes, hey let's grab the slut .Let's not even begin at about the position of their own women. Resorts here are absolutily packed with muslim women, and that are just the brave ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWrpv-pbuc

All.

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 10:45

[QUOTE=HoreTore;2053619278]

Yes there is a difference between home abuse and assault rape. ALL recorded assault rapes, hey let's grab the slut .Let's not even begin at about the position of their own women. Resorts here are absolutily packed with muslim women, and that are just the brave ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWrpv-pbuc

All.

Yes, all assault rapes were committed by immigrants.

All 29.

Oh, the humanity!

Except that it wasn't all, of course, but that's a point for another day....

EDIT: Sorry, I mixed up numbers. 29 is the number of assault rapes in Oslo. The number for the entire country is 94. We are clearly worse than SA.

And of the 40 men suspected of or convicted of assault rape, 21 are "non-north European", while 19 are described as "north-european". Unless by "all" you mean "slightly more than half", the statement is utterly false. Or are you thinking of those horrible brits, comin' o'er 'ere rapin' our wimminz?

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 10:56

With a 1,7% conviction rate (108 out of 6 320)? Cases going to court was 169, or 64% conviction rate. Normal conviction rate is in courts are appearently 95% (the selection evidently occurs earlier in the case process).

The extended definition of rape is eating into what other countries classify as sexual assult.

The early 2000's massive bump in the number of reported rapes was due to reclassifying* pedo crimes as rape, IIRC.

*in the statistics, that is

Fragony

10-02-2014, 10:56

[QUOTE=Fragony;2053619325]

Yes, all assault rapes were committed by immigrants.

All 29.

Oh, the humanity!

Except that it wasn't all, of course, but that's a point for another day....

EDIT: Sorry, I mixed up numbers. 29 is the number of assault rapes in Oslo. The number for the entire country is 94.

Look away all you want, Horrie. The number is much much higher, Norway and Sweden are the rape-capitals of the western world. I have family in Oslo and they (daughters) are too afraid of muslim immigrants to go outside, especially when it's dark. It are always the same who haress them. That is the same everywhere but in Norway and Sweden it is rampant.

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 10:58

Look away all you want, Horrie. The number is much much higher, Norway and Sweden are the rape-capitals of the western world. I have family in Oslo and their are too afraid of muslim immigrants to go outside, especially when it's dark. It are always the same who haress them. That is the same everywhere but in Norway and Sweden it is rampant.

I've lived my entire life in the areas you're talking about*, Frags, and your family is just timid. I regularly stumble up and down Grünerløkka(where Mullah Krekar lives/lived) shit drunk at 5 in the morning.

I note that you claim a number, but fail to back it up in any way whatsoever. Including giving a specific number. I am not surprised. Do continue living with your illusions.

*most of my life next to the "ghetto" in Drammen(Fjell) and 3 years in Holmlia, working the night shift

Fragony

10-02-2014, 11:04

Sure Horrie, tell yourself that there absolutily nothing wrong with the mass-immigration of muslims. Nothing to see here move along. Kadahar probably has something to say to you but he doesn't like talking to you, he will say the exact same thing

And of course they are timid, they stand no chance against 4 grown men who are hissing at them

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 11:04

Sure Horrie, tell yourself that there absolutily nothing wrong with the mass-immigration of muslims. Nothing to see here move along. Kadahar probably has something to say to you but he doesn't like talking to you, he will say the exact same thing

This post contains a grand total of:

0 pieces of evidence.

Not even a low-def youtube vid put together by some blogger. I am disappoint.

Sarmatian

10-02-2014, 11:05

In the UK from my experience as long as people speak English then things are OK. The less accent the better as a rule - but especially in cities there is a large percentage with an accent so it makes little difference. Note that a large percentage of persons who are born in the UK are second class citizens (at best).

Where do these people live who suggested Canada or Australia, and who warned off against Europe? Were most in Europe and hence disillusioned that everything wasn't perfect, and that if only they'd gone further everything would have been oh so perfect?

People who think the problem is the other lot and not themselves. Well, that's a shock! I'm amazed that the host countries aren't thrilled to have such a positive bunch; and finally - why have they not left if it is so horrible?

~:smoking:

I only repeat what I've been told. And that's the experience of Serbs, and other people from former Yugoslavia, which makes the problem only more evident. A Serb in England would go to work, preferably from 9 to 5, go have a few beers in the evening and go see a footy match on weekends. On Sunday, as most Brits, he'd worship sleeping longer. If it weren't for the accent, it would be quite hard to notice him in any way.

I can only imagine how much harder would it be for someone much different cultural background and physical appearance, like an Arab.

Countries in Europe tend to be still nationalistic. People won't assimilate if they don't feel at home. That's the difference between a European country and an immigrant country, like Canada, Australia and US.

Sir Moody

10-02-2014, 11:11

Look away all you want, Horrie. The number is much much higher, Norway and Sweden are the rape-capitals of the western world. I have family in Oslo and they (daughters) are too afraid of muslim immigrants to go outside, especially when it's dark. It are always the same who haress them. That is the same everywhere but in Norway and Sweden it is rampant.

Frag I already pointed out to you Norway is 24th while USA is 14th - stop harassing Horetore with statements which are so easy to disprove

Pannonian

10-02-2014, 11:16

I think the real question is why do these sons of immigrants feel isolated from a society that they were supposed to readily assimilate to?

Its strange that European migrants (Poles and Serbs, generally) don't seem to have a hankering for the old country like these guys do. Why is Muslim extremism basically negligible in America?

I'd also wonder about the phenomenon of second generation jihadis. The first generation to arrive throw themselves into assimilation, and while they remember a past in a different country, they reject that in favour of a wholly British identity. The second generation, born and bred in Britain, reject what their parents have worked for and "return to their roots". Is it merely teenage rebellion with an outlet that's rather more unsavoury than most? See also the American phenomenon of plastic paddies, where "Irish-Americans" feel a need to emphasise their "Irish roots" to an extent beyond what people who actually live there would do.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2014, 11:41

I only repeat what I've been told. And that's the experience of Serbs, and other people from former Yugoslavia, which makes the problem only more evident. A Serb in England would go to work, preferably from 9 to 5, go have a few beers in the evening and go see a footy match on weekends. On Sunday, as most Brits, he'd worship sleeping longer. If it weren't for the accent, it would be quite hard to notice him in any way.

I can only imagine how much harder would it be for someone much different cultural background and physical appearance, like an Arab.

Countries in Europe tend to be still nationalistic. People won't assimilate if they don't feel at home. That's the difference between a European country and an immigrant country, like Canada, Australia and US.

If that's what people do, then as as soon as the accent goes you're part of the mix - if you think of your adopted home as "home" then that's great. If you pop over and support foreign sports teams, speak primarily in in a different language and wach foreign TV it is hardly home, is it?

More nationalistic than the USA??!?!? :inquisitive:

I understand that Serbia has done more than most to try to... "purify" its racial mix, but the UK is and has been for thousands of years a mongrel of different persons from all over Europe; for considerably less time others have also come over: waves of invaders have come over since the Celts wiped out the preceeding tribes, then Romans, the Saxons, the Vikings, Normans and as a rule every time there was unrest on the mainland another wave of disporia poured over.

Generally these persons integrated over time and their culture was merged with what was already there.

The more similar cultures are the better - and I am sure that Westerners popping into Saudi Arabia / Pakistan / Indonesia have a hellish time "fitting in" with such things as Apostate laws making an idle comment a 15 year jail term; Japan is just as bad in a different way with their own quaint racist term for all outsiders. "Wogs" a British term for all persons not part of Blighty is of course banned years ago whereas "Gaijin" is still a catch all for the uncultured (as what culture is there beyond Japan?) borderline thugs who are on their shores.

Very recently two things have happened at the same time:

1) The amount of persons from abroad has increased.
2) The people didn't really want to be here - just have the benefits of being so - hence didn't integrate culturally.

It is the failure to / to want to integrate culturally that is causing 99% of the problems.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 12:15

It is the failure to / to want to integrate culturally that is causing 99% of the problems.

Hurr durr:

People who think the problem is the other lot and not themselves. Well, that's a shock!

Husar

10-02-2014, 12:23

If you want to know how much Europeans hate foreigners, just look at all the votes anti-EU parties are getting lately. Europeans don't even want to live together with other Europeans, much less with blacks, browns or yellow, who are just colors and not humans anyway. :dizzy2:

Pannonian

10-02-2014, 12:44

I understand that Serbia has done more than most to try to... "purify" its racial mix, but the UK is and has been for thousands of years a mongrel of different persons from all over Europe; for considerably less time others have also come over: waves of invaders have come over since the Celts wiped out the preceeding tribes, then Romans, the Saxons, the Vikings, Normans and as a rule every time there was unrest on the mainland another wave of disporia poured over.

