- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1657 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
32 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 13129
So what's happening with North Korea, in you pair's opinion? Frankly, I'm not convinced they even have a nuclear weapon, let alone the miniaturised warhead that's been reported, from a single source, today. However, I'm wildly cynical and hopelessly gullible in equal measure, so what do I know?
|>>|| No. 13131
>Mr Trump told reporters on Tuesday: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the US. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."
I wonder if that counts as a red-line. Considering North Korea likes to poke the
bear eagle this could get very serious over the next few weeks but then people have been saying this for years..
As an aside 20 MOABs expire next year so I guess the Americans might still get their moneys worth.
>Frankly, I'm not convinced they even have a nuclear weapon
Well seismometers around the world have picked up the nuclear tests so there is that. I don't think anyone has yet said that the North Koreans have produced a miniaturised warhead but instead that they have been making rapid progress.
|>>|| No. 13132
>His comments came after a Washington Post report, citing US intelligence officials, said Pyongyang had produced a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles.
Why link an article you didn't read? And no this wasn't edited in.
|>>|| No. 13133
Everything we hear about North Korea is a load of bollocks, even when it's true. It's pretty much just news filler. They'll never really do anything, and nobody is ever really going to do anything to them.
|>>|| No. 13135
North Korea ramped up nuclear enrichment and development after we toppled Gaddafi. I have a slight suspicion that Mr Kim became paranoid that he would be toppled too if he stopped and listened to the west, since they done it to Gaddafi after he re-established amicable relations with the west and stopped trying to build nukes. It seems obvious that it is the only way to keep The Free World™ out of your country.
In any event, they do this every now and again until America comes around and has a private word with them such as, "Mate, stop going mental, we will stop these harsh sanctions and give you rice if you promise to stop it." Then the cycle starts all over again. It is what they have been doing for a few decades now.
|>>|| No. 13136
Ah right, it's war then. I predict North Korea will in the coming months attempt a high altitude nuclear test that will be shot down and things will escalate from there because neither side will find itself able to back down.
Given the frantic noises coming out of China at the moment I doubt they will be getting involved. The big question will be how much pain South Korea is going to go through before this is all over.
|>>|| No. 13139
I'm for freeing slaves so I'm for war. It appears the only way of ending that terrible system is with external means.
Nothing new there. Read Escape From Camp 14 and tell me capitalist imperialism wouldn't be an improvement.
|>>|| No. 13141
You've missed the point of those articles. In fact, that is the title of the second article, North Korea’s Government Is Terrible — And That’s Beside the Point.
|>>|| No. 13142
Given the amount of armament on both sides of the DMZ, any military intervention is likely to result in the near-total obliteration of Seoul, Incheon and Pyongyang, with >10m deaths in the first 48 hours. American involvement would make the conflict far deadlier; Chinese involvement would be outright catastrophic. Even without the threat of nuclear weapons, a new Korean war would almost certainly be the most intense and brutal conflict in human history.
|>>|| No. 13143
It depends- when you think of capitalist imperialism, are you thinking of south Korea, or are you thinking of brown-faced children living on tottering piles of landfill dodging pools of battery acid, trying to make a living by desperately scraping palladium from the burnt carcass of a piece of consumer tech?
|>>|| No. 13144
Those kids would have gotten all the help they need, and their economy would have been propped up if only they had a communist nation trying to make nukes as a neighbour.
|>>|| No. 13145
>with >10m deaths in the first 48 hours
Don't you think that's abit over the top?
Fair point. We like to forget what capitalism actually means for the majority (and what we arrogantly term the "periphery"). I'll try to be a little less bolshie.
|>>|| No. 13147
If the inevitable does happen, it was nice knowing you all, chaps.
|>>|| No. 13149
I used to know a bloke who worked in BBC radio during the 1970s. He reckoned that there was a secret tape kept in the continuity department of every BBC station. If we were expecting a nuclear attack, the continuity announcer would tell listeners to prepare to take shelter according to the advice given in Protect and Survive. If we were expecting a completely unsurvivable attack, they would have played the tape - the Queen saying goodbye to the British people, followed by Elgar's Nimrod. He was probably talking out of his arse, but I always feel uneasy when I hear that piece of music.
|>>|| No. 13150
I can totally believe that they have all that mapped out and planned to be honest. Seems like the right thing to do.
|>>|| No. 13151
I appreciate the idea that there's a plan to play a speech and classical music to a soon-to-be-dead population instead of just nothing.
|>>|| No. 13153
I doubt we will see China siding with the North in the present situation given simply how different things are now compared with 1950. Even during the Korean War the Chinese intervention was not a sure thing and only came about owing the fear that the United States would use the North as a launchpad to topple the regime.
For the American part I doubt they will be so blind as to ignore China either. This won't be the birth of a new American satellite.
>But this is obvious bullshit. The United States doesn’t care about human rights or freedom when deciding which nations to support or oppose — North Korea’s repression is irrelevant to America’s military conflict with the country.
Ah the frantic whataboutism we've come to expect. The reality is this is not just an American crisis but one where the international community has repeatedly drawn lines about the crimes against humanity committed by the North Korean regime (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_02_14_nkorea_unreport.pdf Ch.V). This has an important impact in the post-Cold War era as sovereignty is increasingly viewed as conditional upon the fundamental protection of human rights.
On the other side of the coin the argument that North Korean sovereignty provides an adequate defence is flawed by the repeated past measures by the UNSC such as economic sanctions have failed to address a threat to international peace and security. What follows is a rouge state that at the very least threatens (in words and actions) the sovereignty of South Korea on a regular basis and if that is not accepted one that represents a similar legal controversy to Kosovo where the UNSC is failing to adequately function.
It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to start quoting stupid figures like 10 million in 48 hours. The American involvement in any conflict would immediately provide the kind of air-superiority that precludes the extended threat of North Korean artillery bombardment.
The Economist did a good scenario of a future conflict that puts a figure of 300,000 dead provided Kim can get a few small nuclear weapons through to Seoul but its an attempt at painting a realistic grim outcome:
|>>|| No. 13155
In case you haven't seen them, here are the notorious unaired films explaining how to prepare for a nuclear attack. They would have been broadcast in sequence over the course of several weeks as nuclear tensions escalated. The first films explain the basic principles of nuclear weapons and fallout, escalating through to the practical steps necessary in the event of an attack.
The absolute nadir is the final film, casualties, which explains what to do with a corpse. Patrick Allen narrates the films with a remarkable sense of calm and composure, but you can hear his voice start to waiver in that last film. I imagine that at the end of a long day in a voiceover studio, he was struck by the immense gravity of his task.
|>>|| No. 13156
Fuck Protect and Survive, it's thirty years out of date. Nuclear weapons have not gone away and it's irresponsible for the government not to produce any nuclear attack advice and information for the public, especially in the age of the Internet. By the time it's likely to happen it will be too late to have disseminated the essentials. I want to know how to cope with fallout using 2017 knowledge.
|>>|| No. 13157
I have enough faith that we won't have nuclear war because knowing us it would have happened by now. Launching a nuke on another country is pretty much the equivalent to ending civilisation, because you better believe that nuke will be answered back by someone else, and so on and so forth.
Wars are becoming less physical and more cyber orientated. The only physical wars left are generally in resource rich countries that don't have nukes, and any attempt to get nukes are stifled, essentially thwarting their ability to level up. Nukes are not weapons, they are a defence.
|>>|| No. 13158
I think the grim truth is with 2017 knowledge, we now know there's little point in offering survival advice.
|>>|| No. 13159
Nuclear weapons are largely the same as they were in the 1970s, as are the principles of defending against their effects. Avoid being in line-of-sight with the infrared flash, put out fires as best you can, put something dense in between you and the fallout. Protect and Survive was never actually broadcast, because the government never thought we were close enough to the brink; I'm reasonably confident that a similar batch of films are sitting on a hard drive somewhere in the bowels of whichever department has taken over from the Central Office of Information.
If you take a direct hit then you're fucked, but if you're a few miles downwind of a nuclear blast then your chances of survival depend entirely on your preparation. Fallout is lethal, but its lethality is very short-lived. If you can avoid ingesting any of it for a couple of weeks, you'll probably survive.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us that nuclear blasts are absolutely survivable. Modern weapons have far higher yields, but the lethal radius of a nuclear blast increases only with the square root of the yield. A direct hit on a city centre would still be survivable by most of the people in the suburbs of that city.
|>>|| No. 13160
You sent me on a two-hour bender watching all sorts of PIFs and the like. I went on the Internet, and I found this:
|>>|| No. 13161
The preceding posts have left me feeling an acute sense of dread, but this still made me laugh.
|>>|| No. 13162
Apparently they were made by the same studio that did Charley Says
While haunting (especially that intro/outro electro tune.), now all I can do - whether that's true or not - is imagine a Charley Says for the apocalypse.
Charley says always make sure to put your mummy inside several refuse bags before placing her in the shallow trench for collection...
It's not really that irresponsible. The risk assessment back then (accurately or luckily if you prefer) called it right and farmed out for some cheap animations and some alternate-history fodder pamphlets, but didn't make bomb shelters mandatory or anything. No war, we're all still here and the public finances (and housing market) thank us.
There was that surprisingly creepy Blair-era website about what to do if you notice daft militant wogs or whatever. There was a civil liberties parody of it. Wonder what that was called - it's going to bug me all day now.
|>>|| No. 13165
>If you take a direct hit then you're fucked, but if you're a few miles downwind of a nuclear blast then your chances of survival depend entirely on your preparation.
That all depends.
I've got a mate who was in the military, and apparently there exists a standard procedure for soldiers when they realise that a nuclear weapon has detonated near them. And that is to get your anti-radiation cape out of your backpack and put it on, and then put your gas mask over your face and tighten it.
But my mate told me that the REAL procedure is to not bother with any of that, but to throw away your backpack and run like hell and try to find a hole or a depression in the ground to hide in so the blast wave, if there is one, won't blow you away or incinerate you. Retrieving your cape from your backpack and putting it and your gas mask on properly apparently takes even the most skilled soldier around 10 to 20 seconds. And you can be long dead by then if you follow the standard instruction manual.
To tell you the truth, if this crisis really turns into WWIII, then I will not make any preparations at all. I live in central Manchester, which I believe to be not an important strategic target, but still a main urban target in a nuclear attack on Britain. It'll be over quickly for me, and when you think about it, that's not the worst fate you can meet.
I'm in my 40s, so I have lived through the most exciting parts of my life already. I can die knowing that I've had a good life. The only thing that makes me quite sad is that all this is putting the lives and the well being of all the young people in jeopardy, who should have the same right to live their lives in peace and prosperity as I did.
|>>|| No. 13167
Shitting in the future.jpg
Ex-serviceman here. The advice we had went further and consisted solely of immediately falling on your belt-buckle, arms over head and firmly clench together your arsecheeks as Birmingham blows past (and then comes back again -the air sucks back you see). That flimsy gimp mask they give you will do precisely fuck-all against the gamma radiation produced.
That said I figure Kim has far better places to drop a bucket of sunshine than a post-industrial city halfway across the world. If not then I think most people would still choose to nuke Liverpool.
|>>|| No. 13170
Yeah, the Norks aren't a direct threat because they can't reach us. It's the after-effects that are going to fuck us over.
|>>|| No. 13171
>That said I figure Kim has far better places to drop a bucket of sunshine than a post-industrial city halfway across the world. If not then I think most people would still choose to nuke Liverpool.
I'm not saying Kim would decide to nuke Manchester. But if you consider what the wider ramifications very well might be if Kim nukes Guam as he said he would, and the U.S. retaliates, as it says it would, then there is every reason to get scared. Because then next if Kim still has operational nuclear missiles following a U.S. strike, or maybe just minutes before they would be wiped out by a U.S. attack, he will bomb South Korea. Again, he said he would. And then somewhere along the way, China and Russia as direct neighbours of the graveyard that the Korean peninsula will have become will go head to head with the U.S., not only condemning the nuclear attacks and counterattacks up to that point, but threatening to use direct military action against the U.S. and its NATO allies. Because NATO troops will likely invade North Korea with ground forces. And while the smoldering ashes of Korea and Guam will still be polluting the atmosphere, this could usher in the next round of what will then become a global nuclear standoff. And then in the end, you could very well see Russian nuclear missiles launched against civilian urban targets across the Western Hemisphere.
|>>|| No. 13183
>It's the after-effects that are going to fuck us over.
I don't see how. Cities have been turned to ash before and bigger bombs have been dropped without serious incident - some roughly in the same region.
Maybe the knock on economic impacts will even reduce emissions for a bit. Won't that be groovy.
>I'm not saying Kim would decide to nuke Manchester. But if you consider what the wider ramifications very well might be if Kim nukes Guam as he said he would, and the U.S. retaliates, as it says it would, then there is every reason to get scared. Because then next if Kim still has operational nuclear missiles following a U.S. strike, or maybe just minutes before they would be wiped out by a U.S. attack, he will bomb South Korea.
Or more likely the first wave of NK's nuclear arsenal will be destroyed in transit by some of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world. Following this everything that sticks its head out of a cave or looks like a launchpad will be vaporised by conventional weapons. This all of course being comfortably classed as self-defence following an imminent attack, a right no nation questions.
The signs from China point to neutrality in the event of NK aggression (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-media-idUSKBN1AR005) and Russia has no world-ending interest in the rogue state. Instead while Kim's military is getting kneecapped the UNSC meets to vote on UN sanctioned intervention with China in full knowledge that everyone in the council wants to strike a deal and if one isn't struck the US and SK go in anyway.
What I think will be the real problem and what everyone misses is not just the immediate North Korean artillery barrage but the dirty as fuck war that follows against a nation with a border stuffed with land mines and chemical weapons. I would not want to be a soldier fighting in full NBC gear with agents like Sarin floating around that will kill you horrifically if even one millimeter of skin is exposed. Unless it is just Gulf War I all over again I suppose.
|>>|| No. 13184
It's all fucking horrifying and I don't see how it benefits me or anyone else who isn't heavily involved in political decisions to think about it.
|>>|| No. 13187
That's silly. Why would China happily allow the US so close it to its borders and waters, while allowing millions of refugees running away from war into its country? China's best interest is the status quo.
No war anytime soon, and if there is one, best believe that China will be occupying the North. Not the leaders of the free world.
|>>|| No. 13188
>Why would China happily allow the US so close it to its borders and waters, while allowing millions of refugees running away from war into its country?
Because a rogue state launched a nuclear first strike, the option of opposing intervention effectively disappears at this point. Not that China appears keen on letting any refugees in no matter the result.
>No war anytime soon, and if there is one, best believe that China will be occupying the North. Not the leaders of the free world.
I can't see anyone, much less Trump, having a problem with that. The scenario I envision is simply that China will allow an invasion under a blue flag with the condition that once the Kim regime is gone there is no reason to maintain American bases on the Korean peninsula.
Two nuisances are removed and there is no risk of Shenyang getting turned into a glass. Truth is probably somewhere in-between but you can see how toppling Kim doesn't end in ITZ.
|>>|| No. 13196
Otherwise, is it worth mentioning that for the North Koreans, the US's "forgotten war" is still very much remembered? The worst excesses of the Vietnam War were practised on that poor, beleaguered people, leaving 18 of their 20 cities completely leveled and a million of them dead.
>The war in Korea has already almost destroyed that nation of 20,000,000 people. I have never seen such devastation. I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man, and it just curdled my stomach the last time I was there. After I looked at the wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I vomited … If you go on indefinitely, you are perpetuating a slaughter such as I have never heard of in the history of mankind.
Anthony Herbert (lieutenant colonel)
|>>|| No. 13198
>The scenario I envision is simply that China will allow an invasion under a blue flag with the condition that once the Kim regime is gone there is no reason to maintain American bases on the Korean peninsula.
Except that's unlikely to happen. There are less than a handful of examples where the U.S. retreated from a country that it had occupied in a war or armed conflict. I can only think of Cuba (although the Americans still have Guantánamo), Vietnam, and Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991. You could even say that the U.S. has started wars with one of the secondary goals being to establish a strategic presence in a particular foreign country.
And the Chinese know this. Which is why they will oppose a U.S. or even just a Nato invasion of North Korea. And so will Russia. And I think IF a global nuclear war breaks out between Russia and China on one side and the U.S. and Nato on the other side, it will be because U.S. troops will have invaded North Korea and won't leave. Moreover, the U.S. isn't falling over itself concealing the fact that it is operating a containment strategy towards Russia, with the goal of having the country surrounded on all sides. An increased U.S./Nato military presence in the far east of Russia would only add fuel to the fire. Look what happened when the West instigated and financed the fake revolution in Ukraine.
|>>|| No. 13199
>Look what happened when the West instigated and financed the fake revolution in Ukraine.
6/10. A decent effort that had us waiting until the end for the payoff.
|>>|| No. 13202
The US really are the bad guys aren't they, the more you think about it.
What's worse is that they're not bad guys because they're evil, it's more just because they're fucking myopic cunts who couldn't give two shits about the planet beyond their borders besides the resources it can provide.
At least when we were the bad guys we had the noble goal of uplifting all those street-shitting currywogs. Look how they repaid us.
|>>|| No. 13205
Why is everyone so sure this could actually happen? North Korea's been making threats for years and years. If anything, isn't it just because it's so easy to get a reaction out of Trump that now things are becoming a bit of a stand off?
|>>|| No. 13206
That and their ability to actually launch nukes now, as they couldn't before.
|>>|| No. 13207
I'm out of the loop as I don't get internet much, how much of a certainty is it that they can do this? I mean is it an estimated thing or 100% confirmed?
|>>|| No. 13238
> they're fucking myopic cunts who couldn't give two shits about the planet beyond their borders besides the resources it can provide
One of the most succinct characterisations of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. economy that I have ever read.
Alas, this mindset is in its most fundamental roots based on British colonialism. We started this shit, when we, and other European nations, began exploiting the resources of the American continent for profit. Even after its independence, the United States kept its colonialist ways, by first colonising the rest of the North American continent beyond the thirteen original U.S. states, and then when those resources had been divided up and exploited and the profits from that were dwindling, they moved on to new resources and countries to exploit. This is why the Americans threatened to attack Japan in the 1850s if it didn't open itself up for trade with the rest of the world, this is why you had the Monroe Doctrine which was reinterpreted by the Americans in the late 1800s to mean that South America's resources were theirs for the taking.
It is also why, as few people know, the U.S.'s condition for entering WWII in Europe was that Britain would give up its colonies, which it then did in 1948 as we know. And after WWII, America desperately needed new markets for its products, as it was still reeling from the Great depression, despite a few years of tepid growth of its industrial sector which had been supplying weapons and equipment for U.S. troops. Post-WWII Europe, as it was recovering from the war and its economies were picking up speed again, was a golden opportunity for new demand for American products. You could almost say that without WWII and its aftermath, the U.S. likely would have slid even deeper into an all-encompassing economic depression which could have spelled the end of the country as a whole.
It's also worth reading about the U.S.'s plans to start a war with Britain in the 1930s, which were of course shelved when things began heating up in mainland Europe. But there had been secret plans drawn up in U.S. government circles to invade Canada and claim it as a set of new U.S. states. Also to claim Canada's resources for U.S. economic interests.
So anyway. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the whole rest of the world is simply a provider of resources to be exploited, and a market for U.S. products to be sold and drawn revenue from.
|>>|| No. 13239
I agree with pretty much all of that although I'd say it isn't limited to the U.S. it's the nature of free market Capital.
>As far as Capital is concerned, the whole rest of the world is simply a provider of resources to be exploited, and a market for products to be sold and drawn revenue from.
|>>|| No. 13242
>it isn't limited to the U.S. it's the nature of free market Capital.
What we can truly give the Americans is the fact that they are the number one beacon of market capitalism.
Although there are schools of thought which believe that America is actually much closer to a form of modern-day mercantilism than to a laissez-faire, market-liberal capitalism. Meaning, the U.S. government by some accounts has an unusually active role in ensuring that American businesses thrive at the expense of rival foreign businesses and even entire foreign countries.
If you need any recent proof, just look at the latest round of U.S. sanctions against Russia. Disregarding for a moment the paper-thin justifications that were given, one of the key goals of the new sanctions is to attempt to stifle the Nord Stream II project, which is a Russian-European joint venture to build an additional natural gas pipeline to supply mainland European households and industries with Russian gas. The U.S. sanctions not only give the U.S. government the power to punish European companies who will be part of the Nord Stream II project by harrassing their American branches, but a stated goal in the fine print of the new sanctions is also to promote and create jobs in the American natural gas industry by exporting American gas to Europe.
Also, since you used the words "free market capital"; it is worth examining one of two other classical economic production factors, which is labour. Unlike labour, which is a factor that every single person offers on the job market, (financial) capital that is offered by those who have it is free to zap around the globe literally in nanoseconds. An investor in Mexico can buy and sell shares at the New York Stock Exchange faster than you can take a sip from your tea cup. There are hardly any restrictions to the flow of financial capital from one corner of the globe to another. Likewise, one of the key goals of treaties such as CETA or TTIP is to facilitate strategic long-term investment in foreign businesses.
But when you think how much insurmountable paperwork is involved for a person from Mexico to be able to work legally in the U.S. (or in economic technical terms, for that person to offer their production factor of labour on the American labour market), it is starting to become interesting and you see a pattern. And that is that economic freedom nowadays is almost entirely the freedom of financial capital. It is even in the interest of the freedom of financial capital to have the factor of labour be relatively stationary, with the exception of a handful of highly trained employees who can and will be employed globally. A Mexican labourer working in Mexico, perhaps still for an American company, offers a much greater return on investment than to have that same worker employed in the U.S. doing the exact same job, but with tighter labour laws and without the favourable dollar-peso exchange rate that makes cross-border labour costs a piece of piss.
To sum up, and to cut short this foray into economics 101, the idea and the concept of free market capital has quite a sting in its tail, and you should never see it as an intrinsic value, because it has the potential to hurt those who are on the wrong end of it.
|>>|| No. 13243
>Disregarding for a moment the paper-thin justifications that were given
3/10. Gave yourself away a bit too early this time.
|>>|| No. 13246
No, of course you're right. Russia isn't interfering in Ukraine, isn't throwing its weight around in Syria, and didn't interfere in the election last year. Everything is fine and the Americans are just being silly, right?
|>>|| No. 13252
>Russia isn't interfering in Ukraine
Interfering with what? And who has been interfering? The West and the U.S. started this whole shit by instigating, financing and supporting with secret service personnel a revolution in Ukraine against its democratically elected leader.
>isn't throwing its weight around in Syria
It's worth noting that Russian troops are in Syria at the behest of its elected leader. The Americans violated Syria's sovereignty by simply deploying troops as they saw fit in a sovereign country without permission.
> and didn't interfere in the election last year
And just how exactly did they do that? What did they do, and how did they influence the election's outcome? Even official CIA reports offer nothing but assumptions, a jumping to conclusions and circular reasoning. The "election hack" hypothesis is nothing but a rumour that was started and is being perpetuated by members of the Clinton camp - and anti-Trump Conservatives - because the Washington Establishment's favoured candidate didn't win the elections.
When in reality, this one's on the Obama administration, and Middle America's masses of working class voters for whom the eight years were lost time, and who didn't feel represented by the stone cold decepticonservativism that Hillary Clinton stood for.
And even if, for argument's sake, the Russians "hacked" and influenced the U.S. elections. So what. The U.S. has done the same thing, and oftentimes much more blatantly and overtly, in influencing foreign elections. It has spent an entire century and more financing opposition groups, NGOs and even revolutions in other countries to install leaders that it was more comfortable with. What makes the Americans so special that now all of a sudden, foreign countries influencing U.S. elections is such a bad thing?
|>>|| No. 13255
It is a telling sign of the times that offering an opinion contrasting with received mainstream media wisdom provokes a reaction of "Back to Russia with you, Putinlad".
This isn't worthy of critical discourse as it should still happen.
|>>|| No. 13256
>received mainstream media wisdom
Or, as people who aren't crazy conspiracy nuts call it, reality.
|>>|| No. 13258
I find that if one doesn't want to be called a conspiracy nutter, it helps not to post like a conspiracy nutter.
|>>|| No. 13261
I'm not as au fait with Internet arguing with conspiracy nutters as you apparently are, but why can't you just rebut his (what appear to be) reasonable points about geopolitics, instead of just dismissing him as sucking Putin's cock or whatever.
|>>|| No. 13263
Thank you lad. IF my points are so easily refutable, then how come nobody is refuting them?
It's all too easy to dismiss somebody's arguments as daft loopy conspiracy theory nonsense. But again, if it's such nonsense, then it should be quite easy to call somebody out on it using undisputed facts.
|>>|| No. 13264
I'll rebut his reasonable points when he makes some. He can start with producing actual evidence for his claims (which he won't have), and a theory as to what sort of evidence would prove him wrong.
|>>|| No. 13265
>But again, if it's such nonsense, then it should be quite easy to call somebody out on it using undisputed facts.
You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. If someone has deeply convinced themselves of such nonsense as vaccines causing autism, or the moon landings being called, or the Russia thing being an excuse cooked up by the establishment, it's very difficult to disabuse them of those beliefs. It's the same problem that exists when people escape from cults and take months if not years of deprogramming to return to normal.
|>>|| No. 13267
I take it you are familiar with the concept of confirmation bias. I sense a whole lot of it from your post.
No, don't tell me I am the one suffering from confirmation bias.
|>>|| No. 13269
You want him to produce evidence proving negatives i.e. that Russia hasn't interfered in Ukraine or the US election? You want him to produce evidence proving Russia's troops are in Syria at Assad's request and America's are not?
|>>|| No. 13270
>You want him to produce evidence proving negatives
Yes. If you're one of those idiots who believes the "can't prove a negative" myth, then read it as evidence for the affirmatives in whatever his alternative hypotheses are.
Also, if his position is coherent, he should be able to describe what sort of evidence would show him to be wrong.
>You want him to produce evidence proving Russia's troops are in Syria at Assad's request and America's are not?
Bill Cosby's lawyer is in court at his request. What's that got to do with the substance of the allegations against him?
|>>|| No. 13271
Just to second this lad. I don't really agree, or to be more honest know enough about geopolitics to make a coherent argument one way or the other, but to just dismiss all of this lads >>13252 points as conspiracy nuttiness is pretty lazy.
It could actually be an interesting and enlightening discussion if you're willing to engage in good faith. I realise snarky cunt offs are this place's bread and butter but we do occasionally have a half decent discussion.
|>>|| No. 13272
People rightly dismiss conspiracy nutters because trying to argue with them is a waste of time. That's not laziness. That's efficiency. As has been said, if RTlad wants to provide some evidence to support his assertions, that would be a different matter. But he likely won't, because he likely can't.
|>>|| No. 13273
Well you're free to call it what you want, but from the perspective of someone reading it just seems like a lazy and trite dismissal of views that don't align with your own.
As I say, I'm not nearly well informed enough to really make an argument either way but if you feel you are then do it.
I realise it's a lot easier to just dismiss someone as a loon but I didn't think anything that's been mentioned is obviously that far out in terms of believability. Maybe just my own ignorance though. Feel free to expound on the subject and enlighten.
It's an interesting subject.
|>>|| No. 13274
>views that don't align with your own.
Please don't do that. That's the sort of nonsense that the Trump team pull. You're creating a false equivalence and a false notion of moderation.
>Maybe just my own ignorance though.
Maybe. Just maybe.
|>>|| No. 13275
The ball may be in Russialad's court, but that doesn't stop you being a bit of a cunt.
|>>|| No. 13276
>Maybe. Just maybe.
As I say I'm more than happy to admit my extremely limited understanding on these subjects. I was hoping to stimulate more of an actual discussion and thought maybe you would be willing to contribute more than just snark.
Whatever floats your boat though m8.
|>>|| No. 13277
>Please don't do that. That's the sort of nonsense that the Trump team pull.
Far from it. The Trump school of thought, by using a liberal interpretation of the word "thought", is to make outrageous claims that fall flat on their face the nanosecond somebody with even the most slender grasp on reality makes the effort of fact checking them using even the most basic Internet sources.
This is unlike a debate about such things as America's or Russia's involvement in Ukraine, Syria or wherever, or the hypothesis that the Russians did or did not influence the U.S. elections.
In light of the piss poor and paper thin evidence that the CIA actually provided to implicate Russia in any kind of influencing or hacking at all, I would say the much more outrageous and unsubstantiated claim is that Russia sabotaged the U.S. elections in the first place.
|>>|| No. 13278
>The Trump school of thought, by using a liberal interpretation of the word "thought", is to make outrageous claims that fall flat on their face the nanosecond somebody with even the most slender grasp on reality makes the effort of fact checking them using even the most basic Internet sources.
Oh no, that does them a great disservice. The objectionable part isn't that they keep lying and repeating lies, it's that they try and create an equivalence between their position and that of their opponents. Think Conway's "alternative facts".
>This is unlike a debate about such things as America's or Russia's involvement in Ukraine, Syria or wherever, or the hypothesis that the Russians did or did not influence the U.S. elections.
Not at all. The facts on those matters are fairly well-established. The only people who still believe that Russia were merely reacting to American aggression in Ukraine, or that they're merely accepting an invitation in Syria, or that there was no interference in the election, are the sort of nutters who simply dismiss any contradictory evidence out of hand.
Of course, if you're not one of those people, you're welcome to provide some evidence to support your position. You do have some evidence, right? I mean, we're not asking much of you here. All anyone wants is something to back up your claims that the justification for sanctions was "piss poor and paper thin".
>I would say the much more outrageous and unsubstantiated claim is that Russia sabotaged the U.S. elections in the first place.
More deflection, lad? You can end this easily. Just show us your evidence.
|>>|| No. 13279
> Think Conway's "alternative facts".
This is actually precisely what I meant. You offer up your lies, and even if you call them "alternative facts", they are just extremely poorly thought out lies that don't withstand even the most basic fact checking.
>Not at all. The facts on those matters are fairly well-established. The only people who still believe that Russia were merely reacting to American aggression in Ukraine, or that they're merely accepting an invitation in Syria, or that there was no interference in the election, are the sort of nutters who simply dismiss any contradictory evidence out of hand.
You have a lot of homework to do, lad.
|>>|| No. 13280
>This is actually precisely what I meant.
It is not, however, what you said. Again, the problem isn't the lies, or how flimsy they are. It's presenting the lies and the truth as legitimate alternatives as if they're merely a difference of opinion.
>You have a lot of homework to do, lad.
Still deflecting, lad?
|>>|| No. 13459
Just when you thought things might be calming down...
>North Korean leader says more to come as U.N. condemns missile launch over Japan
>North Korea said Wednesday that the missile it launched over Japan on Tuesday was an intermediate-range Hwasong-12 and that the drill — meant to counter U.S.-South Korean war games — had involved military units “tasked with striking the bases” of American forces in the Pacific.
>More such drills are in store for the U.S. and its allies, the North said.
>The nuclear-armed North sent the missile flying over Hokkaido on Tuesday morning, the first unannounced launch over Japan of a missile designed to carry a nuclear payload. It flew more than 2,700 km before plunging into the Pacific Ocean about 1,180 km east of Hokkaido’s Cape Erimo.
>Residents unsure how to react as North Korean missile flies over Japan
>North Korea’s firing of a missile over northern Japan on Tuesday heightened concerns among citizens, triggering alerts in communities and prompting some to run for cover.
>“The alert told me to evacuate, but I couldn’t think of any building in the town that could withstand missiles. I didn’t know where to go,” said Ichiro Kondo, a 38-year-old fisherman in the town of Erimo in Hokkaido, said to be in the direct path of the missile.
>A 59-year-old elementary school teacher in nearby Aomori Prefecture said he heard an “eerie” howl over the community’s disaster radio network and switched on the television to find that the government had issued a warning. He also felt he had nowhere to run, and in those tense moments he just shut the curtains and tried to stay away from the window as much as possible.
What would you lads do if one morning, when you haven't even gotten out of bed yet, you hear air-raid sirens blaring and a text from the government arrives telling you that a hostile state has launched a (possibly nuclear tipped) ballistic missile towards you? After you switch the kettle on.
I guess I'd roll over, scratch my arse and go back to sleep.
|>>|| No. 13460
My conscience is clear, and my rice is packed. So I'll grab a beer, and watch the attack.
|>>|| No. 13462
Fill my pint mug with tea, go feed the horses.
I reckon the power grid will fail within seconds of the siren starting, if we're typical.
|>>|| No. 13464
It's not even been a week, lads.
>North Korea: Tremor was sixth nuclear test, says Japan
>North Korea has carried out its sixth nuclear test, Japan's foreign minister says. "The government confirms that North Korea conducted a nuclear test after examining information from the weather agency and other information," Taro Kono told reporters.
>North Korean state TV says it will make an "important announcement" shortly. Seismologists earlier detected a tremor in an area where North Korea has conducted previous nuclear tests. The tremor was detected hours after North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was pictured with what state media said was a new type of hydrogen bomb.
>State media said the device could be loaded on to a ballistic missile. Neither claim could be independently verified.
>North Korea says it has successfully tested a hydrogen bomb
|>>|| No. 13465
Christ, it's disgusting how badly C4 news want a war.
|>>|| No. 13468
It's only fair every one gets a nuke. It's inherently racist to say those lesser people are dangerous and that we should only have it.
|>>|| No. 13469
Thankfully it's not a matter of fairness and nobody gives a toss about inherent racism when it comes to things that matter.
|>>|| No. 13470
I don't think you realise how problematic you're being. Check your nuclear privilege.
|>>|| No. 13471
It's only fair, lad. Don't be a hypocrite.
Imagine a world where everyone is armed. People would stop being cunts in general. That's how you build a just and fair world.
|>>|| No. 13472
> Imagine a world where everyone is armed. People would stop being cunts in general.
Until they've had a few bottles of bucky and remember what Kev said about their mam the other week.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]