All is forgiven

[imatfaal]

...

[iNow]

Sam Harris weighs in with this podcast style 40 minute chat: https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/ask-me-anything-1

[Ten oz]

Sam Harris is smart and I believe motivated by what he honestly believes. However I don't agree with him. A lot of religions or even devoted social beliefs can become extreme and dangerous. If the roles were reversed and Islamic countries dominated the economic and military strength of the world I believe some Christians would be far more extreme. Islam itself isn't the problem. If all the same players prayed to Apollo I think we would still have the same problem. Just as many Christians feel Christmas is under attack when they aren't allow nativity scenes anywhere and everywhere religious people in general are easily slightly, easily angered. Religion tends to be all or nothing. At the moment Islam seems the most extreme but Christians run the show. Christian have nothing to blow themselves up about at the moment. History shows that just about any religion can be exceedingly violent.

 

Not merely religion but all social devotions. In the United States for example people have both exhibited and openly expressed a willingness to KILL over gun rights and abortion. we have seen abortion clinics bombed and all heard the pro gun slogan "from my cold dead hand". A couple changes in the law and otherwise law abiding citizens would become extremists and kill. By there own words they would yet debating those social issues never center around the pending extremism of those people. That would only flame the fire. Can't call all gun owners extreme just because some of them blog about a new civil war and stock pile weapons like a squirrel collects nuts for the winter. Can't call all right to lifers religious extremist just because some of them murder doctors. It simply isn't helpful to the conversation.

 

At the end of the day, at least in my country (USA), more people will died from mass school shootings that from Islamic terrorist last year. Most people died from drug gang wars on the streets than from Islamic terrorism last year. More people overdosed and died from prescription drugs than from Islamic terrorism last year. What we choose to shine a light on matters. Islamic terrorism is terrible and like most all religion I think Islam is stupid. However I think we give it more attention than it deserves and that attention helps drives the extremist.

[iNow]

Further to that point:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-wests-four-part-strategy-to-deal-with-radical-islam/2015/01/22/bcd77a3e-a270-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html

The Paris attacks were barbaric, as were those in Ottawa, Sydney, London, Madrid and Fort Hood. But one way to gain perspective might be to keep in mind the numbers. According to the Global Terrorism Database, in the 12 years between Sept. 12, 2001, and the end of 2013, the number of Americans who died on U.S. soil due to terrorism was 42. (And six of those were from the gruesome attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in 2012.) Meanwhile, in one year alone, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 32,351 Americans died because of firearms. The number who died in traffic accidents was 33,783.

[DimaMazin]

 

At the end of the day, at least in my country (USA), more people will died from mass school shootings that from Islamic terrorist last year. Most people died from drug gang wars on the streets than from Islamic terrorism last year. More people overdosed and died from prescription drugs than from Islamic terrorism last year. What we choose to shine a light on matters. Islamic terrorism is terrible and like most all religion I think Islam is stupid. However I think we give it more attention than it deserves and that attention helps drives the extremist.

Our attention should be dangerous for terrorists. If it is attractive for them then our attention should be more dangerous for them.

[Airbrush]

Gather up radicalized youths who intend to join jihad and take them to a reprogramming camp where they stay until "cured". You have the very best, most charismatic Imams to explain to these misguided youths, over and over, all day long, that dying for jihad is not smart. The camp will be very strict about religion and everybody needs to do ALL their prayers and listen to all the deprogramming. And read the Quran for several hours a day.

 

Same for "white power" skinheads who are nominally Christian, or any other radical religious group that promotes fighting and dying for them. They should all get a relevant, quality deprogramming camp to re-educate them.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it; George W has the war, on terror, he chose to prosecute.

[Phi for All]

One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it; George W has the war, on terror, he chose to prosecute.

 

There were just a handful of Islamic terrorists before Bush II. Isn't war supposed to reduce the enemy?

 

Maybe that war was is about something else.

[dimreepr]

Isn't war supposed to reduce the enemy?

 

 

 

An ill considered war may have the opposite effect.

[Ten oz]

When is a tough stance tough enough? The debate often seems centered around how much tougher should we be. Over the last decade plus we have been pretty darn tough:

 

"The ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have taken a tremendous toll on the people of those countries. At the very least, 174,000 civilians have been determined to have died violent deaths as a result of the war as of April 2014. The actual number of deaths, direct and indirect, as a result of the wars are many times higher than this figure."

http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians-killed-and-wounded

 

Islamic terrorism has increased during the past decade. If the purpose of the global war on terror was/is to eradicate Islamic Terror the campaign isn't succesful. The opposite is happening. That is not meant to place blame but rather it is an honest assessment. We made plans, assessed goals, and went to action. The outcome has not been what we hoped. In a scientific expirement one would learn from that and create a new experiment rather than just continuing down the same route. Islamic terrorist are dangerous, cruel, evil, and every other terrible thing. However we don't control their behavior. We only control our own. So in seeking a solution we should focus on what we can be responsible for, our actions.

[Phi for All]

Islamic terrorist are dangerous, cruel, evil, and every other terrible thing. However we don't control their behavior. We only control our own. So in seeking a solution we should focus on what we can be responsible for, our actions.

 

I think we've been controlling their behavior for a long time, but not in a way that's beneficial to anyone expect those who profit from war. When we name our war missions things like "Operation Infinite Justice", a direct slap in the face to Islam (apparently Allah alone can dispense "infinite justice"), we're manipulating their behavior, since we know from past experience that terrorists get whipped into a frenzy when their religion is mocked.

 

Al Qaeda was just a little fringe group with a handful of followers until we started manipulating them. Everything we did to supposedly suppress them made them bigger and stronger. We're not completely stupid when it comes to war, so I have to think that the real objectives were met, that all that money did exactly what was planned.

[Ten oz]

I think we've been controlling their behavior for a long time, but not in a way that's beneficial to anyone expect those who profit from war. When we name our war missions things like "Operation Infinite Justice", a direct slap in the face to Islam (apparently Allah alone can dispense "infinite justice"), we're manipulating their behavior, since we know from past experience that terrorists get whipped into a frenzy when their religion is mocked.

 

Al Qaeda was just a little fringe group with a handful of followers until we started manipulating them. Everything we did to supposedly suppress them made them bigger and stronger. We're not completely stupid when it comes to war, so I have to think that the real objectives were met, that all that money did exactly what was planned.

I would said we have influenced their behavior. If we "controlled" their behavior we would have moat desirable outcomes.

[Phi for All]

I would said we have influenced their behavior. If we "controlled" their behavior we would have moat desirable outcomes.

 

And I'm suggesting that those who tried to do the controlling got the outcome they desired.

[Ten oz]

And I'm suggesting that those who tried to do the controlling got the outcome they desired.

 

You believe elements of the U.S. and British governments wanted a bigger more influential terror network? Or are you just referencing military industrial complex spending?

 

I apologizes for all the typing mistakes. I have trouble using the mobile site with my phone.

[Phi for All]

You believe elements of the U.S. and British governments wanted a bigger more influential terror network? Or are you just referencing military industrial complex spending?

 

Knowing from past experience that open war with religious terrorists just helps recruit more terrorists, why was conventional warfare chosen to deal with the aftermath of 9/11? Even accepting that retaliation is a standard response when attacked, did it have to be done in such a way that it angered most Muslims, dragged their whole religion into the combat? Is that the way you deal with people you want to embrace democracy? These were supposed to be the best and brightest of their time, so I can conclude that it was just goofy old W who bumbled his way along without an exit strategy, or I can conclude that putting out the fire was never their intention. Why else throw gasoline?

[Delta1212]

 

Knowing from past experience that open war with religious terrorists just helps recruit more terrorists, why was conventional warfare chosen to deal with the aftermath of 9/11? Even accepting that retaliation is a standard response when attacked, did it have to be done in such a way that it angered most Muslims, dragged their whole religion into the combat? Is that the way you deal with people you want to embrace democracy? These were supposed to be the best and brightest of their time, so I can conclude that it was just goofy old W who bumbled his way along without an exit strategy, or I can conclude that putting out the fire was never their intention. Why else throw gasoline?

