1/3 of Russian population headed to bunkers

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thats the problem. By not thinking in terms of right or wrong you will always be stuck in shades of grey.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Syria are bad guys.

Does that make ISIS good guys? If not, which guys are worse? Oh Peter Dooky, we're back into those "shades of grey" my willful lobotomy was supposed to wipe out!!!

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh but they have a "secular leader". Bullshit. They are dealing with Iran and Russia. These are not good countries. They are demonstrably bad for as long as we can remember.

The alternative is the United States of America. You know, the country where the president who presided over drug dealing to impoverished blacks domestically to bypass congress in funding covert wars is still worshiped as a hero and the greatest post-WW2 leader (triggered?). There are not "good guys".

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even if Assad wanted to, he couldn't bring any real peace to the region because his country is 70% muslim and clearly, they don't even like him

Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi all had pretty solid control over their respective territories before they were destabilized from outside. Your statement above is simply false, and you are in one deep motherfucking slumber if you believe the continuing instability in Syria is an organic outgrowth of an organic Arab Spring.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok so its some globalist faction destabilizing Syria. Tell me what motivation globalists (this term gets misused so much) have that would be any more pertinent than independent US motivations of preventing a coalition of arab nations from toppling the oil-backed US economy?

Instability in the middle-east is highly conducive to the goals of (((internationalist financiers))) and American/Europeans with (((dual loyalties))) although it is partially aligned with support of the petrodollar (entangling alliance, and you are not an American if you think it is a good thing). You can disagree or call me tinfoil for believing that these people will follow their "prophecy" even deeper down the rabbit hole, but considering that Zionists are fully planning on the destruction of Israel as a stepping stone to global dominion, I consider them to be globalists. Maybe I'm wrong and Zionists really are just Israeli nationalists and I'm misusing the word "globalism". shrug

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does that make ISIS good guys? If not, which guys are worse? Oh Peter Dooky, we're back into those "shades of grey" my willful lobotomy was supposed to wipe out!!!

Bad is bad. Both are bad. One is bad now, the other is bad later. No amount of democracy is going to westernize or secularize them away from their religion and hatred of USA, western values and of Israel.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The alternative is the United States of America. You know, the country where the president who presided over drug dealing to impoverished blacks domestically to bypass congress in funding covert wars is still worshiped as a hero and the greatest post-WW2 leader (triggered?). There are not "good guys".

That is where you are wrong. For all our horrible politicians and everything messed up going on at home and abroad, USA is the good guys. Our nations actions for over a century, regardless of the motives behind them, has made life safer and better for civilized peoples everywhere. You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi all had pretty solid control over their respective territories before they were destabilized from outside. Your statement above is simply false, and you are in one deep motherfucking slumber if you believe the continuing instability in Syria is an organic outgrowth of an organic Arab Spring.

I've seen and read what Syrians thought about Assad since before the war even started. To them, he is a skinny, effeminate, westernized prick and a horrible successor or alternative to his father and brothers.

Did the US use that to our advantage - I'm sure. Is everything we're doing above board? Almost definitely not. Do we have to use all kinds of round about ways to accomplish things in the mideast. Always unfortunately. We are now cucks to the UN and can't do whats obviously right due to real globalist restrictions.

Is both the middle east and the world better off when Arab nations are not allowed to unite under a hostile ideology? of course. Again, anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot and beyond educating.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Instability in the middle-east is highly conducive to the goals of (((internationalist financiers))) and American/Europeans with (((dual loyalties))) although it is partially aligned with support of the petrodollar (entangling alliance, and you are not an American if you think it is a good thing). You can disagree or call me tinfoil for believing that these people will follow their "prophecy" even deeper down the rabbit hole, but considering that Zionists are fully planning on the destruction of Israel as a stepping stone to global dominion, I consider them to be globalists. Maybe I'm wrong and Zionists really are just Israeli nationalists and I'm misusing the word "globalism". shrug

As I've said before, global politics is an absolute clusterfuck of opposing agendas. The house is divided, it always has been and always will be even if their causes align at some points on some issues.

Trying to ascertain who exactly is doing what for who and what reason is nearly impossible because even the people responsible aren't entirely sure what part of any action or sanction or military action is backed by who. Its just not as simple as conspiracy theorists and anti-zionists like to believe.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bad is bad. Both are bad. One is bad now, the other is bad later. No amount of democracy is going to westernize or secularize them away from their religion and hatred of USA, western values and of Israel.

Which is why physical domination by a secular dictator who is dependent on outside aid to maintain stability is the most optimal outcome even within your sick imperialist paradigm. Allowing for mob rule (actual democracy) in these regions creates entities like ISIS.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is where you are wrong. For all our horrible politicians and everything messed up going on at home and abroad, USA is the good guys. Our nations actions for over a century, regardless of the motives behind them, has made life safer and better for civilized peoples everywhere. You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

Semite-dominated puppet empires limited by Western values make more humane hegemons than those with overtly Semitic ideology a la Soviet Union, sure. But this idea that foreign states should not be allowed to fail, that the United States has a responsibility to anything other than its citizenry, is a toxic globalist ideology that you seem to be buying into. The US was not intended to be a global empire and imposing our will on foreigners by force, even with the best of intentions, will deservingly earn us destruction.

If brown foreigners want to rape each other to death that is their prerogative. They will waste too much time on that to pose any existential threat to the United States. And if they do want to fuck with us, nuclear deterrence renders non-interventionism a more viable option than ever before in history.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've seen and read what Syrians thought about Assad since before the war even started. To them, he is a skinny, effeminate, westernized prick and a horrible successor or alternative to his father and brothers.

And I've seen and read that Americans thought Bush was a war criminal who did 9/11. Yet no foreigners intervened and the regime remained stable.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is both the middle east and the world better off when Arab nations are not allowed to create unite under a hostile ideology? of course. Again, anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot and beyond educating.

Without (((British))) meddling as Ahldagor mentioned, weaponized neopuritan belligerant Islamic unity against foreign aggressors would not exist. The contents of the Quran disgust me but not any more than the contents of the Talmud -- so take your pick R Flair, either both need to be harassed militarily or wiped from the face of the Earth, or both can coexist with the West.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I've said before, global politics is an absolute clusterfuck of opposing agendas. The house is divided, it always has been and always will be even if their causes align at some points on some issues.

Trying to ascertain who exactly is doing what for who and what reason is nearly impossible because even the people responsible aren't entirely sure what part of any action or sanction or military action is backed by who. Its just not as simple as conspiracy theorists and anti-zionists like to believe.

You're not wrong about this, but you are still a globalist interventionist cuck.

[R Flair]

Your post is just so full of crazy its almost not worth responding to, but I'll give it a shot for fun.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which is why physical domination by a secular dictator who is dependent on outside aid to maintain stability is the most optimal outcome even within your sick imperialist paradigm. Allowing for mob rule (actual democracy) in these regions creates entities like ISIS.

In a perfect world where these secular dictators weren't attempting to reform Assyria and align with nations whose stated goal is to destroy the great satan the US and destroy the Jewish state, this would indeed be great.

But that simply isn't the reality of Syria nor their brothers of Iran (nor their Greek orthodox cousins Russia). You have been duped by all those anti-American conspiracies you have been buying into wholesale.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Semite-dominated puppet empires limited by Western values make more humane hegemons than those with overtly Semitic ideology a la Soviet Union, sure. But this idea that foreign states should not be allowed to fail, that the United States has a responsibility to anything other than its citizenry, is a toxic globalist ideology that you seem to be buying into. The US was not intended to be a global empire and imposing our will on foreigners by force, even with the best of intentions, will deservingly earn us destruction.

Blah blah semitic this semitic that. More Jews live in New York than anywhere else on the planet. Just because they are writing down these social doctrines that existed for millennia in nations and empires of white and non-jews doesn't mean they are exclusively semitic. Put away your flaming cross.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If brown foreigners want to rape each other to death that is their prerogative. They will waste too much time on that to pose any existential threat to the United States. And if they do want to fuck with us, nuclear deterrence renders non-interventionism a more viable option than ever before in history.

If they could only be satisfied raping each other and had no intention of raping everyone else and unifying esp thru private commodities markets, then we'd likely have no problem.

Unfortunately their actions and stated intentions suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And I've seen and read that Americans thought Bush was a war criminal who did 9/11. Yet no foreigners intervened and the regime remained stable.

Without (((British))) meddling as Ahldagor mentioned, weaponized neopuritan belligerant Islamic unity against foreign aggressors would not exist. The contents of the Quran disgust me but not any more than the contents of the Talmud -- so take your pick R Flair, either both need to be harassed militarily or wiped from the face of the Earth, or both can coexist with the West.

You're not wrong about this, but you are still a globalist interventionist cuck.

And you are a noninterventionist cuck (which is actually a cuck by definition) pretending that everything will just be a-ok if the west stands aside because our motives are not pure. Thats even worse.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you are a noninterventionist cuck (which is actually a cuck by definition) pretending that everything will just be a-ok if the west stands aside because our motives are not pure. Thats even worse.

thanks for italicizing the part that you made up

what i actually said is intervening in foreigners' affairs by force of arms is a transgression regardless of intentions and deserves recourse as a matter of self defense

you are literally a globalist. alex jones shakes his head at you.

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

thanks for italicizing the part that you made up

what i actually said is intervening in foreigners' affairs by force of arms is a transgression regardless of intentions and deserves recourse as a matter of self defense

you are literally a globalist. alex jones shakes his head at you.

I didn't make it up at all. You suggest our motives are all nefarious. Only some of them are and they don't represent everyone, though our agendas sometimes cross.

This is where the whole so-called globalism falls apart:

Globalism clearly wants to bring the United States of America low. It has to disintegrate people, make us poor and unite us together with the rest of the world.

The UN wants to limit our power in the Middle east. The UN ties USAs hands.

The US then circumvents the UN (which is definitively and without controversy, globalist to the core) covertly, in order to prevent nations bent on our destruction from procuring nuclear weapons and destroying our economy via private oil markets.

The UN doesn't care how the destruction of the US and unifying of the world comes about; whether its by crazy muslims with nukes, whether they destroy our economy routing oil away from the US dollar, or whether its old fashioned communism.

The globalists among us (the US) then take in refugees created by their wars to disintegrate our people. Not because "that was the plan all along", but because its the best they can do.

See how none of it makes sense? Do you see how its circular? Is it not obvious that whether we fight or we forbear, the outcome is the same and you could say either way, the globalist will is done? Not because the US gov is comprised entirely of people with a globalist agenda, but because there are people who, either way, will forward that agenda. Right now its primarily via socialist policies and social progressivism, but only because there is no way the real patriots among us are going to let Assyria rise up against the US or our allies (Israel).

But Israel is the real issue isn't it. As long as we are helping them, the globalist agenda must be going strong. And yet even that is antithetical if Israel is supposed to be destroyed to fulfill their destiny and receive their Messiah.

Its not as simple as you think.

I'm a patriot. Not the hair-brained Alex Jones variety that argues against himself as I just demonstrated above, but an American Nationalist who believes our self-interests are simply more important and better for everyone that what could possibly come of complete non-intervention.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hair-brained

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Going to call it now. Trump is going to be forced into further aggressive posturing once he learns what is at stake, and I guess at that point he will become a "globalist" in your eyes too. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're voting for Hillary, right? Bush sure is and he seems like your man.

I agree that it's very likely Don will continue neocon policy and prove your call correct but at least he sorta claims he won't.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

thanks for italicizing the part that you made up

what i actually said is intervening in foreigners' affairs by force of arms is a transgression regardless of intentions and deserves recourse as a matter of self defense

you are literally a globalist. alex jones shakes his head at you.

damn this edit lucid af