Germany NYE attacks

[YO303]

anyone who uses sargon of akkad as a news source is a joke in my eyes, his videos belong in cringe hell.

[delet...]

 

You talk about getting your information from multiple sources then bring up the gassing his own people lie, which even the UN inspector said he didn't do it. It was isis or whatever they were called at that time, because it was after Kerry warned it would happen and was pushing for intervention, then on the day the inspectors show up and across the road from where they were going to be the gas attack takes place, against his own core alawite supporters, people that have been massacred by the invading armies. Clearly you are no very well versed on this matter and should defer to those with more experience in such things before you attempt to school others.

 

you really need to stop peddling lies you hear on inforwars podcasts. what you have just said is patently untrue.

Sigh, I have seen video of the woman that led the team, corroborating this. You are the outright liar, if you were honest you wouldn't refute me out of hand like this and at least look up what I said, "from multiple sources". And yes using the independent media, which generally has an unbiased view, rather than the war mongering corporate media that you chaps fall for over and over again, before you can change, first you need to admit there's a problem. etc.

 

/leaves thread to go back to talking it's about the 'nuances' of the immaterial. bleSs

[delet...]

what's going on in the camps is not the issue at hand.

It's the same people eugy, your redirect technique into a narrowly defined rut has no effect.

[caze]

 

 

Sigh, I have seen video of the woman that led the team, corroborating this. You are the outright liar, if you were honest you wouldn't refute me out of hand like this and at least look up what I said, "from multiple sources". And yes using the independent media, which generally has an unbiased view, rather than the war mongering corporate media that you chaps fall for over and over again, before you can change, first you need to admit there's a problem. etc.

 

/leaves thread to go back to talking it's about the 'nuances' of the immaterial. bleSs

 

 

I didn't refute you out of hand, I already looked it up a long time ago, and I didn't read just read media reports, I looked at the actual UN report. Pretty much everyone except Russia and paranoid loons agree that it was the Syrian government that launched the sarin attacks, using Russian supplied rockets.

[eugene]

 

what's going on in the camps is not the issue at hand.

It's the same people eugy, your redirect technique into a narrowly defined rut has no effect.

 

no we don't know that at all, and in fact we don't even know what's going on in the camps as well.

i'm not redirecting anything, i'm asking for what should have been asked in the first post in the very beginning of the thread. until this data appears all of this ordeal is pointless.

[goDel]

 

 

Why is cultural exchanging such a big thing anyway? What is it good for really? Can anybody give me a relevaent example of a cultural exchange that really meant something more than just university crowd stroking their chins saying "hmmm...interesting"?

 

Also why are borders such a problem? Can anyone elaborate? The world is hardly globalized imo.

 

it means that society capable to keep order and prosperity to a greater good, all the different people in your everyday life, in order to achieve succes, you have to find a common point, exchange of the different beliefs

 

 

I still don't understand.

 

 

 

Just look at human history. Most great human advances/innovations have been shared between different cultures. Many successful early societies were good at connecting with other cultures.

 

And on a more personal level, cultural exchange is healthy for the mind. Different perspectives, new ideas, and all that.

 

In a way, it was a fundamental part of the succes story that was the US.

 

This exchange is such a fundamental part of life. Even from a biological point of view, it's the best innovator of life (=reproduction & evolution).

[Lane Visitor]

 

In a way, it was a fundamental part of the succes story that was the US.

 

 

 

WOW, that may have been the first actual non-negative thing said about the US / The West ever on all of watmm... Congrats, we're making strides! I'm honestly impressed lol

[goDel]

lol

 

was speaking in past tense though ;P

[Lane Visitor]

lol

 

was speaking in past tense though ;P

Welp, close enough! Haha

[cichlisuite]

Assad was gassing and bombing his own civilians before the west intervened in any way, the civil war had already begun. If any foreign powers were destabilising the country prior to that it was Iran and Saudi Arabia. And I don't know why you're bringing Hussein into it, that's only tangentially related to the current situation.

