• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

There is a trait that transcends race, religion, language, nationality, and politics.

A lot of people want permission to hate and kill.

And there are always manipulators ready to use those people to do the dirty work.

What do you want a patsy to do for you?  Shoot up a nightclub?  Bomb an abortion clinic?  Release anthrax on the subway?  Vandalize all the Jewish homes and businesses in Berlin?  Just give the "OK to Hate" message to enough people who want to hear it, and they will destroy any target of your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

There's no shortage of terrorist recruits no matter what is said or not said in the US.  The people get a steady diet of anti-US propaganda from government and the clerics regardless of what gets said over here.  Obama makes "Muslim outreach" a major goal of NASA's and it means nothing.  Trump calls for blocking all Muslim refugees and it means nothing.

The Moderator: I would like to remind the people posting here that we have at least one Muslim poster here and we may have lurkers of that faith, too. This sort of reductionism is insulting to them. There are many Muslims in the world who live in countries friendly to the United States (millions of them in the US alone, for example) and to make the claim that all their clerics 'feed them anti-US propaganda' is a staggering oversimplification about as reasonable as saying that all Christians are homophobic, anti-science and against LGBT rights.

Once again, please do not descend to this particular kind of argument. Faiths are not monolith blocs led by the Borg Queen. And for that matter, terrorism is not limited to the Muslim faith. I am watching this thread closely and I truly do not wish to lock it -- but if I judge it necessary, I will.

~tOH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

The Moderator: I would like to remind the people posting here that we have at least one Muslim poster here and we may have lurkers of that faith, too. This sort of reductionism is insulting to them. There are many Muslims in the world who live in countries friendly to the United States (millions of them in the US alone, for example) and to make the claim that all their clerics 'feed them anti-US propaganda' is a staggering oversimplification about as reasonable as saying that all Christians are homophobic, anti-science and against LGBT rights.

Once again, please do not descend to this particular kind of argument. Faiths are not monolith blocs led by the Borg Queen. And for that matter, terrorism is not limited to the Muslim faith. I am watching this thread closely and I truly do not wish to lock it -- but if I judge it necessary, I will.

~tOH.

Fair point.  Apologies where and if needed.  I will make a greater effort to avoid this in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-07-13 at 10:31 PM, Vorlonagent said:

The US is not set up to handle a multiparty system well.  It's just different than the parliamentary system you guys use.  Not better or worse.

Well, i think the two-party system is rather, well, limited. It offers far too little choice for the voter. There are many voters in the US who dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans and would rather vote for some other party. But due to "First past the Post", a third-party vote is rather meaningless and such voters are instead more or less compelled to vote for "the lesser evil" among the major two parties. For them, the two-party system is certainly worse than proportional representation or instant-runoff voting, both of which allow many parties to participate in politics.

On 2016-07-13 at 10:31 PM, Vorlonagent said:

I never intended to lump you in with US Leftists.  I apologize if that impression came across.  I tried to be very clear about who I was ...and by implication who I wasn't...talking about.  I primarily know the US and did not wish to make claims beyond it.

I should apologize as well, I misunderstood you.

On 2016-07-13 at 10:31 PM, Vorlonagent said:

Blackstone's Formulation should be satisfied.  First understand that the inmates at Guantanamo are Prisoners of War, not criminals.  No enemy combatant from any war ever got civilian due process from an enemy nation.  Nor should the inmates at Guantanamo.

Alright, that is a far less frightening view. Then again....

On 2016-07-14 at 3:30 AM, Drachefly said:

PoWs who were not treated according to Geneva Convention protections for PoWs, hence their classification as 'unlawful combatants'. :|
 

Yeah, there's my problem with Guantanamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a step back to before:

 

On July 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Vorlonagent said:

Yes I do think Obama wanted (and probably still wants) to release them all. 

...

I admit that I only have one data point of real proof for the above.  Obama released 5 Guantanamo inmates in exchange for 1 US Army deserter.

 

I submit that the evidence you have provided is nowhere near adequate to the conclusions you draw. Also, there's a broad-brushed characterization of The Left, which surely isn't drawn from that one incident. Considering that we actually got something out of that trade, I'd be more convinced by his releasing prisoners in the past. But those had been approved for release by a risk assessment task force. This same risk assessment task force pointedly did not approve 65 other prisoners. I would agree that he would like to release the remaining 13 they did. I see no evidence that he would like to release the other 65.

Obama's words about his plan for those remaining:

 

Quote

we’re already holding a bunch of really dangerous terrorists here in the United States because we threw the book at them. And there have been no incidents. We’ve managed it just fine.

(in reference to whether we will be able to hold them prisoner in the USA)

And the actual plan, released 5 months ago, only mentions releasing prisoners as a thing that we need to avoid doing: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/GTMO_Closure_Plan_0216.pdf

We all need to be careful not to take stories in our heads, and treat them as facts about the world. YES, 'The Left' has a tendency to think that treating people fairly is an important step towards creating peace in the world. YES, he released some people I suppose you might not have released. That does not mean that 'people you would not release' is the same set as 'people Obama would release'. 

And in general, when someone consistently says and acts like they don't want to do something that would be in line with their general philosophical guidelines except that it's obviously really, really stupid, maybe we can allow that they won't follow those general guidelines straight off a cliff, please?

This isn't aimed specifically at VorlonAgent - I've seen plenty of people characterize all Libertarians as the 'disband all public institutions immediately' sort, despite their protests to the contrary, and anyone with issues around Abortion to be unwilling to consider any cases at all, despite their detailed statements.

Edited by Drachefly
clarifying that final message is not specifically aimed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2016 at 9:03 PM, Troacctid said:

They've voted dozens of times to repeal, defund, or otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act. Obama vetoed those bills every time they made it to his desk, so they obviously weren't collaborating with him—in fact I would consider it an excellent example of them relentlessly opposing him. Luckily for us Americans, they don't have the votes to override a veto.

And, like I said, they they turn around and say "oh, okay" and approve a new bill giving him what he wants.

Has he EVER accepted only most of what he wants? And if he did, did he ever NOT then turn around the next morning and demand the rest of what he wants?

"Compromise" means "neither of us gets everything we want, but we both get something we are willing to live with." The Republicans in Congress have "compromised" by, in the end, giving Obama everything he wants and giving their supporters NOTHING they want. Why should anyone think anything other than that said Republicans are putting on a show to hide the fact that they are on Obama's side to the maximum extent they can be while retaining their power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sweveham said:

Well, i think the two-party system is rather, well, limited. It offers far too little choice for the voter. There are many voters in the US who dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans and would rather vote for some other party. But due to "First past the Post", a third-party vote is rather meaningless and such voters are instead more or less compelled to vote for "the lesser evil" among the major two parties. For them, the two-party system is certainly worse than proportional representation or instant-runoff voting, both of which allow many parties to participate in politics.

I'm not terribly happy with either party myself.  My official Party affiliation is "Decline to State."  I am a political party consisting of just myself.  :)

While I am a strong Foreign-policy, Economic, and Small-Government Conservative, I have next to no loyalty to Social Conservatism.  And that's all Republican leaders want to talk about...or do anything about.  The upcoming US election is a great one for voting third party.
 

9 hours ago, Sweveham said:

I should apologize as well, I misunderstood you.

My track record coming off the blocks here hasn't been all that good, either.  Yesterday was my first-ever red-letter warning from The Old Hack or any moderator here.  And I've been active on the CMX boards since like 2010...

9 hours ago, Sweveham said:

Alright, that is a far less frightening view. Then again....

Quote

PoWs who were not treated according to Geneva Convention protections for PoWs, hence their classification as 'unlawful combatants'. :|

Yeah, there's my problem with Guantanamo.

President Bush tried to have his cake and eat it too.  He maintained that Guantanamo inmates were "unlawful combatants" but did generally try to treat them according to the Geneva Accords.  There was a story blurb out near the end of the Bush presidency that the average Guantanamo inmate had gained 10 lbs since being incarcerated there.

The fighters that the US captured did NOT conform to the codes of conduct prescribed by the Geneva Accords.  For example: the Accords spell out that a combatant must wear something that makes them easy to differentiate from civilians.  They wore nothing of the sort.  Being able to throw down your gun and melt into the crowd is a part of the point of being a terrorist.  There's more I can dig up if needed.  Suffice to say, they fought in civilian clothes, they fought in the midst of civilians whenever possible so as to maximize collateral casualties that could be blamed on the enemy...not exactly playing by Hoyle here.  Ergo "unlawful combatants."

The Geneva Accords do state that a nation that has signed the Accords must treat a nation that hasn't signed as if they did...BUT...the other nation has to hold up their end.  The enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Accords, to the best of my knowledge, is complimentary.  There's a code of conduct in place.  As long as the non-signatory acts accodingly (pardon the pun), the signatory side is obligated to do the same.  If one side deviates by X amount from that code the other side is given license to deviate to the same degree.  So you uphold the code because you want the other side to do the same...even if the other side didn't sign.

When you examine how inmates at Guantanamo are treated, proper context demands that you also ask how US soldiers were treated by al Queda or the Taliban, because that sets the limits the US operates under.  The US is therefore being very, very generous to the Guantanamo inmates.  Any deviation from code of conduct described in the Accords by the US is well and completely justified by the enemy conduct against US captives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

The fighters that the US captured did NOT conform to the codes of conduct prescribed by the Geneva Accords.  For example: the Accords spell out that a combatant must wear something that makes them easy to differentiate from civilians.  They wore nothing of the sort.  Being able to throw down your gun and melt into the crowd is a part of the point of being a terrorist.  There's more I can dig up if needed.  Suffice to say, they fought in civilian clothes, they fought in the midst of civilians whenever possible so as to maximize collateral casualties that could be blamed on the enemy...not exactly playing by Hoyle here.  Ergo "unlawful combatants."

We had quite a few of those in Denmark three quarters of a century ago. Only we called them 'resistance fighters.' I blame Orwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

We had quite a few of those in Denmark three quarters of a century ago. Only we called them 'resistance fighters.' I blame Orwell.

Really?  Dane Resistance Fighters routinely opened fire on nazis in the middle of a crowded street specifically to incriminate the Nazis with the Dane civilian casualties?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Drachefly said:

I submit that the evidence you have provided is nowhere near adequate to the conclusions you draw. Also, there's a broad-brushed characterization of The Left, which surely isn't drawn from that one incident. Considering that we actually got something out of that trade, I'd be more convinced by his releasing prisoners in the past. But those had been approved for release by a risk assessment task force. This same risk assessment task force pointedly did not approve 65 other prisoners. I would agree that he would like to release the remaining 13 they did. I see no evidence that he would like to release the other 65.

...So trade 1 terrorist for 1 deserter and throw in the others as a surprise bonus.  Why not trade all 18 release candidates?  Mainly because the other side wanted those 5.  Convenient that all 5 of the people wanted were release candidates...

Moreover, trading 5 known bad guys is excessive. Trading even 1 is excessive.  It establishes a "going rate" for hostages and encourages taking more hostages in order to get more bad guys released.  I'm honestly surprised that Obama hasn't made more trades save for how poorly the first one went over politically.  I would expect Obama to understand that you don't do deals like this with terrorists, but he made one anyway.  I believe he did so to show the US as "generous" be was likely taken as a sign of weakness.

Let's look at the Obama track record in the mideast.  The Apology Tour.  Turning up his nose at any support for the Green revolution in Iran.  Jet fighters to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, running guns more or less indiscriminately to anybody opposed to the Assad government in Syrian civil war, including the group that would become ISIS, and finally his Iran Deal, which Iran cheats on daily while Obama pretends not to notice.  In Conservative circles, the Obama administration is infamous for substituting bland euphemisms for phrases like "terror attack" or "radical islam", presumably to avoid offending the easily offended. 

I am aware of but not citing the "stand down" order attributed to Obama during the Bengazi attack because it's not confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.  Nor am I using Obama's ridiculous assertion that the attack on the Bengazi compound was because a protest of some anti-islamic Youtube video got out of hand.  That was a lie for the 2012 campaign, not cozying up to terroists.  Obama's finding an excuse to arrest and confine the filmmaker, however, was.

None of this is direct evidence of Obama's attitude toward the Guantanamo inmates but is evidence of his attitude towards the mideast and radical islam.  I'm building as case that Obama is following a variation of "appeasement" in dealing with the people who least like us in the mideast (and elsewhere, but save that for another day).  And appeasement is in line with my past (but admittedly unsupported) assertions about foreign policy by the US Left.

Obama's Iran Deal essentially greenlit an Iranian nuclear bomb (but attempted slow down how fast they get one) while funneling to them tens of billions of dollars of formerly frozen Iranian assets.  I have no words to adequately describe how completely inane I see Obama's agreement but I can say this: The Guantanamo inmates put together barely move the threat needle compared to a nuclear Iran.  If Obama is willing to let Iran get nukes, however slowly, why not release everybody at Guantanamo?  US internal politics is the only reason I can think of.

In fairness one has to balance the above against US drone strikes taken against some terrorist leaders and the assassination of Osama bin Laden.   I see those as nods to the  practical realities of politics inside the US.  Obama has to look tough.  He has to look like he's "doing something" about terrorism for the domestic crowd.  The majority of his emphasis and actions lie in the appeasement side of things, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Really?  Dane Resistance Fighters routinely opened fire on nazis in the middle of a crowded street specifically to incriminate the Nazis with the Dane civilian casualties?   

I am going to answer this as honestly as I can:

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Not that any war is ever pretty, but this one was really hideously ugly. Of course we had resistance fighters who tried to minimise civilian casualties. But we also had the type who said, "If they are near Nazi property, they probably had it coming anyway." The Resistance had to deal with informers and deserters and doing so in an environment where getting caught by the Gestapo could readily mean a fate that would be if not worse than death then at least incredibly painful for a while, and then death. And where getting caught could mean that they got the names of your friends out of you. People got murdered just under suspicion of being informers. Gestapo officers got liquidated and countered with more atrocities. My own uncle was a teenager who did stuff like running errands, sugaring gas tanks and spreading illegal papers. He eventually got picked up by the Gestapo and spent the rest of the war in a jail that I somehow don't think appeared in the Michelin guide.

During the first part of the war, the Resistance was small and unorganised as well as poorly equipped. It did not accomplish much. More, at the time the government collaborated with the Nazis and so they did not do much in the way of atrocities. In fact, because Danes were so close to what the Nazis fondly imagined to be racial perfection and because Denmark had been one of the nations that had been least harsh with territorial demands after WW1, Denmark was treated more like an ally than a conquered nation. Without support from the population in general and with the police at least nominally assisting the Nazis, the Resistance could and did not accomplish much.

But as time wore on, it became harder and harder for the Nazis to ignore the Resistance. They started to do atrocities to suppress it and frighten the population into subservience. As usual, it worked with some but made others more motivated to fight back. And of course atrocities begot more atrocities. The government became less cooperative. The Danish Police was rounded up in 1943, imprisoned in camps and replaced with SS and local collaborators known as Hipo, or the HilfPolizei. As you can imagine, the latter were far more interested in beating people up, having a good time and filling their own pockets than in keeping any sort of order. At that point the Resistance really started to get momentum.

I am not an apologist for atrocities but I am honestly not certain if I would have had the moral strength to keep from doing them myself if I had lived at the time. I am sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was uglier than I expected.  I honestly expected that a Dane Resistance would have always kept minimizing civilian casualties in mind when running missions. 

Al Queda's resistance to the US occupation of Iraq failed in part because they were completely heedless of civilian casualties.  You may remember al Queda invented the phrase "involuntary martyr" for the people caught in the crossfire between them and US troops to try to put a happy spin on the ones they hurt or killed with friendly fire (US troops certainly did hit civilians with gunfire, but US troops were also pretty well trained and pretty good at hitting what they were aiming at.  Al Queda's fighters were generally neither)  Over time, al Queda in Iraq lost volunteers and charity contributions, eventually having to pull out of Iraq and retrench with the Taliban in Northern Pakistan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

That was uglier than I expected.  I honestly expected that a Dane Resistance would have always kept minimizing civilian casualties in mind when running missions.

In an ideal world they would have. And it was certainly what many or even most of the people in the Resistance tried for. But even good men can wear down and when you live under constant threat of capture, torture and death, and you see that happen to your closest friends and family members, and you can not ever be certain that someone you trust won't sell you out... strange things happen to the human mind after a while.

And some people are just broken to begin with. That doesn't help, either.

In school I was taught a sanitised version that closely resembled the ideal it is so tempting to believe in or hope for. You have to dig to find the atrocities. But if you do, they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

In an ideal world they would have. And it was certainly what many or even most of the people in the Resistance tried for. But even good men can wear down and when you live under constant threat of capture, torture and death, and you see that happen to your closest friends and family members, and you can not ever be certain that someone you trust won't sell you out... strange things happen to the human mind after a while.

And some people are just broken to begin with. That doesn't help, either.

That's....Sounds depressingly expected and reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Obama's Iran Deal essentially greenlit an Iranian nuclear bomb

Iran already had all the materials and capabilities needed to build a nuclear bomb. The question was, when? Without a deal, the chances they would have been delayed as long as this deal is due to last are very poor indeed, and that chance relies on military intervention.

As for the 'track record in the mideast' paragraph - all of those claims seem very shaky to me, especially... actually, yeah, all of them.  The 'Apology Tour' was named that by Obama's political blood enemies, and if it contained any apologies, I'd like to see them. What could we possibly have done to help Green Revolution? Why would our arms sales to Egypt be canceled based on the outcome of an election?

The efforts to arm the rebels in Syria were a failure, yes, but that's because the situation on the ground and who would end up aligned with whom was very murky. Of all the weapons set aside for rebels, we actually delivered very few - a farcically small amount... and good thing, because yes, they ended up on the wrong hands. This was not due to carelessness. Had they actually been careless, it would have been far, far worse.

How does Iran cheat on the deal daily?

The 'Bland Euphemisms'? He's avoiding using the words that the enemy wants him to use! "Violent Extremism" is literally true and a strong condemnation. He condemns it plenty. He just refuses to hand the enemy a major propaganda tool.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2015/02/how_obama_thinks_about_islam_and_terrorism_why_he_chooses_his_words_so_carefully.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Drachefly said:

The 'Bland Euphemisms'? He's avoiding using the words that the enemy wants him to use! "Violent Extremism" is literally true and a strong condemnation. He condemns it plenty. He just refuses to hand the enemy a major propaganda tool.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2015/02/how_obama_thinks_about_islam_and_terrorism_why_he_chooses_his_words_so_carefully.html

Thank you for that link"  It does an excellent job of explaining why choice of language is so important in this area!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2016 at 0:19 PM, Drachefly said:

Iran already had all the materials and capabilities needed to build a nuclear bomb. The question was, when? Without a deal, the chances they would have been delayed as long as this deal is due to last are very poor indeed, and that chance relies on military intervention.

Agreed.  So why aren't we ramping up for military intervention?  The same reason France the the UK didn't ramp up to deal with Hitler in the 1930s.  Appeasement.

And I repeat: Handing Iran the ability to build a nuclear weapon is a threat that is orders of magnitude above all the inmates at Guantanamo.  Any mind that could conceive of a nuclear Iran as a good or even acceptable thing is a mind that could seriously consider releasing everybody at Guantanamo.

On 7/16/2016 at 0:19 PM, Drachefly said:

As for the 'track record in the mideast' paragraph - all of those claims seem very shaky to me, especially... actually, yeah, all of them.  The 'Apology Tour' was named that by Obama's political blood enemies, and if it contained any apologies, I'd like to see them. What could we possibly have done to help Green Revolution? Why would our arms sales to Egypt be canceled based on the outcome of an election?

I'll pull back on Apology tour.  I am usually more versed in my terms and events than that one.  Best I can find is a John Bolton quote from the time:  “Even without an express apology, there will likely be moral equivalence like: Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we bombed Hiroshima. We’re all guilty, but let’s put it behind us,” Bolton wrote in a New York Post op-ed published Thursday.

What could we have done to help the Iranian Greens?  First welcome them rather than remain aloof and neutral as Obama did.  And since the old Iran regime would not be going down without a fight, the Green would need material aid up to and including arms and ammunition to succeed.

When you ask why we would cancel and arms sale because of an election, you make an equivalence between the incoming and outgoing governments. You are saying that US interests would be equally served by going ahead with the sale to either the previous or current government.  I disagree with that.
 

On 7/16/2016 at 0:19 PM, Drachefly said:

The efforts to arm the rebels in Syria were a failure, yes, but that's because the situation on the ground and who would end up aligned with whom was very murky. Of all the weapons set aside for rebels, we actually delivered very few - a farcically small amount... and good thing, because yes, they ended up on the wrong hands. This was not due to carelessness. Had they actually been careless, it would have been far, far worse.

I'm not sure anybody is in a good position to publicly account for US weapons ISIS got from the Iraqi armory and US weapons they might have gotten directly from the US.

Reminder: Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq, setting the stage for ISIS.  (I am not saying that Obama knowingly set the state for ISIS specifically, but US troops were what put the spine in Iraq's national defense and Obama pulled them out with great fanfare about leaving behind a safe and stable Iraq)

On 7/16/2016 at 0:19 PM, Drachefly said:

How does Iran cheat on the deal daily?

http://www.newsweek.com/why-obama-ignoring-iran-cheating-nuke-deal-479689

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2016 at 1:38 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Thank you for that link"  It does an excellent job of explaining why choice of language is so important in this area!

1. Today’s terrorism is overwhelmingly Muslim, and its roots pervade the Muslim world

Agreed here.  That simply means specificity is in order.  "Radical Islam" is a very specific term that the Obama Administration doesn't seem to use much.

2. Our enemies want us to associate them with Islam.

3. We must choose our language to thwart the enemy’s strategy

I think this overstates how much radical islam cares about what we think.

4. The links between Islam and terrorism are partial, manufactured, and severable.

No they're not.  Not in the sense of these groups ever having been or ever being secular or extra-religious.   Islamic terrorism is a creature born of ultra-conservative Islamic teachings.  Sunni terroists are usually Wahabbists. 

We might get the mainstream to disown them perhaps, but the beast must be named and named properly: "Radical Islam".  This is their monster.

5. The president should bend over backward not to call out Muslims for terrorism.

Not convinced by the author's reasoning.  Obama may know what he's doing, but that doesn't mean that he's doing something sensible.

6. The enemy isn’t Islam or religion. The enemy is religious violence.

The proper term of this is "muddying the waters"  There is a specific and defined enemy whose handiwork is found in a whole bunch of places.  Its name is "Radical Islam" and its functionaries recently drove a truck through French Bastille Day celebrants.

7. We should talk about Muslim victims of terrorism.

8. We should talk about Muslims who fight terrorism.

Of course we should.

10. The rest of us need the help of Western Muslims

Of course we do. 

"Radical Islam" calls out both who the problem is and who it isn't.  These were questions that were dealt with since the early days post 9/11.  This guy writes as if that all never happened.  It's obvious to anybody who cares that the US has no gripe with muslims in general but a certain group in particular so the "walking on eggshells" act is unnecessary.

This whole article seems predicated on the idea that words speak louder than actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 18, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Vorlonagent said:

Agreed.  So why aren't we ramping up for military intervention?

Be...cause... we're already easily strong enough? What would a ramp up look like? Going from around 20 times stronger than they are to... 22 times stronger? You don't need to tell me that nukes would be more dangerous than individual terrorists in Guantanamo. That's kind of obvious.

As for the 'green revolution' it was election protests, it was cracked down on effectively in under a week. We never had the time to gauge how actually aligned with our interests they were, how likely they were to attempt violence with or without our assistance, how likely they  - as a whole not the most eager elements - would be to accept our assistance, who to give such assistance to, etc. The most we could have done is make speeches that would be obviously, blatantly, interference in internal politics of a sovereign state. This could only go badly.

As for Egypt - The army remained secular, and is what had control of the weapons. And then they kicked out the Muslim Brotherhood about 18 months later. The civilian government had not done anything particularly bad with those weapons in the mean time. And this was predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2016 at 7:35 AM, Drachefly said:

Be...cause... we're already easily strong enough? What would a ramp up look like? Going from around 20 times stronger than they are to... 22 times stronger? You don't need to tell me that nukes would be more dangerous than individual terrorists in Guantanamo. That's kind of obvious.

The ramp-up I'm referring to is getting our military hardware and people where they need to be in order to start the job.  It takes time to prepare an invasion.  I can hit the highlights for you but suffice to say it would be where the saying "Amateurs study tactics.  Generals study logistics" comes from.

 

On 7/20/2016 at 7:35 AM, Drachefly said:

As for the 'green revolution' it was election protests, it was cracked down on effectively in under a week. We never had the time to gauge how actually aligned with our interests they were, how likely they were to attempt violence with or without our assistance, how likely they  - as a whole not the most eager elements - would be to accept our assistance, who to give such assistance to, etc. The most we could have done is make speeches that would be obviously, blatantly, interference in internal politics of a sovereign state. This could only go badly.

It did go badly...For the Greens.

 

On 7/20/2016 at 7:35 AM, Drachefly said:

As for Egypt - The army remained secular, and is what had control of the weapons. And then they kicked out the Muslim Brotherhood about 18 months later. The civilian government had not done anything particularly bad with those weapons in the mean time. And this was predictable.

Who predicted it? 

Who said, "Hey, no problem sending weapons to the radical islamists running Egypt now.  They (the radical islamists) will be out of power before they can use them, guaranteed."  That's a great way to put a bunch of weapons in the hands of people like ISIS.

Of course the Islamic Brotherhood didn't do much with their American goodies.  They didn't have time.  They were figuring out how to put a government together (something else that takes time), most importantly how to personally profit from said government.  They tried to take some of the more lucrative bits of corruption away from the military, who shut them down instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2016 at 5:00 PM, Vorlonagent said:

1. Today’s terrorism is overwhelmingly Muslim, and its roots pervade the Muslim world

Agreed here.  That simply means specificity is in order.  "Radical Islam" is a very specific term that the Obama Administration doesn't seem to use much.

2. Our enemies want us to associate them with Islam.

3. We must choose our language to thwart the enemy’s strategy

I think this overstates how much radical islam cares about what we think.

4. The links between Islam and terrorism are partial, manufactured, and severable.

No they're not.  Not in the sense of these groups ever having been or ever being secular or extra-religious.   Islamic terrorism is a creature born of ultra-conservative Islamic teachings.  Sunni terroists are usually Wahabbists. 

We might get the mainstream to disown them perhaps, but the beast must be named and named properly: "Radical Islam".  This is their monster.

5. The president should bend over backward not to call out Muslims for terrorism.

Not convinced by the author's reasoning.  Obama may know what he's doing, but that doesn't mean that he's doing something sensible.

6. The enemy isn’t Islam or religion. The enemy is religious violence.

The proper term of this is "muddying the waters"  There is a specific and defined enemy whose handiwork is found in a whole bunch of places.  Its name is "Radical Islam" and its functionaries recently drove a truck through French Bastille Day celebrants.

7. We should talk about Muslim victims of terrorism.

8. We should talk about Muslims who fight terrorism.

Of course we should.

10. The rest of us need the help of Western Muslims

Of course we do. 

"Radical Islam" calls out both who the problem is and who it isn't.  These were questions that were dealt with since the early days post 9/11.  This guy writes as if that all never happened.  It's obvious to anybody who cares that the US has no gripe with muslims in general but a certain group in particular so the "walking on eggshells" act is unnecessary.

This whole article seems predicated on the idea that words speak louder than actions. 

1. I would say predominantly. Foreign terrorism is committed by Radicals in the name of Islam a vast majority of the time. A large number of our domestic terrorists are centered around hate of minorities, hate of the LBGTQA community, hate of political ideology, hate of immigrants, etc. and are every bit as willing to use violence and intimidation.

4. Some are some are not. Radical islamic terrorism is a real and very dangerous problem but there are parties who capitalize to push their own agendas of hate, fear, and politics. The Idea all muslims are terrorists is patently false and yet it is brought out over and over and over again. Some policies push have deliberate provocative effects to them. While not implementing those policies won't stop those who hate us from continuing to do so it does reduce the ammo they can use to recruit more members.

5. No the president should not but they should make a clear distinction between terrorists operating in the name of Islam and Muslims. That is a legitimate distinction.

6. Given of of the acts of domestic terrorism, I actually feel the author got that spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

The ramp-up I'm referring to is getting our military hardware and people where they need to be in order to start the job.  It takes time to prepare an invasion.  I can hit the highlights for you but suffice to say it would be where the saying "Amateurs study tactics.  Generals study logistics" comes from.

I said military action, not an outright invasion. When Israel hit them before, it didn't take an outright invasion. Stuxnet didn't either. If they begin building sufficiently underground to house these facilities in a bomb-proof fashion -- that is also a slow process, slower than it takes to prepare an invasion.

 

As for the greens, what you said is completely irrelevant. I just acknowledged that it went badly for them. Nothing we could have done would have made it any better.

 

As for Egypt, there was a strong separation of military and government. The military remained secular, and was visibly non-cooperative with the Muslim Brotherhood. So, your glib characterization of the decision as "Hey, no problem sending weapons to the radical islamists running Egypt now.  They (the radical islamists) will be out of power before they can use them, guaranteed." falls to pieces in the first sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PSadlon said:

1. I would say predominantly. Foreign terrorism is committed by Radicals in the name of Islam a vast majority of the time. A large number of our domestic terrorists are centered around hate of minorities, hate of the LBGTQA community, hate of political ideology, hate of immigrants, etc. and are every bit as willing to use violence and intimidation.

4. Some are some are not. Radical islamic terrorism is a real and very dangerous problem but there are parties who capitalize to push their own agendas of hate, fear, and politics. The Idea all muslims are terrorists is patently false and yet it is brought out over and over and over again. Some policies push have deliberate provocative effects to them. While not implementing those policies won't stop those who hate us from continuing to do so it does reduce the ammo they can use to recruit more members.

5. No the president should not but they should make a clear distinction between terrorists operating in the name of Islam and Muslims. That is a legitimate distinction.

6. Given of of the acts of domestic terrorism, I actually feel the author got that spot on.

1, 4:
It's important not to muddy the waters here.  Islamic terrorism is a thing.  It's a phenomenon.  It has unique in goals (and some methods) from other forms of terrorism and political violence we may observe or experience.  We're focused on Islamic terrorism at the moment. 

5.
I agree.  So why was the Obama administration so reluctant to admit islamic terrorism is islamic (or sometimes is terrorism)?  The people killed in the Florida nightclub were killed by radical islamists and it was an act of terror.  Both government and the news media initially tried to ignore the "islamic terror" part and tried to change the topic to gun control.

6.
I disagree, because religious intolerance isn't a focused thing.  All religions compete to some degree so all are a little bit guilty of this, save possibly some of the far east faiths which are awfully laid back about belonging to multiple faiths besides theirs. 

The author also commits the sin of equivalence.  When you lump all acts of religious intolerance together, harshness of the individual acts of intolerance are de-emphasized.  That's why I say "muddying the waters."  Radical islam distinguishes itself in the degree it is willing to do harm.  It merits being called out on that.

So again I ask, why does our president and media bend over backwards to avoid talking about the elephant in the room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

So again I ask, why does our president and media bend over backwards to avoid talking about the elephant in the room?

Because it would actively hinder our objectives to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drachefly said:

I said military action, not an outright invasion. When Israel hit them before, it didn't take an outright invasion. Stuxnet didn't either. If they begin building sufficiently underground to house these facilities in a bomb-proof fashion -- that is also a slow process, slower than it takes to prepare an invasion.

 

As for the greens, what you said is completely irrelevant. I just acknowledged that it went badly for them. Nothing we could have done would have made it any better.

 

As for Egypt, there was a strong separation of military and government. The military remained secular, and was visibly non-cooperative with the Muslim Brotherhood. So, your glib characterization of the decision as "Hey, no problem sending weapons to the radical islamists running Egypt now.  They (the radical islamists) will be out of power before they can use them, guaranteed." falls to pieces in the first sentence.

What military action against Iran were you thinking of then?

I think if we'd given the Iranian Greens the help they needed to stand their ground, it might have made a big difference.

Who was supposed to be running Egypt?  The Islamic Brotherhood or the Egyptian military?  The Islamic brotherhood.  Their goals and allegiances were in line with radical islam.  Are you really saying the US could absolutely count on the military to block any support for radical islam that the civilian government might want to give?  Because I'm not buying it if you are.  The military moved against the civilian government over power and the spoils of corruption, not any sort of principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now