Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
uziq
Member
+441|2631
and yes, i know that CP was in many ways a forerunner for obama in american public life. that's good. but it's very, very telling that his rise to the top of american civic life and public support was as a military stooge, sometimes covering up and defending for the worst of war crimes. isn't that a little depressing? i think most reasonable people would admit this point.

i'm pretty sure cornel west wanted colin powell to be president in the 1990s. i'm also pretty sure he was highly critical of the bush admin's wars. they're not mutually exclusive.

there's also the somewhat uncomfortable thought that the bush admin appointed colin powell purely because of his good image and repute. that's cynical thinking, maybe, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was part of bush's thinking when he pushed colin through to the post. who could doubt an all-american hero and success story like colin powell, after all?
uziq
Member
+441|2631

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

iraqis had nothing to do with terrorist attacks in the united states.
I never said they did. Again, I am not defending the War in Iraq. Everything bad you can say about that war I would agree with.

My point regarding Iraqi terrorism is the fact that when ISIS without much resistance took over Mosul, they were greeted as liberators. The Sunni Arabs of that country then provided manpower and resources for a group that would have mowed us both down if we were in a French nightclub at the wrong moment. Muslims inspired or even coordinating with Iraqis committed terrorist attacks across the world. (Easter bombing in Sri Lanka?). The sympathy the world has for Iraqis is all dried up at this point.

Quoting Iraqi death figures is again the worst argument you could make. You would have been better bringing up Vietnam.
very weird that you somehow absolve america of all responsibility in creating ISIS, but whatever. it seems a little questionable to me to blame the iraqi people (or more precisely a portion of them) for welcoming xyz group after 2 decades of sectarian conflict, caused in large part by you guys destabilizing their society.

you removed all of iraq's infrastructures and ability to operate as a civil, peacetime state. you installed corrupt and inept leaders in their place and categorically fucked up every part of the rebuilding process, totally blind to local political dynamics. then you blame them because they're unable to repel extremist assholes? or even welcome them, in some cases?

it's not like the arrival of ISIS in iraq was one huge hoorah. ISIS murdered a lot of iraqis.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
I am exhausted talking about Iraqis.

uziq wrote:

and yes, i know that CP was in many ways a forerunner for obama in american public life. that's good. but it's very, very telling that his rise to the top of american civic life and public support was as a military stooge, sometimes covering up and defending for the worst of war crimes. isn't that a little depressing? i think most reasonable people would admit this point.

i'm pretty sure cornel west wanted colin powell to be president in the 1990s. i'm also pretty sure he was highly critical of the bush admin's wars. they're not mutually exclusive.

there's also the somewhat uncomfortable thought that the bush admin appointed colin powell purely because of his good image and repute. that's cynical thinking, maybe, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was part of bush's thinking when he pushed colin through to the post. who could doubt an all-american hero and success story like colin powell, after all?
Yes, it is troubling that he came to power by being the HNIC of punching down on some Arabs. He was smart enough to stay away from running for president and he endorsed the last two Democrat presidents. He was probably pretty aware that they were using him and later Condi to avoid charges that the Bush administration was running a genocidal crusade or whatever.

Still my point is, he was from a very different time in American history that we or at least I am still connected to by personal memory. For all of the issues in America regarding racism blah blah could the blacks just have one military hero? Can they get to fondly remember the brief moment in time one of their own had near universal national acclaim?  Does everything have to be so negative all the time? That's my issue.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,954|5951|USA

Imagine if someone busted into your house and killed a chunk of your family, got away with it unpunished, then some years later complained that they were tired of talking about it.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Imagine if someone busted into your house and killed a chunk of your family, got away with it unpunished, then some years later complained that they were tired of talking about it.
I didn't kill any Iraqis. I only watched it on the internet.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+773|5864|United States of America
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Colin Powell paved the way for Billy Dee Williams role in Undercover Brother
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

iraqis had nothing to do with terrorist attacks in the united states.
I never said they did. Again, I am not defending the War in Iraq. Everything bad you can say about that war I would agree with.

My point regarding Iraqi terrorism is the fact that when ISIS without much resistance took over Mosul, they were greeted as liberators. The Sunni Arabs of that country then provided manpower and resources for a group that would have mowed us both down if we were in a French nightclub at the wrong moment. Muslims inspired or even coordinating with Iraqis committed terrorist attacks across the world. (Easter bombing in Sri Lanka?). The sympathy the world has for Iraqis is all dried up at this point.

Quoting Iraqi death figures is again the worst argument you could make. You would have been better bringing up Vietnam.
very weird that you somehow absolve america of all responsibility in creating ISIS, but whatever. it seems a little questionable to me to blame the iraqi people (or more precisely a portion of them) for welcoming xyz group after 2 decades of sectarian conflict, caused in large part by you guys destabilizing their society.

you removed all of iraq's infrastructures and ability to operate as a civil, peacetime state. you installed corrupt and inept leaders in their place and categorically fucked up every part of the rebuilding process, totally blind to local political dynamics. then you blame them because they're unable to repel extremist assholes? or even welcome them, in some cases?

it's not like the arrival of ISIS in iraq was one huge hoorah. ISIS murdered a lot of iraqis.
ISIS Literally grew out of the dispossessed Iraqi military which was suddenly unemployed, destitute and still in possession of most of the weapons of the Iraqi army.

Its as if the neo-cons wanted a forever-war against muslims and set about creating it.
Birds Aren't Real
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
Alec Baldwin killed a man
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX
Completely comparable with Powell being a lifetime lickspittle and liar.
Birds Aren't Real
Larssen
Member
+84|1067
It's a an oversimplification to state that ISIS consisted of Iraqis. Let's remember that the movement originated in the syrian civil war and had many thousands foreign jihadis from chechnya, tunisia, saudi arabia plus some 5000 from western europe in its ranks - it very much was an internationalist movement. It was also in no small part the various militias in the hashd/PMF that repelled ISIS on the ground and these were almost exclusively iraqi.

ISIS didn't 'grow out of dispossed iraqi military' - analysis of various martyrdom videos proved that a minority of fighters were experienced combatants. If you're looking at former Iraqi army turned militia, it's the Iraqi insurgency and particularly the 2006-2007 period that's relevant. ISIS did come to possess a ton of Iraqi army supplies. It was an ill-disciplined, badly trained and corrupt force that put up very little meaningful resistance to the initial ISIS advancement.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX
Hmm, given that a non-cast member was killed and another non-cast member was injured my guess is Baldwin had a tantrum over direction and thought he'd give them a scare with a prop-gun.

Blank-firers can kill or injure at point-blank range, oops.
Birds Aren't Real
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

It's a an oversimplification to state that ISIS consisted of Iraqis. Let's remember that the movement originated in the syrian civil war and had many thousands foreign jihadis from chechnya, tunisia, saudi arabia plus some 5000 from western europe in its ranks - it very much was an internationalist movement. It was also in no small part the various militias in the hashd/PMF that repelled ISIS on the ground and these were almost exclusively iraqi.

ISIS didn't 'grow out of dispossed iraqi military' - analysis of various martyrdom videos proved that a minority of fighters were experienced combatants. If you're looking at former Iraqi army turned militia, it's the Iraqi insurgency and particularly the 2006-2007 period that's relevant. ISIS did come to possess a ton of Iraqi army supplies. It was an ill-disciplined, badly trained and corrupt force that put up very little meaningful resistance to the initial ISIS advancement.
My understanding was the senior part of ISIS was former Iraqi army, the foot soldiers were idiot jihadists.
Birds Aren't Real
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
ISIS started in a Jordanian prison in 1999.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27 … _wal-Jihad
The organization went through half a dozen name changes over the year.

AQ in Syria is itself an offshoot of ISIS.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX
According to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group, almost all of ISIL's leaders—including the members of its military and security committees and the majority of its emirs and princes—are former Iraqi military and intelligence officers, specifically former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath government who lost their jobs and pensions in the de-Ba'athification process after that regime was overthrown.[191][192] The former Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the US State Department, David Kilcullen, has said that "There undeniably would be no Isis if we had not invaded Iraq."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
Birds Aren't Real
Larssen
Member
+84|1067
I would actually like to dispute that because the senior leadership had Yemeni's, Kurds, a few Chechens, Syrians and other nationals in there as well. Yes, there were a number of former Iraqi army officers / Iraqi religious scholars in there (quite a few) and some who were instrumental in its rise but to say 'almost all' is in my assessment an exxageration. Particularly if we consider the fact that ISIS after conquest relied heavily on recruited local elites. With half the territory in syria, there were quite a number of syrians involved as well. If you search a little harder than wikipedia you'll be able to find it.

It's also still beside the fucking point. ISIS was not an expressly 'Iraqi movement'. It attracted thousands of fighters from all sorts of nationalities outside of Iraq. It wasn't in any way ethnically or nationally exclusive. It was sunni and deeply rooted in Islamic extremism. The whole take that it was 'an Iraqi terror organisation' and to lay blame with the Iraqis is a fucking stupid statement. Yes I do kind of agree to the notion that without the war in Iraq it is unlikely ISIS would've existed. But that's a bit too much counterfactual history for my liking.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
Yes, there wouldn't be an ISIS. There would still be a Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. Same ideas, same methods, same demographics.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Larssen
Member
+84|1067
Reimagining the history of those parts in the middle east without the war in Iraq happening is pretty much impossible if you ask me. Islamic extremism would've still existed and be active in Afghanistan mostly, but that's about one of the few things you can say for certain.
uziq
Member
+441|2631
let's forget starting an illegal war and killing 300,000 civilians. there are some jihadi sects in the country formerly known as iraq.

great reasoning.

'i'm bored of hearing about iraq' is not exactly a defense that would stand up in court.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
The amount of died most directly linked to us is only 100,000. The civil war ISIS started kill more than twice that number.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5285|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

I would actually like to dispute that because the senior leadership had Yemeni's, Kurds, a few Chechens, Syrians and other nationals in there as well. Yes, there were a number of former Iraqi army officers / Iraqi religious scholars in there (quite a few) and some who were instrumental in its rise but to say 'almost all' is in my assessment an exxageration. Particularly if we consider the fact that ISIS after conquest relied heavily on recruited local elites. With half the territory in syria, there were quite a number of syrians involved as well. If you search a little harder than wikipedia you'll be able to find it.

It's also still beside the fucking point. ISIS was not an expressly 'Iraqi movement'. It attracted thousands of fighters from all sorts of nationalities outside of Iraq. It wasn't in any way ethnically or nationally exclusive. It was sunni and deeply rooted in Islamic extremism. The whole take that it was 'an Iraqi terror organisation' and to lay blame with the Iraqis is a fucking stupid statement. Yes I do kind of agree to the notion that without the war in Iraq it is unlikely ISIS would've existed. But that's a bit too much counterfactual history for my liking.
I'm sure ISIS in Iraq was mostly Iraqis, and a good proportion of the leadership were Saddamites.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2631
the baath party weren't really religious fundamentalists.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
Regarding Baldwin...crazy how random life can be. You do everything right in life and get smoked on your job because the prop master made a mistake.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,954|5951|USA

There's a lot of fingers flying around right now and urging readers to not jump to conclusions when we don't know the details. But there are safety protocols to follow for prop guns. If they weren't filming a particular scene calling for an unloaded weapon and he was just messing around, then it seems very likely that Mr. Baldwin was being a fool. If so, no amount of blame apportioned to logistics and the prop guys can resolve that.

I'd describe one of my WW2 vet grandpa's opinions and strict rules about toy guns and stuff but you guys canceled me the last time I mentioned him.

How about them Iraqis, mac?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2899
Actor Alec Baldwin was so moved by the story of an 18-year-old soldier who is scheduled to serve in Iraq that he's going to help pay for her college education.

Baldwin tracked down Private Resha Kane's mother in Arizona after reading about her in The New York Times earlier this month.

A spokesman for Baldwin says the article made the actor think of his own daughter, who's eleven.

Baldwin plans to meet the Kane family soon and give them a check. It will supplement the $37,000 the Army will give Resha Kane for college. She plans to study biochemistry after she leaves the military in three years
Good lord imagine if she had just studied biochemistry instead. Thanks a lot Colin Powell.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+441|2631
that’s so retarded that it’s basically a non sequitur. do you even try?

re: alec baldwin shooting, it’s silly to speculate but i doubt he was messing around. seems like one round hit two people, the dir of photography and the director. it’s likely he was pointing the gun at the camera for an actual scene, hence why both individuals were in the path of the bullet. it’s notoriously most dangerous behind the camera whenever a gun is on set, as any shot with a round being fired will involve a point-to-camera. likely he directly shot the cinematographer behind the camera and the bullet/ricochet got the director who was peering over her shoulder. my best guess anyway.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard