Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Chatter / Re: Meanwhile in Pikeville KY Today
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 07:18:50 PM »
A live 2 hour video of the event.

http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?page_id=216
12
And only recently as a direct result of our past and present intervention in their countries. The problem for them is that they can't get enough of their fellow Muslims on board with their tyrannical goals because they terrorize their own country men who disagree with their plans for global hegemony even more than they terrorize the wicked witch of the west.

No, not only recently - the notion of an Islamic caliphate goes back to the seventh century. In the 100+ years following Muhammad's founding of Islam, the caliphate expanded its reach from Spain, Portugal, and the northwestern coast of Africa, all the way to Pakistan. Islam's political influence had waxed and waned in the years since, but this idea of Islam forcefully extending its reach to the farthest corners of the Earth is not a new one.

They certainly have tried and succeeded in many ways, but they are not the only ones. Whatever happened to Rome? Napoleon? Genghis khan? The Soviet Union? Germany? America?

Quote
Then again, I don't see why it matters when the idea was introduced, or why. It's a terrible idea, and it needs to be confronted.


Yes but not with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

Quote
This speaks to a different point - even if I conceded that U.S. foreign policy was 100% responsible for the threat of terrorism we now face (FTR, I don't concede this at all), we still face the threat, and it needs to be eliminated.

It can not be eliminated by bombing civilian populations. It is impossible to eliminate all threats. What is possible is taking steps to reduce the incentive to attack an oppressor when the oppressor stops oppressing. 

Quote
Even if you say that the War on Terror is nothing but our chickens coming home to roost, it doesn't change what has to happen now. At best, it would be a lesson for what not to do in the future (and I'm happy to grant, a lesson well worth learning).

What has to happen now is that we need to stop killing civilians and stop trying to dictate, with brutal force, to the Middle East how we think they should live there lives. There are a hundred million Muslims who are sick of the violence perpetrated against them by both the US and by militant jihadists. Or, I guess we could turn the whole Middle East into a giant bowl of glass. That's always an option for people of faith to consider. After all the women and children and men are dead we can take a break and finally admit that we fucked up, but only once the threat has been eliminated. Then we could reflect upon how things would have been different if only they had just acquiesced to our will and superior firepower.

Quote
If one person in a crowd of 100 detonates a suicide vest, it would be mathematically correct to say that only a small minority of people in that crowd are suicidal terrorists. But the fact that the small minority is willing to engage in suicidal terrorism and kill innocent people indiscriminately, makes it a unique threat. Also, there's a mistaken perception that if jihadists represents a small minority of Muslims (or people in general), then the vast majority must be actively engaged in stopping them. This is untrue. The vast majority of Muslims/people either support jihadists (without engaging in jihad themselves), don't support it but don't confront it (perhaps because they're worried about being murdered), or are basically disengaged from the subject on every level (not that I necessarily blame them). In truth, it's also a small minority of people who actually recognize the threat for what it is, recognize the stakes, and are willing to put their shoulder to the wheel (in whatever way they can) to keep civilization out of a ditch.

But your solution is to kill everyone in the crowd in order to prevent the suicide bomber from detonating their vest. Can you not see how your idea of dealing with the problem is problematic in and of itself? Yeah, the ones who don't agree with violent jihad or the Caliphate are scared. Some do stand and fight. Some do resist but many flee. Official US policy under Obama allowed for up to 20 civilian casualties during a "surgical strike" to take out one or two ISIS leaders. Trump as said he will disregard the old standard of collateral damage to allow our pimply faced drone pilots to kill as many innocent people as necessary to get rid of the ISIS threat. That will only cause more people to flee, including the terrorists who might think it's a good idea to hide themselves among the refugees so that they may live to strike their terror upon the people of the countries they seek refuge in. Your solution? Bomb them some more! Can't you see that is a futile self defeating method? It's not only completely devoid of any logic whatsoever...it's down right barbaric, sadistic and evil in a self perpetuating sort of way because the people who manufacture those bombs needs to get their paycheck so they can feed their little mouth breathers who believe the biggest threat to humanity is a dark skinned Muslim and mommy or daddy are simply doing their part to save the civilized world from the unwashed masses.

Quote
Mere "stability" is not what pushed white nationalism to the fringes of American society. It took legislative action and decades of social activism (not always peaceful). The problem is, the nature of the jihadist threat is significantly different than the one once posed by white nationalism.

The difference is less significant than you think.

Quote
And secondly, the Muslim world, for the most part, does not have a political presence strong enough to apply legislative pressure against reactionary elements in their societies.

I think you are being to broad and generalizing with this statement. Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Turkey, Egypt all have a strong political presence and great influence over what happens in their region. But it's complicated by US and Russian and UN interference.

Quote
Ditto for civic minded individuals who want to organize on a grass roots level. Even in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen (which are not jihadi strongholds), atheist bloggers and freethinkers are routinely beaten, murdered, or imprisoned. It's hard for genuine reformers to find sufficient courage to stand against this tide.

I feel you. This is a problem that cannot be solved by either bombs or atheist bloggers.

Quote
But you're right, we absolutely need to empower moderate and liberal Muslims, the world over. But in Muslim societies, it's far easier said than done. How do we protect them?

I don't know. I am halfway inclined to say just let them sort it out among themselves and stay the fuck out of it until they get it figured out. But we helped create this mess. If we want to help the moderate liberal Muslims we could start by setting the acceptable collateral damage number to zero.
13
I'm aware that you're 'ignoring' me, BlackLight, based on your false understanding of what I was trying to do earlier.  However, even if that understanding had been correct, ignoring my posts - and the points I bring up in them - is rather counterproductive to whatever goals you might intend to accomplish here.  Indeed, when the person you're trying to 'ignore' is directly addressing you, and bringing up flaws in your arguments or reasoning, it seriously weakens your own position to not respond to them, especially if they are effective points.

How is a person blowing themselves up in a crowd unique compared to, say, firing a missile from a drone at that same crowd?  Because when you get right down to it, to the people who end up dead, it hardly matters whether or not their killer was there with them or not.  So I don't think it's correct, never mind reasonable, to treat suicide bombings as being significantly different from other ways to kill a large group of people at once.

That being said, nobody here was arguing that the vast majority of Muslims were working against jihadis.  Indeed, that's a big part of the problem that we face - a large percentage, probably the majority, don't see us as anything more than another set of oppressors.  So why shouldn't they support the groups who are trying to strike back at us, especially when we make it easier for those groups with ham-handed responses to them which end up hurting more than they help?

It's worth emphasizing that there is not a significant difference between white nationalist groups and the Muslim jihadis (not even religious, since you'll find that white nationalists are almost always going to be Christians of some sort).  Except, perhaps, that the white nationalists are much closer to actually being in power and being able to enact their desired policies in the Western nations than the jihadis are, even if you only consider outright Islamic nations.  Remember:  Up until a couple weeks ago, Bannon - one of the faces of white nationalism in this country - had Trump's ear, and only got knocked back because of his conflict with Trump's son.
15

And only recently as a direct result of our past and present intervention in their countries. The problem for them is that they can't get enough of their fellow Muslims on board with their tyrannical goals because they terrorize their own country men who disagree with their plans for global hegemony even more than they terrorize the wicked witch of the west.

No, not only recently - the notion of an Islamic caliphate goes back to the seventh century. In the 100+ years following Muhammad's founding of Islam, the caliphate expanded its reach from Spain, Portugal, and the northwestern coast of Africa, all the way to Pakistan. Islam's political influence had waxed and waned in the years since, but this idea of Islam forcefully extending its reach to the farthest corners of the Earth is not a new one.

Then again, I don't see why it matters when the idea was introduced, or why. It's a terrible idea, and it needs to be confronted. This speaks to a different point - even if I conceded that U.S. foreign policy was 100% responsible for the threat of terrorism we now face (FTR, I don't concede this at all), we still face the threat, and it needs to be eliminated. Even if you say that the War on Terror is nothing but our chickens coming home to roost, it doesn't change what has to happen now. At best, it would be a lesson for what not to do in the future (and I'm happy to grant, a lesson well worth learning).

Quote
It should be fairly obvious that the people who are pushing for that world are in the minority even among those who share the same religious faith.

Yes, that is fairly obvious. It's also beside the point. If one person in a crowd of 100 detonates a suicide vest, it would be mathematically correct to say that only a small minority of people in that crowd are suicidal terrorists. But the fact that the small minority is willing to engage in suicidal terrorism and kill innocent people indiscriminately, makes it a unique threat. Also, there's a mistaken perception that if jihadists represents a small minority of Muslims (or people in general), then the vast majority must be actively engaged in stopping them. This is untrue. The vast majority of Muslims/people either support jihadists (without engaging in jihad themselves), don't support it but don't confront it (perhaps because they're worried about being murdered), or are basically disengaged from the subject on every level (not that I necessarily blame them). In truth, it's also a small minority of people who actually recognize the threat for what it is, recognize the stakes, and are willing to put their shoulder to the wheel (in whatever way they can) to keep civilization out of a ditch.


Quote
The jihadists are a tiny fraction of the world's population of Muslims. The jihadists do not even have a country to call their own. They are vastly outnumbered and conducting a campaign that brings more and more people against them every day. They are not unlike our own white nationalist parties here in America. The reason our white nationalist parties are not running around the country systematically torturing and murdering their "enemies" is because America, as a nation, is stable. We haven't had some foreign nation come in and drop bombs on our children every day for the past 50 years. There was no jihad against the west until the west waltzed into their towns and told them how it was going to be from now on. Your solution to the threat we currently face is to basically ramp up our violent activities against them because now they are trying to fight back. I am not suggesting that we sit on our hands and do nothing. I am suggesting we try to help the real victims of our foreign policy. They don't like ISIS anymore than you do and have much more reason to fear them than you or I.

Mere "stability" is not what pushed white nationalism to the fringes of American society. It took legislative action and decades of social activism (not always peaceful). The problem is, the nature of the jihadist threat is significantly different than the one once posed by white nationalism. And secondly, the Muslim world, for the most part, does not have a political presence strong enough to apply legislative pressure against reactionary elements in their societies. Ditto for civic minded individuals who want to organize on a grass roots level. Even in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen (which are not jihadi strongholds), atheist bloggers and freethinkers are routinely beaten, murdered, or imprisoned. It's hard for genuine reformers to find sufficient courage to stand against this tide.

But you're right, we absolutely need to empower moderate and liberal Muslims, the world over. But in Muslim societies, it's far easier said than done. How do we protect them?
16
Xians that think about beheading a non believer would certainly be arrested in the west for publicly and proudly promoting it and prolly get their head kicked in by other xians.
17
Chatter / Re: Meanwhile in Pikeville KY Today
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 04:24:11 PM »
http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Protesters-are-beginning-to-crowd-in-downtown-Pikeville-420816143.html

A lot of videos of the goings on a couple of hours ago in that link.
18
Chatter / Re: The Final...er...I mean ULTIMATE Solution
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 04:10:56 PM »
I think part of the problem is that many of the cultures of the ME are not amenable to being told that they don't have the "best" engineering and science.  The leaders don't want to admit that they aren't the god-blessed bestest people ever.

They do have their pride and at this point especially, I wouldn't blame them for resenting assistance or training from us. I can't speak for the leadership or the heads of states over there but the people I came into contact with while I was in Iraq welcomed our assistance. But my MOS basically precluded me from interacting with anyone who was hostile to America. I was a mechanic in the war and only an E4. I do remember meeting General Ayad[1] when he came to Camp Taji to tour our side of the base and see how we conducted our operations. Taji was a joint base. Half was controlled by US forces and the other half was controlled by the Iraqi Government. Iraqi soldiers were permitted to visit our side of the base and we were permitted to visit their side of the base. I went over to the other side a few times and the difference in appearance, upkeep, was really amazing. It was literally like being in a different world.
 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Army_52933_CAMP_TAJI,_Iraq-_Kenton,_Ohio_native,_Brig._Gen._John_Murray_(left),_deputy_commanding_general_of_maneuver_for_the_1st_Cavalry_Division,_poses_for_a_picture_alongside_Gen._Ayad,_the_chief_of_staff_for.jpg
19
Both Bin Laden (post 9/11) and al-Baghdadi have made it clear that the endgame of their jihad is a global caliphate.
There is no realistic chance of them actually succeeding in that goal, though.  They simply don't have the military capability to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the world.

Quote from: BlackLight
In that world, every infidel has a choice - either convert or die (some may be permitted to live in subjugation if they pay the jizyah tax). And the Islamic holy books make ready sense of this behavior. It is a missionary faith, a plausible reading of which presents a mandate for devout Muslims to Win, in this world, as preparation for an eternity of paradise to come in the next.
"In that world".  Meaning, a world which doesn't currently exist and likely never will, simply because they don't have the physical means to make a global caliphate.  They certainly aren't going to succeed in it through asymmetric warfare.

Quote from: BlackLight
So yes, insofar as that the jihadists have told us exactly what they intend to do, so long as they're alive to do it, we can be quite confident of what they would try to do if we all sat on our hands for 40-50 years.
And this is a strawman - Mr. Blackwell never suggested that we sit on our hands for any length of time, never mind 4-5 decades.  Please refrain from such in the future.

What he was actually suggesting was that we act in ways which undermine the minority of Muslim jihadists and strengthen those more reasonable and tolerant, rather than acting in a brutishly stupid manner towards Islam as we've tended to since at least 9/11.
20
This is what the religion of piss thinks, in their own words;

http://www.yesimright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/radicalmuslim-e1457019479486.jpg
That is what some of them think.  You can probably find Christians who think similarly about Christianity.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10