Americans are hopeless

nice class analysis ""comrades""

islamic "terrorists" CAN attack the u.s. and other western countries, and that alone gives them every right to do so

As an American I resent the OP and I rebuke him for his lack of empathy and complete absence of any class analysis. No, most Americans have no idea what their government does. They are too busy working three jobs and wearing their life down to a pencil nub to please the machine.

Fuck you its not our fault, basically.

Uhuh, you get it. That's why they and their families must be exterminated until not a single one of then remains. You can't possibly think that this isn't the only way, right? The damage has been done ages ago, hate has been bred for generations, why not be reasonable and end this cycle of hatred by completely eradicating anything that has to do with these people?

cuck

all amerburgers are legitimate targets and they deserve to be attacked and dehumanized they constantly brag that they are the freeiest and the most democratized, the only time they are actually concerned in actual normalfag discourse is when the costs of the crimes and foreign intervention are just too expensive and inconvenient for the tax payer oh how unconfortable it is for the taxpayer that a million Iraqi's died we should stop doing that and focus on domestic politics they say, well no you don't just leave from it you pay with blood

Any and all conflict is a justification for total eradication? Or where does the line go?

the average american didn't start giving a shit about islamic issues until 9/11. not to mention your "argument" is completely refuted by the fact that most islamic countries are u.s. allies. you think the u.s. is going to bomb mecca or something?
why not end it by eradicating anything that has to do with the u.s.?

First of all, there is no line, I have no idea whoever was so retarded as to think that there is some form of line which cannot be crossed, there isn't, there never has been, stop making up stuff.
They want Americans dead, why should the Americans play the good guys? Why shouldn't two opposing groups with differing interests try to get rid of the other? Keeping both existent only breeds more and more hatred, causing more victims as time goes by, I'd say it's less humane to not fix this problem than by fixing it by extermination

That's an absurd position from a historical perspective. Should the Swedes have eradicated the Danes in any of their numerous wars and conflicts? What about Russians and Poles? Catholics and Protestants? Shias/Sunni?

I'm pretty sure I implicated those muslims who do not want to be influenced by the USA, that is, most extremists. Leaving them be to exist will cause more harm than good and should not be done. If you did not see that in my messages, consider that to be the meaning when I talk about muslims. I don't care for the sheep who willingly bow down to their American masters, they played their part and are now vassals or slaves.
Also the West in general has been fucking around in the middle-east for the last few generations, breeding alot of hate.
You're completely right, the other solution would be to kill the US, however it's the US with the power and might, so they're in a better position to get rid of their enemies.

Shia's and Sunni's still murder each other daily, is that a better situation than when either of them had not been existent as of now, I'd say yes. The Swedes should have eradicated the Danes in order to ensure their safety and their influence, but such is not always the case due to limitations on a lot of things. So other measures can be taken, like reaching agreements or signing treaties. However I don't think muslims are all to willing to sign anything.

...

uhu
Now tell me all about how Not America is such a fountainhead of class consciousness and anticapitalism

Everybody cares about their self-interest, those who appear not to are faking it as a power play 99 times out of 100, and those who genuinely don't are automatically made victims in this world.
You don't understand historical materialism if you don't realize that self-interest is a driving force of history and the task is not to abolish it, but attain the real, material state of affairs where "self-interest" doesn't coincide with parasitism and exploitation but is instead even more fully realized through free association.

Are you trolling, or are you just a smooth-brained imbecile?

This is a completely idealistic position. Why do you think islamic terrorism became a thing only after 1979? Hint: it's not the ideology

I did not say this, so please don't imply that I did. Again, if you have read my messages, you'd have seen that I am claiming that America has every right to do what they want, because no one can stop them.

I didn't state a year? I didn't even state who started the aggression. Why are you putting words in my mouth. All I'm saying is, OP is wrong, America is completely justified in doing whatever the fuck they want by the fact that they're the biggest around. If you disagree, please fight with all your might, but expect to be completely assblasted and definitely don't expect mercy, there's no reason for it to be given.

You are talking like every American is basically Dick Cheney.

You implied that leaving them along would do more harm than good, as if fucking with the region in the first place didn't get us where we are now

ok, but if you want to be honest and consistent in this view, i hope you also apply it to muslims (and anyone else really). for all we know, an islamic violence group might acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on the u.s. and given that might is right, they'll be completely justified in having done it, and should make no apologies

Are you a moral nihilist and if you are, what meaning does the word "justified" have to you?

You and OP are both barely coherent in your reasoning

At this point, yes. As I've said, the damage has been done, terrorism and hatred has been bred, it be best to exterminate one side as to ensure proper peace for the other. That the conflict has been caused by both sides being retards by falling for some nicely laid down traps doesn't mean that this conflict is non-existent.
Fucking with the region is a right of the strongest, and since that is America, they have the right to fuck around there, if it caused them problems, well, as the strongest, they have every right to rid themselves of this nuisance.

Yes. Would you have demanded apologies from terrorists after they used a nuclear missile on your country? Because then you're not really thinking the situation through, at that point, it's all bets off and the US would go apeshit on every terrorist. There would be no demands for apologies, nor would any be given, merely falling bombs and flying bullets.

I am not, I don't think I ever want to be a nihilist, they admit that life is pointless, which is the last step towards self-destruction of a society. I believe in God so I adhere to morals, but God doesn't interfere with our miniscule worthless lives, so it's on us to fix things. That's why the truth of the matter is that the strongest dictates whatever happens, and there's nothing ants like us can ever change to it. We're puppets on some strings, and I don't think our puppet masters are free beings either.

What do context have to do with this? Why are you not talking about the situation but moving the conversation towards something less relevant? How is my statement less valid in another given context, America is the strongest, they get to do whatever they want. How do the ends matter? Whatever the strongest considers to be the end he wants, is the end preferred. And the context does nothing for the situation except for determining who is the strongest in a particular situation, how is it relevant if in the global context America is in every way and shape the dominant force?

There is a lot of activity from genuine US military shills on reddit.

This:
Dumbass

You can't get an "ought" from an "is." To talk justification, you have to have a theory of what should be and why, which depends on things other than just current conditions, like intent and outcome

Your posts are pure sophistry seemingly designed to cover up the fact that you're not actually saying anything

I would argue is easier to get rid of the arms dealers and to stop funding fundies than to try to get rid of them in a regular war. It would be even easy to exterminate them if that were American goverment interest.
But you fail to realize that defending the American military is defending porky interest, where exploiting 3rd world is good because is profitable, but once the cost rises, it will be more profitable to exploit you.

Moral nihilisim != nihilism, though the overlap among adherents is high.
But this is not a justification for anything. Justifications are normative statements, this is just descriptive. Unless you want to make some additional might-makes-right-because-divine-right argument, but this makes moral discussion inane and is very near moral nihilism ayway, because then everything is justified because god controls everything in the world and no matter what happens, god wanted it that way anyway.

My theory is pretty solid, the strongest rules, the rest is his bitch. What more justification do you require? What other measure does there exist of justice except for the rule of the strongest, except perhaps Godly justice, but as you can see, God does not interfere in human situations, so we'll have to solve those ourselves.
I don't see how my posts are sophistry, as I actually am talking about the subject at hand, whilst you merely talk about theories, which tend to not work in reality.
also
cool man, you've really managed to convince me that I am indeed wrong and that context is vital as to whether or not America is justified in exterminating their enemies, or allies if they choose to do so.

I feel pretty good about exploiting the 3rd world, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, care to explain why this should not be done? The capitalists have the means to do what they want, the 3rd world doesn't, so they're subject to the will of the strongest, which sadly enough for most people here, tend to be capitalists. What's the problem with that? How will exploiting the 3rd world end up in me being exploited?

Why do justifications necessarily need to be 'normative'? Justification is the argument as to why an action is considered acceptable, and the right of the strongest is in that sense a justification to whatever America does.

This is the meaning of a normative statement.

You are conflating something being a part of a causal chain that leads to an action with it being the justification for the action itself. These two are completely separate matters.

This is moral nihilism.

You appear to be defining "justification" from the get-go in a way that doesn't overlap with its usual meaning.

Love the fake leftist tribalist Europeans on leftypol.

Let's face it, we will have a global socialist revolution only after America is destroyed.

Yeah r/politics did a major shift and now they are pro-trump.

Porky is behind this.

I agree. From a fellow American.

death to america tbh

What happens when people refuse to be a part of your 'revolution'?

Not user, but there exist non-American people as well, so I don't finding support will be hard.

They go to the gulags or against the walls :DDDDD

I mean people from around the world that refuse to be a part of it. What is 'revolution'?

You mean Americans abroad? They are not a majority.

I mean anyone who doesn't believe in Communism

That's because that's what we're taught from the moment we can walk. You can't eat, breathe, or shit without seeing some pro-militay bullshit. The best way to summarize American history classes (up to college at least) is "America = good, not America = bad". There is no discussion about how the CIA has interfered in other countries, there is no talk about the bloody history of labour within US borders, hell we aren't taught anything about Cuba pre-Castro. It's basically "everywhere that had/has no American influence, is literally totalitarian".
And that's just k-12 public education.

But they believe in a world without America.

FUCK OFF CIA

(You)
(You)
I see, English is not my primary language so I make mistakes sometimes.

Why should they be separate? I see no reason for that to be the case, if 'the right of the strongest' is part of a causal chain then that causal chain by itself justifies the existence of this right, there's no need for additional justification and there's definitely no need to seperate that term when in reality justification has always been subjective, existing only to justify the will of the strongest.

Okay, thanks for enlightening me, I guess. How does this have to do with the situation at hand. Is America justified into doing whatever they want or not? And if not, who is able to stop them? Because if there is no one able to stop them from doing what they want, how is that not justification? They are allowed to do what they want because they can do what they want, there's no need for more justifications.

"That deserve to be exploited" no one does. Thats an ideology you're making there, a spook is getting you. Otherwise how will the Corporatist War Machine will fall?

In working class americans don't stop being wageslaves it will hardly ever fall.

As an american, i'd say about 30% of americans are dick cheney. If they're rich and white its more like 80%.

Because the potential to do something and the justification of doing something are two different things. Ethics in general is concerned with why things are done and what should be done - not from a mechanistic, causal point of view but from a rational angle. Something being in the causal chain tells us 'what' but not 'why' in human terms.

Very grimdark, but all normative systems, such as laws or international treaties and relations work on a level of normative reasoning. Why do you think there is such a notion as a "casus belli" and why these have been fabricated by false flag attacks and otherwise in history? Why do you think there are laws against murder and rape?

America has a justification for the current bombings, because they are enforcing international norms on chemical weapons use and civilian attacks. If the chemical attacks were actually done by the SAA is irrelevant for the justification before information contrary to the narrative comes up. Even then, the Americans can claim that they worked with what information they had.

All major nuclear-armed states could stop the United States from existing. They are all able. But they won't, because America despite its warmongering has some reasoning behind their wars and military operations around the world, and can thus be seen as operating on rules and standards that give it a modicum of reliability as an international actor. Compare the reaction to the Iraq war with its faux WMDs to this bombing campaign. The muted reaction is a consequence of the justification for this bombing being stronger than that of the Iraq war.

Your definition of the word 'justification' is completely meaningless. Tell me, what would be unjustified in your worldview?

Euro pretending to be American.
You know what, I'm about sick of hearing this shit from meek ass Europeans. What the fuck do you do about your own governments eh? Take this shit to /int/

Why are you separating two clearly conflating concepts? The potential to do something is what gives you the right to do something, and if there be a stronger group or person who does not want you to do so, you'll be stopped and your potential to do whatever it was you wanted to do will be taken away from you.

Those treaties and laws work solely because the individual countries choose to adhere to those laws and treaties, simply because they alone are not capable of overriding the treaties, they don't have the power. The only reason treaties are adhered to is because the strongest party, which you should take broadly, it could be one single country, or the majority of the countries, or almost all of the countries who signed the treaty, has the final say, telling the other countries who signed but maybe not wanted to, to shut up and follow the arbitrary rules set down by the strongest party. America doesn't always care about WTO rules, are they justified in doing so? You might say no because they signed the treaty, but who is there to stop them if they disobey? The fractured international community? Since they're incapable, the WTO is incapable and weak, and thus America is the strongest party in this treaty, thus dictating what is and isn't justified. Casus belli exist to convince other countries that your war is 'justified', a lie set up to ensure you can attack your weaker prey without interference from other countries which may or may not band togethet and become stronger than you in that way, that is the only reason for a casus belli. Had other nations not existed and only two nations existed and either one of them wanted to attack the other, he could do so at any time and there would be zero need for a casus belli. The reason that murder and rape is illegal is solely due to the strongest party in our countries, that tends to be The People, have decided together that rape and murder should not be condoned, that is the only justification for illegalizing rape and murder necessary. The strongest party has decided it's bad, so it's bad. If you don't like it, become the strongest and change it.

Following arbitrary rules that they've definitely had a hand in setting up is even less of a justification than doing it because you can. Even worse, your justification can always be sweet talked into being 'okay'. If it were the rebels who were the ones with the gas, as you already said, the Americans can just say they were working with the info they had. It'll end up as 'making up excuses ad nauseam'. The only real justification however is that they did it because they wanted to, and since no one can stop them, they did what they wanted to do.

Having the balls to do something about something is part of being strong. China might be able to take out the US, but as long as they don't have the balls actually send a missile over, the Americans can, and are allowed to, do whatever they want. America doesn't need to have a reasoning, it has one because it makes you appear stronger when you claim to have a reason instead of doing it because you wanted to, but having a bunch of lies as a mask for your actual intentions or for your want of destruction doesn't mean it is a justification. The only real justification America needs to have is that it is strong enough to attack Syria and that it wants to attack Syria, whatever the reason for that might be. A false flag about nuclear bombs in Iraq, a false flag in Syria, they're not justifications, they're only lies meant to distract you so you'll listen and follow the American propaganda, which is all to American advantage, the real reasons are probably money and power, are those justifications then?

You allow everything and anything to become justified by having enough pieces of paper signed between parties in which one may or may not be able to completely decimate the other party. I just allow the strongest to decide whatever is best, as does your system, albeit with a lot more paperwork. Nothing would be unjustified in my system except for whatever goes against the will of the current strongest. The same goes for your system, except for a few extra masquerades and plays.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you say, just stop using the word justification since you are using it wrong. Justification only exists in a system where there is a standard of some kind that is upheld, so it has no meaning from your moral nihilist point of view. Be more rigorous and exact with your use of terminology. "Because they could invade" is not a justification, "because they needed to invade to secure their borders because a nation has the right to security" is a justification for example.
For example, there is a taboo on the use of chemical weapons in international relations, and the Obama administration was criticized for not upholding the taboo via military response when the first chemical attacks (allegedly) by SAA were reported. It is true that the dominant party has a lot of clout to define the rules. For example, when Israel used phosphorus bombs in Gaza, the NATO bloc didn't even concider punitive action. However the lack of justification weakens their position in the international stage for both Israel and the USA. Just look at the attitude towards the USA in the Bush era compared to the Obama era - the difference is largely in the quality of justification. The Israeli case is similar, compare pre-1967 attitudes to post-1967 views in the international community.

This has nothing to do with justification, only with explanation.

Yes, they are justifications, be they real or not. "We invaded to stop the WMDs" vs "We invaded to take their oil" - The first one is acceptable (to an extent) in the international standard, the second isn't and will be met with sanctions of varying levels from other actors. A lot of the justification process is about convincing the other actors of your point of view.

I recommend you look into metaethics, if you happen to be interested in philosophy. Philosophically I'm a moral nihilist too, but ethics and it's theory is a useful tool to delineate, understand and regulate human action, even if they don't really exist in any idealistic sense.

clarification-
in 2012 I believe

compare attitudes towards Israel