Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[eyeball]

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.

Yeah but it's not like there's an element of mercy or humanity to our reluctance - our torture chambers and the sorts of people we've staffed them with are testament to that.

I think it's definitely political correctness at the heart of it.

So why can't you guys elect someone with the sort of west-can-do-no-wrong take-no-prisoner ethos so routinely seen in this forum and others like it across the internet?

[eyeball]

They started it when they attacked Syria in the 7th century. It was then a Christian province of the Eastern Roman Empire.

/face palm.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah but it's not like there's an element of mercy or humanity to our reluctance - our torture chambers and the sorts of people we've staffed them with are testament to that.

I disagree, if anything our humanity has gotten to be counterproductive in fighting the GWOT.......When the Americans, British and Canadians bombed German cities, little thought was given to interruption of wedding parties or the production of baby food. Likewise, little to no German input was sought during the postwar occupation........"Hearts and minds" was a product of the 1960s and has proven itself a failed mantra....Now the fear of ones "hearts and minds" being spread across the countryside is a far more effective tool in defeating an ideology.

Don't get me wrong, widespread wanton killing of ones enemy shouldn't be engaged in lightly, but the actual terror invoked by demonstrations of its potential have been proven effective in causing a populace to "rethink" its ideologies.......

[eyeball]

I agree the humanity of the left may be holding us back but why are representatives of the right so afraid of that? Why don't they feel more empowered by the utter contempt for lefty sentiment that's so expressed around and elsewhere throughout the internet and media - often accompanied with some utterly bloodthirsty prescriptions for winning the GWOT?

Are you telling me it's too late to roll out someone like Howard Beale to whip up support for the cause and win one for the Gipper? Maybe a few more galvanizing events would help. I know I should be careful what I wish for because that's probably what'll happen alright.

[Derek 2.0]

I agree the humanity of the left may be holding us back but why are representatives of the right so afraid of that? Why don't they feel more empowered by the utter contempt for lefty sentiment that's so expressed around and elsewhere throughout the internet and media - often accompanied with some utterly bloodthirsty prescriptions for winning the GWOT?

The political "left" has committed as many (if not more) barbaric acts during wartime as the political "right"..........If one looks at the Americans, the majority of the wars in which they fought were initiated by the political "left"......With that though, no one political ideology, religion or race holds the monopoly on violence.

Are you telling me it's too late to roll out someone like Howard Beale to whip up support for the cause and win one for the Gipper? Maybe a few more galvanizing events would help. I know I should be careful what I wish for because that's probably what'll happen alright.

I have no doubt that they will, not a mater of "if", but "when"........As to further galvanization, in my opinion, that will occur once radical Islam is capable of further devastation on our own shores, so much so, dwarfing the reaction to 9/11.

[eyeball]

Ironically the Cold War struggle between left and right was the root cause of the GWOT.

More to the point though, it was the way it was waged that cocked everything up.

Edited December 27, 2014 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

Ironically the Cold War struggle between left and right was the root cause of the GWOT.

I think the varying "differences" date back decades and centuries prior to the Cold War.....tribalism is hardly new.

More to the point though, it was the way it was waged that cocked everything up.

I agree largely that the failed notion of "nation building" both extended and drained much of the political capital from the venture...........The same or better result could have been achieved by installing Western puppets in the various swamps as opposed to attempting to drain them ourselves.

[eyeball]

True, there's nothing more tribal or fundamental about the tension between right and left - it's as human a condition as it gets.

So why did we install puppets if it was such a bad idea?

For what it's worth and if it makes you feel better about it, why don't you just blame the left for forcing us to behave so badly? I mean, don't lose sight of who the victims are here.

Edited December 27, 2014 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

So why did we install puppets if it was such a bad idea?

We didn't......if we had of, and supported them, the mess that is Iraq wouldn't have taken place........a 2.0 version of this guy perhaps:

For what it's worth and if it makes you feel better about it, why don't you just blame the left for forcing us to behave so badly? I mean, don't lose sight of who the victims are here.

In some areas I do and have no qualms speaking to it.

[eyeball]

We didn't....

/face palm.

In some areas I do and have no qualms speaking to it.

So did we install them or didn't we? Please make up your mind. I mean we're only in a little obscure forum on the fringe of the internet. One right winger admitting that we did isn't going to cause the universe to fall off it's hinges.

[On Guard for Thee]

/face palm.

So did we install them or didn't we? Please make up your mind. I mean we're only in a little obscure forum on the fringe of the internet. One right winger admitting that we did isn't going to cause the universe to fall off it's hinges.

Oh but thats how rumors get started. Of course Sadam was installed. And I recall when the first general came back from his mission to uninstall him, he was asked questions by congress about it and one of their conclusions was frfom his comments was we need someone in there who can control the |Sunnis, the Shia and the norther Kurds. His reply was to the tune of well we did have a guy like that but you chose to tear his head off/

[Derek 2.0]

/face palm.

So did we install them or didn't we? Please make up your mind. I mean we're only in a little obscure forum on the fringe of the internet. One right winger admitting that we did isn't going to cause the universe to fall off it's hinges.

Sorry if I wasn't clear......in the past, we as in the West certainly installed and supported puppet regimes, that is without a doubt.......The current Iraqi Government though, the same Government that rejected a US status of forces agreement several years ago, is not a puppet......fore if it were, the Americans would have never left and ISIS would have never have been able to take root in the level that they did.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry if I wasn't clear......in the past, we as in the West certainly installed and supported puppet regimes, that is without a doubt.......The current Iraqi Government though, the same Government that rejected a US status of forces agreement several years ago, is not a puppet......fore if it were, the Americans would have never left and ISIS would have never have been able to take root in the level that they did.

Sorry but the She Ite had hit the fan long before that.

[Derek 2.0]

Sorry but the She Ite had hit the fan long before that.

Yes, I know....I said as much.

[Moonbox]

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.

There's no doubt that there are some parallels, since they're both terrorist organizations. The differences, however, are much bigger.

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

If you draw an incredibly broad and vague picture, sure.

[Michael Hardner]

Likewise, little to no German input was sought during the postwar occupation........"Hearts and minds" was a product of the 1960s and has proven itself a failed mantra....N

I find it odd that you're reaching so far back to find an example of where "Hearts and Minds" failed. For that matter, it seems to me that the victors in WW2 were eager to ensure German prosperity, to avoid the problems that happened in WW2. There was an advantage there too, in that there was less cultural dissonance between postwar Germany and the rest of Europe.

How has "Hearts and Minds" failed ? You seem to have a lot of knowledge about these things, so I'm asking with an open mind. It seems to me that an open, democratic and prosperous Iraq was the stated goal of the Bush administration, for example. How is that not a "Hearts and Minds" strategy ?

[Michael Hardner]

There's no doubt that there are some parallels, since they're both terrorist organizations. The differences, however, are much bigger.

Derek provided some surprising similarities, including overt cooperation - do you have examples of these bigger differences ?

[Argus]

/face palm.

That seems to be becoming your go-to response every time anyone says anything with which you disagree. Have you considered expanding your repertoire to include sticking your tongue out and perhaps waggling your fingers in your ears?

[Moonbox]

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.

eyeball I don't know what folks told you back in the day, but whatever you were saying at the time was probably ridiculous and you likely deserved whatever mockery was being directed at you.

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 the heck is my side? That's how the world works to you doesn't it? There's the people who agree with all of the screwy things you say, and then there's the other side. Believe it or not, but most people have the reasoning skills to take a variety of different positions on a whole host of issues. They're actually capable of moving the debate beyond garden variety anti-establishment protesting. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than the default "This is bad and it's because of Imperialism/Corporations/the Man" garbage you like to peddle.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Derek provided some surprising similarities, including overt cooperation - do you have examples of these bigger differences ?

I'm sure you and Derek can both think of a lot of them yourselves, but okay.

First, the Troubles were confined to a relatively tiny geographic area with relatively homogeneous cultures. The conflict, as you are aware, was centred in Northern Ireland, rather than being global, which simplifies things tremendously.

Second, the UK was dealing with a domestic insurgency within their own realm. As you can probably imagine, fighting a domestic insurgency is completely different. It's far, far easier to find informants and sympathizers, particularly if there is already strong/sizeable public support for the government. This entirely changes the nature of the campaign, since moving against a target usually means sending a tactical squad to make arrests rather than launching airstrikes and hoping your intel was good. Consider the repercussions of bad intel in Northern Ireland vs Iraq/Syria.

Third, the two 'conflicts' couldn't have had bigger ideological differences. Where the Troubles was almost entirely a political conflict aimed at independence and change in government, the GWOT is fighting a religious movement. The Irish nationalists were certainly guilty of some awful violence, but they had secular educations, (mostly) secular motivations and they were raised in Western morality. Motivation is an integral part of understanding a conflict, as it helps determine a group's goals, resolve, justifications and their ruthlessness.

These are just a sample of some of the differences between the two conflicts, and as far as I'm concerned they're a lot more important than the fact that they may have received some similar training or used some similar tactics.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

First, the Troubles were confined to a relatively tiny geographic area with relatively homogeneous cultures.

Second, the UK was dealing with a domestic insurgency within their own realm.

Ok. These two points may be less different if you think about the Israel situation in particular, though.

Third, the two 'conflicts' couldn't have had bigger ideological differences. Where the Troubles was almost entirely a political conflict aimed at independence and change in government, the GWOT is fighting a religious movement. The Irish nationalists were certainly guilty of some awful violence, but they had secular educations, (mostly) secular motivations and they were raised in Western morality. Motivation is an integral part of understanding a conflict, as it helps determine a group's goals, resolve, justifications and their ruthlessness.

Perhaps, but I also think that the disputes in the middle east are also about power and territory.

It's also implied that 'Western morality' was the key to resolving the dispute, yet the dispute itself arose in a Christian environment. One of the objections I have to the characterizations of such conflicts is that the 'otherness' of the oppositions religion makes them, in effect, less reasonable... less human.

[eyeball]

If you draw an incredibly broad and vague picture, sure.

His picture is so broad it places the root causes for the GWOT back in the 7th century. I've noticed an awful lot of other people on your side also go back as far.

An interesting quirk I've noticed over the years is how almost everyone else on your side restricts their picture of what's happening and why to a tiny slice of time and history that only goes back to about late Aug 2001. A few will encompass a time frame that goes back to the Ottoman Empire but virtually none will dwell on anything that happened between the 50's and 2001. It's like nothing ever happened during this period of time out if it did it was all Clinton's fault or something.

It's only when you drill for the nerve that a few will acknowledge that blowback from the Cold War or greed for oil has anything to do with anything.

It's pretty clear history starts on 9/11 for or governments otherwise we'd be seeing mention of other time frames in their rhetoric. When was the last time anyone heard a politician mention we have to right the wrongs committed back in the 7th century?

No, it seems the only one's who cite puppet dictatorships and super-power interference as being the root cause of the GWOT in the Muslim world are the CIA the terrorists and their hippy sympathizers.

[eyeball]

eyeball I don't know what folks told you back in the day, but whatever you were saying at the time was probably ridiculous and you likely deserved whatever mockery was being directed at you.

I was saying exactly the same thing you said the other day about the uselessness of the west's response following 9/11.

I'm assuming you're sticking with that story but of course I always have to allow for moving goal posts with your side.

What the heck is my side? That's how the world works to you doesn't it? There's the people who agree with all of the screwy things you say, and then there's the other side. Believe it or not, but most people have the reasoning skills to take a variety of different positions on a whole host of issues. They're actually capable of moving the debate beyond garden variety anti-establishment protesting. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than the default "This is bad and it's because of Imperialism/Corporations/the Man" garbage you like to peddle.

It works that way when I'm faced with people who constantly talk down their snooty little noses to anyone who offends them by speaking truth to power - especially in the context of the west's behavior in how it conducted itself during the Cold War and now the GWOT and when occasion merits it when doing business with shady questionable regimes.

[Moonbox]

Ok. These two points may be less different if you think about the Israel situation in particular, though.

If we were talking about Israel then yes, you're right. We're not talking about just Israel though. We're talking about a truly global conflict spanning continents and all of the different peoples that live across them.

Perhaps, but I also think that the disputes in the middle east are also about power and territory.

No doubt, but people don't strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up for that. However you want to look at it, religion is one of the, if not the, biggest driver of the conflict. That was not the case in Ireland.

It's also implied that 'Western morality' was the key to resolving the dispute, yet the dispute itself arose in a Christian environment. One of the objections I have to the characterizations of such conflicts is that the 'otherness' of the oppositions religion makes them, in effect, less reasonable... less human.

I maybe didn't explain properly, but I wasn't trying to imply anything. In terms of the resolution in Ireland it was merely meant to explain how similarities in culture make the eventual reconciliation easier.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with such conflicts is that people don't make enough of an attempt to understand how much different people can be across regions and cultures. Despite your objections, there is in a sense an otherness to some of these people. They think differently than a lot of us do because they were brought up in an entirely different environment with an entirely different set of values that simply cannot be ignored.

[Moonbox]

An interesting quirk I've noticed over the years is how almost everyone else on your side restricts their picture of what's happening and why to a tiny slice of time and history that only goes back to about late Aug 2001. A few will encompass a time frame that goes back to the Ottoman Empire but virtually none will dwell on anything that happened between the 50's and 2001. It's like nothing ever happened during this period of time out if it did it was all Clinton's fault or something.

You're bringing up a bunch of things that some other people might have said. How am I supposed to comment on that? I didn't say it's Clinton's fault. I didn't say the Iranian coup didn't happen, or that the CIA didn't supply Stinger missiles to the Afghan mujahideen. I haven't even said that the West (particularly the Americans) haven't made huge mistakes, so why on earth are you tossing out those red herrings?

Where you and I differ is that you draw a direct cause and effect relationship between western mistakes and blame them directly for the rise of ISIS etc. I paint them as huge blunders that likely made an existing problem worse, but one that nevertheless needs attention.

It works that way when I'm faced with people who constantly talk down their snooty little noses to anyone who offends them by speaking truth to power - especially in the context of the west's behavior in how it conducted itself during the Cold War and now the GWOT and when occasion merits it when doing business with shady questionable regimes.

You don't offend me, don't worry. You make me laugh. You say a lot of ridiculous stuff and that's why people look down on your gibbering.

Your personal Imperialist/Corporate bogeymen and the giant amorphous blob of evil you blame for all of the world's (and your own) problems are not reasonable bases for debate.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Moonbox