Controversial General Political Discussion

NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,342
#33,342
Zenos7 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
In Brazil and Latin America,the left is pretty fucking vocal about violence and usurping power by illegal means. But when a Brazilian dude says they are criminals and should be treated like the Nazis were,everyone goes:"WOW what a fascist.This guy is nuts". Fuck your spoiled brats that don't how things work outside of your countries and want to dictate how other people do things. Communist=Nazi.
Post automatically merged:

I'm not calling for illegal shit. There is a literal international court for this.
International criminal court-Trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression
https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court
Now it seems they don't do the death penalty anymore like they did in the past,which is a shame. But you know how Laws work,they can change.
Post automatically merged:

Mathias said:
Where do you get quick basic information from ?
Click to expand...
Dude,that chant is something the average Brazilian politician says in their campaign. Just because nazi/fascist people appropiated conservatives chants in the past,it doesn't all of us are nazis/fascists. So everyone that speaks of God is Nazi because Hitler claimed to be Christian?
I get my info from the school of life and not bullshit Wikipedia articles btw.
Post automatically merged:

Mathias said:
That's literally what I was expecting
Click to expand...
wait,you french too,right?
 
Last edited:
Bisoromi Bear

Bisoromi Bear

‎
#33,343
#33,343
NAMELESS said:
I think went too agressive yersterday,but look at the shit these guys throw at me. Now Solis is saying i called out for indigenous genocide and that i'm cool with drug lords raping women. Imagine if i said such a lie for anyone here. It would be instant perma ban.
Click to expand...
i posted link, you called it "nato propaganda" and global cospiracy and called me a racist🤣🤣can't make this shit up
 
Toby D. Dog

Toby D. Dog

‎
#33,345
#33,345
Bisoromi Bear said:
i posted link, you called it "nato propaganda" and global cospiracy and called me a racist🤣🤣can't make this shit up
Click to expand...
He shifts his narrative every time it's convinient for him. He works backward from his conclusion instead of having an actual principled stance on anything. His hatred for immigrants, communists, etc guide the way he would craft legislation, which is a very dangerous thing in practice. I'm just glad a number of users here can finally see him for the raging lunatic that he is.
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,346
#33,346
Bisoromi Bear said:
i posted link, you called it "nato propaganda" and global cospiracy and called me a racist🤣🤣can't make this shit up
Click to expand...
Lula is de-foresting the Amazon forest like there is no tomorrow. Where is the media coverage? There is none,because it doesn't fit the agenda. After all,Lula is buddy buddies with globalists. Nevermind Germany drestroying ancient forests back when Russia stopped supplying gas. The hipocrisy levels are ridiculous here.
 
Last edited:
Toby D. Dog

Toby D. Dog

‎
#33,347
#33,347
NAMELESS said:
Lula is de-foresting the Amazon forest like there is no tomorrow. Where is the media coverage? There is none,because it doesn't fit the agenda. After all,Lula is buddy buddies with globalists. Nevermind Germany drestroying ancient forests back when Russia stopped supplying gas. THe hipocrisy levels are ridiculous here.
Click to expand...
You make it too easy. But go ahead and say it's all fake news yadda yadda yadda. Go off king.
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/08/amazon-deforestation-continues-to-fall-under-lula/
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-a...imate-change-2fe225f71a8f484e8d365ea641acd65e
https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/decrease-in-amazon-deforestation-under-president-lula
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,348
#33,348
NAMELESS said:
So stone age tribes fighting each other to death and crazy religion that advocates for cannibalism was a good thing then?The natives welcomed the Spanish and Portuguese for the most part.Their initial contact was trade of goods,then cultural exchanges,marriage and so on...Hell,the Aztecs thought the Spanish were sent by God.Read the history of the spanish civil guard,Moctezuma descedants founded it alongside the spanish:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Spain) Slavery happened all over the world and it was of course atrocious,society has evolved and doesn't need or accept it anymore.As for genocides,they happened,but they are overblown as fuck,they were the exception rather than the norm in Latin America.
Post automatically merged:


