off topic The politics of terrorism

[WildCard]

Well, if you're going to continue to tell me what I'm thinking, it doesn't make much sense for me to continue.

I'm not sure why I even bothered. I'm not the first nor the last to get into this circular debate with you about semantics. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by WildCard

[Neo]

Military action for what purpose? To what end? It seems to me we've been taking military action like this for quite a while now and it's not really working to eliminate the problem from the world. As I already mentioned it's just creating our next military action that we get to fight later on.

My question was, are you willing to endure nights like tonight to avoid military action? If you need to define military action, define it. Say, drop one bomb, invade with 400,000 troops, or something in between. I don't have a military proposal. I'm not willing to endure nights like tonight. That may LEAD me to a military proposal.

Edited November 14, 2015 by N'eo

[...]

Very good. I'm in favor of going over there, doing it once, and doing it right. What I don't want, is us to be the only country over there, and I want to believe that the motivations for military action are justified and not just utilized ulterior motives

They killed 3000 of our people in one day on our soil. Prior to that they killed hundreds of our people in foreign lands. They have killed hundreds, if not at this point, over a thousand, of our allies people. This is within our modern era. They threaten the safety and stability of the planet. They have laid down the gauntlet several times over. There is justification in my opinion.

 

I do not want what happened in France to happen in NYC, or Nashville, or even Toronto.

I think France would be right there with us.

[The Dominator]

 

Very good. I'm in favor of going over there, doing it once, and doing it right. What I don't want, is us to be the only country over there, and I want to believe that the motivations for military action are justified and not just utilized ulterior motives

 

This is my concern. I don't know how you do this "once." While once sounds like a relatively short amount of time, how many decades and generations of people need to occupy the ME in order to create sustainability and permanently delete a radical ideology that has continuously cropped up from numerous groups? This isn't Fascism, where a few powerful leaders are hoping to extend their power across the world, this is much more stronger and personal than that. These radicals BELIEVE what they're doing is God's work, and that is extremely difficult to cleanse from someone. 

 

To clarify, I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, if what you propose was calculated and feasible, I would be all for it. These are just the thoughts that run through my head when I hear possible solutions. 

[sabills]

Sorry for the following brain dump, but I can't seem to put it into words that make sense together.

 

I don't have the energy for this anymore. I don't have the brain space. I see the reports on twitter and I don't even stop scrolling. I just can't.

 

What can we do against such reckless hate? How can we heal wounds that have existed since the beginning of recorded time?

 

We can't win this war by killing people. That has never worked. Sides don't win wars by killing everyone on the other side. But there is noone to negotiate with. No one to talk reason to. 

 

I consider, and always have, a person who could empathize with others, who could put myself in their shoes, and understand them. I don't understand this. I don't. What do they want? 

 

The 3 or so years after 9/11 were the maddest I've ever been in my life. I was so mad that people could come into my country, into my home, and kill my people. I wanted them dead, I didn't care how many or which ones. I wanted them all dead. Nuke the place. Turn it into a goddamned parking lot. I was so mad, I cheered the "Shock and Awe" when we attacked Iraq. I remember watching it with my mom, and she warned me about it. My mother is a staunch Republican, but she'd lived through Vietnam, she knew. She knew how useless it was. She tried to explain, but I was too busy flashing back to watching CNN in the lunchroom that day. The vanity of youth, I guess, thinking that I knew better, that we could FIX this. I didn't know .

 

I know this now: Hate only breeds hate. Fear breeds more fear. 

 

I came into this thread thinking it would be a place for people to talk this out, a place to grieve. It was, for a page. When I flipped to the end I found more hate and more fear. Same old song. I'm going back in my hole, I can't deal with it. 

[WildCard]

Anyone remember how the Papacy lost all of their power?

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm not sure why I even bothered. I'm not the first nor the last to get into this circular debate with you about semantics. 

 

I specifically directed my statement at radical terrorists. Nowhere did I mention that all of them will turn into terrorists, you did. Don't go attacking me because I'm not claiming what you want me to claim. If you didn't assume I was implying that all Middle Easterners are terrorists, we never would have gotten into a circular debate.

Edited November 14, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[WildCard]

I specifically directed my statement at radical terrorists. Nowhere did I mention that all of them will turn into terrorists, you did. Don't go attacking me because I'm not claiming what you want me to claim.

I genuinely don't care, I'm over it

[Neo]

Sorry for the following brain dump, but I can't seem to put it into words that make sense together.

 

*snip*

 

 

I came into this thread thinking it would be a place for people to talk this out, a place to grieve. It was, for a page. When I flipped to the end I found more hate and more fear. Same old song. I'm going back in my hole, I can't deal with it.

 

It's a good brain dump. I think the words made sense.

[WildCard]

They killed 3000 of our people in one day on our soil. Prior to that they killed hundreds of our people in foreign lands. They have killed hundreds, if not at this point, over a thousand, of our allies people. This is within our modern era. They threaten the safety and stability of the planet. They have laid down the gauntlet several times over. There is justification in my opinion.

 

I do not want what happened in France to happen in NYC, or Nashville, or even Toronto.

I think France would be right there with us.

We have been over there before 9/11, no? I have a hard time imagining they arbitrarily chose the USA 

Edited November 14, 2015 by WildCard

[JJFIVEOH]

It does though.  It's way easier to flip a kid one way or the other than a full grown adult.  Think about how much your own beliefs have changed since you were a child.  You can either be supportive of the kids and bring them in or shove them away and confirm everything bad anyone ever said to them about our society.  If that's the way you're going to go you'd be better off drowning them all in the Mediterranean right now and save yourself a lot of time and effort fighting against them when they get older, stronger, and more engrained in their ideology.

So long as it remains profitable.

 

How do we go about doing that? It's impractical, at best.

[X. Benedict]

For my edification, and with all due respect.

Are those opposed to military action willing to endure the occasional 9/11s, Charlie Hebdos, Paris Concert attacks, etc., until hearts and minds change?

This isn't a web blog based trap question.

I ask not having made a call for, nor having ruled out, the military. Several of you got ahead of me.

Well, we can no more completely stop non-state terrorists than we can completely stop school shooters. Military and intelligence is part of the imperfect solution, but with terrorists a military response is in someways at once invited because it legitimizes the perpetrators, but it also helps polarize their own constituency.

 

So I would be careful of the robust and muscular military response and fight these bastards by lethal stealth and whatever can be done to undermine what legitimacy they have.

[WildCard]

Capitals' rink tonight

 

http://imgur.com/inVjlRq

Edited November 14, 2015 by WildCard

[...]

I'm going to solve this for y'all...
 

EastsideOasis, on 13 Nov 2015 - 9:49 PM, said:

I hadn't said that before.  I said we needed a different approach.  I have never said that's sitting down and "reasoning" with radicalized people.  It is changing the way we interact with them and their culture so that the radicalization eventually stops.  It's a very long process.  It's been a very long process to get where we are and the current approach has failed.  How long do we continue with the same obviously failed approach?

 
"radicalized people" is now the subject as presented by eastside.

 

JJFIVEOH, on 13 Nov 2015 - 9:53 PM, said:

Why do we need to come up with ways to make them better? Does that make any sense to you, finding ways to stop marginalizing them so they don't kill us?

 
"Them" here is referring to "radicalized people", the subject as presented by eastside.  JJ is asking how it makes sense to play the peace card first with radical terrorist types.

 

WildCard, on 13 Nov 2015 - 9:57 PM, said:

Your insistance of treating generations of different people as one entity is annoying. Treating the region better and helping them develop and educate the next generation if their own people is not he same as giving ISIS free rides to Harvard.

They are not discussing "different people", they have been discussing "radicalized people". Prior to this, it seemed both parties understood who they were referring to, which is probably ISIS and Al-Qaeda types. I don't believe either radicalized peoples would welcome us to help develop and educate them (unless, of course, they used it as a way to gain access to us for Jihad).

 

We had gone in there, trying to be nicey nice while hunting down radical Islam.  The problem is that the locals are so terrified of the radicals, that invariably the locals turn on us.  It almost worked in Iraq, until we pulled out too early.  The people in Iraq were trying to side with us.  At the moment we pulled out, the delicate balance was gone.  You think they would trust us again with radicals still on the prowl?  No, we would have to demonstrate to the locals we mean business first.  We would have throw away the rules of engagement manual and kill terrorists.  Our work is twice as difficult now thanks to pulling out early and not leaving any presence.  

 

Improving their education and improving their economy are a loooonnng way off.  Many acts of terror will happen between the beginning of any sincere engagement in the ME and actually making a difference to the peaceful people there.

[nfreeman]

and what converted Germany and Japan from countries that were totally OK with exterminating Jews and sending suicide missions to take out as many people as possible into the places they are now? Was it by perpetual disenfranchisement, poverty, and marginalization? Was it by installation and support of repressive regimes to keep control of the masses?

Well, the first step, without which the rest would've been impossible, was killing them in sufficient quantity to make the rest of them realize that they had no chance of winning.

[Neo]

B-Lo: My bingo to nfreeman meant he got my question right, ftr. I have no troop suggestion.

 

 

XB: Reasoned, as always. I am ruminating around your words.

 

 

 

The next weeks will be interesting.

[...]

WildCard, on 13 Nov 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

We have been over there before 9/11, no? I have a hard time imagining they arbitrarily chose the USA 

 

 

We gave the Jews Israel after WWII.  After that, we fundamentally left the ME alone.  We may have provided support for Israel, we may have meddled in Iranian politics, we may have sat by while various ME scrums played out, and we may have propped up Saddam Hussein.  But no big weaponry until the Gulf War as far as I recall. 

 

Our problem is that we're the mecca for apostates, and, again, we created Israel.  And, of course, they could point to all of the tinkering we had done in the region. 

 

But, I don't see why you asked the question.

[WildCard]

I hadn't said that before.  I said we needed a different approach.  I have never said that's sitting down and "reasoning" with radicalized people.  It is changing the way we interact with them and their culture so that the radicalization eventually stops.  It's a very long process.  It's been a very long process to get where we are and the current approach has failed.  How long do we continue with the same obviously failed approach?

They are not discussing "different people", they have been discussing "radicalized people". Prior to this, it seemed both parties understood who they were referring to, which is probably ISIS and Al-Qaeda types. I don't believe either radicalized peoples would welcome us to help develop and educate them (unless, of course, they used it as a way to gain access to us for Jihad).

 

We had gone in there, trying to be nicey nice while hunting down radical Islam.  The problem is that the locals are so terrified of the radicals, that invariably the locals turn on us.  It almost worked in Iraq, until we pulled out too early.  The people in Iraq were trying to side with us.  At the moment we pulled out, the delicate balance was gone.  You think they would trust us again with radicals still on the prowl?  No, we would have to demonstrate to the locals we mean business first.  We would have throw away the rules of engagement manual and kill terrorists.  Our work is twice as difficult now thanks to pulling out early and not leaving any presence.  

 

Improving their education and improving their economy are a loooonnng way off.  Many acts of terror will happen between the beginning of any sincere engagement in the ME and actually making a difference to the peaceful people there.

The bold don't go hand in hand. East says we help develop relations with the people and the culture, not about how we develop and educate radicalized people

 

and what converted Germany and Japan from countries that were totally OK with exterminating Jews and sending suicide missions to take out as many people as possible into the places they are now?  Was it by perpetual disenfranchisement, poverty, and marginalization?  Was it by installation and support of repressive regimes to keep control of the masses?

Well, first off, most of the German population wasn't "ok" with the Holocaust, many were ignorant of it and were revolted by it. The same applies to the Rape of Nanking. 

 

Is this a trick question? Because yes, Japan and Germany directly were involved in WW2 because of the punishments of the Treaty of Versailles or, in Japan's case, not letting them partake in it. 

 

And yes, Japan actually loves us for what we've done for them, despite leveling two of their cities and imposing harsh military restrictions. 

We gave the Jews Israel after WWII.  After that, we fundamentally left the ME alone.  We may have provided support for Israel, we may have meddled in Iranian politics, we may have sat by while various ME scrums played out, and we may have propped up Saddam Hussein.  But no big weaponry until the Gulf War as far as I recall. 

 

Our problem is that we're the mecca for apostates, and, again, we created Israel.  And, of course, they could point to all of the tinkering we had done in the region. 

 

But, I don't see why you asked the question.

Because you're justification for going over there is terror attacks, and I'm trying to figure out why they choose certain countries. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by WildCard

[nfreeman]

Because you're justification for going over there is terror attacks, and I'm trying to figure out why they choose certain countries.

They attack whatever western targets they can get to. France is no great friend of Israel; neither is Spain -- but both are Western countries with democratic governments, women's rights, freedom of the press and religion -- and lots of homegrown radicalized Muslims. The US, of course, is the big prize, but it's mostly for prestige -- i.e. "Look how strong we are, we can even attack America."

[...]

WildCard, on 13 Nov 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

The bold don't go hand in hand.

Because you're justification for going over there is terror attacks, and I'm trying to figure out why they choose certain countries. 

 

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are the very definition of radicalized people. 

 

They "chose" us because we are that from which all things cool and groovy emanate.  If the USA falls, the remaining western nations will have a difficult time withstanding radical Islamist al-harb.  If we fall to them, at worst, they block us from helping our allies.  At best, they use us against our allies.  It's chess, except that instead of removing the queen from the board if you take her, you can use the captured queen as an offensive weapon.

[WildCard]

ISIS and Al-Qaeda are the very definition of radicalized people. 

 

They "chose" us because we are that from which all things cool and groovy emanate.  If the USA falls, the remaining western nations will have a difficult time withstanding radical Islamist al-harb.  If we fall to them, at worst, they block us from helping our allies.  At best, they use us against our allies.  It's chess, except that instead of removing the queen from the board if you take her, you can use the captured queen as an offensive weapon.

I get that, that's not what I'm arguing. We say, "Don't develop educate the radicalized people, there are other people there, other generations" and receive "You can't educate and develop radicalized people"

 

Can anyone confirm the bold? I'm genuinely asking

They attack whatever western targets they can get to. France is no great friend of Israel; neither is Spain -- but both are Western countries with democratic governments, women's rights, freedom of the press and religion -- and lots of homegrown radicalized Muslims. The US, of course, is the big prize, but it's mostly for prestige -- i.e. "Look how strong we are, we can even attack America."

This sounds about right. 

[nfreeman]

I get that, that's not what I'm arguing. We say, "Don't develop educate the radicalized people, there are other people there, other generations" and receive "You can't educate and develop radicalized people"

 

There are indeed plenty of good and non-radicalized people there. Setting them free and helping them and their children grow up in nations that have emerged from the dark ages would be a great, great accomplishment for this country -- on a par with winning the Cold War. But the only way to do that is to destroy the cancer that's eating them up and threatening to devour the rest of us too.

[...]

nfreeman, on 13 Nov 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

There are indeed plenty of good and non-radicalized people there. Setting them free and helping them and their children grow up in nations that have emerged from the dark ages would be a great, great accomplishment for this country -- on a par with winning the Cold War. But the only way to do that is to destroy the cancer that's eating them up and threatening to devour the rest of us too.

 

It would be far better than winning the Cold War, in my estimation.  It would be among the greatest historical achievements in the world, akin to winning the Revolutionary War, or the establishment of the Ming dynasty.

[Hoss]

Sorry for the following brain dump, but I can't seem to put it into words that make sense together.

 

I don't have the energy for this anymore. I don't have the brain space. I see the reports on twitter and I don't even stop scrolling. I just can't.

 

What can we do against such reckless hate? How can we heal wounds that have existed since the beginning of recorded time?

 

We can't win this war by killing people. That has never worked. Sides don't win wars by killing everyone on the other side. But there is noone to negotiate with. No one to talk reason to.

 

I consider, and always have, a person who could empathize with others, who could put myself in their shoes, and understand them. I don't understand this. I don't. What do they want?

 

The 3 or so years after 9/11 were the maddest I've ever been in my life. I was so mad that people could come into my country, into my home, and kill my people. I wanted them dead, I didn't care how many or which ones. I wanted them all dead. Nuke the place. Turn it into a goddamned parking lot. I was so mad, I cheered the "Shock and Awe" when we attacked Iraq. I remember watching it with my mom, and she warned me about it. My mother is a staunch Republican, but she'd lived through Vietnam, she knew. She knew how useless it was. She tried to explain, but I was too busy flashing back to watching CNN in the lunchroom that day. The vanity of youth, I guess, thinking that I knew better, that we could FIX this. I didn't know ######.

 

I know this now: Hate only breeds hate. Fear breeds more fear.

 

I came into this thread thinking it would be a place for people to talk this out, a place to grieve. It was, for a page. When I flipped to the end I found more hate and more fear. Same old song. I'm going back in my hole, I can't deal with it.

I don't like quoting long posts but I'm fine having this double posted. I was hoping that this thread would be a break from all the bickering and a chance to just mourn. if only.

[nfreeman]

Also -- France is about to find out what it feels like to have a pacifist, arrogant fool in charge of an important ally when trying to fight a war against radical Islam. I'd call it a fair bit of payback if our necks weren't on the line as well.