Paris attacks

[tar]

iNow

 

Thank you. Excellent video.

 

I am not so sure just declaring war on ISIS is the right way to go.

 

I was thinking Sunnis were the problem. Looks like the cycle of violence between Sunni and Shiite is the problem.

 

As in the Israel and Palestinian problem, massacres are hard to forget. Everyone wants blood. Everyone wants revenge. Everybody is right. Everybody is dead wrong.

 

It is impossible to manage and impossible to ignore.

 

I think you are right though in telling us not to hate the Sunni or be afraid of ISIL. Rhetoric against Muslims is misplaced and will only swell the ranks of ISIS.

 

We need I think to not side with the Shia or side with the Sunni, but foster a common desire to disban Da'esh. I don't know how to do that, but I think, after watching that video, that bombs are not going work. Boots on the ground are not going work , except perhaps if they are a force sent in by a coalition of Arab and Muslim states in the area.

 

Turkey is in a tough spot. NATO ally with their ethnic brothers being bombed by Russia, fighting against Assad....geez...its really bad.

 

Somehow we have to help, without managing (since we have made such bad choices of who to support in the past).

 

But I am not so sure we can make everybody happy and I am not so sure there is anyway out without proud people having to swallow their pride, and wronged people having to forgive, and tough people having to open themselves up for hurt again, by trusting their sworn enemies.

 

I guess its not going happen...that I can let Sept 11th go. So maybe we will just have to fight it out, but the voices on this thread are right, that we should not look to violence to solve this thing.

 

It is way beyond that. Only love and understanding and the courage to trust the judgement of good people of every faith and ethnicity in the area is going to work. The bad guys are there, but there are more good guys than bad guys. We have to find a way to help the good guys restore order in their countries and eliminate the fear they have of the good guys of the next sect.

 

And somehow scrub this evil from our collective souls.

 

Beats me though, how we are going to get through this new type of war against such a group so intoxicated by death, without spilling some more blood.

 

Regards, TAR

 

But I guess I can start by not harboring ill will toward Muslims. And reserve my ill will for people operating outside the bounds of human decency and international law.

 

Somehow perhaps we can all get sane again. With each other's help.

Edited November 24, 2015 by tar

[CharonY]

And... your point is?

 

 

@MigL (and others) - The Baathists are largely the leaders of ISIS still and a big part of why they're so well organized (except, of course, for the ones that have been killed already in various strikes and operations). It's about a 40 minute watch, but Frontline did a nice piece on the formation of ISIS last year. View online here: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365356572/

 

Actually I think that there were reports of ISIS executing Ba'athist militants. But, to my shame I have to admit that it is entirely possible that I confused those with non-ISIS Ba'athists. There were definitively reports of Ba'athist ex-military being executed after ISIS took Mosul.

[iNow]

Beats me though, how we are going to get through this new type of war against such a group so intoxicated by death, without spilling some more blood.

They are terrorists, and terrorism is ultimately a position of weakness. They won't destroy civilization by killing a few folks or bombing a few buildings (nor will we defeat their ideology by lobbing a few more missiles their way or sending in more troops). No. Their strength comes from us defeating ourselves through emotional over response.

 

Instead, we beat them by reinforcing (not abandoning) our values. We beat them by recruiting more allies to our side, by remaining open to refugees who are seeking sanctuary and safe spaces for their families and futures for their children. We stand firm behind basic decency and morality and kindness.

 

Terrorism is a war on peoples minds, little more. We win by not losing those minds and by not completely shitting our pants over their heinous acts; acts that cause the loss of fewer lives in 2 years than we lose in 20 hours on our national highways.

 

There will always be hatred and ignorance among humanity. That won't likely ever be defeated. ISIS is just a current manifestation of said ignorance and hatred, and it's rooted in a misguided idea and in a misplaced ideal. You can't defeat an idea, but we can argue fiercely against it and show persistence in support of better ones. We can support and grow our collective desire for decency and human fellowship. We can avoid making short-sighted choices and we can avoid changing who we are as a people out of some acute sense of fear, and we can collectively be focused and tenacious and unwavering in doing so.

 

That's how we win, but that's not to suggest we don't still (with extreme precision and obsessive attention to the avoidance of collateral death) need to put bullets through the faces of those who continue to coordinate and manifest atrocities.

[iNow]

Actually I think that there were reports of ISIS executing Ba'athist militants. But, to my shame I have to admit that it is entirely possible that I confused those with non-ISIS Ba'athists. There were definitively reports of Ba'athist ex-military being executed after ISIS took Mosul.

Certainly possible. Think we may both be correct here. Just because someone was once a Baathist doesn't ipso facto mean they're today a part of ISIS (and we know ISIS kills anyone who doesn't join). I do know, however, that a great number (most?) of those in leadership/planning positions within ISIS (and those offering most logistics support to militants) are ex-Baathists/former Saddam loyalists, largely those who held elevated positions of power (like generals, etc.) and who have the most experience. That's been confirmed though multiple reports and several different channels.

[CharonY]

I am pretty sure that they were at the leadership during the rise, but could not remember whether anything has changed. So I have re-read some of the reports on the documents found 2014. It appears that up and including 2013 it was quite clear that planning and leadership were headed by Baathist with Haji Bakr (former colonel in Intelligence) as one or maybe the mastermind. Part of the documents revealed what propaganda they thought about using for justifying certain attacks. I.e. they planned them on strategic merits and then handed out some religious reasons to deceive observers (and presumably their radical base) about true motives.

 

In some ways that was why the movement was for a long time confused with a simple terror group, whereas it was a well planned insurgence. Even after the the death of Bakr (by Syrian rebels) it seems that ISIS is following his game plan, so there is a good point to be made that the leadership is still active. In some ways it appears that there is a shadowy control within ISIS but I could not find any newer reports that shed more current insights. However, that is pretty much expected.

Documents from Aleppo (again found 2014) showed that ISIS had set up a complex surveillance system in rebel and government militias as well as in their own group, and even knew some of the government spies within their own ranks.

The files that they have also included weaknesses, preferences, and influence. It included plans to marry into influential families (and plans to to forbid others to marry into those), for example. This, again was indicative of the work of former intelligence officers.

 

Since then I have found a few articles mentioning that the Baathist power may be waning, but since they were not really sourced I guess they were mostly speculation (or even deception).

[iNow]

There was much of that which I did not previously know. Thanks for the extra content and context.

[tar]

Perhaps fostering an Arab spring within the ranks of ISIS is the way to go. Prove the Baathists are behind the thing, show their deception and their depravity and prove that if you are a fighter you will be asked to martyr yourself, and if you are a woman you will be asked to be the private sexual reward for the fighter and will lose your husband soon, as soon as he is ordered to martyr himself. And have the young people, drawn to the cause, question themselves as to whether they intend to die for a lie so someone can sit somewhere in opulence pulling their strings and getting their jollys manipulating people's emotions and lives.

 

And find out the complete recruitment package, what is promised, and prove unquestionably that those promises cannot and will not be kept.

 

From the earlier article I think its obvious that the recruitment promises are not going to materialize. And if you are a fighter, and the best possible outcome is death....??????

And I wonder if drugs are involved. I still cannot see the draw, considering the cost. There has to be some other aspect. Find that out, cut that off and perhaps that, along with showing the leadership knows their promises are lies might make an intelligent young man or woman that is being recruited, decide to forget about those bastards.

[iNow]

I feel you have a fundamental misunderstanding of those who seem to be joining ISIS. Those things you recommend highlighting to them to turn them away are precisely what is drawing them in. What you consider repellent material that will make them see the error of their ways is, in reality, the primary and most effective recruitment tool.

Edited November 26, 2015 by iNow

[tar]

Except it is a pyramid scheme. The high status folk reap the reward, the rest serve...and die.

Nobody likes to be played the fool

[overtone]

Now you're stretching the historical truth Overtone.

The US did not encourage S. Hussein to invade Kuwait.

Yes, we did. Right up at the last minute, with Saddam's military at the border of Kuwait, our ambassador (April Glaspie) told him that what he was obviously preparing for was ok by us - that the US had "no position" on Saddam's quarrel with Kuwait, and he could do as he liked.

Apparently the US - with a former CIA head as President - underestimated his goals. But that was afterwards. Recall the quote, you can find it on wiki (they omitted the usual italics, I added them back):

 

In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."^[4]

Or recall the context: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-25/news/mn-2628_1_foreign-policy

- - -

Sept.11th really changed my personal world. I fell easily and quickly into any thought that Saddam had ties with Bin Laden.

And having been betrayed by the purveyors of that nonsense, for about the fiftieth time, you learned absolutely nothing.

 

You still listen to those people. You still vote for them. You take them seriously when they pontificate about the current situation in Iraq.

 

 

Now, today, after Paris and the Russian Airliner and Lebanon and Bali, we don't have to wonder who has declared war on us. We know exactly the self declared state. We know exactly the town they call their capital, we know exactly the leader that calls himself Caliph, we know exactly where to find them, what their MO is and who they are trying to radicalize

No, "we" don't. We are looking at Islamic justified terrorism financed and organized from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so forth, as much as from Iraq or Syria. The terrorists come from all over - France, Belgium. The worst of the Islamic terrorism is in Africa, especially in Boko Haram regions. The situation in Syria and Iraq is terrible, but those guys are just the current rallying point, they aren't the end all and be all of Islamic jihad.

 

Perhaps fostering an Arab spring within the ranks of ISIS is the way to go. Prove the Baathists are behind the thing, show their deception and their depravity and prove that if you are a fighter you will be asked to martyr yourself, and if you are a woman you will be asked to be the private sexual reward for the fighter and will lose your husband soon, as soon as he is ordered to martyr himself.

All that stuff is in the promotional videos they use for recruitment.

And I wonder if drugs are involved. I still cannot see the draw, considering the cost. There has to be some other aspect. Find that out, cut that off and perhaps that, along with showing the leadership knows their promises are lies might make an intelligent young man or woman that is being recruited, decide to forget about those bastards.

Except it is a pyramid scheme. The high status folk reap the reward, the rest serve...and die. Nobody likes to be played the fool

 

Let's start with something at hand, less alien and and more our business: what you describe there is essentially the situation we in the US face with the current Republican Party and its recruits. A pyramid scheme of lies, a core of twisted religious justification, even occasional horrible violence imposed by the self-sacrificing upon the designated enemy of the day - informed analysts have been calling it the "American Taliban" for many years now. How do we pull the plug on it? If we can't even do that, surely something like ISIL is beyond our reach.

Edited November 26, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

"No, "we" don't. We are looking at Islamic justified terrorism financed and organized from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so forth, as much as from Iraq or Syria.​"

 

 

If we are looking at justified terrorism, and we are the targets of the terrorism, then we are the unjust.

 

You are feeding the same kind of endless reprisal for unjust acts by lumping all Repubicans in as the responsible parties for all our problems.

 

I would remind you that "our" interests in this country and in the world are the interests of both democrats and republicans. The different parts of the brain, the different aspects of our collective personality belong to us all. We often project our own thoughts onto others and punish others for our own failings. If we are a little bit prejudice and don't like that about ourselves we make a scapegoat and sacrifice that animal to cleanse our own conscience.

 

You are so against America and so against Repubicans, that I can not figure who and what it is that you are for.

 

If you are for careful intellectual judgement of all situations, weighing all the components, all the good and bad actors and actions, and finding the best route forward, fine.

 

But you don't do that. You have already decided that if it is Republican it Stinks, if it is CIA it stinks, if it is power and oil and money it stinks.

 

But you still put gas in your car and drive to the mall.

 

Who is being short sited here?

 

Give me the ability to judge each situation according to the way it is presented to me. And give me the ability, and give the rest of the country the ability to make the right choice. To figure out our tough problems, and break the cycles of violence that are created when fighting injustice creates other injustices.

 

You say the terrrorists are justified.

 

I disagree. We all have to curb our desires to scapegoat and our natural defense mechanisms of responding defensively to people that attack us, and to label whole groups as enemy when just certain actors should be the target of our shuns.

 

Terrorism is NEVER justified.

 

Except when Overtone says its ok, right?

 

If we are together to defend each other and make a good country. If we are together to defend each other and make a good world, we CANNOT do it by removing any one group of people from the planet, or by eliminating a certain sex or hormone or brain part, from out collective soul. It all belongs to us.

 

Individually we have to monitor ourselves and use good judgement and be capable and able to meet the threats of the place that threaten our survival. But probably very important to this discussion is that you can't kill everybody that you think is wrong.

 

You have to target your anger toward the perpetrators of heinous acts, and open your hearts and minds to your brothers and sisters, no matter what their political affiliation or company, or state or religion or ethnicity.

 

Terrorism is not allowed.

 

Regards, TAR

Up at the lake when I was young and evening was coming on, my mother would tell us to "put a jacket on, I am getting cold."

So overtone, if you are cold put a jacket on. Don't tell me I am an idiot for not putting a jacket on.

 

And let me decide who is my enemy and who deserves my shunning.

Edited November 26, 2015 by tar

[CharonY]

I do not see that Overtone said that terrorism is justified. From what I understand he states that US foreign policy has led to terrorist attacks. Or at least create an environment that promoted terrorist to flourish (correct me if I am wrong). This is a far cry from justification.

[tar]

CharonY,

 

I was just going by the words Overtone was using. "We are looking at Islamic justified terrorism..."

 

If Overtone means something else he/she is free to qualify the statement.

 

Regards, TAR

if I did an unjust thing to you you have a reason to ask me to stop, or perhaps a justification to do something unjust to me. But reprisals turn out to foster more reprisals, as much as they teach the wrongdoer any lesson.

Name a war were both sides didn't think they were justified.

There are plenty of cultures who think they are the master race. Everyone has an automatic bias to favor their own family, state, religion, party, sect, nationality or ethnic group, or any alignment their team has fostered, over the folks that would find them in error.

 

I am surprised you don't know this. And I am surprised Overtone is so prejudiced against people not of his/her persuasion, while acting like it is imperative to not be prejudiced.

Regards, TAR

In the context of Islam, there are plenty of things in the Koran that suggest one should be

a good person, and plenty of things that suggest one should fight for the prophet against his detractors.

 

Both sides of the brain are addressed. The master and the slave. The mischief makers and the bringers of justice.

 

You and I are not any different than this.

 

But in reference to Mohammed, he railed against the Christians for giving god associates (Jesus and the holy ghost), he railed against the Jews for being money lenders, and he railed against the idol worshipping Arabian tribes. He brought everybody together, saying the original laws of Moses were not properly being followed and these people in error should change their ways and not be in error. He at the same time says that only Allah will judge you, but you should listen to Allah's messenger (mohammed)pbuh and fight in his name against those in error, and you will be fighting for Allah and a good judgement day.

 

Under the reality that there are a bunch of us wanting to live like Moses, and a bunch like Christ, and a bunch like Mohammed, and a bunch like Buddah or Socrates or some other wise ancient person, it is likely that we all are after similar behavior, for similar reasons.

 

And then there is the progress the west has made in the last couple hundred years. The industrial revolution somewhat redefining the master/apprentice , the civil war, freeing the slaves, women's suffrage and other progressive happenings, that tended to counter the proscriptions of lordship and kingship, master/slave relationships, intolerance, paternal leadership and the other strong threads that run through the old testament.

 

The New Testament is an addition to the Old Testament. The Koran goes back and suggests that anybody not following the old testament, according to Muhammed's (pbuh) take is in error.

 

So we are left with a situation where we all want to be good people, but we use various interpretations of old legends and rules, we pick and choose and discuss and figure out who exactly it is, that we want to live like. Look back in history and try to determine who was the transgressor and who was the pious.

 

In this regard, I have to go with Western civilization over 6th century Arabia. And I think we should shun those doing things in 6th century ways.

 

We know better than that.

 

In this I am not acting only on my own behalf.

[overtone]

If we are looking at justified terrorism, and we are the targets of the terrorism, then we are the unjust.

That terrorism by Muslims these days is often justified by appeal to the precepts of Islam and the need to support Islam against its powerful enemies is a fact - that's how its perpetrators often justify their actions. How you take that is up to you.

 

It is also a fact - mostly unrelated and coincidental, in my opinion, but apparently and disturbingly and unarguably well correlated withal - that the US and other self-described champions of Western civilization have consistently and for a long time treated the ordinary believers in Islam with a lack of consideration for justice, mercy, common sense, or even common decency, that is disheartening to the extent it does not startle and vice versa.

 

 

So we are left with a situation where we all want to be good people, - -

Are we now.

 

Was that the priority, then, of the cadre of warmongers and profiteers and their PR agents who sent the US military full force into Afghanistan and Iraq, who set up Bagram and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (and several others not as famous) with the restraint attachments firmly bolted to the floors and the ceilings and the walls according to engineering blueprint, the drains and electrical outlets designed and installed by professionals in the trade?

 

Because they and their PR agents are on my television screen right now, praising their own past efforts and maneuvering for even more power, more scope for their agenda. And using this Paris attack as a pretext.

 

 

If you are for careful intellectual judgement of all situations, weighing all the components, all the good and bad actors and actions, and finding the best route forward, fine.

But you don't do that. You have already decided that if it is Republican it Stinks, if it is CIA it stinks, if it is power and oil and money it stinks

An interesting assessment, based on my postings of physical fact and historical circumstance and political action, and denial of revision or obscuring bs. When a simple description of what happened and who did it leads you to make that judgment as if it were automatic, a direct implication of my posting, - - well, that is informative, or could be. I wouldn't, but I can see where you might.

 

 

And let me decide who is my enemy and who deserves my shunning.

You have a track record. Am I allowed to remind you of it?

Edited November 26, 2015 by overtone

[fiveworlds]

So this video made it into the papers.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSpASHpttkA

 

Who or what is the mullah of kufr? and what is this stuff about banners??

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Certainly you are allowed to remind me of my track record.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

 

 

I don't think we should go by tabloid headlines as did waitforufo , nor by press releases of political groups as did Ten Oz.

 

I think we should listen to CharonY's facts and sort this thing out.

 

Regards, TAR

Press releases from political group; as if this is something other than a political debate?we have political groups lining up across parts of Europe and the United States calling for refugees to be turned away and major military operations in Syria. How we defeat ISIS, whether Assad stays or goes, what to do with refugees, surveillance of mosques, and etc are purely all political discussions.

 

You were dismissive of the protest shooting story. Well here we are days later and a Planned Parenthood was attacked. Was that an act of terror motivatived by radical ideology? Muslims weren't involved so the national Terror threat won't go up, the Govenor's around the country aren't going to post national guard troop at Planned Parenthood offices, the story will pass in days. The radical ideology responsible for the attacks yesterday would love for this to be national news, love for it to start a national debate that led to the closure of Planned Parenthood. No different than ISIS seeks attention with their attacks and would love for Europe and the United States to send back all the refugees.

 

So back to my question: why does Islam terror always earn an immediate response while other acts of terror are dismissed as being part of some other (non-critical) political discussion? Perhaps you don't know but wouldn't at least agree that there is a difference? The hyperbole and rhetoric in response to Islam is different? Our willingness to pass immediate legislation, use military force, openly debate the nature of an entire group of group is different? The overreactive responses and often divisive nature of the political ton only feeds groups like ISIS. It makes them the most relevant thing in the world.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

What I was objecting to, was not that you should not have mentioned political issues. They are obviously at the root of human relations. The parts of the brain, as iNow pointed out, are different in different people. Its all fair game for this discussion about the Paris attacks, because how we want to be, is what we are talking about. But to this end, if we are going to call muslim fundementalists justified we have to give any terrorist at least the benefit of the doubt and look to see what it is they are fighting for, what they wish to achieve, what they wish to accomplish and what they wish to destroy.

 

What I was objecting to, was you don't "go by" a tabloid or Fox news, if you want an objective truthful take on a situation, as waitforufo did. And you don't go by the press release of a political group, which is by definition one side of the political debate the group is wishing to push forward.

 

Politics of course you should discuss on a political sub forum.

 

But the reason for people to hold political views is what is important, and saying a whole group is responsible for a bad actor, is as bad if you are talking about the Paris attack and distrusting Muslims because of it as it is if you are talking about mistrusting white republican males because of a situation where three white men leave a rally on the run and shots ring out.

 

Regards, TAR

The guy that shot up the Colorado clinic should have been shot dead in the shootout, as far as I am concerned. He is a crazy man, and regardless of his political affiliation he did a horrible and unacceptable thing. Whatever he objected to. He went too far and went against our desires as human beings, to live together and work out our differences in lawful ways.

Thread,

 

Against a group like ISIL you can't play nice. You can't sit down and talk. You cannot pay the ransom to save an innocent. Or is releasing 10 criminals worth saving an innocent life?

 

I personally don't like seeing the world go in the direction that the Caliph is taking it.

Overtone does not like the direction the leadership of the Republican part has taken the world in the last 50 years.

 

The tea party does not like the direction the Democrats are taking the country in the last 7 years.

 

But if you are to talk politics you have to separate the baby from the bathwater, and cannot flush your brothers and sisters down the drain, just because things are not going your way.

 

What you can do is follow the law, change it where appropriate and kill the bastards that break it in heinous ways.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Ten Oz

But my biggest point, that I go 100% by is that you have to do what is right for you. If you are somebody's enemy you have to protect yourself from them. And it is OK to try to make them powerless to hurt you, if they obviously are trying to hurt you.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-1000-security-risks-denied-entry-to-france-since-paris-attacks/ar-AAfKZIZ

And a personal lesson I learned is if you are wronged it is not OK to demand justice, if to be right, you have to be wrong and commit an injustice.

Sometimes its OK to be not OK. (as sung by Jordan on "the voice.")

Just be who you are. Edited November 28, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

But the reason for people to hold political views is what is important, and saying a whole group is responsible for a bad actor, is as bad if you are talking about the Paris attack and distrusting Muslims because of it as it is if you are talking about mistrusting white republican males because of a situation where three white men leave a rally on the run and shots ring out.

You have it backwards. The white male Republicans are responsible for the behavior of the group to which they deliberately and self-confessedly belong, which they support, which they defend and excuse, which they enable and encourage and cover up and deny. Just as the members of ISIL are.

 

 

Against a group like ISIL you can't play nice.

Against a group like ISIL you can't afford to panic and flail around and abandon your principles of justice and doing what's right - that lack of backbone and tendency to panic is your central flaw, that they are exploiting.

 

 

The tea party does not like the direction the Democrats are taking the country in the last 7 years.

The Republican core electoral base, call it whatever you want to, has no idea what "direction" the country is going or who is taking it there. What they like and don't like are figments of their imagination in the first place.

 

But my biggest point, that I go 100% by is that you have to do what is right for you.

First you have to find out about reality, so you have some idea what you are in fact doing.

 

The Tea Party goes to the Fair, 1928: http://i.imgur.com/k8Wpxbq.jpg

Edited November 28, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

The guy that shot up the Colorado clinic should have been shot dead in the shootout, as far as I am concerned. He is a crazy man, and regardless of his political affiliation he did a horrible and unacceptable thing. Whatever he objected to. He went too far and went against our desires as human beings, to live together and work out our differences in lawful ways.

 

Yes, he was a crazy man however aren't all terrorists by general societal standards? Many clinics dealing with women's reproductive rights have been attacked. For decades now doctors have been killed and facilities bombed. We responded to these acts of terror as simple legal matters. No change in the status quo. Despite the constancy and commonality of the attacks simply catching those responsible is generally considered enough. Meanwhile such any approach toward Islamic terror is viewed as doing nothing, why?

 

Thread,

 

Against a group like ISIL you can't play nice. You can't sit down and talk. You cannot pay the ransom to save an innocent. Or is releasing 10 criminals worth saving an innocent life?

 

Doesn't all that apply to all terrorist?

 

I personally don't like seeing the world go in the direction that the Caliph is taking it.

Overtone does not like the direction the leadership of the Republican part has taken the world in the last 50 years.

 

The tea party does not like the direction the Democrats are taking the country in the last 7 years.

 

But if you are to talk politics you have to separate the baby from the bathwater, and cannot flush your brothers and sisters down the drain, just because things are not going your way.

 

What you can do is follow the law, change it where appropriate and kill the bastards that break it in heinous ways.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Can you provide some explains of where rhetoric like "kill the bastards that break it in heinous ways" have led to successful policy? We have spent trillions and killed hundreds of thousands if not millions fighting Islamic terror. Surely you can definatively point to one indisputably useful or neccessary result of all that effort?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

You say we shouldn't get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up a concert, but we should get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up an abortion clinic?

 

We don't talk about addressing the reasons people are against the clinics, we don't blame the abortion rights activists for causing the problem. So our internal politics are not a good argument for why we should excuse the terrorists for being justified in their actions because we caused the problem.

 

Overtone,

 

One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups. My thinking is not erroneous, and misguided, it is structured by my associations and my understanding of things, from my point of view.

 

There are ways I can improve my personality, and my actions toward people and the words I say, but those ways are not the ways you would like to improve them. I have ways that I think you should improve, and I have mentioned them. You have ways that I should improve and you have mentioned them.

 

If we are to talk, and have political dialog and make concessions to the other person's points, there has to be a certain concern for the other person's point of view. You can't label be as wrong, when you are the one setting the standards. Obviously I don't agree with your standards when you speak from a point of view where "people like me" are defective.

 

I am not defective.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[Acme]

...

One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups. My thinking is not erroneous, and misguided, it is structured by my associations and my understanding of things, from my point of view.

 

...

Regards, TAR

The Ass and his Purchaser by Æsop

 

A man who wanted to buy an Ass went to market, and, coming across

a likely-looking beast, arranged with the owner that he should be

allowed to take him home on trial to see what he was like. When he

reached home, he put him into his stable along with the other asses.

The newcomer took a look round, and immediately went and chose a place

next to the laziest and greediest beast in the stable. When the master

saw this he put a halter on him at once, and led him off and handed

him over to his owner again. The latter was a good deal surprised to

seem him back so soon, and said, "Why, do you mean to say you have

tested him already?" "I don't want to put him through any more tests,"

replied the other. "I could see what sort of beast he is from the

companion he chose for himself."

 

 

"A man is known by the company he keeps."

[tar]

Acme,

 

I suppose you are suggesting that it is folly to associate with republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like?

 

Regards, TAR

I am making the argument, that one cannot take a objective view that can see the situation from any vantage point other than his or her own.

For instance your's sounds like the position of a female, democrat, non-WASP, atheist from the city who has never served in law-enforcement or the military. Or someone who closely associates with such an individual.

I can understand the position of a Ba'athist terrorized by Maliki with American weapons as I can understand a person who does not like the business of selling baby parts. But in both cases I side with the opposition. I don't let people shoot up concerts and I don't let people shoot up clinics.

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[Acme]

Acme,

 

I suppose you are suggesting that it is folly to associate with republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like?

 

Regards, TAR

I am making the argument, that one cannot take a objective view that can see the situation from any vantage point other than his or her own.

No, I'm suggesting it might be a defect -to use your word- that you associate with some of those folk. In this regard you personally may not be able to take an objective view, but that doesn't mean others cannot.

 

We covered considerable evidence on the defective aspects of conservative thinking in this thread:

>> Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

I'll cite a germane bit from post #40

TheThe Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer

Chapter Three

How Authoritarian Followers Think

 

We meet again. If you are keeping track of my promises, as we roll along together on the internet, I said in the Introduction that we would figure out why authoritarian followers think in the bizarre and perplexing way they so often do. The key to the puzzle springs from Chapter 2's observation that, first and foremost, followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives. They have not developed and thought through their ideas as much as most people have. Thus almost anything can be found in their heads if their authorities put it there, even stuff that contradicts other stuff. A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.

 

So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my reasoning when we're having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures. But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said,"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think". ...

You said your track record was fair game and without giving a specific example, you have a track record of being challenged for sloppy reasoning.

 

On a final note, your suggesting the shooter in Colorado should have just been killed by the cops is contrary to the law and shows you to think yourself qualified as judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Were we to get some of the terrorists to stop killing people long enough to be surveyed I suspect we'd find a fair number of high RWAs.

[tar]

This is why it is actually folly to think you have an objective view and understanding of what everybody wants, and a clear idea of how everybody wants to be, and how they wish to conduct their lives, if you are not them. And why you have to together fight against those people who obviously do not want to do it your way by associating with a team that is doing it the way that works for you.

 

In the current terrorism by ISIL against the West they wish to wrong us, because we wronged them.

 

If you are a Westerner, you are the one the terrorist is attacking. If you are an apostate or non-believer, you are the one that ISIL is attacking. If you fight against the Caliph you are the enemy of the Caliph.

 

I fit the bill in terms of all the things that ISIL is against. I can not run from this. It is fact.