• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

monkeybarry said:
It still happens, just not in "the west"....so is easily overlooked.
Religion is a tool of mass murder and control (possibly with Sikhism and Buddhism being exceptions)
Click to expand...

They are kicking off over in Burma at the moment. The worse for me are the harry chrismas those cnuts followed me round a v festival in the 90's chanting and trying to force food down my mouth, one even tried to get in my tent with me and wet wendy.
 
I'm a non practising Pastafarian, but my second team is the Church of SubGenius.

On an earlier point, Northern Ireland was a political conflict primarily not a religious one. The parties were divided by religion though religion was not the motivation. The main point stands though. My GHod is better than your GHod is going to be the reason behind a lot of deaths for a long long time. I can't see what could happen that would significantly alter the thinking of so many people as to change this. I suppose (a) aliens may come along show us the error of our ways (b) an actual GHod comes along and resolves the argument or (c) we blow the brick out of each other and a few smart ones are left.
 
A Swedish man has been arrested by counter-terrorism police after getting off a flight at Stansted Airport, the Metropolitan Police said.

The passenger, who is 34, arrived on a flight from Stockholm which landed at 08:00 GMT on Tuesday.

He was arrested on suspicion of having material likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, police said.

He is being questioned at a police station in Essex

I can't wait to see his name released I bet its Muhammad Sheikh Al Burj or something
 
Listening to that clam makes my fudging blood boil.. Self centred, deluded, fudging hypocrite.. Hope he's left to rot in jail for the remainder of his miserable pathetic life.
 
i met a bloke at work, normal, worldly, can talk sports other than baseball, doesn't fall over after 2 pints, so unlike most yanks but then i find out he loves cats, has 3 of them, FFS, definitely a wrong'un now.
 
Rorschach said:
I'm a non practising Pastafarian, but my second team is the Church of SubGenius.

On an earlier point, Northern Ireland was a political conflict primarily not a religious one. The parties were divided by religion though religion was not the motivation. The main point stands though. My GHod is better than your GHod is going to be the reason behind a lot of deaths for a long long time. I can't see what could happen that would significantly alter the thinking of so many people as to change this. I suppose (a) aliens may come along show us the error of our ways (b) an actual GHod comes along and resolves the argument or (c) we blow the brick out of each other and a few smart ones are left.
Click to expand...

Because there is a flaw in the logic of allowing certain beliefs

- You believing your actions are determined by your particular imaginary friend = no issue
- You believing MY (or anyone else's) actions are determined by your particular imaginary friend = big problem

Two major problems in the world

- People are inherently bricky (see comic below), we have to work at being decent and it should be seen as an achievement, not threatened to be so (by law, religion, etc.), nor accepted to just be an asshat
- Labels, white/black, conservative/liberal, british/american, millennials, religion are all false labels, and it makes it easy for people to manipulate the tribal/pack tendancies we naturally have. Whenever you see agendas being pushed by fear/hate/national pride, look long and hard enough and you will find some small group of people that will profit in the end.

Monsters-Poorly-Drawn-Lines.png
 
I find generally people want to do the right thing, but don't want to standout and prefer to go with the flow, which in turn lets the bricks set the agenda. I try not to put people in categories, but groups always seem to bring the worst out of some people.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I find generally people want to do the right thing, but don't want to standout and prefer to go with the flow, which in turn lets the bricks set the agenda. I try not to put people in categories, but groups always seem to bring the worst out of some people.
Click to expand...

Going with the flow is for wimps!:D
 
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said a reported chemical attack in Syria was staged by foreign agents.

The US and France have said they have proof it took place, and, alongside the UK, they are considering launching military retaliation against Syria.

Russia, a Syrian ally, has warned the US that air strikes risk a new war.

Independent chemical weapons inspectors are en route to the Eastern Ghouta area to look for evidence. They are expected to arrive on Saturday.

During a press briefing on Friday, Mr Lavrov said he had "irrefutable evidence" that the attack was staged as part of a "Russophobic campaign" led by one country, which he did not name.

Russia has requested a United Nations meeting in New York later in the day, but this has not yet been confirmed.

The White House says it is continuing to assess intelligence and talk to its allies on how to respond.

The delegation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will start its investigations on Saturday, but, to ensure their safety, few details are expected to be released about their movements.

Why is the West considering military action?
_100832668_strikecomposite.png
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionWestern leaders have been planning a response to Saturday's suspected chemical attack
The call for action comes after a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Douma in the Eastern Ghouta on Saturday, which killed dozens of people, according to opposition activists, rescue workers and medics.

Chemical weapons attacks are suspected to have taken place in Syria before. Last year, the US launched a retaliatory strike after one was said to have taken place in Khan Sheikhoun.

President Bashar al-Assad's government - which receives military backing from Russia - has denied involvement in any chemical attack, calling the reports "fabricated".

After six weeks of heavy fighting and an estimated 1,700 civilian deaths in the Eastern Ghouta region, the Syrian government is now said to have control of the area, which lies just outside Damascus.

The final evacuations of about 4,000 remaining Islamist fighters and civilians continued on Friday, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring organisation.

Is there proof of the recent 'chemical attack'?
The Violations Documentation Center (VDC), which records alleged violations of international law in Syria, said bodies were found foaming at the mouth, and with discoloured skin and burns to the eyes.

On Thursday, unnamed US officials said they had blood and urine samples from victims which had tested positive for chlorine and a nerve agent, according to NBC News.

The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Hayley, told the network: "We definitely have enough proof, but now we just have to be thoughtful in our action."

French President Emmanuel Macron also said he had "proof" that the Syrian government had attacked Douma with chemical weapons, without giving further details.

p063rp8d.jpg


Media captionUnverified video shows children being treated after the alleged gas attack
In the UK, cabinet ministers agreed that it was "highly likely" the Assad regime was responsible for the alleged attack and said the use of chemical weapons must not "go unchallenged".

During a phone call late on Thursday, UK Prime Minister Theresa May and US President Donald Trump agreed on the need to deter chemical weapon use in Syria.

They agreed to "keep working closely" on the issue, Mrs May's office said in a statement.

What has Trump said about the attack?
p0643nyw.jpg


Media captionTrump: Decisions on Syria will be made "fairly soon"
On Sunday, the day after the attack, the US president said Russian President Vladimir Putin bore responsibility for the "atrocity" in rebel-held Douma, because of his support for the Syrian government.

Mr Trump, who has cancelled a planned trip abroad, has been canvassing support for strikes from the leaders of France and the UK.

On Wednesday he said the missiles were "coming", but on Thursday he tweeted that he had "never said when". It "could be very soon or not so soon at all", he said.

He later told reporters at the White House: "We're having a meeting today on Syria... We have to make some further decisions. So they'll be made fairly soon."

Also on Thursday, US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis told a congressional panel: "I believe there was a chemical attack and we are looking for the actual evidence."

What is Russia's position?
Russia has described the reports of a chemical attack as a "provocation" designed to justify Western intervention.

"The immediate priority is to avert the danger of war," Moscow's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Thursday.

He accused Washington of putting international peace at risk and said the situation was "very dangerous".

_100835664_syria_russian_defences_640-nc.png

_97415642_007_in_numbers_624.png

Senior Russian figures, including the head of the military, have warned that US missiles will be shot down and their launch sites targeted if Russian personnel come under threat.

On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich criticised Mr Trump's rhetoric.

"We cannot depend on the mood of someone on the other side of the ocean when he wakes up," the Tass news agency quoted him as saying
 
This post should probably go in the politics thread or the Russia one where we were discussing Syria. But it's here because the scale of unnecessary destruction in Syria is shocking.

This post is controversial, it doesn't particularly follow the dominant Western narrative, or that of the BBCs Syria: the world's war, which I just watched, although this contains hints of the narrative I discern after seeing this unfold from 2010. Imv Syria was destroyed - 400,000 killed and 10m displayed, cities levelled - largely because of the incompetence of Western secrete services and Western politicians. The scale of the pain and suffering endured, to me makes this totally sickening, and the thread title sums up my feelings on it.

The BBC film doesn't go into it much, but Hillary Clinton has blood on her hands imv. How she intervened in Libya (no doubt with the best intentions) and then the way she gave the green light for a funded civil war in Syria around the same time (condemning Assad and stating it was time for him to go) could almost be considered a war crime. Clinton, probably inadvertently, legitimised the funding of a war. Prior to that the CIA and other Gulf countries were meddling, trying to help behind the scenes and see if revolution in Syria was possible, but after Clinton made her statement condemning Assad, it gave a green light, and funding poured into anti-Assad groups, from US, Gulf states, and from the UK too.

But all the West and Gulf states did was help to create and perpetuate a war. The funding of anti-Assad groups wasn't done with care, or with a plan. What's more, prior to this, Assad was regarded in intelligence circles as having potential as a moderniser. He was certainly a better option in charge than many other Despots and provided some stability in a largely unstable region. Assad was Western educated and most people who knew, believed we were better off sticking with the devil we knew. That that is the likely outcome anyway, reinforces the folly of it all.

Yet the West funded and gave arms to revolutionaries, just enough to create a stalemate of war. At the same time intelligence agencies and politicians all knew that the type of intervention we were giving was hopeless. All it was doing was causing more deaths. But they kept doing it. We knew we won't going to bring about 'regime change' giving guns to revolutionary (often fundamentalist) groups. Yet we, the US and others, continued, perpetuating more violence, death and destruction.

The western politicians who did this, especially H Clinton are the antithesis of these Syrian giants of bravery
Fire fighters, they stayed to protect their people while others got out. For this many lost their lives. On the other hand H Clinton, William Hague and others have remained at arms length, ignorant of past lessons, and in denial of the crucial role they played in the destruction of so much.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely the west did not find the answer I also agree that the west should not have bothered trying anything but stood aside as Syria committed genocide against its own people.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Absolutely the west did not find the answer I also agree that the west should not have bothered trying anything but stood aside as Syria committed genocide against its own people.
Click to expand...

There's no denying the Syrian state's brutal police tortured people and were oppressive. But the Syrian state wasn't involved in 'genocide' prior to the war, and depending on your definition, it's debatable whether they were engaged in genocide during it, through the use of chemical weapons is clearly grounds. Once war starts is a fuking mess. Fighting in cities is often indiscriminate, especially if war technologies are limited and crude as the Syrian state's was.

What is crazy is Clinton and the West, swept up in the Arab spring gave their blessing and resources to bringing down Assad. They totally ignored very recent past lessons in Afganistan and Iraq. Most of the arms we provided went to IS like groups. A few years later the UK, the US, France etc, all agreed to bomb these fundamentalist groups who were fighting Assad. In other words, the rich nations who had funded and armed these anti-Assad groups then tried to destroy them.

Yet the focus is always on Russia or the evil dictator. The folly and horror of the US, Arab states etc giving arms indiscriminately to Syrian groups, who then probably sold them to IS (if they weren't IS anyway); causing huge bloodshed and destruction, is a footnote in the Wests telling of the story.

Where is the accountability for these actions that did so much to make this war? Why do those who look for war crimes not highlight the incompetence of an inventionist Gulf and West who perpetuated all of this death destruction? Far easier to highlight a Despot and Russia than face the embarrassing, incompetent and tragic reality.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
There's no denying the Syrian state's brutal police tortured people and were oppressive. But the Syrian state wasn't involved in 'genocide' prior to the war, and depending on your definition, it's debatable whether they were engaged in genocide during it, through the use of chemical weapons is clearly grounds. Once war starts is a fuking mess. Fighting in cities is often indiscriminate, especially if war technologies are limited and crude as the Syrian state's was.

What is crazy is Clinton and the West, swept up in the Arab spring gave their blessing and resources to bringing down Assad. They totally ignored very recent past lessons in Afganistan and Iraq. Most of the arms we provided went to IS like groups. A few years later the UK, the US, France etc, all agreed to bomb these fundamentalist groups who were fighting Assad. In other words, the rich nations who had funded and armed these anti-Assad groups then tried to destroy them.

Yet the focus is always on Russia or the evil dictator. The folly and horror of the US, Arab states etc giving arms indiscriminately to Syrian groups, who then probably sold them to IS (if they weren't IS anyway); causing huge bloodshed and destruction, is a footnote in the Wests telling of the story.

Where is the accountability for these actions that did so much to make this war? Why do those who look for war crimes not highlight the incompetence of an inventionist Gulf and West who perpetuated all of this death destruction? Far easier to highlight a Despot and Russia than face the embarrassing, incompetent and tragic reality.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I don't think the US (the people who run it, anyway) wants peace. They spend over $700 billion per year on their defence budget. The beneficiaries of that spend have to justify it somehow. So perpetual war is just fine with them I think. Arm a group, then fight the same group somewhere down the line. It's been going on since forever it seems.
 
While I'm sure many on here would not agree with any of what is said in this film, I found it to be exceedingly interesting:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back