Shootings in Paris: I'm from Paris and I don't freak out, so why should you?

Started by Monsieur OUXX, Sat 14/11/2015 11:04:54

Previous topic - Next topic

Mandle

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 19/11/2015 21:50:20
I certainly don't want to turn it in a conspiracy theory. We've had enough of those ;)

I haven't!!! I miss Judy!!! Her videos were always hilarious! :~(

Cassiebsg

There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 19/11/2015 21:50:20I would say that this would be the easiest thing, not an almost impossible one. Just sell everyone weapons, and watch the unrest and chaos spread. If your only goal is instability you don't have to worry about policies, supporting single sides, or who is going to win.

I thought we were discussing whether the policies of Western governments were set by the weapons industry, not whether those companies may be involved in other shit. I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.

And I just don't believe they wield that much influence. The decision of whether or not to go to war is better explained by the familiar factors: protecting national interests by supporting allies and governments open to your influence, trying to expand the reach of your ideology (democracy, capitalism, secularism), curtailing the influence of rival powers, trying to maintain stability when possible, (yes) humanitarian concerns, and in response to domestic public opinion, for example.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 07:58:29I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.
First of all, I think the correct word is cynicism not paranoia (it's not 'believing they are after you', but 'they are in it for themselves'). Also, it's not 'evil mastermind' stuff but industry lobbyist stuff. It cannot be denied that industries and companies with deep pockets have always influenced governments and its officials. That is part of the game.

As pointed out by OUXX, the countries who play the biggest role in deciding how to move forward are also the biggest arms dealers (that is not: the biggest arms dealers come from these countries, the countries themselves are (said to be) these arms dealers). That means that - whether we like it or not - war is part of their business model and thus (potentially) in their national interest (as long as the war is not brought to their own soil).

QuoteAnd I just don't believe they wield that much influence.
How much influence do you believe in? - We are dealing with a multi-billion-dollar industry, so at least some influence can be expected, can it not?

QuoteThe decision of whether or not to go to war is better explained by the familiar factors: protecting national interests by supporting allies and governments open to your influence, trying to expand the reach of your ideology (democracy, capitalism, secularism), curtailing the influence of rival powers, trying to maintain stability when possible, (yes) humanitarian concerns, and in response to domestic public opinion, for example.
By saying it 'better explained' you are denying the power of lobbyists in addition to (as well as related to) these factors. All I'm saying is, that the weapons industry has a clear opinion about how to 'protect national interests', how to 'support allies and governments open to our influence', how to 'maintain stability', how to respond to 'domestic public opinion', etc. I'm not saying they rule the west. But I am saying that they will (try to) influence it in favor of their own interests. And I'm also saying they're doing a better job at it (achieving more favorable results) than you and me (well, maybe not you, I don't know...but no one in government is listening to or consulting with me).


ps.
QuoteI thought we were discussing whether the policies of Western governments were set by the weapons industry, not whether those companies may be involved in other shit.
Question is, how much difference there is between these subjects if certain western countries are themselves the biggest weapons dealers (as has been reported over and over). You are then dealing with a single (schizophrenic?) entity (the fact that the companies building the weapons are not owned by the government becomes irrelevant; especially if you look at who pays for and dictates their R&D...but maybe the influence of military in these companies is also greatly exaggerated in movies, TV shows, and news outlets).

sketchess

Oh please, give me a break!

Don't grap at straws, guys, if you don't really know what's going on in the world of today. And just for the minutes, my better half was shooting gun fire, while sleeping, out of his mouths for two years. Screaming, shouting and crying... so yeah I have a pretty good idea of what surrounded us.

And for the record, a pretty good example on how the world works in today. Don't worry, it's English.
Youtube: sneak peek

Misj'

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 10:34:39
Oh please, give me a break!

Don't grap at straws, guys, if you don't really know what's going on in the world of today.
Could you elaborate that statement, because I think neither Snarky or I are grasping at straws. I also don't think the clip you shared contradicts his or my opinion (because they only differ on a minor detail concerning the decision-making process). I also don't understand the foundation of the "don't really know what's going on in the world"-statement.

So please elaborate. I just want to understand your view (and what you think my or Snarky's view is).

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 19:33:52I wouldn't say so. In various Middle Eastern and North African conflicts involving jihadist groups in recent years--

I like that. Recent years. Why recent years? Because the truth is that these groups would not be any threat if it were not for the training and equipment provided to them (directly or indirectly) by the US-led interference in Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everywhere else that has natural resources not already belonging to the empire. Take the very well known brand new Toyota trucks. Even the official story is that they were given to "legitimate" governments and then lost. Whoops. Let's not talk about the fact that the taliban wouldn't have existed to be blamed for 9/11 if it weren't for the US involvement in Afghanistan during their proxy war with Russia.

How are things in Iraq these days, BTW? Military intervention go well for the people, has it? Or would they trade BP and Shell for their dictator back any day of the week?

But we don't talk about the people killed daily in bomb blasts in the country that the US ruined, do we? Or the innocent civilians that the US drone program calls collateral damage? Or the more than 100,000 civilians that have been killed in Iraq since the occupation started.

Everything the US has been doing, tripled the "islamic state" territory? Whoops?

Very well. Let's keep it on public record and not delve into conspiracy theories. Let's not follow the money or ask who benefits. Let's assume the USG has nothing but good intentions and are unfortunately hampered by terminal incompetence. How is it that you think they will make things better?



Links for those who can read:

‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular'

Does Obama know he's fighting on al-Qa'ida's side?

This one Toyota pickup truck is at the top of the shopping list for the Free Syrian Army â€" and the Taliban

Revealed: What the West has given Syria's rebels

Moderate? Syrian rebels post image of selves by burning U.S. Capitol on Facebook page

monkey424

Quote from: Mandle on Thu 19/11/2015 22:37:08
I miss Judy!!!

You and me both, Mandle me old mate!

Sorry.... I don't have any new Judy videos.... but here's one I found that people might find interesting and perhaps a bit more sobering (yet still with a conspiracy vibe to it, for old times' sake).

Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw
    

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 20/11/2015 09:12:46
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 07:58:29I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.
First of all, I think the correct word is cynicism not paranoia (it's not 'believing they are after you', but 'they are in it for themselves').

No, it's paranoia if it amounts to believing that the world is ruled in secret by unseen forces, and that any decision that is made, whatever it is, is ultimately in their interest.

It's one thing to argue that arms manufacturers lobby for military intervention in foreign conflicts because that means they'll sell more weapons. We can debate how much that ultimately affects the political decisions, but it's a straightforward, plausible argument. It's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. And when you start to argue that even lack of military intervention is part of their evil scheme, you've constructed theory that is no longer tethered to empirical fact: any observation whatsoever can be fit into the story.

(I would tend to think that because of the length and turnaround time on military contracts, the industry's lobbying is more about convincing governments that they need to prepare for future conflicts, as well as lobbying for permission to export to questionable buyers, than actively trying to get countries embroiled in wars. That's just my intuition, though.)

QuoteAs pointed out by OUXX, the countries who play the biggest role in deciding how to move forward are also the biggest arms dealers (that is not: the biggest arms dealers come from these countries, the countries themselves are (said to be) these arms dealers). That means that - whether we like it or not - war is part of their business model and thus (potentially) in their national interest (as long as the war is not brought to their own soil).

It does not mean that "war is part of their business model" (even if the US exports arms for 10 billion dollars a year – much of that in military aid, so at a loss – the US GDP is 16.7 trillion dollars). It means that military superiority (and the ability to share that with whom they choose) is part of how they project power internationally.

And are you seriously claiming that these wars are turning a financial profit for the West? Even before getting into things like economic disruption (depressing the world economy), refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects, I find that wildly implausible.

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 10:34:39
Oh please, give me a break!

And for the record, a pretty good example on how the world works in today. Don't worry, it's English.
Youtube: sneak peek

What are you saying? The US (and other nations) have been supporting certain rebel groups in Syria to fight against Assad and ISIS? Sure, there's nothing secret about that. And I think the video shows some of the difficulties of the situation, and the comparative powerlessness of the US (and by extension its European allies).

sketchess

I suggest changing the angle of perspective for a better view. Well Busra is the perfect location to begin with and than to follow the bread crumbs into the modern world.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 12:38:36No, it's paranoia if it amounts to believing that the world is ruled in secret by unseen forces, and that any decision that is made, whatever it is, is ultimately in their interest.
Which is neither what I believe nor what I argued (which, incidentally are the same thing). What I argued was that they try to lobby the decision in their favor, not that EVERY decision made is in their favor. By claiming otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. I also never said there were secret unseen forces that rule the world. So by (your own) definition it's not paranoia. What it is, is cynicism: it's not believing there's unseen forces, it believing people are in it for themselves.

