USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
People use the term "asymmetrical warfare" from time to time....in this case we have several different factors of which each one is asymmetrical:
> these fanatical terrorists are at war with us, whether we want to be warring with them or not. Our "desires" don't matter to them in the slightest: we can be friendly or gruff, aggressive or pacifist, it won't matter: they want to weaken us to the point where we retreat behind our borders and have nothing to do with the rest of the world (or at least they force us to retreat from the Middle East entirely and leave them completely alone there)
> they are not a country or a government; yet are granted safe havens in some countries with the tacit approval of some parts of those countries' governments
> a few relatively low-tech weapons can be used with great ingenuity to cause great damage and to disrupt any potential high-tech advantages we may have
While a healthy debate over what to do might be constructive, to cast it in terms of domestic partisan politics, as both parties and too many posters have done, seems irresponsible at best. this should not be a Republican - Democrat issue nor a conservative - progressive issue (except to the extent that some people might say that "it's not worth it to police the world; it's okay to retreat from it; we can't afford to maintain armies abroad, so okay, let them "win" we'll keep our borders secure).
I actually wouldn't mind if some people said, "fine, let's surrender." That's an honest point of view honestly expressed (I'd disagree, but it would be a respectful conversation; there are plenty of merits in that argument that I would grant; I'd merely emphasize other items more highly than those advocating surrender would). However, some seem by behavior to indicate "surrender" while giving lip service to the opposite, which makes conversation really head-scratching: which am I supposed to believe, what you say or what you do?
My father and I had very different views; most of our conversations would be
Him: "I think A, B, and C are of primary importance; although I grant you that D, E, and F are important too, just not as important."
Me: "I think D, E, and F are of primary importance; although I grant you that A, B, and C are important too, just not as important."
It seems like reasoned dialog has become a lost skill; giving way name-calling and slander and pseudo-cleverness. What a shame.
People use the term "asymmetrical warfare" from time to time....in this case we have several different factors of which each one is asymmetrical:
> these fanatical terrorists are at war with us, whether we want to be warring with them or not. Our "desires" don't matter to them in the slightest: we can be friendly or gruff, aggressive or pacifist, it won't matter: they want to weaken us to the point where we retreat behind our borders and have nothing to do with the rest of the world (or at least they force us to retreat from the Middle East entirely and leave them completely alone there)
> they are not a country or a government; yet are granted safe havens in some countries with the tacit approval of some parts of those countries' governments
> a few relatively low-tech weapons can be used with great ingenuity to cause great damage and to disrupt any potential high-tech advantages we may have
While a healthy debate over what to do might be constructive, to cast it in terms of domestic partisan politics, as both parties and too many posters have done, seems irresponsible at best. this should not be a Republican - Democrat issue nor a conservative - progressive issue (except to the extent that some people might say that "it's not worth it to police the world; it's okay to retreat from it; we can't afford to maintain armies abroad, so okay, let them "win" we'll keep our borders secure).
I actually wouldn't mind if some people said, "fine, let's surrender." That's an honest point of view honestly expressed (I'd disagree, but it would be a respectful conversation; there are plenty of merits in that argument that I would grant; I'd merely emphasize other items more highly than those advocating surrender would). However, some seem by behavior to indicate "surrender" while giving lip service to the opposite, which makes conversation really head-scratching: which am I supposed to believe, what you say or what you do?
My father and I had very different views; most of our conversations would be
Him: "I think A, B, and C are of primary importance; although I grant you that D, E, and F are important too, just not as important."
Me: "I think D, E, and F are of primary importance; although I grant you that A, B, and C are important too, just not as important."
It seems like reasoned dialog has become a lost skill; giving way name-calling and slander and pseudo-cleverness. What a shame.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
Reasoned dialog is not a lost skill -- it happens all the time in pairs and even small groups. It's just rarely if ever found in an open forum.
The internet is a mob yowling. That has never been a good place to debate. The loudest, the dumbest, and the most violent will always overwhelm it.
I'm sure any pair of people, even the ones who come across as completely insane, could conduct a superior intellectual exchange in person over a beer than any other pair of people, even the ones who are honest and open minded, could conduct in any open internet forum.
Reasoned dialog is not a lost skill -- it happens all the time in pairs and even small groups. It's just rarely if ever found in an open forum.
The internet is a mob yowling. That has never been a good place to debate. The loudest, the dumbest, and the most violent will always overwhelm it.
I'm sure any pair of people, even the ones who come across as completely insane, could conduct a superior intellectual exchange in person over a beer than any other pair of people, even the ones who are honest and open minded, could conduct in any open internet forum.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I've been too busy to even get the latest on what's happening in Mid East - and this is where I really miss Priceless and his summaries and links, where are you buddy? - but I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning about how it's going to take a lot of investigating (we're sending an FBI team over to Libya, with others) just to figure out what physically happened. There was a lot of talk about a "systematic, sustained mortar attack" and so on that led some people to believe that the Libya attack was a long time in the planning and may be a sign of something more serious afoot. Does anyone have info.?
Beyond this cryptically humorous tweet, which brought this subject back to my mind just now.
I've been too busy to even get the latest on what's happening in Mid East - and this is where I really miss Priceless and his summaries and links, where are you buddy? - but I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning about how it's going to take a lot of investigating (we're sending an FBI team over to Libya, with others) just to figure out what physically happened. There was a lot of talk about a "systematic, sustained mortar attack" and so on that led some people to believe that the Libya attack was a long time in the planning and may be a sign of something more serious afoot. Does anyone have info.?
Beyond this cryptically humorous tweet, which brought this subject back to my mind just now.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
No intended political spin here... I swear. This isn't about left or right, it's just about lunatics being hilarious:
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=1FSKPV269WK8B1SM&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
No intended political spin here... I swear. This isn't about left or right, it's just about lunatics being hilarious:
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=1FSKPV269WK8B1SM&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
You do your fair share of yowling, bub. Or did you modestly exclude yourself?
You do your fair share of yowling, bub. Or did you modestly exclude yourself?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
As an ivy leaguer, you should have experience with that already.
As an ivy leaguer, you should have experience with that already.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
There are many references that the group had rocket launchers and it was a pretty sophisticated assault. Lots if you google it. All signs of a local terrorist cell and therefore, not having to do with the public.
There are many references that the group had rocket launchers and it was a pretty sophisticated assault. Lots if you google it. All signs of a local terrorist cell and therefore, not having to do with the public.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I'm of the opinion that if the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't take action in support of the US we cut military support and give it to Israel.
I'm of the opinion that if Israel doesn't take action by condemning the film (that appears to be of Jewish source), then rather then give them that support, we let them handle this on their own.
Countries either take steps themself to defuse escalated violence...or they face the consequences on their own.
I'm of the opinion that if the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't take action in support of the US we cut military support and give it to Israel.
I'm of the opinion that if Israel doesn't take action by condemning the film (that appears to be of Jewish source), then rather then give them that support, we let them handle this on their own.
Countries either take steps themself to defuse escalated violence...or they face the consequences on their own.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
The video, whatever it is, is a complete cop out. Is it is piece of ****? Yes. Should it have been made? No, but not because it would incite murder, because it is simply the wrong thing to do. The fact that a video, no matter what it is, gives some human scum the impression that it is a free pass to murder is the biggest problem. (even though, they're just using this as any excuse to kill, not as the actual reason for murder) It is freedom of speech, just because we don't agree with something, doesn't mean that it can't be said, or made. I think people should be able to say whatever the **** they want to, whether I agree with it or not, and no matter what is said it should absolutely not result in murder. The problem here is the muslim scum of the earth, not a video, and I say this while completely disagreeing with what the video said.
The video, whatever it is, is a complete cop out. Is it is piece of ****? Yes. Should it have been made? No, but not because it would incite murder, because it is simply the wrong thing to do. The fact that a video, no matter what it is, gives some human scum the impression that it is a free pass to murder is the biggest problem. (even though, they're just using this as any excuse to kill, not as the actual reason for murder) It is freedom of speech, just because we don't agree with something, doesn't mean that it can't be said, or made. I think people should be able to say whatever the **** they want to, whether I agree with it or not, and no matter what is said it should absolutely not result in murder. The problem here is the muslim scum of the earth, not a video, and I say this while completely disagreeing with what the video said.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
Should the Vatican condemn Mel Gibson films?
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I think we're largely agreed here. Guys involved in the film were militant sobs. They do have fee speech.
Its a similar situation to if somehow the Westboro group's actions directly led to a death. Their actions are not technically murder but they do have some repsonsibility here.
Not Beyond Thunderdome.
Have you seen Passion? Critics accurately call it a two hour snuff film that has the intended outcome of inciting rage to an effect that is diametrically opposed to what Jesus stood for. Any Christian organization with a conscience should condemn that film.
I think we're largely agreed here. Guys involved in the film were militant sobs. They do have fee speech.
Its a similar situation to if somehow the Westboro group's actions directly led to a death. Their actions are not technically murder but they do have some repsonsibility here.
Not Beyond Thunderdome.
Have you seen Passion? Critics accurately call it a two hour snuff film that has the intended outcome of inciting rage to an effect that is diametrically opposed to what Jesus stood for. Any Christian organization with a conscience should condemn that film.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
So the idiots who made the film are responsible for the murder of the ambassador?
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...y_murder_p8Oq4JelS7chZ2YMCn6ZqM#ixzz26RWlCFED
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...y_murder_p8Oq4JelS7chZ2YMCn6ZqM#ixzz26RWlCFED
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I have read something akin to the following in many places over the past several years:
The source for this particular quote is here; however, I've seen the same description and explanation many other times as well.
So this information is pretty widespread: in certain situations, lying is justified to "advance the cause of Islam." How can you possibly negotiate with someone when you know in advance they will comfortably lie to you? You cannot possibly trust them to folllow through on what they promise (unless you follow the "trust but verify" dictum!)
Where are the professionals? It seems like we have well-intentioned amateurs in charge who are so confident in their own intelligence that it never even enters their mind that someone else might out-smart them.
I have read something akin to the following in many places over the past several years:
The source for this particular quote is here; however, I've seen the same description and explanation many other times as well.
So this information is pretty widespread: in certain situations, lying is justified to "advance the cause of Islam." How can you possibly negotiate with someone when you know in advance they will comfortably lie to you? You cannot possibly trust them to folllow through on what they promise (unless you follow the "trust but verify" dictum!)
Where are the professionals? It seems like we have well-intentioned amateurs in charge who are so confident in their own intelligence that it never even enters their mind that someone else might out-smart them.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I saw an even better idea: all US citizens stop going on tourist vacations to Egypt for the rest of the year. They rely on tourism for foreign exchange even more than they rely on US military support. If they don't want us, then we stop going. That will cost them much more.
I saw an even better idea: all US citizens stop going on tourist vacations to Egypt for the rest of the year. They rely on tourism for foreign exchange even more than they rely on US military support. If they don't want us, then we stop going. That will cost them much more.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
While we value freedom of speech, they do not value it as much as we do. For them, it is not a "free pass" to murder, it is the appropriate response to blasphemy. Under sharia law, blasphemy is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed.
It is a fundamental difference in world view. What they really want is for the US to prosecute the making of the movie as a criminal act.
While we value freedom of speech, they do not value it as much as we do. For them, it is not a "free pass" to murder, it is the appropriate response to blasphemy. Under sharia law, blasphemy is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed.
It is a fundamental difference in world view. What they really want is for the US to prosecute the making of the movie as a criminal act.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
If one event doesn't occur without the other...then as I said, there is some responsibility.
In this case, questions remain as to whether this was just a sophisticated terror cell with rocket launchers that had nothing to do with rioting over the film.
If one event doesn't occur without the other...then as I said, there is some responsibility.
In this case, questions remain as to whether this was just a sophisticated terror cell with rocket launchers that had nothing to do with rioting over the film.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
Just as we want them to have free speech.
This is a healthy pragmatic evaluation of the type that is much more likely to give one a handle on how to fix the issue.
Just as we want them to have free speech.
This is a healthy pragmatic evaluation of the type that is much more likely to give one a handle on how to fix the issue.
- Status