Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peace.

  • Rank
    Star Player
  • Birthday 05/02/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Paris
  • Fan Since 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

3,412 profile views
  1. Politics & Stuff

    Is he comparing Mexicans to mindless titans ? Or to those that want to "destroy humanity" ? Oh my God, some people just do not realize...
  2. 10. Eden Hazard

    This is the internet's fault. Ten years ago, most people would watch a dozen of games at best per season while only the few fortunates were able to see all the games (i.e. those who were going to game). And most importantly, those people who could watch only a few games per seasons were watching the best games : the Champions League, el Clasico, the Milan derby, etc... (or th internaitonal games that were still quality back then). On the other hand, nowadays there are literally millions of people and their dogs that can see all the games of their team via streaming and that can rewatch them via download. So while before you were only recalling the good things as it was a joy to watch games, now it has become a routine and "annoying" things are harder to dismiss...
  3. Politics & Stuff

    People are (over) mentioning notions such as « Fascism » and « Nazism » without fully understanding what they are talking about (that is if they understand anything at all). These are big words that sound nice and that have the advantage to confer their users the upper moral ground and which are very cool to bring up. However, using them outside their historical context make these notions irrelevant and trying forcibly to use them in order to describe present political systems is meaningless. By the way, if we do really insist to use these terms to describe today's reality, people would be very surprised with the results (i.e. who would be the "nazi" and who would be the "fascist"). P.S. oops, sorry for the triple comment, I did not realize..
  4. Politics & Stuff

    It is not surprising in the slightest. Actually it seems that a lot of Arabs in the past considered themselves as white people. And now you are saying it, I believe that I have also encountered in some book a 13th century or so muslim saying the same thing (regarding their Prophet)... Unfortunately I have not my book at proximity to give you the reference. And by the way, a lot of them are just as white as Europeans, if not more for some of them (especially those who live around the Mediterranean sea) !!
  5. Politics & Stuff

    I do perfectly understand very well the trouble you — or that any American — can have regarding Trump’s rhetoric. Since you are yourself an American I am not sure whether you have the insight to realize that, but as a person extern to your society I can tell you that American's — just as the whole Anglo-Saxon world's — discours is wrapped into heavy layers of political correctness. In this regard, it is only « normal » that Trump’s bluntness is unsettling for U.S. citizens. Of course white people don’t want to be compared with Dylan Roof — just as they do not want to be compared with Hitler or the so fantasied « nazis ». This is the problem in our occidentals societies : you cannot express freely your opinions as anytime you deviate from the religiously imposed official discours — a discours that benefit the monopolistic class, i.e. very few of us —, you are associated to the darkest hours of our history. This is social control at its utmost ! This is by the way the very for which modern « democracies » have outlived most dictatures out there : civilians are policing civilians themselves (what happened at Berkeley is the perfect illustration) ; at the contrary, to control civilians through military forces might gives you a better direct power, yet it also gives you less room for manœuvre (for instance, it is very difficult for China to attack even the weakest of its neighbors because it cannot afford any « faux pas » since it cannot put the blame on Bush, or Obama, or Trump and then change its leader). This is why you and the overwhelming majority of people just cannot take the plunge and point to the root of the problem : islam. And the more the situation goes on, the more people have even trouble to identify them as « radical » muslims and would rather use poorly thought excuses such as « he was oppressed » or that they are « manics » — and even that they are not muslims. Do we really believe that wars are won by downgrading our enemies, by considering them just as some nutcases in the wild and by disregarding their motivations and what they have to say ? Do you picture your country in 1941, after seeing the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, to say « oh, they are not real Japanese — real Japanese do not kill. They are just lunatics. Let's stay cozily at home ». I know that this issue (that is the our problems with islam) is a very sensible one. So to illustrate it, I will take a few examples coming from our very societies. I am pretty sure you are aware of the situation in Congo where occidentals big companies are exploiting Africans (a lot of times they are only kids) in order to have a cheap access to cobalt and do a lot of profit by selling us smartphones. Well, if I ask you who are the culprit, you will most certainly answer that it is those big companies — and you would be right. Yet would those firms exploit young Africans if us Occidentals would not need cobalt — or even better, if we refused to buy it ? Of course not. In that sense I am also culprit because I have a computer and a smartphone ; you are also culprit because you have a computer and a smartphone. The only difference between those companies and us is that they are the minority and they are active and we "the people" are the majority and are passive. At the end of the day, it stems from our societies and from our way of life. Another example are the numerous wars and political destabilizations that Western countries have perpetrated over the world. Once again if we quickly look at it, there are what, a few thousands of people at best that have an active role in those (I mean those who takes the decision, not the militaries on the ground) ? Yet as the previous case, it also stem from our societies. I mean, look — had Obama run for the presidential for a third time, he would have been elected despite having bombed seven countries (the very same on which Trump declared a ban). It is the case for you Americans but it is also the case for us French : who voted for someone that destroyed Libya to then vote for someone who destabilized Syria. All in all, despite our relative « innocence », what our governments are doing is just a product of our societies. Well, I am aware that my analogies have their own limitations and that they are not the sharpest — I am very far away from having the same fluency in English that I do in French. What I am trying to show you is that we cannot understand what our governments and companies are doing by dissociating them context — this is us and our societies. And this is the same thing with islamic violence throughout the muslim world but also in our western societies. With have to understand — and most special to accept — that everything come in a bundle, the good things just as the bad things. Well in truth we know it, at least when it comes to us. The two issues I raised above are known by a lot of people amongst us ; we are a lot to condemn this actions and there are even people that take proud in indulging self-blaming. And even though our protests are inefficient as the system we ourselves built is very hard to escape, we are aware of it and we are saying it (it is a first step although clearly not sufficient). Now it is time for us to come out of our bubble — which is in fact not very different from our « we will civilize the world » 19th century bubble — and accept that other people are like us. We do not have the monopoly over the Original Sin and they are not some kind of poor and innocent creatures unable to do any wrongs. Yes the problem of the muslim terrorists stems from islam and therefore islam is the root of the problem — those countless terrorists are not shooting « God save the Queen » but « Allah Akbar ». That is true. We cannot act as if both of disconnected or as if it was a lunatic minority. There is Al-Qā’Idah, Al-Qā’Idah in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qā’Idah in the Maghreb, the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Sham (AQ in Syria), Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah, Al-Shabbaab, those in the Caucase/Russia (I do not remember their name), etc, etc… In terms of numbers and geography, the problem is real and huge. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt, in Tunisia they have a lot of support, etc… We can no longer close our eyes and act as if everything was fine — and have to start to call a cat a cat. Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people. Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people. But you know, I am not even advocating to impose them to change their culture. If islam is an ideology that suits them, good for them — and this is okay for me. This is their culture, their civilization, their community and their countries, they do want they want. However this is hugely problematic when you have millions of muslims in Europe ! And especially when you have an increasingly number of jihadists that come from these muslims community settled in Europe that kills European citizens in the name of Islam (plus the foreigners). This is a huge problem, we cannot allow that. And in that respect, they have to do something to dramatically reform their islam if they want our hospitality. In addition, 700 « french » jihadists went to Syria, 700 ! And for each one of them theta wen there, how many could not and how many did not have the courage ? It only goes on to show the extent of the problem ; and what will we do when those war veteran come back from their jihad ? We have to understand that Islam is an ideology which is utterly intolerant towards pagans, jews, christians, etc… — basically any kind of religion which is not islam. Bad news, we westerners are fitting this description. And even within itself their is high intolerance towards those who are not practicing it the right way (shi’a muslims). This is without even mentioning it does not held women in high estime. And even though most of muslims are not adhering into those intolerant views, a lot of them are too happy to put them into execution — those latter being legitimized by their book (and it is sometimes very hard to not say they are right if we take their book as postulat). Regarding the intolerance contained within the koran and the inherent dangerousness of this ideology, I do not ask you to believe me. Read that book for yourself. You should also download some magazines published by Al-Qā’Idah (in the Arabian Peninsula) and the IS and compare those with what is written in the koran. You will see that their « radical » ideology does not come from nowhere. But yet again, I encourage to do it by yourself. Moreover, trivial things such as eating only halal meat comes or putting an islamic blanket over women comes hand in hand with going into jihād against those « infidels swine » — it is in the very same book. If you are still perplex, here is an example. Before the years 2000s, in France there were next to no women wearing the islamic veil, and for the few of them who did, it was only covering the head (with nice colors and textiles !), it was discreet — and guess what was also very scarce ? Islamic terrorist attacks !!!! Today, there is a fucking lot of women that wear the islamic veil, but not the discreet and colored one — the integral and black one. Sometimes when I walk in some neighborhoods (I am not even talking about the « banlieue », but intramuros Parisian neighborhoods), I do wonder if I did not have mistakenly ended up in Al-Raqqa… Once again, guess what has become more common in France ? Islamic terrorist attacks. To conclude my long comment, I wish to stress the fact that the debate is not about saying we are the good and they are the bad nor about demonizing all muslims. However and it is undeniable — you just have to look what happens in the out there — we have a problem with islam and islam has a problem with us. Moreover this is not something new as it has been the case ever since islam came into existence centuries ago. And from this situation we have to learn a few things : (i) destabilizing muslims countries is not a very clever things to do as every time bad things happen (the IS is the perfect illustration) ; (ii) proximity between islam and western societies usually means a lot of tensions between the two civilizations ; (iii) islam is not compatible with western societies ; (iv) the contrary is also true so we should stop to try to impose them our way of life ; … … (v) if we want to tackle efficiently the terrorism problem, we should start to call a cat a cat and talk about the root of the « radical » islam, that is the « moderate » islam — until then, we should not be surprised if an Occidental president has an « anti-muslim » rhetoric and takes, he too, « radical » politic and military actions. P.S. Once again, as I know that my comment will be undoublty be misinterpreted, I want to stress that I am not saying they are bad people while us are the supreme good. Islam is a dangerous ideology for us westerners because it is inherently intolerant against us (we will go to hell, we are sinners, blabla, « Allah is surely an enemy to the infidels [i.e. us] », blablabla) — that is, for *us*. If muslims are muslims since ten centuries ago, this is probably because this is what is suitting them the most — and this is perfectly fine to me as I do understand that having different civilizations/people implies having different ideologies and different way of life. Yet we have to understand that a forced and "imposed" cohabitation in close proximity as it is the case today does not work neither for them nor for us. Not everyone is meant to co-exist, we just have to accept it. P.S.2. diversity + proximity usually means conflicts (to not say wars). P.S.3. There is probably a lot of typo mistakes, but this comment box is the pain in a ass when it comes to write long comments and especially to check them !
  6. Politics & Stuff

    Well, you probably know more than me as you are in the U.S., yet from what I see on the internet and in France, I would rather say that those teacher are not faking it. Actually, they are loving it — they love the mental power they have over their students. Imagine just an instant the feeling that one can feel when hordes of young people are buying everything you can talk about ; or when a light sparks up in their eyes when you tell them who is behind all atrocities in this world and they are feeling so gratefull to you ; or when you can indoctrinate them to further your own personal agenda, which give you a nice little army of zealots ; etc... — this "empowerment" must be thrilling ! And how could you not care for those you give you the impression to be important ? (this last remark is at a lesser extent true for every one of us).
  7. Politics & Stuff

    You are welcome, after all it was (kind of) deserved as I was not very nice to you in my first reply ! **** In regards to our debate, you know, it is always very difficult to fully understand what is going on behind the scene because there are a lot of actors who do not necessarily want to achieve the same thing — and each actor does not necessarily have only an unique aim. Just to add a little bit more of content to what I "explained" in my previous post, on the 29/01 Dahnald Trump has had a call with Abu Dhabi crown prince and king Salman of Saudi Arabia. One of the topic of their discussion(s) was the fight against terrorism and the desire to create "safe zones" in the region for refugees. And on the 30/01, the vice president received king Abdallah II of Jordan and the fight against terrorism was part of the discussions. Now, it is very difficult for us to imagine who could he have called in Syria for instance — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? Do you figure what could be the content of the conversation ? "Hello Abu Bakr, what's up ?" "Salam aleykoum Dahnald, labass ?" "Yeah fantastic, but it would be tremendous if you told your guys to calm down a little with the beheadings and the captagone" "Yeah inch'Allah.." !! On a serious note, it is the same problem with any country — or rather territory — which is controlled by a terrorist organisation(s) : Yemen, Somalia, Sudan (?), mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.. Well, of course it might have been merely a posture — I do not know since I was not on the other end of the line. Nevertheless, I guess it exemplifies what I was talking about : while you have the possibility to have diplomatic relations with any muslim countries, you have no possibility to negociate and collaborate with (islamic) "authorities" that controls (partially or not) the countries which are sanctionned by the ban ; and even worse, you have absolutely no control whatsoever of what is coming out of this countries which is very problematic, isn't it. Then we should not forget that this is a whole new government and that Trump is thoroughly reshaping the U.S. administration. For instance he has put back the C.I.A. to their rightful place (i.e. as an institution that gathers intel and not an institution that kills people across the world, as it has been used under Obama and before him) and expelled them from the N.S.C. and the H.S.C. (at least to my understanding). Such changes inexorably implies loose spaces and moments of vulnerability. It is thus not surprising that for a certain amount of time the country adopts a defensive position. Finally, we should not forget that during his second mandat (probably the first too, but I did not check) Obama declared a « National Emergency with respect to » a lot of countries, and amongst them were the seven countries upon which Trump declared a ban. And guess what ? Obama extended those « National Emergency » before leaving office (on the 13th of January). I presume that we will both agree that « National Emergency » means what it does mean — and it is not as if the threat was a fantasy work, the chaos is real in these countries just as is the threat in our countries (my neighbors did not die the 13 november by "magic »). Furthermore the situation is stalling and the more time passes by, the more the threat in our countries becomes intense… All in all, given the situation, the ban is just a logical continuation of the « National Emergency ». **** Then allow me to expand on Saudi Arabia. As people usually make the mistake with any country, they consider Saudi Arabia as a monolith. It is far from being the case. Their is the political power (the royal family), the economical power and the religious power. If at times these three powers have the same interests, some other times, they do not. Moreover even within these powers their is different agenda. Did the country as a whole was backing the rise of the IS ? Most probably. Are some Saudis still giving money to IS ? Certainly. But let’s not forget that the IS is totally out of control and there can be only one muslim kingdom (or khilafah) in the world — meaning that the IS is at war with the Saudis and the wannabe sultan Erdogan (even if it is more complicated than what my phrasing suggests). The Saudi kingdom has problems with the IS but it has also problems with Al-Qā’Idah because a lot of member of this organisation consider that the royal family is pally with the « American dogs ». And in late 2000s, if I recall correctly, there has been terrorist attacks on Saudi’s soil made by AQ. So you see, the situation is not an absolute white nor an absolute black. If there are Saudi backing the IS and AQ, their are also some others that have a huge interest to soften these threats. **** Then, is Trump trying to start the war on islam ? It will be a very, very difficult thing to accomplish because we are already at war with islam. Rather, islam is at war with western societies — actually, it has always been at war with us. By the way, I am not talking about sub-saharian islam which is most of cases is a very different thing. So no, he will not declare any war on islam !
  8. The Conte Thread

    Playing Azpilicueta at RWB would be a terrible mistake. Azpilicueta is a quite good passer of the ball for a ("central") defender — yet he would be a very bad passer for a midfielder. Additionally, Zouma is a terrible passer of the ball (whatever his position). The best thing produced by Conte's shift from a four-men defense to a three-men defense is that it has allowed to play Azpilicueta next to Luiz ; meaning we have, out of three defenders, two who are able to participate to the game construction, and more importantly who are able to start our offensives (or the building up). This has been critical to our success — just has it is critical for all the best teams out of there (Barça, Madrid, Juve, Munich, etc.). Leaving out (of the defense) Azpilicueta for Zouma would just undo all the good work Conte has done and we would be back to square one : a defense that has little usefulness when we are in possession of the ball — and no, one player (Luiz) out of three is not enough. Not only this move would worsen our defense but it would also worsen our midfield. Our biggest weakness over the last seasons (especially under Mourinho) has been the lack of ability on the ball displayed by our midfielders. Actually, this is by far our biggest weakness today. Do you imagine a midfield composed of : Alonso - Matic - Kante - Azpilicueta ? Oh my Goodness, it would be a sore to the eyes. Moses is not Iniesta neither I am his biggest fan, but in all seriousness, he is technically better equipped to play in midfield than Azpilicueta is. We do not need more denfensive quality — we do need more offensive quality. If people are so obsessed with Azpilicueta lack of aerial ability, then the solution is in front of him ! Why are opponent players are allowed to take in good crosses ? This is the real problem ! And to be honest, with the players we have at our disposal, this is the best we can produce and there is little room — nay none — for improvement. The only change of (positive) significance we probably could make would be to play Fabregas instead of Matic — that is, an offensive change. Otherwise, we will have to wait for the summer transfer window for any major change ; and even then if you bench one of our defender, it has to be Cahill and not Azpilicueta (playing the spaniard as a CB as been the best move that Conte has made so far). To play Zouma in defense while shifting Azpilicueta to midfield would actually be more problematic than going for the ultra defensive approach that Mourinho mark II adopted in his first two seasons, respectively after Stoke and after Tottenham — funnily enough, this is once again after a defeat against Tottenham at their ground and on the very same date (two or three days of difference) that people started to advocate for an ultra defensive move. P.S. On top of that, Azpilicueta is significantly a better defender than Zouma, the latter being better than the former only in the aerial aspect... which is a very meager upside in comparison to the many downsides.
  9. Politics & Stuff

    Because countries in the Middle East don't represent the same level of danger. The IS has established a "Khilafa" in Iraq and Syria and has at his disposal thousands of fighters ; furthermore it was estimated that there were, in those two countries, between 200 000 and 400 000 of foreign fighters. As a matter of fact, it is the place which represents the biggest threat. Then you have Yemen which is probably the most dangerous place (in reagrds to islamic terrorists) after the Sham. It is of course AQPA's backyard and they have even established an islamic Emirate (which has been destroyed I believe). The IS has also tried to establish a caliphate there but is failed. Then you have Libya where islamists are fighting against islamists and this country represents an even bigger stake than any other country because it is in the middle of a dangerous region. On the West there is the Muslim Brotherrhod in Tunisia and there is Al-Qā'Idah roaming between Algeria, Libya and Mali. A little further South, you have Boko Haram and the vast region of central Africa which is one hell of unstable region. Then on the Eastern side, you have the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ; and the terrorist organisations that roam from Sudan to Somalia. My knowledge regarding Somalia and especially Sudan is limited. Even though, in regards to Somalia, terrorist organisations have been active in the country since a very long time and instability in this region means bad news for international trade. As for Sudan, I guess it is more or less the same reasons I have mentioned for Somalia... Plus, these two countries can easily be used as rear base for islamic terrorists waging war in Yemen... Or it could become their "safe haven" in case they have to flee from Yemen (or even from the Sham). Furthermore, Sudan hodls a dangerous position : it can become the link between Libya and Yemen (and you can add the MB from Egypt). In regards to Iran, it is self explanatory. The country has been the enemy of the U.S. since a very long time and organisations linked to it are considered by the U.S. as terrorist organisation. That being said I presume that Iran is a completely different case than the six other countries and that the aims concerning this country are differents. The level of danger having be established, what are the governmental stabilities in those countries ? It is quite easy to answer. The governments of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia have no control over the territory controlled by the islamic terrorist organisations. In regards to Sudan I am not sure ; it is either like the four other, or terrorists are "protected" by the governments. As for Libya, well, there is no government and no country. In regards to Iran, there is a stable government but the U.S. have no possibility to control it and as I have already said, it is a different business. These governmental instabilities imply that you can absolutely have no control over what comes out of these countries. And thus, terrorists can easily exploit this weakness to send as refugees, or mere citizens, jihadists to the U.S. On the contrary, countries such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia — regardless of their implication in international jihadism — have control over their population and their territory and thus they can serve as filter whereas countries such as Libya cannot. Conclusion To sum up, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya represent the biggest stake in this war against terrorism because those are countries full of terrorists who controle large portions of territory — and have independante source of financing, as the IS who is in possession of oil field and who has a quite important agricultural production. Yet if you want to be efficient in your war against them, you will have to attack their potential rear bases otherwise they will comeback as soon as you leave the region ; and those rear base are potentially in Sudan and Somalia. But the problem is that islamic terrorists will not bend the back and they will not let you kill them — they will try to hurt you too... And it happens that their modus operandi is to kill your civilians on your own territory. This means that any action taken against the IS (or against the other groups) will have to be followed by measures to protect your citizens. Because you know that if tomorrow you strike the snake will hit back the very next day. Controlling people coming from Turkey and Saudi Arabia is "quite" easy. Actually, despite its deep implication in the jihad in Syria, Turkey has prevented a lot of jihadists to come back in Europe (most jihadists we are sending to jail in France have been actually arrested by Turkey). On the contrary, you cannot control people that comes from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen or Somalia — those countries are a mess, are stuffed of jihadists and they are the countries which you will attack. All in all, it is pure logic : strike the IS where it is and, as you know it will come at you, prevent people from these regions to come on your territory in order to reduce the risk of retaliation. And regardless of all of which I have explained above, it is not because you are making a mistake by not banning Saudi Arabia that you should do the same mistake with other countries... Even though it is not necessarily a mistake because there is a clear strategic and tactical logic behind banning this country instead of that country.
  10. Politics & Stuff

    Are you thick or did you have merely misread what I have written ? Here it is for you : "Trump is not banning Saudi and what ?! Is it because he is doing a mistake in regards to this country that it should be open door for everyone ?" I am saying that not banning Saudi Arabia is a mistake — it does mean what it means, no ? To interpret my sentence as me saying I have no problem with Saudi is... quite surprising — but never mind. The point I am trying to explain here is that it is not because he does not want — or cannot — to ban people coming from Saudi Arabia that he has to do the same with every other countries that reprensent a threat for your citizens... ... because making a mistake has never ever repaired another mistake.
  11. Politics & Stuff

    And what do you believe that the "love story" of these last thirty years or so between the Middle East and the U.S. will create ? It is not like your presidents have invaded muslims countries and bombed the shit out of them continoulsy since... a long time ago... It is probably a pure creation of propaganda made by terrorist groups, isn't it ? France's "terrible history in the Maghreb" will very soon be upon you. Or do you think that the U.S. are better than anyone else and can bomb the shit out of people without them holding any grudge ? And you seem to link terrorism with uneducated people, but did you ever open in your lifetime one magazine produced by the IS or by Al-Qā'Idah ? If you did you would not hold such arguments because you would have seen that these terrorists, albeit crazy, are very well educated people. And to be honest, the people who are producing this (the contents and the design) are more clever and better educated than most of people on this forum for instance. One could argue that those who blow themselves up in suicide attacks are not the sharpest tools in the box, yet those who are pushing them are very clever people. Trump is not banning Saudi and what ?! Is it because he is doing a mistake in regards to this country that it should be open door for everyone ? What is this kind of reasoning... And then again, it is too easy to put the blame upon the Saudis. Although the Saudis are major actors in terrorism, the muslim world does not need them to have terrorists. Nobody from Sudan has caused problem in the U.S... But did the U.S. caused problems in Sudan, YES ! And in case you did not know, Sudan has a soft spot for terrorists — it has for instance hosted bin Laden for a few years in the nineties. And even today, it is a place wherein which live a lot of terrorists. So what, do you really want to take your chance ? Life is not a game. And it is not like you suffered from a few terrorist attacks in the last few months... And anyway, do you realize that Dahnald Trump wants to go all out against the IS, no ? And do you realize what it does mean ? I will repeat the question : do you have any idea of what attacking the IS implies ? It does mean that the IS too, will go all out against the U.S. The more your country will bomb them in the "Sham" and the more the IS will organize terrorist attacks against your country. So what is your plan to protect your fellow citizens from these foreign threats ?
  12. Politics & Stuff

    What what what ?!? Trump is banning to travel to the U.S. people comming from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen ? I mean, only countries wherein which there is strong presence from Al-Qā'Idah, the Islamic State or other groups recognized as terrorists by the U.S. ? And he is banning citizens that have a lot of reasons to hold a deep gruge against the U.S., like having be bombed by the U.S. or the never old "Imperialist dogs" or even the sempiternel "ZIonist (allies) ? Hum no ? Hum... I am really wondering why is he doing such a thing. I turn arguments in my head, but damn, there is only "racism" that come to my head. Well, twitter gurus are saying it is racism, so it must be racism, no ? And I mean, it is inconceivable to think that people coming from these countries could want to hurt the U.S., could they ? I mean, in France for instance we always have had good relationships with people form these countries and especially with the social groups active in these regions. I will always remember them — the other day they put the fire at a concert in the Bataclan, it was insane, great atmosphere ! And those two brothers coming back from Yemen, there were so nice people. They came back with a lot of gifts for their journalist friends, it was party time in the whole city of Paris ! No, frankly, I do not understand why Trump would take the decision to not allow these people coming from those countries to enter the U.S. ... It is not like terrorists or future terrorists could be among them, this is a ridiculous idea !!!
  13. 14. Ruben Loftus-Cheek

    There are three remaining days before the transfer window close, we should not waste time and sell him... And when it is done, we shall bring him and his agent to the Court because he is stealing £60k per week. Does he even want to play football ? I mean he looks like a ten years-old kid who is forced by his parents to play a sport he does not like. There is no dynamism, no will, no spirit, no effort, no commitment... One can indeed question his will to play football. In anyway, even the referee has more dynamism in him ! It is pretty clear that this *kid* has nothing to do in top level football, I truly hope that the board finally comes to realization because we have spent too much time and money on him these last three seasons or so ; and he is blocking the path for youngsters who are clearly better than him — for instance, it would have been more gainful if it were Musonda that was granted this crucial playing time.
  14. Politics & Stuff

    I understand what you are saying yet I believe it is problematic on different levels. Let me explain, but before I start, I would like to stress that albeit I will heavily use the « you » and although it might appear at times that I am singling you out and point the finger at you, it is not the case. Firstly because I cannot hold any moral judgment as I am also a part of the problem I describe ; secondly, because when I will use the « you » I will be more specifically addressing to you, myself and basically everyone. P.S. sorry for the long post, it was necessary to explain — but only partially — my perspective. P.S.2. actually I am not sorry — the inability in today's society to go in depth when talking about 'politic' — and just about everything — is one of the core problems and one of the shortcomings that un-enables us to get forward. **************************** First of all, the debate « individuality Vs government/big companies ». You are saying it is too easy to fall into the trap of putting the emphasis upon the individual. I would answer it by two things : (i) it is actually putting the emphasis upon the government which is a trap easy to fell for ; (ii) we are not enough putting the emphasis upon the individual in this debate. Putting the emphasis — or the blame — upon the government is indeed an easy trap to fell for as it is very seducing and comfortable. Yet in reality all it does is to allow you to disregard your responsibilities and to transfert them onto a third entity. This is the true mistake to make. The only thing in life which upon you have control is your very own person. Of course you have control upon your children however they are not children for ever ; you can also have control over other people through coercion yet for obvious reasons this not a valid model for our debate. But ultimately, the only person you can change is you while you have little influence upon other people (the more they are, the truer) and little to no chance to change the government (not the president but policies and actions). To be more precise in my argument, you will have to wake up early if you intend to impose the government to drop fossil fuels. As long as your neighbor and — especially — you continue to use oil — whether directly or indirectly —, States or big companies will not alter their energy policies and will maintain their heavy use of oil. And that for two good reasons : (i) if they do not provide for our needs in energy then the authority they have over us, and which is delegated to them by us, will no longer be justified as they would not fulfill they duty and therefore they would be delegitimized, which would ultimately lead them to lose their position of power ; (ii) they are making an incredible amount of money out of the use of fossil fuels — a gain which you legitimize and supply for, even though you disapprove it in words. By saying this — or more precisely, by acting like this —, you are actually proving the veracity of my argument. Let me explain. You say that you do not recycle because « supermarkets encase their products in so much packaging » and because « the recycling bins ends in the very same place than normal garbage ». Well you are right about your two points. Indeed, why should we recycle when in the first place it is supermarkets that use too much packagings ? And albeit I ignore the proportion of this practice, it is true that a lot of garbages meant to be recycled are in fact thrown in with normal garbages (I know that it is practiced so your affirmation suggests that it is not a marginal practice). You are right in your conclusions yet you are wrong in the point of view from which you are thinking the situation. You are in reality adopting a post-consumption point of view. You went to an industrial retail — the supermarket — and you bought industrialized goods — the packaged products. You could have went into your local traditional market and bought vegetables, fruits or meat — unpackaged products coming from a local production. You could but you did not and you went in to consume industrialized goods and you ultimately legitimized this polluting industry. And albeit you choose to focus over the packaging, you are legitimating significantly more than that. First there is the oil in whatever quantity it took to produce the goods (trucks, heating, machines, etc.) but also other polluting stuffs (fertilizers, pesticides, chemical products, etc.) and the wasted water. Secondly, in the same principle, there are the oil, the polluting agents and the wasted water used in order to create to packaging and to package the products. Thirdly, there is the huge amount of oil burnt to put into motion the container carrier's millions of tonnes which has transported the goods as there are a lot of chances that the products you bought came from outside Europe. And if it is not the case, rest assured — there is still the oil burnt by the ships that have inexorably brought sub-products to manufacture your goods !! Then, on a fourth phase, there are the energy consumption and the pollution produced locally, i.e. from the docks to the supermarket. Finally, the fifth phase, it is the pollution due to the waste of the product itself (skin, plastic, paper, etc.). Albeit this schematization has its own limits, it allows us to draw the main structuration of the consumption process in regards to energy and pollution. This model can be divided in two parts : (i) the pre-consumption process which englobes the phases one to four ; (ii) and the post-consumption process which is limited to the last phase. As you are an integral part of the society of consumption, you are sitting between these two phases. And the fact that you are holding this position signifies that you have legitimized and factually allowed (it is you who have consumed) the energy combustion and the pollution created during the four first phases. It is also important to precise that although you are physically intervening after the fourth first phases, your consumption is not subsequent to the pollution but it is the pollution which is subsequent to your consumption as it is our structural and systemic need of consumption that has ineluctably created the process inducing mechanically — but only as by-product — energy combustion and pollution. To pin down my arguments under a more understandable phrasing, we globalized humans are responsible of the global warming and the pollution as a collectivity — a collectivity as in « a collection of individuals ». We are responsible because : (i) we are actors of the mondialisation and we are legitimating it ; (ii) we are actors of the industrialization and we are legitimating it ; (iii) we are actors of the consumption and we are legitimating it ; (iv) we are actors of the overpopulation and we are legitimating it. All the pollution is subsequent to that — to our physical actions and our ideologies as individuals. If oil is the fuel that causes the pollution of the environment, we globalized humans are the fuel that causes the combustion of oil. **************************** In a secondary unfold, I would like to tackle the issue through a more pragmatic and factual approach. To start of I will highlight the deep shortcomings related to your affirmations which I have stressed in color. Well, at first glance these two similar affirmations are very impactful and they do seem to be the product of an implacable logic. Nevertheless, behind these nicely rounded words lies an extreme ingenuousness. To explain these harsh words, I will challenge you to answer this one question : how many solar panels would it take, according to you, to put into motion this « nutshell » ? Neither you nor I would be able to answer to this question because we probably never made the calculations before that. In order to solve — or trying to — this mystery, we can use the example of the Auriga Leader, a car carrier developed by the Japanese maritime company NYK Line and which is the first solar-assisted-powered cargo ship (in the picture below). According to the company, the 328 solar panels installed over the deck’s roof are able, I quote, « to provide 0,05% of the ship’s propulsion power and 1% of the electricity used on the vessel ». (1) In another report given by the Los Angeles Times, it is stated that the solar power was providing about 10% of all the energy used when the ship was idling and loading/unloading in the docks. (2) « 0,05% of the ship propulsion » !!! — This numbers are ridiculous. The calculation is probably more complexe than that, but we can grossly assume — in order to give us a better apprehension — that it would take 3 280 solar panels to provide for the entirety of the needs in energy when the Auriga Leader is idling in the harbor ; 32 800 solar panels to provide for the total use of electricity used while travelling ; and... 656 000 (!!) solar panels to thrust the ship !! Once again, I do realize that calculations are more complexe than that. Even then it is accurate enough to help us to understand that a car carrier such as the Auriga Leader will not be propelled by anything else than oil in the foreseeable future (at least one generation). For instance, take a look at the above picture where we see the solar panels on the roof. We can safely assume that the panels are approximately covering 10% of the surface of the roof — which means that if the roof was fully covered there would be the equivalent of 3 280 solar panels which would provide for… 0,5% of the propulsion power. And let’s keep in mind that we are talking here about a car carrier and not a container ship which is fairly bigger than the Auragi Leader ; the later is 200 meters long while the former is more than 300 meters long — and the Jules Verne (first picture) is 396 meters long ! Furthermore and more importantly, car carriers’ shipment is in the deck while cargo ships’ is on the deck, meaning that they cannot have solar panels on them, nor a structure holding the panels as it would impede the loading/unloading process. In addition to that, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, a spokesman for the Port of Long Beach explains that « S-Class ship » (the biggest class) requires significantly more energy than the Auriga Leader. According to him, such ship needs six megawatts when at port while supertankers needs eight megawatts to pump off the oil. In comparison, the Auriga uses only 400 kilowatts. If we did not already know what it does mean, the following quote from the Los Angeles Times should be enough to clarify our doubts : « Ports officials say that [the cargo ships’ needs in energy discussed above] shows there is no single technology that is going to quickly reduce a ship’s diesel emissions ». (3) The situation is actually quite simple as there is two paths in front of us. Either we come to an agreement and we put an end to the mondialisation which will mechanically decrease the pollution by a large margin ; or we keep rolling for the mondialisation and we accept unilaterally that our very way of life is what causes the pollution. When we will made our choice, we will finally be able to stop the pollution or be able to enjoy life at its fullest while burning oil like there is no tomorrow. Yet you are sitting on the middle of two chairs. You want to keep the mondialisation but you want it green. For that, your suggestion is to impede oil companies and (big) industrial companies that cause the pollution while funding the bioenergy. But how could it possibly produce a positive and coherent outcome ? Mondialisation and industrialisation come hand in hand with the pollution ; repressing those who pollute — never us but always them — while preserving our mondialised way of life can only lead to an implosion as the trade of goods and the industry will be more expensive and scarce but our need of (cheap) consumption will remain the same. You know, if governments, big companies, oil companies and such love to burn oil, it is not because they have a deep and burning passion for this dark smelly substance ; or because they are fascinated by the colours in display when rays of lights pass through a smog — it is because oil is the only source of energy that can sustain and provide for our demands and our way of life, as individuals. I will conclude by a little analogy. You want an omelette but you do not want to break eggs (shells). You do not want to do it because it is « bad » ; but damn you really desire that omelette. The only solution you have schemed to overstep this primary incoherence is to blame the eggs producer because he does not produce shell-less eggs while you are arrogantly eating a big fat omelette, confident in your innocence. The morality of the story is that if you want to stop breaking shells then stop eating eggs — it is not the producer’s fault to be unable to produce shell-less eggs and he does only supply you in your individual demands. (1) http://www.nyk.com/english/release/31/NE_090908.html (2) http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/02/business/fi-solar-ship2 (3) actually there is one : nuclear reactors — the only alternative to oil to power up heavy ships. But (i) I do not believe that people will be glad to go from oil to nuclear ; (ii) and not not believe having a nuclear device on a civilian ship travelling the world is a very good idea.... (iii) it would cost a lot.
  15. Politics & Stuff

    It goes on this way : narrator : "we have followed two men. Bernard Rambard, a man totally insensible to this noble cause (ecology) and Jérome Ludion, an ecologist aware of his responsibilities. While Bernard Rambard comes out of a bath too hot and cooks his meal on a old gas stove, Gérome ludion respects the environment." Jérome Ludion ("Ecologist", green counter) : "Thanks to my solar panels, I could power up a pump that has pumped up the water from the well, heat it up [for the shower] and power up the electric hotplate for my tofu. End result : no CO2." Narrator : "Indeed, by using this simple device [solar panel] that cost him only 20 000 euros, Jérome contributes to the survival of our planet." Narrator : "While Bertrand Rambard is searching for a job with is his old diesel car which puts in danger our children's future, Jérome Ludion thinks ahead when going to work." Jérome Ludion ("Ecologist", green counter) : "With my car is a hybrid, I only produce 3 kg of CO2 per day. Well indeed I had to take the time to make the calculation, but what do represent a few hours of effort in comparison to the millions of years that it took to create fossil oil ?!" Narrator : "While Bertrand Rambard eats meat, thus intensive farming, thus maize, thus fertilizers, thus trucks, thus oil — Jérome Ludion takes his responsibilities." Jérome Ludion ("Ecologist", green counter) : "I have exiged to the board to include a bio meal on the canteen menu for every day. End result, a meal composed of vegetables and cereals hand-picked in cooperatives labelled 'fair trade'. The finality is little CO2 — yeah, we have to know want we want." Narrator : "While Bertrand Rambard is bored to death during the weekend while watching TV, Jérome Ludion goes to enjoy the sun in Morocco." Jérome Ludion : "With all the effors I produce, I deserve to breath from time to time." Narrator (while the green counter goes through the roof) : "The morality of this story is that in order to fight against the global warming, it is sometimes better to be poor and irresponsible than being rich and ecologist."