off topic The politics of terrorism

[darksabre]

I'm not saying they are a main cause, but rather a contributing factor. Remember that people who commit mass shootings are already outliers on several other spectra. I think they may also be the outliers here.

 

By the way, your link us unreadable without a subscription.

 

And I can even concede that maybe you're right. It could be that the real damage is the pervasiveness of violent images in our society. I'm not sure how you could select that out in a scientific study.

It just really doesn't hold up as a theory. Violent images are created by man and understood by man and it has been this way since cave paintings. Violence has always been consumed as entertainment. I don't know if we're going to change that. Mankind is fascinated by the morbid. We have to be. We are surrounded by life and death.

[nfreeman]

Are you arguing that the less military/political involvement we have in that region, the more we will be attacked? I take it if we finally achieved energy independence and totally pulled out of the region, and told Israel and Israel's enemies to have at it, enjoy roasting in Hell, we'd be devastated by terrorist attacks. Because... they hate us for our freedom?

 

No.  I think the only way to defeat militant Islam is with a sustained, large, purposeful and powerful military involvement in that part of the world.  Anything less than that is just punting the ball down the field and waiting for the next attack here and/or in Europe.

 

As for the notion that "they hate us because of oil and Israel" -- as I've noted previously, that theory is belied by the fact that France and Spain were the targets of the 2 biggest attacks since September 11.

[Doohicksie]

It just really doesn't hold up as a theory. Violent images are created by man and understood by man and it has been this way since cave paintings. Violence has always been consumed as entertainment. I don't know if we're going to change that. Mankind is fascinated by the morbid. We have to be. We are surrounded by life and death.

 

I'm not really trying to win anyone over at this point, just trying to save face.  Thanks for smacking me in it.  :unsure:

[pi2000]

I blame the unregulated consumption of energy drinks.    

[darksabre]

I'm not really trying to win anyone over at this point, just trying to save face.  Thanks for smacking me in it.  :unsure:

I apologize if it comes off that way. This is just a topic I've explored pretty deeply. No face slapping intended. 

[Hoss]

When I play grand theft auto and then drive my brain wanders to driving like a mad men... Luckily I have self control.

[Stoner]

No.  I think the only way to defeat militant Islam is with a sustained, large, purposeful and powerful military involvement in that part of the world.  Anything less than that is just punting the ball down the field and waiting for the next attack here and/or in Europe.

 

As for the notion that "they hate us because of oil and Israel" -- as I've noted previously, that theory is belied by the fact that France and Spain were the targets of the 2 biggest attacks since September 11.

Did not Spain ally itself with us during the invasion of Iraq? France isn't Switzerland either.

 

Not to be crass, but we've gotten off pretty easy after how many decades of our meddling (sorry) over there. What you're proposing will cost tens (hundreds?) of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, potentially bankrupting us the way the old Soviet Union was bankrupted. It will also be the greatest recruiting tool these terrorist organizations will ever have. And it will only increase the number of terrorist attacks here. I just the feeling if your way wins out, we'll be playing right into their hands. But, man, will a few people get really rich. Oligarchy anyone? I can only imagine the cigars that the fat cats lit up yesterday. It was a dream come true.

[JJFIVEOH]

Why does there need to be any blame? Poverty does play a part, so do many other factors. I think a main contributor is the fact that the US is one of the most, if not the most diversified country on the planet. We have blacks, Asians, Hispanics, whites, browns, yellows, rednecks, liberals, athiests, religious............ all of them in large numbers unlike some countries where those people represent a tiny minority.

 

What is a common denominator is these shootings/suicide bombings. That is a globalwide issue that can't be pinpointed by domestic issues.

[nfreeman]

Did not Spain ally itself with us during the invasion of Iraq? France isn't Switzerland either.

 

Not to be crass, but we've gotten off pretty easy after how many decades of our meddling (sorry) over there. What you're proposing will cost tens (hundreds?) of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, potentially bankrupting us the way the old Soviet Union was bankrupted. It will also be the greatest recruiting tool these terrorist organizations will ever have. And it will only increase the number of terrorist attacks here. I just the feeling if your way wins out, we'll be playing right into their hands. But, man, will a few people get really rich. Oligarchy anyone? I can only imagine the cigars that the fat cats lit up yesterday. It was a dream come true.

 

There were fewer than 5,000 American lives lost in the Iraq war, and there were zero terrorist attacks here between September 11 and the Fort Hood attack in 2009 (which the president referred to as "workplace violence," but that's another conversation), and then none until the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

 

It's become an article of faith among some that there is no military solution to terrorism.  I agree that military force by itself won't extinguish the root causes of terrorism, but it has been highly successful, in many locations, in quelling violent attacks.

[Doohicksie]

I apologize if it comes off that way. This is just a topic I've explored pretty deeply. No face slapping intended. 

 

I didn't take it that way, just bustin' on ya.

If I made you feel a little  bad, I succeeded.  See?  That sad emoticon works!

[darksabre]

I didn't take it that way, just bustin' on ya.

If I made you feel a little  bad, I succeeded.  See?  That sad emoticon works!

 

:lol:

[Monkeygirl]

Why are there always "active drills" happening at the same time that these things happens? Its crazy. Just look it up. 9/11, 7/7 london, Sandy hook, Boston marathon, Paris, San Bernardino and many others. I guess just figure out when and where the drills are and then stay far away!

 

This one does kill two birds with one stone, i.e terrorism and guns!

[...]

The Big Johnson, on 03 Dec 2015 - 1:14 PM, said:

I'm not saying they are a main cause, but rather a contributing factor.  Remember that people who commit mass shootings are already outliers on several other spectra.  I think they may also be the outliers here. 

 

By the way, your link us unreadable without a subscription.

 

And I can even concede that maybe you're right.  It could be that the real damage is the pervasiveness of violent images in our society.  I'm not sure how you could select that out in a scientific study.

 

 

Guns and violent media.  That's it, really?  This is an old saw, in different forms, that has existed since the dawn of western civilization.   We need to seriously think outside the box on these matters, not fall back into the tired old patterns that clearly have no effect the issues at hand.

 

My suggestions are, first of all, that people absolutely need to dispose of the idea that Utopia is a realistic objective.  It will never, ever be, because it is against nature.  Which leads me to my second suggestion: adopt a respect for nature and the lessons it teaches.  There is no equality in nature, but there is balance.  There isn't equality among the species that exist at the top of the food chain, and there are always battles amongst individuals seeking power and territory within those species.  We are no different in a sense, but have the capability to rationalize an artificial balance - but taking that concept too far leads to Utopianism which, clearly, is unrealistic and leads to imbalance.

 

We also need to stop the perpetual philosophical assassination of God.  While assassinating God may make a great sport for some on paper, it does not account for the reality that people experience "things" that others don't understand or respect but are still REAL to them and that's good enough.  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" could be, perhaps, the most important phrase ever written by the Bard and, yet, which is so maligned and under-studied.  The whole concept of God and things we don't understand yet needs to be seriously re-evaluated as a culture.

 

I suggest the latter not because I want to proselytize, that's not my thing, but rather as a means to re-establishing respect between multiple levels of peoples.  God-fearing folk of any religion are, frankly, upset by the lack of humility of those who think they know better.  That's enough to cause tensions and problems.  Is it so hard to re-visit philosophies and social memes that belittle metaphysics - apply modern logic and modern knowledge to these concepts, rather than default to a 50+ year old narrative where the cool, self-proclaimed smart people mock those whose lives have shown them that Shakespeare was right?

 

My final suggestion is for everyone to adopt a healthy skepticism towards government of all levels regardless of how enamored you may be of the words spewing from a politician's mouths. Have we not learned that ALL government and ALL politicians are filthy liars that over-promise and under-deliver?  Indeed, lately, have we not seen that regardless of the politics espoused by government, they are acting on the government's behalf and not the peoples'?

 

A shift in the intellectual approach to this problem is in order.

[X. Benedict]

There were fewer than 5,000 American lives lost in the Iraq war, and there were zero terrorist attacks here between September 11 and the Fort Hood attack in 2009 (which the president referred to as "workplace violence," but that's another conversation), and then none until the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

 

It's become an article of faith among some that there is no military solution to terrorism.  I agree that military force by itself won't extinguish the root causes of terrorism, but it has been highly successful, in many locations, in quelling violent attacks.

 

There was no link to Iraq - a secular regime under Sadaam- and a successful terrorist attack before we invaded. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by X. Benedict

[Stoner]

There were fewer than 5,000 American lives lost in the Iraq war, and there were zero terrorist attacks here between September 11 and the Fort Hood attack in 2009 (which the president referred to as "workplace violence," but that's another conversation), and then none until the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

 

It's become an article of faith among some that there is no military solution to terrorism.  I agree that military force by itself won't extinguish the root causes of terrorism, but it has been highly successful, in many locations, in quelling violent attacks.

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

What will the estimated cost be of "decades-long" occupation of the Middle East?

[darksabre]

Guns and violent media.  That's it, really?  This is an old saw, in different forms, that has existed since the dawn of western civilization.   We need to seriously think outside the box on these matters, not fall back into the tired old patterns that clearly have no effect the issues at hand.

 

My suggestions are, first of all, that people absolutely need to dispose of the idea that Utopia is a realistic objective.  It will never, ever be, because it is against nature.  Which leads me to my second suggestion: adopt a respect for nature and the lessons it teaches.  There is no equality in nature, but there is balance.  There isn't equality among the species that exist at the top of the food chain, and there are always battles amongst individuals seeking power and territory within those species.  We are no different in a sense, but have the capability to rationalize an artificial balance - but taking that concept too far leads to Utopianism which, clearly, is unrealistic and leads to imbalance.

 

We also need to stop the perpetual philosophical assassination of God.  While assassinating God may make a great sport for some on paper, it does not account for the reality that people experience "things" that others don't understand or respect but are still REAL to them and that's good enough.  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" could be, perhaps, the most important phrase ever written by the Bard and, yet, which is so maligned and under-studied.  The whole concept of God and things we don't understand yet needs to be seriously re-evaluated as a culture.

 

I suggest the latter not because I want to proselytize, that's not my thing, but rather as a means to re-establishing respect between multiple levels of peoples.  God-fearing folk of any religion are, frankly, upset by the lack of humility of those who think they know better.  That's enough to cause tensions and problems.  Is it so hard to re-visit philosophies and social memes that belittle metaphysics - apply modern logic and modern knowledge to these concepts, rather than default to a 50+ year old narrative where the cool, self-proclaimed smart people mock those whose lives have shown them that Shakespeare was right?

 

My final suggestion is for everyone to adopt a healthy skepticism towards government of all levels regardless of how enamored you may be of the words spewing from a politician's mouths. Have we not learned that ALL government and ALL politicians are filthy liars that over-promise and under-deliver?  Indeed, lately, have we not seen that regardless of the politics espoused by government, they are acting on the government's behalf and not the peoples'?

 

A shift in the intellectual approach to this problem is in order.

I don't always agree with you. I like this post. Good stuff here. 

[nfreeman]

There was no link to Iraq - a secular regime under Sadaam- and a successful terrorist attack before we invaded. 

 

I don't think I said that there was.  My point was that the Iraq war didn't trigger a wave of Muslim terrorist attacks here; I made this point to refute PA's suggestion that a prolonged US military presence in the ME would result in such attacks.

 

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

What will the estimated cost be of "decades-long" occupation of the Middle East?

 

I am trying to address the threat that militant Islam poses to Western civilization -- a threat that grows exponentially, IMHO, with the president's nuclear deal with Iran.

 

"Occupation" of the ME implies governing the region.  That is a radically different kettle of fish than the military presence I am proposing. 

 

As for the cost of this military presence -- it will be much less than the cost of another September 11 or a nuke going off in NY, Chicago, DC, LA, SF, etc.

[Doohicksie]

I don't think I said that there was.  My point was that the Iraq war didn't trigger a wave of Muslim terrorist attacks here; I made this point to refute PA's suggestion that a prolonged US military presence in the ME would result in such attacks.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think the attack of Iraq in 2001 would have any effect on terrorist attacks in the U.S., since they had no role in the original attack.  However, if you swat at the beehive that is ISIS, it's entirely possible it would, in fact, trigger attacks here.

[SwampD]

I don't think I said that there was.  My point was that the Iraq war didn't trigger a wave of Muslim terrorist attacks here; I made this point to refute PA's suggestion that a prolonged US military presence in the ME would result in such attacks.

 

 

I am trying to address the threat that militant Islam poses to Western civilization -- a threat that grows exponentially, IMHO, with the president's nuclear deal with Iran.

 

"Occupation" of the ME implies governing the region.  That is a radically different kettle of fish than the military presence I am proposing. 

 

As for the cost of this military presence -- it will be much less than the cost of another September 11 or a nuke going off in NY, Chicago, DC, LA, SF, etc.

This goes back to a previous discussion. Our Shock and Awe campaign and subsequent occupation killed 20 (low est.) times the number killed in the 9/11 attacks of innocent non combatants.

 

Where you see this as an Us (U.S., free people, Christians,...) against them (radical Muslim) thing. I see it as a violence (from any side) against innocent victims (of any side) thing.

 

We need to solve this differently.

 

 

Also, there is no assassination of God. Just like there is no War on Christmas. :doh:

[Stoner]

Also, there is no assassination of God. Just like there is no War on Christmas. :doh:

The other one that gets me is "they took prayer out of schools." Only organized prayer. People, kids, whoever, can pray any time and any where they want. Pray. No one cares. Just don't force someone else to do it.

[X. Benedict]

I don't think I said that there was.  My point was that the Iraq war didn't trigger a wave of Muslim terrorist attacks here; I made this point to refute PA's suggestion that a prolonged US military presence in the ME would result in such attacks.

 

 

Okay, thanks.  I misunderstood. 

[SarasotaSabre]

That blames ISIS on everything and actually says nothing.

respectfully - I could not disagree more vociferously.

[LastPommerFan]

Freeman- I'm wondering if an inevitable diaspora of islamic reactionaries would result from such an occupation in the ME. Would the war expand to places we can not effectively go (Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, etc.) for an extended occupation? The sparsely populated ME would be a military breeze compared to some of these places.

 

 

Guns and violent media.  That's it, really?  This is an old saw, in different forms, that has existed since the dawn of western civilization.   We need to seriously think outside the box on these matters, not fall back into the tired old patterns that clearly have no effect the issues at hand.

 

My suggestions are, first of all, that people absolutely need to dispose of the idea that Utopia is a realistic objective.  It will never, ever be, because it is against nature.  Which leads me to my second suggestion: adopt a respect for nature and the lessons it teaches.  There is no equality in nature, but there is balance.  There isn't equality among the species that exist at the top of the food chain, and there are always battles amongst individuals seeking power and territory within those species.  We are no different in a sense, but have the capability to rationalize an artificial balance - but taking that concept too far leads to Utopianism which, clearly, is unrealistic and leads to imbalance.

 

We also need to stop the perpetual philosophical assassination of God.  While assassinating God may make a great sport for some on paper, it does not account for the reality that people experience "things" that others don't understand or respect but are still REAL to them and that's good enough.  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" could be, perhaps, the most important phrase ever written by the Bard and, yet, which is so maligned and under-studied.  The whole concept of God and things we don't understand yet needs to be seriously re-evaluated as a culture.

 

I suggest the latter not because I want to proselytize, that's not my thing, but rather as a means to re-establishing respect between multiple levels of peoples.  God-fearing folk of any religion are, frankly, upset by the lack of humility of those who think they know better.  That's enough to cause tensions and problems.  Is it so hard to re-visit philosophies and social memes that belittle metaphysics - apply modern logic and modern knowledge to these concepts, rather than default to a 50+ year old narrative where the cool, self-proclaimed smart people mock those whose lives have shown them that Shakespeare was right?

 

My final suggestion is for everyone to adopt a healthy skepticism towards government of all levels regardless of how enamored you may be of the words spewing from a politician's mouths. Have we not learned that ALL government and ALL politicians are filthy liars that over-promise and under-deliver?  Indeed, lately, have we not seen that regardless of the politics espoused by government, they are acting on the government's behalf and not the peoples'?

 

A shift in the intellectual approach to this problem is in order.

 

This is the best post I've read on this topic in any forum for the past several weeks.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[Hoss]

Also, there is no assassination of God. Just like there is no War on Christmas. :doh:

Despite thinking Sizzle's post was great, I agree with this. There is absolutely people who are sick of God(s), but they're mainly sick of the misapplication of Their teachings and the use of them as a means of hatred. Not the appropriate application of God(s) and their teachings.

[Neo]

Guns and violent media.  That's it, really?  This is an old saw, in different forms, that has existed since the dawn of western civilization.   We need to seriously think outside the box on these matters, not fall back into the tired old patterns that clearly have no effect the issues at hand.

 

*snip*

 

 

Good stuff ...