Terrorism

[Blue Dog]

Terrorism

Since 9/11 there have been more than 29,393 Islamic Terrorist attacks. In 2016 alone, other than those perpetrated against the USA there have been more than 1,835 Islamic Terrorist attacks in 55 other countries, resulting in more than 15,561 deaths and more than 18,889 injuries. One relatively MINOR example: on 2016.03.09 in Taza, Iraq a 3-year-old girl was killed during an ISIS chemical attack that hospitalized 1,500. The remaining 1,836 Islamic Terrorist attacks, 15,560 deaths and 17,889 injuries so far in 2016 can be found at the following internet web site:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm

Hillary Clinton is a major cause of all this and has not been in the least bit a part of the solution or cure. Where Trump has promised and will certainly and immediately do something about all of this insanity (most likely killing them all outright, but if not at least putting them in a terrorist suite at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for life). On the other hand, for a large enough contribution to the Clinton Foundation, I am sure Hillary will almost certainly invite the perpetrators to the White House for a “discussion;” no doubt installing them in Blair House or putting them up for the night in the grandeur and comfort of the Lincoln Bedroom suite (only steps from her own quarters).

[Crepitus]

90% + of those attacks are perpetrated on other islamics.

I thought you Republicans want Gitmo closed?

How will Trump "kill them all outright"? And do you really think that's going to make them stop attacking? Sounds like taking our current policy to extremes rather than anything different.

[resister]

90% + of those attacks are perpetrated on other islamics.

I thought you Republicans want Gitmo closed?

How will Trump "kill them all outright"? And do you really think that's going to make them stop attacking? Sounds like taking our current policy to extremes rather than anything different.
So we should continue to stand by idily with our thumbs up our anuses'?Hows that been working for us?But don't worry folks,Hillary and Obummer will assure us Islam is a religion of peace and were keeping a close eye on em

[DGUtley]

I thought you Republicans want Gitmo closed?
Huh? Where you been?

[Ethereal]

How are we defining terrorism? Usually it just means "things the US government does not like".

Because if we applied the conventional definition of terrorism consistently, then the US government would come out looking like the biggest terrorist on the planet.

[Cletus]

How will Trump "kill them all outright"? And do you really think that's going to make them stop attacking?

You need to think about that for a minute.

[donttread]

How are we defining terrorism? Usually it just means "things the US government does not like".

Because if we applied the conventional definition of terrorism consistently, then the US government would come out looking like the biggest terrorist on the planet.


That's why we wrote the definition. Even bombing women and children to force military surrender"doesn't count" somehow. Yet photgraphing the conditions inside a factory farm does?In other words it's like you said and has become a meaningless definition.

[Peter1469]

Terrorism is typical not state action (which is policy), although I agree that states can use it.

[decedent]

In the US, not one domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 has been committed by a foreign terrorist organization.

[Peter1469]

In the US, not one domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 has been committed by a foreign terrorist organization.

Terrorists are non-state actors.

There have been lots of radical grassroots terrorist attacks in the US and many more stopped by the authorities.

Both the Islamic State and al Qaeda call for this in their on-line magazines.

[Crepitus]

So we should continue to stand by idly with our thumbs up our anuses'? Hows that been working for us? But don't worry folks, Hillary and Obummer will assure us Islam is a religion of peace and we're keeping a close eye on 'em
Wait, is Hillary a war mongering NeoCon or is she sitting with her thumb up her anus? I'm confused.

[Crepitus]

You need to think about that for a minute.

No, I see the irony in the statement. But you and I both know you can't kill them all. Not "should not", not "will not", but CAN NOT kill them all. They're mixed in with the population, and when we kill one we make two more.

[decedent]

Terrorists are non-state actors.


How do you know?

[Peter1469]

Oh boy....

[Don]

Terrorism is a friend to corrupt power hungry governments. They know there is no true threat to the government by the terrorists. They use them like a vise to squeeze our freedom. We are the ones who get squeezed by the power at the top "responding" to the terror from the bottom. The more the terrorists strike, the more the government clamps down. Governments have been doing this for a long time to eliminate freedom. When the terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001 crashed those planes George Bush said "Freedom itself was attacked today," he added that it wouldn't stand but look where we are today. Hell, that first patriot act was already written before the attacks, it was just reworded a bit and given an Orwellian name. I sure as hell don't feel freer today than I did in 2001. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

[donttread]

Terrorism

Since 9/11 there have been more than 29,393 Islamic Terrorist attacks. In 2016 alone, other than those perpetrated against the USA there have been more than 1,835 Islamic Terrorist attacks in 55 other countries, resulting in more than 15,561 deaths and more than 18,889 injuries. One relatively MINOR example: on 2016.03.09 in Taza, Iraq a 3-year-old girl was killed during an ISIS chemical attack that hospitalized 1,500. The remaining 1,836 Islamic Terrorist attacks, 15,560 deaths and 17,889 injuries so far in 2016 can be found at the following internet web site:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm

Hillary Clinton is a major cause of all this and has not been in the least bit a part of the solution or cure. Where Trump has promised and will certainly and immediately do something about all of this insanity (most likely killing them all outright, but if not at least putting them in a terrorist suite at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for life). On the other hand, for a large enough contribution to the Clinton Foundation, I am sure Hillary will almost certainly invite the perpetrators to the White House for a “discussion;” no doubt installing them in Blair House or putting them up for the night in the grandeur and comfort of the Lincoln Bedroom suite (only steps from her own quarters).


1)Remember the west writes the definition of terrorism to exclude their own acts. If we droned bombed a villiage and ALQ did the same exact thing their action is terrorism, ours somehow is not.
2) As much as I dislike Hilary, it is our entire foreign policy, not one person , who has produced the super soil for terrorist recruitment.
3) Clearly our interventionism as a whole has failed and we need to re think our role or even presence in the ME

[Standing Wolf]

1)Remember the west writes the definition of terrorism to exclude their own acts. If we droned bombed a villiage and ALQ did the same exact thing their action is terrorism, ours somehow is not.

This is the dark side of so-called American Exceptionalism...the belief that we are such a uniquely special nation that the rules - even the ones we cheerfully impose on others - don't apply to our own actions.

[donttread]

This is the dark side of so-called American Exceptionalism...the belief that we are such a uniquely special nation that the rules - even the ones we cheerfully impose on others - don't apply to our own actions.

Well said. Eliteism in national form. But no matter how civilly we say it , we mean the same thing. We don't think our shit stinks. And of course when it does stink we simply cover it up

[Bethere]

This is the dark side of so-called American Exceptionalism...the belief that we are such a uniquely special nation that the rules - even the ones we cheerfully impose on others - don't apply to our own actions.
American exceptionalism is no different than Hitler's master race.

[Standing Wolf]

American exceptionalism is no different than Hitler's master race.

There is nothing inherently or necessarily bad about the belief that America is in some way special or unique - so long as that belief leads to the good and the humane. I liken it to a True Believer in some religious Faith, who believes him- or herself to be among the chosen or the "saved"; that belief can lead one to acts of great sacrifice and love of one's fellow Man, or to acts of oppression and violence.

[William]

There is nothing inherently or necessarily bad about the belief that America is in some way special or unique - so long as that belief leads to the good and the humane. I liken it to a True Believer in some religious Faith, who believes him- or herself to be among the chosen or the "saved"; that belief can lead one to acts of great sacrifice and love of one's fellow Man, or to acts of oppression and violence.

I guess there's nothing inherently bad in that belief, except that America is not special or unique - any more than Britain or Germany or Thailand is - so it's just mistaken. Every country is unique cos it has things peculiar to that society, but that's not the same thing.

But one of the problems with any nation considering itself exceptional is that (a) they think the rules apply to everyone else but not them - cos they're special. And (b) when you think you are better than someone else, that makes that person not as good as you. So they become a lesser human being, and it's a short step from that thinking to treating them as a lesser human being. And that thinking can lead to the gates of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Siberia, Apartheid, and indefinite detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay. If we think we are the best, why should we treat others equally? :wink:

[Bethere]

I guess there's nothing inherently bad in that belief, except that America is not special or unique - any more than Britain or Germany or Thailand is - so it's just mistaken. Every country is unique cos it has things peculiar to that society, but that's not the same thing.

But one of the problems with any nation considering itself exceptional is that (a) they think the rules apply to everyone else but not them - cos they're special. And (b) when you think you are better than someone else, that makes that person not as good as you. So they become a lesser human being, and it's a short step from that thinking to treating them as a lesser human being. And that thinking can lead to the gates of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Siberia, Apartheid, and indefinite detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay. If we think we are the best, why should we treat others equally? :wink:

I thought you said that you weren't good at this stuff?

you under rate yourself.

[William]

I thought you said that you weren't good at this stuff?

you under rate yourself.

Thanks! I'm not - I just think about things and say what I think - most of the time I'm not right, but I learn stuff.

[Bethere]

Thanks! I'm not - I just think about things and say what I think - most of the time I'm not right, but I learn stuff.
16514

[Cletus]

This is the dark side of so-called American Exceptionalism...the belief that we are such a uniquely special nation that the rules - even the ones we cheerfully impose on others - don't apply to our own actions.

There are two things to consider there. First, there is a difference between a STATE engaging in a military action and a subnational group engaging in the same types of actions.

Second, when you are the most powerful nation on Earth, "Do as I say, not as I do" is a perfectly legitimate way to interact with lesser states.

[donttread]

American exceptionalism is no different than Hitler's master race.

I wouldn't go that far but it certainly is very dangerous

[donttread]

There are two things to consider there. First, there is a difference between a STATE engaging in a military action and a subnational group engaging in the same types of actions.

Second, when you are the most powerful nation on Earth, "Do as I say, not as I do" is a perfectly legitimate way to interact with lesser states.



Thing is "lessor states" like "little brothers" can do things like band together against a common for and grow up big and strong. So no "Do as I do and not as I say " is not acceptible. In fact such short sighted policy is a big part of why we are in the messes we are in

[Peter1469]

There are two things to consider there. First, there is a difference between a STATE engaging in a military action and a subnational group engaging in the same types of actions.

Second, when you are the most powerful nation on Earth, "Do as I say, not as I do" is a perfectly legitimate way to interact with lesser states.

The two main arguments reflected here represent the relationship between the Great Powers after WWII and the lesser powers. Especially in the creation of the international laws of war. The Great Powers accepted the Geneva Conventions, but many never accepted the follow on protocols. It is much more complicated than that, but this is in nutshell.

[Cletus]

Thing is "lessor states" like "little brothers" can do things like band together against a common for and grow up big and strong. So no "Do as I do and not as I say " is not acceptible. In fact such short sighted policy is a big part of why we are in the messes we are in

They could, but the reality is they don't. Look at the EU, they tried just what you suggested and they are worse off than when they were all independent states. Even collectively, they pose no threat to us.

[William]

Second, when you are the most powerful nation on Earth, "Do as I say, not as I do" is a perfectly legitimate way to interact with lesser states.

Not legitimate, but it works as long as you have a bigger club than anyone else. And I guess that sort of thinking is a big part of the problem - all the school bullies think that way until someone comes along and knocks them down. :wink:

And I also guess it's the actions that follow that sort of thinking which creates terrorism. Like my dad says - "Where there is no prospect of justice, there will always be violence."

Egypt, the Mongols, Greece, Rome, Spain, and even Great Britain, all thought being top dog would last forever.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

[Standing Wolf]

I guess there's nothing inherently bad in that belief, except that America is not special or unique - any more than Britain or Germany or Thailand is - so it's just mistaken. Every country is unique cos it has things peculiar to that society, but that's not the same thing.

