8 ms·

Ah, ok, so that is the only part of all I said that you can pinpoint it's not accurate. Very well, I agree that Erdogan being half mad (so mentally ill from yo

Ah, ok, so that is the only part of all I said that you can pinpoint it's not accurate. Very well, I agree that Erdogan being half mad (so mentally ill from your interpretation) is not easily proved. His speeches and the construction of the new palace (and the reasons given for it: https://www.yahoo.com/news/cockroaches-made-want-palace-says-turkeys-erdogan-150049344.html?ref=gs https://www.yahoo.com/news/cockroaches-made-want-palace-says...) indicate that he shouldn't be totally sane. But I agree it's something difficult to prove. I'm glad you agree with the rest then. That was the important part.

grandalf 10y ago
I do not agree with the rest. I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful. ISIS is a grassroots movement with a goal of Islamic solidarity. ISIS is opposed to US intervention in the region because it views such intervention as harming Islamic solidarity. I do not think that (aside from some demand for Erdogan's loyalty to the US) that being supportive of such a movement in the region is necessarily a bad thing. Of course, the tactics used by ISIS leave a lot to be desired, but so do the tactics used by the US in fighting ISIS, so I am not necessarily prepared to declare ISIS unconditionally morally in the wrong.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  > I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful. // How about because they are unlawfully killing, raping, torturing, people and using violence to impose their form of Islamic Caliphate on unwilling people - doesn't that make it harmful in your opinion?
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > using violence to impose their... Isn't the US using violence (bombs, drones, etc.) to impose its version of things on the region too? I'm not sure how the two are different, other than that the US has a LOT more resources and can spend money on things like "smart bombs" that help convince Americans that we are carefully avoiding civilian casualties -- when in fact the goal is to scare the civilians shitless so they push back against local leaders, etc.
    - tim333 10y ago
      >not sure how the two are different It's good guys with bombs vs bad guys with bombs. If you feel the Islamic State governance is as good as US governance feel free to go hang out with them in Syria and enjoy the wonderful society they are creating. Only be prepared to be machine gunned or similar if you try to leave.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        That is beside the point. The point is why do we need to be involved in fighting ISIS? The US botched a Trillion dollar nation building project in Iraq and created the beginnings of ISIS, and now thanks to ISIS videos and our own government's promoting them we get tons of propaganda telling us to fear them. All governments start out looking like mafias and slowly gain legitimacy as they become powerful enough to start retelling history in a way that makes them look legitimate. The best way for the US to help the people of the middle east would be to incentivize ISIS to undertake humanitarian projects and to build much-needed physical and government infrastructure. Instead, we decide to make them villains and to help them destroy the region, while also using them as an excuse to continue meddling in the region. The only reason to try to prevent ISIS taking larger control over the middle east is for the US to keep it for itself. This is only part of the national interest because of the oil resources there. It's amazing how low we are willing to sink to protect our ability to extract oil. Let ISIS create a new government and horde the oil. We should be spending the Trillions of dollars on alternative energy research and education, etc. Oil is the past. The US has such a large stake in the middle east that it has forced us to terrorize the region for decades and to layer on such a thick layer of propaganda that most Americans hate and fear it almost instinctively. This is a failed strategy and it is also nearly obsolete. It's odd to watch us keep doubling down on it with every new president.
        tim333 10y ago
        Well, each to their own. Personally I don't like rape slavery and genocide and am just fine with killing the fuckers.
- unprepare 10y ago
  >I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful Wow. You dont see how video taping beheadings, raping tens of thousands of women, killing millions, selling stolen oil, and suicide bombings are 'necessarily harmful' I dont know that ive ever encountered someone with such a mispointed moral compass, absolutely amazing what people can justify in their heads.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    The tactics used by ISIS are quite barbaric. But so are the tactics used by the US. The two are not equivalent, but I'd hope that the side with millionfold more resources would hold itself to a slightly higher standard. What criteria would you impose upon a grassroots political movement in the middle east? Is it allowed to use force? Should it invest in smart bombs before proceeding to get involved in conflict? There is a tremendous asymmetry of force between the US and ISIS. Both sides use propaganda, both sides try to scare and intimidate civilians into supporting their cause. To claim that a suicide bombing of civilians is morally worse than a drone attack on civilians is to be completely deluded. That one side can afford to send in drones that are controlled by pilots thousands of miles away does not matter to the victims of the attack, nor do the details of the decisions that led a suicide bomber to volunteer. The point is, attacks on civilians are always intended to break the will of the civilians to support their side... the goal is for people to be drifting off to sleep at night and to be startled and fearful at every noise, lest it is an attack (suicide bomber or drone). It's completely unreasonable to expect ISIS to hold itself to first world standards (drones, smart bombs) when fighting in such an asymmetrical battle. The US itself throws out its moral standards when victory is uncertain. So unless you think ISIS ought to just surrender and give up, there isn't really any other way for asymmetrical conflict to occur without one side using tactics that the other side's population deems morally reprehensible. The absence of this obvious realization comes from the propaganda nature of all the news about ISIS. We are supposed to oppose ISIS because ISIS opposes US intervention in the region, and ISIS poses a threat to the US hawkish vision for how it wants to reshape the middle east. As an American, I'm not sold on the idea that the US should be meddling in the middle east, and so I choose not to buy into the propaganda about ISIS. I do not support ISIS, but I think that all political organizations start out looking like groups of thugs and gradually become less violent and help with the basic needs of their constituents.

grandalf 10y ago

I do not agree with the rest. I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful. ISIS is a grassroots movement with a goal of Islamic solidarity. ISIS is opposed to US intervention in the region because it views such intervention as harming Islamic solidarity. I do not think that (aside from some demand for Erdogan's loyalty to the US) that being supportive of such a movement in the region is necessarily a bad thing. Of course, the tactics used by ISIS leave a lot to be desired, but so do the tactics used by the US in fighting ISIS, so I am not necessarily prepared to declare ISIS unconditionally morally in the wrong.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
> I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful. // How about because they are unlawfully killing, raping, torturing, people and using violence to impose their form of Islamic Caliphate on unwilling people - doesn't that make it harmful in your opinion?
- grandalf 10y ago
  > using violence to impose their... Isn't the US using violence (bombs, drones, etc.) to impose its version of things on the region too? I'm not sure how the two are different, other than that the US has a LOT more resources and can spend money on things like "smart bombs" that help convince Americans that we are carefully avoiding civilian casualties -- when in fact the goal is to scare the civilians shitless so they push back against local leaders, etc.
  - tim333 10y ago
    >not sure how the two are different It's good guys with bombs vs bad guys with bombs. If you feel the Islamic State governance is as good as US governance feel free to go hang out with them in Syria and enjoy the wonderful society they are creating. Only be prepared to be machine gunned or similar if you try to leave.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      That is beside the point. The point is why do we need to be involved in fighting ISIS? The US botched a Trillion dollar nation building project in Iraq and created the beginnings of ISIS, and now thanks to ISIS videos and our own government's promoting them we get tons of propaganda telling us to fear them. All governments start out looking like mafias and slowly gain legitimacy as they become powerful enough to start retelling history in a way that makes them look legitimate. The best way for the US to help the people of the middle east would be to incentivize ISIS to undertake humanitarian projects and to build much-needed physical and government infrastructure. Instead, we decide to make them villains and to help them destroy the region, while also using them as an excuse to continue meddling in the region. The only reason to try to prevent ISIS taking larger control over the middle east is for the US to keep it for itself. This is only part of the national interest because of the oil resources there. It's amazing how low we are willing to sink to protect our ability to extract oil. Let ISIS create a new government and horde the oil. We should be spending the Trillions of dollars on alternative energy research and education, etc. Oil is the past. The US has such a large stake in the middle east that it has forced us to terrorize the region for decades and to layer on such a thick layer of propaganda that most Americans hate and fear it almost instinctively. This is a failed strategy and it is also nearly obsolete. It's odd to watch us keep doubling down on it with every new president.
      - tim333 10y ago
        Well, each to their own. Personally I don't like rape slavery and genocide and am just fine with killing the fuckers.
unprepare 10y ago
>I do not see how his support of ISIS is necessarily harmful Wow. You dont see how video taping beheadings, raping tens of thousands of women, killing millions, selling stolen oil, and suicide bombings are 'necessarily harmful' I dont know that ive ever encountered someone with such a mispointed moral compass, absolutely amazing what people can justify in their heads.
- grandalf 10y ago
  The tactics used by ISIS are quite barbaric. But so are the tactics used by the US. The two are not equivalent, but I'd hope that the side with millionfold more resources would hold itself to a slightly higher standard. What criteria would you impose upon a grassroots political movement in the middle east? Is it allowed to use force? Should it invest in smart bombs before proceeding to get involved in conflict? There is a tremendous asymmetry of force between the US and ISIS. Both sides use propaganda, both sides try to scare and intimidate civilians into supporting their cause. To claim that a suicide bombing of civilians is morally worse than a drone attack on civilians is to be completely deluded. That one side can afford to send in drones that are controlled by pilots thousands of miles away does not matter to the victims of the attack, nor do the details of the decisions that led a suicide bomber to volunteer. The point is, attacks on civilians are always intended to break the will of the civilians to support their side... the goal is for people to be drifting off to sleep at night and to be startled and fearful at every noise, lest it is an attack (suicide bomber or drone). It's completely unreasonable to expect ISIS to hold itself to first world standards (drones, smart bombs) when fighting in such an asymmetrical battle. The US itself throws out its moral standards when victory is uncertain. So unless you think ISIS ought to just surrender and give up, there isn't really any other way for asymmetrical conflict to occur without one side using tactics that the other side's population deems morally reprehensible. The absence of this obvious realization comes from the propaganda nature of all the news about ISIS. We are supposed to oppose ISIS because ISIS opposes US intervention in the region, and ISIS poses a threat to the US hawkish vision for how it wants to reshape the middle east. As an American, I'm not sold on the idea that the US should be meddling in the middle east, and so I choose not to buy into the propaganda about ISIS. I do not support ISIS, but I think that all political organizations start out looking like groups of thugs and gradually become less violent and help with the basic needs of their constituents.