sproketman
Club Legend
- Aug 6, 2015
- 1,226
- 2,071
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #1,526
Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.
Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.
has always struck me as a faux-intellectual undergraduate with an unhealthy dollop of narcissism
Bit rich from someone who linked to a Breitbart article comparing the advanced civilisation of Carthage to ISIS.Heh. Well, I'm glad you've been paying attention, Sproket.
And seeing as we are exchanging personal opinions here - were I not to exercise my usual Christian forbearance I could say that who knows, when medical science makes brain implants available, you may get up to cruising altitude on these topics. I mean, right now you appear to be still on the runway.
So absent the ability to enter the arena and debate me you stoop to sniping from the sidelines, complete with a mix of Women's Weekly psychobabble.
Pathetic.
Not bad. No offense mate. I'm sure living in Perth is great.
*may view all Freo posters the same.
But the point being, 'Australians' aren't always as economically minded as an urgent agenda. During the process of 'solution' we tend to have slightly differing values to others, religious freaks or not.
Issues are inevitable and importantly the freedom of speech and interwined PC drivel of an overwhelming middle class is almost always evolutionary, rather than correctionary.
The bliss of Australian isolation corresponds with the 'BLISS' of Perth.
I don't disagree with some of the points you make, when I penetrate your somewhat hyperbolic polemic, but the Breitbart article was about mindset - not to be taken completely literally. You may want to acquaint yourself with the range of political nuances driving the various responses to Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in the USA as we head into an election year.
As I mentioned in my post on page 59, I am focusing more on the political culture wars and freedom of speech, in which context the Paris murders have been captured, parsed, predicated and prostituted by the extremist on both sides of the table (Left and Right).
Re Islam per see - my thoughts as referenced in my earlier post.
In the meantime the Islamists are getting a free ride in the MSM.
point proven
It's impossible to debate with a narcissist. The psychopathology allus gets in the way
I'm sorry but I don't understand why you linked the article then?
If the take out was just the US needs a mindset of defeating violent Islam then yeah, I guess. They've had several options on the board for many years and taken none. Saudi Arabia is still the ally of the US and Pakistan still funds the Taliban.
The nuance I'm meant to be looking for is assuming that any of the clowns name checked in that piece have even read Huntington. The sort of nuance where the 'reasonable' candidate is the one who says he's only going to bomb Iran after the first cabinet meeting, as opposed to immediately as as being sworn in as President. There is no nuance. The theme is war. Bombs. More Pentagon, less State Department. Solve Americas problems with force rather than guile because yeehah.
I wasn't defending the city, although it has it's charms. Might have been a bit strong in retrospect.
Australia has always seen a relatively pragmatic politics. Comes with the flavour. The people are smarter than they're given credit for.
I have my issues with the way the current PC debate is being driven but not the general idea. The general principle is a sound one. It's just that in the aim for quick fixes some activists have thrown out first principles. Free speech and the idea that you need to bring the community with you when language has shifted. Partly a fault of a section of identity politics there seems to be a certain combativeness around language within activist groups but when those ideas, bounced around in the echo chamber, are exposed to the general public the response is hostile confusion because people feel they're unfairly being called racists.
The common link is/was the threat - not a comparison between the 2 (as you well know).Bit rich from someone who linked to a Breitbart article comparing the advanced civilisation of Carthage to ISIS.
Re your bolded - not true. Oil reserves are a function of price [the lower the price the less the reserves] but overall the US has greater reserves than Saudi and the Saudi fields (stacked 5 high near the Kuwait border) are getting old and moving into high maintenance.How is that a cliche?
The machinery of global capitalism will fund Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States regardless of US actions. If not America, then China. Or Russia. Or ... join the dots.
You are essentially saying that a form of either Iranian style sanctions (which has not stopped Iran's theocracy and funding of external Shiite terrorists) or Israel style BDS (which harms them in no way) will blunt Saudi Arabia, a country sitting on the largest supply of oil in the world? Come on, man.
The threat isn't even the same in kind. Carthage was a sophisticated civilisation that was the equal of Rome and competed with them for influence in the Mediterranean. Settled societies are easer to be victorious against because a path to victory is clear.The common link is/was the threat - not a comparison between the 2 (as you well know).
PS I appreciate the art of sophistry, but I have to call you out on this one.
The threat isn't even the same in kind. Carthage was a sophisticated civilisation that was the equal of Rome and competed with them for influence in the Mediterranean. Settled societies are easer to be victorious against because a path to victory is clear.
ISIS don't exist in the same way Carthage do. They aren't a society you can attack and whose property you can destroy. You 'wipe out' ISIS and what happens? A new ISIS appears, born out of Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc. Just as Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the 'worst thing in the world'. The only comparison that fits with Rome are the barabarians they struggled to defeat conclusively for as long as they had an empire, and were eventually overrun by.
I don't see any distinction between the structure of ISIS and Carthage in respect of threat impact and nor in respect of fighting and defeating ISIS and its hydra-headed variants - Al Shabaab and Boko Haram and the rest (all part of the virulent strain of Wahabi Islam). They (ISIS etc) have never been taken on by the West in total war mode.
The Romans defeated Carthage by total war. The Allies defeated Germany and Japan by total war. The Roman Empire continued on for another 500 years or so after Carthage but eventually dissolved into decadence and degeneracy and was overrun from within as a result of what was essentially an open borders policy. [Hello, does this ring any bells?]. This eventually disenfranchised the native Romans - the "Roman" in the Roman Empire was lost, and it was the Roman [i.e. one who culturally identified with Rome] who made the Roman Empire what it was. [And any attempt to extrapolate this into today's context attracts the feral attentions of the cultural relativists].
ISIS can be taken out financially - this is already happening at long last. And ISIS and its ragtag savages on the ground could also be taken out physically, in a heartbeat, if there were to be total war and no ROE. Sure, there would likely be significant collateral damage, but if you go to war you go in to win - not to practice the military equivalent of coitus interruptus.
So how far down that Roman road are we? Quite a long way if we look at some of the absurdities currently in play: e.g. the Left's identity-wars warriors seeking to blur sexual boundaries by treating race/gender as some kind of à la carte option: this is certainly decadent in the true dictionary definition. . And quite a long way also by reference to the West's continuing embrace of effete ROE against an enemy who would make mincemeat out of the Marquess of Queensbury.
Like the Romans eventually did, the West seems to have lost the desire to fight a total war against a threat to its/our institutions. So we are, in effect, post- Carthage Rome on the road to kumbaya. And indeed, threats to Western institutions are welcomed by the Marxist deconstructionists who have by now well and truly captured the campuses and the MSM: multiculturalism and the whole illegal immigrant debate is fuelled by their desire to disenfranchise normative America (I write this from a US perspective) and its Western partners, and to take the West down. This PC framework seeks to sanitize and leverage politically the Paris murders - see the Guardian's damage control, for example.
If you understand the Arab/Middle East mindset, emboldened as it is by the virus of radical Islam, then you understand the solution. As I mentioned earlier, the Breitbart article was a device to call into question the western mindset and political will in the face of arguably an existential threat. My take is that there will be a lot more Parises before the political class is forced to take some significant remedial action in order to avoid civil insurrection.
Glad I could give you a laugh but I'm still right. The worst thing France has been criticised for recently is in evicting illegal immigrants forcibly. Whoop de doo.
You said nothing about recently.given their pretty good human rights record