How not to Argue in Favour of U.S. Foreign Policy

A heated discussion ensues about U.S. foreign Policy and terror groups between user BRBaraka and user Ardinius after a sourced post on Reddit titled How Can We Condemn Boston Murders But Excuse U.S. Bombing of Civilians?


 BRBaraka

If the USA (or more specifically, it's foreign policy) never existed, most violent fanatical religious groups as we know them today wouldn't exist either.

how am i putting words in your mouth?

you wish to present this buffoonish notion by which the usa is responsible and accountable for entities and realities that no one serious would ever agree with

why can't i say that osama bin laden is responsible for everything the usa did since 9/11/2001? this is of course ridiculous. it is also of course completely compatible with the "logic" whereby the usa is responsible for the things you believe it is

you are not a serious person. you are intentionally trolling me or you have a very thin grasp on how reality: responsibility, accountability actually works in this world

if i tell you that i had to beat my wife because she wore a skimpy dress, and therefore her beating was her own fault, would you accept that explanation? how responsibility and accountbaility works in the mind of such a wife beater is perfectly compatible with how you think the usa is responsible for certain organizations, realities, and their actions

you are an absurd, unserious person

accountability. responsibility. understand these concepts. then try to say something serious about this subject matter

Ardinius

how am i putting words in your mouth?

Do you remember this from just a few hours ago?

you somehow believe all evil flows form washington dc and not anywhere else.

I responded by saying: "Do you have trouble with comprehension? At what point did I even use the term 'Evil'? Why would you even think in these terms - Foreign Affairs and international politics aren't like a superhero movie yeah?"

I even explicitly outlined precisely how I personally determine the ethical worth of a social entity here.

Yet you're still telling me this two posts up:

as long as you have this idea that all malice in the world flows form washington dc, nobody is going to take you seriously

I don't have this idea, I never said I had this idea, and where I've explicity told you I don't have this idea you have either ignored me or refused to engage with what I've said.

I mean you seriously can't talk to me about logic if you openly refuse to engage with or properly comprehend what I'm saying. You can't tell me about reason if you freely interpret what ever I tell you with no regard to what I have to say about it whatsoever.

And if you think I'm going to engage in abstract analogies with you given you can't even communicate with me properly, you're delirious.

BRBaraka

If the USA (or more specifically, it's foreign policy) never existed, most violent fanatical religious groups as we know them today wouldn't exist either.

do you honestly believe this?

then you believe malice flows from washington dc in magical ways. as long as you believe that the usa is responsible and accountable for entities, actions, and realities due to a very insane conception of how responsibility and accountability work in this world, no one can take you seriously on this subject matter

If the USA (or more specifically, it's foreign policy) never existed, most violent fanatical religious groups as we know them today wouldn't exist either.

if you honestly believe that, you are not a serious person

 

 

Ardinius

I don't care if I was telling you that magical unicorns were responsible for making the weather go round, if you're refusing to click on sourced material that I'm doing you the pleasure of linking you, then you're the ignorant one.

Furthermore, there is nothing magical about claiming that most fanatical terror groups wouldn't exist in the way they do today if it weren't for U.S. foreign Policy. Especially when I've linked sourced material in the very same sentence, which goes through a list of cases where extremist Islamic movements have arisen as a direct response to U.S. policies.

I'm not even gonna bother researching and linking further material to you, because you've clearly demonstrated you're not worth my time, but if you actually left behind your unshakeable notions that the U.S. could not possibly be capable of acting in their own interest at the cost of others, and did some of your own research in this area, you would find a documented history of U.S. involvement, both direct and covert, in propping up violent and extremist groups via material and strategic support to serve their own interests.

If you're not going to click on the links I provide you, then go do your own research. It's not that hard to find. Especially when as recent as two decades ago blockbuster movies like Rambo were talking about how violent Islamic extremist groups like the Mujahideen were to be seen as honourable freedom fighters.

 

BRBaraka

two decades ago blockbuster movies like Rambo were talking about how violent Islamic extremist groups like the Mujahideen were to be seen as honourable freedom fighters.

in what moronic morass does this in any way explain, justify, or mean anything?
and you want me to read your "sources"?

if you were talking to a creationist arguing against evolution, and he presented "sources" would you click on that? or reject stupidity outright when you see it?

you start with a premise whereby the usa is responsible for things nobody with a functional sense of this world would ascribe responsibility

this makes you silly and stupid. a shrill absurd fool

if you wish to be taken seriously in this world, on this subject matter, start with a premise that is actually sensical. such as: the usa is reponsible FOR WHAT THE USA DOES, not what osama bin laden did because the usa gave a stinger missile in the 1980s. sir: that is called ignorant

you fail to grasp how responsibility and acountability actually works in this world. you wish to ascribe responsibility and accountability according to absurd humorous reasoning. such as: "if you wear that skimpy dress, you will responsible for me hitting you." this is not how actual blame works. but in your mind, it does. you actually buy the bullshit some abusive asshole says is his "reasons" for being an abusive asshole? this is what you are trying to feed me here

this just happened today:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1cvn32/canada_to_announce_arrests_after_thwarting_major/

please, with your sterling logic, tell me how and why canada deserves this and why the "rationale" of terrorist shitbags is sensible. perhaps you wish to tell me canada is responsible for the motivations of the assholes who planned the attack?
you are a buffoon

Ardinius

if you were talking to a creationist arguing against evolution, and he presented "sources" would you click on that? or reject stupidity outright when you see it?

I would click on it in order to be able to confidently reject the creationist's arguments and sources. I wouldn't reject what a creationist says just because he's a creationist, just like I wouldn't reject anything a Muslim cleric would say just because of his religious background, or what a patriotic American would say just because he's American. If you're not going to take on board what another person is saying in a discussion, there is no point to the discussion.

the usa is reponsible FOR WHAT THE USA DOES

Yes. The USA is responsible for propping up violent extremist groups by supporting them materially and strategically. Now given that your so intent on shoving shit into my mouth, show me exactly where I said that the U.S. is responsible for the specific actions of terror groups.

Let's also try and use the analogy you presented to understand accountability in the context of the argument we've had: If an abusive asshole (terrorist groups) abuses his victim (mostly other muslims, by your own admission), who is responsible for the abuse? Clearly the Abusive Asshole.

Now in order to clarify your simplistic Analogy, let's insert a third external party (the U.S) with its own interests into the analogy. If this third party arms the Abusive Asshole (terror groups) with a hammer (material support), then goes about telling the Abusive Asshole how to attack his victim and to report on the effectiveness of the abuse he's doling out (Strategic Support), you tell me, who is responsible for being complicit in the Abuse doled out by the Abusive Asshole?

in what moronic morass does this in any way explain, justify, or mean anything? and you want me to read your "sources"?

Now watch what I'm gonna do here.

I'm gonna take that above analogy that I fixed for you,

Then I'm going to source you a specific example backing up why the analogy I made is credible and accurate:

Given your concerns about the credibility of my sources (because you know, you used the one link about rambo I sent you to ignore and discredit everything else I've sourced you), this link is a 15 month investigation by the Guardian and the BBC and an hour length report. It shows precisely how the U.S. (the third party) played a key role in training and overseeing US-funded Shiite Militia-police commandos (The Abusive Asshole) who ran a network of torture centers in Iraq and engaged in secterartian violence against the Sunni populace (the Victim).

Just to reiterate, I don't believe anyone is evil. I think such conceptions are simplistic and unhelpful. But if you want my honest opinion, from what I've been able to gauge from your responses, I think you're the one that believes, deep down, that the U.S. is evil and you're in utter denial about it because you're proud and want to believe their is good in the U.S (which there is).