off topic The politics of terrorism

[Hank]

Not directed at any particular poster, but two things I'd like to briefly touch on...

 

We were making progress in Iraq. Afghanistan was a lost cause, but we made significant progress in Iraq. We needed more time.

 

We took civilian lives in Iraq, and that it tragic. Our presence over there prevented more murders than we were responsible for. That's a fact that many people don't know about, our more likely ignore when talking about it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

[Drunkard]

If may offend people but it's still the truth. If you think the earth is only 6,000 years old you are an idiot and it should be pointed out. There are living trees that are older than 6,000 years old on this planet right now. People did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs and to try to teach such nonsense to children in public schools is irresponsibe and bad for society.

 

For the record I think religion does way more harm than good but I typically don't go out of my way to make fun of the muslim faith or other religions for two reasons. The first is that I'm not nearly as familiar with their teachings as Christianity and the main reason is that due to where I live, (the south and America in general) whenever religion is causing problems for the advancement of society such as by trying to stop insurance companies from providing women with birth control, interfering with a woman's right to have an abortion or receive other healthcare through an organization like planned parenthood, or teaching children actual science in science classes it's always some Christian organization or politician like Ted Cruz or insert the majority of Republican politicians. They are also the ones who want to pollute the earth on catastrophic levels because many of them believe that the rapture is coming and some of them are so arrogant that they just assume the rapture is not only coming but it's coming in their lifetime because they must be so humble and pious that God just can't wait to meet them.

 

If I lived in Saudi Arabia or some other muslim country I'd want to speak out about their religious nonsense like female circumcision and other misogynistic crap like not letting women go to school, drive cars, or making them dress like bee keepers, and not letting them leave the house without a male to chaperone them. Throw in the way they treat gay people and they might as well be living in the stone age. Of course I would probably be beheaded for being an atheist heathen if I lived there anyway so I guess that whole point is moot.

 

Christianity doesn't get singled out for ridicule by most atheists because we want to pick on people who believe in Jesus. It gets picked on because it's the religion causing most of the societal problems in the second paragraph I typed.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Drunkard

[Neo]

If may offend people but it's still the truth. If you think the earth is only 6,000 years old you are an idiot and it should be pointed out. There are living trees that are older than 6,000 years old on this planet right now.

In a little back and forth with Liger, I mentioned that his RJ jokes didn't offend me one bit. I was commenting on my understanding of those who are offended.

 

Allow me to add you to the same list of people I hope I didn't unintentionally refer to. I hope you didn't feel called out, either.

 

I enjoy your work, too, you whacky self described heathen. Ironic smiley face !

[K-9]

Not directed at any particular poster, but two things I'd like to briefly touch on...

 

We were making progress in Iraq. Afghanistan was a lost cause, but we made significant progress in Iraq. We needed more time.

 

We took civilian lives in Iraq, and that it tragic. Our presence over there prevented more murders than we were responsible for. That's a fact that many people don't know about, our more likely ignore when talking about it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Was Maliki in any way responsible for the regression that occurred after the progress we made?

[pastajoe]

Was Maliki in any way responsible for the regression that occurred after the progress we made?

Yes. Maliki, the leader of a Shiite political party, promised to run a more inclusive government—to bring more Sunnis into the ministries, to bring more Sunnis from the Sons of Iraq militia into the national army, to settle property disputes in Kirkuk, to negotiate a formula on sharing oil revenue with Sunni districts.

 

Maliki backpedaled on all of these commitments and pursued policies designed to strengthen Shiites and marginalize Sunnis. That led to the resurgence of sectarian violence. The Sunnis, found themselves excluded from the political process, and took up arms as the route to power. In the process, they formed alliances with Sunni jihadist groups—such as ISIS, which seized much of northern Iraq—on the principle that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

[K-9]

Yes. Maliki, the leader of a Shiite political party, promised to run a more inclusive government—to bring more Sunnis into the ministries, to bring more Sunnis from the Sons of Iraq militia into the national army, to settle property disputes in Kirkuk, to negotiate a formula on sharing oil revenue with Sunni districts.

 

Maliki backpedaled on all of these commitments and pursued policies designed to strengthen Shiites and marginalize Sunnis. That led to the resurgence of sectarian violence. The Sunnis, found themselves excluded from the political process, and took up arms as the route to power. In the process, they formed alliances with Sunni jihadist groups—such as ISIS, which seized much of northern Iraq—on the principle that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

Bingo. 

 

The single largest contributor to the formation of ISIS in Iraq, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, was the exclusionary policy of Maliki who was appeasing his former hosts in Iran when he decided to exclude such a sizable minority from the process. He should have realized just how many Sunnis held positions in the military and in the police. Mass amounts of vehicles, arms, and personnel defected overnight. 

 

And so it goes. 

[Neo]

Yes. Maliki, the leader of a Shiite political party, promised to run a more inclusive government—to bring more Sunnis into the ministries, to bring more Sunnis from the Sons of Iraq militia into the national army, to settle property disputes in Kirkuk, to negotiate a formula on sharing oil revenue with Sunni districts.

Maliki backpedaled on all of these commitments and pursued policies designed to strengthen Shiites and marginalize Sunnis. That led to the resurgence of sectarian violence. The Sunnis, found themselves excluded from the political process, and took up arms as the route to power. In the process, they formed alliances with Sunni jihadist groups—such as ISIS, which seized much of northern Iraq—on the principle that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

JOE!!!! You can't say JIHADIST AND ISIS in the same sentence. Jihad is an internal struggle associated with a religious journey. ISIS is a terror organization. They're unrelated. Haven't you been paying attention? Black lives matter. Say it! Safe space. Language orthodoxy trumps ideas. The first amendment is dangerous.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. I dig Joe and just used him to make a snarky post. Guilty.

 

Now, with something cool. These two links will require an hour of your attention. Very cool to me as I start an investigation. It'll take years. I have good advice from some of you, and my first book.

 

The viseo linked provides Muslims an opportunity to discuss their religion in their own words. Produced by David Burke for PBS. it may have never aired, however. I don't know. Interesting, regardless.

 

Islam vs. Islamists

 

 

Part One

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtmUtfT3MF8

 

 

Part Two

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vvBlmqLTaKc

Edited December 6, 2015 by N'eo

[PASabreFan]

People on the no-fly list because they are suspected of being terrorists shouldn't be able to buy a gun in America. Republicans: Whoa, wait a minute. That's going too far! Are they actually trying to enable mayhem? They must smell another war in the air. Just a few more domestic attacks and we're in!

 

As disgraceful as this post might be, it's not nearly as disgraceful as anyone who opposes a common sense measure like that. And why? Because it might be a small step in their paranoid minds towards Obama "coming for the guns"? It might prevent a few people mistakenly on the list from buying automatic weapons to blow an elk away? And this from the party that forced us to sacrifice so much liberty in the name of security after 9/11?

[Neo]

People on the no-fly list because they are suspected of being terrorists shouldn't be able to buy a gun in America. Republicans: Whoa, wait a minute. That's going too far! Are they actually trying to enable mayhem? They must smell another war in the air. Just a few more domestic attacks and we're in!

 

As disgraceful as this post might be, it's not nearly as disgraceful as anyone who opposes a common sense measure like that. And why? Because it might be a small step in their paranoid minds towards Obama "coming for the guns"? It might prevent a few people mistakenly on the list from buying automatic weapons to blow an elk away? And this from the party that forced us to sacrifice so much liberty in the name of security after 9/11?

I dont like government lists. The no fly list exists.

 

I support effective gun control. The no fly list exists.

 

Ban gun sales to those on the no fly list.

 

I'm a Republican (reluctantly).

Edited December 6, 2015 by N'eo

[PASabreFan]

I dont like government lists. The no fly list exists.

 

I support effective gun control. The no fly list exists.

 

Ban gun sales to those on the no fly list.

 

I'm a Republican (reluctantly).

A reluctant Republican, or you reluctantly state your approval of using the no fly list in such a way?

[Neo]

A reluctant Republican, or you reluctantly state your approval of using the no fly list in such a way?

Reluctant Republican. It fits me better than the alternative. I'd be an independent (like most?) except that participating in primaries is important to me.

 

I am not at all reluctant about using the list for this effective method to keep weapons out of the hands people you've identified as risky.

 

Now, this is subtle, not contradictory - the thought of a "list" makes me queasy. Nixon had enemies. McCarthy had commies.

 

 

Historical interest: McCarthyism, Nixon and the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss. People were ruined. Ruined ...

Edited December 6, 2015 by N'eo

[TrueBlueGED]

If may offend people but it's still the truth. If you think the earth is only 6,000 years old you are an idiot and it should be pointed out. There are living trees that are older than 6,000 years old on this planet right now. People did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs and to try to teach such nonsense to children in public schools is irresponsibe and bad for society.

 

For the record I think religion does way more harm than good but I typically don't go out of my way to make fun of the muslim faith or other religions for two reasons. The first is that I'm not nearly as familiar with their teachings as Christianity and the main reason is that due to where I live, (the south and America in general) whenever religion is causing problems for the advancement of society such as by trying to stop insurance companies from providing women with birth control, interfering with a woman's right to have an abortion or receive other healthcare through an organization like planned parenthood, or teaching children actual science in science classes it's always some Christian organization or politician like Ted Cruz or insert the majority of Republican politicians. They are also the ones who want to pollute the earth on catastrophic levels because many of them believe that the rapture is coming and some of them are so arrogant that they just assume the rapture is not only coming but it's coming in their lifetime because they must be so humble and pious that God just can't wait to meet them.

 

If I lived in Saudi Arabia or some other muslim country I'd want to speak out about their religious nonsense like female circumcision and other misogynistic crap like not letting women go to school, drive cars, or making them dress like bee keepers, and not letting them leave the house without a male to chaperone them. Throw in the way they treat gay people and they might as well be living in the stone age. Of course I would probably be beheaded for being an atheist heathen if I lived there anyway so I guess that whole point is moot.

 

Christianity doesn't get singled out for ridicule by most atheists because we want to pick on people who believe in Jesus. It gets picked on because it's the religion causing most of the societal problems in the second paragraph I typed.

Regardless of how accurate you may consider your post to be, it is decidedly the wrong way to go about things if you hope to have productive dialogue, let alone drive meaningful policy change.

[Weave]

People on the no-fly list because they are suspected of being terrorists shouldn't be able to buy a gun in America. Republicans: Whoa, wait a minute. That's going too far! Are they actually trying to enable mayhem? They must smell another war in the air. Just a few more domestic attacks and we're in!

 

As disgraceful as this post might be, it's not nearly as disgraceful as anyone who opposes a common sense measure like that. And why? Because it might be a small step in their paranoid minds towards Obama "coming for the guns"? It might prevent a few people mistakenly on the list from buying automatic weapons to blow an elk away? And this from the party that forced us to sacrifice so much liberty in the name of security after 9/11?

 

I mentioned it upthread, as long as there is an appeal process I am OK with it.  Neo's concerns are legit IMO.

[Neo]

Musing for the day, inspired by pA and Whiskey and the no-fly list. When terror moves to soft targets, what other "no-this" lists do we have? No county-employee lists? No-holiday party in the conference room lists? Game changer time.

 

The debate in my head has always been how do you eliminate the risk vs. how do you restrict the behavior of a free people in light of the risk. I'm an eliminate guy, not a surrender guy. Guess which candidates resonate with me, warts notwithstanding?

 

By the way, eliminate risk doesn't mean "wipe off the face of the earth". Eliminate refers to the risk.

 

In some sense, this is left vs right. I'm not proving anything, here. Take this thought, mix in the language around race and religion which CONFUSES, and you get good people pointing fingers at one another.

 

My understanding is at 2 on a 1-10 scale. I'm working on it.

[Neo]

......

 

I'm on a roll .... Did anyone see the news teams going through the shooters' home? 24 hour news cycle weirdness. "Here's the baby's toys ... some receipts ... and family photos". Did the FBI, local police, and several editors all take a vacation day at the same time?

 

Another thought - preparedness, policy and soft targets .... Neighbor in San Bernadino: "I saw some suspicious behavior, but felt bad about profiling and reporting ..." I'm interested in this. Willing to bet: Our President will say, again tonight, what he's said already. "If you see something odd, report it". George Zimmerman, as despicable as he may be on Twitter, believed he saw something odd. We can agree he didn't. We have to acknowledge he believed he did.

 

We'll have posting fodder for years. April 22, 2017 - "Hello, 911? There are three people with beards and prayer smocks who look nervous and are sweating at the mall".

[PASabreFan]

......

 

I'm on a roll .... Did anyone see the news teams going through the shooters' home? 24 hour news cycle weirdness. "Here's the baby's toys ... some receipts ... and family photos". Did the FBI, local police, and several editors all take a vacation day at the same time?

 

Another thought - preparedness, policy and soft targets .... Neighbor in San Bernadino: "I saw some suspicious behavior, but felt bad about profiling and reporting ..." I'm interested in this. Willing to bet: Our President will say, again tonight, what he's said already. "If you see something odd, report it". George Zimmerman, as despicable as he may be on Twitter, believed he saw something odd. We can agree he didn't. We have to acknowledge he believed he did.

 

We'll have posting fodder for years. April 22, 2017 - "Hello, 911? There are three people with beards and prayer smocks who look nervous and are sweating at the mall".

The storming of the home was bizarre, to say the least. But law enforcement came out and said their investigation was over, and the property owner let them in so, fair game I guess. Wonder what our young journalist Hoss has to say about this.

 

As for the neighbor, I think I'm correct in saying that he or she didn't say he or she saw something suspicious, just five Middle Eastern men going into a house. You really can't call the terror hotline for that.

[Neo]

^ pA: I haven't seen his/her direct and full quote. ABC reported "suspicious" in quotation marks, though. We're going to learn a lot about what people consider suspicious. Not good news.

 

I like your reach out to Hoss.

 

"What would Hoss do?"

[wjag]

Reluctant Republican. It fits me better than the alternative. I'd be an independent (like most?) except that participating in primaries is important to me.

 

 

 

 

This describes me to a tee...

[Hoss]

The storming of the home was bizarre, to say the least. But law enforcement came out and said their investigation was over, and the property owner let them in so, fair game I guess. Wonder what our young journalist Hoss has to say about this.

 

As for the neighbor, I think I'm correct in saying that he or she didn't say he or she saw something suspicious, just five Middle Eastern men going into a house. You really can't call the terror hotline for that.

Young journalist says:

 

What... The... . The law enforcement and the landlord deserve to be bent over and smacked. Take them back to grade school and shame them. That was an embarrassment for the ages. The journalists did their jobs, but I wish some law enforcement official would've insulted and demeaned them ahead of time. Yack.

 

I'd rather be publicly shamed than publicly be given access to something that should've clearly remained confidential for the time being. Insult me. Hinder my career progression. Don't give me the scoop of a lifetime that should be giving some officer a promotion when he finds a connection to some underground ISIS trash.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Hoss

[Sabres Fan in NS]

If may offend people but it's still the truth. If you think the earth is only 6,000 years old you are an idiot and it should be pointed out. There are living trees that are older than 6,000 years old on this planet right now. People did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs and to try to teach such nonsense to children in public schools is irresponsibe and bad for society.

 

For the record I think religion does way more harm than good but I typically don't go out of my way to make fun of the muslim faith or other religions for two reasons. The first is that I'm not nearly as familiar with their teachings as Christianity and the main reason is that due to where I live, (the south and America in general) whenever religion is causing problems for the advancement of society such as by trying to stop insurance companies from providing women with birth control, interfering with a woman's right to have an abortion or receive other healthcare through an organization like planned parenthood, or teaching children actual science in science classes it's always some Christian organization or politician like Ted Cruz or insert the majority of Republican politicians. They are also the ones who want to pollute the earth on catastrophic levels because many of them believe that the rapture is coming and some of them are so arrogant that they just assume the rapture is not only coming but it's coming in their lifetime because they must be so humble and pious that God just can't wait to meet them.

 

If I lived in Saudi Arabia or some other muslim country I'd want to speak out about their religious nonsense like female circumcision and other misogynistic crap like not letting women go to school, drive cars, or making them dress like bee keepers, and not letting them leave the house without a male to chaperone them. Throw in the way they treat gay people and they might as well be living in the stone age. Of course I would probably be beheaded for being an atheist heathen if I lived there anyway so I guess that whole point is moot.

 

Christianity doesn't get singled out for ridicule by most atheists because we want to pick on people who believe in Jesus. It gets picked on because it's the religion causing most of the societal problems in the second paragraph I typed.

 

Good post, but one small error ... Saudi Arabia (I usually call it just Arabia, as it was meant to be and as it was) is not a Muslim country.  Neither are any of the other so-called Muslim countries.

 

For one thing, Kingdoms are forbidden in the Qur'an.

[SwampD]

This describes me to a tee...

Just so you know, there are reluctant Democrats as well. Or, at least there are "gee, I wish there was something better" Democrats.

[wjag]

Just so you know, there are reluctant Democrats as well. Or, at least there are "gee, I wish there was something better" Democrats.

 

I used to be one... Once upon a time..  In fact if I could describe my journey it would go like this:  Republican, Democrat, Independent, Republican (again so I can vote in the primaries).  I should actually go back to being a Democrat for primary purposes.  My state only allows you to vote in the primary of the party you are registered in.  I'd like to have some say in who gets nominated by the Demigods

Edited December 7, 2015 by wjag

[Neo]

Just so you know, there are reluctant Democrats as well. Or, at least there are "gee, I wish there was something better" Democrats.

Would be my assumption, yes.

[Drunkard]

Good post, but one small error ... Saudi Arabia (I usually call it just Arabia, as it was meant to be and as it was) is not a Muslim country.  Neither are any of the other so-called Muslim countries.

 

For one thing, Kingdoms are forbidden in the Qur'an.

 

I appreciate the insight, NS, even though I don't fully understand it. For what it's worth I was defining a Muslim country as a country that is primarily populated by Muslims, particularly if those in power use their interpretation of their faith to guide them in their decision making and make laws for their people. I'd consider the US to be Christian demographically but due to the separation of church and state it's not a Christian nation, at least not until President Cruz wins election, the chicken hawks crank up the war machine and send every abled bodied person off to foreign soil to fight, kill, and die, then he puts a baby fetus on the $1 dollar bill and replaces the Bill of Rights with Leviticus.

Regardless of how accurate you may consider your post to be, it is decidedly the wrong way to go about things if you hope to have productive dialogue, let alone drive meaningful policy change.

 

It may not lead to productive dialog, but sometimes I feel like push back is necessary to counteract arguments made by the other side whether it's a chicken hawk calling the President impotent for not sending our troops into full on war every time there's a terrorist attack, to those whining about losing their freedom while supporting decisions that try to push their personal morals and ethics on others who don't have the same beliefs.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Drunkard

[LastPommerFan]

Drunkard- Two things:

 

First, A Christian Nation wouldn't replace the BoR with Leviticus. Mosaic Law (The Commandments and Leviticus) was fulfilled by Christ. A Christian Nation would instead be governed by a call to perform "works of mercy", we would be a nation that would "turn the other cheek", Americans would "love their enemies". All of this, as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount, is probably the most clear, direct, and forceful language that Jesus used when instructing his followers on how to act. He specifically says that the old law is fulfilled, and lays down these things as the new Law. It's all obviously been corrupted by a couple millennia of kings and wealth using the Church as their tool for subjugation, but the message is laid out in plain language, on documents dated from the first generation after Jesus's life.

 

Second, Jesus's words aside, I would encourage you to try empathy with the "other side". The human mind is an absolutely amazing thing, but it's got some pretty simple drivers. We are social creatures. Our brains instinctively create a sense of tribe. As a survival mechanism, this works as a shortcut to quickly identify threats. The modern result of this function is that we often misidentify threats prematurely. Unfortunately, this prevents us from accepting potentially useful inputs and information because once a source is IDed as "other" our ability to trust it falls so low that we don't even listen. If we begin our arguments from a point of degradation and belittling, we run the risk of have ourselves immediately identified as "other" by the potential recipients. We preemptively eliminate our chances of having our ideas assimilated into the other person's internal sense of "tribe". If we start our arguments not from our turf, but from the realm of the "other" we stand a better chance of moving things.

There is a psychological underpinning to the partisanship and stalemate we see today. We've split the country into strong identity "tribes" and no one hears what the other one is saying. Breaking this will require that we give up some of the outward themes of our tribe, in order to learn and appreciate the "other". it's why liberals are so deeply sickened when they see an Open-Carry rally in Texas, and why conservatives don't listen when they see a Black Lives Matter rally on TV. Their instincts tell them that this is "Other" and not to be trusted. When I see a bunch of people with long guns threateningly rally, my stomach turns and I think "crazy people". I need to over come that instinct as ask myself (and more importantly them) why they hold that identification, and what is motivating them to this action.

 

I'm not trying to argue that all people have legitimate and wonderful reasons to hold the positions they hold, lots of positions are held purely out of fear and/or greed. My point is only that if I don't make an effort to understand those reasons, I'm not going to help change peoples beliefs. If we all do this, nothing changes.

 

During the Triangle Shirtwaist Strikes of the early progressive era, Anne Morgan (Daughter of JP) took up the cause of the nascent labor union. She was very valuable to the strikers, not simply because she provided a high profile, but because she could readily identify with the "tribe" from the other side. When hard-line socialists began infiltrating the meetings, Morgan fought back against them, noting particularly that their appeal to emotionalism would derail the movement. This act kept the strikers focused on the things they were working for, rather than allowing an "us vs them" identity war to begin.