Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

GostHacked · December 22, 2014

No, sorry. Semantics don't save you from your own ridiculousness. If I said, "Stephen Harper may be preparing an invasion of the USA," the use of the word may does not make the statement any less stupid. Regardless, at another point you said:

But when you use the word may, you are speculating. I won't assume you actually believe it.

so your embarrass yourself not just with your poor reasoning, but also with your poor memory and lack of conviction/honesty about what you already said. We don't need much more evidence that you're just blathering nonsense.

I've embarrassed myself here way more than you have combined posts.

So when girls in Afghanistan/Pakistan etc get acid poured on their faces for attempting to get an education, you're saying that this is because of western meddling? That's beyond absurd. That shows a remarkable level of ignorance.

No, and again reading comprehension is key. I said the reasons for the attacks of 9/11 were for the constant meddling in those areas over decades. Even Osama Bin Laden had stated that those were the reasons for the attacks on 9/11. Girls getting acid thrown in their faces is f'n barbaric. No sense in mincing the words there. I agree it's terrible. But I did not say that the acid throwing is a reaction to the actions of the west. Attacks on western infrastructure and citizens is a response to that meddling. The Taliban injuring girls is not an attack on our freedoms. It is an attack on THEIR rights and freedoms. These extremist idiots don't want anyone to have freedom or any kind of rights. They don't care for girls to have education, no matter if the US or China were trying to implement it.

Moonbox · December 22, 2014

But when you use the word may, you are speculating. I won't assume you actually believe it.

It doesn't matter. It's still completely absurd. The formal semantics of your wording don't make it any less so. There is such a thing as reasonable and unreasonable speculation. Saying "I may be a vampire" isn't any less stupid than "I am a vampire."

I've embarrassed myself here way more than you have combined posts.

Sadly I don't doubt that. Spend more time thinking and reading about the world and that might change.

No, and again reading comprehension is key. I said the reasons for the attacks of 9/11 were for the constant meddling in those areas over decades.

You really need to keep better track of what you say:

The US IS friendly towards ISIS/Al-Queda. They are the ones really responsible for all of this in conjunction with Saudi Arabia.

You blamed the US for ISIS. Nobody was ever arguing that Al-Qaeda didn't feel they had reasons to attack the World Trade Center.

It is an attack on THEIR rights and freedoms. These extremist idiots don't want anyone to have freedom or any kind of rights. They don't care for girls to have education, no matter if the US or China were trying to implement it.

So if Al-Qaeda are murdering and mutilating people for reasons as lousy as that, how can you not suggest they don't have similar aims for the rest of the world, or that it isn't a worthy goal to stop them?

dre · December 22, 2014

You blamed the US for ISIS.

The US deserves a whole lot of the blame for the emergence of ISIS. They would not exist without the ill-fated and poorly thought out invasion of Iraq. They are a direct result of American policy which put Iraq in control of Iranian backed Shia... The Sunnis didnt like it... and thats why we have ISIL today.

So if Al-Qaeda are murdering and mutilating people for reasons as lousy as that, how can you not suggest they don't have similar aims for the rest of the world, or that it isn't a worthy goal to stop them?

It would be nice to stop them! But thats not what we are doing... The west has wasted 5 trillion dollars on the failed GWOT, and all we have done is make the problem bigger. If anything we have played right into their hands.

Global terrorism was actually in sharp decline until the failed GWOT was launched....

Terrorism in Africa was actually in sharp decline until the failed GWOT was launched....

Terrorism in Asia was actually in sharp decline until the failed GWOT was launched....

Terrorism in the Middle East was actually in sharp decline until the failed GWOT was launched....

Terrorism in Iraq....

Terrorism in the Afghanistan....

The policies people like you have been advocating are quite possibly the DUMBEST THING EVER DONE IN HUMAN HISTORY. Insanely expensive (most expensive project in history of human race). Insanely unproductive (has made problem much much worse). By EVERY OBJECTIVE MEASURE its been an abject failure. EVERY OBJECTIVE MEASURE the policies GWOT supporters propose are fundamentally stupid and by EVERY OBJECT MEASURE everything they have tried has been an abject, miserable, failure of epic proportions.

Edited December 22, 2014 by dre

Moonbox · December 22, 2014

No that statement would be completely stupid.

This statement does/could have some validity....It could be that Saudi Arabia and Jordan are already friendly to these ISIS/Al Queda types

The first one is just idiotic.

There's no doubt that there are elements within Saudi Arabia that support Islamic militancy. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis and most of ISIS's funding (by most accounts) comes from SA or Gulf states. Saudia Arabia's former head of Intelligence, Prince Bandar, was dismissed last summer and probably because of this.

That being said, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are currently engaged in an air campaign against ISIS and are heavily cracking down on local supporters/sympathizers within their own countries. Saying that they're friendly with them, therefore, is pretty dumb.

Moonbox · December 22, 2014

The US deserves a whole lot of the blame for the emergence of ISIS. They would not exist without the ill-fated and poorly thought out invasion of Iraq. They are a direct result of American policy which put Iraq in control of Iranian backed Shia... The Sunnis didnt like it... and thats why we have ISIL today.

I can agree with a lot of that. My biggest point of criticism has always been their complete betrayal of the Shia in the first Gulf War, where they incited tens of thousands of Shia in revolt against Saddam and then abandoned them when he surrendered and backed out of Kuwait. Saddam murdered literally hundreds of thousands of his own people, however, so it's hardly as if things were grand before the (second) US invasion. He needed to go. That said, the Americans clearly didn't have a clue how to handle the sectarian divide in Iraq, and the idea of Iraqi Kurds, Shia and Sunni's cooperating in government was preposterous. The violence among these groups is not at all a new thing. It's been happening for centuries and only a strong central government or imperial rule has ever managed to curb it.

It would be nice to stop them! But thats not what we are doing... The west has wasted 5 trillion dollars on the failed GWOT, and all we have done is make the problem bigger. If anything we have played right into their hands.

The end result of any war is generally disastrous. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but you could say pretty much the same thing about WW2. Millions were dead and the were participants heavily indebted. The end result was the Cold War and an equally vicious regime in control of Eastern Europe. You could say the West played into Stalin's hands...

At the time, however, the Germans appeared to be the real enemy and it was inconceivable that they shouldn't be stopped. So it is with ISIS and so it was with Saddam.

Moonbox · December 23, 2014

Global terrorism was actually in sharp decline until the failed GWOT was launched....

the policies GWOT supporters propose are fundamentally stupid and by EVERY OBJECT MEASURE everything they have tried has been an abject, miserable, failure of epic proportions.

Your charts don't even qualify as citations. I could quickly doodle something showing the opposite and link it to a blog as well. There's no mention of the source, no defined methodology and no explanation of what constitutes a terror attack. Give us something with some substance and we can review it.

Argus · December 23, 2014

I am just going with what the talking heads in media and government were saying right after the 9/11 attacks. Bush said they hated us for our freedoms. Was Bush wrong in saying that? We know damn well they don't hate us for our freedoms.

Yes, they do hate us for our freedoms. These are people who blow up girls schools and shoot girls for not hiding themselves in sheets. You don't think they hate that we educate girls and let them wear miniskirts? You don't think they look at a gay pride parade in the west with their blood boiling and their trigger fingers itching? Of course they hate us, for all sorts of socially regressive, 12th century mentality reasons. We're a society of Satan spawned sinners to them!

eyeball · December 23, 2014

The violence among these groups is not at all a new thing. It's been happening for centuries and only a strong central government or imperial rule has ever managed to curb it.

The worst of the violence in modern times has been happening because a bunch of power hungry governments and greedy capitalists are always stirring up the shit amongst these groups. Curbing that is what we need to do. The sort of geo-political vandalism that's at the root cause of so much of today's violence and dysfunction in the region should be considered one of the worst crimes against humanity that can be committed - barely a notch below Hitler's as far as I'm concerned...since you insist on invoking his name.

Edited December 23, 2014 by eyeball

Moonbox · December 23, 2014

The worst of the violence in modern times has been happening because a bunch of power hungry governments and greedy capitalists are always stirring up the shit amongst these groups.

That's what you'd like to believe, but it's only because capitalism is the bogeyman on which you've chosen to blame all of the world's (and your own) failings . The fact that this sort of sectarian violence (and worse) is a consistent theme throughout the region's history would suggest you're way off base, but facts and history don't seem to matter much to you.

eyeball · December 23, 2014

That's what you'd like to believe, but it's only because capitalism is the bogeyman on which you've chosen to blame all of the world's (and your own) failings . The fact that this sort of sectarian violence (and worse) is a consistent theme throughout the region's history would suggest you're way off base, but facts and history don't seem to matter much to you.

Wait a minute, you said just 1 page back that the Yazidi, Kurds, Assyrians, South-Sudanese, Mali and others have all been victim to the sort of barbarism we haven't seen since the Middle Ages. Now you're saying it's a consistent theme. You flit about history and reality with all the abandon of a hummingbird on LSD. The fact is these people's like many around the world, were leaving their violent past behind them but oil, greed and geo-politics of other regions in the world intruded upon, interfered with and arrested the development of peace and stability to the point it's now turning the clock back - to the Middle Ages according to you.

History suggests capitalism is just a thing and it's what people do with it that counts. To paraphrase you; I have no problem with capitalism. I have problems with vicious idiots using it as a basis for getting stinking rich and powerful. The reason you choose to absolve the west and it's brand of capitalism of any complicity in building the charnel house known as the ME is probably more related to your stock portfolio than anything.

Moonbox · December 24, 2014

Wait a minute, you said just 1 page back that the Yazidi, Kurds, Assyrians, South-Sudanese, Mali and others have all been victim to the sort of barbarism we haven't seen since the Middle Ages.

Now you're saying it's a consistent theme. You flit about history and reality with all the abandon of a hummingbird on LSD.

Sectarian violence is a consistent theme for the region going back 1000+ years. Are you saying it's not? Regardless, the level of barbarism we see from ISIS is something that even Al-Qaeda denounces. In order to avoid confusing you, perhaps I should have said, "Middle-Age style barbarism" instead. Whatever my phrasing, the basic point remains the same. These are not peaceful and happy places when left to their own devices, nor have they ever been.

The fact is these people's like many around the world, were leaving their violent past behind them but oil, greed and geo-politics of other regions in the world intruded upon, interfered with and arrested the development of peace and stability to the point it's now turning the clock back

Unfortunately it's a terrible assumption that peace and stability would have reigned without western interference, or that modern secular governments would have developed without it. While there are unfortunately examples of the western political interference (like the Iranian Shah as one of the worst and most obvious examples) making things worse, we have far too many examples showing that secularism and tolerance are incredibly unlikely outcomes regardless.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Moonbox

Argus · December 24, 2014

Wait a minute, you said just 1 page back that the Yazidi, Kurds, Assyrians, South-Sudanese, Mali and others have all been victim to the sort of barbarism we haven't seen since the Middle Ages. Now you're saying it's a consistent theme.

It has been a consistent theme throughout Muslim history. Just look at what the Ottomans did to the Armenians a hundred years ago. Or how the Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish governments have treated the Kurds over the years.

The fact is these people's like many around the world, were leaving their violent past behind them but oil, greed and geo-politics of other regions in the world intruded upon, interfered with and arrested the development of peace and stability to the point it's now turning the clock back - to the Middle Ages according to you.

That's an interesting version of 'fact' you've got there. The only actual change is that the brutal dictatorships which kept such behaviour in check has faltered. Leaving their violent past behind? Absolutely no evidence of that. And if you want to know who has been behind the resurgence of religious fanaticism don't look to the US, look to Saudi Arabia.

Moonbox · December 24, 2014

It has been a consistent theme throughout Muslim history. Just look at what the Ottomans did to the Armenians a hundred years ago. Or how the Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish governments have treated the Kurds over the years.

To be fair it has happened in recent European history as well. The funny thing is that people don't/didn't really object to intervention against those regimes, yet for some reason moving against ISIS or jihadists in Mali etc is a completely different story.

dre · December 24, 2014

Your charts don't even qualify as citations. I could quickly doodle something showing the opposite and link it to a blog as well. There's no mention of the source, no defined methodology and no explanation of what constitutes a terror attack. Give us something with some substance and we can review it.

The graphs are plots of START data.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

In any case... NOBODY believes the GWOT is working. Even western intelligence agencies say its made things worse.

Moonbox · December 25, 2014

The graphs are plots of START data.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

START was only established in 2005, and the GTD appears to be established from even later. The "plots of data" as you call them, aren't even close to reliable, as the terminology, methodology and record-keeping of 'terrorism' were all only vaguely established prior to the turn of the century. The graphs you presented, therefore, are enormously misleading.

In any case... NOBODY believes the GWOT is working. Even western intelligence agencies say its made things worse.

The Global War on Terrorism was conceptually stupid from the start. Terrorism is a tactic, so waging a war against a tactic is just ridiculous. When that's what (not even who) you're waging war against, it's impossible to clearly set goals, measure effectiveness or even define who and what it is you're fighting. So yes, the GWOT is stupid, as were many of its missions (particularly Afghanistan), but you make some fairly giant leaps in logic to determine that ISIS should be ignored and/or was the result of the GWOT. It's not that simple.

eyeball · December 25, 2014

Just how complicated do you actually think it is?

I have to say it's pretty funny imagining you being against the invasion of Afghanistan and the GWOT right from the get go. Maybe you were thinking with your heart in those days.

Derek 2.0 · December 25, 2014

The Global War on Terrorism was conceptually stupid from the start. Terrorism is a tactic, so waging a war against a tactic is just ridiculous. When that's what (not even who) you're waging war against, it's impossible to clearly set goals, measure effectiveness or even define who and what it is you're fighting. So yes, the GWOT is stupid, as were many of its missions (particularly Afghanistan), but you make some fairly giant leaps in logic to determine that ISIS should be ignored and/or was the result of the GWOT. It's not that simple.

I beg to differ....to quote the stated goals of the IRA:

Our strategy is that through the effective use of guerilla warfare, and through continually maintaining an effective fighting force, we will eventually sap the political will of the British government to remain in Ireland

Of course the British are still in Northern Ireland and the PIRA have halted their "guerilla war" aimed at creating a United Ireland.......The British brought about a ceasefire with the PIRA/Sinn Fein by being as nasty (in some cases more so) then the "terrorists", in effect, sapping the political will of those that supported the terrorists themselves........Hearts and Minds fans need not apply.

In essence, the West started fighting the GWOT with kid gloves.......and that be were many of the initial problems derived from.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Derek 2.0

Moonbox · December 25, 2014

Derek what are you disagreeing with me about? The situation in Northern Ireland was mostly resolved long before the "Global War on Terror". In your example, the British were fighting the IRA. The campaign was fairly well-defined.

Derek 2.0 · December 26, 2014

Derek what are you disagreeing with me about? The situation in Northern Ireland was mostly resolved long before the "Global War on Terror". In your example, the British were fighting the IRA. The campaign was fairly well-defined.

The British fought various cells of the PIRA (that all shared a common goal), much like the West is fighting radical Islam.....both sides with defined overall objectives....The difference, and my disagreement with your statement, is that fighting such groups is not "stupid", but differing approaches used can be (and were) mistaken, but like the British, initial mistakes made does not define the overall objective nor the morality in combating such aggression.

Moonbox · December 26, 2014

The British fought various cells of the PIRA (that all shared a common goal), much like the West is fighting radical Islam.....both sides with defined overall objectives....

There's a HUGE difference between the North Ireland liberation movement and radical Islamic militancy. In terms of goals, scale/scope, ideology, methods etc, the two issues could hardly be more different.

The difference, and my disagreement with your statement, is that fighting such groups is not "stupid", but differing approaches used can be (and were) mistaken, but like the British, initial mistakes made does not define the overall objective nor the morality in combating such aggression.

I didn't say fighting the groups was stupid. I said that calling it a "War on Terror" was foolish, dangerous rhetoric that did little but sound good to the public (at the time). Realistically, the term has done nothing but blur the parameters of the conflict(s) and confuse people. Terror, as has been explained already, is not a defined enemy. It's an emotion, or in this case a set of tactics aimed at provoking that emotion. The GWOT, by definition, is a campaign aimed to fight a tactic. It has no beginning or end and its goals and scope are intentionally vague.

Derek 2.0 · December 26, 2014

There's a HUGE difference between the North Ireland liberation movement and radical Islamic militancy. In terms of goals, scale/scope, ideology, methods etc, the two issues could hardly be more different.

Actually, the two were quite the same, so much so, that both the IRA and radical Islamist received training by not only the same people (the Soviets and Middle Eastern despots), but in the very same camps.........

The parallels between the two, including both the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been acknowledged by leadership of the British army, that of course has had direct experience with the two.

I didn't say fighting the groups was stupid. I said that calling it a "War on Terror" was foolish, dangerous rhetoric that did little but sound good to the public (at the time). Realistically, the term has done nothing but blur the parameters of the conflict(s) and confuse people. Terror, as has been explained already, is not a defined enemy. It's an emotion, or in this case a set of tactics aimed at provoking that emotion. The GWOT, by definition, is a campaign aimed to fight a tactic. It has no beginning or end and its goals and scope are intentionally vague.

Simply replace GWOT with the Troubles and the two intersect quite clearly......

Edited December 26, 2014 by Derek 2.0

eyeball · December 26, 2014

I said that calling it a "War on Terror" was foolish, dangerous rhetoric that did little but sound good to the public (at the time). Realistically, the term has done nothing but blur the parameters of the conflict(s) and confuse people. Terror, as has been explained already, is not a defined enemy. It's an emotion, or in this case a set of tactics aimed at provoking that emotion. The GWOT, by definition, is a campaign aimed to fight a tactic.

Am I to believe the WOT rhetoric didn't sound like Mother's milk to you at the time? I recall being branded a terrorist sympathizer by folks like you back in the day whenever I tried to point what you just said. There was definitely nothing vague about who was what.

It has no beginning or end and its goals and scope are intentionally vague.

Of course it had a beginning. You're intentionally refusing to acknowledge that because we started it. What your side needs to do is own that - take some pride in it for Christ's sake. What's with you guys anyway, are you trying to tread some politically correct line or are you afraid history will give a shit? I have to say there's really nothing more pathetic than a reluctant imperialist. It probably just pisses the terrorists off even more.

Derek 2.0 · December 26, 2014

Of course it had a beginning. You're intentionally refusing to acknowledge that because we started it. What your side needs to do is own that - take some pride in it for Christ's sake. What's with you guys anyway, are you trying to tread some politically correct line or are you afraid history will give a shit? I have to say there's really nothing more pathetic than a reluctant imperialist. It probably just pisses the terrorists off even more.

And there is without a doubt an element of truth in the political reluctance of most Democratic Western Governments to bring "real war" against radical Islam, be it through direct action or proxy.