Little Paul,

You're just insulting our intelligence.

In your opening post you said that we "let it go," which clearly implied that we should stop it. You clearly implied that the logic behind not stopping it is faulty.

Now you say "No I did not. I stated why western powers didn't."

If the English language and what you clearly stated is beyond your ability to grasp, maybe a forum in English isn't the best place for you.

In any event, that was one attack. Which nobody needed a training camp to prepare for. Einstein is arguing that we need to invade every dirt poor nation terrorists or wannabe terrorists move into in order to prevent... People from coming to the United States, receiving flight training, and boarding flights? Really? We can't think of better ways to prevent that than invading foreign nations?

I love how you pretend to be an expert on terrorist infrastructure.

What major attacks did they ever carry out? 9/11? I'm not so convinced they did. Is that it? Is that all you've got? We've prevented ourselves from doing another 9/11? What other major attacks did they launch? None. What has a lack of attacks shown? Nothing. They never had that capacity with Afghanistan, and they still don't have it with less of Afghanistan. Shocking.

You're just pretending that some camps with firing ranges and barbed wire to crawl under are inherently crucial to terrorism. Because there's so much barbed wire they have to deal with to carry out attacks in the US! You're just pretending they need camps for anyone to study basic chemistry. Because ammonium nitrate and diesel are so hard to obtain and use!

...Your point? You're incoherent.

I was referring to our failed meddling with their leadership in the revolution which, if it didn't have a role in the current hatred of the West of many, certainly gave them a legitimate excuse.

We're talking about the US dicking around with the leadership of other nations. Just as I referenced, you again have given a partial and distorted historical account. As if a limited military scuffle was what I was referring to, not our attempt to determine their leadership. Are you serious? Give me a break. THAT's trolling, if it's not completely stupid and ignorant.

Regardless of the reasons we failed in Vietnam, I'm simply pointing out that we failed. Similar failings continue to this day in Afghanistan. Why we failed is irrelevant--especially when we continue those failures. My point is that we kill tens of thousands of our young men without anything to justify their sacrifice.

lol what a joke.

I love how you pretend 0% of the free market survives. You demand a government-run "free market." What you call for isn't a free market. You ask for systemic justice, I argue that the free market is systemic justice.

I've never argued that our free markets aren't significantly less free than they should be. You're just attacking straw-men and calling me names. And ignoring the points.

I love how you ignored my points regarding merit. You stated a ridiculous demand that merit not be rewarded, then ignored the topic after you got stomped. Very mature.

xeno zzz,

"When those who by their IQ and GPA are positioned in the system whereby their occupations further the process of systemic injustice...."

Hahaha xeno hates the free market. He hates merit-based systems. Idiots should be heart surgeons and nuclear physicists! Anything else is unjust! So what if I'm lazy and will make a shitty city manager? Give me the job or I'll cry that the system is unjust. Lazy people should be payed the same! And get the same jobs!

"one's success at university is determined by their GPA, when "success" should rather be determined by how their occupation during their career after completing university 'successfully' diminishes the prevalence of systemic injustice in our world."

It already is. The smarter you are and the harder you work, the more job and advancement opportunities you have available. This increases your pay, which is a great systematically just way to balance out those systematically unjust bloated training/education costs. This increases your pay, which is a great systematically just way to balance out the unfairness of the world.

Free markets are systematically just. Everybody gets what they earn. And what they earn is worth more, buys more. w00t w00t. You should learn about capitalism and why it's the best option. You should learn about freedom and why it's the best option. It's the cure for all of the systematic injustices which you constantly complain about.

Why wouldn't I insult you? You're communicating like a cocky child. It's not entertaining. It's not educational. It usually doesn't even make sense. You continually comment on irrelevant details, having ignored all points:

(1) Did anyone argue that the West or any other outside influence was responsible for the uprising from the start? That Syria might have hesitated to blame conflict on outsiders months ago is irrelevant. Unless anyone is arguing a timetable of when outsiders may have gotten involved, pointing out one reason for Syria NOT to blame outsiders many months ago is irrelevant. More importantly, they can blame deaths on the rebels. This was true months ago as well. The point is that any deaths escalate the conflict, regardless of who inflicts them and who the casualties are.

You're saying "they wouldn't have wanted to blame outsiders months ago," in response to the statement that any violence is good for outsiders now (the West in particular, because it has the best means). It has nothing to do with current Western (and others in the region) motivations to get involved. It has nothing to do with the fact that any increase violence now is used by the West to try to gain support for intervention.

(2) "That part was undisputed to begin with."

Response to evidence leading up to the point. Point ignored! Good job!

(3) "No it points out it can't be the reason why the Syrian army shoots its own civilians in the first place, and this was what this debate was all about."

It is? I was arguing that this is not a clear-cut case of a democratic people's revolution fighting an oppressive government. You made it very clear in your opening post that you wanted Western intervention. THAT's what this debate is about. I argued that the West and others may be instigating increased bloodshed. I never claimed that such would be the "reason" why Syria's Assad regime is barbaric and brutal in the first place. Point missed entirely!

From the very start you've simply blown off any suggestion that the West or other outsiders have the capability to instigate further bloodshed. From post 6 you've simply made all kinds of presumptions about what would have to be done and used your expert judgement to dismiss them. Forgive me for finding your assumptions laughable and making fun of you. What else am I going to do?

You presume it's impossible for the West or other outsiders to instigate violence. You presume ever shooting anyone _in a violent riot_ would be impossible to do without getting caught, even for a professional at a range. That was just one example. Arms can be given. Funds can be given. Training can be given. Information can be given. Technology can be given. You presume that acts committed to instigate violence on one or more sides would necessarily have to be the primary cause of civilian slaughter to even be considered. That's just weird. I'm not arguing that such acts are the primary cause of anything, so arguing that they're not is pointless.

I've only argued that the West and others have the means to escalate the violence, that they have motivation to do so, and that they've never let morality or anything like that hold them back in the past. Your response: Such actions by themselves are not enough to cause civilian slaughter, so they don't count? Yeah, I'll make sure I don't insult you.

I mentioned the sniper possibility. You said:
(4)"Yeah, hundreds of them."
Because obviously it takes hundreds of snipers to kill a few people. And there are no other ways outsiders could help more Syrians get killed. My suggestion has been refuted. Clearly impossible. From the very start you've been arguing against red herrings and straw-men. Einstein doesn't care, because he uses fallacious logic all the time. He can't tell the difference. But we can't base respect and discussion on fallacies thrown out for morons to agree with. We can't discuss points you ignore. Or relatively irrelevant details focused on instead.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree--Given limited information from the area and that talking about terrorism on teh interwebs is bad mmmmkay--But I'm still going to make fun of you for completely ignoring my points and nit-picking over largely unimportant details. You're responding to supportive evidence--saying "duh, we all know"--and ignoring points.

The West has done worse in the past. Undisputed.

The West has motivation to do so now. Undisputed.

The West has the means to influence the conflict now. -- You dispute this. Because clearly there aren't 100 journalists posing as snipers and a sniper could never kill someone in a civil war without getting caught! And nobody could ever arm the rebels. Or fund them. Or give them technology. Or give them information. Or give them training. Isn't this the stuff you would have disputed, if you were legitimately disputing my claim that the West (and others in the region, to a lesser extent) have the means? Yet you haven't. You're busy giving us your expert opinion on snipers. Because clearly if there aren't 100 British soldiers sniping people, all of this other stuff couldn't happen either.

Yeah, I tend to insult people who insult everyone's intelligence. You can't discuss anything with trolls. After a while of one-sided conversation, making fun of them (so they cry and have a negative experience) is a productive way to reduce their presence.

I love the bullshit rankings used. "human development index" and crazy nonsense indicating whatever the NWO UN bureaucrats want them to. Gini coefficient references, which indicate nothing of standard of living, because greed and whining are important? Give me a break.

The USA would be doing much better if socialists hadn't dragged us down to the level of those you praise. Half of the USA doesn't pay income taxes (they don't work or work mega low skilled/low hours jobs). Because of many of our socialist policies--poorly implemented to buy votes, I grant you--Our work ethic and productivity has plummeted drastically. Many just wait for government checks. For housing. For food. For entertainment money. They have cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV, and the internet. What's left to work for? Not much.

Imagining the US population under a more socialist government is horrifying given current cultural values. We're not a bunch of culturally unified hard workers striving to achieve economic success under decent leadership. We're a bunch of fragmented people, half of whom have no cultural values and vote 100% for handouts, under corrupt leadership.

I can appreciate GNI per capita and PPP per capita measures, but there are some caveats to that.

Where's your accounting for cultural values (such as those associated with work ethic and productivity)(we're losing ours quickly!) and favorable trade circumstances? You cannot implement these as you can socialist policies. Nobody champions Qatar's economic system because it's not responsible for their PPP/GNI per capita.

My point being that, I'm glad you're happy with socialism in their small, not particularly diverse countries. I'm glad you're satisfied with their sub-par healthcare. I'm glad you're satisfied with their high tax rates. I'm glad you're satisfied with their sub-par incomes. But to pretend that it could be so much of only a half-failure as it is in those 2 countries across the rest of the globe is laughable.

Of course, I'm giving your examples too much credit based on income per capita. You didn't mention their extremely high tax rates, requiring them to achieve higher average incomes to achieve the same standards of living.

Those dirty, dirty socialists. I'm tired of people ignoring real costs. Healthcare quality matters. Tax rates matter. Cost of living matters. Standard of living matters.

Ignoring tax rates and their impact on cost of living and how these drastically reduce [standard of living] / [per capita income] is ignorant.

~Wornstrum~,

Wow. Way to spout Chinese propaganda.

"We are talking freedoms, and people have the freedom to argue against the government, it needs to be in a peaceful manner."

Not on all topics. They can only argue against the government in areas which are approved. If they argue against the government's oppression, they can be, and often are, locked up.

They have the "freedom" to argue against what the government allows them to. They have no right to argue anything. They can't argue many things without being imprisoned. Being given the privilege to argue some things is not the "freedom" to argue anything. You misuse the word. That's not freedom by any definition.

"I am arguing against your understanding that China is a complete authoritarian government, but it has come clear that you have a complete misunderstanding of the situation and don't actually want to hear anything to the contrary."

It's as authoritarian as the ruling elite judge best to keep the people complacent and productive. The people don't have any "rights" or "freedoms" (look up these words?) which limit the government's authority. They have whatever "freedom" the government allows. And that's subject to whatever the government deems appropriate to keep them in line at a given time. That is, by definition, completely authoritarian. May I assist you with an English dictionary? That seems to be the source of your confusion.

I'm not suggesting that China's authoritarian government doesn't allow you decent privileges at the moment. I'm not suggesting that it's a total police state at the moment. I'm merely discussing the fact that their government is authoritarian. I'm merely discussing the fact that you have no rights in China. I'm merely discussing the fact that privileges are not rights and freedoms. You seem to have trouble with these concepts. Good luck with that.

"don't know how this is relevant to the debate considering you brought up food handouts as an argument and I said it is WRONG (you then go on about standard of living, stick to the TOPIC!)"

My reference to deciding what to have for lunch was obviously a figurative reference to freedom in general. I'm under no illusion you can't pick your lunch. That suggestion is just stupid. What you were responding to here was a coup de grace (which explains why it upset you so much, Chinese propaganda Panda): I asked how you to justify such oppression (lack of rights, freedoms) in light of the fact that it also causes a loss of standard of living. The topic was lack of freedom. I asked you how you rationalize such a lack of freedom in light of the lack of a decent standard of living it contributes to. It's very on topic. I'm still waiting for your justification.

""You can do anything you want? Except all kinds of things? That's not anything you want."<--- way to avoid the topic"

You can't smoke pot. You can't discuss the inherent virtue of freedom to mankind. You can't discuss democratic ideals and the crimes of Chinese oppression. You can't discuss forced sterilization and abortion. You can't discuss imprisonment of political dissidents. I'm sure I missed QUITE a few examples. You said you can do anything, just like me. You can't. That is the point. That is the topic. You're incoherent.

"I used my own example because I could actually give you figures."

And I appreciate your giving us this data point. It does not, however, have anything to do with national averages or the average Chinese citizen. You're far, far, far more wealthy than average.

"I also know, through my own research, that the average income is also increasing. But hey, I'm done, you go argue with yourself and stay in you own "utopia" (I only wish your own opinions would stay there also)."

My point, already clearly stated, was that "increasing" is not justification for the systematic oppression of an authoritarian regime. "Increasing" compared to what? Not compared to Taiwan and South Korea. Their economies have exploded in comparison. By comparison, their average income has fallen and remains very far behind.

Is it increasing compared to Zimbabwe? That's great, but it doesn't matter. It still sucks in China and Zimbabwe. The question is, is it increasing compared to what it would be under a democratic government and a free market? It's obviously not.

*****

xeno syndicated,

Please enlighten us. What a funny coincidence that you didn't explain, as you never do.

Do you even know what irony means? I have far, far more freedoms than Chinese citizens. Saying so is not ironic, because it's true. A joking reference to score does not somehow contradict this. Maybe learn english?

Oh, I forgot. you're just trolling. So when you don't explain your incoherent whining, I won't be surprised.

~Wornstrum~,

I merely explained why it doesn't matter. Presume 0% possibility of that suggestion and my points still stand. And I mocked Einstein for his ridiculous claims. I was specific. I made no appeal to authority. He did.  I'm not going to flash my credentials on a forum filled with childish weirdos. I'm OBVIOUSLY not the most mature adult when it comes to making fun of kids for shits and giggles, but I'm not THAT childish.