3 ms·

>Of course, the way it was worded was to ensure it was technically correct while sending an entirely different message. I'm confused. Was I misleading? What me

by pydry 5y ago

>Of course, the way it was worded was to ensure it was technically correct while sending an entirely different message. I'm confused. Was I misleading? What message was I supposed to be sending that was so very wrong? For some reason I've noticed this particular topic (I've raised it a few times in the last three weeks) has led to some truly bizarre straw man inferences about what I really meant that I never thought I would have to refute. I am not sure why.

itslennysfault 5y ago
It's because it challenges a strongly held world view and is therefore very hard to swallow.
- notch656a 5y ago
  And the fact that US and some other NATO members do sketchy shit across the world isn't a strongly held world view? In my experience it's not controversial at all to suggest the US does stuff like fund nun-raping El Salvadorian mercs. I get it, I'm american and I love blaming my government too because they pretty often deserve it. People practically salivate to blame everything on the richest NATO nations like US/UK/France but often can't handle the notion that a disgusting dictator got ass-raped via knife by a bunch of pissed off locals and the entire thing wasn't orchestrated step-by-step by some dude in a suit in the Pentagon. Of course I don't deny the US cheered the whole thing on by showering the opposition with equipment and cash, there's nothing the Pentagon and White House love more than a good 3rd world blood orgy.
  - pydry 5y ago
    And now Putin is destroying a country of 40 million people because he believes that this is what WE have planned for him. With good reason. We probably do. Yeah we do love a good 3rd world blood orgy. We will keep loving it until one day it spills over to where we live. By that time it'll be a decade or so too late.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      And do you think destroying Ukraine has improved Putin's chance of avoiding 'what WE have planned for him' (whatever that is)?
notch656a 5y ago
The average person who hears 'NATO allies' presumes the allies who are members of NATO. I get what you actually meant was some (largely domestic to Libya or at least regional) militias who could technically be called a temporary 'ally' (more like useful idiots for destabilizing Libya) of NATO members in the sense they were provided equipment by a few NATO aligned nations. Saying 'loose affiliates receiving equipment from a few nations in NATO' doesn't have quite the ring to it though. But I think you know full well what 'NATO allies' is perceived to be by the general populace, namely the allied member nations of NATO. Of course you can simply deny this, and no one will be able to disprove it.
- pydry 5y ago
  >The average person who hears 'NATO allies' presumes the allies who are members of NATO. Theyre called member states. >who could technically be called a temporary 'ally' I really dont see what else you'd call the Libyan militants other than allies of NATO. It's pretty clear that the facts as they stand without implication of any sort make you uncomfortable.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Theyre called member states. The actual treaty does not call them member states. Member states is one accurate term to use, you can also call them 'NATO allies' or use the words NATO themselves use which is 'NATO countries.' Wikipedia for instance calls the member countries 'NATO allies' to refer to the member states at one point in the 'NATO' page, which you know damn well is what someone thinks of when you say 'NATO allies.' When you ask a 'member state' who their NATO allies are, no one is gonna say "Libyan Militias!" >It's pretty clear that the facts as they stand without implication of any sort make you uncomfortable. The only thing I find 'uncomfortable' is unscrupulous use of deceptive terminology.

by pydry 5y ago

itslennysfault 5y ago

It's because it challenges a strongly held world view and is therefore very hard to swallow.

notch656a 5y ago
And the fact that US and some other NATO members do sketchy shit across the world isn't a strongly held world view? In my experience it's not controversial at all to suggest the US does stuff like fund nun-raping El Salvadorian mercs. I get it, I'm american and I love blaming my government too because they pretty often deserve it. People practically salivate to blame everything on the richest NATO nations like US/UK/France but often can't handle the notion that a disgusting dictator got ass-raped via knife by a bunch of pissed off locals and the entire thing wasn't orchestrated step-by-step by some dude in a suit in the Pentagon. Of course I don't deny the US cheered the whole thing on by showering the opposition with equipment and cash, there's nothing the Pentagon and White House love more than a good 3rd world blood orgy.
- pydry 5y ago
  And now Putin is destroying a country of 40 million people because he believes that this is what WE have planned for him. With good reason. We probably do. Yeah we do love a good 3rd world blood orgy. We will keep loving it until one day it spills over to where we live. By that time it'll be a decade or so too late.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    And do you think destroying Ukraine has improved Putin's chance of avoiding 'what WE have planned for him' (whatever that is)?

notch656a 5y ago

The average person who hears 'NATO allies' presumes the allies who are members of NATO. I get what you actually meant was some (largely domestic to Libya or at least regional) militias who could technically be called a temporary 'ally' (more like useful idiots for destabilizing Libya) of NATO members in the sense they were provided equipment by a few NATO aligned nations. Saying 'loose affiliates receiving equipment from a few nations in NATO' doesn't have quite the ring to it though. But I think you know full well what 'NATO allies' is perceived to be by the general populace, namely the allied member nations of NATO. Of course you can simply deny this, and no one will be able to disprove it.

pydry 5y ago
>The average person who hears 'NATO allies' presumes the allies who are members of NATO. Theyre called member states. >who could technically be called a temporary 'ally' I really dont see what else you'd call the Libyan militants other than allies of NATO. It's pretty clear that the facts as they stand without implication of any sort make you uncomfortable.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Theyre called member states. The actual treaty does not call them member states. Member states is one accurate term to use, you can also call them 'NATO allies' or use the words NATO themselves use which is 'NATO countries.' Wikipedia for instance calls the member countries 'NATO allies' to refer to the member states at one point in the 'NATO' page, which you know damn well is what someone thinks of when you say 'NATO allies.' When you ask a 'member state' who their NATO allies are, no one is gonna say "Libyan Militias!" >It's pretty clear that the facts as they stand without implication of any sort make you uncomfortable. The only thing I find 'uncomfortable' is unscrupulous use of deceptive terminology.