• Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    lmao, no it doesn’t. the US didn’t go to Afghanistan to eradicate opium. the US didn’t give a shit about it at all, lmao.

    do tankies so blindly hate the US that they’ll give the Taliban a bj just to try to make the US look bad? wow…

    • NightOwl@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War is a summary of the Washington Post’s reporting on Afghanistan, specifically on the US government’s own internal assessments from all levels of the military and political administration. In it, you’ll find this quote:

      Of all the failures in Afghanistan, the war on opium ranked among the most feckless. During two decades, the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin. None of the measures worked. In many cases, they made things worse.

      The US doesn’t need “tankies” or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.

      • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        11 months ago

        lmao, so? we get it. you hate the US. what’s your point? just to come here and whine about it?

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          82
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink. A brain so smooth no facts can get stuck on it.

          spoiler

          Post another 🤓 “I was on the debate team” graphic, that’s how discussions work

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink

            oh, you mean here?

            the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

            ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.

            too bad it’s meaningless and - like always - you’re wrong. lmao

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            This flew over your head but it is heavily implied

            are logical fallacies all you guys know?

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                That’s not the creation of a straw man

                I saw this in another comment, I think it works here:

                “nuh-uh” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.

                hat is an accusation I’m making of you, specifically, based on the fact that your comment in no way addressed the idea

                just because you don’t understand (or refuse to acknowledge) what I said doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

                If you read my comment you’ll see that I also address your “argument” directly.

                with a logical fallacy. I pointed this out

                • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  34
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Who said I was arguing with you, dipshit? What would the point of that be? I’ve seen how you act. You ignore literally everything everyone says and post clippings from a high school textbook you clearly never read and don’t understand.

                  And what the fuck would I be making an argument about in the first place? You aren’t talking about anything. Shame on my comrades for engaging with you for anything other than to bully your ass for being a blight on the conversation other people are having around you.

                • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Still +5 upvotes on this six hours later, huh?

                  Weird how the only people who find value in your comments only ever show up right when you make them.

                  garf-troll

            • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.

                you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.

                • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  28
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.

                  Wtf are you talking about? Nobody said anything sexist or misogynyst. Words have meaning. Saying that you’re into cuckoldry has nothing to do with being sexist to women. It’s rude to you yes but fascist? Come the fuck on. Stop saying socialists are fascist for fuck’s sake it’s unbelievably cringe and nobody is buying it.

                • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  It is artful. That is the point. Further, the only sexism I talked about is the internalized negative self image that would lead a person to think ‘whiskey pickle’ is anything other than a cringe attempt to develop a self identity by subverting the worst societie’s worst instincts. Most of us here have done worse, but we grew stronger and passed through that phase. Join us.

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            They were directly responding to your words, to disprove them.

            except they didn’t disprove them. US Marines also peed a lot while they were there, but it’s not why they are there. it proves nothing.

            Do you really not see the connection between the comments?

            correlation ≠ causation

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                You’ve moved the goalposts, but no matter.

                “I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5. (borrowed form another comment)

                Operation Enduring Freedom was sold as a war on terrorism

                see, you even admit that it wasn’t about opium.

                the US repeatedly cited opium as a target of the war because they claimed it funded the Taliban.

                you’re welcome to cite sources to back up your claims. and I’ll be happy to point out how the timeline doesn’t support your assertions that the war was about opium, it just happened to be something the US did while we were there.

                Or did you think it was retaliation for 9/11 or something?

                what I think is irrelevant. that facts are what matter.

                I have American friends who died defending those poppy fields. I remember it all very well.

                irrelevant. present facts. not anecdotes or your feelings.

                Also do feel free to explain how this is any way relevant to the conversation:

                correlation ≠ causation

                I have, repeatedly. your inability/refusal to understand is not my problem.

            • loathesome dongeaterA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.

              That my dear good m’sir is a classic case of cherry picking.

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.

                nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”

          Where is here? The World News community? The only one I see whining is the pickle. Is this a small step away from saying people should go back from where they came from and leave this social space you’ve claimed as your own? IDK wtf you’re thinking coming into someone else’s post, refuting verified evidence, then proclaiming hate because its context makes the US look subpar. What’s your point, you love the US, why come on here and have to ignorantly shout it?

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”

            you mean an Association Fallacy that fails to prove their claims? US Maries also peed while they were there. That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.

            • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              You:

              the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

              Response:

              the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin

              You:

              lmao, so?

              That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.

              Now the goal post has been moved to WhY?!? were we there? Throw up some more pretty images to explain the situation please.

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Now the goal post has been moved to WhY

                wow, that’s quite the pretzel you’d twisted yourself into trying score some imaginary “point”.

                The “goal post” was always the “why” and it was never to eradicate opium. Every source, every article linked here bears that out. all that’s ben proven here is:

                the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

                ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.

                try not to hurt yourself with more of those mental gymnastics. it’s hilarious to watch

                edit: ya know, you probably wouldn’t be so outraged and angry all the time if you didn’t constant make stuff up to be outraged and angry about.

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Intelligence agencies love the drug trade because:

    1. It’s easy (certainly for a state actor) dark money
    2. It’s ubiquitous
    3. It gives you blackmail material on all sorts of useful people
    4. It gives you the proven ability to smuggle bulk quantities across the globe
    5. Who is going to blow the whistle on you?
  • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    During the time of the US occupation of Afghanistan, opium from the region comprised a full 90% of the world’s heroin supply. So I would say “the same thing they’ve been doing since at least the days of the Vietnam War and the Golden Triangle.”

  • n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    I had a bunch of friends who went to Afghanistan/Iraq and they were protecting poppy and marijuana fields

  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is one of the dumbest articles I ever read. The entire government changed. Taliban can be dictators. The US couldn’t. On top of this, they essentially had two years to switch to wheat before this occurred. Something that was less economically feasible over two years ago due to an unfortunate food shortage in the area now.

    Asking why someone couldn’t get something done as quickly as a dictator is something a naive child asks.

  • LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Editorially, MintPress News supports Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and the governments of Russia, Iran, and Syria. It opposes the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and reports geopolitical events from an anti-Western perspective. In one contentious article, MintPress News falsely asserted that the Ghouta chemical attack in Syria was perpetrated by rebel groups rather than by the Syrian government.

    Wikipedia article on mintpressnews

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    11 months ago

    No, it doesn’t raise questions. We knew back in 2003 that there was never a long-term plan. The point was to kill a guy, and then to do some military spending. A major success, on those lines.

    The Taliban are terrible, though.

  • unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean… Sure there are major improvements that can be had in the US, but punishment and consequences as defined in Sharia law isn’t exactly something that the US can simply adopt.

    • Trudge [Comrade]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Three million dead due to the Afghanistan war alone wasn’t brutal enough for you?

      The systematic, institutional rape and torture of men, women, and children in Abu Ghraib was more brutal than anything defined in Sharia law but we still pretend that the occupation was clean.

      • Smoogy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Both can be wrong, Sounds like you’re just here to derail into having a different conversation you want to have entirely separate to the topic rather than addressing the actual topic.

        • Trudge [Comrade]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m staying on topic.

          I am demonstrating how the American occupational forces handed out harsher punishments and consequences than the Taliban did, yet couldn’t curb opium production. Ergo, the Americans were never interested in curbing opium production.

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            The Americans didn’t intend to kill all those people. They intended to kill soldiers, and lots of other people who they deemed evil, but growing drugs was never deemed evil enough to be worth killing someone over. The Taliban intended to kill those growing drugs, along with a lot of other people doing things they deem to be evil I’ll leave moral judgements to you.

          • Julian@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean my takeaway would be that the us shouldn’t slaughter and torture people, not that they should have slaughtered and tortored more people to curb opium production.

      • thefartographer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unscholy_source is referring to domestically. US can’t adopt wholesale murder of drug-users because it doesn’t benefit the dealer to kill their clientele. Plus, it’s super-cool to kill and torture people from the middle-east because we don’t like the way they pray to their invisible friend.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are you suggesting since the US did that, they should institute unconstitutional laws in the US as well? Your argument is seriously that they did some bad things so let’s do worse?

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        the US didn’t go to Afghanistan to combat the opium trade. thanks for the false equivalence, though.

        • 4xdegrees@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          So all those DEA guys, FDA folks teaching wheat farming, millions of pounds of drugs burned, raids we conducted to “combat opium traffickers”, and all the reports we were fed about how we are responsible for eradicating Afghan opium all means what, exactly? What were we (and Myself, personally) doing there, again?

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            So all those DEA guys, FDA folks teaching wheat farming,

            hilarious. you should do stand-up.

            so, you’re claiming, without evidence I might add, that people from the DEA and hehehe… the FDA were teaching wheat farming to the Afghani people? The DEA and FDA. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? lmao

            and all the reports we were fed about how we are responsible for eradicating Afghan opium

            what reports? let’s see these alleged “reports”

            What were we (and Myself, personally) doing there, again?

            I have no idea what you were doing there, and if you think this is what was happening, I seriously doubt you were ever there at all.

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                aww, look at you, with your tantrums and your insults because you have no facts to back up your claims.

                and look! you even have a link that contains exactly nothing that backs up your claims. funny how you insult my reading comprehension, but if yours wasn’t so terrible, you’d see that for yourself. it’s cute how angry you are.

                sleep well.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        What’s defined in sharia law and what its proponents engage in are two very different things.

        We all know muslim supporters of sharia engage in far more atrocities than whatever you can cherrypick about American soldiers.

    • SLfgb@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      11 months ago

      May I suggest you read the article before commenting

      Armed with little more than sticks, teams of counter-narcotics brigades travel the country, cutting down Afghanistan’s poppy fields.

      • unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        And may I suggest you do some research before replying?

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65787391

        Balancing an AK-47 assault rifle slung around his left shoulder and a large stick in his right hand, Abdul hits the heads of poppies as hard as he can. The stalks fly in the air, as does the sap from the poppy bulb, releasing the distinctive, pungent smell of opium in its most raw form.

        In April 2022, Taliban supreme leader Haibatullah Akhundzada decreed that cultivation of the poppy - from which opium, the key ingredient for the drug heroin can be extracted - was strictly prohibited. Anyone violating the ban would have their field destroyed and be penalised according to Sharia law.

        The sticks are used to destroy the fields, not beat people 🤦

        And punishment under Sharia law is much more severe than getting beat by a stick, which isn’t something that obviously will never fly in the US.

        • SLfgb@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          The sticks are used to destroy the fields, not beat people

          That was my point exactly.

          But invoking the spectre of “Sharia law” is just as vague as referring to “US law”.

          • BrooklynMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            But invoking the spectre of “Sharia law” is just as vague as referring to “US law”.

            right, because Sharia Law and US Law are exactly the same thing…

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Something the US couldn’t do under the previous government. Plus many switched to wheat beforehand anyway due to food shortages. The US didn’t rule Afghanistan and had to work within Afghanistan’s government. That government is gone. The Taliban can act like a dictator. Sure, armed with little more than sticks, but farmers had a two year lag beforehand to switch to wheat. This ban wasn’t just announced it’s old. It was just never enforced til now. I mean, it’s ridiculous to compare the two situations. If the US did the same, at the time they were there, there would have been total economic collapse plus basically commiting war crimes.

        • SLfgb@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          iirc there was barely any opium production in Afghanistan pre-2001 under Taliban rule. It was in the following 20 years that the industry boomed and a lot of those government officials you refer to and their relatives got extremely rich from that, including President Karzai’s own little brother. The US put those people in power and propped them up for over 2 decades. It’s pretty clear the US decision-makers tried to eradicate poppy just as little as they tried to create peace in the region (not at all).

  • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The us was using opium as a weapon of war against russia and iran. Its well known and the public health concequences in both those countries were horrific

    But since mexico has orders of mag itude more state capacity than the taliban their failure to solve opium problem makes one almost certain the us goverment is also behind that.

    • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You got a source on that? Last I checked Opium is an excellent cash crop that the Taliban used to fund their guerilla war with the US. Now that the Americans are out there is no point to keep growing it.

      • ThomasMuentzner [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        USA frooze the National Reserves of Afgahnistan after their Ho Chi Ming City Replay , thereby actually punging Afgahnistan into Starvation crisis und accelerating the switch from Cash Crop to Food Production , this has now increased the Water Use in the helmaz river valley thereby is leading to borderclashes with iran over the water use.

        • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Not really. The river was also closed to iran during the american ocupation. In fact the taliban actually released watter at some point. Less than they should have but more than the previous regime.

          The border clashes have nothing to do with that and more to do with the taliban organization being run more like a mcdonalds than a regular state. Sometimes a franchise owner decide they want to invade iran and get into a shootout. But the central command in unaware of that.

      • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Just search opium in russia or opium in iran. You will see that its a huge problem there. You will also see both countries complaining to the us that they are maliciously increasing opium production.

  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    from MediaBiasFactCheck.com

    Mint Press News – Bias and Credibility

    FAR LEFT BIAS

    QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

    A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    • Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.

    Detailed Report

    • Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Pseudoscience, Poor Sources, Failed Fact Checks
    • Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
    • Factual Reporting: LOW
    • Country: USA
    • Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
    • Media Type: Website
    • Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
    • MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

    History

    Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”

    Analysis / Bias

    Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.

    Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        shame on Time?

        also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…

        do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?

        • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          64
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…

            • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              60
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              11 months ago

              notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?

                woooow

                • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  55
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.

                  the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration?

            Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.

            Of course it’s not the exact same article.

            so you even admit that they lied

            The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

            so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.

            • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              40
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.

              America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.

              What conclusion do these facts support?

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                What conclusion do these facts support?

                that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.

                • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  41
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.

                  I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.

                  So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        can’t argue based on facts, so you just hurl insults. typical

        • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Others are arguing with facts, you aren’t paying attention, you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus. We’re not in debate club, you’re not a teacher, I don’t respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn’t make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that’s what you. And you’ll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun voteing

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.

            you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus

            wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes

            that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.

            rage on, sad kid.

            • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              42
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes

              holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also “I’m not arguing with you.” “Wow, your arguments are shit.” what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.

    • Devion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.

    • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn’t virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?

  • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Lmao

    You mean the US wasn’t trying to eliminate heroin production surprised-pika

    “…but at what cost!!!” These lizards deserve a whole lot of things.

  • freagle
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    11 months ago

    LOL. Raises questions for whom? Libs? Everyone knows what the fucking USA was doing all along. Except the libs.

    NB: both USA Rs and Ds are both liberal in their political philosophy and are both subject to this critique.