QuoteIt's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
And again, I never argued that. At best I argued that your earlier argument was (or could easily be interpreted as) in favor of this explanation. By definition what I argued was not a conspiracy theory; as a matter of fact I clearly stated: I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world ... . But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict. And that has been the basic starting-point for all my arguments. So again, you're arguing something I didn't say, and put a label on it (paranoia, conspiracy theory) that is not valid.

QuoteAnd when you start to argue that even lack of military intervention is part of their evil scheme, you've constructed theory that is no longer tethered to empirical fact: any observation whatsoever can be fit into the story.
First of all, I didn't construct a theory, I stated - as a response to you saying that 'I think you're (OUXX) wrong to suggest that it's driven by the weapons industry' because 'if Europe and the US had intervened more forcefully in Syria in the early stages of the conflict ...' it might have prevented 'some of the chaos and misery of the last few years in Syria' - that ending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling the weapons (some of whom are western governments as OUXX pointed out). That does NOT argue an evil scheme, a pupetmaster, or even that 'lack of military intervention' is in any way proof of either. So anyway, it's a good thing I never argued what you throw at me here.

QuoteAnd are you seriously claiming that these wars are turning a financial profit for the West? Even before getting into things like economic disruption (depressing the world economy), refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects, I find that wildly implausible.
Are you claiming no one in the west (including government officials who make the decision to go to war) has made any profit of it?

While it is absolutely fair to include things like economic disruption, refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects into account, you should then also do it the other way around: technical and scientific advances thanks (in part) to military funding (like GPS, the internet, Apple's SIRI), private contracts and business opportunities in war-time, etc.

US general Smidley D. Butler argued in his book 'war is a racket' (1935) that the profitability of war (not to all, but to some) causes it to be both fraudulent and continuous. So it can be argued that the only way to stop war it not make sure it's not profitable to anyone. Now, much has changed since he published that book, but I honestly don't believe that things have change that much.

So am I saying war is profitable to 'the west' (if such a thing exists)? - No. Am I saying war is profitable (financially) to ALL those making the decisions? - No. Am I saying that war is (financially) profitable to some people, and that some of these people are directly or indirectly involved in the decisions regarding the course and direction of said war? - History has shown this to be very likely.


Snarky

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 13:59:13
I suggest changing the angle of perspective for a better view. Well Busra is the perfect location to begin with and than to follow the bread crumbs into the modern world.

Can't you just say what you mean instead of giving vague hints and leaving it to us to guess what you're trying to imply?

selmiak

Quote from: selmiak on Wed 18/11/2015 20:59:22
With tragedies like this I'm always curious how and in what frequency the news in different countries report about different thing.
Some german news report this:
*link*
in some years this will be food for how could they not stop it when knowing this-conspiracies and so on. for now it looks like a giant fail on international cooperation, too busy reading private persons emails...

this is too unbelievable, am I spreading FUD and nobody knows anything? or do I know everything? war is not the solution fuckers!
does anybody else on this international forum have some more rather regional national community news?

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 20/11/2015 14:07:14
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 12:38:36It's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
And again, I never argued that. At best I argued that your earlier argument was (or could easily be interpreted as) in favor of this explanation. By definition what I argued was not a conspiracy theory; as a matter of fact I clearly stated: I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world ... . But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict. And that has been the basic starting-point for all my arguments. So again, you're arguing something I didn't say, and put a label on it (paranoia, conspiracy theory) that is not valid.

My point is that in order for this argument (that reluctance to intervene in Syria supports the idea that Western countries go to war to make money for the weapons industry) to work, you do have to assume that they have an almost occult ability to foresee the future, are unrepetantly evil, and are able to wield decisive influence over such policy decisions. And if you accept the argument, what you end up with is:

-Whenever Western countries go to war, that decision is made to benefit weapons manufacturers
-Whenever Western countries choose not to intervene resolutely in a conflict, and things still get worse, that decision was also made to benefit weapons manufacturers

Quoteending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling the weapons (some of whom are western governments as OUXX pointed out). That does NOT argue an evil scheme, a pupetmaster, or even that 'lack of military intervention' is in any way proof of either.

Like I said, I think it does. But also, I think you're committing a logical fallacy here. OK, let's grant that all things being equal, prolonging the war in Syria might benefit weapons manufacturers (we'd need some info on where they're getting most of the weapons from to say how much Western companies are profiting, but let's assume they do). And yes, some Western governments are big weapons exporters. But here's where it falls down, because governments are much more than that, and all things are definitely NOT equal. If you look at just a slightly bigger picture, it's obvious that ongoing chaos and misery in Syria is NOT in the best interest of these countries, financially or politically (just look at what's happening!), and the politicians making the decisions would obviously realize that.

QuoteAre you claiming no one in the west (including government officials who make the decision to go to war) has made any profit of it?

No, but I don't think it's a big factor. Corruption exists, obviously, but ultimately the decisions of whether to go to war are up to the highest leaders, who tend to be more concerned with their political careers and legacies than with making a few bucks for themselves (which they can typically do in other ways, anyway).

QuoteUS general Smidley D. Butler argued in his book 'war is a racket' (1935) that the profitability of war (not to all, but to some) causes it to be both fraudulent and continuous. So it can be argued that the only way to stop war it not make sure it's not profitable to anyone. Now, much has changed since he published that book, but I honestly don't believe that things have change that much.

I think things have changed massively since that time, whether or not he was right in the first place.

Look, there are many valid criticisms to be made of US hegemony, the philosophies and practices of foreign intervention, the belief in military solutions to deep-rooted problems, the military-industrial complex and the war on terror. But I don't buy for a second that the reason Western powers start or intervene in these wars is greed (whether an intent to plunder or to sell).

Misj'

@Snarky

I have decided not to respond to your post (and as a result end this discussion for my part) for a number of reasons:

1. You keep trying to push a worldview onto me (conspiracy theories and paranoia) that are in direct contradiction/disagreement with both me and my arguments. I kept making that clear from the start but I feel you keep twisting my arguments. When I talk about influence you imply it only makes sense if I mean absolute power, selfish/self-centered behavior must mean unrepentatly evil, lobbyists and consultations suddenly become a shadow government, and experience and data-analysis are turned into some occult fortune-telling oracle. You then argue against these twisted absolutes by claiming that they only make sense from a conspiracy theory's point of view...which might be true, but they are not my arguments.

2. You claim that I'm committing logical fallacies simply because - from my point of view - you don't seem to grasp my argumentation (which makes sense because you twisted it into something it is not: a conspiracy theory). While you could argue that I'm making a number of wrong initial assumptions and that - as a result - the conclusions I make are wrong (I would disagree with that notion), that is not what you did. In my opinion most of your arguments are intrinsically flawed, but I can understand where they are coming from (even though I disagree on several specifics). I have no problem with that. But based on earlier discussions we had I expected more from you than using the flawed 'logical fallacies'-argument (which itself is a fallacy by the way). Maybe I'm just more susceptible to it at this moment, but for me it's a discussion no-no, and for that reason I cannot - at this point - continue.

3. I have some personal stuff in the coming weeks that prevent me from spending time on this discussion...so I'd rather end it now.

Cheers Mate,
and 'till next time we cross swords. :)



ps. please do continue this discussion...even though I won't participate, I do look forward - when I have the time again - to find out where this is going.

MiteWiseacreLives!

I am a little surprised at the zeal you have for your opinion too, Snarky.
Although I'd rather stay neutral on the matter There's a few commonly known facts at play here.
1) War is good for the US economy
2) War gets the citizen buy in to increase the national debt via such spending
3) Going to war historically = a second presidential term
4) The US would prefer to control global natural resources than deplete their own.
Therefore, the powers that be don't mind going to war very much. We live in a corrupt world. I know there are other factors at play, but don't be blind to the reality.
I apologize if my opinion offends anyone.

Khris

Quote from: Misj' on Sat 21/11/2015 23:00:37I expected more from you than using the flawed 'logical fallacies'-argument (which itself is a fallacy by the way). Maybe I'm just more susceptible to it at this moment, but for me it's a discussion no-no, and for that reason I cannot - at this point - continue.
How is pointing out flawed reasoning a fallacy?
If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, therefore every prolonged war was caused by lobbying, how is it a no-no to point out the obvious non sequitur?

Edit after reply:
*SIGH*

Misj'

Quote from: Khris on Sun 22/11/2015 13:41:40How is pointing out flawed reasoning a fallacy?
If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, therefore every prolonged war was caused by lobbying, how is it a no-no to point out the obvious non sequitur?
Sigh!

In this specific case:

Because for one I never claimed that EVERY prolonged war is caused by lobbying (I never argued in any absolutes). I merely pointed out that Snarky's statement that the absence of early intervention means he doesn't believe the weapons industry was involved was unsatisfying because the 'absence' could easily be explained both ways.

Secondly, since general statement that was claimed to be a part of the fallacy (the existence of a conspiracy/shadow government) wasn't mine to begin with it is - by definition - a fallacy to claim that I was committing a logical fallacy based on that statement to be true.

Thirdy, the specific quoted argument that was referred to as a logical fallacy was that "ending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling weapons does NOT argue an evil scheme, puppet-master, or that lack of military intervention was proof of either". So he claimed that a statement stating that A neither argues in favor of nor proves B is a logical fallacy because he quote-unquote thinks it does (argue in favor and/or proves it). So to put it in perspective of your argumentation: If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, but that prolonged wars do not argue or proof a shadow government, then that would be an obvious non sequitur. To that, yes, I say fallacy!

Anyway, I don't have the desire to defend something that is in direct opposition and contradiction of all my arguments (the existence of some conspiracy that I don't believe in); and given my lack of time...


EDIT: I think I've gotten way too off-topic (this post is an off-topic of and off-topic)...plus I really don't want to insult the moderator (although I know Snarky can take it, I don't want him to feel insulted in anyway). Finally, I'm glad OUXX is ok, and I agree with the world he would like to see. I really don't have anything more to say than that.

Snarky

Misj', I respect your decision, but let me try to clarify a couple of points:

I wasn't really trying to argue that you believe in a conspiracy-theory view of the world. I was rather trying to explain why I think the argument you were making (specifically about what early non-intervention in Syria could imply) only works if we accept a conspiracy-theory view. If you reject conspiracy theories, I think your argument has to be rejected as well. I don't feel you ever really responded to that.

You're also mischaracterizing the logical fallacy I accused you of. It was directed very specifically at the assertion I think can be paraphrased as "War is good for arms dealers. Western governments deal arms. Therefore war is good for Western governments." I hold that this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition To be clear, I don't think everything you've been saying is a fallacy as a whole (even if I disagree), just this particular bit.

Snarky

Quote from: MiteWiseacreLives! on Sun 22/11/2015 03:03:53
I am a little surprised at the zeal you have for your opinion too, Snarky.

I've had a particular dislike for this, IMO, myth ever since the "No blood for oil" slogans against the Iraq war. I think it's a dangerous distortion of what most modern wars are really primarily about: achieving policy objectives.

QuoteAlthough I'd rather stay neutral on the matter There's a few commonly known facts at play here.
1) War is good for the US economy

[Citation needed]

Quote2) War gets the citizen buy in to increase the national debt via such spending

Why would this matter? This is a matter for Congress (which routinely votes to increase it, except when trying to use it as a lever against other policies), and most citizens have only a vague notion that it is huge.

Quote[3) Going to war historically = a second presidential term

Not really true. Since WWII, the only presidents who have not gotten a second term are Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41. Kennedy was killed, and Ford was done in by his pardon of Nixon (on top of having become president by default in the first place, having never been popularly elected). Of the remaining, the main reason LBJ didn't seek a second term was that the Vietnam war had made him deeply unpopular. George Bush lost even though the first Gulf War had been (from the US perspective) a great success just a few months earlier. Carter's big problem was the Iranian hostage crisis. In that case, perhaps a more martial response would have improved his prospects.

But overall, modern history does not support the idea that wars help presidential reelections.

Quote4) The US would prefer to control global natural resources than deplete their own.

In fact, the opposite is true. The US is all about "energy independence", achieved in the short term by US oil and gas drilling.

Nor does the US to any meaningful extent "control" natural resources in other countries any more. They do generally support extraction and sale on international markets as part of the worldwide capitalist trade system, and US companies own stakes or are otherwise involved in many of those activities, but that's not the same thing.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk