Pakistani attorney and author Rafia Zakaria wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera America about the Islamic extremists' war on fun, including sports, music, even dining in a fine restaurant. Zakaria points out that this apparent obsession predates the existence of ISIS by several decades (at least); he suspects this is a big reason why the attackers chose Paris, renowned worldwide for its brilliant culture and joie de vivre.
Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope and those who kill and destroy. The latter are deadly and relentless, and they have already squeezed out the mirth from too many of the world’s cities, from Karachi, Kabul and Baghdad to Nairobi and Beirut.
Zakaria experienced this aspect of terror firsthand. A high school friend had just passed a big exam, and was out celebrating with his family at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, when terrorists struck.
Al Jazeera America provides a separate analysis warning that military action alone cannot defeat ISIS (aka ISIL), which of course is not a "nation" in the traditional sense, but more of a guerilla outfit like Al Qaeda, that opportunistically seized a stronghold in chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq. The piece's author, political scientist Rami G. Khouri, recommends that both the West and Muslim nations of the Middle East spend more resources on addressing economic and political problems facing impoverished youths who are potentially attracted by the ISIS' recruiting pitch:
If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed — from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption — the flow of recruits to movements like ISIL or something even worse will persist and even accelerate.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @11:44AM
This translation is slightly different from the spoken English version I heard:
https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Statements/is-claims-paris-attacks-warns-operation-is-first-of-the-storm.html [siteintelgroup.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 16 2015, @12:25PM
So your argument is they aimed for the Amsterdam Red Light District but accidentally hit Paris... Or that they aimed for Rome and accidentally hit Paris. Or we're just not hearing about secret police foiling attacks in Rome and Amsterdam. Or substitute in pretty much any other "big name city".
The exact reasoning doesn't matter. Europe was invaded and conquered. This is what happens to conquered civilians. They/we can decide to get used to it or not, but its going to keep happening no matter if we're used to it or not.
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Monday November 16 2015, @01:58PM
Or we're just not hearing about secret police foiling attacks in Rome and Amsterdam
Bond was in Rome recently, which would explain that.
As for Amsterdam, the would-be bombers probably stopped off for a brownie en-route and are still there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 16 2015, @02:00PM
The exact reasoning doesn't matter. Europe was invaded and conquered. This is what happens to conquered civilians. They/we can decide to get used to it or not, but its going to keep happening no matter if we're used to it or not.
I've been quiet about this so far. But this infrequent stream of attacks doesn't make conquest no matter how much you puff it up. The developed world has been losing its shit about a lot of stuff recently, but I think it's telling how we can't agree on what we should be hysterical about. I don't think anyone is currently competent enough to deliberately craft these conflicting worries to divide and conquer us, but you should keep in mind that this environment is perfect for creating Benjamin Franklin's infamous safety over freedom [wikiquote.org] trade off.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Please scale your concerns to the magnitude of the threat rather than provide either a misdirection of society's resources or even a stepping stone for tyranny.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Monday November 16 2015, @02:27PM
I think you misinterpret, I'm not saying fighting is happening or more will happen or there is any point in a resistance movement, I'm saying they already lost and are a conquered, marginalized, second class citizenry. So they're going to be gunned down in the streets, their cultural events are going to be bombed and otherwise disrupted, etc. The dominant cultural class of Europe is no longer white Christians, for better or worse. Likely mostly worse. Already a done deal, nothing to be done about it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 16 2015, @03:39PM
Mod -1 blithering hyperbole.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday November 16 2015, @12:02PM
No... it's more important to pass the TPP, so we can work towards addressing economic and political problems that keep the rich from getting richer an' keeps us rich from impoverishing EVERYBODY ELSE!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA---cough, cough, too many expensive cigars---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
cough.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @12:34PM
Adam Curtis likely nailed the reasoning in The Power of Nightmares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 16 2015, @01:14PM
I watched that documentary, I was particularly struck by the idea that Qutb was so disgusted when he saw ballroom dancing.. seriously..
"OMG look at that waltz! better start murdering people in order to save their souls!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:23PM
Good docu. One of the eye-openers for me was how the Qutb-ists and neo-cons really were striving for the same thing.
Ah Mr Curtis, please continue doing your thing. You do the thing very well!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @03:10PM
That is massively oversimplifying.
His disgust lead him to trying to warn against it back in Egypt via peaceful means.
But when the US backed Egyptian leadership jailed and tortured him (using CIA provided techniques) he became convinced that only violence against said government would uproot the corruption.
Then he was executed, and others further warped the message until anyone could be considered a valid target.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:59PM
Legal distribution of TPON seems to be black-holed, no DVDs for sale, no legit streaming sources. There is a low-quality version on youtube uploaded in september.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0hVH2y0Hg [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3tFlDLYJg [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kiHCObCcF8 [youtube.com]
There is a much higher quality xvid version with this hash: 34b6aa8322f6205f31026a8bc34cbaa101e500b7
Adam Curtis, the film maker, has done more docus since TPON. His latest is Bitter Lake about Afghanistan which is available in two parts on youtube in 720p.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQt3uxp5i3s [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j4JATgwiD4 [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrNemesis on Monday November 16 2015, @04:15PM
For what it's worth you can download the videos directly from archive.org, albeit cribbed from youtube by the looks of it:
https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-AdamCurtis [archive.org]
Bitter Lake is also available in iplayer for those of you with access to it (and if you're a get-iplayer user [with a working VPN outside of the UK] then you're quids in):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake [bbc.co.uk]
There was a bunch of bootleg DVDs kicking around amazon.co.uk a few years back as well, but they appear to have gone away now too.
Much of Curtis' work is completely unpublishable, since the way he makes his films means he cribs archive footage from all sorts of unrelated sources (for instance, Bitter Lake makes heavy reliance on the symbolism from Tarkovsky's Solaris) and a highly eclectic soundtrack such that getting DVD publishing rights is practically impossible; it's mostly due to the BBC having a blanket license for almost anything that any of his work is broadcastable at all. He's got a very strong body of work and my particular favourite to recommend to Soylentils to track down would be:
The Century of the Self [wikipedia.org] - how the Freud family helped sell consumer capitalism in the 20th century and its knock-on effects in the world of politics
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace [wikipedia.org] - how the utopian dream of a work-free world for humans completely failed to appear. Contains a much-needed apocryphal longobowman's salute to Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan in the first episode and a glorious segment on TMOAD [wikipedia.org] in the second.
A good excuse to aptitude install youtube-dl if ever I saw one. Don't expect to agree with every point he puts forward but he spins a fascinating narrative.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday November 16 2015, @07:27PM
I've just been watching "The Trap What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom", which is torrentable, and he covers many interesting turning points in many countries' histories. Alas, his underlying thesis, and logic, which he rolls out only in part 3, I disagree with. He claims things like the USA forcing Yeltsin's hand in Russia, and their deliberate devaluation of the currency, was an example of "Negative Liberty" (an idealistic form), when I consider it to be a perfect example of "Positive Liberty" (one with the newly found liberty being delivered by fiat, and under a new controlling group's terms). He's confusing "fucking stupid capitalists who who can't foresee the consequences of their actions" with "idealists".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @06:18AM
iirc, his argument is specifically that the west (with USA and Blair run UK in the lead) turned from Negative to Positive liberty somewhere around the Bosnian civil war. This in that Blair had this out there idea about being able to bring about Negative liberty by force, or somehow mix aspects of the two liberties.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2015, @12:39PM
Ha! Coming about 400 years late to the party, Cromwell and his puritans waged war on Christmas [historyextra.com] and other [theatredatabase.com] fun [americanantiquarian.org] long ago.
One of their descendants [wikipedia.org] has even been righteous hypocrite and liar in chief [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @04:21PM
For a couple of hundred years, protestants and Catholics fought bloody, long wars not unlike the middle east. After a while the Great Clue Stick of mass death and stagnation finally dawned on them and they made peace and put into place rules of tolerance.
I hope the M.E. reaches the same point sooner rather than later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @06:27AM
Frankly they had it during the Ottoman era, but then came WW1, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and a epic mess produced by the "victors" carving the corpse up between them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/2989a78a-ee94-385e-808f-c9c7c38d1cb7 [bbc.co.uk]
Here is Curtis again, in written form this time, where part of the article touches on how the UK representatives in port-Ottoman Iraq sidelined the urban progressives and instead put the rural shiekhs on pedestals.
Lets not forget that the colonial system was not really shut down until the early 60s.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 16 2015, @05:02PM
A very large percentage of fanaticism seems to be driven by the extreme fear that somebody, somewhere, might be happy.
And no, that's not limited to Muslims or Christians: You'll find this fear among Orthodox Jews, hard-line Soviets, ancient Spartans, Japanese salarymen, and of course rural Kansas. The impulse seems to be, in a nutshell, "My life is miserable, so yours should be too!"
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by dry on Monday November 16 2015, @10:12PM
There's a story where a Russian peasants cow dies and then he gets a wish. He wishes for his neighbours cow to die.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:27AM
how does the story end?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @06:29AM
The age old story that kept the peasants in line was that their life of hardship on earth would be repaid by a eternity of plenty in the afterlife.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Monday November 16 2015, @01:17PM
All of those European born terrorists appear to have failed miserably in their young life. What's most disturbing is that they're preyed upon by religious zealots who turn them into zombies that destroy other people's lives. We must try to eliminate those seeders of hatred before they brainwash more clueless youngsters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:08PM
> We must try to eliminate those seeders of hatred before they brainwash more clueless youngsters.
Gonna be hard to do that since they do it on the internet from anywhere in the world.
How about instead we focus on the people right here among us - and work to make sure those youngsters don't fail in life. That's some much more within our grasp.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:42AM
Not sure if it was them that failed, or if it was society that failed them.
But yes, most seem to be second or third generation "immigrants" that end up not quite fitting in either at home or out and about. This because (grand)parents hold one set of value, and the outside hold another set.
Supposedly there was some research done in the Nordics that showed that immigrants that has the least contact with the relatives "back home" were the most integrated. Peer pressure is a "wonderful" thing...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @01:18PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Those Paris attackers, they killed hundred something civilians? Welcome to the big game, boys. That's how many civilians USA kills just in Pakistan in a good month. The article's tone is priceless:
"Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope" - sounds like the ordinary people living in the middle east - "and those who kill and destroy" - sounds like the people who are bombing the shit out of them. Wait, I have an idea, let's just make cannabis mandatory for high-ranking politicians and army generals: may be it'll make them appreciate living and laughing a bit more.
Anonymous ~9932FE2729B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=EFtm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday November 16 2015, @02:45PM
Can't find your key. Where did you put it?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @03:42PM
https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x9932FE2729B1D963&op=index [mit.edu]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Monday November 16 2015, @06:31PM
It actually matters why someone dies, why they were killed, and how you react to it afterward. Civilians being killed is an accident. We work hard, but imperfectly, to minimize occurrences. When it happens, we consider it a failure. We don't celebrate it. All of this says something about us.
It's also worth asking what each group would do if they had complete power to force the other to live as they want. How would USA shape the Mid East? We'd want it to look like Arizona; peaceful, prosperous, safe for business, and full of calm benign people who tolerate each other and live freely.
ISIS's plan for us, if they could do anything they wanted, isn't so nice.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Monday November 16 2015, @07:17PM
oh, that sounds so-o-o-o sweet, if only it had a scintilla of truth to it...
YOU may even have such scruples, but so what ? ? ? do YOUR evolved scruples sway your superior officers in any way, shape or form such that they DON'T commit war krimes ? sadly, no...
also, since about WW1, the ratio of civilians to military killed in 'wars', etc has flipped: from time immemorial, it has been about 90% military deaths, 10% civilian deaths, then it flipped to where it is now 90% civilian deaths, and 10% military...
AND you are going to tell me just how gosh darn concerned and worried 'the military' is about killing civilians ? ? ?
GTFO
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday November 16 2015, @07:27PM
We'd want it to look like Arizona; peaceful, prosperous, safe for business, and full of calm benign people who tolerate each other and live freely.
Gabrielle Giffords and those who've come in contact with Joe Arpaio [wikipedia.org] might disagree with that sentiment.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Monday November 16 2015, @08:15PM
Add up all the violent crime in Arizona in a year and it's probably less than what you get in a single day in Syria. Or to make my point in the form of a question: would you rather live in Arizona or Syria?
And there is a right answer. It's not Syria.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:22PM
> Add up all the violent crime in Arizona in a year and it's probably less than what you get in a single day in Syria.
You do know that muslim countries average much lower murder rates than the US, right?
Furthermore, the problems in Syria existed before IS. You are doing that thing bigots do where they pick one isolated fact and pretend that it defines the entire situation in a way that boosts their tribe and denigrates the other tribe.
(Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Monday November 16 2015, @08:40PM
You do know that muslim countries average much lower murder rates than the US, right?
You're disingenuously pulling out a subset of causes of death by violence and ignoring war and civil unrest when for this purpose they are all relevant. And you're probably forgetting about every Muslim majority country in Africa which, even using your inappropriately strict definition, outrank us in murder rate.
And my point wasn't contingent on when ISIS began to exist, so your digression was meaningless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:49PM
> You're disingenuously pulling out a subset of causes of death by violence and ignoring war and civil unrest when for this purpose they are all relevant.
Actually that is false too. Muslim countries average lower rates of death from war and civil unrest than non-muslim countries.
> And you're probably forgetting about every Muslim majority country in Africa which, even using your inappropriately strict definition, outrank us in murder rate.
You are disingenuously counting countries not people - your analysis gives equal weight to a tiny country of a million people as it does to a country of 100 million people.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/15/no-islam-isn-t-inherently-violent-and-the-math-proves-it.html [thedailybeast.com]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @09:28PM
Throwing in Indonesia, an Asian country, to gin up the stats of the Middle East is obviously silly--and a transparent bit of sophistry for every reader here.
It's true. Indonesia proves Muslim countries CAN be just as peaceful as any other (although they still have trouble respecting women and gays). But I never made the claim that Islam is solely responsible for the violence of Middle Eastern Muslim countries--so bringing up Indonesia as a counter-example is a straw man fallacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @09:56PM
> bringing up Indonesia as a counter-example is a straw man fallacy.
Did you actually read the link?
What part of "Homicide rates in Muslim-majority countries average about two murders per annum per 100,000 people. In non-Muslim countries, the average rate is about 8 per 100,000." Do you think is cherry picking? The numbers for civil unrest were for all countries too.
Indonesia was used to compare like to like for population size of the USA. The author also used Turkey, Senegal, Iran and Egypt as examples to compare against smaller non-muslim countries.
To paraphrase the article - any way you slice it, you are wrong.
> I never made the claim that Islam is solely responsible for the violence of Middle Eastern Muslim countries
Sure sounded like it. Maybe that's what you get for trying to be vague. Spit out then. What do you claim?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday November 16 2015, @09:08PM
would you rather live in Arizona or Syria?
Having spent time in Arizona, that would be a tough call.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @11:14PM
Not for me it isn't. Don't get me wrong. Arizona has it's share of problems. I know; I lived there for over a decade. But I am absolutely certain that I would take life in Arizona over Syria any day of the year. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday November 16 2015, @11:31PM
would you rather live in Arizona or Syria?
Having spent time in Arizona, that would be a tough call.
Not for me it isn't. Don't get me wrong. Arizona has it's share of problems. I know; I lived there for over a decade. But I am absolutely certain that I would take life in Arizona over Syria any day of the year. Just sayin'.
I guess snark isn't as obvious as it once was. My apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:18PM
Civilians being killed is an accident. We work hard, but imperfectly, to minimize occurrences. When it happens, we consider it a failure.
No, instead we redefine civilians into enemy combatants. [thebureauinvestigates.com]
We don't celebrate it. All of this says something about us.
Do you really think that if we didn't have a million to 1 advantage in dollars to spend on equipment like drones and satellites that we would be so 'careful?' Sounds like self-congratulatory back-patting to me because we have the fortune to be on the well-resourced side of an asymmetric war.
To the dead and their families, it doesn't mean shit that we aren't cheering. We are still making choices that we know will kill innocents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @11:40PM
That is true. Unfortunately, there are always plenty of innocent bystanders in wars; currently the best we can do is to minimize these bystander casualties as much as possible. It sounds like this has been weighing on your mind quite a bit; as a civilian working for a USAF R&D lab it weighs on my mind too. Do you have any ideas on how we might completely eliminate innocent bystander casualties in future conflicts? And, please don't bother responding with "just don't start any more wars". To Daesh and their supporters there are only two categories of others: those marked for death today and those marked for death tomorrow. Personally, I refuse to insist that the Kurds should meekly roll over and die so that my conscience will be assuaged. So what are your ideas on how to eliminate deaths of innocent bystanders in wars? I am genuinely curious to hear your ideas.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @11:58PM
> Do you have any ideas on how we might completely eliminate innocent bystander casualties
> And, please don't bother responding with "just don't start any more wars".
That's a dismissal that you've made deceptively binary.
What makes the Kurds deserving while other groups in other parts of the world are not deserving? Where is the line?
While you ponder that I will give you another answer:
Stop relying on ordinance to win wars. Wars require tons of resources that don't kill indiscriminately - intelligence, supply lines, medical facilities. We don't have to fight the war for the Kurds, we can do all kinds of things to support them that don't kill. We also need to put way more resources into enabling civil society after the war - none of this "mission accomplished" bullshit. Instead we need more Marshall Plan thinking, not just cash but good advice (not self-serving advice either). ISIS wouldn't exist if we hadn't done such a piss poor job with Iraq after the war with not only the de-baathification which gutted the civil service, but also letting the shia majority shit all over the sunnis up north.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:06AM
??? You expressed a concern about collateral damage. I'm concerned too! We've actually done quite a bit to minimize collateral damage. Just a few short decades ago we would have had to level several city blocks to make sure we got one high value target. Now, we can localize the damage to one building but I gather that is just too much collateral damage for your taste. Actually, I agree. I would like to see no innocents get caught in the cross fire. So, how do you propose we do this? Unfortunately, bombs currently don't have the means to judge the intentions of those caught in the blast zone and kill accordingly. If you have any ideas on how to do this, I and my colleagues would be eager to hear them.
I specifically mentioned the Kurds because they are currently among the few willing to go to the front lines to fight Daesh, which is the subject of the story. This has nothing to do with the Kurds being any more deserving than others.
I largely agree with this, but I want to know how you propose that we do all of this without micromanaging their internal affairs or creating a puppet government that merely dances to the tune we choose to play. Stop the shia majority from "shitting all over the sunnis up north"? Fine. How do you intend to stop them from doing this? How do you propose we hold a newly formed Iraqi government accountable so that they spend that Marshall Plan money wisely? All too often that Marshall Plan money just ends up in the personal overseas bank account of yet another petty tinpot dictator. This needs to be done in such a way that the Iraqis learn how to be responsible and self-governing while respecting the rights of all their citizens. These details are largely out of our control. Also, helping with intelligence, supply lines, and medical facilities typically would require that we put American service members in harm's way (i.e., boots on the ground); there is no easy way to avoid that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:51AM
> ??? You expressed a concern about collateral damage.
And you gave me a singular choice of a perfect answer or the status quo. That smacks way too much of a passive-aggressive "you can't handle the truth."
> This has nothing to do with the Kurds being any more deserving than others.
Of course it does. Because the question can be asked about any group that is suffering at the hands of another group. You think they are deserving, but there are lots of people who are deserving. Look, you tried to dismiss the idea that we just shouldn't be so ready to go to war. And I am pushing back on that. It's not binary. We make decisions about when to get involved and I am saying we are way too trigger happy.
> I want to know how you propose that we do all of this without micromanaging their internal affairs or creating a puppet government that merely dances to the tune we choose to play.
Yes micro-managing is part of it. We have a department of peace, its called the state department. They have groups that study local communities and liaison with them. That needs to be beefed up a thousand-fold. We can put in "military advisors" without a second thought, we can also put in political advisors. I'm not saying its easy, its a lot harder than dropping bombs. It takes cultural literacy, the kind of thing you get from sociologists and cultural anthropologists. It takes economists. It takes linguists. It takes political scientists. It takes trust-building and institution building. And it takes a lot of academic study to learn what works and what doesn't so that the next time we do it, we can do a better job. This isn't some "three cups of tea" superficial shit.