Why charge machine guns on horseback?

[Phi for All]

Why charge machine guns on horseback?

 

So you think all those military minds just assumed we could mow those horsemen down, no problems? It was a just arrogance on their part that wasted so many resources on such a minimal threat?

 

It's easy to see why a machine gun works well on a cavalry charge. It's less easy to understand why we keep shooting at flies with an RPG, especially when it seems to attract more flies. Terrorism thrives on all this attention, they can't afford the kind of marketing we give them for free every time they get violent.

 

I just think it would be easier to ask the hosting country to remove the rotting carcass the flies are attracted to. There were plenty of people after 9/11 who called for diplomacy as the most effective way to deal with terrorism, but the Bush II administration steamrolled over them. They had plans already and 9/11 gave them the green light, literally and figuratively.

[DimaMazin]

 

There were just a handful of Islamic terrorists before Bush II. Isn't war supposed to reduce the enemy?

 

Maybe that war was is about something else.

Increasing of quantity of your enemies reduces your development not always. We don't need love idiocy because we don't need look good for idiots when we do development.

[Delta1212]

 

So you think all those military minds just assumed we could mow those horsemen down, no problems? It was a just arrogance on their part that wasted so many resources on such a minimal threat?

 

It's easy to see why a machine gun works well on a cavalry charge. It's less easy to understand why we keep shooting at flies with an RPG, especially when it seems to attract more flies. Terrorism thrives on all this attention, they can't afford the kind of marketing we give them for free every time they get violent.

 

I just think it would be easier to ask the hosting country to remove the rotting carcass the flies are attracted to. There were plenty of people after 9/11 who called for diplomacy as the most effective way to deal with terrorism, but the Bush II administration steamrolled over them. They had plans already and 9/11 gave them the green light, literally and figuratively.

Just arrogance? Of course not. But there have been enough examples throughout history of military leaders failing to adapt to changing circumstances in how wars need to be fought and generally falling into the trap of "All I have is a hammer so ever problem lookalike a nail" that I'm not going to discount it as a major contributor.

[Ten oz]

Knowing from past experience that open war with religious terrorists just helps recruit more terrorists, why was conventional warfare chosen to deal with the aftermath of 9/11? Even accepting that retaliation is a standard response when attacked, did it have to be done in such a way that it angered most Muslims, dragged their whole religion into the combat? Is that the way you deal with people you want to embrace democracy? These were supposed to be the best and brightest of their time, so I can conclude that it was just goofy old W who bumbled his way along without an exit strategy, or I can conclude that putting out the fire was never their intention. Why else throw gasoline?

 

Arrogance, greed, and corporatocracy over democracy. In the build up to the wars it was pointed out by many people that traditional boarder wars would not successfully defeat terror and that within the countries themselves woul have a destabilizing impact. That was ignored in part because of arrogance. The counter argument was that the United States could succeed where other had failed because our military was superior. Our satellites could target anyone, our smart bombs could kill without collateral damage, and the enemy would be shocked and awed.

Greed was a major motivator as well. Two parts; firstly Bush's strong response was politically successful. In 2004 in the midst of the wars Bush won re-election. Only popular vote win Republicans have had in the last 6 straight presidential elections. Bush had lost the popular vote in 00'. Bush cut taxes, gave corporations huge give aways, and cut in to people's rights while campaigning as a "War President". When his policies were criticized that criticism was repudiated by reminding everyone that the country was at war and critism was not appropriate.

Secondly the war made lots of people money. Not merely the obvious players like Government contractors. The build up also meant a windfall of money was sent to local police departments to gear up and local military bases to fortify. If you are a Congressman or Senator you want that flow of cash in your district. Maybe as a Senator you're on the fence about the war but sure could use the boost to local jobs that a few Navy contracts provide. From 03' to about 06' war worked well for the establishment.

Then of course there is the corporatocracy. Political officials who move between holding government jobs and seats on corporate boards. Was Dick Cheney more motivated to help the United States or Haliburton? Are people in that position (and many are) able to exerciser good judgement?

Those things plus the history of lag in the evolution military response Delta1212 has pointed out is what happened. I don't believe where we are today was the intended outcome. Errors were made by people in office.

[DimaMazin]

Arrogance, greed, and corporatocracy over democracy. In the build up to the wars it was pointed out by many people that traditional boarder wars would not successfully defeat terror and that within the countries themselves woul have a destabilizing impact. That was ignored in part because of arrogance. The counter argument was that the United States could succeed where other had failed because our military was superior. Our satellites could target anyone, our smart bombs could kill without collateral damage, and the enemy would be shocked and awed.

Greed was a major motivator as well. Two parts; firstly Bush's strong response was politically successful. In 2004 in the midst of the wars Bush won re-election. Only popular vote win Republicans have had in the last 6 straight presidential elections. Bush had lost the popular vote in 00'. Bush cut taxes, gave corporations huge give aways, and cut in to people's rights while campaigning as a "War President". When his policies were criticized that criticism was repudiated by reminding everyone that the country was at war and critism was not appropriate.

Secondly the war made lots of people money. Not merely the obvious players like Government contractors. The build up also meant a windfall of money was sent to local police departments to gear up and local military bases to fortify. If you are a Congressman or Senator you want that flow of cash in your district. Maybe as a Senator you're on the fence about the war but sure could use the boost to local jobs that a few Navy contracts provide. From 03' to about 06' war worked well for the establishment.

Then of course there is the corporatocracy. Political officials who move between holding government jobs and seats on corporate boards. Was Dick Cheney more motivated to help the United States or Haliburton? Are people in that position (and many are) able to exerciser good judgement?

Those things plus the history of lag in the evolution military response Delta1212 has pointed out is what happened. I don't believe where we are today was the intended outcome. Errors were made by people in office.

Money should work then they are money. When peace people don't offer a benefit of peace development then military business take free money for military development. Make your peace offers for benefit and development.

[Delta1212]

 

So you think all those military minds just assumed we could mow those horsemen down, no problems? It was a just arrogance on their part that wasted so many resources on such a minimal threat?

 

It's easy to see why a machine gun works well on a cavalry charge. It's less easy to understand why we keep shooting at flies with an RPG, especially when it seems to attract more flies. Terrorism thrives on all this attention, they can't afford the kind of marketing we give them for free every time they get violent.

 

I just think it would be easier to ask the hosting country to remove the rotting carcass the flies are attracted to. There were plenty of people after 9/11 who called for diplomacy as the most effective way to deal with terrorism, but the Bush II administration steamrolled over them. They had plans already and 9/11 gave them the green light, literally and figuratively.

Incidentally, my comment wasn't a description of the imbalance between us and them technologically. I was referencing the fact that the introduction of the machine gun drastically altered the state of warfare and what tactics could be expected to work, but the "best and brightest" kept ordering headlong charges at the positions because that's the kind of warfare they knew, even though it was patently obvious that old ways of fighting had now become incredibly stupid and ineffective.

 

America, in this scenario, is the one on horseback, not the one with the machine gun.

[Ten oz]

Incidentally, my comment wasn't a description of the imbalance between us and them technologically. I was referencing the fact that the introduction of the machine gun drastically altered the state of warfare and what tactics could be expected to work, but the "best and brightest" kept ordering headlong charges at the positions because that's the kind of warfare they knew, even though it was patently obvious that old ways of fighting had now become incredibly stupid and ineffective.

America, in this scenario, is the one on horseback, not the one with the machine gun.

Tactics tend to be reactive. Even at that slowly reactive. The American War for independence is another example. One side gathered in single file while the other side hid behind cover. Military thinking; strict devotion to order and disipline doesn't lend itself to improvisation the more loosely organized insurgencies and rebellions do.