ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[Rroff]

Why is it so hard for you to say you think bombing Syria based on the Douma nonsense was wrong? This isn't some complex ethical dilemma.

Not only wrong, but insane given the presence of Russian troops on the ground.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3600193

This isn't just left to chance and also pertinent to h4arm0ny's post above - US/Russia maintain a deconfliction phone line over action in Syria to try and avoid these scenarios and all missile strikes and tests (including the strikes in response to Douma), etc. are telegraphed so the other can get out the way - even Russia is correctly publishing NOTAMs prior to such activity (even when they don't need to).

 

[EvilSooty]

Why are you incapable of answering a direct question on this?

Yeah, nothing to worry about then. A sign of the deconfliction line's success was the Russians moving their fleet in the Med into a battle formation carrying out live firing drills and issuing a warning publicly that if any of their troops were targeted they would strike wherever those missiles came from.

Just before the attack Trump was telling the Russians missiles, smart bombs, were on the way to them.

Relations couldn't be any lower with the Russians at the moment. Utterly demented to do what they did.

A major war waiting to happen all to protect our jihadi pals. Just wait for the next false flag in Idlib.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think in some cases you are seeing as my practical beliefs things I'm expecting EvilSooty to be consistent on with his position that aren't necessarily positions that are important for me as I'm not making the same arguments.

Well then after three attempts to get an answer to a very simple question, I'm going to have to just put that down as a refusal to answer.

Douma was not bombed by the US - the only people who carried out any airstrikes in that vicinity in that timeframe were the Russians - there was a supposed second round of strikes after the US cruise missile strikes but later claimed to be a false alarm by Syria.

My mistake. The rest about the weapons inspectors being driven out and shot at is correct, though.

 

[Rroff]

Well then after three attempts to get an answer to a very simple question, I'm going to have to just put that down as a refusal to answer.

I've given an answer to it - maybe not the answer you want because of the manner I'm encapsulating it to prevent the inevitable misuse - maybe you don't have such intentions but others certainly will try.

My mistake. The rest about the weapons inspectors being driven out and shot at is correct, though.

Its even been the headline for a news article, yet never even mentioned in the article - there is no record of an actual US or coalition strike anywhere near Douma but is often tried to be passed off as fact because circumstantially it helps to make a case against the US.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I've given an answer to it - maybe not the answer you want because of the manner I'm encapsulating it to prevent the inevitable misuse - maybe you don't have such intentions but others certainly will try.

What you call a trap question and "misuse", I call a very reasonable piece of logic. If you (as you have done) concede that there's a high chance they are false flags, then you should morally be opposed to military actions in response to them. That you repeatedly try to avoid giving an answer reads to me that you want to be able to affect an open mind on the subject but don't want to accept that the US using it as a justification for military action is wrong. I.e. you know full well the logical consequence of your position but don't want to admit it. But I'm not going to try endlessly to make you answer a question you are unwilling to do so, but rephrasing my question before you answer it, as you did to make it abstract, does not mean you have answered my question.

 

[Rroff]

then you should morally be opposed to military actions in response to them

Amongst other things to oppose is an active word/phrase and all too many people will only see it as if I oppose the US military then I must by default support the opposite position or vice versa and then try and use that against my position on other things that doesn't fit neatly with what they want to see - so while I might oppose in an isolated state I will only commit to an abstracted not support.

 

[EvilSooty]

Amongst other things to oppose is an active word/phrase and all too many people will only see it as if I oppose the US military then I must by default support the opposite position or vice versa and then try and use that against my position on other things that doesn't fit neatly with what they want to see - so while I might oppose in an isolated state I will only commit to an abstracted not support.

INTERVIEWER: Rroff, is the sky blue?

RROFF: To agree that the sky is blue is an active word/phrase and all too many people will only see it as if I oppose the sky being blue then I must by default support the opposite position or vice versa that the sky is grey and then try and use that against my position on other things that doesn't fit neatly with what they want to see - so while I might oppose in an isolated state that the sky is not blue, after looking out my window and confirming that it is indeed blue, I will only commit to an abstracted not support.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you for your time, Rroff. I hope you have enoyed this episode of 'Peope Denying the Blatant' with my guest, Rroff. Join us next week when we ask Rroff 'Is Water Wet?'.

 

[Rroff]

INTERVIEWER: Rroff, is the sky blue?

RROFF: To agree that the sky is blue is an active word/phrase and all too many people will only see it as if I oppose the sky being blue then I must by default support the opposite position or vice versa that the sky is grey and then try and use that against my position on other things that doesn't fit neatly with what they want to see - so while I might oppose in an isolated state that the sky is not blue, after looking out my window and confirming that it is indeed blue, I will only commit to an abstracted not support.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you for your time, Rroff. I hope you have enoyed this episode of 'Peope Denying the Blatant' with my guest, Rroff. Join us next week when we ask Rroff 'Is Water Wet?'.

You can talk... you still haven't answered why if the rebels had surrendered as you keep saying, usually deflecting by referring to greater Ghouta when Douma is the pertinent location, that Syrian government forces and those in support of them launched a massive offensive against the rebels over the 6th and 7th.

TBH that you are resorting to ridicule speaks volumes.

 

[EvilSooty]

I'm glad you appeared, Rroff.

Here's some logic for you:

You agree that Douma was staged, correct?

Yet you also argue that Assad had every reason to carry out this attack you agree was staged, correct?

But, if you agree that it was staged then you agree that Assad didn't have every reason to carry out this attack because he didn't actually carry out the attack, correct?

Join us next week on Quantum Arguments. A show where Rroff can hold diametrically opposed arguments simultaneously with no apparent contradiction.

 

[Rroff]

Yet you also argue that Assad had every reason to carry out this attack you agree was staged, correct?

But, if you agree that it was staged then you agree that Assad didn't have every reason to carry out this attack because he didn't actually carry out the attack, correct?

It is quite possible for both positions to be true (hence why circumstantial evidence is a thing) - it is entirely possible for Assad to have every reason to carry out said attack and not do it. But actually I am arguing the factors cited are not as strong argument as those putting them forward insist against Assad having a reason (that doesn't prejudice that he did it) - an important if subtle difference.

But as before I saw your hasty edits a few nights ago where you showed you aren't interested in the truth. I'm only humoring you in replying so as to maintain a certain standard.

 

[EvilSooty]

It is quite possible for both positions to be true (hence why circumstantial evidence is a thing) - it is entirely possible for Assad to have every reason to carry out said attack and not do it. But actually I am arguing the factors cited are not as strong argument as those putting them forward insist against Assad having a reason (that doesn't prejudice that he did it) - an important if subtle difference.

But as before I saw your hasty edits a few nights ago where you showed you aren't interested in the truth. I'm only humoring you in replying so as to maintain a certain standard.

It's clear by now that you just love arguing for the sake of arguing hence any further discussion is a waste of time which is why I am taking the ****.

You can't even answer a simple question answering that bombing Syria on the basis of lies is wrong without resorting to metaphysical wankery.

I mean, just look at that word salad you came up with above when asked a direct question. Laughable.

 

[Rroff]

It's clear by now that you just love arguing for the sake of arguing hence any further discussion is a waste of time which is why I am taking the ****.

You can't even answer a simple question answering that bombing Syria on the basis of lies is wrong without resorting to metaphysical wankery.

I mean, just look at that word salad you came up with above when asked a direct question. Laughable.

This:

Yet you also argue that Assad had every reason to carry out this attack you agree was staged, correct?

But, if you agree that it was staged then you agree that Assad didn't have every reason to carry out this attack because he didn't actually carry out the attack, correct?

Is precisely why I've resorted to being careful with the way my answer can be used and I hope h4rm0ny can now understand why.

 

[EvilSooty]

Over to you h4rm0ny

Enjoy this complete and utter drivel.

 

[Rroff]

Over to you h4rm0ny

Enjoy this complete and utter drivel.

So once again you run away. I see a pattern emerging.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Amongst other things to oppose is an active word/phrase and all too many people will only see it as if I oppose the US military then I must by default support the opposite position or vice versa and then try and use that against my position on other things that doesn't fit neatly with what they want to see - so while I might oppose in an isolated state I will only commit to an abstracted not support.

You can say you support any military action you like. You can disapprove any military action you like. You can politically support anyone from Assad to Trump to Dora the Explorer and you can say so without having to say that you support a military response to what you admit is very likely a false flag. You are rejecting the generally accepted position that a person or group should be attacked based on an unsubstantiated accusation. You are refusing to countenance basic morality and I can only conclude that it is because you don't like that it leads directly to actions being condemned which you would prefer not to condemn. These incidents are used (a) to push public acceptance of military action (b) make a legal case for military action (c) shut down political opposition to military action. You don't like being asked this because you insist it's some sort of gotcha question. It isn't. You admit that there's a high chance it's a false flag. You know that there's a high chance it's a false flag. I cannot imagine that in any other circumstance you would be okay with aggression based on unsubstantiated accusations by the subject's direct enemies. But in this case, if you say so then you would be forced to consider America's response to the allegations to be wrong. And for whatever reason I don't know - this you seem determined to avoid.

Is precisely why I've resorted to being careful with the way my answer can be used and I hope h4rm0ny can now understand why.

Honestly, no - I don't understand. Or at least what I understand is certainly not what you wish me to. You keep acting as if my question is some tricksy trap. It's only a trap if you want to avoid the logical conclusion. To everyone else, it's just a straight-forward consequence. You're only backed into a corner if you think it's a corner. To everyone else it's just "shouldn't go to war on lies". Anyway, the question is clear, direct and you wont answer it. So just stop trying to pretend you will - please. You already re-phrased my question once to something else.

 

[Rroff]

So just stop trying to pretend you will - please. You already re-phrased my question once to something else.

I never pretended I was going to.

Good to know you are perfectly OK with EvilSooty's twisted logic above.

 

[EvilSooty]

Unbelievable.

The US is issuing threats against the Syrian government yet again for alleged CW usage during their recent offensive in Idlib.

The corporate press whores have no problems quickly reporting allegations from Al Qaeda (as that's who Idlib is controlled by), but of course leave out that Douma has been found to be a pack of lies which means this is highly likely ******** too. No evidence of course, just 'trust us, Al Qaeda told us so it must be true'.

'Yes, the last attack was staged, but we are definitely telling the truth this time'.

Our gov will go along with it of course to protect our jihadi pals.

Makes you despair.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics/us-syria-chemical-weapons-warning/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/search?q=syria&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

 

[Amnesia]

I never pretended I was going to.

Good to know you are perfectly OK with EvilSooty's twisted logic above.

Looking at the discussion, he is talking far more sense than you.

How far is that stick

 

[B&W]

Bah big deal Assad got bombed you Muppets are making out like his mother Teresa, honesty I don't know how you get so upset that his assets got bombed.

He is a war criminal, dictator and mostly responsible for the mess his country is in.

Doesn't matter how bad his enemies are, he is still a monster.

Just like Hitler and Stalin had problems with each other, both were still monsters.

 

[B&W]

Unbelievable.

The US is issuing threats against the Syrian government yet again for alleged CW usage during their recent offensive in Idlib.

The corporate press whores have no problems quickly reporting allegations from Al Qaeda (as that's who Idlib is controlled by), but of course leave out that Douma has been found to be a pack of lies which means this is highly likely ******** too. No evidence of course, just 'trust us, Al Qaeda told us so it must be true'.

'Yes, the last attack was staged, but we are definitely telling the truth this time'.

Our gov will go along with it of course to protect our jihadi pals.

Makes you despair.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics/us-syria-chemical-weapons-warning/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/search?q=syria&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

Good, should drop a tactical nuke on Assad's palace while they're at it.