OT: "Western Culture Has Died a Politically-Correct Death" (2023 Update)

:

ote:

ct.

So which aggression against which specific groups did she encourage?

Sarkozy did encourage aggression against Gaddafi - he objected to the atroc ities that Gaddafi was perpetrating against the rebellious groups in Libya, and was prepared to use military force to discourage them.

This isn't what is usually described as war-mongering, but it was aggressiv e behaviour. Clinton and Obama and the rest of NATO opted to support France in this rather limited aggression, and when it turned out to be fatal to G addafi the general feeling was that this had saved quite a few lives in the rest of the Libyan population.

In fact it could be seen as kind of peace-keeping operation, but pro-Trump lunatics aren't sympathetic to this point of view, and don't usually know e nough to realise what they are claiming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Daily Telegraph changed owners in 2004, when the previous owner - Conra d Black - went to prison in the US. I haven't read it since then, so I don' t know precisely what kind of right-wing idiocy it propagates now.

Murdoch isn't infallibly destructive. When he set up "The Australian" in 19

64, with an innovative and expensive system to let it be printed simultaneo usly in a number of different cities, he was aiming to create a quality new spaper, and succeeded. I read it for about a year before Murdoch decide tha t he'd lose less money if he moved it down-market, after which I didn't fin d it worth buying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. ...and everyone here knows it.

And your evidence for this fatuous claim is?

Actually the Russians intervened in the the US electoral process and a mana ged to prevent the the Americans electing a president who knew enough about foreign policy to slow down Russia's expansion plans, and lumbered them wi th an incompetent buffoon instead.

Trump isn't a man of peace - peace is a complicate business, while sabre-ra ttling is the kind of simple gesture than he can be bothered to understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

:

is

case.

In actual fact Sarkozy was responsible for using NATO forces to suppress G addafi's atrocities against the Libyans who rebelled against him.

Clinton and Obama got dragged in along with the rest of NATO.

Clinton didn't exactly gloat over Gaddafi's death. Like most well-informed Americans she was conscious that Gaddafi was responsible for the 1988 Locke rbie tragedy, which killed 243 passengers and 16 crew in the plane that wen t down, and 11 more people on the ground where it hit.

When somebody like Gaddafi dies, you don't mourn.

Then there was the Arab Spring, and elements in Libya rebelled against him, and he went right back to using terrorism in an attempt to frighten the r ebels into submission. Using terror tactics against your own population pro bably doesn't count as state sponsored terrorism - you are doing it rather than sponsoring it, but it's not an activty to be encouraged.

of

It was NATO who bombed him - not him personally but rather "military forces that posed a threat" that later turned out to have been escorting Gaddafi.

The convoy that got shot up was first detected by UK aircraft, and was then hit by a US Predator drone, followed up by French Air Force Rafale fighte r jets.

There was never any invasion (as there had been in Irak) and the political mess in Libya was purely home-grown.

Libya's rebellion was home-grown - part of the Arab Spring. Iran and North Korea aren't likely have that kind of problem, being even more repressiv re gimes than Gaddafi's had been.

Not in the interview I saw.

A US Secretary of State wouldn't express regret about the death of the perp etrator of the Lockerbie incident which took down a US jet, killing 243 pas sengers, 16 crew and 11 people on the ground where it hit.

She didn't actually say he deserved to die, but the thought can't have been far from her mind (or from the minds of anybody else who saw the interview ).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

e:

:

is

case.

ion

I've seen it. She didn't gloat, and it isn't ghastly.

Gaddafi's death was regrettable, but only in the sense that the world was d eprived of the chance to put him on trial for ordering the Lockerbie bombin g, which had brought down a US commercial flight, killing 243 passengers, 1

6 crew, and 11 more people on the ground where the bits of the plane hit.

nce

That would have been far-sighted of her.

In fact she didn't do it. Sarkozy had bullied the rest of NATO into using a ir power to inhibit Gaddafi's atrocities against the Libyans rebelling agai nst him. When NATO targeted the convoy in which Gaddafi happened to be traveling the y didn't that he was there. A UK aircraft found the convoy, a US Predator d rone was the first to hit it, and French Rafale fighters followed up.

Only after local Libyan rebels had captured and killed Gaddafi did anybody outside the countruy find out about it.

t.

John Larkin appears to think that Clinton engineered the Arab Spring. Not e ven he could be that stupid, so he's probably recycling some particularly i mplausible anti-Clinton election propaganda.

How?

"Trump" and "carefully calibrated" isn't a plausible juxtaposition.

The drone attack on the Syrian airbase didn't hit any of the Russian aircra ft parked there, and to that extent it was carefully calibrated.

Trump wouldn't have been offered the option to hit any of the Russian aircr aft - he's silly enough not to have been worried about the consequences.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Gadaffi was killed in a revolt. The 'war against' was a no-fly zone imposed to limit civilian casualties, and participants (led by France) included a dozen other countries.

Why shouldn't she be proud? Gadaffi's death meant the hostilities inside that country would wind down, why shouldn't she express happiness about that?

Warmonger is incorrect. Spin and lies don't make it true.

Krw likes to think that. What everybody here knows it that krw hasn't had a new or original thought in years, and keeps on making exactly the same errors.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

+1

All Absolutely correct.

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Notice too how neither of the idiots made any attempt at answering the electronics and physics question I posed.

And, you can bet that instead of taking up the challenge and attempting to answer the question, they'll piss and moan and bitch some lame Usenet baby bullshit instead of ANYTHING electronics related.

\\

My comment was only about your misconception of what " warmongering " meant.

Dan, Hockessin

I'm well aware that you can be a warmonger without managing to start a war.

A US Secretary of State is rather better placed to start a war than common or garden warmongers, and if if she had "encouraged aggression against specific groups" she'd have been criticised for being ineffective if aggression hadn't resulted.

In the specific situation where Hillary Clinton was supposed to have been a war-monger, the absence if a specific war pretty much exonerates her.

This is more complicated reasoning than you are up to, and you've advertised your cognitive deficit by claiming to have been touting the dictionary definition in a context where it wasn't all that relevant.

You are a shallow twit, which makes it relatively easy to show you up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Totally obvious but all but you and your like.

No they didn't. The American people liked his populist stance, turned their backs on Globalism and elected someone capable of bringing about real change for once. And the Russians are not interested in expansionism. What they *are* interested in and concerned about is NATO's Eastern-ward expansion in complete contradiction to promises made after the old USSR collapsed.

The key to peace is to stop interfering in other countries' affairs!! (something old Hitlary would have been straight into from the get-go).

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

An uncomfortable fact even old Bill can't excuse.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Taking out Gaddafi is what gave rise to the on-going refugee crisis and consequent swamping of Europe with Muslims who detest europeans. Thanks a lot Hitlary and Obumma.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

By God you're even worse than I thought.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Cursitor Doom wrote in news:q8vbr8$2ro$4@dont- email.me:

Sure, punk.

You just can't handle getting put in your place.

Touched a nerve, did we? Sorry , but the fact that Hillary did not start a war does not mean either that she was or was not a warmonger. And stamping your feet does not change anything.

Dan , Hockessin Higher IQ, better university, more money , and less stamping of feet

In other words you are recycling somebody else's right-wing clap-trap and c an't remember where you found it.

The Russians certainly did intervene, posting fake messages on social media in the swing states - enough of them to explain the 77,000 majority the wo n Trump his electoral college margin.

Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. Quite a lot of people wer e qullible enough to fall for his populist clap-trap, and silly enough to t hink that he might want to bring about real change - billionaires have a lo t to lose from real change - as opposed to being willing to lie about what he would do.

The majority were a little more perceptive. You aren't.

You've been reading Russia Today again and you are silly enough to believe their claims. The annexation of the Crimean Penisula in 2014 looked pretty expansionist, and the Russian antics in the Ukraine look like more of the s ame to anybody with any sense.

Trump dumped a lot of cruise missiles on Syria after Assad poison-gassed a bunch of his citizens. That's interference (and there should be more of it. )

Clinton and Obama went through the UN when Assad pulled a similar trick on their watch. Still interference, but rather less war-like.

You seem to have a simple standard - anything that Trump does is good and p eace-making and anything that Clinton did was warlike.

It's total nonsense, but you don't seem to mind looking like a complete idi ot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney