1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Western hypocrisy on foreign policy

Discussion in 'Personal' started by red_observer, Aug 7, 2020.

  1. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    The hatred is entirely in your own head.
    Will you be bestowing us with justifications or examples or are we all just expected to accept your say-so, as usual.
     
    Oscillatingass likes this.
  2. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    That’s pure hindsight.
    Versailles was a great treaty that foreshadowed the founding principle of the UN.
    The map of Europe is basically that which was determined at Versailles.

    Let me guess though: “nonsense”
     
  3. WB

    WB Star commenter


    I agree that the treaty was harsh on Germany; given what happened in and to France I don't think France were entirely unjustified. I still wouldn't go as far as to say that France and the UK were to blame for the Nazis.

    I did like Robin Cook, a lot.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  4. ACOYEAR8

    ACOYEAR8 Star commenter

    Within each culture/society and to an extent due to the kind of history lessons taught in respective schools, people hold ' memories' of past wrongs . Witness the way films and books immediately post WW2 depicted Germany and Japan.

    Religions have their ' memories' too and hatred of Jews tapped into the idea they had crucified Jesus. These memories stretch way back for some people. It's highly likely that Richard Lionheart's behaviour is not forgotten.
    The Massacre of Ayyadieh

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Ayyadieh
     
  5. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Germany and its predecessors had benefitted from huge reparations from France and annexed French territory following the war of 1870. The French had been insulted by Prussians 40 years earlier and with that still open wound of 1870, Versailles was seen as repayment plus justifiable for all the damage that Germany had done to the French industrial heartland not just on the battlefield but for its scorched earth policy on retreat. Germany had also imposed huge sanctions on the new Soviet state and had planned from the outset new crippling sanctions on France had Germany won WW1.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
    red_observer and alex_teccy like this.
  6. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Im going to put you on ignore I think. You’re just nasty and intolerant. I’ve tried to be nice with you but I’m actually sick with your approach. As are many others from the PMs I get.
     
    Spoofer4114 likes this.
  7. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    Indeed and I don’t disagree with your analysis. Just not sure what your point is in relation to the rise of Hitler ?
     
  8. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    In what way was my post “nasty” or “intolerant”?
    The reality is, you just can’t handle other posters having a different opinion.
    And when we’re you ever “nice” to me? You’re constantly slandering me with baseless accusations or flaming me.
    If you could just stick to the discussion the would be no problem.
     
  9. Romoletto

    Romoletto Occasional commenter

    Just saying something doesn’t make it true. I have shown you that the demands aren’t just open ended yet you are repeating it. You say they are “unachievable” yet give no explanation as to how or why that is the case. This isn’t exactly a well structured argument or a demonstrable we reasoned position you are exhibiting here.

    Whether you are right or wrong, you haven’t actually demonstrated any of this to be the case. You just state that it is so. Therefore not really worth engaging with this part of your think piece.

    I’m sure you already know the answer to that, but Google it, the information is readily available. Israel has attacked Palestinians several times.

    Ah, so you are aware of who attacked Palestine but wish to negate that fact with this statement. Just from a stand point of logic, even if one accepts your statement it doesn’t negate the stated fact that Israel has attacked Palestine/Palestinians.




    Erm do you view the entirety of Palestine and Palestinians as part of that “Islamist group”?

    Because that is who Israel has denied statehood and has increasingly taken land from to further make statehood impossible/impractical.


    Yes Arab Muslims and Christians have lived side by side with Arabized Jews for more than a millennia, often under explicitly Islamic regimes/dynasties where they have had ample
    ability to carry out this hidden wish/agenda you speak of but somehow didn’t.

    Yet all of that history is in your mind superseded by the post colonial event of the formation of the state of Israel and the migration of those Jews to that state which has openly courted them and all Jews across the globe to move there, has set itself up as their embodiment or ambassador in state form and proceeded to have a somewhat antagonist relationship with the locals since its inception. You take this relatively short and recent history as evidence of Arab states wish to “eradicate the Jews”? Even though these same Arab states currently have relationships with the state of Israel?

    your reasoning is clearly clouded/faulty

    Erm ...

    (4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

    The better question is why is your level of comprehension so bad?


    the answer is to actually read what was said and not make it up.

    Yes and no. It withdrew most of its troops and rehoused them in neighbouring countries such as Qatar and Iraq. Ironically enough, if you google reports from 2003, you will find lots of acknowledgement from senior officials of their presence being a recruiting factor for AlQaeda, yet here you are disputing it.



    Indeed, part of the rise of ISIS was due to the situation in Iraq. . . Now did the US play any role in that? Could that be said to be a causal factor? Could it be said to be political? Was it predictable based on the cited grievances made by Osama and Alqaeda?

    https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1147

    That article is from 2003. It makes for interesting reading with the benefit of hindsight.

    Fascinating points but your moving away from the point under discussion between me and you, which is the question of whether their motives and aims were more religious or political.

    I proposed they are more political and I have shown you how I came to that conclusion, stick to dealing with that before introducing other points not pertinent that discussion.

    Careful there, this line of reasoning is awfully close to the one employed by the terrorists to justify the killing of civilians. Namely, making civilians liable for the actions of their government and thereby justifying making them
    suffer for those actions.


    No, that is actually not correct. Google it.

    Our discussion is about the aims of groups being predominantly political or religious. Did the perpetrator have a manifesto or something similar which we could use to ascertain their motives and goals in committing their act? If they did, then submit it and we can see how theological vs political it is and further our discussion. Otherwise I will say it is neither here nor there. Just as other criminals are allowed the lone wolf/mental health/etc rationalisations despite the evidence to the contrary, if there isn’t evidence of a wider affiliation or manifesto then there’s just unhelpful speculation.





    I wholly agree

    Collective guilt is wrong and reprehensible is it? Then why is it that you did it earlier with your support of the sanctions against Iraq by saying “children would not die if governments were not corrupt”?


    false dichotomy here. I can believe in individual accountability and at the same time recognise causal factors which influence the actions and decisions taken. It is why I can say these people’s actions are reprehensible and should be punished, whilst also recognising that the conditions which brought about their actions are not entirely of their own making and are to a great extent a result of the US or other western power’s foreign policies.

    now I recognise that the extent bit is debatable, and one could have a discussion about “to what extent” but the very existence of a causal link isn’t. Seeking to paint the entire thing as some irrational and wholly unjustified intrinsic religious hatred is disingenuous, stupid or both.
     
    Spoofer4114 likes this.
  10. Romoletto

    Romoletto Occasional commenter

    Interesting...

    Out of curiosity,

    which definition of capitalism necessitates usury?

    What do you mean by false consciousness? It’s a Marxist term, but you’re not a Marxist from what I understand, so wouldn’t accept that concept, so why are you using it? or are you suggesting that Osama and alqaeda were Marxist and are arguing based on the concept of false consciousness? If so, where?

    similar questions as above regarding the historic materialism.
     
  11. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Lead commenter

    I see Alex is getting another thrashing.
     
  12. Brunel

    Brunel Lead commenter

    Getting a thrashing from a comedy double-act isn’t a real thrashing though is it?
     
  13. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    So Alex goes out of his way to explain why he believes what he believes and your usual response is "pathetic", "wrong" or "where is your evidence". You never, ever, ever offer a counter argument but now you have decided you will put him on ignore. Lol.
     
    SparkMaths and alex_teccy like this.
  14. red_observer

    red_observer Star commenter

    I think I have consistently provided evidence and a lot of it is opinion of course. Because I respect your posts I reply to it. I was just fed up with his co draft nastiness and bile and got fed up with even bothering to treat him seriously.
     
  15. Romoletto

    Romoletto Occasional commenter

    Lovely sniping from the peanut gallery here, but could you kindly avoid including me in it? The suggestion of a comedy double gives the impression that it is inclusive of me and I don’t particularly appreciate it.
     
  16. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    582649EF-A07B-428C-9A03-F3C29BB3D06E.gif
     
  17. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    Its a tough ol' world.
     
  18. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Star commenter

    So give us an example of my “bile”- I’m not flaming you so what’s your problem?
     
  19. Romoletto

    Romoletto Occasional commenter

    upload_2020-8-9_12-14-2.gif
     
  20. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    I presume the one on the left is you.
     
    alex_teccy and Romoletto like this.

Share This Page