off topic The politics of terrorism

[Huckleberry]

We can feel free to say "radical Islam" all we want. 

 

But there is a very real diplomatic element that better advises world leaders not to use the same phrase. And it's prudent. 

 

Why is it so important for our leaders to say the same thing, anyway? Does that increase the sense of bonding we have in the face of the horror? Does it reassure anyone that "finally" our leaders really know who the true enemy is? As if we or they don't know already?

 

This argument over semantics is useless and serves nothing.  

 

I wouldn't use the phrase Islam, and just radicals.    Those 3 brothers with french nationality who were living in brussels.  Their pub got closed on the 4th of november because they were dealing drugs and other small crimes were organised from it.    They also sold alcohol from it so I doubt much of that has to do with Islam.

 

Been saying it for a while now, but most of the syrian fighters are the same type of element.  Criminals who get caught and flee.

[Weave]

Nope that's not it at all.  They really think that they are the holy kingdom on earth.  They're not building an empire because they're ambitious; they're doing it out of obedience to their faith.  Most Muslims don't agree with their view of the caliphate, but they can find support for what they're doing in the Quran.

 

I don't think i said otherwise.

[LGR4GM]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32169080

"At least 147 people, mostly students, have been killed in an assault by al-Shabab militants on a university in north-eastern Kenya.

Heavily armed attackers stormed Garissa University early on Thursday, killing two security guards then firing indiscriminately on students."

[wjag]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32169080

"At least 147 people, mostly students, have been killed in an assault by al-Shabab militants on a university in north-eastern Kenya.

Heavily armed attackers stormed Garissa University early on Thursday, killing two security guards then firing indiscriminately on students."

 

 

It just doesn't get any easier...  The carnage in the world in the last seven days has been unimaginable..   :cry:

Edited November 16, 2015 by wjag

[shrader]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32169080

"At least 147 people, mostly students, have been killed in an assault by al-Shabab militants on a university in north-eastern Kenya.

Heavily armed attackers stormed Garissa University early on Thursday, killing two security guards then firing indiscriminately on students."

 

Look at the date on that report... :bag:

[nfreeman]

Something in a comment section, more than likely fiction? Probably not worth the link.

And how many "Christians" want to "blow those people off the map" and "bomb them back to the Stone Age"?

I heard the Facebook is taking some heat for activating some kind of emergency feature on the site after the Paris attacks so that people could "mark" that they were OK. But they didn't activate it for similar events in the Middle East, namely Beirut. It really is indicative of a fundamental problem. We should care just as much about the innocents in Lebanon as in France. I'll hold my breath waiting for the Sabres to bathe the arena in the Lebanese colors. It's a shame, really. The good people of the world are essentially the same. Whether it's income inequality here or religious fanatics there, it's the same theme: a few ###### holding everyone else down.

 

That person's family sounds eerily similar to your views about them.

 

And here we are back in the land of softheaded liberal moral equivalence mush.  "We shouldn't condemn bloodthirsty Muslim lunatics -- we're just as bad as they are." 

 

Climate change?  The Christian Right?  Evil corporations?  Those dastardly refs? 

 

Please.

 

Who, exactly, is walking into a concert filled with young people and mowing them down with assault rifles?  Who is blowing up planes of vacationers?  Who is chopping the arms off of children because they were innoculated by Western doctors?  Who is beheading reporters and posting photos online of children holding up the heads?  Who is locking people in cages and then burning them alive?

 

I, and many, many others believe that fighting the war that has been declared on us and winning it decisively is the least bad option. 

 

But evidently I sound just like them.

 

 

Stumbled across this today.  http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

I have no idea how accurate it is.  I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic.  It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS.  Certainly thought provoking.  I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.

 

The Atlantic is a leftist publication but not a whacked-out one.

 

You'd be well advised to better acquaint yourself with the entire history of the North Korea nuclear program. 

 

The memories of democracies aren't short so much as they are highly selective. 

 

What does this mean? 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32169080

"At least 147 people, mostly students, have been killed in an assault by al-Shabab militants on a university in north-eastern Kenya.

Heavily armed attackers stormed Garissa University early on Thursday, killing two security guards then firing indiscriminately on students."

 

They won't stop until they are stopped.

[wjag]

Look at the date on that report... :bag:

 

 

Good catch.

[LGR4GM]

Look at the date on that report... :bag:

I am aware.  Happened in April.  We didn't really discuss it. Why?  Because it didn't happen in our beloved Paris.

 

... well it's not particularly my beloved Paris

Edited November 16, 2015 by LGR4GM

[shrader]

Good catch.

 

That story was all over facebook this weekend.  I'd love to know how it got bumped back up.  It just goes to show you how little attention we pay to that part of the world.

[SwampD]

And here we are back in the land of softheaded liberal moral equivalence mush.  "We shouldn't condemn bloodthirsty Muslim lunatics -- we're just as bad as they are." 

 

Climate change?  The Christian Right?  Evil corporations?  Those dastardly refs? 

 

Please.

 

Who, exactly, is walking into a concert filled with young people and mowing them down with assault rifles?  Who is blowing up planes of vacationers?  Who is chopping the arms off of children because they were innoculated by Western doctors?  Who is beheading reporters and posting photos online of children holding up the heads?  Who is locking people in cages and then burning them alive?

 

I, and many, many others believe that fighting the war that has been declared on us and winning it decisively is the least bad option. 

 

But evidently I sound just like them.

 

 

 

 

The Atlantic is a leftist publication but not a whacked-out one.

 

 

 

What does this mean? 

 

 

 

They won't stop until they are stopped.

When you marginalize the deaths of 100,000 innocent people by saying, "well, that's the cost of a war we are trying to win", yes, you sound just like them.

 

And maybe we would be more likely to listen to what you say if you actually sounded like a grown up in this thread. So many of your posts, if someone else had written them would have ilicited your standard "obnoxiously stated" line.

[LGR4GM]

I think the arm chopping off thing was actually a misunderstanding about vaccines not a "the evil westerners touched our kids!" type of reaction.

 

Well I can't find another reference currently but.... the arm cutting off story grew to prominence after it was a quote in Apocalypse Now.  I currently am unable to confirm is this actually occurred or was just a movie line.

Edited November 16, 2015 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

When you marginalize the deaths of 100,000 innocent people by saying, "well, that's the cost of a war we are trying to win", yes, you sound just like them.

 

And maybe we would be more likely to listen to what you say if you actually sounded like a grown up in this thread. So many of your posts, if someone else had written them would have ilicited your standard "obnoxiously stated" line.

What, you don't like the "I'm your father and you'll do as I say" attitude? 

[nfreeman]

When you marginalize the deaths of 100,000 innocent people by saying, "well, that's the cost of a war we are trying to win", yes, you sound just like them.

 

And maybe we would be more likely to listen to what you say if you actually sounded like a grown up in this thread. So many of your posts, if someone else had written them would have ilicited your standard "obnoxiously stated" line.

 

As for the bolded -- please show the post in which I said that. 

 

As for your 2nd paragraph -- are you joking?  Did you not say that I sound like a mass murderer?

[SwampD]

As for the bolded -- please show the post in which I said that. 

 

As for your 2nd paragraph -- are you joking?  Did you not say that I sound like a mass murderer?

No I did not. I said you sounded like that family that shrugged off the innocent French deaths as the cost of war.

 

That person's family sounds eerily similar to your views about them.

[nfreeman]

No I did not. I said you sounded like that family that shrugged off the innocent French deaths as the cost of war.

 

 

You seem a little bloodthirsty yourself.

[WildCard]

US Seems to be stepping it up

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?referer=https:/www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3t020f/us_warplanes_for_the_first_time_attacked_hundreds/&_r=0

 

 

 Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said

 

American officials have long been frustrated by ability of ISIS to generate tens of million of dollars a month by producing and exporting oil.

[...]

LGR4GM, on 16 Nov 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

I think the arm chopping off thing was actually a misunderstanding about vaccines not a "the evil westerners touched our kids!" type of reaction.

 

Well I can't find another reference currently but.... the arm cutting off story grew to prominence after it was a quote in Apocalypse Now.  I currently am unable to confirm is this actually occurred or was just a movie line.

 

 

The arms being cut off children comes from the stories out of Sierra Leone and the trial of Charles Taylor.  I don't have the time to do a thorough research job, but the following links verify the general claims:

 

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082299sierra-leone.html

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28933637/ns/world_news-africa/t/taylor-trial-witness-rebels-cut-my-hands/#.VkoFgnldF9M

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taylor-352467-war-leone.html

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-26/tony-blair-proud-of-uk-role-in-sierra-leone/

 

 

It seems true that discussion of those events were mixed with the Kurtz line from Apocalypse Now, but that mix-up doesn't dilute the point and the reality is no less brutal and horrific.  I would say the conversation was also mixed with reports out of the ME and in certain regions where health care workers were targeted for disseminating vaccines: 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/feb/02/karachi-polio-workers-pakistan-militants

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/12/pakistan-polio-workers-targeted-killing-201312118364851379.html

 

 

So, yes, I suppose the recollection of the stories and subsequent discussion is not 1:1.  This increases my empathy for Ben Carson.

When you marginalize the deaths of 100,000 innocent people by saying, "well, that's the cost of a war we are trying to win", yes, you sound just like them.

 

And maybe we would be more likely to listen to what you say if you actually sounded like a grown up in this thread. So many of your posts, if someone else had written them would have ilicited your standard "obnoxiously stated" line.

 

 

And you think you come off as any more "adult"? 

[LGR4GM]

I thought the airforce was in the process of decommissioning the A-10?

The arms being cut off children comes from the stories out of Sierra Leone and the trial of Charles Taylor.  I don't have the time to do a thorough research job, but the following links verify the general claims:

 

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082299sierra-leone.html

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28933637/ns/world_news-africa/t/taylor-trial-witness-rebels-cut-my-hands/#.VkoFgnldF9M

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taylor-352467-war-leone.html

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-26/tony-blair-proud-of-uk-role-in-sierra-leone/

 

 

It seems true that discussion of those events were mixed with the Kurtz line from Apocalypse Now, but that mix-up doesn't dilute the point and the reality is no less brutal and horrific.  I would say the conversation was also mixed with reports out of the ME and in certain regions where health care workers were targeted for disseminating vaccines: 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/feb/02/karachi-polio-workers-pakistan-militants

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/12/pakistan-polio-workers-targeted-killing-201312118364851379.html

 

 

So, yes, I suppose the recollection of the stories and subsequent discussion is not 1:1.  This increases my empathy for Ben Carson.

 

 

And you think you come off as any more "adult"? 

Awesome thanks.  I knew I had heard about it other places but was coming up empty.  I thought maybe my memory was indeed wrong.

 

Why does it increase your empathy for Ben Carson?

[Weave]

And here we are back in the land of softheaded liberal moral equivalence mush. 

 

Freeman, I have to call you out here.  You would check (and rightfully so) anyone here that is using this sort of turn of phrase in a productive conversation.  the rhetoric needs to be dialed down.  Belittling the other side of the conversation is completely unproductive and has no value in the discussion.

[...]

LGR4GM, on 16 Nov 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

I thought the airforce was in the process of decommissioning the A-10?

Awesome thanks.  I knew I had heard about it other places but was coming up empty.  I thought maybe my memory was indeed wrong.

 

Why does it increase your empathy for Ben Carson?

 

Because Carson was/is getting flack for messing up his recollection of the offer to attend West Point.  That was almost 50 years ago.  The Sierra Leone brutality was 5, and it still took me an hour to figure out what it was I had heard and read.

 

FWIW, I thought I was going crazy, or worse, that history was being scrubbed on the internetz, until my long-term memory finally warmed up and I hit upon the right things.

[LGR4GM]

Because Carson was/is getting flack for messing up his recollection of the offer to attend West Point.  That was almost 50 years ago.  The Sierra Leone brutality was 5, and it still took me an hour to figure out what it was I had heard and read.

 

FWIW, I thought I was going crazy, or worse, that history was being scrubbed on the internetz, until my long-term memory finally warmed up and I hit upon the right things.

oooooohhh.  I missed that little story.  Yea, sometimes people remember stuff wrong.  Science has proven this time and time again.  Again thanks for the links though.

[...]

Freeman, I have to call you out here.  You would check (and rightfully so) anyone here that is using this sort of turn of phrase in a productive conversation.  the rhetoric needs to be dialed down.  Belittling the other side of the conversation is completely unproductive and has no value in the discussion.

 

To be fair, he was accused of being "bloodthirsty".  He's also being accused of not caring for the lives of 100,000 innocent people.  I would say swamp dialed up the hyperbole and absurdity in that exchange. 

[Weave]

To be fair, he was accused of being "bloodthirsty".  He's also being accused of not caring for the lives of 100,000 innocent people.  I would say swamp dialed up the hyperbole and absurdity in that exchange. 

 

I dunno.  I read it as, if you look at his viewpoint from an civilian living in Iraq/Syria losing friends and relatives that aren't soldiers point of view it sounds equivalent.  It's an alternate perspective, not nearly the same as calling him bloodthirsty.

 

And even if your reading is the right one, Swamp singled out one guy, he didn't throw a bomb on everyone with a different opinion.

Edited November 16, 2015 by We've

[SwampD]

And to be fair, I only said "a little bloodthirsty."

[nfreeman]

Freeman, I have to call you out here.  You would check (and rightfully so) anyone here that is using this sort of turn of phrase in a productive conversation.  the rhetoric needs to be dialed down.  Belittling the other side of the conversation is completely unproductive and has no value in the discussion.

 

And to be fair, I only said "a little bloodthirsty."

 

To be fair, he was accused of being "bloodthirsty".  He's also being accused of not caring for the lives of 100,000 innocent people.  I would say swamp dialed up the hyperbole and absurdity in that exchange. 

 

I dunno.  I read it as, if you look at his viewpoint from an civilian living in Iraq/Syria losing friends and relatives that aren't soldiers point of view it sounds equivalent.  It's an alternate perspective, not nearly the same as calling him bloodthirsty.

 

And even if your reading is the right one, Swamp singled out one guy, he didn't throw a bomb on everyone with a different opinion.

 

Sizzle -- thanks for the support.

 

We've -- I didn't break out the stuff you reacted to until there was both moral equivalence and what I thought were over-the-line attacks on me (including one by someone here, not Swamp, who has in the past called me a racist on this board in response to my criticizing the president).  I also think Swamp grossly mischaracterized my post regarding Iraqi casualties, and, separately, I don't see how Swamp's post saying "you seem a little bloodthirsty" can admit of your interpretation -- or really any interpretation that says he didn't call me bloodthirsty.

 

Having said that, I agree that the poster-on-poster rhetoric should be dialed down, including by me, that a tit-for-tat response was unnecessary and that I should've criticized the moral equivalence view without using the words I used.

 

Sorry Swamp.