Paris attacks

[dimreepr]

Fear is a powerful ally of hate; why else describe oneself a terrorist?

 

They don’t want to be forgiven, much like a bully doesn’t want to be challenged.

[tar]

instead of sending young innocents to their death

dimreeper,

 

So here is the plan. Capture them and release them to their families.

 

Regards, TAR

the Baathist generals as well

[dimreepr]

Tell you what:

 

If you answer my question “Fear is a powerful ally of hate; why else describe oneself a terrorist?”

 

I’ll do my best to decipher your reply.

[tar]

rebuild every building that Assad and the rebels, and the Russians and the NATO allies and the money of Iran and Saudi Arabia have destroyed.

 

repair every irrigation system

 

fix whatever broken hearts and bodies and minds that we can

 

ask for an election of representatives to Assad's government

 

make Syria a safe place with the eyes and hearts of the world on her

 

have everybody rebuild the place, together

 

invite all the refugees back to their homes

 

have an international barn raising, as the community might do in Amish country

[dimreepr]

rebuild every building that Assad and the rebels, and the Russians and the NATO allies and the money of Iran and Saudi Arabia have destroyed.

 

repair every irrigation system

 

fix whatever broken hearts and bodies and minds that we can

 

ask for an election of representatives to Assad's government

 

make Syria a safe place with the eyes and hearts of the world on her

 

have everybody rebuild the place, together

 

invite all the refugees back to their homes

 

have an international barn raising, as the community might do in Amish country

 

 

How might you achieve that without forgiving someone?

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

Fear is a powerful ally of hate, why else call yourself a terrorist?

 

 

We already covered that. ISIS uses fear and hatred to establish the "we" "they". Dichotomy.

 

As does the KKK, as does Black Lives Matter, as does Fox News, as does Trump, as does Overtone, as does Hilary. Hate the enemy, fear the NRA, be on "our team". Defeat "them".

 

Regards, TAR

Edited December 5, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

Hate the enemy, fear the enemy, be on "our team". Defeat "them".

 

 

So you'd rather hate/defeat the enemy than understand/ forgive them?

 

I can only hope, you've dug enough graves.

[Ten oz]

ten oz,Why just Syria?Cause you have to pick your battles. Cause Raqqa is the capitol of ISIS.

ISIS does not have a capital any more than it has a singular leadership structure. ISIS can be in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and the United States at at the same time.

 

So you can use it as an example of how a place might look, NOT being the capitol of a morally bankrupt Caliphate. Then perhaps Assad will take heed, and Putin, and the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

so invade Syria to send a message; to intimidate other countries around world. That will weaken terrorism and foster peace in your opinion?

 

Not just Syria. Just Syria first. Syria now,

Syria is the third. The justifications for Afghanistan and Iraq were to defeat Islamic Terrorism as well. Syria will be the third and no notable improvements were achieved by the first and second.

 

because Raqqa is the most obvious enemy, the most obvious target, the embodiment of evil at the moment.We can't just stand around and accept the stink. We can't not take a shower when we are stinky because we don't want to waste water. And we cannot neglect to shower on the principle that showers are useless because you just have to do it again tomorrow morning.Regards, TAR

Wasn't Osama the embodiment of evil, wasn't Saddam and Baghdad obvious targets, and wasn't/isn't Assad our enemy? These labels are nonsense. We need to make intelligent choices. As the strongest military power in the world killing people has become our crutch for conflict resolution. It hasn't been working against Islamic Terrorism. The Middle East is less stable and more dangerous today than it was sept. 10th 2001. When an approach isn't working over time an itelligent person changes their approach. Are we intelligent people?

[tar]

I think we should forgive people. I think we should give them a second chance. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt. I think we should use our own judgment and hold ourselves accountable. But I think we have to submit to authority as well, and with that comes a choice of whose authority you are going to submit to. Whose team you are going to be on. Whose rules you are going to follow. And once you are on the team you have to play by the rules.

 

When nations come up against nations, with eyes on the same resources, the same territory, the same world, then we have to establish rules that nations should follow and align ourselves with nations that are going to back us up in our endeavors.

 

Daesh is not playing according to the rules. We don't need to forgive them. We need to get them to play by the rules.

Ten Oz,

 

So what is the intelligent approach?

 

What should we be doing?

 

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

So your forgiveness is dependent on their behaviour (in your opinion)?

 

If you think you can dictate the rules, then you miss the point of forgiveness and the possibility of an intelligent approach, is lost.

[tar]

Just for clarity. I did not make Assad our enemy. I would have chosen to have him regain control of his own country without outside interference. The U.S. decided to draw a line in the sand, and therefore I decided to draw a line in the sand. I do not get to pick and choose the exact policies of the U.S. I have to follow the lead of my leader, whether it be Kennedy or Nixon, Carter or Reagan, Clinton or Bush. I happened to have voted for Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Bush, and had feelings about what each of them did well and did poorly, but during the whole time, I have always been an American, and as such responsible for what friends and enemies America makes in the world. I can not, or should not ever break faith with my countrymen. I support the bikers on hogs, the marchers for racial equality, the Catholic charities, the oil exploration folk, the Sierra club, the police, Cuban refugees...everybody that is on my side. Everybody that has pledged their blood and money and honor to the U.S. is on my team. Other people will have to earn their way into my heart. Taking down my towers does not endear someone in my heart.

As TAR I can only offer my opinion. As the U.S. I have a great deal of weight, and can and do influence the rules and the adherence to them.

dimreeper,

 

What is your, intelligent approach?

 

What should we be doing, instead of what we are doing?

 

How can we help France, after Paris?

 

Regards, TAR

actually I was in fifth grade when Kennedy was assassinated so I must have voted for him in a mock election

or maybe I just loved him

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,So what is the intelligent approach?What should we be doing?Regards, TAR

We should do a few things:

First - focus on our domestic security. The motivation for the California mass shooting and the Planned Parenthood mass shooting may have been different but in execution they we very similar. We shouldn't behave as if each is entirely different. We should be as responsive to the action as we are to the motive. Put policies and messures in place to combat what is happening (the physical actions). Rather than spend billions buy police tanks and military grade equipment we need to invest in my health professionals in our public schools police departments. People on the street level whose good is to listen and talk. People with the education and training to notice potential problems. How many cities still even have polices that actually walk around rather than just drive around. At a local level we need to do a better job fostering a commitment to community. Have unarmed people who just walk a community asking people how they are doing. Security and law enforcement doesn't have to be intrusive and combative. Trust issues exist in many communities. It is hard for agencies to focus on the right suspects when everyone is a suspect.

 

Second - Talk to our foreign adversaries. Lose this notion that it is weak or somehow a victory to our enemies to merely speak to them. It is rather childish that we do not have formal relations with every country. We don't have to like them but we should at least talk to them. Police talk to the people they arrest. Talking doesn't automatically equally support but refusal to talk does automatically create conflict. The world some know that the United States is always prepared to meet at a table and break bread. The conflict resolution is always on the table.

 

Third - Work with our allies rather than just trying to organize and lead them. If there are global interests in Syria than there should be a collective. We should not unilaterally decide what we want and them go around the world twisting arms and bending ears until we gin up enough support. Using the ideas of others has a way of spreading around the ownership of a decision. People are less personally invested when they are just along for the ride.

 

Lastly - stop being hypocritical on human rights. If public beheadings, mistreatment of women, mistreatment of homosexuals, and etc truly offend us than we should be against all nations who practice those things. We can't use the treatment of women as an excuse to oust Assad while at the same time consider Suadi Arabia and Qatar allies. We need to drop the rhetoric or be consistant with it. Women and child living the war zones of Syria and Iraq do not instant the nuance why one country gets shamed and another does not. If a women in hijab offends us than we should take issue everywhere hijab is mandated. Otherwise we should keep our traps closed about hijab.

[overtone]

 

 

. And once you are on the team you have to play by the rules.

The rules for my team include no torture prisons, no opening my mail or tapping my phone calls without a warrant, no secret deals and organized corruption of by government with money, no starting wars except to protect the US from an immediate and mortal danger, no killing by the police except to save a life in immediate danger, no lying in major media without accountability, and rich people paying taxes just like everyone else has to.

