On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:31:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
LMAO!!! You keep parroting US military propaganda?
You are delusional. You mistake correlation for causation. There is another strong association between the nations of North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Zimbabwe: they are all quite prominent in the news, which is primarily a product of the MSM (news media).
Right. And do I need to explain to you why that is the case? I hope you realize you've completed my argument for me? Those 4 nations are quite prominent *in the news^ because the "news" is military propaganda directed at americans and their western 'allies'. So currently americans are being brainwashed about the infinite evil of "www xxx yyy zzz" so that the US military get support to raze "www xxx yyy zzz" to the ground. And you seem to be playing their game for marketing purposes.
There are, of course, many problems with many nations around the world, see https://freedomhouse.org/ , but the large majority of them aren't very well publicized by the MSM, especially that of America.
There might be a weak association between the most prominent of these freedom-challenged nation, and what you call "US military propaganda",
Weak association? Come on.
but they are the same thing. I have a good reason to mention nations that Western audiences would recognize and understand.
As i hinted above I see what your game is. You are using military propangada to try to 'market' your system.
Good reasons to mention these nations:1. North Korea, has the hydrogen bomb, is developing ICBMS.
Fucking US nazis have thousands of nukes, thousands of ICBMs, biggest military on the plantet and hundreds of years of reputation and history showing that mass murder is their favorite passtime. And american nazis have of course used nuclear weapons against civilians. The rest of your comments on the other 3 countries is as misguided as your comment about NK.
No logical reason not to mention them.2. Venezuela: Currently they are starving their population, despite sitting atop a lake of oil.
3. Syria: Poisoning their population with chemical warfare agents, a very prominent war, ISIS terrorists, Russian involvement.4. Zimbabwe: Failed state, starving population.
I'd say the burden is on you to show why it would be somehow improper for me to list those nations. You are free to add more.
I already mentioned a country that is a way bigger threat to world peace than ANY of the ones you mentioned, by orders of magnitude.
My goal was an is to convince the public that there is very good reason to consider overthrowing numerous nations' governments. Merely adding to the list doesn't disprove my point. If anything, it proves it.
“The examples of nations such as North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Zimbabwe prove that some nations of are simply rogue"
So which nations are NOT 'rogue' Jim?
That's hard to say. As an anarchist I am not 'friends' with any nation's government.
So.....you either list the 190 nations on the planet or whatever the number is, or you list none. OR, if you are going to list SOME, then list the most important ones, NOT THE 4 ONES ON THE PENTAGON'S KILL LIST.
And why mention Zimbabwe and the USA?
I mention Zimbabwe because it is obviously a failed state.
Failed state? I guess you are not aware that the term is basic neocon newspeak? ANd why would an anarchist be concerned with failed states anyway? If a state fails we should throw a party...
Hyperinflation, for example, and a government which tolerates theft of property from members of the public, as well as murder.
I'm glad that the fucking jews at wall street never inflated the dollar.
Why mention the USA? My problems with the government of the US are well known, especially here.
Yes, and that makes your position even weaker. The governments of North Korea or Venezuela never laid a finger on you. The ameican gov't on the other hand....
Where's the evidence that the 4 countries, taken from the current list of the 'enemies' of the US nazis, are the 'worst nations'?
Did I claim they are 'worst nations'? I don't recall that.
Well, you might want to re-read what you wrote a few hours ago "It is interesting that Juan was sufficiently dishonest that he would selectively quote my citation of four of the WORST nations,..." https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-October/039861.html
They are, instead, very prominent and well-publicized examples of nations whose governments need to be rapidly removed.
Here we go again....
Their names and offenses are well known by the public.
while omitting the material you pointed out, and yet criticizing me as if I> had not mentioned it. In any case, Juan's criticism is foolish: From the very beginning (1995) I repeatedly pointed out that one of the big advantages of AP is that it won't have some sort of centralized agenda:
So why did you list as 'rogue' nations the countries that the american nazis want to invade and destroy? Does your knowledge of politics come from fauxnews and the washington post?
Are you implying that "the american nazis ONLY want to "invade and destroy" those specific four countries?!? THAT would really be an amazing coincidence. Ha ha! You set your own trap!!
Not at all. The complete list of targets is longer, but RIGHT NOW those 4 countries are at the top of the pentagon's kill list.
Rather, I named failed nations that are causing trouble, either for others or for their own people, or both. That they are also not popular with, say, the American government isn't necessarily a matter of causation, rather it is a matter of correlation.
Those 4 'failed states' are not causing any sort of special problem TO ANYONE except the US MILITARY.
No doubt if there were 2 or 3 other highly prominent nations with internal or external problems, you'd claim that "the american nazis want to invade and destroy" them, too.
Except there's nothing special about the 4 nations you mentioned. Unless you are admiting that you do believe in and parrot US military propaganda. You know which one is the biggest failed state that causes external problems for all the world ? It is the failed united states of maerica. But of course the US state is not failed at all. It is the most efficient and dangerous state on the planet. Thanks to close cooperation with american big business.
Neither _I_ (nor anyone else) won't be the one to control it. HE may think that the main target should be "X", while I think the main target should be "Y", etc.
Yes but the point at hand is the targets YOU mentioned.
And I mentioned that there are many other problem nations. I don't think you are successfully faulting me for naming four quite-valid targets; YOU are the one who started by misrepresenting what I said,
I started this by pointing out that your choice of countries was a bad idea. You didn't take the hint and instead dug yourself deeper...
falsely suggesting that I was only referring to four specific nations. That's very dishonest argumentation.
I am totally and clearly stating that the 4 countries you chose are the 4 countries at the top of the pentagon's kill list and that you are ignoring the biggest threat to freedom on the planet, the US government and its western lapdogs.
I could easily have listed a dozen more, but NOT mentioning those dozen more isn't a fatal flaw to my argument.
see above.
Neither needs to be "right", neither needs to be "wrong". Both targets get taken out if they are considered worthy by the public. (If people donate, a target will ultimately go.)I didn't mention over 7 billion people. Of what significance is that? Juan is obviously very self-centered.
How am I self-centered when I am asking YOU about YOUR pick of targets?
Because you are deliberately misrepresenting my characterization of those targets. Suggesting that I was indicating that they were exclusive, rather than inclusive of many others. (Had I listed every nation that I thought was actually a problem, I would have been listing over 190 nations.
Right as discussed above. But you didn't list them all. You didn't list the most important threats *either*. You listed 4 countries that are considered a threat only by the US nazi government. What's the problem with NK getting nukes? Why, that would weaken the power of the FUCKING AMERICAN NAZIS.
You cannot fault me for listing a few prominent ones,
THEY ARE NOT PROMINENT by objective standards. They are prominent only if you assume that US military propaganda is fact.
unless I stated or implied they were the only problems. Not only did I not do that, I specifically mentioned otherwise. )
Jim Bell