2 explosions in Manchester Arena - CONFIRMED Fatalities.

[AeneasBK]

I understand fully why they wanted to prevent escalation in iran.

So over the "protection of financial interests" (the oil wells) you think intervention was a benevolent attempt to keep the area stable.

Have you met "people"?

If you are suggesting, in the global backdrop post WW2, that Iran and the surrounding areas were going "tits up" then I think you are arrogantly downplaying what went on in the Western World during WW2, such as, but not limited to, Hiroshima, and The Holocaust. By any standards, things were quite a lot more civilised and humane there :P

[Deleted]

So over the "protection of financial interests" (the oil wells) you think intervention was a benevolent attempt to keep the area stable.

Have you met "people"?

If you are suggesting, in the global backdrop post WW2, that Iran and the surrounding areas were going "tits up" then I think you are arrogantly downplaying what went on in the Western World during WW2, such as, but not limited to, Hiroshima, and The Holocaust. By any standards, things were quite a lot more civilised and humane there :P

Have you actually read anything of what I wrote?

Iran had a starting islamist dictator breaking down the democrasy (basically a 1950s iran version of erdogan). Hitler did caused a lot of trouble by starting out the same way not 10 years before that (1932-something nsdap abolished parliament).

How am I downplaying ww2 when I say things like

Our long past is bloody and horrendous, theres a great potential for evil in all of us

or that I'm using the horrors of ww2 as an argument for the western intervention.

Please do elaborate, am I not acknowledging the horrors you felt the need to list?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, Americans voted in Bush Jr because of their religious indoctrination and he went and shat on the middle east on false pretenses. Let's not pretnd we're somehow politically superior here :P

If you're saying rural american education levels are equal with mainland turkey's level then I suspect you have some unsuspecting surprises in your future.
I

[AeneasBK]

Have you actually read anything of what I wrote?

Iran had a starting islamist dictator breaking down the democrasy (basically a 1950s iran version of erdogan). Hitler did caused a lot of trouble by starting out the same way not 10 years before that (1932-something nsdap abolished parliament).

How am I downplaying ww2 when I say things like or that I'm using the horrors of ww2 as an argument for the western intervention.

Please do elaborate, am I not acknowledging the horrors you felt the need to list?

To be fair, all I'm really saying is "I disagree with the motives of the British government (who were pretty skint still) for intervening in Iran, I think it was financially motivated"; you're welcome to your opinion of some kind of "world police" movement. The arrogance comment is simply for thinking that Westerners in the 50's could look at Iran and think "Oooh we should nip that in the bud, or some nasty shit might start, and that would be terrible for all those innocent people". If anything it would be "Better step in before the Russians do".

Don't get me wrong, Western governments of the 90's onwards could potentially have done a similar thing under those premises...

[Independent voter]

To be fair, all I'm really saying is "I disagree with the motives of the British government (who were pretty skint still) for intervening in Iran, I think it was financially motivated"; you're welcome to your opinion of some kind of "world police" movement. The arrogance comment is simply for thinking that Westerners in the 50's could look at Iran and think "Oooh we should nip that in the bud, or some nasty shit might start, and that would be terrible for all those innocent people". If anything it would be "Better step in before the Russians do".

Don't get me wrong, Western governments of the 90's onwards could potentially have done a similar thing under those premises...

Better yet, Iran was destabilized by the creation of Israel. Britain was worried about the privatization of oil fields that it own in Iran. The US had a huge surplus of oil at that time.

The Soviets wanted a sea port in a very strategic area.

It was the Cold War.

[Deleted]

To be fair, all I'm really saying is "I disagree with the motives of the British government (who were pretty skint still) for intervening in Iran, I think it was financially motivated"; you're welcome to your opinion of some kind of "world police" movement. The arrogance comment is simply for thinking that Westerners in the 50's could look at Iran and think "Oooh we should nip that in the bud, or some nasty shit might start, and that would be terrible for all those innocent people". If anything it would be "Better step in before the Russians do".

Don't get me wrong, Western governments of the 90's onwards could potentially have done a similar thing under those premises...

I don't see why it has to be an or or sort of situation; there's nothing wrong with a win win - or economical reasons. Why are you so intent of being pessimistic towards western actions? Did the west steal your candy when you were young? Do you think so little of our ideals that we'd deny other countries of them?

We've done a lot of crappy things in our history, and every sane person (which I like to think is still holds the majority) in the west knows and reckognises we've made and are making a lot of mistakes. But we try to be as open about these things as possible, democrasy is the closest thing to a fair governance we've gotten. Looking at other continents/countries I don't see how you can justify your pessimism, especially not when compared to say, stalin's russia.

[AeneasBK]

Looking at other continents/countries I don't see how you can justify your pessimism, especially not when compared to say, stalin's russia.

I guess it would be the dispelling of that naivety which tells you "It happened in history, and times have changed, people are wiser now"; by the actions of current global leaders in the past 15 years (half of) my life. People do it "for the money"; or very occasionally "for the power and the glory" (I'm not suggesting *EVERY* human action is motivated by these, just that the kind that overthrows kingdoms tends to be ). In the case of Iran it was a bit of both.

[Deleted]

And so close to making an argument, but alas no.

I'm really convinced, this is your argumentation in a nutshell .

Turkey is an educated country.
You disagreeing with their choices of elected officials does not make choosing them any more nonsensical than you choosing your leaders.

Haha dude, that website! Where did you find that? That is one step before writing some stuff on a napkin. Only in 1975 65% of all women were illiterate in turkey.

as for them making dumb dumb choices somehow not being nonsensical, yeah- that totally is a thing, that's how choices usually work actually.theres a good choice and a bad one. You are obviously from some snowflake generation where everything must run in rainbows and butterflies, but when you look at what attaturk's secularism has brought turkey it is objectively stupid to break it down. But i dont have to convince you of that- you can just see the stupid shit happen on the news, i hope you remember this conversation then.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it would be the dispelling of that naivety which tells you "It happened in history, and times have changed, people are wiser now"; by the actions of current global leaders in the past 15 years (half of) my life. People do it "for the money"; or very occasionally "for the power and the glory" (I'm not suggesting *EVERY* human action is motivated by these, just that the kind that overthrows kingdoms tends to be ). In the case of Iran it was a bit of both.

I like to think that through the power of democrasy we filter out the excessive crazyness in our leaders , in general. So while i dont always agree with who we elect- the campaigns are a pretty brutal getting process. On top of that the mandate is usually short enough to not go full crazymode with it.

Now let none of these 'safety measures' exists in theocratic rule (which is imo full invisible man in the sky crazytown monkeyfactory) or with the communistic party a la china - or north koreas jong un dynasty

[mittacc]

There's nothing especially terrible about it in and of itself. It's just that people love to jump to that conclusion anytime something happens, even before it's clear if it was a terrorist attack. It makes the bias of their judgment abundantly clear.

It's almost always clear, you know it, we know it, everyone know it. At this point we should assume that this is the case by default since it's the norm.

[mittacc]

What exactly do you lose by waiting a few hours to find out what actually happened before launching into a tirade about Muslims?

I don't but why do you fiercly try to state that it's not the case when it's most likely the case? I wouldn't assume such things if they weren't the norm. People like you do it every time and are pretty much always proven to be arguing against a lost cause. If there's a long quene of the highway during the time most people go to/from work do you think that the cause is because a lot of people are trying move themselves by road or has there been a major accident down the road?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a logical error. You are assuming i agree with your claim.

Personally, i believe this is a false flag terrorist attack.

I am stripping you of your agency if i were to assume you agree with the above statement. In logical discourse, these are one of the few things i automatically concede to you!

Are you saying it's not the norm?

[Floopa]

no idea why they'd release cctv footage of him, what the fuck is the point in that

jfc

[Moon-Man]

https://twitter.com/search?q=Manches...78631267340288

for latest info.


police have confirmed large number of fatalities.


CONFIRMED islamic terror attack.


nice of mods/ other deniers to carry on pretending that this is not confirmed and trying to prevent relevant debates from happening.

Scary mentality.

ISIS have claimed responsibility. Please STOP saying there is no proof or evidence suggesting it was a islamic terror attack. there are plenty of sources of information to show that it was.

stop spreading misinformation to fuel your denial to the truth.


Condolences to people/families affected. It seems no matter how many people are killed there are always people will jump to defend terrorists.

Thats Lefties for ya. They are delusional beyond help. They are the VERY definition of LUNACY. Their own ideas are harmful to others. Infact, their ideas are Terrorism material now.

Any sane, or any sense of reason, decency, will lean or support Right wingers (or Trump). Lefties are a lost cause, some will come to their senses, but they are just coal burners, they hold NO value to humanity. They are zombies, incapable of free thinking. It is like they LOST their individuality, entirely.


Lefties are no better than ISIS itself. Just as harmful as any terrorists. Modern Leftis, not classical Lefties. Classical Lefties would still vote for Trump. They have sense.


Remeber folks: Antifa, Modern-age Lefties=Fascists, and terrorists.


[Infracted]

[AeneasBK]

They are the VERY definition of LUNACY.

Something ironic about your username and this comment

- - - Updated - - -

no idea why they'd release cctv footage of him, what the fuck is the point in that

jfc

The media is, willingly or otherwise, complicit in ISIS' terror campagin, through grossly irresponsible resporting.

[primalmatter]

What exactly do you lose by waiting a few hours to find out what actually happened before launching into a tirade about Muslims?

Why waste the time?

The score is what?

3 to 5000?

Call me a betting man for taking the insane gamble that it wasn't a Amish guy that blew himself up.

[mittacc]

What? You are coming out of left field with this reply. Please reread my post in conjunction with rereading the post i replied to.

I said "It's almost always clear, you know it, we know it, everyone know it. At this point we should assume that this is the case by default since it's the norm."

You replied with "This is a logical error. You are assuming i agree with your claim."

Implying you don't agree with my statement. So I ask again - is this the norm or not?

[Deleted]

Why waste the time?

The score is what?

3 to 5000?

Call me a betting man for taking the insane gamble that it wasn't a Amish guy that blew himself up.

Why is it a waste of time?
What time do we earn by not developing conjectures, and just waiting?
Why do we need an instant opinion on everything?
etc.

We could argue that throwing bets doesn't really mater. Some of the people taking bets would be wrong, end of, right?.

When the thread started, we didn't know much. Reports were conflicting (one or two explosions, explosions or just bangs, stampedes and pink balloons, just footage of people running). Yet OP took the bet and started with the "when will we accept some cultures are incompatible" screech.
They not only took the bet, but also drew conclusions.

The issue I see is bad Bayesian thinking.
We don't need to wait for official reports: you can update certainties as we go. Personally, when images of people with blood spread on their clothes started surfacing, I took it as evidence that it wasn't just the stampede. Then we had reports of it being heard from far away, trembling windows, then shrapnel.
Betting on it as "probably just some speaker malfunction" are similarly misguided, btw.
It's about incremental steps, and update of your prior beliefs. When we follow simpler heuristics, we produce excessive amounts of false positives.
I don't know of your politics, or your motivations in life. But people often get upset when they're flagged with a false positive:
-you support the rights of Nazis, so you're probably one yourself.
-you follow this religion, so you're probably a terrorist in the making.

There is value in taking a calm approach to tense situations.

[primalmatter]

Why is it a waste of time?
What time do we earn by not developing conjectures, and just waiting?
Why do we need an instant opinion on everything?
etc.

We could argue that throwing bets doesn't really mater. Some of the people taking bets would be wrong, end of, right?.

When the thread started, we didn't know much. Reports were conflicting (one or two explosions, explosions or just bangs, stampedes and pink balloons, just footage of people running). Yet OP took the bet and started with the "when will we accept some cultures are incompatible" screech.
They not only took the bet, but also drew conclusions.

The issue I see is bad Bayesian thinking.
We don't need to wait for official reports: you can update certainties as we go. Personally, when images of people with blood spread on their clothes started surfacing, I took it as evidence that it wasn't just the stampede. Then we had reports of it being heard from far away, trembling windows, then shrapnel.
Betting on it as "probably just some speaker malfunction" are similarly misguided, btw.
It's about incremental steps, and update of your prior beliefs. When we follow simpler heuristics, we produce excessive amounts of false positives.
I don't know of your politics, or your motivations in life. But people often get upset when they're flagged with a false positive:
-you support the rights of Nazis, so you're probably one yourself.
-you follow this religion, so you're probably a terrorist in the making.

There is value in taking a calm approach to tense situations.

At this point I am simply Nero fiddling as rome burns.

I am jaded by peace and the slaughter it brings. We are told over and over again not to judge not to condemn their backwater culture and its barbarism. At some point everything breaks and the masks come off.

Why should we be surprised? Why should we be shocked? This repeats over and over and over again. The reactions are almost the same each time. Most forget and simply go back to their lives and then pretend to be shocked.

What changes while slight should be noted... each time people become more and more jaded... they see those celebrating the attacks. They listen to the preachers calling for their deaths in the name of "peace" eventually restraint dies. When that finally happens the nightmare you will have helped spawn from your apathy will set a country aflame.

As for myself... I find myself in a highly conflicted situation. I deplore these savages among us yet it is by their cowardly acts of murder that for the first time in almost a century what I view as the most successful path for a nation is once again being considered.

In this is there some odd form of gratitude I should show them? Do my own beliefs show their weakness if they can only grow from such damnable soil? I find myself troubled by my own convictions for should they take hold they would see a end to this threat permanently and yet... if that happens would we once again fade into obscurity?

[Deleted]

. We are told over and over again not to judge not to condemn their backwater culture and its barbarism.

How is their backwater culture different from yours?

[downnola]

How is their backwater culture different from yours?

Here we go down some boring relativist rabbit hole.

[primalmatter]

How is their backwater culture different from yours?

Do you need a entire point by point or would simply pointing out how my culture frowns on listening to your daughter scream to death while you burn her face off with acid for the crime of disobeying you rather then celebrate it work for you champ?

- - - Updated - - -

Here we go down some boring relativist rabbit hole.

Lets make it fun instead.

[Deleted]

At this point I am simply Nero fiddling as rome burns.

I am jaded by peace and the slaughter it brings. We are told over and over again not to judge not to condemn their backwater culture and its barbarism. At some point everything breaks and the masks come off.

Why should we be surprised? Why should we be shocked? This repeats over and over and over again. The reactions are almost the same each time. Most forget and simply go back to their lives and then pretend to be shocked.

What changes while slight should be noted... each time people become more and more jaded... they see those celebrating the attacks. They listen to the preachers calling for their deaths in the name of "peace" eventually restraint dies. When that finally happens the nightmare you will have helped spawn from your apathy will set a country aflame.

As for myself... I find myself in a highly conflicted situation. I deplore these savages among us yet it is by their cowardly acts of murder that for the first time in almost a century what I view as the most successful path for a nation is once again being considered.

In this is there some odd form of gratitude I should show them? Do my own beliefs show their weakness if they can only grow from such damnable soil? I find myself troubled by my own convictions for should they take hold they would see a end to this threat permanently and yet... if that happens would we once again fade into obscurity?

I understand that some people cope trough displays of momentary rage. Even taking some skewed pleasure as the city burns; it's totally cynic, but I get that.

The issue here, is that people are trying to mobilize the moderate. Which is alright, but raises some questions.
Turning against the person who is trying to make some sense, and follow a minimally rational approach, is questionable. Their approach is not necessarily apathetic: they're only requesting not to add unnecessary fuel to the burning city.
And the other question, you're already pondering: your governments have the capacity for total annihilation, at the cost of becoming what you most despise. Your trouble is precisely that: showing your soft underbelly, your apparent distrust in your own culture, the one with a demonstrated capacity to absorb and mold other cultures to your desires. It is the most successful culture this planet has produced, yet it's continuously producing self-distrust. Circularity be damned, do you really think a culture incapable of trusting itself is worth keeping around?. There's one way out of that circle: keep doing what you've been doing, what the moderate is doing, for decades; it ain't broken.

As for condemning whatever backwater culture and barbarism. Do it. Be certain to not produce false positives though. Because for each one you produce, you're just fertilizing the already productive soil that has people turning to fundamentalism.