Nobody knows who were the first Europeans/Foreigners to discover that place.There are evidence that sailors from Carthage came here too.The Spanish/Portuguese were the first to organize a large scale expedition though.
Post automatically merged:


lmfao lay down the crack pipe!There were no horses back here. Europeans brought them here.
Post automatically merged:


Dude,those were seasonal fires.Illegal mining and stuff is hard for the police to deal with because that place is HUGE.Also,Amazon forest being "the lungs of the world is BS".back in 1993 Nato/America tried to militarily occupy the Amazon forest,but the decided to cancel it because it wouldn't succeed.Research operation Surumu.This entire ecological agenda is propaganda spread by first world countries to keep treating third world countries as colonies.We can't put down a few forests to develop our nations,but Germany and so on can destroy theirs to mine coal and others resourcers. Europeans are hypocritical as fuck.
Post automatically merged:


iffy?no country preserves nature like Brazil.Research our laws regarding that.
Click to expand...
NAMELESS said:
They do that to keep those countries underdeveloped.
Post automatically merged:


nice try,troll:
https://qz.com/1389135/germany-is-razing-a-12000-year-old-forest-to-expand-a-coal-mine
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-unfreezes-35-million-euros-amazon-fund
Post automatically merged:


we dont have a problem with women,bob.The problem is feminism and the crazy legislation.
Post automatically merged:

more on the REAL NATO conspiracy regarding the amazon forest:
https://natoassociation.ca/theamazonisburning-and-heres-why/
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/who-will-invade-brazil-save-amazon
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/05/who-will-invade-brazil-to-save-the-amazon/
Who Will Save the Amazon (and How)?
It's only a matter of time until major powers try to stop climate change by any means necessary.
Walt-Steve-foreign-policy-columnist20Stephen M. Walt
By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
FP subscribers can now receive digests of new stories written by this author. Subscribe now | Sign in
The Transamazonica Road (BR-230) near Medicilandia in Para State, Brazil, on March 13.
The Transamazonica Road (BR-230) near Medicilandia in Para State, Brazil, on March 13. MAURO PIMENTEL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


AUGUST 5, 2019, 5:31 PM
Aug. 5, 2025: In a televised address to the nation, U.S. President Gavin Newsom announced that he had given Brazil a one-week ultimatum to cease destructive deforestation activities in the Amazon rainforest. If Brazil did not comply, the president warned, he would order a naval blockade of Brazilian ports and airstrikes against critical Brazilian infrastructure. The president’s decision came in the aftermath of a new United Nations report cataloging the catastrophic global effects of continued rainforest destruction, which warned of a critical “tipping point” that, if reached, would trigger a rapid acceleration of global warming. Although China has stated that it would veto any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Brazil, the president said that a large “coalition of concerned states” was prepared to support U.S. action. At the same time, Newsom said the United States and other countries were willing to negotiate a compensation package to mitigate the costs to Brazil for protecting the rainforest, but only if it first ceased its current efforts to accelerate development.
The above scenario is obviously far-fetched—at least I think it is—but how far would you go to prevent irreversible environmental damage? In particular, do states have the right—or even the obligation—to intervene in a foreign country in order to prevent it from causing irreversible and possibly catastrophic harm to the environment?
I raise this issue in light of the news that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is accelerating development of the Amazon rainforest (60 percent of which is in Brazilian hands), thereby imperiling a critical global resource. As those of you with more respect for science than Bolsonaro know, the rainforest is both an important carbon sink and a critical temperature regulator, as well as a key source of fresh water. Deforestation has already damaged its ability to perform these crucial roles, and scientists in Brazilian estimate that increasingly warm and dry conditions could convert much of the forest to dry savanna, with potentially catastrophic effects. Last week, the pro-business, free market-oriented Economist magazine’s cover story was “Deathwatch for the Amazon,” which frames the issue rather nicely. To restate my original question: What should (or must) the international community do to prevent a misguided Brazilian president (or political leaders in other countries) from taking actions that could harm all of us?
This is where it gets tricky. State sovereignty is a critical element of the current international system; with certain exceptions, national governments are free to do whatever they want inside their own borders. Even so, the hard shell of sovereignty has never been absolute, and various forces have been chipping away at it for a long time. States can be sanctioned for violating international law (e.g., by defying U.N. Security Council resolutions), and international law authorizes countries to go to war for self-defense or when the Security Council authorizes military action. It’s even legal to attack another country’s territory preemptively, provided there is a well-founded basis for believing it was about to attack you first.
More controversially, the “responsibility to protect” doctrine sought to legitimate humanitarian intervention in foreign powers when the local government was unable or unwilling to protect its own people. And as a practical matter, states routinely accept infringements on their own sovereignty in order to facilitate beneficial forms of international cooperation.


When push comes to shove, however, most states resent and resist external efforts to get them to change what they are doing inside their own borders. And even though destroying the Amazon rainforest presents a clear and obvious threat to many other countries, telling Brazil to stop and threatening to take action to deter, punish, or prevent it would be a whole new ballgame. And I don’t mean to single out Brazil: It would be an equally radical step to threaten the United States or China if they refused to stop emitting so many greenhouse gases.
It’s not as if world leaders haven’t recognized the seriousness of the problem. The U.N. long regarded environmental degradation as a “threat to international peace and security,” and the former European Union foreign-policy representative Javier Solana argued in 2008 that halting climate change “should be in the mainstream of EU foreign and security policies.” Scholars have already identified various ways the Security Council could act to prevent it. As the researchers Bruce Gilley and David Kinsella wrote a few years ago, “it is at least legally feasible that the Security Council could invoke its authority under Article 42, and use military force against states it deemed threats to international peace and security by virtue of their unwillingness or inability to curb destructive activities emanating from their territories.”
The question, therefore, is how far would the international community be willing to go in order to prevent, halt, or reverse actions that might cause immense and irreparable harm to the environment on which all humans depend? It might seem far-fetched to imagine states threatening military action to prevent this today, but it becomes more likely if worst-case estimates of our climate future turn out to be correct.
But here’s a cruel paradox: The countries that are most responsible for climate change are also the least susceptible to coercion, while most of the states that might conceivably be pressured into taking action aren’t significant sources of the underlying problem. The top five greenhouse gas emitters are China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan—four of them are nuclear weapons states, and Japan is a formidable military power in its own right. Threatening any of them with sanctions isn’t likely to work, and threatening serious military action against them is completely unrealistic. Moreover, getting the Security Council to authorize the use of force against much weaker states is unlikely, because the permanent members wouldn’t want to establish this precedent and would almost certainly veto the proposal.
This is what makes the Brazilian case more interesting. Brazil happens to be in possession of a critical global resource—for purely historical reasons—and its destruction would harm many states if not the entire planet. Unlike Belize or Burundi, what Brazil does could have a big impact. But Brazil isn’t a true great power, and threatening it with either economic sanctions or even the use of force if it refused to protect the rainforest might be feasible. To be clear: I’m not recommending this course of action either now or in the future. I’m just pointing out that Brazil might be somewhat more vulnerable to pressure than some other states are.
One can also imagine other remedies for this problem. States could certainly threaten or impose unilateral trade sanctions against environmentally irresponsible states, and private citizens could always try to organize voluntary boycotts for similar reasons. Some states have taken steps in this direction, and it is easy to imagine such measures becoming more widespread as environmental problems multiply. Alternatively, states that happen to govern environmentally sensitive territory could be paid to preserve it, in the interest of all mankind. In effect, the international community would be subsidizing environmental protection on the part of those who happen to possess the means of doing something about it.
Article calling for a invasion of Brazil by NATO to "save the planet because the amazon forest is burning"?
@Midnight Delight
Click to expand...
Where did i support rape or genocide?
@Bisoromi Bear you are the saddest user here.
Post automatically merged:

I don't think Toby is malicious. C4N is detached from reality for sure. But you are an asshole.
 
Bisoromi Bear

Bisoromi Bear

‎
#33,349
#33,349
Mathias said:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus,_pátria_e_família

:ohreally:
Click to expand...
He added freedom like a true Muricatard
Post automatically merged:

Toby D. Dog said:
You make it too easy. But go ahead and say it's all fake news yadda yadda yadda. Go off king.
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/08/amazon-deforestation-continues-to-fall-under-lula/
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-a...imate-change-2fe225f71a8f484e8d365ea641acd65e
https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/decrease-in-amazon-deforestation-under-president-lula
Click to expand...
His Lord and Savior Bolsonaro let mass deforestation happen and appointed a Christian extremist as indigenous affairs minister
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,350
#33,350
Toby D. Dog said:
He shifts his narrative every time it's convinient for him. He works backward from his conclusion instead of having an actual principled stance on anything. His hatred for immigrants, communists, etc guide the way he would craft legislation, which is a very dangerous thing in practice. I'm just glad a number of users here can finally see him for the raging lunatic that he is.
Click to expand...
You are spot on my hate for communists. These guys deserve hell. Immigrants? There is no migrant crisis in Brazil. I don't care.
Post automatically merged:

Bisoromi Bear said:
He added freedom like a true Muricatard
Post automatically merged:


His Lord and Savior Bolsonaro let mass deforestation happen and appointed a Christian extremist as indigenous affairs minister
Click to expand...
Toby D. Dog said:
You make it too easy. But go ahead and say it's all fake news yadda yadda yadda. Go off king.
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/08/amazon-deforestation-continues-to-fall-under-lula/
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-a...imate-change-2fe225f71a8f484e8d365ea641acd65e
https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/decrease-in-amazon-deforestation-under-president-lula
Click to expand...
read the shit i quotted from 700 posts ago and say to my face there is no foreign agenda behind these deforestation claims. What did Germany suffer from axing an entire forest?Nothing. You guys are hypocrites. Who are you to say other nations can't exploit their own resources. You guys axed most of your forests.
 
Last edited:
Bisoromi Bear

Bisoromi Bear

‎
#33,351
#33,351
NAMELESS said:
Where did i support rape or genocide?
@Bisoromi Bear you are the saddest user here.
Post automatically merged:

I don't think Toby is malicious. C4N is detached from reality for sure. But you are an asshole.
Click to expand...
Thanks for quoting your one year old conspiracy post, now everyone can see how much of a bloody racist and Christian supremacist you are 👏👏🏻👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾👏🏿👏
 
Toby D. Dog

Toby D. Dog

‎
#33,352
#33,352
NAMELESS said:
read the shit i quot from 700 posts ago and say to my face there is foreign agenda behind these deforestation claims. What did Germany suffer from axing an entire forest?Nothing. You guys are hypocrites. Who are you to say other nations can't exploit their own resources. You guys axed most of your forests.
Click to expand...
Then don't fucking lie and stick to your guns, cause you lied about Lula deforesting like "there's no tomorrow." This is truly pathetic.
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,353
#33,353
Toby D. Dog said:
He shifts his narrative every time it's convinient for him. He works backward from his conclusion instead of having an actual principled stance on anything. His hatred for immigrants, communists, etc guide the way he would craft legislation, which is a very dangerous thing in practice. I'm just glad a number of users here can finally see him for the raging lunatic that he is.
Click to expand...
Mr.Anger issues called me raging lunatic:suresure:
Post automatically merged:

Toby D. Dog said:
or hateful?? Or maybe you want to get rammed yourself but your parents and religion told you it is wrong and unnatural.
Click to expand...
:steef:
 
NAMELESS

NAMELESS

‎
#33,357
#33,357
Toby D. Dog said:
You're such a fucking bot, you're just like sneako and all you can say is snowflake or triggered. If you really think leftist movements have that kind of power in the united states then you are delusional. I'm not the one that pm'd you complaining about how it was not cool for me to shame you for being anti gay against your friend, so who's the snowflake?
Click to expand...
This the honour this guy has. Exposing private PMs in a public discussion.
@Ravagerblade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top