Sociopath Community

Sintetika said: 

Thumper said: 

Sintetika said: 

TPG said: 

Sintetika said: 

This is literally the same thing with the alleged Assad Gas Attack, it's all propaganda to make America look like they are the good guys by invading other countries, and stealing their resources and creating failed states. 

 the assad gas attacks were different, the retaliation was most likely done in cooperation with the syrians i'd say

 I'm saying the western media will falsify events to make their targets of imperialism look bad. Assad did not gas his own people. If you look at the alleged photos of the bombs that were dropped, there is no way they could have gone through a concrete building and look in that condition. 

I have to go for now, I'll find the links to the documents by this one organization of engineers that state that the way the bombs got there had to have been placed rather than dropped. I think the documents are featured in the video I just posted. I'll try to respond later, have a nice rest of your day. 

 

 I enjoyed this post. If Americans were imperialistic they would have a new state called New Iraq. I would like to see examples of American imperialism. I think the British hold the record for imperialism.

 

 

 Allow me to clarify, since I tend to use Lenin's definition of Imperialism which is extended from colonialism. In this sense, Imperialism is not just military takeover and the establishment of a puppet, but rather it also extends to the expansion of markets, and the exploitation of cheap labor and resources by multi-national corporations. In essence, the way I view America is an empire that must constantly expand it's markets and find cheap labor, as that is an inherent flaw with capitalism and it's tendency to overproduce, along with the falling rate of profit. 

What I'm saying is, invasion of libya, afghanistan, iraq and many other countries in the past have not been because WMDs or Human Rights Violations, but rather those are used as false propaganda to justify a war goal to allow America to invade and take a countries natural resources and cheap labor force. 

How else do you think social programs are afforded for? As for Europe and it's social programs, and participates with America, and actually the US Dollar still dominates the world, ever since the Bretton Woods agreement, which allowed America to become a super power really. 

It would also make sense because we are buddy buddy with the Saudis who give us oil, and thus helping them take out their competitors gives them a part of the share as well. 

 cheap labour in afghanistan and iraq? what is your source on this

Washington Institute, Economist Patrick Clawson, who is a scumbag but still.

TPG said: 

Sintetika said: 

Thumper said: 

Sintetika said: 

TPG said: 

Sintetika said: 

This is literally the same thing with the alleged Assad Gas Attack, it's all propaganda to make America look like they are the good guys by invading other countries, and stealing their resources and creating failed states. 

 the assad gas attacks were different, the retaliation was most likely done in cooperation with the syrians i'd say

 I'm saying the western media will falsify events to make their targets of imperialism look bad. Assad did not gas his own people. If you look at the alleged photos of the bombs that were dropped, there is no way they could have gone through a concrete building and look in that condition. 

I have to go for now, I'll find the links to the documents by this one organization of engineers that state that the way the bombs got there had to have been placed rather than dropped. I think the documents are featured in the video I just posted. I'll try to respond later, have a nice rest of your day. 

 

 I enjoyed this post. If Americans were imperialistic they would have a new state called New Iraq. I would like to see examples of American imperialism. I think the British hold the record for imperialism.

 

 

 Allow me to clarify, since I tend to use Lenin's definition of Imperialism which is extended from colonialism. In this sense, Imperialism is not just military takeover and the establishment of a puppet, but rather it also extends to the expansion of markets, and the exploitation of cheap labor and resources by multi-national corporations. In essence, the way I view America is an empire that must constantly expand it's markets and find cheap labor, as that is an inherent flaw with capitalism and it's tendency to overproduce, along with the falling rate of profit. 

What I'm saying is, invasion of libya, afghanistan, iraq and many other countries in the past have not been because WMDs or Human Rights Violations, but rather those are used as false propaganda to justify a war goal to allow America to invade and take a countries natural resources and cheap labor force. 

How else do you think social programs are afforded for? As for Europe and it's social programs, and participates with America, and actually the US Dollar still dominates the world, ever since the Bretton Woods agreement, which allowed America to become a super power really. 

It would also make sense because we are buddy buddy with the Saudis who give us oil, and thus helping them take out their competitors gives them a part of the share as well. 

 cheap labour in afghanistan and iraq? what is your source on this

 

 When I say cheap labor, I specifically mean by western corporations, not direct slavery by the government itself, the government is the tool of the bourgeoisie, not the other way around, if that's slightly confusing, I'm saying, America starts wars to boost it's economy because of instability.

In regards to resources, I'd use these as my sources, and as soon I post this, you have your response, Tpg, I wasn't expecting you to reply so quickly, so my bad if anything seems jumbled or confusing, the video was not directed towards you as a response.


https://news.yahoo.com/1-trillion-trove-rare-minerals-revealed-under-afghanistan-114520215.html

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/rare-earths-statistics-and-information

Sintetika said: 

TPG said: 

Sintetika said: 

Thumper said: 

Sintetika said: 

TPG said: 

Sintetika said: 

This is literally the same thing with the alleged Assad Gas Attack, it's all propaganda to make America look like they are the good guys by invading other countries, and stealing their resources and creating failed states. 

 the assad gas attacks were different, the retaliation was most likely done in cooperation with the syrians i'd say

 I'm saying the western media will falsify events to make their targets of imperialism look bad. Assad did not gas his own people. If you look at the alleged photos of the bombs that were dropped, there is no way they could have gone through a concrete building and look in that condition. 

I have to go for now, I'll find the links to the documents by this one organization of engineers that state that the way the bombs got there had to have been placed rather than dropped. I think the documents are featured in the video I just posted. I'll try to respond later, have a nice rest of your day. 

 

 I enjoyed this post. If Americans were imperialistic they would have a new state called New Iraq. I would like to see examples of American imperialism. I think the British hold the record for imperialism.

 

 

 Allow me to clarify, since I tend to use Lenin's definition of Imperialism which is extended from colonialism. In this sense, Imperialism is not just military takeover and the establishment of a puppet, but rather it also extends to the expansion of markets, and the exploitation of cheap labor and resources by multi-national corporations. In essence, the way I view America is an empire that must constantly expand it's markets and find cheap labor, as that is an inherent flaw with capitalism and it's tendency to overproduce, along with the falling rate of profit. 

What I'm saying is, invasion of libya, afghanistan, iraq and many other countries in the past have not been because WMDs or Human Rights Violations, but rather those are used as false propaganda to justify a war goal to allow America to invade and take a countries natural resources and cheap labor force. 

How else do you think social programs are afforded for? As for Europe and it's social programs, and participates with America, and actually the US Dollar still dominates the world, ever since the Bretton Woods agreement, which allowed America to become a super power really. 

It would also make sense because we are buddy buddy with the Saudis who give us oil, and thus helping them take out their competitors gives them a part of the share as well. 

 cheap labour in afghanistan and iraq? what is your source on this

 

 When I say cheap labor, I specifically mean by western corporations, not direct slavery by the government itself, the government is the tool of the bourgeoisie, not the other way around, if that's slightly confusing, I'm saying, America starts wars to boost it's economy because of instability.

 no but cheap labour in iraq and afghanistan? they are not using either for cheap labour?

Sintetika said: 

The American Media cover story was that it was mines that blew up the ship, the owner of said boat said it wasn't mines, it was a projectile, the videos of boats going over to damaged ship was iranians rescuing them, this is just the american war machine and it's media trying to appeal to it's people to justify a war goal against Iran. As for the drone, perfectly justified, America shouldn't have it's drone in Iranian Territory. Hand off Iran. This is standard procedure with US Imperialism. They did the same to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. They failed their backed coup in Venezuela so they moved straight to Iran. If you genuinely think a nation like Iran wants to start a war with the US when it's surrounded by enemies and US military bases, then I suggest you try to use critical thinking.

Critical thinking is not smth most people possess. Information is being kept away or corrupted, and a lot of Americans don't get to talk to/interact with locals and refugees from the Middle East. The latter are being discredited and isolated with campaigns of fear and mistrust, in part because their stories would do horrible harm if they reached the ears of the average American or Westerner, with the same impact and level of trust enjoyed by other shitty sources of misinformation.

I had two good friends die in Syria's war, none killed by Assad's men. One died in combat, another one as a civilian, with his wife. I know Syria before the war started: it was rich, it had among the highest rates of literacy in the world, it was more secular than people even imagine. I know most people did not want this war, and the hatred against Assad is mostly an invention.

It is through war and conflict they keep the "developing" countries undeveloped. People are hard to civilize when they know hunger, fear for their lives and have their family members killed. In such times, people do not "civilize", they turn to superstition, and to tribalism. It's so easy for the fat westerners to shake their heads in disgust at the "backwards refugees" while filling their pig bellies in front of the TVs, under a safe roof, and believe themselves better for it.

Edvard said:

The latter are being discredited and isolated with campaigns of fear and mistrust, in part because their stories would do horrible harm if they reached the ears of the average American or Westerner, with the same impact and level of trust enjoyed by other shitty sources of misinformation.

I mean we have the internet like most everyone else without country-wide censorship issues like China and Korea deal with on the regular, and it's commonplace to have large groups of people demonize our news networks. If only it were easier to have them blanket statement that the US news is off instead of blaming "enemy networks" and crap, furthering the divide in our country through hysteria messages about our fellow man instead of our fellow government to exhaust us into a worker drone state through spoonfed fearful distractions. Even the room to focus on our governments pros and cons tends to be drowned out by people listing "The President" as a brand name that they can blame as if it were a complete monarchistic dictatorship (ie: Trump), as if the president was solely responsible for all the crap that's been going on. 

The news these days seems to, by design, affect the older crowd a lot more than the younger one, but thanks to the internet the younger demographic's split into a ton of subcultures that'd prefer to instead do no research at all beyond their more immediate interests (I complain, sure, but I'm technically a part of it). These days through cherry-picking you don't have to see anything you don't want to... and many Americans have the privilege of that. 

The younger lot typically don't want to know unless we have a selfish investment in the subject, while the older crowd's the one losing their shit over the news while having no idea how the internet works this far along. We still see stuff put on the news these days that'd been hosted online for months if not years prior to their unearthing that dinosaur of a relic, which further rifts the two groups. 

TLDR; They've silenced us by splitting us into groups; Two for the older generation and like fifty-billion with the younger one. 

Turncoat said: 

Edvard said:

The latter are being discredited and isolated with campaigns of fear and mistrust, in part because their stories would do horrible harm if they reached the ears of the average American or Westerner, with the same impact and level of trust enjoyed by other shitty sources of misinformation.

We still see stuff put on the news these days that'd been hosted online for months if not years prior to their unearthing that dinosaur of a relic, which further rifts the two groups. 

TLDR; They've silenced us by splitting us into groups; Two for the older generation and like fifty-billion with the younger one. 

 This is very interesting. Do you have an example of this? I would like to research this a little. Are these things obscure small things or large events?