Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 458
1531
bskeptic,

I know the dictionary definition of mainstream. I'm asking you which parts of the Islamic community tell Muslims to aggressively kill. Being mainstream it has to be the majority (by the definition of mainstream) and there are billions of Muslims. Please don't fall back on spurious "opinion" poll headlines driven by right wing ideology and bereft of proper methodology.

Which parts of Sharia law tell Muslims to aggressively kill?

1532
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 13, 2016, 04:14:39 PM »
Steve,
Quote
Well then you are factually incorrect.
Why are you coming across like the kind of American who thinks he's superior to anyone from any other nation. Being the world's superpower doesn't guarantee it does it!

Quote
A thing intended; an aim or plan:
she was full of good intentions
[WITH INFINITIVE]: he announced his intention to stand for re-election

What's the difference between the above and "he promised to stand for re-election"?

This is about how one understands the meanings of words. Your comment above is out of order.

Quote
the sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing that would erupt as a result of the USSR's collapse.
The former Yugoslavia was never part of the USSR

Quote
Okie dokie.  I stand corrected.
Just consider how you (or Fox news - is there any difference?) would treat a story like "Putin bans national newspaper which opposes his intervention in Syria".

Quote
the more centralized power becomes, the less anyone can keep it in check.
What control do I have over companies like Barclays, BP, News International etc



The railways and the post office belonged to the people of Britain. Now they don't and the  gov't is steadily privatizing education and health provision - resulting in a worse service for the many but profits for the few rich.

P.S. I don't agree with Max Keiser on many things but he's right about this.

1533
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 13, 2016, 01:26:32 PM »
Steve,

Quote
"I have no intention of moving into your neighborhood."  Do you consider that a promise
I consider that a promise.

Kosovo is not a NATO member, neither is Serbia. I took "embrace" to mean membership not what you choose to make it mean later to "win" a point using deception.

Quote
Churchill never controlled the media as Putin, Mao, Hitler, and Kim Jong Un do.
I think you need to bone up on your British WW2 history.
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-10996290/press-freedom-in-britain-during-world-war-ii

Quote
When the State owns the economy
More rubbish. In a democratic country the "state" is elected by the people. A private company has no such accountability. If you live in a poorer country you know all about exploitation by multinationals.

This was the point I was responding to:
Quote
people in Russia are not allowed to say what I am saying.
Yet all you have to do is to search on the Russian word for "protest" on twitter in Russian to find lots of examples. Now I'm not saying that some protests aren't suppressed in Russia but this also happens in USA:

Tear gas used in Seattle in 1999:

1534
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:16:01 PM »
Quote from: SteveB
It was a statement about U.S. foreign policy at the time.
The statement was made at the time but it wouldn't mean much if it was only meant to last for a few months.
You seem to have Baker whispering aside to Genschler "haha that fooled them, now just wait till next year"
The reunification of Germany was a long term change. You do understand why USSR was so concerned about it don't you! Hence the quid pro quo was also long term. The whole idea is for USSR and now Russia not to go through an invasion from the west again as in WW2. These are long term concerns that bear little relation to the reasons you are giving.

Quote
But after the USSR fell,
Actually it was a voluntary decision by the USSR not like the siege of Troy.

Quote
You will notice that NATO always embraces two enemies (such as Turkey and Greece)
That's the only example that neatly fits your thesis.

Quote
What were Hitler's approval ratings by his people?  What was the Japanese emperor's approval ratings by his people?  What is Kim Jong Un's approval ratings by his people?  What was Mao's approval ratings by his people?
and what were Churchill's after El Alamein? This argument of yours is complete rubbish.

Quote
control the media
As if western media was free of government (e.g. BBC) or single owner (e.g. Murdoch) influence

Quote
control the oil revenues
Why is a nationalised oil industry necessarily a bad thing?

Quote
Quite simply, people in Russia are not allowed to say what I am saying.
How long have you lived in Russia?

