6 ms·

Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are su

by thaGf 2y ago

Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.

aguaviva 2y ago
Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, my concern is with what is actually happening, you know, in current physical reality. Based in turn on some form of observable evidence. Not with what "might" be happening. Which for some reason, seems to thoroughly flummox people in the "multipolar" crowd. It's like they've bought into this idea that events 40+ years ago establish a magical "pattern" that overrides any need to gather and ascertain the actual truth in the current moment (for example, in terms of what is happening in Syria). So when we ask them why they believe US is, in actual fact, doing a certain bad thing (like causing regime change, say) in country X, despite no visible evidence of such -- it's become quite common for them to simply point out past shenanigans in other countries, and the resulting "pattern" that they see arising from such, as their "basis" for this belief. "Iraq/Vietnam/Chile/etc, therefore everything the US does is also bad, therefore whatever is happening in country X today must be simply the US up to its usual imperial shenanigans, and if you can't see this you must be willfully blind or worse" is the apparent line of thinking here. Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that? No thanks, I've had enough junk food for today.
        LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        > Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. I don't, because up to now, maybe with a few decades delay, most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd call this 'evidence based'.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit crazy conspiracy stuff". Only that they don't see any particular evidence for it. The fact that you're making such an obviously ungrounded implication (or you don't see the huge difference between the two positions) suggests you've become unduly caught up in your own semantically confused internal dialogues. I'd call this 'evidence based'. Except it's not, and in fact you're engaging in very common form of faulty generalization.

by thaGf 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago

Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you can't get that right, after all these years -- how can you hope to make heads or tails out of whatever word salad you've been ingesting in regard to Syria?

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
Their precursors did. Where do you think they came from, and even more so who made that happen?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  That's not how it works. Whatever you think is "really" happening in Syria -- you'll need to point to actual evidence in the current moment. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    I've been referring specifically to > Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. by ThaGf. That is not speculation at all. But one can extrapolate from that point onwards, following a certain behavourial pattern of one specific party. Or maybe just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art,_Truth_and_Politics https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/lecture/ which traces these patterns mostly trough South America, but there is some Iraq in there, too. Anything else? Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that?
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, my concern is with what is actually happening, you know, in current physical reality. Based in turn on some form of observable evidence. Not with what "might" be happening. Which for some reason, seems to thoroughly flummox people in the "multipolar" crowd. It's like they've bought into this idea that events 40+ years ago establish a magical "pattern" that overrides any need to gather and ascertain the actual truth in the current moment (for example, in terms of what is happening in Syria). So when we ask them why they believe US is, in actual fact, doing a certain bad thing (like causing regime change, say) in country X, despite no visible evidence of such -- it's become quite common for them to simply point out past shenanigans in other countries, and the resulting "pattern" that they see arising from such, as their "basis" for this belief. "Iraq/Vietnam/Chile/etc, therefore everything the US does is also bad, therefore whatever is happening in country X today must be simply the US up to its usual imperial shenanigans, and if you can't see this you must be willfully blind or worse" is the apparent line of thinking here. Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that? No thanks, I've had enough junk food for today.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        > Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. I don't, because up to now, maybe with a few decades delay, most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd call this 'evidence based'.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit crazy conspiracy stuff". Only that they don't see any particular evidence for it. The fact that you're making such an obviously ungrounded implication (or you don't see the huge difference between the two positions) suggests you've become unduly caught up in your own semantically confused internal dialogues. I'd call this 'evidence based'. Except it's not, and in fact you're engaging in very common form of faulty generalization.