One of those I have to say I don't understand; he claims that by setting the policy that everyone are either black or white, for or against, somehow accomplishes something
He even spelled out exactly what it accomplishes: It removed the deniability of terrorism. You can't fund it to carry out your aims, and expect to get away with it, because if you're funding it we're going to come after you, too.
That's not the best defence against terrorism, by any measure.
Given that the rest of the world isn't all that willing to do anything about it, we'll just have to manage, I guess.
Seriously, what do you think the rest of the world can contribute? Intelligence? Hell, the rest of the world didn't even have as much warning of 9/11 as we did. Or, if they did, they shut up about it, which is even more damning. Military assistance? Europe's getting so far behind us in military prowess that within a decade, we won't even be able to fight together on the same battlefield without it slowing us down. Germany can't project force, France has spent billions of francs on a single broken aircraft carrier, Russia's got nothing.
We can depend on Britain and Australia. That's pretty much it. If the rest of the world has something to offer, what is it?
The policy doesn't accomplish that though, because it is untenable in practice - and for that matter, not used, all the pretty rhetoric notwithstanding. And Americans still buy shitloads of Chinese stuff, even though China funds and commits terrorism.
And the rest of the world does tons against terrorism. I grew up with terrorism running rampant. The US, as usual, overreacts and behaves like it just woke from deep slumber. Which it probably did. Terrorism has been with the rest of the world since the 19th century, and we've learned to live normally despite it. The US doesn't even appear to be interested in figuring out how to do that.
Terrorism has not gone up recently. There are some spikes, but compared to 20, 30 years ago, there's almost none at all around. When I grew up it seemed there wasn't any given week when an airplane wasn't hijacked, or people travelling through otherwise peaceful countries were kidnapped. These days there is comparatively little terrorism, and most of it is in warzones.
Terrorism has been with the rest of the world since the 19th century, and we've learned to live normally despite it. The US doesn't even appear to be interested in figuring out how to do that.
No fucking way you're making that argument.
Terrorism as background radiation. It causes the occasional cancer here and there, but it's nothing to worry about. Can't do anything about it. Just live with it, and hope it's not one of your stem cells that just got tweaked into malignancy by a passing gamma photon.
Sorry, no. I'm not comfortable with the idea of 20th century weapons in the hands of 15th-century religious fanatics, even if they've been terrorists since the 19th century.
These days there is comparatively little terrorism,
By what measure? Certainly not by total casualties. The IRA never managed anything close to 9/11, not in an entire decade of operations, not in Dáil Éireann's most fevered wet dreams. The Red Brigades? Action Directe? Not even a blip in comparison.
and most of it is in warzones.
Or in tourist enclaves in Bali. Or in modern, Western democracies like Spain. Or in Buenos Ares. Or Sri Lanka. Or Tokyo. The Khobar Towers weren't in a war zone. Nor is Moscow, actually. Or Jakarta. Or Riyadh. Or the Phillipines.
I'm not making the argument you claim I'm making. In the 1970's there was tremendous amounts of terrorism. Yes, one event, 9/11, has a much higher total count than any previous act of terrorism, making the deathtoll higher in 2001 than it ever was before. That is more due to the motivation and intent of the terrorists, combined with new found ability, than anything else. The IRA would not have done something like that even if they could have. Bader-Meinhof or the RAF would have, but they were severely short of resources.
Today, most of those terrorist organizations are not much more than memories. No new western terrorist organizations have cropped up to replace the ones that have gone away, and the ones that remain (ETA, IRA, a handful of other small ones) hardly do anything worth mentioning. Are you claiming this has happened all by itself, and not through action on the victim countries part?
Terrorism can be countered. Europe knows this, and actively works on it. The best way is to remove the cause for the terrorism. Problem is, you say this in the presence of a war mongering, smart weapon fixated US fanatic today and you get the normal diabetrie about "root cause", alternatively the view that "you propose to do nothing and just accept it?".
Far from it. I propose to do something that actually works. Terrorism is not a country or a regime. Just like with drugs, waging war on it is a complete and utter waste of resources. The US refuses to see this, and STILL can't understand the objections the rest of the world - that has dealt with terrorism for over a century - has to its misguided policies.
You're a very intelligent man. I didn't expect you to use this argument.
Problem is, you say this in the presence of a war mongering, smart weapon fixated US fanatic today and you get the normal diabetrie about "root cause", alternatively the view that "you propose to do nothing and just accept it?".
Root cause?
Christ, have you even noticed what we've done in Afghanistan? 10 million Afghans registered to vote, 41% of whom are women.
Islamism is a sick ideology, and it's an ideology that can be combatted. That's exactly what going after the root causes is, and that's what we're doing, in multiple ways, on multiple fronts.
waging war on it is a complete and utter waste of resources
We're not waging war on terrorism. We're waging war on Islamism.
The US refuses to see this
No, it doesn't. It sees it clearly.
that has dealt with terrorism for over a century
Um...now you're talking about it in just the terms you said you can't talk about it in.
Europe has not dealt with Islamism for over a century. It's only begun to deal with it, in an ineffectual and belated fashion, like France's efforts to marginalize the harder-core believers by banning religious ornamentation in its schools.
Islam is about as sick as Judeo-Christianity. The problem, in both cases, is extremism. But regardless, the war is explicitly called "war on terrorism" and appears to be waged as such. The justifications used for various actions are about terrorism, when they're not about "evildoers" or about biblical prophesies that need to be fulfilled. But anyway, I agree with you that the root causes are what has to be combatted - but I disagree that that's what the US is doing. Sure, it's getting that done as well, and you won't find me objecting to the action in Afghanistan (except for some strategic decisions that are bound to come back and bite the world bigtime). The beef I have, and most share, is Iraq. I'd go so far as to say that the action in Iraq has so far helped terrorism more than it has hindered it - in very direct ways as well, such as by spreading a huge amount of arms throughout the population of the region.
But be that as it may, the US strategic command may very well see that extreme Islamism is the target. The US as a gut feeling entity, and the current President, do not appear or act as if they do. And that is a problem in its own right.
And Europe has not dealt with Islam for a century. More like twenty or so. But it *has* dealt with terrorism for over a century, on its own turf, in its own front yard. One of the first terrorists, coincidentally, was a Swedish anarchist. And most of the heavy terrorist organizations over here have had strong ties to the various middle eastern Islamist extremist regimes - and most of them are now gone. Yes, incidents still occur, but the origin has to a large extent been pushed back from the front yard to the sponsoring country. This is progress. It's not all the way there, but in 1970, a terrorist incidence in Sweden would originate from Sweden. In 1980 it would originate in Germany or Spain. Today it would originate in the middle east.
My point is, putting a deaf ear to what Europe says about how to handle terrorism is not necessarily the best way to handle things. The US never had to deal with terrorism before. We have dealt with high tech terrorism for decades, and with terrorism at large for over a century.
Christianity has had a reformation. Islam has not. Part of what we're doing is trying to bring that about.
The problem, in both cases, is extremism.
That's bullshit. Pure, simple, bullshit.
The Amish are Christian extremists. The Mennonites are Christian extremists. Amish are so extreme they don't even use electricity, or modern conveniences. They're not even allowed to own cars.
But they don't blow up bus stations, because their particular variety of extremism doesn't tell them to.
The problem is not extremism. It's the variety of extremism that tells its adherents to blow up bus stations, and to fly jet airliners into skyscrapers.
But regardless, the war is explicitly called "war on terrorism"
Come now, do you believe everything government says?
and appears to be waged as such.
In current world affairs, there is nearly a one-to-one correspondance between terrorism and Islamism; the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are carried out by Islamists.
It's no surprise that a war waged against one of these things looks very much like a war waged against the others.
such as by spreading a huge amount of arms throughout the population of the region.
Um...you think they weren't there before? Like, huh?
And Europe has not dealt with Islam for a century.
Extremism comes in many flavours, but my point is that what terrorists of all kinds have in common is that they are extremists. This includes Christian terrorists, like the IRA.
And no, I don't think the arms belonging to the Iraqi military were previously dispersed throughout the Iraqi population to the extreme extent they now are.
And the issue is Islam extremists. They have pretty much always been around. The Hashashins were not the first we had to deal with, and as long as Islam exists, they will exist. Hell, as long as religion exists, extremists of this kind will, and probably long after that as well.
No, that is not a defeatist "oh well, they'll always be around" attitude. It just means the fight is never ending, and not physical nearly as much as reformational. And reforms through invasion have a poor track record, Japan notwithstanding.
but my point is that what terrorists of all kinds have in common is that they are extremists
Well, duh. That's pretty much a tautology. Terrorism is an extreme act, so those who committ terrorist acts are extremists.
And no, I don't think the arms belonging to the Iraqi military were previously dispersed throughout the Iraqi population to the extreme extent they now are
Well, of course not! They were living under heel of a brutal dictator.
It's considerably more difficult to commit genocide against an armed population. I don't see this as the negative you apparently do.
And reforms through invasion have a poor track record,
Nobody's suggesting that invasion will itself directly bring about reform.
Considering the vast majority of people who got hold of those weapons after the US didn't collect them are Islamist extremists, I can't really see things as sanguinely as you do. Most of the US servicepeople killed in Iraq right now are killed with those weapons. I know people who are there, and who's chances of getting killed have increased dramatically through strategic and logistic mistakes that would have been easy to avoid.
But the people are armed now, so noone can genocide them. That's good, I guess. But, who exactly was trying to do that?
Considering the vast majority of people who got hold of those weapons after the US didn't collect them are Islamist extremists
What are you basing that on?
Most of the US servicepeople killed in Iraq right now are killed with those weapons.
Most of the US servicepeople in Iraq are being attacked in a few specific regions comprising a very small area of the country. Most areas are pretty peaceful and composed.
Mostly on the fact that it was those groups that raided the military bases while the US was busy elsewhere ...
And as far as I can tell, the military was pretty good at keeping those groups from genociding anyone - when they tried. Are you suggesting the new Iraqi order will be worse at that? I'm genuinely curious; more armed people around is generally very bad for crimerates. I certainly don't see it as a good thing, you have that right.
And as far as I can tell, the military was pretty good at keeping those groups from genociding anyone - when they tried.
What are you ON ABOUT?
The Iraqi military didn't "keep those groups from genociding anyone."
The IRAQI MILITARY WAS COMMITTING THE GENOCIDE, at the orders of Saddam Hussein, the fucking ruler of the fucking country. The Iraqi military bombarded Halabja with blood and never agents, killing thousands. The Iraqi military carried out a years-long campaign of dehousing and displacing and starving the Marsh Arabs, wreaking an ecological catastrophe in order to punish people who opposed Hussein's rule.
Lordy.
more armed people around is generally very bad for crimerates.
I bet you will not be able to find a single good piece of data backing that up, and will have to ignore a sizable body of data showing exactly the opposite.
My geography's just fine, I could point the both of 'em out for you on the map of your choice. I just thought it was Sweden with the assault rifles in every closet, not the Swiss.
He even spelled out exactly what it accomplishes: It removed the deniability of terrorism. You can't fund it to carry out your aims, and expect to get away with it, because if you're funding it we're going to come after you, too.
That's not the best defence against terrorism, by any measure.
Given that the rest of the world isn't all that willing to do anything about it, we'll just have to manage, I guess.
Seriously, what do you think the rest of the world can contribute? Intelligence? Hell, the rest of the world didn't even have as much warning of 9/11 as we did. Or, if they did, they shut up about it, which is even more damning. Military assistance? Europe's getting so far behind us in military prowess that within a decade, we won't even be able to fight together on the same battlefield without it slowing us down. Germany can't project force, France has spent billions of francs on a single broken aircraft carrier, Russia's got nothing.
We can depend on Britain and Australia. That's pretty much it. If the rest of the world has something to offer, what is it?
Reply
And the rest of the world does tons against terrorism. I grew up with terrorism running rampant. The US, as usual, overreacts and behaves like it just woke from deep slumber. Which it probably did. Terrorism has been with the rest of the world since the 19th century, and we've learned to live normally despite it. The US doesn't even appear to be interested in figuring out how to do that.
Terrorism has not gone up recently. There are some spikes, but compared to 20, 30 years ago, there's almost none at all around. When I grew up it seemed there wasn't any given week when an airplane wasn't hijacked, or people travelling through otherwise peaceful countries were kidnapped. These days there is comparatively little terrorism, and most of it is in warzones.
Reply
No fucking way you're making that argument.
Terrorism as background radiation. It causes the occasional cancer here and there, but it's nothing to worry about. Can't do anything about it. Just live with it, and hope it's not one of your stem cells that just got tweaked into malignancy by a passing gamma photon.
Sorry, no. I'm not comfortable with the idea of 20th century weapons in the hands of 15th-century religious fanatics, even if they've been terrorists since the 19th century.
These days there is comparatively little terrorism,
By what measure? Certainly not by total casualties. The IRA never managed anything close to 9/11, not in an entire decade of operations, not in Dáil Éireann's most fevered wet dreams. The Red Brigades? Action Directe? Not even a blip in comparison.
and most of it is in warzones.
Or in tourist enclaves in Bali. Or in modern, Western democracies like Spain. Or in Buenos Ares. Or Sri Lanka. Or Tokyo. The Khobar Towers weren't in a war zone. Nor is Moscow, actually. Or Jakarta. Or Riyadh. Or the Phillipines.
Reply
Today, most of those terrorist organizations are not much more than memories. No new western terrorist organizations have cropped up to replace the ones that have gone away, and the ones that remain (ETA, IRA, a handful of other small ones) hardly do anything worth mentioning. Are you claiming this has happened all by itself, and not through action on the victim countries part?
Terrorism can be countered. Europe knows this, and actively works on it. The best way is to remove the cause for the terrorism. Problem is, you say this in the presence of a war mongering, smart weapon fixated US fanatic today and you get the normal diabetrie about "root cause", alternatively the view that "you propose to do nothing and just accept it?".
Far from it. I propose to do something that actually works. Terrorism is not a country or a regime. Just like with drugs, waging war on it is a complete and utter waste of resources. The US refuses to see this, and STILL can't understand the objections the rest of the world - that has dealt with terrorism for over a century - has to its misguided policies.
You're a very intelligent man. I didn't expect you to use this argument.
Reply
Root cause?
Christ, have you even noticed what we've done in Afghanistan? 10 million Afghans registered to vote, 41% of whom are women.
Islamism is a sick ideology, and it's an ideology that can be combatted. That's exactly what going after the root causes is, and that's what we're doing, in multiple ways, on multiple fronts.
waging war on it is a complete and utter waste of resources
We're not waging war on terrorism. We're waging war on Islamism.
The US refuses to see this
No, it doesn't. It sees it clearly.
that has dealt with terrorism for over a century
Um...now you're talking about it in just the terms you said you can't talk about it in.
Europe has not dealt with Islamism for over a century. It's only begun to deal with it, in an ineffectual and belated fashion, like France's efforts to marginalize the harder-core believers by banning religious ornamentation in its schools.
Reply
But be that as it may, the US strategic command may very well see that extreme Islamism is the target. The US as a gut feeling entity, and the current President, do not appear or act as if they do. And that is a problem in its own right.
And Europe has not dealt with Islam for a century. More like twenty or so. But it *has* dealt with terrorism for over a century, on its own turf, in its own front yard. One of the first terrorists, coincidentally, was a Swedish anarchist. And most of the heavy terrorist organizations over here have had strong ties to the various middle eastern Islamist extremist regimes - and most of them are now gone. Yes, incidents still occur, but the origin has to a large extent been pushed back from the front yard to the sponsoring country. This is progress. It's not all the way there, but in 1970, a terrorist incidence in Sweden would originate from Sweden. In 1980 it would originate in Germany or Spain. Today it would originate in the middle east.
My point is, putting a deaf ear to what Europe says about how to handle terrorism is not necessarily the best way to handle things. The US never had to deal with terrorism before. We have dealt with high tech terrorism for decades, and with terrorism at large for over a century.
Reply
I didn't say "Islam." I said Islamism.
Christianity has had a reformation. Islam has not. Part of what we're doing is trying to bring that about.
The problem, in both cases, is extremism.
That's bullshit. Pure, simple, bullshit.
The Amish are Christian extremists. The Mennonites are Christian extremists. Amish are so extreme they don't even use electricity, or modern conveniences. They're not even allowed to own cars.
But they don't blow up bus stations, because their particular variety of extremism doesn't tell them to.
The problem is not extremism. It's the variety of extremism that tells its adherents to blow up bus stations, and to fly jet airliners into skyscrapers.
But regardless, the war is explicitly called "war on terrorism"
Come now, do you believe everything government says?
and appears to be waged as such.
In current world affairs, there is nearly a one-to-one correspondance between terrorism and Islamism; the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are carried out by Islamists.
It's no surprise that a war waged against one of these things looks very much like a war waged against the others.
such as by spreading a huge amount of arms throughout the population of the region.
Um...you think they weren't there before? Like, huh?
And Europe has not dealt with Islam for a century.
Again, the issue isn't Islam. It's Islamism.
Reply
And no, I don't think the arms belonging to the Iraqi military were previously dispersed throughout the Iraqi population to the extreme extent they now are.
And the issue is Islam extremists. They have pretty much always been around. The Hashashins were not the first we had to deal with, and as long as Islam exists, they will exist. Hell, as long as religion exists, extremists of this kind will, and probably long after that as well.
No, that is not a defeatist "oh well, they'll always be around" attitude. It just means the fight is never ending, and not physical nearly as much as reformational. And reforms through invasion have a poor track record, Japan notwithstanding.
Reply
Well, duh. That's pretty much a tautology. Terrorism is an extreme act, so those who committ terrorist acts are extremists.
And no, I don't think the arms belonging to the Iraqi military were previously dispersed throughout the Iraqi population to the extreme extent they now are
Well, of course not! They were living under heel of a brutal dictator.
It's considerably more difficult to commit genocide against an armed population. I don't see this as the negative you apparently do.
And reforms through invasion have a poor track record,
Nobody's suggesting that invasion will itself directly bring about reform.
Reply
But the people are armed now, so noone can genocide them. That's good, I guess. But, who exactly was trying to do that?
Reply
What are you basing that on?
Most of the US servicepeople killed in Iraq right now are killed with those weapons.
Most of the US servicepeople in Iraq are being attacked in a few specific regions comprising a very small area of the country. Most areas are pretty peaceful and composed.
But, who exactly was trying to do that?
Um...are you serious?
Google for "Marsh Arabs." Then for "Halabja."
Just for starters.
Reply
And as far as I can tell, the military was pretty good at keeping those groups from genociding anyone - when they tried. Are you suggesting the new Iraqi order will be worse at that? I'm genuinely curious; more armed people around is generally very bad for crimerates. I certainly don't see it as a good thing, you have that right.
Reply
What are you ON ABOUT?
The Iraqi military didn't "keep those groups from genociding anyone."
The IRAQI MILITARY WAS COMMITTING THE GENOCIDE, at the orders of Saddam Hussein, the fucking ruler of the fucking country. The Iraqi military bombarded Halabja with blood and never agents, killing thousands. The Iraqi military carried out a years-long campaign of dehousing and displacing and starving the Marsh Arabs, wreaking an ecological catastrophe in order to punish people who opposed Hussein's rule.
Lordy.
more armed people around is generally very bad for crimerates.
I bet you will not be able to find a single good piece of data backing that up, and will have to ignore a sizable body of data showing exactly the opposite.
Reply
How are your crime rates?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment