The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[Norah]

A pal on FB

Dear Vast Majority of American News Anchors reporting on Paris.

Shhhhh. Just shhhh

can he point to specific examples? I'm not saying the american news media doesn't have it's fair share of bullshit, but i really don't like this broad brush, treating the media as a single entity, kind of thing. CNN isn't the same as Fox. Cable isn't the same as Networks. Broadcast isn't the same as print.

And my biggest thing, is this idea that the heads of media companies somehow control every single thing reported on their platforms. Despite the compromising agendas of their owners, newsrooms are still generally staffed by journalists trying their best to do good journalism.

[BurtReynolds]

Its hard to give much credence to claims of hidden agendas, when all I see is utter incompetence. Maybe I'm just underestimating "them".

Just as planned.

[track11]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-approves-1-29b ... 32936.html

There is one clear change we can make, that we should have done a LOOOOONG time ago: call out the Saudis and stop supporting their craziness. They birth these monster terrorist groups to counter Iranian influence, regardless of the brutality imposed. You need massive, MASSIVE amounts of money to be ISIS, and it ain't all coming from underground oil deliveries. The Saudis did it (and are still doing it) with Al Qaeda, Nusra front, and they are doing with ISIS. Why do we (France too) continue to believe that they are on the right side of things? Iran is a FAR better ally, which we may finally be coming close to realizing.

So yeah, the US is to blame for Iraq (Libya, etc) and creating the vacuum necessary to allow this all to be possible. And Israel is certainly not an innocent bystander in the deterioration of formerly powerful governmental systems that pose a threat. And France, oh France and what they did to the Algerians. And the Belgians in the Congo, and....

However, the real culprits, by far, in the current day and age, are the Saudi family.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[dimejinky99]

A pal on FB

Dear Vast Majority of American News Anchors reporting on Paris.

Shhhhh. Just shhhh

can he point to specific examples? I'm not saying the american news media doesn't have it's fair share of bullshit, but i really don't like this broad brush, treating the media as a single entity, kind of thing. CNN isn't the same as Fox. Cable isn't the same as Networks. Broadcast isn't the same as print.

And my biggest thing, is this idea that the heads of media companies somehow control every single thing reported on their platforms. Despite the compromising agendas of their owners, newsrooms are still generally staffed by journalists trying their best to do good journalism.

I'll ask this again

About this. I saw you guys earlier complain about your media outlets and the poor coverage of what happened in Paris. Does this extend to them having an agenda?

From the outside looking in US media is basically bullshit and you guys get tailored/bullshit reports on everything that amounts to nothing but lies to suit vested interests.
About pretty much everything.


Do you guys go outside and read independent or at least other countries media at all?
Not asking this confrontationally, just always have wondered about it.

[nyquillyn]

As chud said, lumping all "media" into one is kinda dumb. TV journalism in this country has been in a steady state of decline for 20+ years. But news services like The Associated Press, Reuters and NYT still practice solid journalism.

If you think the stuff you are reading is incompetent or lacking, find a different source. I tend to watch TV news, but supplementing with the Yahoo! News app that pulls in various wire feeds.

[BurtReynolds]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-approves-1-29bn-sale-bombs-saudi-arabia-170132936.html

There is one clear change we can make, that we should have done a LOOOOONG time ago: call out the Saudis and stop supporting their craziness. They birth these monster terrorist groups to counter Iranian influence, regardless of the brutality imposed. You need massive, MASSIVE amounts of money to be ISIS, and it ain't all coming from underground oil deliveries. The Saudis did it (and are still doing it) with Al Qaeda, Nusra front, and they are doing with ISIS. Why do we (France too) continue to believe that they are on the right side of things? Iran is a FAR better ally, which we may finally be coming close to realizing.

So yeah, the US is to blame for Iraq (Libya, etc) and creating the vacuum necessary to allow this all to be possible. And Israel is certainly not an innocent bystander in the deterioration of formerly powerful governmental systems that pose a threat. And France, oh France and what they did to the Algerians. And the Belgians in the Congo, and....

However, the real culprits, by far, in the current day and age, are the Saudi family.

i agree. i also seldom hear Arab Spring mentioned as a major reason for the collapse in Syria, and that happened largely independent of The West (who seemed taken by surprise by it).

[LoathedVermin72]

I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"

Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.

And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.

I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

[stip]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

[Norah]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

[LoathedVermin72]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS OR THAT WE SHOULD BOMB THEM

[stip]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

The way GH is using it here is meant to address the fact that a violent response will solve nothing, but people will feel better for having seen some bloodshed, and a little bloodshed is 'better' than a lot.

[nyquillyn]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

[BurtReynolds]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

you seem dead set on arguing with imagined straw men.

[Birds in Hell]

I'm glad that t2b and LV seem to have this in hand because it's very early in Australia and I'm not quite awake enough for this discussion yet.

Though I will say that I certainly don't think there's anything inherently conservative about negative views on homosexuality or women's rights, though that would seem pretty self-evident I would've thought.

[Norah]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

[stip]

I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"

Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.

And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.

I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

two things--the context is relevant (I think) because it at least enables me (or the reader) to differentiate between your view and the person who rails against islam but is blind to the same concerns about fundamentalism in other religions. There was no way for me to know that without asking. I don't spend much time in N+D so I didn't know that. Prior to this conversation I mostly just knew that you liked Vs and had odd tastes in movies.

There's a lot of loathsome things in the Islamic religion. There are some inspiring things too. There are lots of loathsome things in Judaism, Christianity, and most other religions as well. These religious beliefs are colored by more or less progressive interpretations, history, culture, and the rest. I've seen progressive female Muslim students offer really articulate justifications for why the support wearing a veil. There is no one standard set of universal beliefs all Muslims adhere to besides really basic stuff, just as all Christians don't necessarily believe all the shit that's in the bible. We have a nasty tendency to apply nuance to our own beliefs and monolithic interpretations to other peoples. Religion is complicated.

Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology.

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

[stip]

I'm glad that t2b and LV seem to have this in hand because it's very early in Australia and I'm not quite awake enough for this discussion yet.

Though I will say that I certainly don't think there's anything inherently conservative about negative views on homosexuality or women's rights, though that would seem pretty self-evident I would've thought.

no, they are inherently conservative the way we use the terms. But being conservative does not make you a terrorist.

[stip]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes, exactly

[LoathedVermin72]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes, exactly