Strange, I thought the pro Assad posters would be very much against Russia/Syria cutting deals with so called head hackers? (Rebel = Terrorist?).
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I don't think there is enough information about the ins and outs to really make a call on that. I would also assume at this stage the investigation is under the jurisdiction of higher up the ladder than the Met.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Word is they held plenty of hostages, which they used to build the tunnels. Playing Devil's advocate - if Assad later doesn't stick to the deal and prevents them getting buses out (as was documented in footage), and instead captures or kills them, other groups around Syria may not spare any hostages next time.
Soldato
That was a huge mistake, leaving him in power in the 90s but telling people to rise up and overthrow him, only to be cut down by helicopter gunships, tortured and dumped in mass graves.
I think savages is a bit of a generalisation, ISIS and other affliliated groups are certainly savages but these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces) are the people who need all our support, real progressive, democratic opposition to dictatorship.
I expect a similar uproar from your fellow agenda pushers when the West did this. McBrains outrage is particularly interesting.
Strangley, back in November, no one said "if the West doesn't stick to the deal and prevents them getting buses out and instead captures or kills them, other groups around Syria may not spare any hostages next time."
Caporegime
Yes, that's the one thing Bush Sr. did wrong.
Listening to Dannat on radio 4 the other day he was saying we ought to have just sided with Assad and supported him in sorting his nation out back in 2011. I'm almost inclined to agree but we are where we are.
I agree with your sentiment in general, but it should be pointed out that Russia invaded Georgia in response to Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia (direct parallels can be drawn to the UN coalition attacking Iraq over it's invasion of Kuwait), the airliner was shot down by Ukraine pro-Russian rebels (who while no doubt in league with Russia almost certainly did it by accident) and lastly while the Syrian regime is quite reprehensibly it's still the least reprehensible group vying for control of Syria.
Sadly it's been well documented that you can't educate conspiracy theorists/truthers, this is due to the fact that one of the prime prerequisites of being a conspiracy theorist/truther is a strong enough desire to believe in the conspiracy that you will ignore logic/reason enough to fully commit to a highly illogical/implausible version of events. They want the to be an alternate truth so badly they will believe one no matter how far fetched compared to the truth it is.
In example, 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe in highly illogical/implausible alternative theories not because their brain is incapable of understanding their version of events makes significantly less sense than the truth, but because their mind is so disturbed by the idea that the US government could be outsmarted by a bunch of terrorists with a copy of FSX that they find the alternate idea that the US government/etc orchestrated the whole conspiracy to be much more comforting.
I expect a similar uproar from your fellow agenda pushers when the West did this. McBrains outrage is particularly interesting.
Strangley, back in November, no one said "if the West doesn't stick to the deal and prevents them getting buses out and instead captures or kills them, other groups around Syria may not spare any hostages next time."
I think it a good thing not to hate whom you hate (the guilty) more than love whom you love (the innocent), and end up bombing wedding parties with 100 people just to take out 2 terrorist targets. But I'm not privy to Assad's own reasoning.
Caporegime
I expect a similar uproar from your fellow agenda pushers when the West did this. McBrains outrage is particularly interesting.
Strangley, back in November, no one said "if the West doesn't stick to the deal and prevents them getting buses out and instead captures or kills them, other groups around Syria may not spare any hostages next time."
"Mcbrain". Love it.
The deal should never have been made in the first place.
It's interesting that you speak as if you aren't one yourself, ever. Why is that?
Simple illustration: you are driving along a country lane at night, with a young child in the passenger seat who happens to still be very innocent with very little knowledge of evil, say your son. You come across two blokes wanting to hitch a ride, your son says "dad they need a ride". But what are you thinking at that moment? You're weighing at least two options - that they are harmless and just want a ride, or that they have conspired together in order to cause harm or material loss to anyone who gives them a ride.
So now we're at the stage where you admit to yourself that conspiracy theorizing is natural for anyone who isn't completely innocent, or ignorant of evil, and that makes you a conspiracy theorist yourself. There's no longer any difference between you and anyone else, in that sense, and you have to find a way to re-create the difference, if you require it for whatever psychological reason.
Only problem is that in order to be qualified to authoritatively determine who shouldn't be labelled a conspiracy theorist and who should, you'd have to be God and know everything. In absence of that, all you can achieve is finding like-minded folk who more or less agree with your idea of where the "bar" is set. But agreement with a number of others, even if they were everyone on earth, does not make something "true". And some sets of people will have different "bars", and other sets may have none at all. And all of them will still remain conspiracy theorists by definition, unless they are extremely innocent. All of this makes the usage of the label pointless, you may as well say "humans" or "people", unless it is only an attempt to put someone down, in order to puff up your own ego, or, to give you the benefit of the doubt - to distinguish between some conspiracy theorists and other conspiracy theorists. It's the same with employing the term 'sheeple', instead of qualifying when one believes someone else is acting unquestioningly. Everyone is a sheeple, or they aren't. Because we indulge in following the herd to greater or lesser extent. Even a shepherd doesn't always shepherd, and has to follow the herd.
The particular level of logic, or knowledge of evil, is not the only thing that comes into it, either. Sometimes a theory can be very logical, but very discomforting to some.
That said, I do hope the documents are wrong and you can be educated. It would indeed be very sad if you couldn't.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,509
That's not a conspiracy theory?
That's weighing up the pros and cons of you/your families safety and making a judgement call.
It is.
It is also this.
i.e. You are weighing the pros and cons of your family's safety by entertaining the theory that those two blokes may be conspiring. It is a perfectly natural thing.
Soldato
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/two-one-public-oppose-missile-strikes-syria/
only 22% support a strike against syria
only 22% support a strike against syria
No, it's not
Brilliant!
Now, for the real meaning of a Conspiracy Theory we don't have to look much further than the dictionary (unless that's now classified as 'fake news' or 'false flag definitions'?)
Because I'm not.
Also you're analogy about picking up hitchhikers doesn't work, considering the safety implications when choosing whether to pick up a hitchhiker or not is a rational thought process not consideration of a conspiracy theory (conspiracy theories are irrational by definition).
You can choose someone's reduced definition in a dictionary or you can use common sense and see that it applies and is literally a conspiracy theory, however minor.
Not all conspiracy theories are irrational. Detectives would be engaging in being irrational all the time, as they entertained theories, which sometimes involve a conspiracy of two or more people, to prompt them to investigate for facts. Facts don't always just plop in your lap.
Not all conspiracy theories are irrational. Detectives would be engaging in being irrational all the time, as they entertained theories, which sometimes involve a conspiracy of two or more people, to prompt them to investigate for facts. Facts don't always just plop in your lap.
It's not a unique opinion. The Oxford English Dictionary includes a similar, broader definition, than some of the current restrictive definitions.
Applying this definition to my simple analogy (perhaps too simple?) it would mean that the phenomenon of two blokes asking for a ride, may be a result of a conspiracy between them to take part in causing harm or to steal.
I rest my case as far as justifying the example I gave. But respect if others disagree (which actually is in line with what I stated about different people having different "bars" for what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what doesn't).
Applying this definition to my simple analogy (perhaps too simple?) it would mean that the phenomenon of two blokes asking for a ride, may be a result of a conspiracy between them to take part in causing harm or to steal.
I rest my case as far as justifying the example I gave. But respect if others disagree (which actually is in line with what I stated about different people having different "bars" for what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what doesn't).