• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The ISIS Megathread

Communism (as a society) requires a drastic minimization of scarcity. People will always fight over, hoard and profit from scarce resources, it's where they obtain their value.

Where has scarcity ever been mostly eliminated? Certainly not early 20th century Russia.
 
^ The revolution went off in all the wrong places. Russia, China, Cuba and the rest where certainly not advanced enough economically for Socialism to work. It may very well have worked in Germany had the moderates not fucked it all up.
 
Worked for how long? And with humans killing off the Monarch butterfly for example of life they are destroying- how our practices are unsustainable- how Monanto's chemicals can be blamed for bee decline, how we just don't have a mastery of our environment... How can we expect "communism" to be feasible?

And what happens when, if it is in place, it fails to be able to meet the needs of everyone? Elements will form smaller units, and will capitalize, and will take, and some won't get what they need. And I don't really blame these "elements". If in these situations I had the connection and know how to get what I and my family needs, I'd use that ability, even if my family's ensured survival might mean another's not. I'm not going to have skeletal children barely hanging on and afflicted by things we can't control just so everyone else and their children can be barely hanging on, in the same situation. If I see a way, even if it means "not sharing", I'll take care of my own.

"Communism" is an ideal that so far I dont think it could exist successfully on a large scale. It is unrealistic, at this point in time. It goes against human nature. It is against nature.
 
Last edited:
That is my point. We don't and don't in the foreseeable near future have mastery of our environment. I don't know if the technologies are 100 year into the future, 11, or 1000, that would allow it. But right now so many factors could upset some perceived state of "non scarcity".
 
That is my point. We don't and don't in the foreseeable near future have mastery of our environment. I don't know if the technologies are 100 year into the future, 11, or 1000, that would allow it. But right now so many factors could upset some perceived "non scarcity".

Which is why we can't snap our fingers and have a communist society :P

But should we be laying this foundation, or just continuing on as we are?
 
And why at this point being a (or arguing based from this ideal, with expectation that we could function as) "communist" is... It just seems pointless. Its on par with someone claiming to be part of a future/fantasy space empire aligned with Sirius and expecting the natural world to take you seriously. To attempt to illustrate (I'm prone to error, however- some work may be needed on the readers part).
 
Because the question is do we start addressing the social, cultural and economic issues that impede progress or do we ignore that the future will someday exist? This isn't fiction, we're talking about the real world.

Either way, we're getting a little off the original topic here.
 
I agree. It should be an ideal that is taken into account in life's proceedings (and business owners should treat their employees fairly- resources distributed in good balance), and as I've said I admire the concept. I just can't judge people for taking care of their own. And if living with others means living with less of what I or my family needs, well, I've said it.

But yes it is getting off topic.
 
Okay i know Fox news does not exactly pander to the brightest bunch but do they really think they need to point out to Muslims that ISIS are nutters? I mean who the fuck do they think has been on the receiving end of ISIS attacks? Who do they think has been the ones fighting off ISIS? That's right those evil brown people have been fighting ISIS and are all too familiar with the brutality they are capable of. But right wingers especially the type of morons that watch fox don't even realize that there are different sects of Islam and that ISIS hates the Shia's, moderate Sunni's and Sufi's much more then they hate westerners. The Kurds who have done most of the fighting are mostly Muslims of different sects themselves with Sunni Islam and Sufist Islam probably being the top 2 there.

Also burning people alive is hardly a thing ISIS came up with. In the New York slave revolt of 1712 twenty blacks where burned to death even though that form of punishment was not allowed to be done to white people by that time. In the New York Conspiracy of 1741 the upper classes where worried that the working class Irish who where usually "indentured servants" aka slaves and blacks where joining together to slaughter the ruling class. It was little more then a case of mass hysteria but at the end atleast 13 blacks where burned at the stake along with a few white people as well i think. More recently it was not uncommon for Southern slave owners to burn their slaves alive as a example to anyone else who might think of escaping. So it's hardly a new Phenomenon or anything. This is not even mentioning how people get burned alive in Mexico even to this day.

No, but ISIS is using a juxtaposition of medieval barbarianism and cutting-edge technological innovation that is able to create a chilling reaction that the West hasn't really seen before outside of Hollywood. I've seen a lot of war footage and terrorist propaganda and while brutal, I thought I had become desensitized to everything at this point. But not only is the burning video all sleek and professionally made, it also has this sense of being part-entertainment that sticks with you and seems worse than just being "all part of the war" or whatever. It really is all bad.

Fox News putting it up on their website was a strange move. I guess the argument is that Fox's viewership would get all gung-ho about strengthening the efforts to fight ISIS (they are the war-mongering network and all) and the network could continue to profit via exploiting cheap American patriotism. This, however, is exactly the escalation that ISIS thrives on. They have figured out how to play the Western media pretty well for their foreign recruitment. And even if their war really is a regional one and they just want to rule that land, terror groups like that need the continued existence of a meddling foreign superpower (that they can point to as a reason to get upset) as one common denominator for otherwise diverse recruits. Of course, I believe any news network should have the right to air whatever they wish. It's just strange that even the fresh, young news outlets refrained from showing anything, and yet Fox put the whole freakin' thing up.
 
RedLeader said:
Fox News putting it up on their website was a strange move. I guess the argument is that Fox's viewership would get all gung-ho about strengthening the efforts to fight ISIS (they are the war-mongering network and all) and the network could continue to profit via exploiting cheap American patriotism. This, however, is exactly the escalation that ISIS thrives on.

This social-systemic symbiosis has existed since times predating the emergence of "Al Qaeda" as an organizational and ideological schema. You can add to this duo strongly ideological neoconservatives, who depend on the relationship between the prior two to make their overall worldview "ideologically plausible".

ebola
 
“Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.”
=

General Wesley Clark on talking to Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the pentagon just after the invasion of Afghanistan
 
Redleader said:
No, but ISIS is using a juxtaposition of medieval barbarianism and cutting-edge technological innovation that is able to create a chilling reaction that the West hasn't really seen before outside of Hollywood.

I too was taken aback by the production values of that video. There were some hokey bits for sure, but in general it was professional and totally clever. Totally aping western cinema too which I found intriguing, using quick edits and fancy fades and well made FX as seen in mainstream hollywood crap. Would not have thought that these beardoes would have been up to that. Coupled with the climactic scene, this is some of the best propaganda since the Nazi's. Totally chilling in its implications...
 
An extremely interesting analysis of the ISIS problem...

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
What Is Islamic State?

If, as seems likely, ISIS is a creation of the USA and Zionist Israel, they may have created a monster they cannot control.
 
I think media in general by delivering the news and talking so much about it may be doing exactly what they want.
They have had too many '15 minutes of fame'. On the other hand freedom of speech is mandatory, too bad it´s working for the bad guys.
 
Top