But one of the problems with any nation considering itself exceptional is that (a) they think the rules apply to everyone else but not them - cos they're special. And (b) when you think you are better than someone else, that makes that person not as good as you. So they become a lesser human being, and it's a short step from that thinking to treating them as a lesser human being. And that thinking can lead to the gates of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Siberia, Apartheid, and indefinite detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay. If we think we are the best, why should we treat others equally?

You can't categorically condemn the notion of exceptionalism by negatively generalizing about its adherents; it isn't at all true, fair or accurate to say that everyone who considers their nation to be particularly blessed by a deity, by destiny, by a fortunate convergence of historical events - whatever - is somebody who thinks of others as inferior beings and advocates treating them as such. The one does not necessarily, either by logic or in fact, follow the other...any more than - to return to my earlier analogy - every individual who believes him- or herself to have received the blessing of God is inspired by that belief to enslave unbelievers in order to convert them, or to engage in deplorable conduct in the name of that God. Exceptionalism does have a dark side, just as any religion based on faith has - but succumbing to that dark side is not inevitable.

[William]

You can't categorically condemn the notion of exceptionalism by negatively generalizing about its adherents; it isn't at all true, fair or accurate to say that everyone who considers their nation to be particularly blessed by a deity, by destiny, by a fortunate convergence of historical events - whatever - is somebody who thinks of others as inferior beings and advocates treating them as such. The one does not necessarily, either by logic or in fact, follow the other...any more than - to return to my earlier analogy - every individual who believes him- or herself to have received the blessing of God is inspired by that belief to enslave unbelievers in order to convert them, or to engage in deplorable conduct in the name of that God. Exceptionalism does have a dark side, just as any religion based on faith has - but succumbing to that dark side is not inevitable.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough, and I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying everyone who thinks their nation is best advocates treating others as inferior beings. But in logic, if I say my mum is the best mum in the world, I am also saying your mum is not as good as my mum - and therefore inferior to my mum. That is not the same as saying I love my mum more than I love your mum - that's expected. So people who go around saying they, or their country is exceptional (meaning superior to other countries,) are effectively and in fact saying that other countries are inferior. If one person or society is 'the best', it logically follows that everyone else is not as good - i.e: inferior.

So what I'm saying is, once good, kind people believe that they are better than everyone else, it doesn't take that much to think of everyone else - no matter how kindly - as inferior in some ways. Believe me - my country had the biggest empire the world has ever seen - and we Brits have been there (and I'm honestly happy we are not there any more,) and I have read of what happened in the empire over which the sun never set. The saying that God was an Englishman was only half said as a joke. We never went that far (but far enough), but other colonial empires did - read about what Columbus and the Spaniards did in your land, and what the French and the Dutch did in Vietnam and Indonesia.

See, it's not a case of bad people (a whole nation can't be bad,) wanting to do cruel things to people in their power. But it happens by degrees - first it's a case of "They are not as lucky as us - or God hasn't blessed them as he has us." Then we start looking at them as inferior human beings - "They are not only not as lucky as us, but they are obviously not as intelligent as us." After that has become common knowledge, they become not quite as human as us (a bit like the Negro slaves). So then it is OK for 'good God-fearing folk' to treat them unfairly or badly (cos after all, they are not as human as us,) and you only need to look around the world to see that happening - Israel would be a start. From there, all sorts of horrible injustices and cruelty can be 'justified', and of course that old favourite of dictators throughout history - 'national security', can be used to protect us from these inferior races.

[Standing Wolf]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough, and I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying everyone who thinks their nation is best advocates treating others as inferior beings. But in logic, if I say my mum is the best mum in the world, I am also saying your mum is not as good as my mum - and therefore inferior to my mum. That is not the same as saying I love my mum more than I love your mum - that's expected. So people who go around saying they, or their country is exceptional (meaning superior to other countries,) are effectively and in fact saying that other countries are inferior. If one person or society is 'the best', it logically follows that everyone else is not as good - i.e: inferior.

So what I'm saying is, once good, kind people believe that they are better than everyone else, it doesn't take that much to think of everyone else - no matter how kindly - as inferior in some ways. Believe me - my country had the biggest empire the world has ever seen - and we Brits have been there (and I'm honestly happy we are not there any more,) and I have read of what happened in the empire over which the sun never set. The saying that God was an Englishman was only half said as a joke. We never went that far (but far enough), but other colonial empires did - read about what Columbus and the Spaniards did in your land, and what the French and the Dutch did in Vietnam and Indonesia.

See, it's not a case of bad people (a whole nation can't be bad,) wanting to do cruel things to people in their power. But it happens by degrees - first it's a case of "They are not as lucky as us - or God hasn't blessed them as he has us." Then we start looking at them as inferior human beings - "They are not only not as lucky as us, but they are obviously not as intelligent as us." After that has become common knowledge, they become not quite as human as us (a bit like the $#@! slaves). So then it is OK for 'good God-fearing folk' to treat them unfairly or badly (cos after all, they are not as human as us,) and you only need to look around the world to see that happening - Israel would be a start. From there, all sorts of horrible injustices and cruelty can be 'justified', and of course that old favourite of dictators throughout history - 'national security', can be used to protect us from these inferior races.

I understand what you're saying, William, but what is the realistic alternative to seeing the way one's own country does things to be superior in some way? To offer the example with which I'm most familiar, am I expected to close my eyes to the fact that the laws of my country protect free speech, along with many other civil and human rights, to a far greater degree than the great majority of others do? Seeing the world and its governments as they exist, isn't one bound to see differences and make judgments? What is the alternative, then - to perpetuate some illusion that, well, the way they do things in North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela isn't inferior...just "different"?

[MRogersNhood]

Ask yourself this:How many terrorist attacks on American soil has "Homeland Security" prevented vs how many actually happened? Since their inception.
Then weigh in the hassle of them being there in the first place.

Oh,then it gets blamed on the FBI.
Wait,I thought you guys were "Homeland Security"?
Sounds like a Linus blanket.

Looks like this:
http://ilovecob.com/wp-content/files/pooslop_4665.JPG

[Standing Wolf]

It's called "Security Theatre". Get your popcorn in the lobby.

[Peter1469]

Ask yourself this:How many terrorist attacks on American soil has "Homeland Security" prevented vs how many actually happened? Since their inception.
Then weigh in the hassle of them being there in the first place.

Oh,then it gets blamed on the FBI.
Wait,I thought you guys were "Homeland Security"?
Sounds like a Linus blanket.

Looks like this:
http://ilovecob.com/wp-content/files/pooslop_4665.JPG

We can't answer that question. The government doesn't publicize all stopped attacks.

[William]

I understand what you're saying, William, but what is the realistic alternative to seeing the way one's own country does things to be superior in some way? To offer the example with which I'm most familiar, am I expected to close my eyes to the fact that the laws of my country protect free speech, along with many other civil and human rights, to a far greater degree than the great majority of others do? Seeing the world and its governments as they exist, isn't one bound to see differences and make judgments? What is the alternative, then - to perpetuate some illusion that, well, the way they do things in North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela isn't inferior...just "different"?

I think the alternative is to be grown-up, and realise that our way of doing things is only our way - just cos we do it, doesn't make it the best way, or even right. I don't want to offend anyone, but some Americans love saying they are the best, and the USA is the best country in the world. There's loads of things Americans do very well, and there's loads of things Americans do badly, just like everyone else.

Yes, you can say the USA is run better than North Korea or Saudi Arabia, and I don't think anyone will argue with you - but what's the big deal with doing things better than the worst run societies on earth? Americans do not run their society better than most northern European societies - the levels of poverty, inequality, and violence show that, and many Europeans would question that your laws protect civil and human rights to a far greater degree than theirs.

I'm not bagging the USA, but I am saying it is not realistic to see the ways one's own society (whichever that may be) does things as superior. That is just the way we choose to do it, and doesn't automatically make it better. And it's complicated even further by the fact that different societies develop different values - and we judge whether a society is the best, or not, by those values. So sorry, but it's almost impossible to be objective about which society is 'the best'. :smiley: