Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[Derek 2.0]

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

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

Differences such as?

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

My opinions are formed by both retired Generals Sir David Richards and Sir Peter Wall, both having leadership roles in Northern Ireland and Iraq/Afghanistan. Both Generals applied successfully tactics and strategies developed in Ulster to the populace in Southern Iraq and Afghanistan..........Broad enough?

[Moonbox]

Differences such as?

Read back. I answered the same question for Michael.

[eyeball]

However you want to look at it, religion is one of the, if not the, biggest driver of the conflict.

No, it is merely an effect, a truly desperate one, but an effect nonetheless. It is no where near the cause you think it is. Not even close.

[eyeball]

That seems to be becoming your go-to response every time anyone says anything with which you disagree.

No it's my response to things that make no sense.

Have you considered expanding your repertoire to include sticking your tongue out and perhaps waggling your fingers in your ears?

No. Edited December 27, 2014 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

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.

The Postwar Marshall plan and the rebuilding of West Germany (and Europe as a whole) was a hegemony against Soviet expansion, likewise the decades later rearmament of West Germany........There was little doubt though in the West German populaces collective minds that the Occupation Force of the Americans, British and French controlled both the internal and external security of the nation (the same can be said with Japan)

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 ?

It very much so was the stated strategy, but said strategy was rushed and doomed to fail from its start. Starting with the Bush Administration and compounded by the Obama Administration, the American led Allies didn't desire the generational long commitment to Iraq (and soon to be Afghanistan), evident by the rushed hand-over of both security and democratic governance to the locals........

I'm of the opinion, if we as in the West are not prepared to make a commitment similar to what was (and still is) made to Germany, Japan and South Korea, post invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we (as in the West) should have handed the keys over to a "puppet", be it an Iraqi army General or a tribal warlord....and allow them a wide berth in seeking internal security of their countries.

[eyeball]

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?

To drag you kicking and screaming to this point;

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.

My problem is that your side insists on attending to the problem in the same manner by which it was created - i.e.as if everything was their fault and we're completely blameless, hence your side's endless tirade against things that are neither here nor there like Islam or tribalism.

See, here's another example of you doing that.

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.

[eyeball]

Maybe if our present policies made some mention of the little boo boo's we made fighting the Cold War they'd make a little more sense to people if not the historical record. But since they don't they just come off looking like the same old bullshit.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

The IRA received funding, weapons and training throughout Europe, North America, North Africa and the Middle East.....as such, British intelligence services efforts were global.

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.

The British leveraged the divide in Southern Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims much like they did with Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ulster.......As to "tactical squads", the ROE for the British SAS and Paras were far more "liberal" in Ulster (the allowance of Shoot-to-Kill of suspects) than Southern Iraq........There were numerous examples of both good and bad intel in both conflicts......

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.

That is incorrect, Irish nationalists differences stemmed from not only self-government, but the common political divide (East versus West) found throughout the cold war, coupled with Roman Catholic vs. Protestant tensions that spanned all the way back to Cromwell.........

[eyeball]

Oh, I think it's pretty obvious the old left right tensions in the west go back a lot farther than Cromwell - probably closer to the time a certain outraged hippy was kicking over some bankster's money table.

Edited December 27, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

My problem is that your side insists on attending to the problem in the same manner by which it was created - i.e.as if everything was their fault and we're completely blameless, hence your side's endless tirade against things that are neither here nor there like Islam or tribalism.

No, your problem is your insistence that Western created the problem as if problems didn't exist there or would not have existed otherwise, or as if Soviet Union interference would have led to a better outcome (how are things in Syria btw?). Your endless tirade against Western Imperialism and how it's to blame for all of the region's violence shows how ignorant you are of all the other problems and tension in the region.

See, here's another example of you doing that.

That was just an example of me mocking you and how virtually all of your arguments (in this thread and others) don't go much further than criticizing "the man". Whether it's Western Imperialism, corporations or some variation of greedy capitalist power-monger, your arguments generally boil down to a rant against the establishment.

[eyeball]

No, your problem is your insistence that Western created the problem as if problems didn't exist there or would not have existed otherwise,

As Derek pointed out we leveraged their problems to suit ourselves. I can't think of a more reprehensible thing to do, unless it's the manner by which w did it - pissing on our most cherished and oft stated principles and values.

or as if Soviet Union interference would have led to a better outcome (how are things in Syria btw?). Your endless tirade against Western Imperialism and how it's to blame for all of the region's violence shows how ignorant you are of all the other problems and tension in the region.

You're clearly ignorant of the dozens of times I've referred to super-power interference when underscoring the root causes of the war we're in. Let me guess, you probably think we're better than the Soviets.

That was just an example of me mocking you and how virtually all of your arguments (in this thread and others) don't go much further than criticizing "the man". Whether it's Western Imperialism, corporations or some variation of greedy capitalist power-monger, your arguments generally boil down to a rant against the establishment.

Your side's arguments are simply a celebration of that establishment and everything it's done and continues to do in our names. Your arguments disgust me.

[Moonbox]

The IRA received funding, weapons and training throughout Europe, North America, North Africa and the Middle East.....as such, British intelligence services efforts were global.

Not in any way near the same scale as the GWOT. Any way you want to look at it, it was Irish nationalists stirring crap up in Northern Ireland. Whether they received funding or training from abroad doesn't change that their goals and operations were purely Irish. The SAS wasn't fighting in Pakistan, nor were Iraqis blowing themselves up in Belfast.

The British leveraged the divide in Southern Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims much like they did with Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ulster.......As to "tactical squads", the ROE for the British SAS and Paras were far more "liberal" in Ulster (the allowance of Shoot-to-Kill of suspects) than Southern Iraq........There were numerous examples of both good and bad intel in both conflicts......

The British weren't conducting air strikes or strafing suspected PIRA convoys. The Shoot-to-Kill policies also resulted in only a handful of deaths (the vast majority being enemy agents and in cases like the Loughgall ambush while being caught in an attack). Air strikes, on the other hand, are not nearly as discriminate.

As for leveraging divides, that's a parallel you could draw with virtually every conflict ever, so it's not a really strong link. It was, however, 20x easier for British security forces to get cooperation in Northern Ireland than in Iraq because a huge portion of the population considered themselves British and/or were part of the security forces stationed there already.

That is incorrect, Irish nationalists differences stemmed from not only self-government, but the common political divide (East versus West) found throughout the cold war, coupled with Roman Catholic vs. Protestant tensions that spanned all the way back to Cromwell.........

I'll say again, the motivations, ideology, goals and resolve of the two groups couldn't have been much more different. The PIRA wasn't on a religious crusade, did not aim to murder or convert the protestant population, nor were they aiming to establish religious rule in the region and beyond. They wanted the Crown out of Northern Ireland.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

They wanted the Crown out of Northern Ireland.

Exactly like al Queada wants their distant enemy out of their lands.

[Moonbox]

As Derek pointed out we leveraged their problems to suit ourselves. I can't think of a more reprehensible thing to do, unless it's the manner by which w did it - pissing on our most cherished and oft stated principles and values.

Have you ever heard of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Of course you haven't, you live in fantasy land.

You're clearly ignorant of the dozens of times I've referred to super-power interference when underscoring the root causes of the war we're in. Let me guess, you probably think we're better than the Soviets.

Better than the Soviets? Absolutely. The tens of millions of people who were murdered within the Soviet Union alone would support that belief. The millions who died in Romania, Poland and other 'friendly' states would also lend that idea weight. Clearly you're ignorant of just who and what the Soviets were, just like you're ignorant of who and what groups like ISIS/Al-Qaeda are. With any education or knowledge of history, you'd understand that bad stuff can and often does happen when you don't intervene.

Your side's arguments are simply a celebration of that establishment and everything it's done and continues to do in our names. Your arguments disgust me.

Your arguments make me laugh. They demonstrate childish logic and juvenile oversimplification. For someone who crying about being called a terrorist sympathizer in the past, you clearly fail to see the hypocrisy in telling me I 'celebrate' western crimes.

Exactly like al Queada wants their distant enemy out of their lands.

No, al Qaeda wants to plunge the Middle East back into medieval fundamentalism and expand outwards from there. Their ideology aims to eliminate the type of nationalism we saw in Northern Ireland, along with any manner of socialism, capitalism, or alternative religion. Don't worry though, nobody expected you to actually know what you're talking about.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Not in any way near the same scale as the GWOT. Any way you want to look at it, it was Irish nationalists stirring crap up in Northern Ireland. Whether they received funding or training from abroad doesn't change that their goals and operations were purely Irish. The SAS wasn't fighting in Pakistan, nor were Iraqis blowing themselves up in Belfast.

I never suggested both conflicts were of the same size.

The British weren't conducting air strikes or strafing suspected PIRA convoys. The Shoot-to-Kill policies also resulted in only a handful of deaths (the vast majority being enemy agents and in cases like the Loughgall ambush while being caught in an attack). Air strikes, on the other hand, are not nearly as discriminate.

That to is incorrect, the British Army did make use of armed helicopters in Northern Ireland, use of tactical air power was restricted to the conflict, but then again it use was restricted in post-war Iraq due to the namely (like Ireland) urban environment.

As for leveraging divides, that's a parallel you could draw with virtually every conflict ever, so it's not a really strong link. It was, however, 20x easier for British security forces to get cooperation in Northern Ireland than in Iraq because a huge portion of the population considered themselves British and/or were part of the security forces stationed there already.

You brought it up.......but then again British loyalists are the minority in Ireland, and the majority of which aren't even Irish.......The IRA had a much more effect methods of countering British intelligence efforts then the various groups found within Iraq and Afghanistan. Likewise, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, the ability of the IRA to target the families of those they fought was far greater within Northern Ireland.

I'll say again, the motivations, ideology, goals and resolve of the two groups couldn't have been much more different. The PIRA wasn't on a religious crusade, did not aim to murder or convert the protestant population, nor were they aiming to establish religious rule in the region and beyond. They wanted the Crown out of Northern Ireland.

You understand the British Crown and the Head of the Church of England are one in the same right?

Segments within the Irish Nationalist movement very much wanted the removal (and influence) of both the Church of England and Scotland from Ireland........this of course, as mentioned dates back to the mid 1600s.

[eyeball]

Have you ever heard of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Of course you haven't, you live in fantasy land.

Ever heard that two wrongs don't make a right? Since when did our principles become fantasies? I'm afraid I didn't get that memo.

Better than the Soviets? Absolutely.

Not at all, we knew better than to behave like them and why. It's why I've said before, it's way more disgusting when a teacher, priest or other self-professed moral beacon diddles someone than when a run of the mill diddler does.

The tens of millions of people who were murdered within the Soviet Union blah blah blah

.

I've heard all these excuses before except not in any of the prefaces our governments use to justify why we have to drag our story assess into the mess created during the Cold War.

Besides which, it's really all about oil or didn't you know?

[Moonbox]

I never suggested both conflicts were of the same size.

No, but you're suggesting that the conflicts are very similar. Bringing up the size difference, along with the fact that the GWOT is engaged on a multitude of "fronts", should serve to highlight how much of a logistical, cultural and political challenge it presents. Each theatre presents unique challenges and requires different approaches, and while there are certainly similarities with each to the "Troubles", there are just as many if not more differences.

PIRA certainly offered valuable lessons for future western counter-insurgency operations, but suggesting that the same tactics and approaches will work in the Middle East is dangerous and foolish.

[Moonbox]

Ever heard that two wrongs don't make a right?

That doesn't even make sense. Making common cause with someone that shares an enemy with you isn't wrong. It's fairly basic reasoning.

Since when did our principles become fantasies? I'm afraid I didn't get that memo.

Your brutal ignorance of how people, how the economy, and how the world in general function is what helps fabricate the fantasy on which you base your screwy "principles".

Not at all, we knew better than to behave like them and why.

which is why we haven't murdered tens of millions or committed mass-genocide like the Soviets did.

I've heard all these excuses before except not in any of the prefaces our governments use to justify why we have to drag our story assess into the mess created during the Cold War.

At the time, and likely to this day, halting the advance of the Soviet Union was imminently important. You can pretend everything would have been fine without doing anything about them, but that's your fantasty-land talking, not reasonable thinking.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

No, but you're suggesting that the conflicts are very similar. Bringing up the size difference, along with the fact that the GWOT is engaged on a multitude of "fronts", should serve to highlight how much of a logistical, cultural and political challenge it presents. Each theatre presents unique challenges and requires different approaches, and while there are certainly similarities with each to the "Troubles", there are just as many if not more differences.

PIRA certainly offered valuable lessons for future western counter-insurgency operations, but suggesting that the same tactics and approaches will work in the Middle East is dangerous and foolish.

........Yet lessons from Operation Banner became the British template for modern counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, as mentioned, the similarities between the Troubles and GWOT have been cited by the leadership of the British army and the combined successes (and failures) of both campaigns are not only being taught to future generations in Sandhurst, but West Point and the IDF General Staff and Command Collage............But since you feel different, I'll leave it at that.

[eyeball]

That doesn't even make sense.

Ah I see, it was you who didn't get the memo. It was the 3rd or 4th day of kindergarten as I recall.

You must have gone to a Klingon kindergarten where they mock that sort of loser sentiment.

[eyeball]

At the time, and likely to this day, halting the advance of the Soviet Union was imminently important.

I'd sure like to see the west try and plead that in a truth and reconciliation process.

I'm pretty sure history will find it as empty of import too in the scheme of things. Especially in light of the fallout - which like every other war fought in the last 100 or so just keeps piling up like so much shit.

[Argus]

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.

People are trying to point out to you that this region has been rife with violence, war and political instability since the dawn of time. Your fantasy that absent the recent half century of western involvement it would be a veritable paradise of peace and brotherhood is sustained by zero evidence. Assuming no oil, no Israel, and no western interest the entire area would be pretty much like present day Yemen or Afghanistan. Only the incessant wars would be between and among various tribes and the various sects of Islam.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

People are trying to point out to you that this region has been rife with violence, war and political instability since the dawn of time. Your fantasy that absent the recent half century of western involvement it would be a veritable paradise of peace and brotherhood is sustained by zero evidence. Assuming no oil, no Israel, and no western interest the entire area would be pretty much like present day Yemen or Afghanistan. Only the incessant wars would be between and among various tribes and the various sects of Islam.

The inherent idea that the region is cursed with violence raises the question of why. And is the region that different from, say, Europe where such clashes continue to the present era ? It's fatalistic to think that human relationships can't be stabilized in this area, as it has been to various degrees in other areas.

[Argus]

The inherent idea that the region is cursed with violence raises the question of why. And is the region that different from, say, Europe where such clashes continue to the present era ? It's fatalistic to think that human relationships can't be stabilized in this area, as it has been to various degrees in other areas.

It's hard to say except that it seems much easier to rile people up over there than in Europe. When you think about mobs of people howling through the streets and burning and beating people to death because someone tells them some tiny newspaper in a tiny country halfway around the world they've never even heard of published a few cartoons mocking the prophet, well... who DOES that?? In Pakistan, mobs will burn down entire minority villages on the rumor someone in the village committed blasphemy. Mobs throughout the middle east killed and burned because some little-known US preacher threatened to burn a copy of the Koran. I mean, what civilized people will riot and kill based on such paltry provocation? Can you imagine a mob of Canadians rioting in the street and burning and killing because someone on the far side of the world said or did ANYTHING???

[Michael Hardner]

Can you imagine a mob of Canadians rioting in the street and burning and killing because someone on the far side of the world said or did ANYTHING???

No, but mere observation of these things doesn't help us much. If we're involved in military action in the area, it would be nice to know that there's a long-term vision for resolution too.