"English" is an amalgam of Germanic, Norse and French languages, often with 3 sets of words for the same thing, and 3 sets of linguistic rules, with later attempts to rationalise this bunch into a single language and with each set of linguistic artefacts supposedly meaning something subtly different, whereas historically they were all describing exactly the same things. AFAIK since the imperial period the Indian subcontinent has also contributed a fair chunk of linguistic heritage as well.

Montmorency

10-02-2014, 12:46

What's actually interesting is that "white" is by definition the most colorful form of visible light. So calling black people "coloreds" is an oxymoron.

Makes more sense to call them "void" or "pit" or "archdemon" or something, if you're gonna hate on them.

(I haven't followed this thread. :wacky:)

Fragony

10-02-2014, 12:48

People vote anti EU because the EU is a meddlesome bitch.

Ever hear anyone complain about the Chinese? Exactly, discussion over. People from islamic countries just happen to lead every chart when it comes to everything negative.

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 13:05

Ever hear anyone complain about the Chinese?

Uh..... Yes (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S22%20-The%20Malleable%20Yet%20Undying%20Nature%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Peril.htm)?

Pannonian

10-02-2014, 13:13

People vote anti EU because the EU is a meddlesome bitch.

Ever hear anyone complain about the Chinese? Exactly, discussion over.

Chinese in the US used to have a similar status to Spartan helots, including the bit where it's fair game to hunt them.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2014, 13:13

And when Westerners went to Japan to start with many were killed out of hand; China viewed them as supplicants to the Imperial throne. Boxter rebellion, anyone?
The first Europeans to Africa called the locals monkeys, and the locals called the Europeans ghosts.
The first few colonies in the Americas one cause for failure was being slaughtered by the locals.

I can think of few cultures who on first meeting were really nice and kind to each other and went forward with mutual respect.

But often when two cultures merge then the peoples do get on

~:smoking:

Fragony

10-02-2014, 13:55

Uh..... Yes (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S22%20-The%20Malleable%20Yet%20Undying%20Nature%20of%20the%20Yellow%20Peril.htm)?

That's a while ago, and there was such thing as mass-immigration of north-africans or central-africans. It's just a fact that these groups are overpresented in, well everything. Muslims are just trouble. Not only do they have genetic-defects because of centuries of inbreeding they are also more prone to mental-deseases. Have a significantly lower IQ. Are overpresented in crime. Fact.

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 14:28

That's a while ago

Yes, "today" is indeed a long time ago.

Just out of curiosity(and ignoring the fact that you're using debunked junk science from a eugenics proponent), just what is a significantly lower IQ? Do you know how big the gap needs to be to be able to tell any difference between two individuals?

By the way: Christian immigrants are also highly over-represented in crime. Buddhists too. Probably more.

Pannonian

10-02-2014, 14:58

That's a while ago, and there was such thing as mass-immigration of north-africans or central-africans. It's just a fact that these groups are overpresented in, well everything. Muslims are just trouble. Not only do they have genetic-defects because of centuries of inbreeding they are also more prone to mental-deseases. Have a significantly lower IQ. Are overpresented in crime. Fact.

Inbred Muslims? Weren't they significantly more widespread than Europeans for centuries? A contiguous collection of empires from the Indies in the east to Morocco in the west, plus Iberia where they'd been invited over by indigenous Christians.

Fragony

10-02-2014, 15:03

Yes, "today" is indeed a long time ago.

Just out of curiosity(and ignoring the fact that you're using debunked junk science from a eugenics proponent), just what is a significantly lower IQ? Do you know how big the gap needs to be to be able to tell any difference between two individuals?

By the way: Christian immigrants are also highly over-represented in crime. Buddhists too. Probably more.

You can check the IQ world-map for your question. And it shows. Almost none make it to higher education, and often cope on the lowest we have to offer. The average Dutchman has an IQ of 105. The average north-african regardless of being here for three generations is hopelessly behind, A LOT of north-africans are 'zwakbegaafd' as it's called here, (weakly gifted should translate well enough), but barely able sums it up fine. The effects of inbreeding is well known. A lower IQ isn't the only consequence, so are health-problems, and being more prone to mental disorders. Girls do better though, you will see plemty muslim girls at universities. I don't know why that is, only the males fail at just about everything.

Hax

10-02-2014, 15:22

My dad is an Algerian with a double PhD in microbiology and virology.

But I'll make sure to tell him that he's retarded the next time I see him, thanks to his being "north-African".

Fragony

10-02-2014, 15:30

My dad is an Algerian with a double PhD in microbiology and virology.

But I'll make sure to tell him that he's retarded the next time I see him, thanks to his being "north-African".

Of course there are north-africans who do well, but not a lot. Not the avarage one, way behind. Do you deny that? Do you deny that there is an increased risk of physical and mental illness because of centuries of 'keeping it in the family'?

Hax

10-02-2014, 15:48

Fragony

10-02-2014, 15:55

yeah, don't you think it's more likely there's an increased risk of mental illness because of +/- 200 years of colonialism which was often paired with the systematic castration of the countryies' intellectual elite.

Never heard about that but I'll look it up. Whiping out the intellectuals in China didn't had any effect though, they are still very intelligent people.

Edit: Can't find anything, do you have a good link? Totally new to me.

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 16:49

You can check the IQ world-map for your question.

That ma is debunked junk science made by a eugenics fan who wants to sterilize dumb people. Remember the importance of checking your sources.

And it shows.

I asked you a specific question, and I want a specific answer:

How big does the IQ difference between two people have to be before you can tell there's a difference? IQ is measured in simple numbers, so you should have next to no problems giving an exact number. Or at least a possible range.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2014, 16:53

yeah, don't you think it's more likely there's an increased risk of mental illness because of +/- 200 years of colonialism which was often paired with the systematic castration of the countries' intellectual elite, finally followed by bloody wars of independence?

but nevermind guys, Fragony has got it all figured out. Let's just burn all scientific papers arguing for anything else and pelt them at incoming immigrants.

Most countries only the rich did well and everyone else was oppressed. There was no meritocracy anywhere else - poor people died the world over.
The "bloody" wars for independance were nothing compared to the slaughters since.

Mental illness is also subjective. Believing in someone born of a virgin who was impregnated by something that was partly what the virgin gave birth to, performed miracles, died and then was resurrected and hasn't been since seems pretty loopy - unless if is an allowed form.

~:smoking:

rory_20_uk

10-02-2014, 17:00

How big does the IQ difference between two people have to be before you can tell there's a difference? IQ is measured in simple numbers, so you should have next to no problems giving an exact number. Or at least a possible range.

IQ tests only show how good you are at that specific test - to be obtuse if I was given an IQ test in Norwegian I'd get almost all of it wrong as I'd not understand the instructions which is a language barrier not my innate cognition.

I'd estimate 10-15 points.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 17:04

IQ tests only show how good you are at that specific test - to be obtuse if I was given an IQ test in Norwegian I'd get almost all of it wrong as I'd not understand the instructions which is a language barrier not my innate cognition.

Indeed, but I'm ignoring that* part so I can hear Frags answer as to how big the IQ difference has to be in order to be noticeable.

*along with the rest of the "what does IQ even mean?"-debate

Sarmatian

10-02-2014, 17:16

42.

Fragony

10-02-2014, 17:21

Indeed, but I'm ignoring that* part so I can hear Frags answer as to how big the IQ difference has to be in order to be noticeable.

*along with the rest of the "what does IQ even mean?"-debate

The difference is substantial, but you also only have to look at the level of education, vmbo is lowest although there are multiple levels, but they just are a rare sight om the higher levels.

Husar

10-02-2014, 17:46

The difference is substantial, but you also only have to look at the level of education, vmbo is lowest although there are multiple levels, but they just are a rare sight om the higher levels.

It's astounding how people in war zones and poor areas with few available schools have a lack of education, isn't it?
And wasn't half the arab spring about educated youths who couldn't find (good) jobs in Northern Africa because the dictators we intelligent people had installed had ruined the economies?

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 18:00

The difference is substantial

I repeat:

What constitutes a substantial difference?

Fragony

10-02-2014, 18:04

It's astounding how people in war zones and poor areas with few available schools have a lack of education, isn't it?
And wasn't half the arab spring about educated youths who couldn't find (good) jobs in Northern Africa because the dictators we intelligent people had installed had ruined the economies?

They lived here for 3 generations. They aren't refugees. Third generation performs just as badly as the second. Even worse really.

Fragony

10-02-2014, 18:11

I repeat:

What constitutes a substantial difference?

Ffs I told you where to find it

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png

Don't this site just googled

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 18:31

lol.

First things first: that's not an answer. I asked you what specifically constitutes a significant and noticeable IQ difference, not what you think the IQ around the world is. Ie. a straight up number. Is 1 IQ point difference noticeable? 5? 10? 20? 50?

Secondly, and most hilariously: Your site uses a celtic cross as an icon. First red flag. The categories of the site is listed at the top, and includes the following categories:

- Featured stories
- World
- US
- Race War (2nd red flag)
- Society
- Jewish Problem (3rd)
- Insight
- Sci/Tech

The six featured stories on the site have the following headlines:
"White Lesbian Suing Sperm Bank for Impregnating Her with a Black Child"
"Jews Cry Antisemitism as Belguim Moves to Ban Animal Torture"
"Video Shows Broad Daylight Armed Assault Against White Family in South Africa"
"Black Terror Lord Jacob Zuma Vows to Defend the Jews"
"Nick Griffin Expelled from the BNP"
"In America, Jews Push Gun Control. Meanwhile, in Israel…

Congratulations Frags, you just managed to (attempt to) back up your totally-not-racist claims by linking to a genuine, full-blown Nazi site.

Well played, sir, well played.

Fragony

10-02-2014, 18:38

Picked the first I could find, don't know the site.

Google will show you a lot more

HoreTore

10-02-2014, 18:42

Picked the first I could find, don't know the site.

Google will show you a lot more

Yes, and when this information is widely reproduced by various neo-nazi websites, that doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the information? Lynn is bunk, get over it.

You still have not answered the simple question of how big the difference in IQ has to be before you notice a difference in the person.

I'm beginning to think you don't have an answer to this....

Hax

10-02-2014, 19:11

Never heard about that but I'll look it up. Whiping out the intellectuals in China didn't had any effect though, they are still very intelligent people.

Edit: Can't find anything, do you have a good link? Totally new to me.

cf. Algerian War for Independence.

Most countries only the rich did well and everyone else was oppressed. There was no meritocracy anywhere else - poor people died the world over.
The "bloody" wars for independance were nothing compared to the slaughters since.

Definitely agree with the first part, but colonialism tends to also have some negative effects on the native population, especially during the era of nationalism.

Fragony

10-03-2014, 07:15

I just refuse to believe that you didn't know a site with that name would harbor some rather specific prejudices. :no:

I just searched on google images, was not intentional

HoreTore, answer is easy, performance. If a group performs (much) worse on school. But is also much more criminal, much more prone to mental diseases. Nobody denies that here, it are in fact social-workers who want the best for them who are ringing the alarm-bells, a lot of the criminal youths have a very low IQ, and often various psychosis

Fair game, girls are doing much better, but are still way behind Dutch girls.

Sarmatian

10-03-2014, 09:40

I just searched on google images, was not intentional

HoreTore, answer is easy, performance. If a group performs (much) worse on school. But is also much more criminal, much more prone to mental diseases. Nobody denies that here, it are in fact social-workers who want the best for them who are ringing the alarm-bells, a lot of the criminal youths have a very low IQ, and often various psychosis

Fair game, girls are doing much better, but are still way behind Dutch girls.

They are behind because they come from different backgrounds. I see the same thing with Roma kids in Serbia. They lack proper environment in their early childhood so they are already lagging behind a lot when they start school. They need extra attention, which isn't always available, but if they do get it, most of the time they catch up in a few years.

The smaller number of Roma kids that do have normal environment in their early childhood on average perform the same as other kids.

HoreTore

10-03-2014, 11:53

HoreTore, answer is easy

Then you should have no problems giving a straight answer. For example, is 1 IQ point enough to make a difference? What about 10?

Husar

10-03-2014, 12:19

Then you should have no problems giving a straight answer. For example, is 1 IQ point enough to make a difference? What about 10?

You have asked him this several times in various forms now. Either he does not want to answer this, or, in a strange twist on the given topic, maybe he cannot answer this because he lacks the IQ to understand the question. In school he would certainly not get a good grade for failing to answer the question five times and on IQ tests it would be a serious downgrade. ~;)

So Fragony, what is it now?

Fragony

10-03-2014, 13:02

You have asked him this several times in various forms now. Either he does not want to answer this, or, in a strange twist on the given topic, maybe he cannot answer this because he lacks the IQ to understand the question. In school he would certainly not get a good grade for failing to answer the question five times and on IQ tests it would be a serious downgrade. ~;)

So Fragony, what is it now?

The first thing that comes to mind is me having an uncomfortable take on things. A take on things that is offensive. I understand all that, and admittingly I talk too much in contempt. But at least I am not in denial when it comes to some things.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-03-2014, 13:29

The day I can read the validity and reliability tests that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that someone has developed a culture-neutral measurement instrument for IQ, then we can start considering these kinds of comparatives.

Until that point, we are more or less trying to calculate the weight of a bag of oranges using a meter stick.

HoreTore

10-03-2014, 13:45

The first thing that comes to mind is me having an uncomfortable take on things. A take on things that is offensive. I understand all that, and admittingly I talk too much in contempt. But at least I am not in denial when it comes to some things.

This is nothing more than an attempt to avoid a direct question. I'll try again:

How large does the difference in IQ have to be in order to get a noticeable difference between 2 persons?

By the way, I know this question has an answer. I am not asking questions that have no answers here.

Husar

10-03-2014, 13:50

The first thing that comes to mind is me having an uncomfortable take on things. A take on things that is offensive. I understand all that, and admittingly I talk too much in contempt. But at least I am not in denial when it comes to some things.

So when you never answer a specific question and reply to a quote with something that has absolutely no relevance to the question you quoted, you call that "talking too much in contempt"? I call that either an inability to come up with a proper response or changing the topic the entire time because you do not want to leave the territory you feel comfortable on, which so far is only the realm of very vague generalizations that you can only back up using vague links to nazi sites.

To be quite frank, to some extent HoreTore makes you look like a fool because he asked for a number somewhere around five times now and you always give him vague text in return. You made it worse yourself by saying the answer is simple and then not giving an answer that fits his question. If you think it is easy to answer his question, why did you not do it until now?

Fragony

10-03-2014, 15:45

This is nothing more than an attempt to avoid a direct question. I'll try again:

How large does the difference in IQ have to be in order to get a noticeable difference between 2 persons?

By the way, I know this question has an answer. I am not asking questions that have no answers here.

You allready got my answer, you just don't like my answer.

HoreTore

10-03-2014, 16:10

You allready got my answer, you just don't like my answer.

No.

You showed me a map (supposedly) showing varying levels of IQ around the world.

You have not told me what level of difference is necessary before you actually notice this difference. You may use the map if you prefer that over numbers(though I don't see why).

For example, is the slightly darker blue of Italy enough of a difference to notice a difference between Italy and Germany? What about Russias slightly lighter blue than Poland? Cameroons darker shade of red compared to Nigeria? Or will you only notice it when you go from colour to colour, ie. UK's blue versus Ghana's red?

And what is the difference between the colours, in numbers?

By the way, the average IQ on a dutch IQ test is 100, not 105. If it's anything but 100 in any country, the test is wrong.

HopAlongBunny

10-04-2014, 05:59

We take a break from this regularly scheduled rant to return to topic:

For what its worth, Canada is in:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-in-iraq-5-things-we-learned-about-canada-s-mission-1.2787231

The whole strategy seems to hinge on the locals being up to the combat side of the mission. Just wondering, did the Kurds ever actually get the weapons they were promised? (you know, to put them on some kind of parity with ISIS?)

Pannonian

10-04-2014, 08:21

Fragony

10-04-2014, 10:21

Chop chop cut *gurggle* another day another head. War-reporters know the risk but this man was there to help. Even Al Quaida asked for his release. Rest in peace in pieces.

Meh, savages.

Crandar

10-04-2014, 11:25

http://rudaw.net/english/interview/29092014
As our Turkish friend used to say, colour me surprised.

In the meantime, the caliphate's ministry of propaganda is pretty busy. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/03/alan-henning-isis-syria-video-murder)

Fragony

10-04-2014, 12:06

He's from Iran if we are talking about our resident Kurd. But there is something fishy about the drawlines situated on the Kurdish territories.

