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

[Strat]

ISIS Related. I guess we can move all the San bernardino posts into here, yea?

[McParadigm]

Exactly how many times have we had the "we can probably bomb the Middle East into submission" talk in the last half century?

[b_i_revisited]

Right now three of the most useful moves the United States could make is cutting off aid to Saudi Arabia

Nope. I am not claiming they don't provide material or financial support to Islamic terrorists or suggesting that there is an "acceptable" amount of support for terrorism, but the Saudi monarchy probably is the only thing keeping Wahhabism from enveloping the peninsula and the power vacuum created by disrupting their rule or unseating them would essentially be unleashing an oil rich terrorist state that would put ISIS to shame. I fail to see how it would end any differently than the efforts to unseat Saddam or Assad have.

and Israel until they stop funding terrorist groups and end the west bank/gaza occupations,

I wish this would misconception would die. It's lie that liberals tell themselves so that don't have question the motivations of many Islamic leaders and thus don't have to feel the tiny pings of colonialism and privilege that come along with having to judge third world citizens.

Avowed atheist and Ben Affleck nemesis Sam Harris does a good job of addressing this in an interview with Salon transcribed here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam- ... -interview

respectively, and embrace Iran as a necessary partner in regional stabilization.

Yup and it's one of the few wise things the Obama admin has done recently.

This should be followed by a willingness to abandon territorial boundaries that are relics of a western imperial occupation, which will make peace deals easier.

Yup. It's interesting that Western power are slowing dissolving the boundaries of nation states in the first world but seem hell bent on keeping them in place everywhere else.


And let's not forget the elephant in the room: petroleum. The reason the Saudis, Iranians, Assad, Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. had/have the power to fund terrorism is petroleum. The reason we feel the need interfere with them is petroleum. End the global dependency on oil, and watch a new and better world be born.

[stip]

Fair point about Saudi Arabia - I agree destabilizing the regime could be worse than the status quo, but that's not to say pressure cannot be applied and aid withheld to coerce the regime to crack down on the sponsorship of terrorism,

I was not particularly impressed by the Harris article (or the Israel point) but posting on a phone is not conducive to a response. I am traveling this weekend but will try and post a real response.

[b_i_revisited]

I was not particularly impressed by the Harris article (or the Israel point) but posting on a phone is not conducive to a response. I am traveling this weekend but will try and post a real response.

I don't usually agree with him on Israel. His statements appear to suggest he starts from a position that Israel's behaviors are justified and works his way backwards. He often ignores or downplays their horrible acts (settlements that are de facto annexations of Palestinian land, civilian infrastructure targeting, worldwide assassinations) in order to draw a larger contrast with Islamic radicals, providing evidence for his religion is the source of evil stance, which I find intellectually dishonest. Where I do agree with him is in regards to the perceived double standard that progressive leftists apply with Islam and Palestine in particular. (I misused the term "liberal" earlier. I consider myself a liberal, but not a progressive, so I should know better). There also appears to be a strong feeling in the progressive community that evil acts committed by "weaker" societies against strong ones can be forgiven if the response by the "more powerful" society results in a higher death count. Like it's only the final box score that matters, not how the game was played. Comparisons between the death count on 9/11 and from the Iraq war are prime example. So like Harris I think when discussing terrorism, and Islamic radicalism in particular, intentions do matter a great deal, probably even more than who is "weak" vs. who is "strong" argument, and we must take into account what the end-state goals of a group are and judge them at least partially in that context... regardless of their minority status, skin color, religion, or global financial power.

A more detailed discussion exists between Sam and Noam Chomsky on the topic of Palestine and terrorism here:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... -discourse

A long, but good read for those interested in his ideas.

[nyquillyn]

Thanks for posting those links, b_i. I really enjoyed reading them.

[stip]

I was not particularly impressed by the Harris article (or the Israel point) but posting on a phone is not conducive to a response. I am traveling this weekend but will try and post a real response.

I don't usually agree with him on Israel. His statements appear to suggest he starts from a position that Israel's behaviors are justified and works his way backwards. He often ignores or downplays their horrible acts (settlements that are de facto annexations of Palestinian land, civilian infrastructure targeting, worldwide assassinations) in order to draw a larger contrast with Islamic radicals, providing evidence for his religion is the source of evil stance, which I find intellectually dishonest. Where I do agree with him is in regards to the perceived double standard that progressive leftists apply with Islam and Palestine in particular. (I misused the term "liberal" earlier. I consider myself a liberal, but not a progressive, so I should know better). There also appears to be a strong feeling in the progressive community that evil acts committed by "weaker" societies against strong ones can be forgiven if the response by the "more powerful" society results in a higher death count. Like it's only the final box score that matters, not how the game was played. Comparisons between the death count on 9/11 and from the Iraq war are prime example. So like Harris I think when discussing terrorism, and Islamic radicalism in particular, intentions do matter a great deal, probably even more than who is "weak" vs. who is "strong" argument, and we must take into account what the end-state goals of a group are and judge them at least partially in that context... regardless of their minority status, skin color, religion, or global financial power.

A more detailed discussion exists between Sam and Noam Chomsky on the topic of Palestine and terrorism here:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... -discourse

A long, but good read for those interested in his ideas.

I haven't read the link yet. It's not an inaccurate critic of the left - progressive position (which is ideologically where I'm coming from on most issues). I would take issue with the word forgive since a horrible act is a horrible act no matter who does it, but you are right about the underdog bias being there for sure. But I think you're maybe too dismissive on the box score point. Intentions matter, but maybe less than outcomes, especially since no one has pure motives or clean hands. The more you appreciate the history and context and complexity behind the actions the more blurred the intentions, the more useful the score becomes - especially when you're talking about civilians

[dimejinky99]

ISIS Related. I guess we can move all the San bernardino posts into here, yea?

See that there is the problem. But Maybe if US media moved the insane gun shit into that category meaning terrorism things might change.

[Norah]

you've got it all figured out

[Strat]

This frightens me

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12 ... l=facebook

[E.H. Ruddock]

This frightens me

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12 ... l=facebook

Can we at least close the South Carolina borders to the terrorist New Yorkers that keep coming down here?

[nyquillyn]

This frightens me

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12 ... l=facebook

Does it frighten you more than the sheriff of the 4th-most populated county in the U.S. encouraging people to carry concealed handguns in large public spaces to "take down" the "crazies"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe ... 945feeef39

[Strat]

This frightens me

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12 ... l=facebook

Does it frighten you more than the sheriff of the 4th-most populated county in the U.S. encouraging people to carry concealed handguns in large public spaces to "take down" the "crazies"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe ... 945feeef39

Its the same narrative. It all frightens me.

[Strat]

Fuck what is this world coming to. Have we gone crazy or are they just the loudest ones?

[LoathedVermin72]

let the darkness consume you strat

[Strat]

let the darkness consume you strat

What is good? What is evil? There's been an awakening. have you felt it? Wheres luke? WHO'S luke?!!?

[Strat]

Ralph Peters, a Fox News "strategic analyst," calls President Obama a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies."
A couple of hours later Stacey Dash, a Fox contributor, says the president "didn't give a sh--" about his terrorism speech.

[dimejinky99]

you've got it all figured out

Pitch and portrayal are everything though Chud. It suits a hysteric and misleading media outlets agenda to paint this or other attacks as Islamist terrorism even if it isn't. Why not then portray all gun crime as terrorism then and feed the public a different narrative? Sure the gun lobby won't allow it but it's frightening the way US media frames these things to their own agenda. Misleading at best.

It's all a lost cause anyways, as said earlier Sandy hook was really the moment things should have changed in gun control law and it didn't. It's a fucked up Dystopian situation if every American has to be armed just in case one crazy goes on a shooting spree. That's some seriously warped and unhealthy thinking.

[LoathedVermin72]

It's a fucked up Dystopian situation if every American has to be armed just in case one crazy goes on a shooting spree. That's some seriously warped and unhealthy thinking.

For real, dude.

[verb_to_trust]

Ralph Peters, a Fox News "strategic analyst," calls President Obama a "total pu---" who "doesn't want to hurt our enemies."
A couple of hours later Stacey Dash, a Fox contributor, says the president "didn't give a sh--" about his terrorism speech.

Fair and balanced