1535
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 13, 2016, 09:32:45 AM »
Steve,

This provides a good summary of what happened according to all I've read on this so far (inc your posts)

Quote

The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the former East Germany, and the topic of further NATO expansion east was raised.[5]

Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that "during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,"[7] and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[8] According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[9] Other authors, such as Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union could one day join NATO
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Past_enlargements

1. Eastward expansion was not being considered at the time
2. No formal treaty was drawn up
3. Western negotiators gave informal verbal commitments that there would be no future NATO expansion
4. Later, after the break up of the USSR led to an economically troubled Russia (who adopted western economic solutions too quickly leading to mass corruption and oligarchs), the west decided to take advantage and push NATO eastwards with the agreement of the countries concerned.
5. A resurgent Russia is right to be suspicious of western words and motives

Note that moves to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic started as early as 1991. There was initial reluctance on the part of NATO over difficulties of integration (Russia's concerns aren't mentioned). This was concluded in 1997 and affected countries not involved in the Bosnian War (the Kosovo war was later). I don't follow this argument about countries like Poland being accepted into NATO solely because of the Bosnian War.

Now, of course, once these 3 countries became independent of the USSR they had the right to request NATO and EU membership but this does not mean they had to be accepted, and there was a good deal of reluctance within USA as the article explains. Russia was being marginalized and virtually ignored in all this.

1536
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 13, 2016, 08:39:34 AM »
Steve,

No one is saying there was a signed formal treaty promising that NATO would not advance further east. But that doesn't mean there was no promise. There was an agreed quid pro quo in exchange for agreeing German unification. Russia had obvious concerns about that!

And I don't buy this Russia under Putin ok, USSR under Gorbachev not ok argument at all.

Quote
But then other events, since then, have transpired that changed our position on the matter.
What events?
And NATO steamed ahead because it perceived Russia was too weak and preoccupied at the time.
Kick a man when he's down! The same man who defeated Hitler almost single handedly!

What is wrong with Putin's Kosovo analogy?

1537
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Major Announcement on Gravity Today
« on: February 13, 2016, 08:14:20 AM »
I've been trying to get my head round the gravitational aberration question.

Because it takes about 8 mins for light from the sun to reach us the sun is not actually in its apparent position at the moment we see it (receive previously emitted light waves from it). Now if the effect of gravity has a similar aberration there might be issues about the stability of orbits. There are no such issues with Newton's instantaneous gravitation. NB: I'm not saying Newton right, Einstein wrong but one has to bear in mind the implications of the time delay in gravity.

This non mainstream article explains this:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

This more mainstream (though less rigorous) article explains it away as:

Quote
The Earth, since it’s also moving, kind of “rides” over the ripples traveling through space, so that it comes down in a different spot from where it was lifted up. It looks like we have two effects going on: each object’s velocity affects how it experiences gravity, and so do the changes that occur in gravitational fields.

What’s amazing is that the changes in the gravitational field felt by a finite speed of gravity and the effects of velocity-dependent interactions cancel almost exactly! The inexactness of the cancellation is what allows us to determine, observationally, if Newton’s “infinite speed of gravity” model or Einstein’s “speed of gravity = speed of light” model matches with our Universe.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-is-the-speed-of-gravity-8ada2eb08430#.kxgw9z895

This is a bit too hand wavy for me.

I realize that massless things can travel at the speed of light but why does gravity have to travel at the speed of light - and are there two different effects here:

1. Gravitational waves caused by disturbances
2. The effect of gravity in gravitational field

With light it has to travel at the speed of light because of its electromagnetic nature (Maxwell). That's not the case for gravitational waves.

1538
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Major Announcement on Gravity Today
« on: February 13, 2016, 01:39:30 AM »
Anyone know why gravitational waves have to travel at the speed of light.

Because gravity lacks mass and massless objects move at that speed.

Thanks for that. Seems like the calculations have already been done with binary pulsars which lose energy via gravitational waves and whose orbits tend to collapse as a result.

1539
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Major Announcement on Gravity Today
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:55:28 PM »
Anyone know why gravitational waves have to travel at the speed of light.

1540
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:23:20 PM »
Soren,

Yes I've heard this about  the promise, not to expand eastwards, only applied to military deployment in the former GDR. Given the geography it comes across as disingenuous given that GDR was on the western border of the former Warsaw Pact countries.
I take Gorbachev to be saying that the idea of NATO expanding eastwards wasn't seriously considered at the time. So Baker's promise (it was a promise not a seminar opinion) not to expand eastwards fitted the thinking that such eastward expansion was not considered an issue at the time. Baker was confirming what was commonly accepted: that NATO would not expand eastwards.

Genschler's words at the time indicate that the concept of no further eastward expansion was wider than just the GDR.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IbLrjA7zbMQC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq="as+much+as+a+thumb%27s+width+further+to+the+East."&source=bl&ots=HiCLdsj3Y_&sig=EVIZgXaGrSeAq-vIZ_1o9RsadcE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibhISY_PLKAhVJWxQKHX2KAqoQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=%22as%20much%20as%20a%20thumb's%20width%20further%20to%20the%20East.%22&f=false


1541
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:05:53 PM »
Quote from: SteveB
But, as far as I'm aware, Gorbachev never asked to be part of NATO.
Look at
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oPkEp0y7L04C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=gorbachev+"ussr+join+nato"&source=bl&ots=kpD1jKMGSp&sig=3DibJQ0t-yMtPd0neL__eL-ZhFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqxte6__LKAhXFVxQKHcTSBDAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=gorbachev%20%22ussr%20join%20nato%22&f=false
and I distinctly remember hearing him say it at the time on BBC news.

I missed your earlier comment on this as it was below a dashed line and I thought you were indicating a signature block. My mistake.

The same book refers to a "promise" not a mere "opinion" by Baker and Genschler:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oPkEp0y7L04C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=gorbachev+"ussr+join+nato"&source=bl&ots=kpD1jKMGSp&sig=3DibJQ0t-yMtPd0neL__eL-ZhFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqxte6__LKAhXFVxQKHcTSBDAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=james%20baker&f=false

These were high level diplomatic meetings not some kind of seminar as you are trying to portray it. The word "opinion" is being used to excuse America from breaking its promise. I agree with The Cross on this. To represent Baker's words as some kind of political seminar and not US=NATO policy is disingenuous.

1542
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:13:27 AM »
So Steve you're saying it was ok for the American Secretary of State to break his promise to Gorbachev (who was the de facto and de jure head of state) since no formal treaty was drawn up, even though at the time (when USSR had not broken up) such NATO eastward expansion was not being contemplated.

American politicians speak with forked tongue ... but that's ok since they're Americans.

(Iran/Contra deal - my memory isn't what it was these days - paraphrasing Reagan - why wasn't he chucked into prison for treason?)

And why no response from you to the point about USSR joining NATO.

Turkey down a Russian jet and you talk about Russia bombing Turkey! You are extremely biased in this matter.

1543
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Vladimir Putin. Honest? Or Liar?
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:21:56 AM »
Quote
What you are doing is quoting the opinions of one single man (Mr. Baker).

James Baker was secretary of state at the time. So it wasn't just an opinion in the sense you imply. He was in Moscow in his official capacity. It was a promise not an opinion.

The problem is Steve you're only putting one side of the story and refusing to even acknowledge that there is more than one side to this story. I've been more concerned with the one sided nature of your posts rather than making value judgments of US and Russian foreign policy. Until you consider the evidence in a balanced way, you can't make proper value judgments.

I remember that Gorbachev made the worthwhile proposal that USSR (at the time) join NATO: to seal the deal that the Cold War was over. (It is over Steve!) Why was that refused?

If all you're going to do is to repeat the same point over and over again what is the point in continuing this?

1544
Quote from: bskeptic
But I'm also including the mainstream teachings of traditional forms of Islam.

So if (to simplify a bit perhaps) a religion is telling you to go out to aggressively kill

So what do you define as "mainstream" and which "mainstream" elements of Islam are "telling [people] to go out to aggressively kill"?

(unaggressively kill? Isn't "aggressively kill" a tautology?)

1545
bskeptic,

You seem to be saying that Netanyahu wouldn't or couldn't say such things for short term electoral advantage since , in your eyes, he is such a paragon of virtue.

Going back over what he said a long time is irrelevant since the whole point is that he said was against a two state solution for SHORT TERM ELECTORAL ADVANTAGE. Why have you not grasped this simple point?

The rest of your post is saying that any opinion that you do not agree with is not valid. Well you can keep saying that inside your black box. And you cannot alter what he said and when he said it (just before the election when the polls looked dodgy for him).

Quote
I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 458
anything