> Also, helping with intelligence, supply lines, and medical facilities typically would require that we put American service members in harm's way (i.e., boots on the ground); there is no easy way to avoid that.
Obviously. But these kinds of boots aren't about fighting first, they are about defending the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @05:57AM
Look, your original assertion was that we are "making choices we know will kill innocents". I think we both agree we want less collateral damage. Can you at least bring yourself to admit we agree on that much? The real question is when does the status quo become so unbearable that we feel compelled to act in spite of the fact that innocents will inevitably get caught in the cross fire? And, following on to that, how de we act in such a way as to minimize such collateral damage and achieve a just (or at least acceptable) outcome? In the case of Daesh I think we do have a compelling interest to act; they have repeatedly made it quite clear that they are at war with us. Ignoring that is suicidal. The tricky part is figuring out how to minimize innocents getting caught in the cross fire. Or, so it would seem to me. FWIW, I agree that too often our political leaders are trigger happy, mostly because they don't want to appear "weak" to their constituents; at least that is the way I read it.
And, if we really do try to micromanage them, we give up any pretence that we are there to liberate them; we are really there to impose our will on them. Also, you should consider that sometimes the locals just aren't interested in your notion of peace. You see, just like our political leaders, sometimes their leaders really are more interested in divide and conquer. Just like our political leaders, some of them are power hungry sociopaths. And sometimes the people really aren't interested in peace. It will take a lot of wisdom and patience to sort out who we can work with and who we can't; it will also take a lot of patience to cajole them into "doing the right thing". But in some (many?) cases, no amount of prodding is going to get them to do the right thing. Unfortunately, sometimes, the people on the other side of the negotiating table really aren't acting in good faith. And in the case of Daesh, they aren't making any pretence at negotiating, good faith or otherwise. They have really only offered us the option of converting to their brand of Islam or death. In that case, we really have only one choice: kill or be killed.
Tragically, they are also frequently considered "soft targets" by the enemy. It looks to my eye like you are really suggesting we trade one type of collateral damage for another. Our service members won't be too fond of that idea. How are you going to get them to go along with it? Also, do you really think it is sustainable for the long term to offer up such sacrificial lambs for the slaughter? Other than assuaging your conscience that we (they) gave it our (their) best shot, what do you hope to accomplish by this strategy?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday November 16 2015, @09:31PM
I'm sure that's what you'd like to believe. But there's a lot of evidence that it's not true:
- Based on what we US civilians know about the drone program, if, for example, we can take out somebody that we consider a Really Bad Guy, and it would also kill 15 other people who may or may not be Bad Guys, we do it and mark all the other military-aged men killed as being insurgents unless they are provably not (and rarely if ever do they bother figuring out if they weren't). This happens routinely in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably quite a few other countries that we don't hear about because it's all classified.
- Recently, the US military got into all sorts of hot water because they bombed a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Afghanistan. MSF had done everything they were supposed to do in a war zone: The hospital was well-marked from the air, the US military had the GPS coordinates of the hospital, when the attack came the hospital administrators called up the military and told them they had hit the wrong target, but the bombing continued for another 30 minutes. There is some evidence the pilots questioned the order and had it confirmed by their commanding officer, indicating that the pilots knew something was unusual.
- The Collateral Murder video, in which a helicopter crew guns down: A reporter. The reporters' camera crew. A bunch of civilians that happen to be nearby. A van that had pulled up to rescue the wounded (including 2 kids in the front seat of the van). The driver of the van (the gunner is encouraging the driver to touch something that looks like a weapon to give him a good excuse to pull the trigger). None of the people killed were armed. This was all, according to the US military, in accord with the rules of engagement at the time. Oh, and conveniently, this just happened to be a reporter who had opted to report outside of the "embedded" reporter program where the military decides where the reporter goes and what they would see.
The evidence is all over the place that what the US military is trying to guard against is not civilian casualties, but bad press in the US about civilian casualties. The reason for this is that the generals believe that the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was because those pansy liberals stabbed them in the back with all that video about what the soldiers were actually doing in 'nam. In other words, the problem with My Lai etc was not that they happened, but that they got caught. They mostly succeed at this, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't question the view that the US tries to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible.
Which "we"? Many soldiers have in fact shown up on camera celebrating kills and torture and other atrocities. And there is a large segment of the US population who believes that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, who see any death of any Muslim as cause for cheering.
There is a large segment of the US population for whom the plan for the Middle East is:
1. Kill all Muslims / Arabs (this segment of the population isn't smart enough to differentiate between those two groups).
2. Expand Israel to the borders promised by God to Abraham back in Genesis (from the Red Sea to the Euphrates).
3. Fight the battle of Armageddon against the forces of Evil, which are presumed to Muslim.
4. Jesus comes and saves the day for all the Good Guys.
Compare that to Obama's plan for ISIS, which looks something like:
1. Supply arms and air support for all the local factions who want to destroy ISIS.
2. Try to convince the Russians to attack ISIS rather than the non-ISIS rebel forces currently attacking Russia's ally Assad.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:42AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"It actually matters why someone dies, why they were killed, and how you react to it afterward."
OK let's consider the USA drone killings, the same ones that killed more than 100 civilians in a single month in Pakistan. Let's consider all of the drone strikes in countries where USA is not officially at war, although it's not like USA can make a humanitarian argument for invading any of the countries it invaded lately. All of these killings are extrajudicial, and some of them are clearly war crimes. As we have long suspected, and now know for sure thanks to the leaks, the targets are based on rumors, the effectiveness is around 10%, and some 90% of the causalities are civilian. (By the way, here's how you count civilian deaths when you bomb a wedding, a hospital, or any civilian compound based on a rumor: everyone who is not positively identified as a combatant is a civilian. The US army counts the other way, which tells you how much they care.) All of this is known to the US strategists, so we can safely conclude that the program's main intention is to terrorize the population: to scare the civilians away from the Islamic militants. You seem to have a hard time catching on, but so much is clear to the people under the drones, at least: the USA drone program is the largest, meanest, deadliest, and the most shameless terrorist action on the face of the planet today. I would even go as far as to call it cowardly, which is hardly a fitting term for terrorists who are suicidal bombers, but is pretty apt for the people who use remote-controlled drones.
"Civilians being killed is an accident. We work hard, but imperfectly, to minimize occurrences. When it happens, we consider it a failure. We don't celebrate it. All of this says something about us."
You are woefully misinformed, up to and including the celebration. Many of the ordinary US residents do in fact celebrate the bombings, and they vote accordingly. As for the soldiers on the ground, the strategic command, and the drone pilots, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of what you claim. They view all Arabs as subhuman and shoot them just as readily as Israeli soldiers shoot unarmed Palestinians, that is, like rabid dogs, and with just as much consequence. There are exceptions, of course, such as PFC Manning, and we all know how well they fare within the system.
"It's also worth asking what each group would do if they had complete power to force the other to live as they want. How would USA shape the Mid East?"
Judging by their current actions, USA would nuke it and take the land. They are basically trying to get as close to that goal as they can with conventional weapons. Everything USA and its allies have done so far only served to destabilize the region, but the course is still the same. The strategy must be to drown the region in war until the civil society ceases to exist: no more laws, no more infrastructure, no more schools or hospitals or doctors or teachers, or any kind of educated people. And once there's no one left but a few partisans, the land will be declared empty, just like Australia and Americas were declared empty not so long ago, and then the "civilized" people can draw the new borders and move in.
I don't believe this strategy will work, as the unintended and unpredictable consequences are already turning out to be much much worse than imagined, but it looks like USA and its allies are going to stay the course for a while longer, so it will get a lot worse before it gets better. The ocean may not protect the USA for much longer.
~Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=prS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:08AM
The most hilarious part of the article is that it is authored by a Pakistani attorney. It had to be attorney, only they are this big of a sociopath. Islamic war on fun? Really? I suppose 9/11 was basically an attack on people taking their photos on the top floor, or attack in Mumbai that killed 164 people were done to stop Hindi movie industry.
Is it possible, even if remotely, that entertainment and fun is basically when people have their guards down? That it is easier to draw equal attention to yourself by killing someone in a movie theater vs killing someone in a military barrack?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 16 2015, @01:27PM
The first thing to remember about terrorist groups is that they aren't stupid. They're violent, they will kill innocent people if they can, but there's no indication whatsoever that they're stupid.
One of the more interesting bits of evidence left behind by one of the attackers was what appeared at least to be a Syrian passport. Now, if you're going to engage in some good old-fashioned mass shooting, why would you bring along a document that identifies exactly who you are and where you came from?
And there's an answer: The terrorists want France and other European nations to respond by closing their borders to Syrian refugees. They know that many in Europe would really rather not have them, and making it an expensive process where they have to vet everybody for terrorist ties might well convince France and Germany and Sweden and other countries currently accepting refugees to change their mind.
And why would they want that? Because they want the people living in the area they control to stay there and survive by paying protection money to Daesh rather than leave for Europe. One of Daesh's major challenges is that they have exactly 0 experience governing anything, and are lacking a civilian workforce, economic base, and bureaucracy with tax collection and the like to pay their soldiers. When you don't pay your soldiers, you can last a while by fanatic belief in the cause and threatening deserters with death, but sooner or later the army melts away because unpaid soldiers will say "why bother?" and go home.
The reason that the new Iraqi government couldn't control its own territory is also the exact same reason: A lack of a civilian governing infrastructure brought about by the US "de-Baathification" process, because to be a government bureaucrat in Saddam's Iraq you had to join the Baath Party. The biggest reason Iraqis didn't support the Baghdad government was that they couldn't keep the streets safe, couldn't keep the power running, and couldn't keep the roads repaired (which prevented a lot of areas from getting food reliably).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 16 2015, @02:15PM
there's no indication whatsoever that they're stupid
Given how few of them succeed, and how easy it is to attack most of their targets, I'm not sure that I agree with this.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 16 2015, @03:19PM
There are three reasons there aren't a lot more successful terrorist attacks:
1. There really aren't that many terrorists out there. If there were, we'd have random people routinely walking into completely undefended shopping malls with legally owned and carried AR-15's and slaughtering hundreds of people until the police kill them. And as it turns out, the vast majority of people don't want to do that, either for moral reasons (every popular belief system on the planet - including mainstream Islam - believes killing innocent people is wrong) or practical reasons (to do this is suicidal, and most people are not suicidal).
2. Working with explosives requires some training to ensure it doesn't blow up when you didn't want it to (e.g. a bunch of truck bombing attempts were thwarted by the truck blowing up on the road while driving to the target). Oh, and you can't just order a bunch of dynamite without at least some questions being asked.
3. The police catch and stop would-be terrorists long before they attempt to carry out their plot. This is probably the least-important reason, but it's there. The cops can catch wind of it a lot of different ways, but the most likely one is a terrorist leaking information about what they're planning on doing to somebody in their social circle (e.g. telling their mom to prepare to deal with their upcoming demise). For example, the authorities were told about the underwear bomber because his father had gone to the US consulate and warned them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:44PM
One of the more interesting bits of evidence left behind by one of the attackers was what appeared at least to be a Syrian passport. Now, if you're going to engage in some good old-fashioned mass shooting, why would you bring along a document that identifies exactly who you are and where you came from?
That was my initial thought. But consider this: if you are on your way to a mass shooting then you've got a car full of guns and ammo. If you get pulled over by the police for something stupid like running a red light or a fender bender you don't want to do anything to give them a reason to search your vehicle. So everybody in the car should be as squeaky clean as possible and that includes carrying identity documents.
Now that doesn't mean the passport wasn't stolen from a guy who looked close enough to the terrorist to pass. That would serve both purposes and probably wouldn't be that hard to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @06:47PM
Sorry but this is off:
The fundies are very good at motivating and coordinating people and they have an international network of experienced businessmen, NGOs, and government officials to fall back on for support. ISIS got the oilfields up and running again quickly and they are swimming in cash. They might turn society into a stone age hellhole with rifles but they are easily strong enough to consolidate power, train soldiers, and project force outside their territory.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday November 16 2015, @01:29PM
In related news, I read today in de Volkskrant (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/-terreurgroep-is-trekt-strijders-terug-uit-raqqa~a4187124/, in Dutch)
my translation:
WHO DO THEY SELL IT TO?
Who buys oil from IS?
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to dismantle a multinational oil company for "aiding and abetting an enemy of humanity", and put its management in jail, rather than start bombings or even a ground war, which will lead to more hatred and slaughter and terrorism in the next generation?
Or am I not supposed to think that way...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:34PM
Oil is one of the most saleable commodities in the world. There are tons of nations that would buy it. If it turns out to be Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell, they should be called onto the carpet in front of TV cameras.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday November 16 2015, @02:48PM
Who buys oil from IS?
I follow the energy markets for a long time for investment reasons, also interested in geology; in that culture (oil investors) this is as fascinating as emacs vs vi debates in tech circles. Probably more barrels of ink have been spilled on the topic than barrels of ISIS oil sold...
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to dismantle a multinational oil company
LOL, who?
The mainstream view is its just drug smuggling, but bulkier. The usual high market/discount (depending how you look at it) of up to four times. The top politicians are not directly involved but do get a cut of funds, the lower level politicians and law enforcement are bribed to look the other way.
The non mainstream view is it doesn't "seem" like it would be rocket science for the western armies to blow up enough oil tank trucks to discourage trade with neighbors, but there are concerns. First economically, firing $70K hellfires at $100K tanker trucks looks good until you look at total costs of the launching platform and the logistics tail so you end up paying $250K to make sure ISIS doesn't profit $25K or whatever and that doesn't scale or attrit very well.. Secondly most of the grunts that would end up dead would be innocent pakis or other imported labor or be locals, and nothing breeds terrorists like random killing of locals.
What would probably work is showering border guards and purchasing agents in neighboring countries with dollars, but politically thats a non starter. Most people don't really like ISIS so trading $10K of american bribe instead of $5K of ISIS bribe wouldn't be a hard sell FOR THEM, but it might be a hard sell on fox news. Meanwhile if the unemployed youth had gainful employment other than smuggling crude oil, they'd probably do an honest days work, but you can guess how fox news would propagandize that along with footage of boys in Detroit who we're not spending jobs program money on but are spending money on people we were shooting at last month over in the sandbox, etc... Its a big PITA.
On a large macroeconomic scale I have not pulled the graphs but supposedly you can estimate likely demand in Iran or Turkey or whatever and the gap is some mix of smuggling and bad estimation.
The whole oil business is an exercise in information assymetry and info warfare and plain old dealing with GIGO bad information, which makes it an interesting market to watch from the point of view of a "computer guy", or at least I think its an interesting market to watch, I'd recommend it.
Or in summary its not as simple as just throw the chairman of BP into prison, because however much he may otherwise deserve it, he has nothing to do with this.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @03:03PM
fyi paki is a derogatory term
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @06:58PM
fyi so is 'emacs'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @07:07PM
fyi so is 'fyi'
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday November 16 2015, @05:07PM
Your cost/benefit on blowing up oil tankers misses the point. While shooting 70K rockets (send in the worthogs and just strafe them) at them might still be a bad bargain it isn't just a dollar problem for ISIS. If we blew a bunch of them up they have to replace them. Getting oil tankers in quantity in that part of the world would be non-trivial at any price, they would certainly be forced to pay a huge premium. Second point is that those oil trucks can deliver a load every day or two so blowing one up costs ISIS a lot more than the cost of the truck or even the truck with a load. Third point is if we lower the average life expectancy of an oil tanker to a point it doesn't deliver enough loads to even pay for itself the whole black market oil business becomes a sink.
And in the end, we are rich and they aren't. So even if it cost us $2 to deny ISIS a single $1 it makes sound military sense. We put the Soviet Union out of business the exact same way, by outspending them and making them bankrupt their economy in a futile attempt to keep up. Yes they fielded advanced missiles that would have made our SDI plans much more difficult... but we never had to actually field anything because they went broke actually doing it while we were still doing R&D. Our problem is Obama. He is entirely unserious and only making a token handful of air strikes and low value targets like oil tankers aren't going to be the ones picked.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 16 2015, @06:28PM
At some scale you're probably correct, I'm just guessing that it takes a lot more than $70K MSRP of a hellfire missile to take out a tanker truck of crude. Platform limits, inevitable expensive targeting mistakes, etc.
Also they're not in the "smuggling stuff in tanker truck" business, but in the "smuggling crude oil" business. So even if we blew up every tanker truck they're just going to stack 6 drums in the back of a pickup truck and sell the load for $100 cash or whatever, plus some diesel to run the trucks. Or use boats somehow, or some form of sneakiness whereas its almost better to watch what truck goes where and then lean on the higher ups.
Note that on our own soil on heavily monitored land with massive police presence and monitoring technology our borders are pretty much wide open for illegals and drugs, so assuming we could stop crude oil exports on the other side of the planet where everyone on all sides but Israel hates us is somewhat optimistic at best.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:13AM
Do the math. Oil tanker trucks (per Wikipedia) carry 5500 gallons or more per load. On the typical roads over there probably tending more toward that lower bound. Break that up into barrels at about 300lbs ea and compare to the load capacity of the typical truck. If they had a lot of heavy trucks they wouldn't be mounting machine guns on crappy little Toyota light duty trucks. Even if they found enough 3/4 ton pickups they still need ten to replace one tanker. They would need a -lot- of drivers which would tie up a lot of their scarce manpower ferrying penny ante amounts of oil out. Either it won't be much money or the roads will be obviously congested with trucks, which again makes for an easy target. Traveling halfway across the area and joining ISIS to kill infidels in glorious battle and get the virgins in the afterlife is one thing, getting turned into greasy spots by the hundreds on a lonely highway trying to make a few bux is another.
And just as an I told ya so, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks somebody in Washington figured they better be seen doing something so news has broke that the UFAF took out 116 ISIS oil tankers. And as I foretold they used four warthogs along with two AC-130 gunships. This according to the NYT.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 18 2015, @02:32PM
Hmm yes scalability always a problem, you are correct in that.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anne Nonymous on Monday November 16 2015, @03:06PM
> WHO DO THEY SELL IT TO?
> Who buys oil from IS?
The FT had a good story on this very question last month: here [ft.com] and here [ft.com].
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 16 2015, @06:58PM
The article was fascinatingto read, but I don't believe at all the reason given why that 6 km of oil trucks wasn't bombed because "that would make life harder for the 10 million people living there if they didn't have diesel".
Now the money is flowing *into* the area, and the Daesh leaders buy more weapons and more terror attacks.
If the poor farmers have to buy diesel from *outside*, then either the money is flowing *out of* the area, draining Daesh funds, or the farmers themselves flee, draining Daesh tax income and strength (and increasing the European refugee problem, granted).
Also, we're talking about 10 million poor Syrian farmers in a desert. Since when does the Financial Times care about the poverty of Syrian farmers in a desert??? Was there ever an FT article about the Iraq war that mentioned "and the x million Iraqis in province Anbar on the other side of the Syrian border have been impoverished because X, Y and Z coalition attacks"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @03:46PM
This is it. If these bad guys have money it is because we gave it to them, paid for oil. And we're going to be doing a lot more of that in the future, it was predicted somewhere that in the next 20 years we'll be giving the Middle East 4 times more money than in the past 20 years. Imagine how life will be by then. Think about it when you grab the pistol at the gas station next time.
(Score: 2) by kbahey on Monday November 16 2015, @07:57PM
There are no multinationals here ...
Regular gasoline used to cost $2US in Turkey five years ago. Not sure what it is now, but that is more than double what it costs in, say, Canada, where I live.
What happens is that oil from ISIS is smuggled through intermediaries across the border to Turkey for less than half the international price ($20 instead of $41 or so today).
Some of that is here:
DW [dw.com]
The Economist [economist.com]
Associated Press [businessinsider.com]
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday November 16 2015, @02:37PM
"Extremists" in this sense have always been with us, and they have never been stopped. So why do we constantly try to stop them? The far better solution is to embrace them, then show them that modernity is a better way to live than extremism. This will not work for the most radical, but it will do one thing: It will defund them. Most of their followers will lose their fervor in exchange for an iPad and comfortable apartment. This will leave the very few true extremists without followers or their money. It worked with the Soviets, the Monarchists, the Papacy, and many other monolithic organizations bent on world domination. Just keep living a free, open, successful, scientific life and accept that occasionally extremists are going to kill, maim, or blow themselves up to protest your way of life. Now from time to time we've had to blow up bad guys (Nazis in particular, but also the aforementioned Monarchists) but usually this is not necessary. One need look only to Canada to see what would have happened if the US hadn't decided not to take it any more. I just wish France would stop dropping bombs (and the US and the rest, too) and start dropping Starbucks and Nike and iPhone and school and medical care instead. Probably less expensive in the long run, and far more likely to soften the resolve, and the wallet, of most of the Jihadis.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:51PM
Hell, the main reason ISIS has any support at all in northern iraq is because the new shia government in Baghdad just kept shitting over the sunnis in the north. Once ISIS showed up a lot of people were of the mind "damned if you, damned if you don't." Stuck with two shitty choices its hard to get up the kind public support needed for mass resistance.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 16 2015, @03:02PM
Extremists who want to overthrow the government have been around as long as there have been people to write stuff down (see "The Old Testament, Book 2" for more information)
Exodus is a long book. Did you have a more specific reference?
And if you're referring to the Israelites themselves, Moses' intent was not to overthrow the Pharaoh.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday November 16 2015, @03:50PM
Exodus 14:27 -
And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
And Exodus 32:33-34
The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
Maybe it was not Moses' intent to overthrow the Egyptian government, but it certainly seem's to be the LORD'S intention. :)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 16 2015, @05:00PM
Yeah, after Moses et al. tried to leave peacefully. It's not like they staged a rebellion to depose the Pharaoh; they just up and left.
Note "when the time comes," which begs the interpretation "after they die and are judged." Note God says nothing about smiting/killing them specifically. Maybe one could make the argument "the Angel of Death will go before you as you leave town, striking down anyone who gets in your way," but usually when they're talking about angels smiting people the wording is very unambiguous.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 16 2015, @10:48PM
"Extremists" in this sense have always been with us, and they have never been stopped. So why do we constantly try to stop them?
Because stopping them often works, contrary to your assertion.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @04:15PM
They need to "get some". Seriously, polygamy is doing to dating what the 1% are doing to us: a few hog most. Most of those who are sent to attack are down and out losers who couldn't get dates.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 16 2015, @05:46PM
Oh how it explains some of the night-vision footage of these clowns being watched having relations with the goats in the combat field, and passing them around from one to the next.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:52PM
So here's the question everyone wants answered. The "lucky" dudes get 4 wives and the dude is the boss. Does Allah let the dude command his wives to lez up for his amusement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @10:30PM
If you get too curious, you'll end up on the watch-list
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @10:33PM
You get to watch as well!!??!! No wonder jihadism is so popular.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @05:14PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ [theatlantic.com]
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants-reader-response-atlantic/385710/ [theatlantic.com]
In reply many like to say "No Islam is not like that" or "ISIS is not following Islam", "You're taking verses out of context". "You can't read it literally like that".
To that I give you this:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/122176/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-head-says-IS-murderers-deserve-to-be-kille.aspx [ahram.org.eg]
The head of Al-Azhar, Egypt's pre-eminent Sunni Islamic institute, has strongly condemned the killing of a Jordanian pilot by the "terrorist, devilish" Islamic State (IS).
A video released on Tuesday showed Muath Al-Kassasbeh being burned alive by militants in Syria.
Ahmed El-Tayeb said: "The Quran mandates that the perpetrators of this cowardly act, which goes against God's word, deserve to be killed, or crucified, or have their legs and arms amputated."
Ahmed El-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar is considered to be one of the most moderate Sunni clerics in Egypt and his position is considered by some Muslims to be the highest authority in Sunni Islamic thought and Islamic jurisprudence. So now tell me what is the big difference between one of the top authorities of Sunni Islam from the leaders of ISIS? Seems to me they agree on the methods but disagree on who is to be killed.
And here's how the people in many Muslim countries want apostates to be treated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Apostasy_in_the_recent_past [wikipedia.org]
See also: http://sunnah.com/search/religion-kill-him [sunnah.com]
and: http://sunnah.com/search/?q=burn+prayer+houses [sunnah.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @06:16PM
> http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/122176/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-head-says-IS-murderers-deserve-to-be-kille.aspx [ahram.org.eg]
Now I am confused. You seem to be arguing that if you are not a crazy ISIS nutjob then you aren't a real muslim. But then you link to an article quoting one of the most prominent islamic scholars saying that what ISIS has done is un-islamic and that murderers deserve to die the way their victims died. I really can't figure you nutjobs out.
> And here's how the people in many Muslim countries want apostates to be treated:
Apostasy doesn't mean the same thing in most of those countries as it does in the west. When you say "apostasy" without any qualifications they hear "treason." In fact as written the laws against apostasy often include a requirement for actively working against the community. Ask the same question about treason in the US and you'll get similar if not higher numbers. You'll also get all kinds of people claiming something is treason when it really isn't. When you look at the number of people executed in the middle-east for apostasy its tiny. Like 5 in the last 20 years and most of those were in conjunction with other crimes like drug smuggling or rape.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:00AM
My understanding is that in that part of the world leaving Islam and converting to another religion is widely considered "actively working against the community" and "treason".
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @08:42AM
But then you link to an article quoting one of the most prominent islamic scholars saying that what ISIS has done is un-islamic and that murderers deserve to die the way their victims died. I really can't figure you nutjobs out.
When Buddhists are killed do you hear the top Buddhist religious leaders call for their killers to be killed in the same manner?
When Catholics are killed do you hear the Catholic Pope call for their killers to be killed the same ways? Perhaps in the past when Catholicism was a violent religion, but nowadays no.
So now understand why Islam is still considered a religion of violence. Where the leaders lead their flock will mostly follow.
You can't figure us "nutjobs" out because you're not smart enough to see the obvious when its right in your face. I wonder if you can even see it with me spelling it out like that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondrake on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:54AM
You are aware of the fact that the US still has the death penalty? And how US politicians ordered and achieved the murder (cannot really call it otherwise, it certainly was no trail) of the man which they saw responsible for an act of terrorism? So is the US a country of violence, where the leaders lead their flock, and most will follow?
You are making a strawman argument here. I cannot fault the man for calling for the death of terrorist. I would perhaps ask for the prosecution instead, but in these kind of situations emotions play a role.
Apart from that, you are giving incorrect analogies, it is more like that Pope would call for the death of catholics who killed other people. I think the current pope is above that, but I wonder, if a high-prolific catholic terrorist attack were a thing, I would not be surprised hearing at least some bishops making very similar statements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:36PM
You are aware of the fact that the US still has the death penalty? And how US politicians ordered and achieved the murder (cannot really call it otherwise, it certainly was no trail) of the man which they saw responsible for an act of terrorism? So is the US a country of violence, where the leaders lead their flock, and most will follow?
