Great Quotes δ' : Being laconic is being philosophical

[r16]

america abandons Kurds , like before ı was even born . It regularly involves the possibility of a fight with whom are monkeys . ı don't know why them monkeys are so scary .

 

[H4run]

I think except Americans and their allies no one will help them, because the YPG is in conflicts of interest with Russian and its allies. I think they don't have much choice, take it or fight alone.

 

[r16]

and of course some strategy site (where Kurdiah action and whatnot would have been examined with interest) declares the words were delivered at the time of a parade where they might or might have been 35 F-18 jets of USN in the air . And yes , rather typical of the worldview around here , that America can not do anything when New Turkey and its allies do anything to the contrary . What is expected of Ankara is to accept Kurdish ownership in a Syrian breakdown , before gods of war can be made to fight in Iran . Our beardies do not much like to be the vanguard of anything when the people on the other side can fire back .

 

[H4run]

they keep doing operation against American backed Kurdish force in Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorism (PKK) which according to, what you refer as New Turkey, PKK/YPG already being listed as terrorist organization by international consensus. But the purge is quite dare, too dare foreign policy. They play both American and Russian's card, used and being used by both side, playing around between the conflicting two major forces. And Turkey will never ever accept the Kurdish's rule in Syria, both new or old Turkey, it is just too dangerous.

 

[r16]

that New Turkey was specifically created by the West to create a Kurdish Natio State in the Middle East , the transition to be justified by conquering large parts of the Arabian Peninsula and even beyond by controlling the Muslim Brotherhood . It's only elections that justify the apparent Nationalism , without the need we would suddenly discover all those seperatists were our long lost brothers put away by the murderous crimes of the Republic . As we did a couple years behind and this whole elections thing were supposed to create the unmatchable invincible legal framework . As soon as everything seems safe we will start about the demişe of Iran and how things are inevitable . Then we willl see who accepts and who accepts not .

 

[Mouthwash]

"Western people are convinced that receiving is contrary to the dignity of human persons. But civilized man is fundamentally an heir, he receives a history, a culture, a language, a name, a family. This is what distinguishes him from the barbarian. To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices."

- Cardinal Robert Sarah

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Which really makes it ridiculous when white supremacists claim Europe invented everything while forgetting such contributions like Arabic texts and Chinese gunpowder.

 

[Lexicus]

"Western people are convinced that receiving is contrary to the dignity of human persons. But civilized man is fundamentally an heir, he receives a history, a culture, a language, a name, a family. This is what distinguishes him from the barbarian. To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices."

- Cardinal Robert Sarah

Except, of course, that the "barbarians" have history, culture, language, name, families of their own...odd that an African would forget that...

 

[Mouthwash]

Which really makes it ridiculous when white supremacists claim Europe invented everything while forgetting such contributions like Arabic texts and Chinese gunpowder.

I don't really see how this point contradicts his.

Except, of course, that the "barbarians" have history, culture, language, name, families of their own...odd that an African would forget that...

It's a Hobbesian sort of 'barbarian'. I don't agree with the definition, but there is not yet a word for the unconstrained, egoistic consumer man.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

there is not yet a word for the unconstrained, egoistic consumer man.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed. Seems this author used "barbarian" in the dumbest possible way.
We all know it just means 'not greek'

 

[cardgame]

It's a Hobbesian sort of 'barbarian'. I don't agree with the definition, but there is not yet a word for the unconstrained, egoistic consumer man.

American?

 

[Lexicus]

Homo economicus, surely?

 

[metatron]

Except, of course, that the "barbarians" have history, culture, language, name, families of their own...odd that an African would forget that...

He didn't. His point is a social conservative one.
In his view old-fashioned social institutions like marriage, family, church, tradition and identity are what makes civilised people civilised. Many Africans have all that. That's, presumably, part of his point.
He is appropriating the term.
He's saying that the white westerners who have abandoned all these good institutions are left with raw unhuman market capitalism.
The jungle, in which they are barbarians.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't really see how this point contradicts his.

It doesn't. Not every discussion here has to be a debate, you know.

 

[Mouthwash]

"As used, the word ‘fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, youth hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

- George Orwell

 

[Gori the Grey]

To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices.

Were we to go naked back to the jungle, we'd still be heirs--of the jungle!

 

[Broken_Erika]

"Given the chance, half of all American citizens won't even vote, and the half that do vote are too stupid to know what they're doing."
Senator Robert Kinsey -Stargate SG1

Spoiler :

"Which explains how you got elected."
Col. O'Neill

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

"As used, the word ‘fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, youth hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

It's funny because the New Life Movement was basically Fascism with Chinese Characteristics.

"Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. ... [E]ven the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class."


On an unrelated note, some excerpts from "The Surprises in the Mueller Report":

Spoiler :

It is shocking how misleading and disingenuous the attorney general’s four-page letter, and his subsequent remarks at the press conference, turned out to be. The Mueller report identifies numerous instances of interactions with Russian nationals—by the Trump campaign or Trump associates—in an effort to gain hacked emails and to coordinate their dissemination. That may not be enough to warrant criminal conspiracy charges, but saying there was no collusion—as Barr did—is brazenly dishonest. The campaign certainly tried to collude.​

—Bradley P. Moss, National Security Attorney

The Mueller report makes unmistakably clear that Americans were attacked by foreign military units: specifically Russian “Military Units 26165 and 74455.” And it reminds us that the president and members of his campaign invited and welcomed those attacks, even if it did not arrange them, and that they were eager to profit from the proceeds of those attacks. That should be of immense concern. If the attack were a bombing rather than a hacking, perhaps the magnitude of the problem would be clearer. The hack was no less an attack than something more literally explosive.​

— Justin Levitt, Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General, 2015–17

The obstruction of justice portion of the report reads like a prosecution memorandum that is leading up to a conclusion to recommend an indictment. It lays out the facts in painstaking detail, some of which (like the discussions of a Manafort pardon) are classic efforts to influence witness testimony. It then contains a lengthy legal analysis of why these acts are criminal and why the legal counterarguments are mere hand-waving. And then, at the denouement, when the conclusion should have read “for these reasons we recommend an indictment,” the report radically changes tack. Any other American in the same circumstances would likely be facing criminal charges. Mueller flinched—and that’s a shame.​

— Paul Rosenzweig, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security, 2005–9

I assume most people would have thought the entire point of the special counsel investigation on obstruction was precisely to determine whether the president had committed any crimes. But the report concludes that because the president cannot be indicted while in office, it would be “unfair” in principle to conclude he had committed a crime, because unlike the ordinary criminal defendant, he would not soon have a trial in which he could clear his name. In other words: Since the president cannot be indicted while in office, he also can’t be found by the Justice Department to have committed a crime while in office.​

— Rick Pildes, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall

Mueller’s stated rationale for declining to reach a judgment about obstruction rests on an almost absurdly delicate conception about the president's ability to answer such charges. The evidence of obstruction gathered in Volume II is absolutely devastating (Barr’s claim, in his four-page letter, that the report simply sets out evidence on “both sides of the question” is wildly misleading). Admittedly, Mueller could not actually indict on obstruction—he understandably regarded DOJ policy (however wrongheaded) as precluding that option. But his unwillingness even to reach a judgment—in the face of so much evidence against the president—is predicated on the view that, without an indictment, the president would be disabled from answering such charges. But if we’ve learned nothing else from the last two years, it is that Trump has an array of weapons at his disposal for sticking up for himself (or enlisting his media allies to do so). For Mueller to reach no stated conclusion, and then handing off his report to an attorney general who auditioned for the job with a memo asserting that any obstruction prosecution on facts such as these would be unconstitutional, all but ensured that the ordinary operation of the federal criminal law would fail.​

— Larry Robbins, trial and appellate litigator, Robbins Russell

 

[Lexicus]

"I am satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory."

William T Sherman, 1864 letter to General Sheridan