GenosseGeneral

10-04-2014, 20:22

The whole strategy seems to hinge on the locals being up to the combat side of the mission. Just wondering, did the Kurds ever actually get the weapons they were promised? (you know, to put them on some kind of parity with ISIS?)
From what I know, they currently train kurds over here to use MILAN missiles. Afterwards they will get those, as they were aged surplus anyway and delivering them to Kurdistan is cheaper than dismantling them in accordance with European environmental standards.

HoreTore

10-04-2014, 22:40

Chop chop cut *gurggle* another day another head. War-reporters know the risk but this man was there to help. Even Al Quaida asked for his release. Rest in peace in pieces.

Meh, savages.

Still no number, eh?

Fragony

10-05-2014, 04:15

Still no number, eh?

Not that hard to find. Could be that you are too leftist to actualy see it, I never know with leftist people if they ignore facts or that they just can't register them.

a completely inoffensive name

10-05-2014, 04:33

Husar

10-05-2014, 08:08

Not that hard to find. Could be that you are too leftist to actualy see it, I never know with leftist people if they ignore facts or that they just can't register them.

Do you even know what number he is talking about?

Hint: It's still the number that he asked for several pages ago and that you still haven't given.

You say all kinds of things, but none of them answer this important question, I never know whether you just ignore those important questions or whether you just can't register them...

Fragony

10-05-2014, 08:49

Ask again, not going to read 25 pages for a post I may have missed

HoreTore

10-05-2014, 09:26

Ask again, not going to read 25 pages for a post I may have missed

You're cute when you're clueless.

Fragony

10-05-2014, 09:32

You're cute when you're clueless.

I am cute by default, what was your question

HoreTore

10-05-2014, 19:14

I am cute by default, what was your question

How large the difference in IQ has to be in order to notice a difference between people. Since this is the 7th time I've asked it, I'll just give the answer:

You need to move beyond one standard deviation to notice a slight difference between two people. 2 standard deviations is (easily) noticeable.

Now, a couple more questions for you:

1. How large is one standard deviation on the IQ scale in absolute numbers, assuming a 200 point scale with a 100 point average?

2. Lynn's map includes several countries with an IQ average of 70 or below. How many people in the world have an IQ of 70 and below?

EDIT: To make things easier, here's a picture you might find helpful:

14601

Noncommunist

10-06-2014, 01:26

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11142226/Kurdish-female-fighter-in-suicide-attack-on-Isil-amid-fighting-for-key-Syria-town.html

Now a Kurd is doing a suicide attack against ISIS.

CrossLOPER

10-06-2014, 05:57

How large the difference in IQ has to be in order to notice a difference between people...

Why do you people keep giving him attention? He has been doing this on this forum site as well as others for at least a decade.

Let me make it clear for you: You are indulging his fetish. You keep doing it over and over and over again. You know exactly how he is going to respond and what he is going to say and yet you continue to press him for some sort of coherency while he continues giving vague side-steps like he always does.

Why would you do that?

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 06:57

Why would you do that?

Maybe that's my fetish? ~;)

Fragony

10-06-2014, 08:00

How large the difference in IQ has to be in order to notice a difference between people. Since this is the 7th time I've asked it, I'll just give the answer:

You need to move beyond one standard deviation to notice a slight difference between two people. 2 standard deviations is (easily) noticeable.

Now, a couple more questions for you:

1. How large is one standard deviation on the IQ scale in absolute numbers, assuming a 200 point scale with a 100 point average?

2. Lynn's map includes several countries with an IQ average of 70 or below. How many people in the world have an IQ of 70 and below?

EDIT: To make things easier, here's a picture you might find helpful:

14601

Been a while since I used one of these baby's, I forgot how substitution works, so I just say that I can't answer it.

I would say we take the third generation who are on a level playing field, and see how they do (poorly).

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 08:37

Been a while since I used one of these baby's, I forgot how substitution works, so I just say that I can't answer it.

I would say we take the third generation who are on a level playing field, and see how they do (poorly).

No we can't, since IQ is just one a shitton of factors determining academic success.

The average Mensa member is a plumber, for example.

EDIT: I'll give another answer then.

One standard deviation is the first notation away from the zero(either direction) in the above picture. On the IQ scale, this means +/- 15 points, or an IQ range of 85 to 115 where there is no noticeable difference. This accounts for 68.2% of the human population. The second notation is 2 standard deviations. This is the ranges 70 to 85 and 115 to 130. Here you will find a noticeable difference from the average. The lower range is a bit slower, the higher range is a bit sharper. In terms of education, the lower range is likely to receive some additional support in some subjects, while the higher range is going to show good to exceptional ability in a limited number of subjects. This range covers 27.2% of the population. Combined with the group, this makes 95.4% of the world population. Now for the remaining 4.6%:

This is where you will see a large difference. The ones with an IQ of more than 130 will show exceptional ability in almost all subjects. The higher up you go, the greater the chance that there's something else going on as well which is going to screw them up. At my school we get a few of these, roughly 1 student in every year group. The student who graduated 2 years ago was extremely capable in just about anything, capable of high-level mathematics, learning Korean fluently in 3 months(because "she started listening to k-pop"), writing stories with complex plots in a single lesson, and so on. She is now on her second year in a mental institution. We have one in the oldest class this year as well. Last year, the class learned Solid Works, an engineering 3d-modelling tool. They got around a month to create a 3d-model chair along with an investigation and reflections. A couple of days after the submission deadline, she turned up at the teachers office with a large stack of papers. It was her understanding that the teacher didn't really know the program(we got an engineer to teach it), so she figured she'd make a 60 page instruction manual on how to use the program. She's doing fine currently, but we're expecting a mental breakdown in late November.

The other end of the scale, the 70 and below group, consists of the mentally retarded. An IQ below 70 is one of the criteria for conditions like Down's syndrome, and you will be submitted to a special education school or offered an assistant in every class.

Combined, these two groups consists of 280 million people. The number of people with an IQ below 70 is 140 million. Looking at Lynn's chart, he has a number of countries listed with an average IQ of 70 and below. From the looks of it, roughly 1 billion people lives in these countries. Assuming normal distribution, that means he believes 500 million people have an IQ below 70.

This is impossible. You can't have 500 million people with an IQ below 70, as the number of people with an IQ below 70 is exactly 140 million(rounded off). Assuming all people with an IQ under 70 are Muslims(clearly false, as Christians do have Down's), this can only make up one tenth of the Muslim population.

The issue isn't that you're "provocative", Fragony. The issue is that what you're saying doesn't make any kind of sense. It is clearly false, and you are simply not knowledgeable enough to understand why it's false.

Fragony

10-06-2014, 09:08

No we can't, since IQ is just one a shitton of factors determining academic success.

The average Mensa member is a plumber, for example.

Than why ask me a number, that's impossible to calculate. That map just shows the average of the results of tests per nation, determening factore aren't on it. It's only a small part of a much broader theory. I haven't read Lynn's books myself mind you.

But also in western countries some ethnic groups perform worse, that's not something I just make up just to be annoying.

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 09:12

Than why ask me a number, that's impossible to calculate.

No, it's not. See my edit above.

Fragony

10-06-2014, 10:05

No, it's not. See my edit above.

Where did I say all (short answer to a long explanation). What I said is that people from muslim countries have lower IQ on average. Nobody disputes that. The how and the why you can wrap around where you want, but nobody also disputes the effects of inbreeding, and nobody disputes that people from islamic countries marry their own family A LOT, which leads to all sorts of problems.

Husar

10-06-2014, 10:44

Than why ask me a number, that's impossible to calculate. That map just shows the average of the results of tests per nation, determening factore aren't on it.

I think what HoreTore is saying, is that either the map is completely made up or his IQ tests were completely broken.

Where are the numbers from? Who tested the people and why can the map only be found on racist sites?
If the numbers do not hold up against a shallow statistical test, one has to ask these questions and the map alone gives absolutely no answer to them.

It seems unlikely that Mr. Lynn went around the world and tested a statistically significant number of people in each country. So how did he get his numbers? Using the "established science" of head measurements?

Fragony

10-06-2014, 10:58

I think what HoreTore is saying, is that either the map is completely made up or his IQ tests were completely broken.

Where are the numbers from? Who tested the people and why can the map only be found on racist sites?
If the numbers do not hold up against a shallow statistical test, one has to ask these questions and the map alone gives absolutely no answer to them.

It seems unlikely that Mr. Lynn went around the world and tested a statistically significant number of people in each country. So how did he get his numbers? Using the "established science" of head measurements?

Don't know where he got them from, but is it surprising that racist sites host, was my bad to link it from one. Lynn's work is not without anyone disagreeing on the methods, won't argue with that. I don't know how he got them, but they are pretty much in line with the global development index.

Edit: also controversial but written by Harvard professors http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 11:32

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 11:34

I think what HoreTore is saying, is that either the map is completely made up or his IQ tests were completely broken.

It's debunked nonsense, nothing more. It has no value at all. Not only is it wrong, it doesn't even make any sense.

2+2=5 is wrong. Lynn's work is more in the area of 2+Zebra=koala bear.

Fragony

10-06-2014, 11:43

Inbreeding in terms of cousin marriage does not cause a lowered IQ, i*m afraid. You will have to go to sibling marriage to get that.

Nonsense and you know that, it's just one of the many problems with cousin-marriages.

Pick any source http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266440a0.html

Sir Moody

10-06-2014, 11:54

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 11:58

Nonsense and you know that, it's just one of the many problems with cousin-marriages.

Pick any source http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266440a0.html

Yes, now dig deeper to discover the actual mechanics, rates and causes. And find an actual source.

Cousin marriage does have negative effects, but they are completely over-hyped and nowhere near large enough to bring down a population.

If it was, humanity would have been doomed 50.000 years ago. Cousin marriage has been the norm through 99% of human history. If it spelled doom, we would've been dead a long time ago.

Fragony

10-06-2014, 12:05

Actually it goes beyond that - Lynn's work has been utterly debunked as cherry picked rubbish.

For a good example the number he used for the "average" Ethiopian was actually not taken from any group living in Ethiopia but taken from Ethiopian immigrants to Israel...

You can "prove" just about anything if you cherry pick data like that.

Heard about that one before, does not deserve a price for intellectual integrity. There are more things that are critisised. Wouldn't call it utterly debunked. He answers to his critics in IQ and Global Inequality. Only read about it, not the book itself.

Crandar

10-06-2014, 12:09

He's from Iran if we are talking about our resident Kurd.
Yes, I know that, but I was actually talking about another user from twcenter.

Meanwhile, in the Sultanate:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ankara-urges-pyd-leader-to-join-ranks-of-free-syrian-army-against-al-assad.aspx?pageID=238&nID=72545&NewsCatID=510

So, he would like the PYD to be allied with the F.S.A.:rolleyes:

By the way, a quick quiz, what's the similarity between the Free Syrian Army and the Holy Roman Empire?

Kagemusha

10-06-2014, 14:24

Where did I say all (short answer to a long explanation). What I said is that people from muslim countries have lower IQ on average. Nobody disputes that. The how and the why you can wrap around where you want, but nobody also disputes the effects of inbreeding, and nobody disputes that people from islamic countries marry their own family A LOT, which leads to all sorts of problems.

If inbreeding is such an issue. You must think Finland being the worst country in Europe as 80% of Finnish genes are from single North European population and from modern nationalities Finns are closest to Cro- Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.
We also have largest percentage of light eyes and light hair colour in our population, so the so called "European" features seem to imply directly at inbreeding. Damned shame if i would give 5 cents about eugenics. No...just no.

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 14:25

If inbreeding is such an issue. You must think Finland being the worst country in Europe as 80% of Finnish genes are from single North European population and from modern nationalities Finns are closest to Cro- Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.
We also have largest percentage of light eyes and light hair colour in our population, so the so called "European" features seem to imply directly at inbreeding. Damned shame if i would give 5 cents of eugenics. No...just no.

That's why you're ranked at the bottom in every PISA test.

No, wait.

Fragony

10-06-2014, 14:57

If inbreeding is such an issue. You must think Finland being the worst country in Europe as 80% of Finnish genes are from single North European population and from modern nationalities Finns are closest to Cro- Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.
We also have largest percentage of light eyes and light hair colour in our population, so the so called "European" features seem to imply directly at inbreeding. Damned shame if i would give 5 cents about eugenics. No...just no.

Love that those light-blue in your eyes. Awesome.

But there are no cousin-marriages in Finland, not a significantly lot of them. I am sure will be dig up an example of where it did happen as an argument to end all arguments, but it just isn't as common, except for the aristocraty.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 15:48

IQ tests between nations have shown quite big differences. For various reasons.

Culture is however still a much larger factor when it comes to, well, pretty much anything.

In Sweden we have, as an example, seen that Somalis is very hard to integrate into a western modern society. Specially when compared to, say, East Asians at large.

Culture aside, I wouldn't be one single bit surprised if Somalis quite frankly were more stupid at large. I'm not the only teacher banging my head against the wall in frustration after every lesson where I have to try to teach a somali math.

To be quite logical about it... Wouldn't be scientifically more or less impossible for groups living apart and under different living conditions for tens or hundreds of thousands of years to evolve identically?

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 18:45

Nope, as we have both evolved on the same earth. Further, we have not been living apart for "hundreds of thousands of years"(bottlenecked ca 50k years ago). We have not lived apart long enough to evolve in any meaningful way. Evolution is a long, long process.

And if you want to go with evolution, you would have to show evidence of why intelligence mattered more to the caveman in the woods of Europe than it does in the jungles of Africa with a gazillion more things capable of killing the unwary. Good luck with that.

Love that those light-blue in your eyes. Awesome.

But there are no cousin-marriages in Finland, not a significantly lot of them. I am sure will be dig up an example of where it did happen as an argument to end all arguments, but it just isn't as common, except for the aristocraty.

Cousin-marriage is common in all rural populations. It gradually disappears with urbanization. It didn't become uncommon in Europe until after ww2, when mass production sped up the urbanization.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 21:22

Nope, as we have both evolved on the same earth

It just took one damn sentence to show how ridiculous your line of thinking is.

You mean that species on the same damn PLANET EARTH can't evolve differently under different settings? You mean that evolution somehow would go against everything we know of evolution?

We have grown apart physically, did you notice? Black skin, white skin, thick hair, thin hair, blue eyes, brown eyes... But you are adamant that mental differences is just IMPOSSIBLE, even though anything else would be strange given the situations, and eventhough tests clearly show differences?

You are a VERY good socialist, North Korea material I dare say.

This, ladies and gentlemen, shown an understanding of evolution that is worth exactly minus 17 points out of a 1000 possible.

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 22:11

Kralizec

10-06-2014, 22:24

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 22:29

I am completely unsurprised by your inability to offer an explanation of how high intelligence would benefit a European, but not an African. You can explain skin colour by pointing at the sun. Nice try, but it can't be compared to intelligence in any way whatsoever. One is a simple response to the environment, the other is a complex interaction with the environment. In this regard, we do indeed live on the same earth.

So... You basically completely disregard that "small" things such as having to stockpile food for the winter have any impact? You disregard that "small" things such as actually having to live through a winter with its cold might have any effect?

You basically make a moronic claim that Africa and the North have identical living conditions enough to give the same result in evolution?

Laughable.

Just the same as we have changed physically we have changed mentally, to think anything else is absurd and a clear example of intellectual dishonesty to adhere to a political standard set.

It's fun how multicultis such as you always, always, always have to weave in "complexity" in your arguments... as if saying something is to complex to be understood would be a reason not to try and understand it.

In truth, it's not very complex at all.

Sub-saharan people come off worse than white people in every single IQ test, and also show correspondingly weak results at society building efforts in the real life setting.

You seemingly often take pride in applying the ockham's Razor on problems, but on this particular issue you and many other like you refuse to use that scientific tool, and instead go with "it's complex".

I tell you, it really isn't.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 22:37

Dogs probably diverged from wolves around 30.000 years ago when humans started domesticating them. Dog breeds certainly exhibit large variations in appearance, behaviour and intelligence. But dogs have been artificially selected for it, and have much shorter reproduction cycles than humans.

So while I'm admittedly not an expert on the subject or even a well-read layman, 50.000 years does seem like a short time in human evolution.

Skin color, hair and such are all superficial characteristics fit for clearly identifyable environmental conditions; like sun expousre. Conversely, what would be the environmental condition that encourages or discourages intelligence for humans? Dit European cavemen spend a lot of time solving sudoku puzzles?

First wave out of Africa was some 120.000 years ago... Second wave was some 80.000 years ago. I think only second wave was successful, but we might have some overlap IIRC.

In 30.000 years we got wolves to range from Chihuahuas to St. Bernard.

You don't believe that we in 80.000 years might see some mental differences among us?

Again, laughable.

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 22:37

So... You basically completely disregard that "small" things such as having to stockpile food for the winter have any impact? You disregard that "small" things such as actually having to live through a winter with its cold might have any effect?

You basically make a moronic claim that Africa and the North have identical living conditions enough to give the same result in evolution?

Again:

lrn2read

I have claimed nothing of the sort. I am simply awaiting your explanation of why it requires more intelligence to stockpile food for a hard winter than it does to stockpile food for a hard drought, or why it requires more intelligence to withstand cold than it does to withstand blistering heat and a lack of water.

.....And this is all ignoring the fact that we don't know what intelligence is or what causes it. Assuming education has an impact, we can offer the following explanation: Africa has low access to education - a very easy explanation to any supposed(they are not proven) discrepancy in IQ would be that access to education determines IQ.

Easy-peasy. But not the answer the white power crowd wants, so I assume this will be ignored in the following post.

Husar

10-06-2014, 22:49

IIRC around 30-50% of your intelligence are decided in very early childhood when most of the basic links between brain cells are formed.
That has nothing to do with genetics, it's mostly about stimuli and those are probably more related to culture and other circumstances that children grow up in, certainly how much the parents explain to their children, show them the world and allow them to experiment and learn.

One doesn't just get born with a set of brain connections that make one stupid or clever, that's not how a brain works.

HoreTore

10-06-2014, 22:51

One doesn't just get born with a set of brain connections that make one stupid or clever, that's not how a brain works.

This is certainly true.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 22:59

Again:

lrn2read

I have claimed nothing of the sort. I am simply awaiting your explanation of why it requires more intelligence to stockpile food for a hard winter than it does to stockpile food for a hard drought, or why it requires more intelligence to withstand cold than it does to withstand blistering heat and a lack of water.

.....And this is all ignoring the fact that we don't know what intelligence is or what causes it. Assuming education has an impact, we can offer the following explanation: Africa has low access to education - a very easy explanation to any supposed(they are not proven) discrepancy in IQ would be that access to education determines IQ.

Easy-peasy. But not the answer the white power crowd wants, so I assume this will be ignored in the following post.

And I am awaiting your explanation why it would take the exact same intelligence to live in Africa as it would in the Western North.

We don't have the same animals, so SOME kind of adaptions have to have been made by us humans. If we could evolve identically the wildlife would mimic it, no? Just the simple fact that Northmen have to actually wear clothes has an impact.

The climates are NOTHING in the same. it's not the same game or plants, and it's not the same weather.

Also, it's not the same people and not the same culture, and that plays a HUGE part.

Again: Your basic premises is that a species would have evolved identically under very diffrerent conditions.

My basic premise is that species evolves differently under different conditions.

You have to be a VERY good socialist to not at some level of intellectuality start question your own basic premise.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand then you go on with "we don't know what intelligence is"...

Again, socialists always lean back on some damn complexity issue instead of applying Ockham's Razor.

Ockham's Razor = Black people do less well on IQ tests and have shown to be less easy to incorporate in higher learning (even though efforts have been made to include them).

Ockham's razor then = Black people is less intelligent from the intelligence standard set by the modern society (albeit they may be more proficient at surviving lion attacks).

How many black Chess masters do we have? How many black Go masters? How many black experimental physicists? To say that this is all down to mere culture or repression is a joke, specially since we even have a black president.

Blacks today have societys complete permission and help to reach our intellects far boundaries... It's just that they seem to lack the mental tools to get there, if we look at pure results.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 23:06

One doesn't just get born with a set of brain connections that make one stupid or clever, that's not how a brain works.

Yes, environment plays a big role.

But to say that you don't get born stupid or clever...

Really?

No, really?

I mean, really?

That was the most absurd argument I have heard thus yet. Genetics DO play a ****ing HUGE role in modelling us, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for prize winning sperm.

Also we could just mate nilly-willy.

Oh c'mon Husar, you are better than this. This was just absurd.

EDIT: I'm not surprised HT agreed with this idiotic sentiment though.

Husar

10-06-2014, 23:21

Ockham's Razor = Black people do less well on IQ tests and have shown to be less easy to incorporate in higher learning (even though efforts have been made to include them).

Ockham's razor then = Black people is less intelligent from the intelligence standard set by the modern society (albeit they may be more proficient at surviving lion attacks).

Ockham's razor: Kadagar uses an equals sign in the middle of a sentence where it makes little sense -> Kadagar scores very low on the intelligence standard I just set (but he may be good at skiing).

Oh c'mon Husar, you are better than this. This was just absurd.

Ockham's razor: Kadagar finds the results of scientific studies absurd -> Kadagar is not very educated according to western standards of education (but he may be good at skiing).

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 23:26

Ockham's razor: Kadagar uses an equals sign in the middle of a sentence where it makes little sense -> Kadagar scores very low on the intelligence standard I just set (but he may be good at skiing).

Dude...

Try to exchange the "equals sign" to the actual word "equals" and see if it doesn't make some kind of sense.

So far it looks like I beat you both at skiing and thinking.

Shame on you Husar, you are better than this.

You really are :yes:

Strike For The South

10-06-2014, 23:39

Every time some one says intelligence is race based, their race is always on top

Funny how that works.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2014, 23:46

Every time some one says intelligence is race based, their race is always on top

Funny how that works.

I don't see many Jews or East Asians argumenting here?

You REALLY haven't read up on the issue, have you?

Strike For The South

10-06-2014, 23:53

I don't see many Jews or East Asians argumenting here?

You REALLY haven't read up on the issue, have you?

Quite frankly, I'd rather put a bullet in my head than sift through whatever half an abstract one Neo-Nazi website copy+pastes as fact.

The fact that "Africans" still passes a correct moniker for everyone south of Sahara should be proof enough of these myopic ideas. I still want to see the returns on what sort of long term societal benefit a ski instructor brings to the mighty white race, but I'm not holding my breath.

In any event, I eagerly await the day where Europeans begin hanging their minorities so we can come in and scoop up the good stuff....again. NASA part II!

Kadagar_AV

10-07-2014, 00:00

Quite frankly, I'd rather put a bullet in my head than sift through whatever half an abstract one Neo-Nazi website copy+pastes as fact.

The fact that "Africans" still passes a correct moniker for everyone south of Sahara should be proof enough of these myopic ideas. I still want to see the returns on what sort of long term societal benefit a ski instructor brings to the mighty white race, but I'm not holding my breath.

In any event, I eagerly await the day where Europeans begin hanging their minorities so we can come in and scoop up the good stuff....again. NASA part II!

Stop. Posting. Slobbering. Drunk.

HopAlongBunny

10-07-2014, 00:09

Interactive map on who is involved in the alliance against ISIS, and their contributions:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/10/isil-us-syria-airstrike-coalition-uae-saudi-2014101142731382476.html

Husar

10-07-2014, 01:50

Try to exchange the "equals sign" to the actual word "equals" and see if it doesn't make some kind of sense.

https://www.google.de/search?q=equals+sign&client=opera&hs=b6z&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MDgzVNKAEea7ygPv4YGACQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1092

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign

You gotta discuss that with google and Wikipedia I guess.

As for what actually equals Ockham's razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Now your posts contained just the words "Ockham's razor", followed by an equals sign (and the word "then" in one case) and then something you tried to pass off as fact, none of that makes sense. You do not present various hypotheses to choose from, you say nothing about what we already know and how many assumptions have to be made and neither do you explain why Ockham's razor should be applied here instead of another principle. Even that sentence from wiki says that Ockham's razor does not always result in a true hypothesis. But you ignore all that and put some hypothesis you personally like behind an equals sign as though that somehow made it true.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-07-2014, 05:13

It boils down to metrology folks. We have no "intelligence" tool that can directly compare individuals or groups of individuals. Without a direct comparative tool, all there can be is opinions and beliefs.

Prima facia, Kadagar's assertion that different climatological, experiential, and cultural regimens could result in significant phenotypic variation within the species is not without merit. On the other hand, we have no tool with which to determine if any measurable difference exists. Even if such a difference does exist, we do not have enough reliable data to determine its statistical significance.

Kadagar: None of the IQ tests you refer to can be seen as "culture neutral." They have yet to write an IQ measurement tool that is -- for that matter arguments continue as to what aspects of intelligence need to be measured to capture "intelligence" in a single definition. Chess and Go masters, in addition to both being exposed to cultural bias assertions )(and corruption; the chess organization makes FIFA look totally above board), are at one remove from "intelligence." At best, we can show a strong correlation between master's status in chess and classic western "book learning" definitions of intelligence.

We don't have the "meter stick" we need to prove or disprove your argument.

Sadly, I suspect we will have #D-printed complex organs in general usage long before such a measure for intelligence exists.

Montmorency

10-07-2014, 06:07

If we take intelligence to be behavioral, then item bias becomes trivial as the focus is on outcome, regardless of whether and to what extent results come as a consequence of innate or acquired abilities.

The problem then is not one of cultural bias, but whether IQ (and other) tests can provide a representative sampling of "intellectual functioning" (given some veridical definition of "intelligence") for any individual at all.

Fragony

10-07-2014, 07:14

Turkey :sweetheart: IS https://mobile.twitter.com/KekHamo/status/519169451959525376

Kurds go the hell. Wait they are already there

Montmorency

10-07-2014, 07:20

I think whoever figures out Fragony Paradox will have solved the intelligence puzzle.

Fragony is the key to everything.

Fragony

10-07-2014, 11:39

Rumour: explosion at nuclair facility in Iran.

What a mess this is. My thoughts are with the Kurds who are fighting in Kabone, a cruel fate awaits them if these butchers get the best of them.

Saw a picture of a woman, beheaded, her spine somehow still dangling under it. What the hell did they do to her, cut in circles and janked it out? Sooooo sickening.

Allahu hakbar. I can only hope that it's true that these sick :daisy: are right about getting 78 virgins and it turns out they became teachers at a school for toddlers.

Fragony

10-07-2014, 13:48

Maybe that's my fetish? ~;)

lol missed this one.

:sweetheart:

And sorry Crossloper, but you will allways get the same answer for the same question unless somebody changes his mind. And there just isn't anything that does that.

Fragony

10-09-2014, 10:09

Kewl, clashes between people with culture and kurds 'we kill you in Iraq and we kill you here'

Germany 2014.

But of course multiculture was the best idea ever.We can really learn from eachother

Way to go lefties

Shaka_Khan

10-10-2014, 02:52

Kagemusha

10-11-2014, 09:13

Fragony

10-11-2014, 10:46

Seems the IS isn't having all that much fun this time regardless, go team Kurdistan.

Pannonian

10-11-2014, 11:02

Isis is advancing at Kobane at Syrian Turkish border and has now one third of the city under its thumb. Once again this shows that air superiority is not everything. Now US is trying its best to get Turkey to send land forces, but i doubt Turks arent thrilled about fighting alongside the Kurdish peshmerga, so it might be that Turkey will not agree to do as US wishes.

Coalition air strikes against Isis aid Bashar al-Assad, Syrian rebels claim (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/09/syria-isis-bashar-al-assad-coalition-air-strikes)

“We are losing martyrs and many get injured but no one pays any attention. Now the Syrian army is taking areas bombed by the coalition forces after the Islamic factions withdraw. I have to say that the coalition military campaign is in the interest of the Syrian regime and against the Syrian people.”

Cry me a river.

a completely inoffensive name

10-11-2014, 22:59

If ISIS proves to be much more resilient than expected Iam wondering what will be the line in the sand before the US will put boots on the ground again.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-12-2014, 02:49

Whole hawg or none then?

Kagemusha

10-12-2014, 07:01

I think this crisis is just once again showing how unable different countries are from stepping outside their partisan positions. US and Iran wasted the perfect opportunity to cooperate at the start of the conflict at Iraq, while Turkey and Kurdish organisations are unable to cooperate at Northern Syria.

At the same time the Arab countries that are in the coalition fighting against ISIS are at the same time funding similar extremist organisations all over middle east.

Maybe it would be for the best to allow ISIS to conquer the whole Sunni area of middle east, while preventing them conquering the minority areas. Then the people supporting them would be able to live the dream that is Isis and their caliphate. We simply cant think on behalf of the Sunni Arabs. Let them experience their dream and take their own actions based on those experiences.

Husar

10-12-2014, 13:22

Maybe it would be for the best to allow ISIS to conquer the whole Sunni area of middle east, while preventing them conquering the minority areas. Then the people supporting them would be able to live the dream that is Isis and their caliphate. We simply cant think on behalf of the Sunni Arabs. Let them experience their dream and take their own actions based on those experiences.

In some of these countries it would probably just mean that the population gets even more oppressed while their leaders are the heads of ISIS anyway and wouldn't really suffer a lot. If ISIS even decide to attack these countries given that they are supposedly led and financed from there.

However, in a few years it will be more like metal on the ground, when the US sends armies of terminators and other drones to fight on the ground. At that point there will be little resistance at home regarding the caskets being sent back, it will be more of a tax issue or a balance sheet discussion.

HoreTore

10-12-2014, 14:36

it will be more of a tax issue or a balance sheet discussion.

In other words, basically like it is now?

Husar

10-12-2014, 15:38

In other words, basically like it is now?

Some people are actually concerned about dead Americans now, this little concern will fall away with drone armies.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-12-2014, 18:11

Pannonian

10-12-2014, 19:01

Whole Hawg would be:

1. Break local "axiom of evil"
2. Establish Military Governorship
3. Begin development of "Western" institutions
4. Puppet Government advised by Military Governor
5. Continue institutional development
6. Move toward self governance
7. Transition to self security force control
8. Leave
9. Act as "aloof by reliable" big brother

Whole process would take 25-40 years, with phase 4 beginning no sooner than 5 years in and phase 6 no sooner than 10 years in.

You'd also need o break the current brand of extremist Islamism, which AFAIK is Saudi-sponsored Salafism. With their up close and personal violence being their particular brand of resistance, you'll need to show that this isn't solely their domain, by showing that you're capable of being just as nasty. Only after you've shown this, do you get the luxury of showing that you can refrain from doing so, but it's your choice rather than a societal restriction. If the west isn't up to that, then their allies need to fill the gap, with the west's explicit support. Otherwise set conditions for talks with ISIS which both sides will be held to.

Kadagar_AV

10-13-2014, 14:38

Ockham's razor: Kadagar uses an equals sign in the middle of a sentence where it makes little sense -> Kadagar scores very low on the intelligence standard I just set (but he may be good at skiing).

Ockham's razor: Kadagar finds the results of scientific studies absurd -> Kadagar is not very educated according to western standards of education (but he may be good at skiing).

Well, read what I wrote again - and see if you can't make sense of it, if you just stop being linguistically overly anal about it.

Side question: When you go to the beach, do you bring meteorological charts around if someone wants to small talk about the weather?

Silly Germans :rolleyes:

Fragony

10-13-2014, 15:02

You'd also need o break the current brand of extremist Islamism, which AFAIK is Saudi-sponsored Salafism. With their up close and personal violence being their particular brand of resistance, you'll need to show that this isn't solely their domain, by showing that you're capable of being just as nasty. Only after you've shown this, do you get the luxury of showing that you can refrain from doing so, but it's your choice rather than a societal restriction. If the west isn't up to that, then their allies need to fill the gap, with the west's explicit support. Otherwise set conditions for talks with ISIS which both sides will be held to.

Talk with IS? Is there anything to talk about, I have never seen something as horrible and ruthless as thIS. Talk with them, are you nuts. Kill it. Here and there. Treat it like a cancer, cut it out. Good tissue gets lost when you cut a cancer out, granted.

Over a thousand are watched by Scotland Yard just in London. Those you can't send back easily, but you can prevent making it worse by closing your borders, and adapt the tactics of mossad.

War on terror, take it seriously.

drone

10-13-2014, 16:26

The terrorists have won. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/10/archer-drops-isis-the-fx-series-dumps-the-spy-org-s-name-in-light-of-recent-events.html) :soapbox:

HoreTore

10-13-2014, 16:41

Talk with IS? Is there anything to talk about

Ever seen the documentary "Gatekeepers"? You should. It's interviews with the six former heads of Shin Bet, Israels internal security force.

At the end of it, this hardcore pinkocommie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Shalom) was asked how Israel should respond to terrorism. His reply was the following:

Even if they answer rudely, there's no alternative to talking. It's a trait of a professional intelligence operative to talk to everyone.

There's no sense in talking to your friends about peace. You can only talk to your most extreme enemies.

If the former head of Shin Bet believes talking to groups like ISIS is the way forward, on what grounds can I object to it? My massive arm-chair experience from playing total war games?

Husar

10-13-2014, 18:20

Well, read what I wrote again - and see if you can't make sense of it, if you just stop being linguistically overly anal about it.

Side question: When you go to the beach, do you bring meteorological charts around if someone wants to small talk about the weather?

Silly Germans :rolleyes:

So you still think your wrong use of Ockham's razor is a good excuse not to use your brain and go with the simplest interpretation as long as it suits your prejudices?

As for the "question mark debate", I'm not sure whether you got my point there, I got yours quite a while ago. It doesn't matter how one reads your equals sign, it makes no sense there anyway and has nothing to do with the application of Ockham's razor.

Kadagar_AV

10-13-2014, 20:33

So you still think your wrong use of Ockham's razor is a good excuse not to use your brain and go with the simplest interpretation as long as it suits your prejudices?

As for the "question mark debate", I'm not sure whether you got my point there, I got yours quite a while ago. It doesn't matter how one reads your equals sign, it makes no sense there anyway and has nothing to do with the application of Ockham's razor.

I think reading it in the context it was written, it made perfect sense.

Blacks underperform in their own and in shared societys, compared internationally.

You can apply a load of intellectual arguments as to why, with ever deeper and deeper explanations...

Ooooor you can just assume black people are sub par-performers when it comes to modern society building (extremely broadly and generally speaking of course).

See, it was in this context Ockham's razor came in, hope I made myself more clear now :pray:

rory_20_uk

10-13-2014, 21:03

Kadagar_AV

10-13-2014, 21:15

Funny thing is, we are all comfortable with the fact blacks are much better athletes than all other ethnicities.

Yet of course all are absolutely equal when it comes to intellectual achievement.

~:smoking:

It's only racism if people care...

Regardless, I honestly think we all know East Asians are smarter than us all other ethnicities anyway.

I have come to terms with East Asians beating me at Go while Black men outrun me. White people still got the hottest babes :creep:

Seamus Fermanagh

10-13-2014, 22:13

1 is relative, 2 has been done before, 3 breeds resentment, 4 breeds insurgents, 5 leads to corruption, 6 leads to sectarian authoritarianism, 7 leads to defeatism on part of the locals, 8 leads to collapse, 9 is our bread and butter.

And, of course, anything that takes 25-40 years won't survive the schizophrenic mess that is US politics. I'm not poo-poo'ing, I just want to drive home the fact that there's little more we actually can do, aside from play whack-a-mole. I agree that sometimes the moles need whacking, especially ISIS, but dreaming too much farther than that will just result in another long, pointless war.

You're numbered responses were playful but a bit too cynical (sadly, only a bit). Your last paragraph is spot on correct.

Husar

10-13-2014, 22:35

I think reading it in the context it was written, it made perfect sense.

Blacks underperform in their own and in shared societys, compared internationally.

You can apply a load of intellectual arguments as to why, with ever deeper and deeper explanations...

Ooooor you can just assume black people are sub par-performers when it comes to modern society building (extremely broadly and generally speaking of course).

See, it was in this context Ockham's razor came in, hope I made myself more clear now :pray:

The way you use Ockham's razor I could also say that cars move forward by magic because any other explanation is obviously way too complicated in our environment and therefore obviously wrong.
You could of course look deeper and deeper into the car but why bother if Ockham's razor already proves my most simplistic explanation true?

Kadagar_AV

10-13-2014, 23:11

The way you use Ockham's razor I could also say that cars move forward by magic because any other explanation is obviously way too complicated in our environment and therefore obviously wrong.
You could of course look deeper and deeper into the car but why bother if Ockham's razor already proves my most simplistic explanation true?

Oh c'mon Husar, you can make a better argument than that I am sure... That was just sad :shame:

Husar

10-13-2014, 23:30

Oh c'mon Husar, you can make a better argument than that I am sure... That was just sad :shame:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147515-ISIS-on-the-offensive-in-Iraq&p=2053619863&viewfull=1#post2053619863

Last paragraph, and your "arguments" that all my arguments are just bad and sad only distract from the lack of arguments on your side, other than "Ockham's razor, I win!"

Kadagar_AV

10-13-2014, 23:51

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147515-ISIS-on-the-offensive-in-Iraq&p=2053619863&viewfull=1#post2053619863

Last paragraph, and your "arguments" that all my arguments are just bad and sad only distract from the lack of arguments on your side, other than "Ockham's razor, I win!"

Oh well, plenty of proof that black societies tend to do rather bad...

Plenty of proof that black people tend to do less well on intelligence tests.

Plenty of evidence that East Asians do well on intelligence tests...

If you are intellectually honest, you will have to admit that a species living in separate conditions over tens of thousands of years, WILL turn out differently.

Your REAL problem, like all multiculturalists, is that you don't want it to be so. But hey, just because someone doesn't want something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I will fully agree that the implication of grading ethnicities in intellectuality is problematic, and can have grave and often unfair ramifications in society...

But at the end of the day, if we want this planet to work we at first need to come to terms with exactly with what we deal with. Brushing issues under the mat because they are politically uncorteous is... No way forward.

Hax

10-14-2014, 00:12

I've seen black people post more coherent things than Kadagar, does that disprove the stuff he's been writing so far, or what?

Kadagar_AV

10-14-2014, 00:16

I've seen black people post more coherent things than Kadagar, does that disprove the stuff he's been writing so far, or what?

No dear sir, that is just rubbish argumentation from your side.

Husar

10-14-2014, 00:36

Oh well, plenty of proof that black societies tend to do rather bad...

Tend to do rather bad in what? Plenty of evidence that white idiots tend to destroy the ozone layer above them and poison their own food in an attempt to preserve the really stupid monocultures that continue to destroy everyone's habitat...

If that doesn't qualify as doing rather bad...

I assume though, that you think getting a new iPhone every year and throwing the old one into a river is the only definition of doing well.

Plenty of proof that black people tend to do less well on intelligence tests.

Plenty of evidence that East Asians do well on intelligence tests...

I also scored really high in an online intelligence test, does that make me a genius or an east asian?

If you are intellectually honest, you will have to admit that a species living in separate conditions over tens of thousands of years, WILL turn out differently.

You mean like some have a darker skin than others?
How does the skin relate to the brain exactly? How do you measure the deficiencies or proficiencies in the brain? With intelligence tests designed for white people of white culture who went to white schools and learned white things? If you design different tests for different cultures, are the results comparable? If so, how and why?

I know that you do not want to think about this, but it is the basis of your argument, if the tests that led to the numbers for your funky stormfront intelligence world maps are neither comparable nor reliable, then how can you call them facts?

Your REAL problem, like all multiculturalists, is that you don't want it to be so. But hey, just because someone doesn't want something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't true.

And this could in no way apply to you in reverse I assume, because your evidence is solid.

I will fully agree that the implication of grading ethnicities in intellectuality is problematic, and can have grave and often unfair ramifications in society...

According to some of my grades, I am also an idiot (or barely passable as educated), yet you keep telling me that you believe I can do better. Are you just playing with me?

But at the end of the day, if we want this planet to work we at first need to come to terms with exactly with what we deal with. Brushing issues under the mat because they are politically uncorteous is... No way forward.

So you finally admit that we white people and the up-and-coming super-stupid yellow people should stop our factories and cars to make the planet work better? We already know that we are dealing with all kinds of toxic gasses that we pollute the air with simply to get more bling bling and comforty stuff and to prove to ourselves and other that we are superior to the others. Why elese would someone want a billion dollars, an expensive car and a yacht? Hardly to fulfill the evolutionary goal of spreading one's genes, given how rich people get fewer children, which basically means they remove their genes from the gene pool voluntarily, especially on an international scale.

Fragony

10-14-2014, 01:51

Kadahar is right, multiculturalists refuse to differantiate between what they want things to be and what is simply so. He calls it a lack of intellectual integrity, I go even further, I call multicultaralists deeply religious. Screw facts, es muss sein.

Kadagar_AV

10-14-2014, 07:36

Husar, I admit that other ethnicities than Africans have been detrimental to nature, of course. However, what the hell makes you think Warlord M'beke Mg'Hhgi would have done a better job, were he leading the worlds scientific progress?

I fully agree that western society is a disaster in its current form. African society also is, and even worse.

And when it comes to where the world would go to help the problem... Yeah, let's hope we don't put too much trust on Africa, shall we?

So that argument of yours is = nothing.

You talk a lot... a LOT... about IQ tests being made for white persons... I ask in return, where are the intelligence tests for black persons?

It's like you automatically assume they have some hidden intellectual power we just don't know of. What the heck makes you think so? They seem to fail at pretty much anything, so again... If they have some extra intellectual powers, why do these never (or so rarely) seem to pop up positively in society ?

What would, in your world and perspective, a test for "black" intelligence be anyway? What hidden gems are there in the black gene pool, according to you?

We already know black people generally have a higher kinetic intelligence (how the brain interact with the body), so I'll grant you that. But what other of the 7 commonly held intelligences do you seriously think black people manifest on better levels than the rest?

"Blacks" are better runners, "Sloped Eyed People" are better thinkers... And us "pale-faces" have women with rocking bod's.

Nature already balanced it out for us, no need to get any panties in a twist when differences are argued.