|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Be afraid, "Islamic State"
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Spoilsports. You're so goddamn practical. You're ruining the purity of the ideology.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The problem with trying to intercede with ISIS/IS (or whichever bunch of murderous thugs citing the Prophet as their inspiration one is endeavouring to reason with) is twofold.
First, you're dealing with a region where virtually everyone has access to firearms and where backing down from a fight is automatically seen as weakness.
Second, there is no single organisation within islam that can act as an honest broker that would be respected by everyone else. Evensong puts the case for the OIC (Organisation for Islamic Cooperation) but a glance at the membership is enough to tell you that you'd be on a hiding to nothing there.
While you have a situation where most of the larger branches see other 'brands' as heretical, where being brought up in another strand is seen as deliberate apostasy (ditto being born into a non-muslim family), and where heresy and apostasy are punishable by death you cannot reason.
We in the west regards nuanced views and the ability to be pragmatic in the pursuit of a greater goal as strengths: the islamic world sees these traits as either weak, or wicked, or both. It really is a case of a world made up of shades of grey trying (and failing) to understand a world of black and white.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
So, I'm not saying "Who cares if more people die, I want a US pullout anyway." I'm saying "A US presence isn't going to do anything to prevent more people from dying, and may very well make things worse, therefore I want a US pullout."
But the recent US intervention in northern Iraq has undoubtedly prevented the deaths of innocent people, and it doesn't follow that non-intervention in the region will curb extremism. After all, the West has been recklessly kind to Saudi Arabia and has not intervened in their country (except on their side in the first Gulf War), but that has seemingly done nothing to curb extremism in (and especially through) that country. The idea that military intervention inevitably provokes terrorism is a poor argument. For example, have we had over sixty years of Japanese terrorism since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You know the answer to that question. (BTW, that is just an example. I am not advocating the use of WMD in Iraq, in case you try to draw any such inference from this argument).
quote:
There is reasonable debate to be had about whether continued US action can, in fact, do anything to make things better, and I'm certainly open to that discussion. But it is a mischaracterization to call my motivations selfish.
I heavily criticised you for your contribution on this thread. It was not just about the immediate comment to which I was responding. Your insinuation that Christians are being hypocritical because they seek to support the least worst option for their protection in the Middle East, is totally out of order. You may live in a fantasy world of perfectionism and idealism, but in the real world we usually have to choose between levels of evil. The regime in Syria is clearly the lesser evil as far as the well-being of Christians in that country is concerned. The same goes for the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is indeed deeply 'selfish' to put one's own idealistic notions (from a distant position of comfort) above the appalling and tragic reality and dilemmas that others have to face. So I do not apologise for my language.
quote:
Do you advocate western intervention in every country where it might prevent a particular group of people from getting killed? Because that would be a lot of intervention.
I will answer that by asking you a question: Do you think it is right to say that we cannot attempt to save anyone unless we can find a way to save everyone?
And if you feel tempted to bring up the question of motive (such as oil), then here is another question: Would you rather your life was saved by someone with impure motives, than be abandoned by idealists who neglect involvement in the difficult problems of the real world for fear of besmirching their self-obsessed sense of personal integrity?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
EE wrote:
quote:
I will answer that by asking you a question: Do you think it is right to say that we cannot attempt to save anyone unless we can find a way to save everyone?
I am opposed to saving anyone(assuming that saving people means sending western soldiers and weapons into other countries), as a matter of principle. So your question does not apply to me. Maybe we can save everyone, maybe we can't. I oppose interventions either way.
But, since you DO favour interventions, I think there is an onus on you to explain where you would draw the line in terms of supporting certain interventions, but not others.
quote:
The idea that military intervention inevitably provokes terrorism is a poor argument. For example, have we had over sixty years of Japanese terrorism since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You know the answer to that question.
That's obviously a case of an intervention going exceptionally smoothly, for a number of reasons possibly related to politics and culture. I'm not sure if you can extrapolate from that to the Middle East.
quote:
After all, the West has been recklessly kind to Saudi Arabia and has not intervened in their country (except on their side in the first Gulf War), but that has seemingly done nothing to curb extremism in (and especially through) that country.
Yeah, but I'd be willing to bet that if the west started attacking Saudi Arabia with the aim of overthrowing the Saudi royals and/or liberating women and Shiites, the long-term results would be an Arabian peninsula that's even worse than the one we have now.
quote:
And if you feel tempted to bring up the question of motive (such as oil)
I don't think impure motivation, in and of itself, makes a difference. If my son was kidnapped, I wouldn't really care if the cop leading the investigation was just doing it to impress his girlfriend or get a promotion.
On the other hand, if my son had been kidnapped by a black guy, and the KKK came to me and offered to send a heavily-armed vigilante squad into the black neighbourhood to find him, well, that would be a different story.
As the father, I might say "Sure, whatever, just get my son back". But I think a disinterested third-party might regard that strategy as inadvisable(even if it were the only way of rescuing my son), given the long term repercussions of sending homicidal white supremacists into a black neighbourhood.
And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that western troops in the mideast would be the equivalent of the KKK. Just that the overall situations would be the same, ie. short-term benefit leading to longer-term harm.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
EE wrote:
quote:
I will answer that by asking you a question: Do you think it is right to say that we cannot attempt to save anyone unless we can find a way to save everyone?
I am opposed to saving anyone(assuming that saving people means sending western soldiers and weapons into other countries), as a matter of principle. So your question does not apply to me. Maybe we can save everyone, maybe we can't. I oppose interventions either way.
In view of your opinion, would you care to comment on the parable of the Good Samaritan? My, doubtless naive, reading of it would suggest that Christ's point was that a policy of strict non-intervention was a non-starter, but I am sure you have some very good reason for disagreeing with him.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Second, there is no single organisation within islam that can act as an honest broker that would be respected by everyone else. Evensong puts the case for the OIC (Organisation for Islamic Cooperation) but a glance at the membership is enough to tell you that you'd be on a hiding to nothing there.
And, just on information, if I wanted the Supreme High Leader of all the world's Buddhists who would be respected and acknowledged by every Buddhist, from every country, school, or culture, who would I call? Same thing for every Jew. Or every Christian.
quote:
While you have a situation where most of the larger branches see other 'brands' as heretical, where being brought up in another strand is seen as deliberate apostasy (ditto being born into a non-muslim family), and where heresy and apostasy are punishable by death you cannot reason.
So that's different than Christianity until fairly recently how? Heck, that's different than Christianity in much of the world today how?
As to your notion that reason and religious conflict are incompatible, remind me again, wasn't the rise of modern philosophy under Descartes something that happened during the Thirty Years' War? The beginnings of the Italian Renaissance during the Babylonian Captivity and Western Schism? The philosophy of Dante, John Duns Scotus, Marsilius of Padua, and William of Ockham—who gave us developments in political thought like the social contract and the separation of church and state, as well as advances in logic that wouldn't be seen again for almost 600 years—in the religious unrest of Unam Sanctam and Avignon? Evensong's beloved postmodernism a reaction to the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust? If anything, senseless sectarian and religious violence might be an incentive to reason, if only because people have more cause to try to find a way out of it.
quote:
We in the west regards nuanced views and the ability to be pragmatic in the pursuit of a greater goal as strengths: the islamic world sees these traits as either weak, or wicked, or both. It really is a case of a world made up of shades of grey trying (and failing) to understand a world of black and white.
So what you're saying is that we westerners always make pragmatic compromises and never try to demonize our enemies. How very Belgian of you. I'm sure that, being a good Westerner, you don't have to deal with political parties that demonize people they see as different. As a member of the quintessentially modern, Western nation, with its quintessentially modern, Western government (hey, that's Tocqueville for you), I'm glad to see those involved in my nation's government engaged in pragmatic decision making, compromise, defusing tensions, and engaging in reasoned debate.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Figbash wrote:
quote:
In view of your opinion, would you care to comment on the parable of the Good Samaritan? My, doubtless naive, reading of it would suggest that Christ's point was that a policy of strict non-intervention was a non-starter, but I am sure you have some very good reason for disagreeing with him.
I'm not sure if helping an immobilized guy lying on the roadside, his assailants long gone, is really comparable to the circumstances surrounding the kind of cross-global, heaviily-weaponized interventions into multi-polarized regions that we're talking about. Again, see my caveat...
quote:
(assuming that saving people means sending western soldiers and weapons into other countries)
I could probably construct parables where the scenario is more comparable to the current Iraqi situation than the Good Samaritan is. But I'm sure you could imagine those on your own.
Suffice to say, I have no problem whatsoever with countries granting refugee status to people fleeing conflict zones.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
Sheesh. Do you really think the parables were meant to be taken that literally? So it's okay to be dozy and unprepared so long as you're not one of twelve foolish virgins?
Have another go at answering the question. Prevarication suggests you can't.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
Sheesh. Do you really think the parables were meant to be taken that literally? So it's okay to be dozy and unprepared so long as you're not one of twelve foolish virgins?
Have another go at answering the question. Prevarication suggests you can't.
Okay. I think we should help people(as in The Good Samaritan story), but not in cases where the help offered is likely to make things worse in the long term.
It's that bit about "making things worse" that renders The Good Samaritan an unsuitable comparison, in my view.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I must have missed the part of the Parable where the Samaritan bombed the whole area to get rid of the thieves who robbed the traveller.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I must have missed the part of the Parable where the Samaritan bombed the whole area to get rid of the thieves who robbed the traveller.
Yes, exactly. Contra figbash, the issue is not the literalness of TGS parable. The issue is the details of the parable, even as metaphor, are so far removed from the circumstances in Iraq, and the solutions being proposed to remedy them, as to be completely inapplicable.
[ 15. August 2014, 18:20: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Only help people when it's at no possible cost to yourself. Got it.
Which neatly obscures (1) the Samaritan was on a dangerous road, too, and (2) plenty of people would have reacted against the mere existence of an interaction between a Samaritan and a 'clean' person, regardless of the reason.
But let's not think about the context of the story, lest it start sounding like the real world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Only help people when it's at no possible cost to yourself. Got it.
Which neatly obscures (1) the Samaritan was on a dangerous road, too, and (2) plenty of people would have reacted against the mere existence of an interaction between a Samaritan and a 'clean' person, regardless of the reason.
Well, it's not just the salf-harm that could come to the Samaritan. If you read my posts, you'll see that my main point is that the OVERALL situation(not simply the interests of the USA and allies) will likely get worse as a result of intervention.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Only help people when it's at no possible cost to yourself. Got it.
Which neatly obscures (1) the Samaritan was on a dangerous road, too, and (2) plenty of people would have reacted against the mere existence of an interaction between a Samaritan and a 'clean' person, regardless of the reason.
Well, it's not just the salf-harm that could come to the Samaritan. If you read my posts, you'll see that my main point is that the OVERALL situation(not simply the interests of the USA and allies) will likely get worse as a result of intervention.
That is for the injured traveller, the Samaritan (whether good or otherwise), the innkeeper and all his guests.
Meanwhile those who beat up the traveller have, shall we say, gone away. I don't remember Our Lord and Saviour chasing them with a forked stick. Maybe that passage was deleted from the accepted canon.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The problem with Iraq is that doing nothing is standing by and watching genocide. The question the West is now asking is what can be done that isn't going to make things worse and prevents genocide.
In the long term, how do we, the West, put right the original mess we made in the Middle East by arbitrarily dividing the area into countries (the Sykes Picot lines) and toppling Saddam in the Gulf Wars leaving a vacuum being filled by what we have now.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Only help people when it's at no possible cost to yourself. Got it.
Which neatly obscures (1) the Samaritan was on a dangerous road, too, and (2) plenty of people would have reacted against the mere existence of an interaction between a Samaritan and a 'clean' person, regardless of the reason.
Well, it's not just the salf-harm that could come to the Samaritan. If you read my posts, you'll see that my main point is that the OVERALL situation(not simply the interests of the USA and allies) will likely get worse as a result of intervention.
That is for the injured traveller, the Samaritan (whether good or otherwise), the innkeeper and all his guests.
Meanwhile those who beat up the traveller have, shall we say, gone away. I don't remember Our Lord and Saviour chasing them with a forked stick. Maybe that passage was deleted from the accepted canon.
Sinoi:
I'm afraid I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and I don't understand what you're saying here. As in, I don't even know if you're argeeing or disagreeing with me.
Would you be able to re-phrase that for my linkheaded comprehension?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
CKTC wrote:
quote:
In the long term, how do we, the West, put right the original mess we made in the Middle East by arbitrarily dividing the area into countries (the Sykes Picot lines) and toppling Saddam in the Gulf Wars leaving a vacuum being filled by what we have now.
But toppling Saddam was, itself, supposed to be the thing that rectified the "original mess" of previous western interventions.
So much of the liberal interventionist arguments seem to assume that the western-powers are just good-hearted-but-slightly-bumbling boy scouts, who are on the verge of setting things right, if only they can just have that one last chance.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That is for the injured traveller, the Samaritan (whether good or otherwise), the innkeeper and all his guests.
Meanwhile those who beat up the traveller have, shall we say, gone away. I don't remember Our Lord and Saviour chasing them with a forked stick. Maybe that passage was deleted from the accepted canon.
Sinoi:
I'm afraid I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and I don't understand what you're saying here. As in, I don't even know if you're argeeing or disagreeing with me.
Would you be able to re-phrase that for my linkheaded comprehension?
I was agreeing with you, in a muddled way for which I apologise. I was trying to say that all those whom we would wish to benefit would be harmed had intervention akin to that which the US is carrying out in Iraq been done, and contrasted that with what Christ could have done: He told the story of what the Good Samaritan did, He did not punish those who attacked the traveller.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Sinoi:
Thanks. That was one of the interpretations I was playing with. And no need for apologies, I just wasn't in the right mindframe for a more subtle literary style.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Stetson - I don't know what the answer is, and if thought:
- the West knew what it was doing and
- the West could do anything to right the wrongs it has already perpetrated in the Middle East
I would have a lot more confidence in any action.
Can the West stand back and watch genocide, again?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Stetson - I don't know what the answer is, and if thought:
- the West knew what it was doing and
- the West could do anything to right the wrongs it has already perpetrated in the Middle East
I would have a lot more confidence in any action.
Can the West stand back and watch genocide, again?
Yeah, I dunno. Part of the selling point this time around seems to be that we'll be siding directly with the Kurds, who all the armchair Woodrow Wilsons agree are the one group of unsullied Good Guys in the region. Supposedly, they can be trusted not to use whatever weapons and strategic advantages we give them to go on revenge sprees or launch attacks against anyone thwarting the cause of Kurd independence, in the aftermath.
Which may be true, but it seems to me that at least one of the major Kurd militias(PKK, I think) has been placed on the list of recognized terrorist groups by the EU, possibly the US as well. Do you know for certain that these guys(or those like them) are totally out of the picture?
There's also the question of whether or not the morality of the western powers really HAS changed since the days of Sykes-Picot. Are we certain that the US, EU etc really have the best interests of the region at heart here? Can they be truted to refrain from actions that, while possibly in their own self-interest, would nonetheless lead to more chaos and bloodshed for the local populations?
[ 16. August 2014, 19:20: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Are we certain that the US, EU etc really have the best interests of the region at heart here? Can they be trusted to refrain from actions that, while possibly in their own self-interest, would nonetheless lead to more chaos and bloodshed for the local populations?
It's hard to foresee a day when Iraq will be free from bloodshed and chaos. What with neighbouring Syria also in turmoil I just can't imagine how local populations even manage.
Still, how many times in history have people in various dire situations thought that night will never be followed by day ? When I was young the news seemed always blighted by the Vietnam war . My son recently spent a month there and found it now to be a most peaceable place.
Hell isn't the place for prayers so I'll content myself with this evening's news reports that US jets are currently giving ISIS something to think about . A far from comfortable state of affairs though.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I'm scared to think that the only thing which might fix something like this would be to simply have some stronger power invade, take over, and make the whole place a state/province of itself.
(No idea what would have happened if the US had done that and started Iraq on the path to being the 51st US state (or 52nd--it's not fair to keep leaving Puerto Rico out in the cold like this), with voting rights and congresspeople and all of the rights under the Constitution and so on. Maybe it would have been a worse disaster.)
We need a nice big island to put people on and then say, "OK, who wants to get the hell out of here and raise your kids somewhere safe? We're beginning airlifts and will just leave Iraq to the crazies, and you guys can finally be free from fear and terror."
I know, I know, these are fantasies, but I don't know what else could be done. And since the US has been responsible for weakening what was once one of the few secular states in the region, I feel like it should take responsibility for what it's done somehow...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's not always possible to 'do something'. There are times when it's possible to intervene and times when it isn't. It's rather difficult to stop someone falling off a cliff when they are halfway through the actual falling part.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not always possible to 'do something'. There are times when it's possible to intervene and times when it isn't. It's rather difficult to stop someone falling off a cliff when they are halfway through the actual falling part.
I guess I feel like... no, I truly believe, the US helped push them. We got rid of their dictator and now they're much more in danger of getting something far worse than he was, and it's to a great degree the US' fault.
I mean, has Iraq said, "No thanks, go away, you've done more than enough, stop 'helping' and leave us alone to sort this out ourselves"?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Rolyn wrote:
quote:
Still, how many times in history have people in various dire situations thought that night will never be followed by day ? When I was young the news seemed always blighted by the Vietnam war . My son recently spent a month there and found it now to be a most peaceable place.
Yes, but tellingly, Vietnam's recovery began with the disengagement of outside powers, specifically the USA.
From what I've plausibly been told, there were indeed some pretty serious human-rights violations carried out by the Communists after the South fell to their control. But would things be any better today if the US had said "Well, we gotta help the South Vietnamese stay out of those godawful re-education camps, so we'd better keep up the bombings"?
I don't think so. At the end of the day, they just had to cut their losses, get the hell out, and do what they could to help the refugees who managed to escape.
Now, sticking to that general conflict, my sparring partners may wish to cite the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as an intervention that did indeed make things better, since pretty much anything would be an improvement over Pol Pot. However, it is arguable that Vietnman undertook that mission in self-defense, having previously been visited with several Cambodian incursions that, adjusting for population, took more lives than the USA lost on 9/11. So it wasn't just a case of invading in the hope of making things better, by the standard justifications for military action, Vietnam had a pretty rock-solid case.
[ 17. August 2014, 03:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It occurred to me this morning that the 25th anniversary of Gulf war I , when Iraq took Kuwait, is nearly on us .
I get the feeling that the West is less sure of itself now than it was in 1990 . Many people had a gut feeling in 03 that the invasion of Iraq just didn't smell right.
But all said and done ISTM we'll bomb or negotiate our way past tin-pot dictators, be-heading nut groups, you name it, just to get at the black goo. And as long as it's buried there we ain't never gonna leave that seemingly god-forsaken place alone.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Here, the discussion has whether to arm the Kurds through the peshmerga because ISIS have modern up-to-date arms and the Kurds are using old Kalashnikov rifles and that would even up their chances. However, arms don't stay where they are put, so that decision seems somewhat fraught with difficulties.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The Kurds already have a territory, and they have a good economy. If they also have a well-equipped army, then for all practical purposes they have a state. If ISIS does get defeated, I can't imagine any other outcome than the Kurds proclaiming their own state. Personally I think they're entitled to that, but I also think it will generate all sorts of other problems.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Kurds already have a territory, and they have a good economy. If they also have a well-equipped army, then for all practical purposes they have a state. If ISIS does get defeated, I can't imagine any other outcome than the Kurds proclaiming their own state. Personally I think they're entitled to that, but I also think it will generate all sorts of other problems.
You bet it will. While most of 'Kurdistan' would be (current) Iraqi territory, parts of it are in Syria, Iran and Turkey, the last of which is a NATO member. It would moreover be surrounded by these countries.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Rolyn wrote:
quote:
Still, how many times in history have people in various dire situations thought that night will never be followed by day ? When I was young the news seemed always blighted by the Vietnam war . My son recently spent a month there and found it now to be a most peaceable place.
Yes, but tellingly, Vietnam's recovery began with the disengagement of outside powers, specifically the USA.
From what I've plausibly been told, there were indeed some pretty serious human-rights violations carried out by the Communists after the South fell to their control. But would things be any better today if the US had said "Well, we gotta help the South Vietnamese stay out of those godawful re-education camps, so we'd better keep up the bombings"?
I don't think so. At the end of the day, they just had to cut their losses, get the hell out, and do what they could to help the refugees who managed to escape.
There's a damn lot of South Vietnamese (waves, hallooooo!) who wish to hell the US had stayed, thank you. It may LOOK peaceful now, but you have only to visit any Vietnamese community in your country and talk to the elders to discover the gawdawful things that happened when we pulled out.
Can you spell T-O-R-T-U-R-E, children? Very good!
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
And it isn't lovely perfection today, either, regardless of what things look like to tourists.
As always, it just isn't that easy.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Mr. Lamb came within 24 hours of execution in one of those camps and was saved only by miracle. He was NOT saved from starvation, torture, beating, etc. And he's not unusual among expatriate Vietnamese, who mostly wound up in their new countries as a result of imprisonment and torture etc. Indeed, if you can find a man of that generation who didn't go through that, you've found a rare creature indeed (I think I know ONE). And sanctions against their families in VN still continue.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped:
For most conflicts, you can find someone on either side with a personal tragedy that might have been avoided had events gone the other way. Vietnamese children who lost their limbs in American bombing raids. How would they answer the question "Do you wish the Americans had continued bombing Vietnam?"
You may know I live in the Republic Of Korea, which until the late-80s practiced torture on left-wing dissidents. Those people could say "Well, I wish the North Koreans had won the Korean War, because then I wouldn't have been tortured." Which may very well be true, but there story in and of itself doesn't really answer the question of whether a North Korean victory would have been a good thing overall.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Persuant to what I wrote earlier, apparently the PKK is in fact working side-by-side with the peshmerga, and will thus likely benefit from American aid.
So to further re-boot the Good Samaritan story...
Imagine that in order to stop the beating of the traveller by the robbers, the Samaritan heads over to the local tavern and rounds up a posse, including some other robbers whose faces have appeared on "Wanted" posters put up by the Samaritan himself.
The Christian Science Monitor
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
You may know I live in the Republic Of Korea, which until the late-80s practiced torture on left-wing dissidents.
OMG I did not know this. What in the US we call "South Korea" did this?? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Are you really this naive ? You know the states have been torturing people for years, right ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
You may know I live in the Republic Of Korea, which until the late-80s practiced torture on left-wing dissidents.
OMG I did not know this. What in the US we call "South Korea" did this??
Not just tortue, outright murder in some cases.
Google Jeju Massacre and Gwangju Massacre, for starters.
[ 18. August 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
You may know I live in the Republic Of Korea, which until the late-80s practiced torture on left-wing dissidents.
OMG I did not know this. What in the US we call "South Korea" did this??
Yes, fuck yes: the present President's daddy was not a Nice Man™
[ 18. August 2014, 08:33: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Another anti-ISIS demonstration in the UK, organized by Muslims.
This seems accurate.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Authorities in the US and UK have verified the video released by IS of the beheading of James Foley, a US journalist kidnapped in northern Syria in 2012.
Mr Foley was shown in a orange jumpsuit in front of a black clad figure who spoke with a UK accent.
The UK government have confirmed that it appears the person who carried out this atrocity is British, and it is likely that police forces and MI5 are now trying to identify the man.
If there are still any apologists for radicalisation of young men and women from a moslem background they should think hard about the pain being caused to the Foley family and the mind-set behind the cold-blooded murder of a man who threatened them and their religion with only a tape recorder and a video camera.
There is no middle-way with these people and we should all be acutely aware that any sign of countries trying to reach an accommodation with these people will only be seen as a sign of weakness and degeneracy which can be exploited.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Drop a nuke on them.
Seriously. An agreement between the US, Russia, UK to drop a nuclear weapon on them ought to be sought.
The UN can sit this out, they will be informed as will the rest of the world a few minutes before it happens.
Then launch one. Give ISIS pause. Show them the ultimate future of their so called state.
Yes the innocent will die along with the guilty but the time to show the true horror of what lies ahead for them is at hand. No quarter can be given to this enemy and the time for walking softly is gone. The big stick needs to be wielded.
The argument that will be raised is that it will turn moderate muslims against the west. Got news for you... they already are.
In any case, what is the downside? We can't invade because too many lefty-types will get all wound up and people like me wont be able to drive to work because they will be blocking the streets protesting. You can't win a war from the air so air strikes do nothing except wind up ISIS, wind up lefties and we get no forader. Diplomacy is less use than a shitty stick.
Dropping a decent size nuclear weapon on them hasn't been tried so why not give it a go?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Kill them all. God will know his own.
It is not now generally thought that the abbot of Beziers was correct.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Drop a nuke on them.
Seriously. An agreement between the US, Russia, UK to drop a nuclear weapon on them ought to be sought.
The UN can sit this out, they will be informed as will the rest of the world a few minutes before it happens.
Then launch one. Give ISIS pause. Show them the ultimate future of their so called state.
Yes the innocent will die along with the guilty but the time to show the true horror of what lies ahead for them is at hand. No quarter can be given to this enemy and the time for walking softly is gone. The big stick needs to be wielded.
The argument that will be raised is that it will turn moderate muslims against the west. Got news for you... they already are.
In any case, what is the downside? We can't invade because too many lefty-types will get all wound up and people like me wont be able to drive to work because they will be blocking the streets protesting. You can't win a war from the air so air strikes do nothing except wind up ISIS, wind up lefties and we get no forader. Diplomacy is less use than a shitty stick.
Dropping a decent size nuclear weapon on them hasn't been tried so why not give it a go?
This attitude is essentially the mirror image of ISIS - if you are going to turn into your enemy why bother fighting them ?
(And are you really dumb enough to believe this would lead to a decrease in extremist attacks ?)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
You've changed your tune from a few days ago Penny haven't you? You were all for arming the women. I thought "Hooray, the eyes are opening!"
But whatever. Keep them alive to rape a few more women, what do you care eh?
How much more extremist attacks do you think we'll get Doublethink? Hopefully it will drive more of the extremists over to those lands to fight agin us. Flush 'em out and mow them down like the sewer rats they are I say.
In case you think I'm being facetious, I'm not. The definition of a moderate muslim seems to me to become more and more incoherent and apologetic each day.
Shia muslims are as much the enemy of the west as Sunni! Iran wants a nuke for fucks sake! How much more evidence do you want that the entire muslim world is anti-western and only in the scale of their attacks on it do they differ. A moderate muslim is simply one that doesn't want to kill us.
That isn't good enough I'm afraid.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
deano: Keep them alive to rape a few more women, what do you care eh?
Your idea of nuking these women is much better.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
deano: Keep them alive to rape a few more women, what do you care eh?
Your idea of nuking these women is much better.
I acknowledged some innocents will die along with the guilty.
But the more guilty men are killed, the fewer women they will rape and kill. Do you think they stop at one?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
deano: Keep them alive to rape a few more women, what do you care eh?
Your idea of nuking these women is much better.
I acknowledged some innocents will die along with the guilty.
But the more guilty men are killed, the fewer women they will rape and kill. Do you think they stop at one?
That's pretty much what the West has been doing since 2003. It hasn't worked so far, so what makes you think it is suddenly going to achieve its aims?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
(And are you really dumb enough to believe this would lead to a decrease in extremist attacks ?)
I think Deano assumes that the entire Muslim world would just collectively surrrender to the US, like Japan in the wake of the atom bombs.
Which makes the error of assuming that a global religion of 1.5 billion people is comparable to a nation-state, in terms of having a centrally-directed foreign policy.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And the previous crusades are notable for the problems they are still causing just under a thousand years later.
A modern repeat will not help.
That is the pragmatics, it does not address the absolute moral evil of what he proposes.
Deano your ideas disgust me, they are born of ignorance and hatred - you should be ashamed.
[ 20. August 2014, 20:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
(And are you really dumb enough to believe this would lead to a decrease in extremist attacks ?)
I think Deano assumes that the entire Muslim world would just collectively surrrender to the US, like Japan in the wake of the atom bombs.
Which makes the error of assuming that a global religion of 1.5 billion people is comparable to a nation-state, in terms of having a centrally-directed foreign policy.
No I don't. I'm saying...
(a) it hasn't been tried and we don't KNOW what the outcome will be.
(b) if the outcome is that more militants living in the west join ISIS to fight against us, it just makes a bigger target for us to aim for next time.
(c) If on the other hand they start to engage in domestic terrorism, well what's new. They probably will any way so let's force the issue.
It's as though the muslim world has started a war and nobody is coming. I find that impolite.
If (c) prevails (along with some (b) then again let's take the war to them. I never had a problem with the shoot-to-kill policy against IRA terrorists in the 80's. I sure as fuck don't have one against islamic terrorists. If we get wind of terrorists in Leeds, Bradford, Oldham, Dewsbury, Leicester, Birmingham or wherever, then send the army in and kill them.
Do something! Either roll over and give in to them or kill them! The indecision is giving them (islamic militants) time and space to strengthen, whether Sunni or Shia.
But let's talk about the innocents. Which innocents would you prefer to see die...
1) Their innocents. Women and children in ISIS controlled areas and in other parts of the world under the tyrrany of islamic militants?
2) Our innocents, on mountain tops, going to work on the London underground or in skyscrapers in New York
You don't get to say "neither!" because if you do then the islamic militants will kill our innocents in increasing numbers.
I'm afraid the answer, to me, is easy. Option (1). It's sad but inevitable that if we do nothing one group will be targeted. Of we do something then perhaps both groups will be but we will at least be dealing with the militants at the same time.
They might be 1.5 billion strong but the West and Russia and India and China (who have their own muslim issues) are more than a match. And we have better weapons.
Nah, it's starting to become a real war now. We need to respond, and not with more platitudes, or worse with sentimental nonsense like "if we're nice to them they won't hurt us". Which I think seems to be the prevailing view on here.
But before you have another go at me, what will fix it then. What will stop muslims having anti-western feelings? what will stop them trying to wage war against us? What will make muslims like us in the west?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Deano, you are obviously a lot thicker than a thing that is pretty thick.
Penny's 'Kill them all, God will know his own' is clearly meant ironically.
You clearly don't get irony.
In fact, you clearly don't 'get' anything very much.
Dropping a nuclear bomb on ISIS ... like as if that would be possible without killing Yazidis, Christians, Kurds and those Muslims who don't support ISIS.
As if a nuclear bomb could distinguish between the various groups.
'Kill them all, God will know his own,' is a quote attributed, I believe, to Simon de Montfort (not the one over here but the one in France) when the crusaders sent against the Albigensian heretics captured the city of Beziers.
The story goes that as they stormed the gate after the retreating troops and entered the city there was no time to distinguish between the heretics and the Catholics (who had lived peacefully alongside each other for years). So the order went up, 'Kill them all, God will know his own ...'
That's the point Penny is making. Dropping an atomic bomb would kill friend and foe indiscriminately.
Clearly that's what you want to do. You sick bastard.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