 

Once we have a team, we can maybe do something about the Paris attacks that would actually help somebody. We don't have that team yet. Nothing the US does as a country against ISIL from its current state of intellectual disrepair and political degradation is going to help anyone except by accident.

[tar]

ten oz,

 

On the first point, we handled the two shooters WITH the military equipment that the local law enforcement bought with the monies you feel would be better spent on mental health professionals. It was a mental health facility where the attack occurred, a regional center that am sure represented quite an expense, and undoubtedly does a lot of good work, but failed to help the male shooter with any mental problems he was having. Nobody noticed a problem. And he was certainly in range of mental health professionals that others could have accessed if they had a concern. Making it less easy for him and his wife to get a hold of assault style rifles though, would have helped to prevent such a thing...but his illness was ideological, and we already have spoken of the difficulty of reaching into someone's mind and making them think like you, and have already all decided that outside of following the constitution, and a few simple laws, ones own approach to life, and ones own form of worship is our personal business, not the state's. And in terms of policing, we all have a responsibility to police ourselves and concern ourselves when our neighbors are in obvious difficulty. The mayor of Chicago has indicated that a community should take responsibility for the crime in their own backyards. If you know who is doing something bad, say something. If you know your neighbor's teenage son is breaking into your car to steal money for drugs you might speak to your neighbor, or ask your local police to look into it. And any way each mass shooting we have had, has had different motivations, the only constant is the assault style weapons that are used.

 

On the second point, I am mostly with you, except where acknowledging the entity ISIS as a state, would be silly, because it is only a state, because the criminals, took land in Syria and Iraq and said it was a state. Establishing an embassy in Raqqa, to talk with the Caliph and iron out our difficulties is not possible, since we don't recognize ISIS as a state, AND we don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

On the third point, I think its a good theory but it does not work in practice. We can't just give our military over to be commanded by a different commander in chief. Take the time to build a coalition and ask France what she needs, but stay responsible for our own assets, and retain command of them according to the wishes of our president, not the wishes of the collective.

 

On the last point I think you are right, but again when the rubber meets the road we are not so much being hypocritical as being conflicted in what human rights means, and we are just enacting such things as women in combat roles, and unisex bathrooms and gay marriage and such, and cannot expect that every other country be equal to ours in thier rules on the matters. Some will be ahead of us, some behind, some off in some different direction or that might just be incompatible in the rules, in which case we might just have to tolerate the difference. In the same way as a vegetarian that thinks cows are holy has to stomach seeing me buy a hamburger.

 

Overtone,

 

You obviously are not on any functional present team. Does not mean I am not on one. You are not joining the team until its undefeated. I will take it as a .750 squad. And my squad can help France right now, and is helping France, right now, in many ways.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited December 6, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

ten oz,On the first point,

 

I am not going to go point by point here but will get too far off track with regards to terror. What I will say is that the United States is a uniquely violent country. When you compare us to other first world nations with similar economies we have greater levels of rape, murder, suicide, police killing citizens, execution, mass shootings, and etc, etc. All of those things do not fit neatly into a single racial or economic group. The whole country experiences this extra violence. It is a huge public policy issue. We will need to change many things to resolve it: mental healthcare, education, gun control, policing procedures, drug laws, infastructure, etc, etc, etc. lots of individuals battle to be had. First step is admitting that we have a problem. Admitting that violence in our society is a problem.

 

On the second point, I am mostly with you, except where acknowledging the entity ISIS as a state, would be silly, because it is only a state, because the criminals, took land in Syria and Iraq and said it was a state. Establishing an embassy in Raqqa, to talk with the Caliph and iron out our difficulties is not possible, since we don't recognize ISIS as a state, AND we don't negotiate with terrorists.

Assad would be the person we'd be breaking bread with and not ISIS members. ISIS are anarchists with no true leadership structure. Had we bothered to actually sit down with Assad in 2000 when he came into power we aren't in this place today. Who knows what 15yrs of dialogue may have accomplished. BTW speaking to our enemies is something Obama campaigned on and then failed to broadly do once elected. As a president with strong partisan opposition I suppose he hasn't able to do everything he wanted (like closing Gitmo) but I wish that he would have had the courage to push harder. Though it may have meant losing re-election.

 

 

On the third point, I think its a good theory but it does not work in practice. We can't just give our military over to be commanded by a different commander in chief. Take the time to build a coalition and ask France what she needs, but stay responsible for our own assets, and retain command of them according to the wishes of our president, not the wishes of the collective.

I did not say hand over control of our military. What makes you think that in working with the global community military action would always be agreed upon solution? In friendship, business, or politics you can not build partnerships unless everyone has a vested interested. There has to be something in it for everyone otherwise everyone won't be on board and you can't dictate to others what their interest are or should be.

 

On the last point I think you are right, but again when the rubber meets the road we are not so much being hypocritical as being conflicted in what human rights means, and we are just enacting such things as women in combat roles, and unisex bathrooms and gay marriage and such, and cannot expect that every other country be equal to ours in thier rules on the matters. Some will be ahead of us, some behind, some off in some different direction or that might just be incompatible in the rules, in which case we might just have to tolerate the difference. In the same way as a vegetarian that thinks cows are holy has to stomach seeing me buy a hamburger.

I am referencing the rhetoric. U.S. Presidents fly the Saudi Arabia and visit the King at his home for lunch. Then turn are and complain about the lack of women rights in Iran or the lack of real democracy in Syria. It is hypocritical. Saudi Arabia has oppressive laws against women and is not a democracy. Better to drop the rhetoric than to be so comically contradictory. I am not saying we should stop working with Saudi Arabia. I am saying we need to start be more honest about the nature of what are actually conflicts are with other nations. Instead we just pile on. We just complain about every bad thing we can.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

We are easily conflicted.

We often make our selves feel good by making the other feel bad.

Establish a win by having the other person lose.

 

Simple human motivations and feelings, that are probably helpful in survival. Reward being right. Reward winning.

 

Religions and laws and agreements give us structure and reduce the anarchy that would result otherwise if we didn't try to keep each other, as a society, in check. We join the team so we can go by mutual rules, that need no overrt communication for understanding. We already know where and when we should let the other person win. Where their victory, becomes our victory.

 

Easy to, however demonize the group who you are not part of. A team you have not joined, that you have not associated with, because you find their rules, suspect. I use Overtone and her hatred of the evil embodied by Voldemort to illustrate this point.

 

If you go by a story, where there are villians and heroes, you rarely cast yourself in the villain role. You are usually the good guy and the other characters are obstructing you or fighting against you, and you need to overcome them, to win.

 

We get conflicted when we are members of various groups, whose rules conflict. Where we lose as one flavor, when we win as the other.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262032-brother-of-suspected-san-bernardino-gunman-is-decorated-navy-vet

 

Regards, TAR

or this

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-other-migrant-crisis-cubans-stream-north/ar-AAg446s?ocid=spartandhp

"Cuba has tens of thousands of medical professionals deployed on “missions” around the world, some taking part in humanitarian relief efforts in countries such as Haiti, and others in Brazil, Angola, Qatar and other nations that pay for their services, providing a major source of revenue to the Castro government.

A U.S. program created in 2006 that offers special assistance to Cuban doctors who defect from those missions is a particular sore point for Havana, which singled it out for scorn in a statement issued Tuesday.

“We must remember that the U.S. government has historically used its immigration laws as a weapon against the Revolution, enticing Cubans to leave for political purposes, which has provoked a loss of life, hijackings of boats and airplanes, violent crimes, migratory crises and brain drain,” it read.

So many doctors have left — 1,000 a year, by some estimates — that staffing at Cuban hospitals and clinics has suffered.

Medical professionals in Cuba typically earn less than $100 a month."

Edited December 6, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

TAR, if your last post existed in a vacuum some of it would make sense. However you have repeated supported boots on the ground in Syria to kill ISIS members "face to face". So you are basically establishing an excuse for divisive behavior by implying it not only natural but helpful to survival. If you understand that people generally cast themselves as the hero than why is it so difficult to understand that the more people we kill the more terrorists we will create?

