Lock The Door To Islam || Geert Wilders

[ReptilianPeon]

I live in the same reality you do. However I have a different outlook on the world. I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade as they say.

I also disagreed with Atlas (partially). Maybe all three of us each have our own realities. Perhaps you have a way to explain the 1000 or so US military bases around the world as not being part of the imperialist agenda?

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that greatly.  It's one thing to opine upon all of the ways that the US isn't a paragon of virtue (as though it were supposed to be?).  It's another to mythologize the soviet union of cold war fame. Both nations spun the same, ridiculous, "we';re the good guys" propaganda. That you decided to buy theirs over ours has nothing to do with any truth of -any- matter. Neither of us were the good guys. We were fucking the world over massively for our own ends...while it hung on a nuclear thread between us. Both countries had a decidely imperialist bent. Both subsumed less powerful states as clients. Both pitted these states against each other. That -was- the cold war, a global proxy conflict.

[ReptilianPeon]

The problem for m me is not that I'd like the United States to be perfect (no country can be perfect). It's that the rhetoric from the White House implies the United States and it's allies are good by definition. They want us to believe only the enemy bombs civilians.

The wars and Russia bashing will only get worse under a president Hilary. She's more likely to start a nuclear precisely because Donald is friends with Mr. Putun. Whenever things don't go Hilary's way and there Is another hacking revealing damming information about her she's always blaming Russia or Iran (or the voters) and she even said hacking her e-mails should be grounds for a conventional war even though when hacked it's notoriously hard to prove who the culprit is.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem for m me  is not that I'd like the United States to be perfect (no country can be perfect). It's that the rhetoric from the White House implies the United States and it's allies are good by definition. They want us to believe only the enemy bombs civilians.

What else do you expect them to say...and what does that have to do with anything you mntioned before?  Do you think that the soviet union wasn't -also- engaged in such propaganda.....because...-you repeated some of it-.  You may as well have let them stuff that sock in your mouth from beyond the grave, lol.....?

The wars and Russia bashing will only get worse under a president Hilary. She's more likely to start a nuclear precisely because Donald is friends with Mr. Putun. Whenever things don't go Hilary's way and there Is another hacking revealing damming information about her she's always blaming Russia or Iran (or the voters) and she even said hacking her e-mails should be grounds for a conventional war even though when hacked it's notoriously hard to prove who the culprit is.

Russia is not the soviet union...but just as there were -many..many- reasons to bash the soviet union, there are many, many reasons to bash russia (and the us, and the list just goes on and on).  Both regimes took care of that themselves...and yeah, sure, we added more fuel to the fire.  Again, what do you expect?

If you have a problem with country bashing, or with propaganda...I doubt that the way to most effectively deal with that is by a fairy tale reference to the bashed as the guys who rode in on a white hat. You are engaging in the thing you take issue with. When you find, that the only people in your camp when you do so are -propagandist loons themselves-, that should be a canary in the mines moment.

[abaris]

I doubt that greatly.  It's one thing to opine upon all of the ways that the US isn't a paragon of virtue (as though it were supposed to be?).  It's another to mythologize the soviet union of cold war fame.  Both nations spun the same, ridiculous, "we';re the good guys" propaganda.

One of the reasons why I never participated in the peace movement in the early 80ies. Being in our late teens back then, we were largely idealistic and hoped for a better world. Yet I saw no reason to march before and to protest the US embassy if they left out the Soviets. My idea was to form a chain between both of them to let them know we didn't stand for it. But the others didn't follow up on that idea. I was as concerned over the SS20 as I was over the Pershings and I didn't want any of them in my larger neighbourhood.

But my impression has changed a lot over the years. Not as far as history is concerned but as far as today's USA is concerned. From an outside perspective it looks to me as if certain interested parties are actively looking for enemies. To justify the unimaginable costs of that behemoth of an army and, of course the military industrial complex. To also justify the presence at nearly a thousand outposts around the globe.

To me it almost seems to be Orwellian.

[The Grand Nudger]

But my impression has changed a lot over the years. Not as far as history is concerned but as far as today's USA is concerned. From an outside perspective it looks to me as if certain interested parties are actively looking for enemies. To justify the unimaginable costs of that behemoth of an army and, of course the military industrial complex. To also justify the presence at nearly a thousand outposts around the globe.

To me it almost seems to be Orwellian.

You hardly need to look for enemies in a global world.  There is always someone, somewhere, who's interests are not aligned with your own, or whose interests are actively engaged -against- your own.  We don't -have- to justify the cost of our behemoth of an army, that's just something -you- think we'd have to do as an outsider.  It's a sacred american cow.  Both sides of the aisle (and all of their constituents) will not be seen doing anything -other- than "supporting our troops" (so long as they don't have to, you know..support our troops, lol).  That particular piece of americana doesn't require much in the way of maintenance.  We certainly don't -need- to galavant around the globe invading shit to do so...because we maintain that force -even in peacetime-.  This, too , grinds against the idea that we need to have enemeies to maintain the military industrial complex.  We don't...we'd do it anyway, we -have- done it anyway.  You could say that it became a habit.  That a half decade of cold war made up-armament the norm.  It's not a bar that we invent things to raise to, it's the ground floor.  

As to our presence in outposts.  You mean, those strips of land we rent and lease, in ally and client states, in which we amass military equipment, that the governments in question don't seem to treat as an invasion..in an effort to be certain that should a fight arise (we have alot of proxy war experience) it plays out in someone else yard?  Here again, we have no need to invent an enemy to apply this "faraway war" doctrine to....history tells us that they will present themselves with regularity.  

I;m not, in any of the above, signing off y approval on the policies.  Frankly, I come down far and away on the other side of that line.  However, when the narrative becomes that of the evil empire, an orwellian nightmare...I can't help but to suggest that this is a mis-identification.  It isn't through malice, or at the behest of the military industrial complex, or because of a need to justify this that or the other, that we do these things.

To another, related opinion of mine. I think that maybe, a government as large and faceless and as ours, with the ability to do what it can and has been doing, cannot but -help- to appear orwellian, cannot help but be perceived -as- the evil empire. There's something about a beaurocratic grinding machine that we all rail against, enough to write fiction about it in every language, for it to be a trope. Juxtapose that view of the US against the fact that we're a bunch of (mostly) chubby, jovial fuckers who like to watch people play sports and buy useless but novel shit made elsewhere for cheap. How does an army, and country, made of that, become the empire, one wonders? Proxy wars would be the easy answer...but we don;t acknowledge our involvement in proxy wars, it's not something that we wave flags for. If we did, there'd be no point in denying our involvement (however transparent that denial is). At worst, we have flawed and or incompetent people doing things, and helping others to do things that no one -supports-. That no one wants their names attached to, in an increasingly complicated world. It's more a tragedy than a story about a monster. More a collection of dolts with limited means than of totalitarian puppetmasters.

Besides, the really smart guys, candidates for puppetmaster general, they went to the military industrial complex, they aren't in public service....the pay is shit........ and that;s why our goivernment has trouble standing up to them. They're outmanouvered, and the other guys have all the talent. We -should- have put these factories in other countries, where we could proxy the shit out of them when they stepped out of line.

[RobertE]

And one or two more major terror attacks in Europe and you may see the shit hit the fan over there, too.

Somehow, in spite of his constant assertion to not take sides, I don't think Robert ould view it as shit hitting the fan. Also, it obviously doesn't need as much as a terror attack. In Germany the rightwing AFD is strongest where there hardly are any refugees let alone terrorist attacks. People buy fear as if it Leyland Gaunt has set up shop there.

The AFD, by the way, is one of the most despicable parties that surfaced like turds in a clogged toilet recently. They're Islamophobic as well as antisemitic. Bigoted in every possible direction.

Because they happened to be voting today. You know? Current news!

And I correct my previous statement. Not even 40 percent of Hungarians have actually voted. 60 percent couldn't be arsed. Invalid ballot by a long chalk which doesn't prevent that turd Orban to celebrate it as a victory.

[abaris]

As to our presence in outposts.  You mean, those strips of land we rent and lease, in ally and client states, in which we amass military equipment, that the governments in question don't seem to treat as an invasion..in an effort to be certain that should a fight arise (we have alot of proxy war experience) it plays out in someone else yard?  Here again, we have no need to invent an enemy to apply this "faraway war" doctrine to....history tells us that they will present themselves with regularity.  

Kind of a chicken or egg question, isn't it?

By most accounts Bin Laden and followers only got to the point that culminated in 9/11 by American troops being stationed in the vicinity of the most holy Islamic sites. I don't have to agree with Bin Laden's agenda to see that this is kind of a provocation. It's a no brainer.

Same with Iraq. The most holy sites of the Shia are there. So the whole invasion and occupation had to backfire at some point.

I for one couldn't care less who's parking their ass at some religious site. But religious people might, and there are always some taking it to a more radical level.

So, yes, the sheer presence is bound to create some enemies.

But I was more referring to the new cold war between Russia and NATO. That's what I observed since 1989. NATO moved closer and closer to the Russian borders and I was always thinking, for fucks sake, give them some time to breathe and to find a new identiy before you put them into a stranglehold. That's the ticket on which Putin rose to the level of power he now holds.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kind of a chicken or egg question, isn't it?

LOL, absolutely.  Thing is, it doesn't matter which came first back when...we have both the chicken and the egg before us now and so they must be confronted.

By most accounts Bin Laden and followers only got to the point that culminated in 9/11 by American troops being stationed in the vicinity of the most holy Islamic sites. I don't have to agree with Bin Laden's agenda to see that this is kind of a provocation. It's a no brainer.

The most holy islamic sites being referred to are in a client/ally states borders.  We didn't invade them, and put the guns there.  What provocation, to whom, someone we give a shit about provoking?  Who would that be?  People can feel offense where none was sent.  

Same with Iraq. The most holy sites of the Shia are there. So the whole invasion and occupation had to backfire at some point.

Of all of the reasons we may have invaded, the location of muslim holy sites must have been at the very bottom of the list...but more likely, not present at all.  The presence of religious buildings doesn't ensure "backfire"...there's nowhere in the world that doesn't have some super holy site attached, for somebody, and that alone does not and cannot guarantee the sort of reaction we got in iraq.  In any case, we do make attempts to accomodate the local populace and their religious proclivities...which is a rare mercy in context.

I for one couldn't care less who's parking their ass at some religious site. But religious people might, and there are always some taking it to a more radical level.

Right, and neither in my opinion, does the US government.  That religious radicvals might take something to the next level doesn;t depend on any reality to their greivance...obviously, they more than willing to act without necessity of reality...they're religious radicals.  

So, yes, the sheer presence is bound to create some enemies.

Those are the sorts of enemies I, personally, don't mind us making.  In truth, they make themselves and then smash against the rock that is the US. They positively -need- for there to be a great satan as an opponent of their great god.  No need to thank us, yet another service we provide.  

But I was more referring to the new cold war between Russia and NATO. That's what I observed since 1989. NATO moved closer and closer to the Russian borders and I was always thinking, for fucks sake, give them some time to breathe and to find a new identiy before you put them into a stranglehold. That's the ticket on which Putin rose to the level of power he now holds.

They couldn't afford, in their estimation, to give them room to breath.  Room to breath was room to engage, and that;s the opposite of what they wanted or thought best for themselves and the world.  Ideologically, it;s seductive...but practically, it was (and stilll is) a non-choice. That is the ticket Putin rode, though, that is a consequence. I think that the possibility that a politician like putin might rise to power, someday (chiefly, decades later) would not have been a consequence that, if known, could override their compelling reasons for what they did, then. Compelling, to them, ofc. Now that a politician like putin -has- arose....they might find those same policies as compelling as they did once before.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When you say superpowers, the Soviets were not imperialist like the United States is. They supported revolution; the overthrow of corrupt dictators, in particular the goons installed by the CIA.

lol, this is as uninformed a statement as I've read on here since ... since ... I don't know when.