So, world war three

Pureblood · February 22, 2016

Bring it on. I'd prefer a fair fight to all this sneaking around.

**Section_31** · February 22, 2016

*realises TK is also too old to join the army

*high fives TK

Pureblood · February 22, 2016

I am? Fuck's sake.

General Dryness · February 22, 2016

Don't worry TK, you can join the GFs very own version of Dads Army, with Captain Section Mainwaring, Private Bjornebye Pike (Stupid Boy) and Lance Corporal Stringvest Jones.

**Lee909** · February 22, 2016

Im out the war on medical grounds by the way.

Pureblood · February 22, 2016

Don't worry TK, you can join the GFs very own version of Dads Army, with Captain Section Mainwaring, Private Bjornebye Pike (Stupid Boy) and Lance Corporal Stringvest Jones.

No, no, I'm still quite young.

General Dryness · February 22, 2016

Thats the spirit.

Neil G · February 22, 2016

Bring it on. I'd prefer a fair fight to all this sneaking around.

It's straight fight, not fair fight. I should neg you, but there's no point as we'll all be dead soon.

Pureblood · February 23, 2016

This page isn't going well for me.

cloggypop · February 23, 2016

Would Stig still get called up?

General Dryness · February 23, 2016

I don't see why not.

Can't have all those sailors going round with blue balls, can we?

cloggypop · February 23, 2016

Ship's cook and concubine.

**Stu Monty** · February 23, 2016

Haven't you decided not to have kids?

That's my current line of thinking, yes.

Why would that be relevant?

**Jose Jones** · February 23, 2016

That's my current line of thinking, yes.

Why would that be relevant?

Well I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but I think your point was that people can't decide to do something for the benefit of others even if it goes against their self interest. It is just sophisticated self interest for the benefit of a better way to pass on their DNA.

But your brain is evolved enough to make a decision that is entirely opposed to passing on your DNA.

Therefore why couldn't anyone make a similar decision if that decision led to a bit of good for other people?

**Stu Monty** · February 23, 2016

Well I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but I think your point was that people can't decide to do something for the benefit of others even if it goes against their self interest. It is just sophisticated self interest for the benefit of a better way to pass on their DNA.

But your brain is evolved enough to make a decision that is entirely opposed to passing on your DNA.

Therefore why couldn't anyone make a similar decision if that decision led to a bit of good for other people?

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick on a number of counts Jose.

A key one seems to be the idea that I'm arguing people can't do things that lead to good for others. Of course they can, it's just that it will almost always be through a genetically driven self-interested motivation (even subconsciously). That might be gaining reputation as a good person, making the world (the one you live in) a better and fairer place or even, in my case, not wanting the hassle and cost of bringing up a child. If I end up sticking to that and not reproducing then it will turn out that my specific drives will have failed to pass on to the next generation so...they end with me. It will have chosen a bad/misguided strategy to pass my genes on and as such will meet a dead end.

We are so committed to this idea that we are are the single organism in the history of the planet that has managed to slip the bonds of evolution and natural selection. That the organism that was created by millions of years of natural selection and finally got the superweapon of the human brain then just magically stopped using that towards the aim of self-interest. Really? We just have far more complex social mechanisms through which we try to employ it. I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that we don't like the idea that we have less control over who we have become than we like to think. You see it when talking about Bulger's killers and how if I dropped you into their family you would most likely have become a total cunt too. Or when successful people convince themselves it's all down to them, and their choices that they became a winner, not a huge mix of the hand they were dealt genetically and the environment they grow up in.

I give to charity, I believe in socialism, I believe in helping the weak and the defenseless. These all make my tribe a stronger tribe, and also make it a place that is best for me to live in.

If you really dig down into it you can even see things like storming a machine-gun nest or jumping on a grenade as a product of the genetic drives of self-interest. The death of one hero saving a number of his colleagues that (as they are in his tribe) have a high probability to share a lot of his genetic material. There's a reason so many human societies have developed a culture where this sort behaviour is exalted.

Self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. What you might term altruism is just the most extreme end of co-operative self-interest.

KopOut · February 24, 2016

Again, we are warned about trying stupid ideas

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/18/dont-use-this-crisis-to-ban-cash-and-banknotes/

dennis tooth · February 24, 2016

A reporter from the Consortium News web magazine has claimed Moscow warned President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of its readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend Russian forces in Syria should Turkey conduct a ground operation in the country.

The Turkish media has covered Robert Parry's article published on consortiumnews.com on Feb. 18 in which the journalist highlighted the possibility of a full-scale nuclear war in Syria.

“A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation,” Parry said.

“If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria,” he added.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu has ruled out a military ground operation in Syria by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, saying any such move would need to involve all countries in the US-led coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Çavuşoğlu said Russian air strikes were the biggest obstacle to achieving a cease-fire in Syria.

He also said US Secretary of State John Kerry had sent a copy of the draft agreement with Russia over the terms of the cease-fire in Syria to him. He added that there must be pressure on Russia for the implementation of Resolution 2254 of the UN Security Council adopted last December.

Looks like turkey shit out, they were gonna bang russia out they were telling all their mates.

dennis tooth · February 24, 2016

Washington military planners decided to remove Bashar al-Assad from power using seasoned jihadist fighters because the Syrian president refused to back the Qatari project to build a gas pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, radio host, attorney and nephew of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asserted.

The $10 billion pipeline project first surfaced in 2000. Nine years later Bashar al-Assad announced that he would not support the initiative that would have granted Qatar direct access to European energy markets via terminals in Turkey.

Saudi troops pose in front of an helicopter

On Shaky Ground: Will Washington Give Blessing to Saudi Invasion of Syria?

Soon after that "the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria," Kennedy wrote for Politico.

The CIA went ahead with this plan months before the Arab Spring uprising in Syria took place, which clearly indicates that the Syrian conflict is in fact a violent foreign-sponsored insurgency aimed at bringing a pipeline project to life, not a civil war for greater rights or representation.

Washington military planners decided to remove Bashar al-Assad from power using seasoned jihadist fighters because the Syrian president refused to back the Qatari project to build a gas pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, radio host, attorney and nephew of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asserted.

The $10 billion pipeline project first surfaced in 2000. Nine years later Bashar al-Assad announced that he would not support the initiative that would have granted Qatar direct access to European energy markets via terminals in Turkey.

Saudi troops pose in front of an helicopter

On Shaky Ground: Will Washington Give Blessing to Saudi Invasion of Syria?

Soon after that "the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria," Kennedy wrote for Politico.

The CIA went ahead with this plan months before the Arab Spring uprising in Syria took place, which clearly indicates that the Syrian conflict is in fact a violent foreign-sponsored insurgency aimed at bringing a pipeline project to life, not a civil war for greater rights or representation.

Moreover, "US intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq," Kennedy observed.

FILE - In this photo taken Monday, June 23, 2014, fighters from the Islamic State group parade in a commandeered Iraqi security forces armored vehicle down a main road at the northern city of Mosul, Iraq

This is what happened when Daesh fighters launched a blitz offensive on the second largest Iraqi city of Mosul from their Syrian stronghold of Raqqa in June 2014. They later declared an Islamic caliphate on the territories under Daesh control, shocking the world with their brutality, financial resources and military capabilities.

"Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline," the expert added.

The CIA went ahead with this plan months before the Arab Spring uprising in Syria took place, which clearly indicates that the Syrian conflict is in fact a violent foreign-sponsored insurgency aimed at bringing a pipeline project to life, not a civil war for greater rights or representation.

This is what happened when Daesh fighters launched a blitz offensive on the second largest Iraqi city of Mosul from their Syrian stronghold of Raqqa in June 2014. They later declared an Islamic caliphate on the territories under Daesh control, shocking the world with their brutality, financial resources and military capabilities.

"Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline," the expert added.

If completed, the project would have had major geopolitical implications. Ankara would have profited from "rich transit fees." The project would have also given "the Sunni kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America's closest ally in the Arab world," the expert noted.

In addition, the pipeline would have also strengthened Saudi Arabia by giving the oil kingdom additional leverage against Iran, whom Riyadh sees as its archemony.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160224/1035279588/us-syria-conflict-daesh.html#

dennis tooth · February 24, 2016