Just as people strive to get wins they tend to avoid admitting when they lose. Osama Bin Laden never planned to move into the White House. ISIS doesn't expect to have their flag flying above the Eiffel Tower. Terrorist are angry violent anarchist that simple want to make life bad for others. The more cynical, suspicious, racist, partisan, scared, etc they can make us the more they are winning. We can not beat groups like ISIS in a fight. They are willing to sacrifice so much more. Sure we have drones, stealth bombers, submarines, and etc but we also have normal lives. We have black Friday to participate in, Star Wars to watch, homes to sink our savings into, video games to play, and etc. For ISIS the battle is a full time job and death is the obvious conclusions. For us this battle is a nuisance preventing us from being comfortable. Our level of commitment will never match theirs and if it ever even came close they will have won. Don't you understand that?

The cold war, the war on drugs, the war on terror, there is always a boogie man. Always something society collectively fears. I am sure you remember duck and cover drills as a child. A generation conditioned to fear communism. It is nonsense. Fast food, plastic in the ocean, carbon being released, rain forests being burned, etc, etc, etc are hurting us (people in the western world) so much more directly than the desperate acts of ISIS. If we are going to put a hundred thousand boots on the ground and spend another trillion dollars wouldn't that effort be better focused on climate change? Seriously, there is a patch of the pacific ocean the size of Texas covered in plastic and other pollutants we are doing absolutely nothing about but you think our attention, man power, and wealth is best served focused on killing ISIS supporters. Not me! ISIS is merely a symptom. They are not the disease.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

And in that mass of plastic in the Pacific, if I found the remains of one shampoo bottle that you once used, would you blame yourself for the problem and lobby to clean it up, or blame me for using shampoo?

 

There is a beautiful big Oak tree, on my neighbor's property that I was talking about to a highschool friend, who told me a story of a similar wonderful tree that was chopped down so sunlight could reach the "solar panels that were to be installed, to combat global warming." I would have lobbied for the tree.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

My point is that reasonable people, good people like you and me and others on this board, from countries all over the world, have been here for years. We have been working these issues. We are capable and trustworthy, we have good judgement. We are strong, and good and will win, because we are not afraid of Daesh. Their terror will not stand. We will meet them, and defeat them.

 

http://oil-price.net/en/articles/making-oil-from-plastic.php

 

I trust our collective judgement. Together we are strong. We are not debating in a vacuum, we have the streets we are talking about, right outside our doors, we have the oceans we are talking about right off our shores.

 

Our world, our business, our collective mess to clean up, our collective wonders to enjoy, our collective story to be told.

 

Regards, TAR

That is why I ask now, "what would you lobby your government to do, to help France and defeat Daesh."

Edited December 6, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

 

 

You obviously are not on any functional present team. Does not mean I am not on one.

It means you are on the wrong one. Your team is what the rest of us have to prevent from doing wrong, somehow.

 

We have to find a way to stop your team from "helping" France, Syria, Iraq, and so forth. How can we do this?

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,And in that mass of plastic in the Pacific, if I found the remains of one shampoo bottle that you once used, would you blame yourself for the problem and lobby to clean it up, or blame me for using shampoo?There is a beautiful big Oak tree, on my neighbor's property that I was talking about to a highschool friend, who told me a story of a similar wonderful tree that was chopped down so sunlight could reach the "solar panels that were to be installed, to combat global warming." I would have lobbied for the tree.Regards, TAR

Yes I use plastic products that contribute to polluting our planet same as you use crude oil products that contribute to terrorism. Difference is you advocate for our government to spend trillions of our tax dollars and put hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens in Syria to kill people while I don't. I rather see that level of man power and treasure applied to cleaning up our ocean or combating climate change. As for your tree anology; yes, you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs but you also don't always have to eat omlets. We don't have to put boots on the ground in Syria or starve.

 

Armed U.S. citizen (not Muslim) kills people at a Planned Parenthood or in an elamentary school, movie theater, college, church, highway, etc and it is a tragedy we offer prays for but requires ZERO policy change or actions. We mourn but the status qou remains. Armed citizen who is Muslim kills any group of people anywhere and it is not just a tragedy it is terrorism and requires MASSIVE policy change. We mourn and the status qou becomes a sign of weakness. What is the difference?

 

Military leaders have identified climate change as a major national security concern. Many armed conflicts will arise and many refugees will be created yet climate change as an issue is a non-starter. We openly discuss full scale invasions of counrties like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria yet half of our government won't even acknowledge that climate change is real. We have to start looking at the whole pick picture. Stop looking at the world through the scope of a rifle. National security issues should not be treated a la carte.

http://time.com/4101903/climate-change-national-security/

[Willie71]

In the medical/psychological/psychiatric profession we have a mandate to do no harm. Foreign policy should be the same way. When dangerous people come to our attention, we seek to provide treatment, and usually that requires removing the stimulus or situation that is contributing to the problem. We understand that everyone believes they are on the noble side, just defending themselves from the other unreasonable people. Let me repeat that, it is vitally important: everyone believes they are the noble one defending themselves against the other unreasonable people. Once you understand this, the world is much less confusing. It also makes it more nuanced as there aren't any more good guys and bad guys. Everyone believes that are wearing the white cowboy hat, so to speak. For people who are impervious to treatment, there is an escalation of restriction of privileges, not for punishment, but for safety.

 

How can Isis see themselves as the good guys? They have had their friends, families, homes, schools, hospitals, markets, and p,aces of worship blown to pieces by oppressive foreign powers. They think they are just defending themselves against an unreasonable enemy that wants to eradicate them, largely due to their religion. They aren't wrong, they just focus on their own victim hood. We focus on ours, but it pales in comparison to what we have done to them.

[Ophiolite]

While there is much honourable intent in your post I was puzzled by this statement:

 

They think they are just defending themselves against an unreasonable enemy that wants to eradicate them, largely due to their religion.

 

Can you explain how the abuse of women, the murder of gays, the slaughter of thousands of true Muslims and those of other religions, the destruction of parts of Palmyra, how are any of these a defense against an unreasonable enemy?

[Willie71]

While there is much honourable intent in your post I was puzzled by this statement:

 

They think they are just defending themselves against an unreasonable enemy that wants to eradicate them, largely due to their religion.

 

Can you explain how the abuse of women, the murder of gays, the slaughter of thousands of true Muslims and those of other religions, the destruction of parts of Palmyra, how are any of these a defense against an unreasonable enemy?

Those are religious laws. It's moral to follow them if you have a fundamentalist view of religion. It also allows the feeling of persecution from secular influences looking to destroy their way of life. It doesn't have to make sense to us, it only has to make sense to those who hold those views. If you want to take away their way of life, they are the victim again.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I hold some of the same concerns as you hold

 

Overtone,

 

"It means you are on the wrong one. Your team is what the rest of us have to prevent from doing wrong, somehow."

 

Who are you speaking for? I asked you about 4 times already on different threads to identify your team.

The closest you come to identifying with any team is the way you speak about Iran as a natural ally.

So it makes you feel good to feel superior to the people I associate with. Problem is I associate with just about everybody. I have made very few enemies in my life and when I add up all the people in this country, that I associate with, there are only a handful left for you to associate with exclusively. So please tell me who this "rest of us" is referring to. You have every right to pick your teams, but I would suggest you assemble your team with real people and not ideal people you have constructed in your head.

 

Regards, TAR

[MonDie]

While there is much honourable intent in your post I was puzzled by this statement:

 

They think they are just defending themselves against an unreasonable enemy that wants to eradicate them, largely due to their religion.

 

Can you explain how the abuse of women, the murder of gays, the slaughter of thousands of true Muslims and those of other religions, the destruction of parts of Palmyra, how are any of these a defense against an unreasonable enemy?

 

Let's not single them out. Many Americans believe in gender and group disparity (see SDO) and capital punishment. Of course most of them don't even read The Bible that much.

Edited December 7, 2015 by MonDie