Yes. The US is a country of violence. Plenty of statistics to prove it. You should have realized it by now. But why even bring this up? And then you have the cheek to say I'm making a strawman argument.
That you even wrote your first paragraph shows you're either incapable of seeing and understanding simple obvious stuff, or you are bad at arguing a point. Or both.
You should work at getting better. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain simple obvious stuff to you after this post. Your claiming that some bishops _would_ do X is weak and pathetic. If you're going to go to talk about some random bishop around the world possibly saying stuff, you can go find for yourself many times more imams and muftis who have _actually_ said far worse stuff in public or to their followers.
p.s. in case you try to bring it up, I'm well aware of the child molestation stuff by bishops and priests but they weren't exactly teaching their followers to do that were they? And that area looks even worse for Islam: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/17/saudi.child.marriage/ [cnn.com]
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-father-jailed-marrying-14-year-old-daughter-off-30-year-old-man-1508511 [ibtimes.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:42AM
Why do you feel the need to sprinkle your reply with personal attacks? Its not relevant to the discussion.
I talked about the US simply to show you that answering violence with violence is a thing that not only Muslims do. If you already knew this: great. But why write your post in such a way as if it is a think that only Muslims do? And I only brought up the bishop argument because it is one you *should* have used if you were trying to be logically correct. The issue at hand was a Muslim calling for the death of Muslims, not a Muslim calling for the death of people that attacked Muslims. You miss the point by calling it weak. Your argument simply did not make sense.
There are a lot of cultural differences in this world. Not everything you hear a Muslim say is because he is Muslim, but because he grew up in a society with its own particular values. Often, this will be a 3rd world society that we find very hard to understand. Sometimes, they do things much better than we in the "West". Sometimes, they do things much worse. But who are we really to judge? Take your child marriage example. In many societies, arranged marriages, even at a young age, were (and sometimes still are) seen as beneficial for both families and the children involved. If it happens in country where its forbidden, then I think it should be prosecuted. If it happens in a country were the majority of people think it should be allowed, I have no right to judge them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:04PM
Whereas the pope or an archbishop is far better analog to a grand imam. The religious leaders are supposed to set higher standards so their followers can hopefully get better. That many people want to answer violence with violence means little when they are not leaders of a major religion.
And this is not the grand imam getting caught in private saying what he really wants - this is his official public statement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @06:53PM
Islam is a religion of war. [blogspot.com]
Read the Milestones and the Reliance before you disagree.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @07:12PM
So are the rest of the Abrahamic religions. What's your point? Or rather, what's your favorite radio guy's point, which is basically the same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:47PM
Agreed. The Bible is also full of violence. They are like a Rorschach test: you see what you want in all those books. If you want to find good, you can find good. If you want to find war and revenge, you can find war and revenge. Bad preachers and Imams often misguide the gullible and frustrated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:54PM
> Bad preachers and Imams often misguide the gullible and frustrated.
That includes bad preachers telling christians what is in the quran. We've got lot of those internet preachers right here. Like that AC who started this thread.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @08:02PM
This theory doesn't explain the bombing of Beirut that killed 40 on the same day they attacked Paris.
It also doesn't explain the bombing of the Russian airplane. Its not like Putin is a champion of fun and freedom.
It makes a lot more sense to say that they attack France because they consider France an enemy on the battlefield, France was participating in the bombing campaign long before this weekend.
I'm not saying ISIS fights anyone for just one reason. But this sort of "they hate us for a freedoms" thing is mostly propaganda. Yeah they think the west is decadent and corrupt, but they think basically anyone slightly less puritanical than themselves are decadent and corrupt.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zeigerpuppy on Monday November 16 2015, @09:46PM
I agree. Killing others mercilessly is a problem for all sides in this war.
It's intriguing how many people are outraged by the attacks on Paris yet feel that bombing Syria is a justified response.
This is classic asymmetric warfare.
The 'coalition' parties need to really think about how indiscriminate bombing, dealing over oil, destruction of civil infrastructure and messing with other peoples' ability to self determine causes extremism.
The attacks are cowardly and vile but they are a rational response to having your territory systematically fucked up.
In this context, the 'terrorists' can be properly considered soldiers in an asymmetric war; their response is to strike at the soft underbelly of their enemy.
The response is childish; "bomb Syria more", "declare a state of emergency", "rewrite the constitution to exclude undesirables".
The only way for this war to end is to recognise and support civil rebuilding in these war-torn states. It may even require recognition of ISIS statehood to start a rational debate.
More violence on the coalition's part will beget more acts of barbarism against civilians. It's our responsibly to hold our governments to account on their own violence.
There's no winning this war while we continue to do exactly the things that create more people willing to die to fight back.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:10AM
No... There's no winning this war while we continue to pretend it is a counterinsurgency. If it's war, winning means fighting until unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender is scary. We haven't fought a war like that ,we America and Europe, since World War II.
Unconditional surrender means that when or if we win, we make all the rules. Unconditional surrender means surrounding a place at bombing it or barraging it for blowing it up until whoever's left surrenders or until nobody's left. Unconditional surrender means you get to keep those aspects of your culture that we happen to like. Unconditional surrender is not about mutual respect. Unconditional surrender means that the losers don't get to make their own decisions because they can't be trusted to make decisions.
If we fight like a war, we might win it like a war. We could I suppose lose it like a war too. Sucks to lose ...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:06AM
> We haven't fought a war like that ,we America and Europe, since World War II.
That's because war is not the same as it once was. The world has changed including the way we fight and what we fight over. Expecting war to work the way it did 70 years ago is like expecting television to work like it did 70 years ago.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:15AM
Citation needed
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:07AM
To stop young men blowing themselves up and killing people you need to give them a reason not to. ISIS puts across this belief that the reckoning/armageddon/malahim is upon us, and they want western boots on the ground in Dabiq to further that line. Hell they might even believe it.
However the youth shooting up theatres wouldn't particularly welcome the end of the world if they thought the world was half-decent. It's not. They see a world where the west is bombing the crap out of people they consider to be brothers (and make no mistake, the attackers, be it Sydney, Paris, Ankara or Nairobi, are inevitably local), where they have no job prospects, where they are hated by people in the street, and where they hear two voices
1) this is a war and we will crush you
2) come join us and rise up in war against the devil
ISIS are trying very hard to turn this into a Muslim vs everyone else war, and their allies are helping them. One ISIS ally said he wanted to shut down mosques! Another said that Christians should be given asylum, but Muslims shouldn't. We need to fight ISIS and their allies.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @09:30PM
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
Cunts struck first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:01AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mumbai_train_bombings [wikipedia.org] - Series of bombs placed in overcrowded trains in financial capital of... oh wait... India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks [wikipedia.org] - A bunch of people enter Mumbai via sea route from Pakistan and do exactly what they did in Paris. World sits and says - these brown people are savages who fight each other.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:13PM
Those atrocities were given ample coverage in the British media at the time they happened. Britain has strong ties with India.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].