I'm yet to find a country which would decisively intervene in international politics on solely human-rights-abuse ground. Up until today, this was only used as a pretext. Hussein is very much in the larger picture. It's about the strategic control of the greater region. If you think that Syrian/ISIS affair is disconnected from Afganistan/Iraq situation, I believe you're wrong. It maybe a different story from a historical point as of a particular nation/country, but eliminating the influence of these disparate countries is the key to the control of the region. The Syrian conflict might have risen out of people's disgust of the regime, but in the end, the people have no firepower to fight firepower. You have to organise these people, give them training and purpose, educate them in running this shit to a success. This is provided by external interests.

 

America isn't using any mercenary forces, the people of Syria are engaged in a legitimate civil war against an oppressive regime, along with lots of other non-legitimate foreign religious fascists piling on.

Regarding mercenaries, I was reffering to the Iraq/Afganistan scenario. But undoubtedly, the civilian uprising was supported by various field experts and natural leaders trained in military affairs and politics. You cannot a fight trained army with angry peasants and then expecting them to revive a destroyed nation and lead it through the vices and schemes of international politics.

 

No, I don't care about feelings of guilt. I was correcting your erroneous assertion that the west has been primarily responsible for bombing middle eastern civilians in the current conflict.

Don't gloss over the facts. And I didn't use word 'primarily'. I was intentionally generalizing, because, whether USAF dropped one bomb and Russia dropped 50 and the British made tea, or whatever, it really does not make a difference to me. Sorry.

 

 

Because that worked out so well the last time...

Exactly, it didn't. Even USA learns sometimes.

 

Yes, there is, and I do. And follow people who do so in far greater depth than I'm capable of. ... No, were you?

 

Unfortunately, I don't know which particular sources you're referring to, but I hope you made a good call on which ones are trustworthy. Myself, I use my own common sense.

[Guest WNS000]

 

Just look at human history. Most great human advances/innovations have been shared between different cultures. Many successful early societies were good at connecting with other cultures.

 

 

I don't believe innovations happened because of multiculturalism. They simply happened because they were people to invent them. I don't see how a culture (other than science-based) can have an impact on inventions and advancement. Sharing of inventions is a matter of trading, not multiculturalism.

 

 

And on a more personal level, cultural exchange is healthy for the mind. Different perspectives, new ideas, and all that.

 

OK, so we get some impact in arts and philosophy (mostly religious-based). Nothing that could not happen in the era of internet and tourism imo. It would just be slower. Is it really worth the risks?

 

 

In a way, it was a fundamental part of the succes story that was the US.

I don't think so. Wasn't US just a huge country with a lot of free land basically accepting people from around the world in huge quantities? It motivated smart and capable people to migrate. Nothing to do with multiculturalism as such imo.

 

 

This exchange is such a fundamental part of life. Even from a biological point of view, it's the best innovator of life (=reproduction & evolution).

 

How is that relevant if races are a myth (they say...)?

[LimpyLoo]

Race is like 99.999% how close your ancestors lived to the equator.

(Racism is like going to a family reunion and judging people's character based on their tan.

It's not a myth so much as it just doesn't really matter.)

 

 

"AHHHHHHH" -Marilyn Manson

[goDel]

@Jev or Jeb! or something:

 

Not sure whether youre just trolling, but here's some interesting info:

http://www.fpri.org/articles/1999/09/multiculturalism-world-history

 

I personally prefer McNeills views on the subject. The quote is taken from the posted link. He's written a book called "The Human Web" which is basically an excellent book if your interested in human history in general.

 

The keynote address by the world historian William H. McNeill concerned multiculturalism as an actuality of world history, rather than as an ideology. Multiculturalism is an affair of cities, for it requires travel, diasporas, mutual adaptation, and long-distance exchange. The first cultural contacts began in the Sumerian seaside ports in the Persian Gulf in the 4th millennium BC. By the later third millennium, the Semitic Akkadians had taken over political rule in Mesopotamia, which led to bilingualism, since the Sumerian language remained in use for ritual and religion. Thus, within Mesopotamian civilization a form of multiculturalism evolved to complement the cultural exchange inherent in land and sea trade.

All cultures have displayed deep ambivalence toward strangers, who pose a challenge to the fixed system of ritual, folkways, and traditions. Whether these strangers are ultimately treated with hostility or admiration depends heavily on the vitality of the "receiving" culture. When a culture loses its inner security, strangers appear more threatening. Members of a culture may react by thinking, "That stranger knows something I don't, so I have to change," or, "He is corrupt and will seduce us. We need to emphasize differences." But change is inescapable, since even the act of resisting change causes change, and intercultural contact is its principal source. The perceived discrepancy between oneself and outsiders provokes innovation.

Civilization can be ultimately defined as a population among whom the rulers pay lip service to a corpus of rules and obey them, in ways that allow for efficient cooperation. This sort of cooperation produced the galaxy of cultures in Eurasia that have flourished from the time of the Chinese expeditions to Ferghana ca. 100 BC.

Multiculturalism, McNeill concluded, is here to stay. People will cherish their differences, especially in a global, urbanized society which is fragile and vulnerable to serious disruptions. In the midst of all these differences, however, accommodation is necessary, because the modern world cannot afford long-term conflict. As history has shown, cultures whose rules are most attractive to others will prevail.

 

 

Your point about the US is really awkward. You're saying the US "a lot of free land basically accepting people from around the world in huge quantities" which has nothing to do with multiculturalism? Sounds like a contradiction to me. Are you serious?

 

Also from the above link:

 

 

The United States ranks as the primary example of a democratic multicultural society, and it has owed its success to distinctly Western values and institutions—including individualism.

 

I mean, I'm not making this shit up or anything. This isn't rocket science, right? Or have you developed your own special personal meaning for multiculturalism which is defined in such a way that you're right no matter what?

[YangYing]

Race is like 99.999% how close your ancestors lived to the equator.

(Racism is like going to a family reunion and judging people's character based on their tan.

It's not a myth so much as it just doesn't really matter.)

 

 

"AHHHHHHH" -Marilyn Manson

i think most people would judge people's character based on their tan during a family meeting. maybe not consciously, but we do

 

imho

 

edit: not trying to make any point, just arguing for the sake of argument

[Guest WNS000]

@Jev or Jeb! or something:

 

Not sure whether youre just trolling, but here's some interesting info:

http://www.fpri.org/articles/1999/09/multiculturalism-world-history

 

I am not fucking trolling for fuck sake. I am so tired of reading "are you trolling?". No, I am asking honest questions and stating honest opinions. I am just not taking every piece of info for granted. I like to think critically.

 

Anyway, thank you for the resources. I will read it and respond with new info in mind. Thank you (no sarcasm, no trolling).

 

 

Also from the above link:

 

 

The United States ranks as the primary example of a democratic multicultural society, and it has owed its success to distinctly Western values and institutions—including individualism.

 

Where is multiculturalism in that? All I see is "...success to distinctly Western values...". You mean like native indians enriched by western values and thinking?

[Guest WNS000]

@Jev or Jeb! or something:

 

Your point about the US is really awkward. You're saying the US "a lot of free land basically accepting people from around the world in huge quantities" which has nothing to do with multiculturalism? Sounds like a contradiction to me. Are you serious?

 

I am serious. People from different cultures together does not automatically mean they enrich each other with their cultures. If my neighbour is good in carpeting I will use his carpeting skills but won't really care for his cultural background. His carpeting skills are not really a culture in my eyes.

 

And that is basically what happened in US isn't it? Adventurous people with various skills working together in a booming society. Moreover, if you don't count native indians, there wasn't such a huge cultural exchange as majority of the country-establishing force was from Europe wasn't it?

[luke viia]

US History: Carpet-layers and suitcase-makers unite, leave food, heritage and social norms behind to build Hoover Dam

[chenGOD]

US History: Carpet-layers and suitcase-makers unite, leave food, heritage and social norms behind to build Hoover Dam

 

flol history for the trump class.

[goDel]

 

Also from the above link:

 

 

The United States ranks as the primary example of a democratic multicultural society, and it has owed its success to distinctly Western values and institutions—including individualism.

 

Where is multiculturalism in that? All I see is "...success to distinctly Western values...". You mean like native indians enriched by western values and thinking?

 

 

I think we have different ideas on what cultures are. When there's talk about "distinctly Western values", it doesn't imply a monocultural set of values.

 

Europe at the time of the beginning of what we now see as the US was definitely not one culture. At the time the were many wars between the Spanish, the English, the French, the Germans and what not. These represented very different cultures which eventually mixed into some multicultural democracy called the USA. (Although, you could make a good case for europe being multicultural as well, i guess) An example of this multiculturalism was the way in which people with different religious backgrounds were able to live together in the new world. This wasn't a broadly accepted idea at the time in Europe.

 

Interesting person to read up on is Benjamin Franklin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

 

 

Franklin earned the title of "The First American" for his early and indefatigable campaigning for colonial unity, first as an author and spokesman in London for several colonies. As the first United States Ambassador to France, he exemplified the emerging American nation.^[4] Franklin was foundational in defining the American ethos as a marriage of the practical values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment. In the words of historian Henry Steele Commager, "In a Franklin could be merged the virtues of Puritanism without its defects, the illumination of the Enlightenment without its heat."^[5] To Walter Isaacson, this makes Franklin "the most accomplished American of his age and the most influential in inventing the type of society America would become."

 

Or the recent TV series on John Adams.

 

Native American culture is another story, obviously. But I'd argue that even though the native American culture was indeed sacrificed for these "distinctly Western values", the US can still be seen as multicultural.

[LimpyLoo]

@ Godel

 

That blurb about multi-culturalism is interesting, and I definitely agree to some extant.

 

However, there are some aspects of culture (any culture) that should be wiped from the face of the earth and promptly forgotten about. Multi-culturalism should be a sort-of 'marketplace of ideas and values' and I think certain ideas and values (e.g. Human rights, democracy, freedom of speech) should 'win' and be adopted by all cultures, and we should be highly critical of any culture (including one's own) that is slow to do so.

 

That is all I'm advocating, really. I guess when I whinge about 'multi-culturism' I usually mean 'cultural relativism' (e.g. "Who are WE to tell another culture that female genital mutilation of 10-year-old girls is wrong?")

 

 

"AHHHHHHH" -Marilyn Manson

[Guest WNS000]

 

Where is multiculturalism in that? All I see is "...success to distinctly Western values...". You mean like native indians enriched by western values and thinking?

 

I think we have different ideas on what cultures are. When there's talk about "distinctly Western values", it doesn't imply a monocultural set of values.

 

Europe at the time of the beginning of what we now see as the US was definitely not one culture. At the time the were many wars between the Spanish, the English, the French, the Germans and what not. These represented very different cultures which eventually mixed into some multicultural democracy called the USA. (Although, you could make a good case for europe being multicultural as well, i guess) An example of this multiculturalism was the way in which people with different religious backgrounds were able to live together in the new world. This wasn't a broadly accepted idea at the time in Europe.

 

Yeah, I think I still fail to see multiculturalism in that.

 

The wars were surely because of resources, influence and power.

 

What is culture for you? Where is the defining point? Is it a nation? Is it a china town? Is it your neighbour family? Or is it an individual?

Because I fail to see multiculturalism in cases where the differences between various cultures are not significant (they prefer wine, we prefer beer).

 

Can you name some of the most prominent cultural differences between the Spanish, the English, the French and the Germans during that times? Do you have an example of a cultural dispute between them?

 

Interesting debate, thanks.

[delet...]

re: limpeh

 

Yeah, we need to bomb them to save them, from female genital mutilation, Powell should have gone to the UN Security Council with that. heheheh.

[delet...]

 

 

Where is multiculturalism in that? All I see is "...success to distinctly Western values...". You mean like native indians enriched by western values and thinking?

 

I think we have different ideas on what cultures are. When there's talk about "distinctly Western values", it doesn't imply a monocultural set of values.

 

Europe at the time of the beginning of what we now see as the US was definitely not one culture. At the time the were many wars between the Spanish, the English, the French, the Germans and what not. These represented very different cultures which eventually mixed into some multicultural democracy called the USA. (Although, you could make a good case for europe being multicultural as well, i guess) An example of this multiculturalism was the way in which people with different religious backgrounds were able to live together in the new world. This wasn't a broadly accepted idea at the time in Europe.

Yeah, I think I still fail to see multiculturalism in that.

 

The wars were surely because of resources, influence and power.

 

What is culture for you? Where is the defining point? Is it a nation? Is it a china town? Is it your neighbour family? Or is it an individual?

 

Because I fail to see multiculturalism in cases where the differences between various cultures are not significant (they prefer wine, we prefer beer).

 

Can you name some of the most prominent cultural differences between the Spanish, the English, the French and the Germans during that times? Do you have an example of a cultural dispute between them?

 

Interesting debate, thanks.

yep, Europeans in the US integrate and blend very quickly, others into european nations not so, and we have hundreds of years of history of this long running experiment to back that up. It would probably be the same if we had some magical continent in the pacific which the Chinese version of Columbus discovered and then it was populated by Buddhists from Japan and China and Korea, despite their differences at home, one would imagine that they would integrate to the main culture reasonably quickly, but if Europeans came along, or Indians, not so much. Here's another case, Malaysia. In Malaysia you still have over a century later the Malay, the Chinese and the Indians, each keeping to their own communities, marrying each other and let's admit it, competing against and creating roadblocks for the other ethnicities, through hiring practises and nepotism. So what really is the point of multiculturalism, beyond giving away territory and birthright in the west, to people from nations that would never accept the same mass immigration at home. And given birth rates, we are losing our countries to these new comers and will be minorities within a few short generations and eventually snuffed out, it's a pointless suicide on the alter to pointless guilt for wrongs we individually did not commit, even our forfathers in the main were repressed by a small ruling class, even taken as slaves by the Muslim empire or the Norsemen, everyone everywhere has horrible suffering in their past, why sell out the enlightened western birthright of our children, for a few moments of smug self abasement.

[LimpyLoo]

re: limpeh

 

Yeah, we need to bomb them to save them, from female genital mutilation, Powell should have gone to the UN Security Council with that. heheheh.

Yes exactly I want to bomb countries whose cultural practices I disagree with (/s)

 

But actually, never mind FGM in other countries:

FGM has been imported to the US in horrifying numbers and has been sharply increasing the last few years (despite being illegal)

This should bother any decent person, of course

(Next time someone talks about 'failed integration' being the cause of crime or terrorism

Perhaps remind them that integration is a two-way street

And the sheer cultural arrogance of importing such human rights violations--be it large-scale sexual assault or FGM--should make one wonder if some people actually care about integrating in the first place)

 

 

 

"AHHHHHHH" -Marilyn Manson

[Guest WNS000]

yep, Europeans in the US integrate and blend very quickly, others into european nations not so, and we have hundreds of years of history of this long running experiment to back that up. It would probably be the same if we had some magical continent in the pacific which the Chinese version of Columbus discovered and then it was populated by Buddhists from Japan and China and Korea, despite their differences at home, one would imagine that they would integrate to the main culture reasonably quickly, but if Europeans came along, or Indians, not so much. Here's another case, Malaysia. In Malaysia you still have over a century later the Malay, the Chinese and the Indians, each keeping to their own communities, marrying each other and let's admit it, competing against and creating roadblocks for the other ethnicities, through hiring practises and nepotism. So what really is the point of multiculturalism, beyond giving away territory and birthright in the west, to people from nations that would never accept the same mass immigration at home. And given birth rates, we are losing our countries to these new comers and will be minorities within a few short generations and eventually snuffed out, it's a pointless suicide on the alter to pointless guilt for wrongs we individually did not commit, even our forfathers in the main were repressed by a small ruling class, even taken as slaves by the Muslim empire or the Norsemen, everyone everywhere has horrible suffering in their past, why sell out the enlightened western birthright of our children, for a few moments of smug self abasement.

 

 

Yeah.

 

To me, multiculturalism is like wanting to live with a neighbour family. If people disagree with each other they split and keep their own territory anyway (their rooms, their flats, their quarters, their states). That is why we all choose friends and partners based on the compatibility of our values.