bcglorf

Member Profile


Member Since: July 23, 2007
Last Power Points used: March 21, 2014
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to bcglorf

15 Comments

enoch says...

perfection my friend.

bcglorf said:

Chomsky\s position doesn't surprise me in the least and I think is much more easily explainable than you want to make it. Chomsky is taking the default most anti-American position that he can. Part of that includes not letting Russia be painted any more black or dark than America. There's nothing new, surprising or different in his opinion here, he's just expressing it in a way that goes against the democrats which throws people that hadn't seen Chomsky that way before when he was mostly condemning right leaning America. It's pretty much the exact same thing as the shift in opinion towards wikileaks before and after they ran a freight train over Hillary. When they were releasing secrets damaging to the right end of the spectrum they were doing the lord's work. The explicit and sole focus on western evils was ok until suddenly the left end of the west got included. Now suddenly a pro-Russian conspiracy was visible to left leaning folks. You know, the now that it's affecting me it's a problem viewpoint.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Doctor Forcibly Removed From United Flight For Overbooking has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

newtboy says...

If they were really separated populations, that might be OK (immigrating to the Jewish held territories), but they weren't. The lived in the same areas for the most part, they just didn't intermingle so much socially (although WAY more than they do today).....but expansionist settlements were and are a major sticking point to resolving the conflict, so even if there was a Jewish territory to migrate to, they wouldn't stay in it, and that's a major problem. The governing body of the area didn't want them, and the immigrants armed themselves and fought that government (and beat it senseless), to me, invaders. Your feelings may differ, I get it, I think we understand each other and disagree...and that's fine.

I don't think the US was as closed as you imply (but certainly not open to everyone), but it was difficult and expensive to get here, so practically it wasn't an option for most, agreed.

Perhaps the Arab League's intent was truly expansion into Palestine, at least they were 'invited' by the government of the territory! ;-) I agree, their lack of cohesion doomed them before they started, and should be a national shame to all involved.

YIKES! OK, I'll just say that I, in no way, support Daesh or any of their actions, not almost, not nearly, just not. I can sympathize with a few of their complaints, but that's as far as it goes. The Syrian resistance is in no way tied to Daesh, as you mentioned they are fighting each other. I don't get how you go from support of the resistance to 'near yes' to supporting Daesh, especially if you support the Syrian resistance. Huh?

bcglorf said:

@newtboy

you said:
Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.
Hence my making the distinction between Arab and Jewish controlled Palestine. Officially the British were still ruling over Palestine, but in most practical ways, Palestine was already divided before the mass immigration started. There was essentially Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and the normal conflicts between close neighbours with different religion were already significant before the illegal immigration. Of all the places for Jewish Europeans to flee to, the land already in the possession and control of welcoming Jewish Palestinians hardly stinks of invasion to me.

Sorry, I know I tried to refocus on what they should have done and immediately leapt off the rails myself.

You said:
should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians
A majority of them that made it into Britain and America did just that. In fact, so many fought against the Nazis that when the civil war in Palestine came to a head and WW2 veteran Jewish soldiers started showing up it's counted part of the Arab narrative as 'western' support and part of the unfair military advantage that made Israel the mighty power and the Arab league army the underdogs.

You said:
The U.S. was open...if they could get here.
No, nothing was open. As pictures of the camps spread, doors started opening but that was very much after the fact. Leading up to and during WW2 immigration numbers were very restricted to jewish people. There simply was absolutely no legal immigration option for thousands and thousands of Jewish Europeans.

You said:
neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders
You misunderstand my statement on the Arab League member's intentions. They had NO intention of defending their neighbouring Arab Palestinian's land. Sure, publicly they declared a joint effort to liberate Palestine. Each member nation though was stating that as code for liberate a portion of Palestine by making it a part of themselves. Israel was able to take the best equipped and trained Jordanian army out of the battle without a single shot fired by agreeing with them to simply abandon the portion of Palestine that Jordan proceeded to make a part of itself. The other Arab states made similar bids militarily, refusing to co-ordinate their assaults because each wanted to declare the ground gained their own. As they each rushed their offensives and attacked individually Israel had the time to plant 100% of their forces in the path of each of them.

You asked:
Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh?
In the sense that you are asking, it's a near yes. The original Syrian resistance is a group I really do support, and the Kurdish fighters have largely been on their same side and I support their efforts there as well. Daesh was much more interested in killing the 'legitimate' resistance than Assad and Putin's forces. Similarly, the Russians have made it a firm practice to exclusively attack the 'legitimate' resistance and doing their best to largely not bother attacking Daesh unless forced to. The main reason being that once Daesh is all that's left, the scorched earth fix becomes all the more easily justified, and the actual rebels pose a much more real and legitimate alternative to Assad's government than Daesh.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Air Strike Gone Bad has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

enoch says...

man,i know we sometimes disagree but on this i think we are practically related.
well said my friend,and with far more economy of words than i could muster.

bcglorf said:

John Cleese is hardly new to this. When he and the python troop made Life of Brian, more than 35 years ago, church leaders tried hard , and in many locations succeeded in getting it banned.

Back then he did the circuits talking with religious leaders defending that he had the right to still say something even if they disagreed with it. It's worth noting, much of his support came from within Academia were young students were eager to push back against the religious leaders controlling what people should and shouldn't say in a film.

Fast forward 35 years to today, and now a new batch of young students from Academia are making the exact same fight against what should and should not be said. Professors and administrators who don't get on board are getting fired. Students who don't get on board are being expelled.

Where the religious leaders used to try and shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects, today it is SJWs trying to shut down criticism of their views on religion, abortion, sexual identity and other subjects.

Cleese is at least being even handed with calling actions out on both ends of spectrum regardless were he sits on it. It's tragic that the notion of critical thought and argument is done better by comedians than supposed leaders of thought both 35 years ago and still today.

enoch says...

no no no.
you misunderstood my intent.
i wasnt berating you or anything,i was just being too lazy and not really looking for an argument is all.

i know that you and i dont always agree but i respect your input.
you didnt have to defend your position in regards to percy.i believe you,i was just unaware of that part of the dynamic.

how can we ever come to a rational and reasoned solution if we dont have all the information?

propaganda is propaganda.no matter where its origins are and it takes vigilance to sort through all the malarky and self-interest to get to the truth.

we do that by discussing with each other.

i do not wish to reside in an echo chamber where everybody is having a wonderful circle jerk and sniffing their own farts,clapping each other on the back on just how clever they are.

we need dissenting voices.
we need opposing opinions.
if only to solidify our own perceptions and understandings.
and sometimes to eject a false dichotomy.

you have always been respectful,and even though we may disagree on certain points,i will always give ear to what you have to say.

you have earned that my friend.

enoch says...

your rebuttal is a split narrative and was not what i was addressing.
america has the right to point and say"what assad is doing is horrendous,and needs to be dealt with for the safety of its innocent citizens".
the hypocrisy lies in this statement:
"what assad is doing is horrendous.and needs to be punished ...by america".

its the assertion that america should be the arbitor of judgement and punishment.

and it appears my entire pontifications on syria were wrong.
1.not getting into a protracted military engagement=good
2.the continued suffering of the syrian people under a brutel regime=bad.

my prayers are with the syrian people.
and i know yours are as well.
powerless in our ineffectual rage.

enoch says...

well,that takes us right back to where you and i disagree.
sometimes what is moral is not legal.
and are we really talking about morality? or justice?
these also are not the same and they are highly subjective.

the rule of law was the one thing i really found fascinating about this country in its early years.not so much the execution of said laws..but the idea of it.

i like the idea of it.
we can temper the law with our own sense of justice and morality,but not in its absolute form.

from a morality standpoint i dont think the US has a leg to stand on.
would you give any credence to ted bundy on a morality argument?
of course you wouldnt,and neither would i.
we would also not give an argument from him on the topic of justice any weight.

he would be removed from the conversation because his past actions dictated how any opinion he had was null and void.

so my dilemma has never been with YOU having moral outrage but rather from my government.
because past decisions have dictated that any opinion from a moral or justice standpoint should be viewed as false and insincere.

i share your moral outrage and anger at the injustice.

there has never been a war that has been a pure black and white dynamic.
but wars have always..and i mean always..fought over:land,resources and labor.
regardless of how it was implemented,be it religion or nationalism.

so.
you and i and our fellow citizens can be (and on average ARE) moral and just,but our government has lost its right to pontificate their right to engage in warfare on moral grounds.

if the international community gets together and decides on a course of action...fine.
the US government should not be the one to lead that charge though.
the hypocrisy would be too much to bear.

enoch says...

yeah..looks like thats the way it is heading.in regards to a military strike.
and on that note..i am glad.

i have such a huge distrust of power because it tends to always abuse it.
i was witnessing the same tactics that has been used for a generation in getting people (usually poor) to go kill other poor people.

so very happy i was wrong.

as i get older cynicism is a trait that i have to fight herder each passing year.
thats why i engage is discussion as much as i do.
to better understand differing viewpoints and maybe illuminate a flaw in my own.

but then i get too see my oldest grandaughter turn 5 and i forget all the tedious bullshit and remember innocence.

hard to be cynical with a 5 yr old.
ok its impossible.

i posted that video for an alternate way of looking/thinking about a situation.not necessarily to promote my views.

that guy postulates on a pretty dark perspective and i think thats not a bad thing.i do not agree with his fatalistic approach nor many of his conclusions.but he does bring up salient points and has good questions and i like that.

his answer are mostly conjecture though.

you should watch some of his vids..if you want to be depressed.

im glad i was wrong on this one.
truly.

enoch says...

now see?
i understand your position now.
and the inherent logic behind it.

and i totally agree with your russia assertion.
i also agree that power ignores any form of "law" when it deems fit.

and i think a no-fly zone is not a bad idea.

hot damn would you look at us agreein!

older than me huh?
well good for you my man.got the passion of a 25 yr old!
bravo my friend.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos