• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What an arse

BPSCG said:
Random, at least, did offer something constructive; he said we won't win that war just by killing jihadis; we have to infect Islam's culture with western values. I agree, but that will take years, even decades, and meanwhile, we have to keep killing the jihadis, or they will keep trying to kill us.
Click to expand...
That's not true. A better way would be to imprison them (whenever possible). You know, you sound an awful lot like those 'jihadis' you appear to love to hate so much. It's like that computer game, 'America's Army', where all players believe they are fighting with the US army, including the people who look like terrorists on your own screen..

I'm not ignoring the realities of war, and of course sometimes people will be killed, and it is not possible to immediately hold trials in a battle zone. But killing people should never be the objective, it should always be seen as regrettable. Higher ideals are what separates us (at least some of us) from terrorists. As a European, I don't see why I should rather side with bloodthirsty, hateful, irrational Americans with no respect for international law, democratic principles or human rights (other than for themselves), rather than bloodthirsty, hateful, irrational islamists with no respect for international law, democratic principles or human rights (other than for themselves). In that case I'd rather let you fight it out among yourselves, thank you very much.

But the strategy you refuse to see is pretty simple. If you want to reduce the number of terrorists, you need to make sure that the number of terrorists who are apprehended exceeds the number of new terrorists. Since 2001, the focus has been almost entirely on apprehending existing terrorists. But the number of dead terrorists is not a meaningful scoring of the 'war on terror'. The net change in their numbers might be.
 
mortimer said:
You haven't explained how more US allies make things harder on the jihadis. This part may or may not be true, but you have not provided a bit of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
If you want to play it that way, please explain why killing 'jihadis' would make things harder for them. You haven't provided a bit of evidence to support it!
 
The more I read discussion like this the more convinced I become that all the wingnut BAWWWING about the closure of Gitmo and the banning of torture has nothing whatsoever to do with actually protecting ourselves from violent loonies and everything to do with the peculiar emotional needs of the right wing authoritarian-follower personality.

Specifically, I mean the desire to engage in authoritarian aggression, that is, to inflict harm and suffering on an "enemy" outgroup- to be a "bicyclist", who in the physical manner of someone riding a bike treads on those below him while nodding submissively to those above him.

In essence, I think that what is motivating them is that their sick need for someone to punish- preferably someone who cannot fight back- is being frustrated. What's the use of having your boot all nicely polished if they take away the human face you were counting on stamping on?

So, RWAs- suppose we put off calling the WAAAmbulance for you and instead let you have what you want- a symbolic jihadi to beat up on at no risk to yourselves- will that, as the Scottish sergeant in Flashman and the Dragon said, "mak ye a man in the ee o yer mither"?
 
BPSCG said:
Well, it's been a couple of weeks now, and I haven't seen anything out of the new administration that promises to make life tougher for the jihadis all around the world. So far we have:


  • Taking steps to close Guantanamo.
  • A new attorney general who tells his confirmation committee that waterboarding is torture, thus telling the jihadis that they don't have to fear we'll do it to them any more.
  • Announcement of a new policy that all interrogations of captured terrorists will now follow the Army Field Manual, so the jihadis know what interrogation tactics they should prepare for.
Has anyone seen anything that made them nod and think, "Now that will make life tougher for the jihadis"?

Anyone?

Bueller?

I hope Cheney's wrong. But I haven't seen anything yet from this administration that gives me confidence.
Click to expand...


It's about the mental model of reality in which we're safe and sound and can now start to pretend we're above it all, again.

There are definite reasons to put the screws to government and limit their power, but "assuaging our feelings of being dirty" isn't one of them.
 
ktesibios said:
In essence, I think that what is motivating them is that their sick need for someone to punish- preferably someone who cannot fight back- is being frustrated. What's the use of having your boot all nicely polished if they take away the human face you were counting on stamping on?
Click to expand...
Interesting observation. In a similar vein, republicans, who always claim to be so much against abortions, were now totally opposed to it when the democrats were actually proposing something that we know would reduce the number of abortions. Why? Probably because what they really care about is not to reduce abortions, but to punish people for having them.
 
Merko said:
That's not true. A better way would be to imprison them (whenever possible).
Click to expand...

Your caveat pretty much proves his point: most of the time it is NOT possible.

You know, you sound an awful lot like those 'jihadis' you appear to love to hate so much.
Click to expand...

No, actually, he really doesn't.

I'm not ignoring the realities of war, and of course sometimes people will be killed, and it is not possible to immediately hold trials in a battle zone. But killing people should never be the objective
Click to expand...

Killing people should never be the objective of war. Yeah, um... that's pretty much the definition of ignoring the realities of war. Killing people is, and always will be, the essence of war. That's what makes it war, and not well-armed policing.

As a European, I don't see why I should rather side with bloodthirsty, hateful, irrational Americans with no respect for international law, democratic principles or human rights (other than for themselves), rather than bloodthirsty, hateful, irrational islamists with no respect for international law, democratic principles or human rights (other than for themselves).
Click to expand...

Ah... moral relativism at its finest. Perhaps you forget that Europe is a direct target of Islamic terrorists? Tell me: when's the last time America bombed any Europeans? Oh, that's right: we actually did that in the 1990's. When there was that little spot of European genocide going on, and you noble Europeans couldn't get your act together to actually do anything to stop it. I guess you couldn't figure out which side to take then either, so the killing just kept going on. How noble and principled of you. But us bloodthirsty Americans, our intervention in the former Yugoslavia was just like the Madrid bombings. Yup, it's a real pickle to try to pick between Americans and Islamic terrorists.

But the strategy you refuse to see is pretty simple. If you want to reduce the number of terrorists, you need to make sure that the number of terrorists who are apprehended exceeds the number of new terrorists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, um... let me know when you've got a plan for how to arrest terrorists hiding out in Waziristan. Preferably a plan with some chance of success.
 
Ziggurat said:
Killing people should never be the objective of war.
Click to expand...
Of course it shouldn't.

You do know what "objective" means, right?

Ah... moral relativism at its finest.
Click to expand...
I wonder what you think "moral relativism" means.

Perhaps you forget that Europe is a direct target of Islamic terrorists?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you forget why.

Tell me: when's the last time America bombed any Europeans? Oh, that's right: we actually did that in the 1990's. When there was that little spot of European genocide going on, and you noble Europeans couldn't get your act together to actually do anything to stop it. I guess you couldn't figure out which side to take then either, so the killing just kept going on. How noble and principled of you. But us bloodthirsty Americans, our intervention in the former Yugoslavia was just like the Madrid bombings. Yup, it's a real pickle to try to pick between Americans and Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...
Merko was, of course, describing a specific type of American, namely those with the same (lack of) values as Islamic terrorists, rather than all of them; as you would have noticed if your indignation hadn't swamped your comprehension.
 
Texas said:
I don't have to extend anything to my fellow man especially inhuman terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well then if you should ever be charged with murder or rape we'll be sure to afford no rights to an inhuman murdering rapist. So are you saying that the accused have no rights?

BPSCG said:
Has anyone seen anything that made them nod and think, "Now that will make life tougher for the jihadis"?
Click to expand...

This depends on what you're expecting from the outcome of your question. To answer upfront Obama ordered missile attacks against a group of suspected terrorists in Pakistan. I don't know about you but I'd think having my home blown up by American drones would make my life harder. Now assuming that you mean "harder" as shorthand for "aiding in the defeat of jihadists" then I'm going to call non-sequitor and state: making life harder =/= defeating.

peptoabysmal said:
LOL ... Is there any evidence that the existence of Gitmo has recruited even one Jihadist? Maybe it is the Orange Chicken on the menu?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine Gitmo is as an effective recruiting tool as it is a deterrent.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Well then if you should ever be charged with murder or rape we'll be sure to afford no rights to an inhuman murdering rapist. So are you saying that the accused have no rights?
Click to expand...
methinks you are misunderstanding the comment, there
I'd imagine Gitmo is as an effective recruiting tool as it is a deterrent.
Click to expand...
Face it, folks:
When someone is willing, nay, even eager, to strap on a bomb and blow himself up in a very public place, or fly an airplane full-speed into a building, the only possible deterrent is imprisonment, because that is the only thing that would keep him from his goal...
 
rwguinn said:
methinks you are misunderstanding the comment, there

Face it, folks:
When someone is willing, nay, even eager, to strap on a bomb and blow himself up in a very public place, or fly an airplane full-speed into a building, the only possible deterrent is imprisonment, because that is the only thing that would keep him from his goal...
Click to expand...

Strawman - the people in GITMO are not suicide bombers.
 
Jenkins said:
So killing them for decades will give way to acceptance of our cultural values?

One of our values in that scenario would apparently be killing people. If that's true then you'd be right--it might seem like they had adopted one of our values.
Click to expand...
See, Random and I disagreed on a lot on this issue, but he at least understands that saying we have to kill jihadis is not the same as saying we have to kill all Muslims. You, obviously, do not (or you do, but enjoy building men out of straw).

I have no interest in trying to get Islamists to adopt western cultural values, because they are not interested in adopting any western cultural values. In fact, they hate western cultural values so much they are willing to die in the attempt to overthrow those values. It does not follow that because I want to have murderous Muslims killed rather than have them kill me, that I want all Muslims killed.

If a Christian zealot bombs an abortion doctor's offices and kills people, I am not interested in having him adopt my values. I want him put to death. By your silly reasoning above, that means I should want all Christians put to death. My mother-in-law would object to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom