I. Marched. Against. The. War. Before it started. In London. — Baden

I remember I had doubts at first, but after reading Scott Ritter's small book in late 2002 I understood that it was a hoax with the mushroom clouds... and it turned out to be so. And then for years there were even in the PF these "watchdogs" that attacked anybody questioning anything about the decision to go into Iraq. At least now the truth has come out, as it's basically just history now.

What was incredible was how people believed the lies and how willing they went to war... even there wasn't any backing from the neighbours and this truly was a totally different kind of war that before, or something basically similar to the one that the US started against Spain. Those extremely few voices in Washington DC that hinted that perhaps invading Iraq wasn't the best thing the US could do were simply sidelined and basically punished.

Basically the foreign relations community, that de facto makes US policy, is a tightly knit community were the neocons and the internationalist liberals don't actually differ so much.

What I find odd or let's say missing in the after shock of this event is that no Islamic leader or representative has said anything whatsoever to state that this event was something worthy of condemnation or any sympathy for the victims. Rather, I have heard 3 (selfish) statements from the Islamic community making a claim (defense) that this is not Islam.

Then read this article, which quotes heads of state and religious groups in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, among others which condemn terrorism and vow to help in the fight. I didn't see any discussion about Islam, as much as human values.

- My interpretation of our exchange obviously differed from yours but your comments on that are welcome.

You seem to have implied that you would be open to military action were proper planning in place. Is that correct? — Thorongil

I am open to whatever causes the minimum loss of innocent life both in the short and long term. That will require a combination of alliance-making, diplomacy and possibly some form of military action. I am against any knee-jerk military response.

Yeah, but it's really rich coming from some of those countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Of course they're going to condemn the attacks. The question is whether the condemnation is genuine and will result in real efforts to combat them. At the moment, they're fighting the Houthis in Yemen whilst turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda which is also present there and fighting them.

I am open to whatever causes the minimum loss of innocent life both in the short and long term. That will require a combination of alliance-making, diplomacy and possibly some form of military action. I am against any knee-jerk military response. — Baden

Well, I'm glad to hear you say that. I'm against any knee-jerk military response too, but I also feel serious military intervention must happen very soon. At any rate, perhaps this is a satisfactory close to our conversation here.

Yes, as the situation develops there may be more for us to debate but as we both seem to agree that there shouldn't be a knee-jerk military response, our positions are not all that polarized for now.

The Russian economy is garbage, remember. — Thorongil

Russia economy has been garbage for a long time. Russians are used to that. They aren't the French, who would of drop of a hat man the barricades.

What do you have in mind? Do you honestly think Putin would declare war on Western Europe and the US merely on account of the latter's invasion of ISIS and Assad? — Thorongil

Well, Putin has Russian Air Force jets and helicopters operating from Syrian army bases. The same bases that Assad's forces operate from. So what are you as the West going to do to them? You think you can attack only the Syrians on the military base, but not the Russians?

If you attack Russian troops in Syria, Putin might for instance put Russian nuclear forces on alert and perhaps do a nuclear test and simply state that he will defend Russian troops in Syria with nukes, if it comes to that. So Thorongil, will you want to go to WW3 because of Syria? That could affect even your own life, you know.

Well, to my knowledge, there are primarily four groups in Syria: ISIS, Assad's forces, an al-Qaeda like terrorist group (I forget their name), and the Syrian opposition. I call them secular since they are the allies of the secular Western powers and would presumably want to establish democratic rule in Syria when the fighting is over. — Thorongil

I think you are talking about Al-Nusra front (the al-Qaeda like terrorist group) and then the Free Syrian Army, the poster child of the West.

The problem here is that the fight in Syria isn't so much about democracy, but religion. It's the ethnic minorities, like Christians, who are on the side of Assad, and then the Sunni Majority, who here is unfortunately isn't just the Free Syrian Army.

Assad's tactic is similar to how the Algerian military junta fought it's civil war and won. First and foremost: it (Algeria) went after the moderates and left alone the extremists at first, because the extremists basically were fighting the moderates too (like in Syria) and then could portray to the Algerian people how bad the opposition was. The extremists in that war, the GIA, went after the muslim opposition leaders and also made terrorist attacks in France in order for the West to side with the Algerian government. Then afterwards the GIA was squashed and only few remnants calling themselves Al Qaeda or IS now are present.

I just wonder if the knowledge that the audience could be armed, might likely be armed, would have changed the appearance of these events being 'soft targets'. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think we all need to recognize a distinction: What makes sense on a ranch in the arid wastes of Arizona (Anasazi word for "arid waste") or on a farm in the frozen wastes of Minnesota (Ojibwa word meaning "frozen waste") or in the hilly wastes of eastern Kentucky (Chickasaws word for "hilly waste") isn't a good idea in dense urban environments. If the Beast is slouching down the road leading to your adobe abode, shoot the son of a bitch -- then call 911. Same advice for anybody else living a long ways from the nearest patrol car.

The reason it doesn't work in dense urban settings is that there is too much friction all the time, and too many potential targets. Too many people end up getting shot by mistake (or even if the target is correct, bullets miss and often keep going long enough to run into somebody totally uninvolved). The thought of a gun fight breaking out at something as small as a rural slow pitch softball tournament is chilling.

Another reason it isn't a good idea to arm everybody to defend against terrorist attacks is that these attacks tend to be a total surprise, and there are enough variables to keep even the most agile of Navy Seals off balance, let alone your average good shot at squirrel hunting.

Like: Timothy McVey and his truck load of fertilizer and jet fuel with which he blew up the Oklahoma Federal Courthouse. Or 9/11. Or the Anthrax attack, the sarin attack (in the Tokyo subway), or the unibomber, or the crazed suicide mass murderer walking into a crowded Bagdad market and exploding themselves and everybody else nearby. Speaking of having doubt in one's government... David Koresh and his Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas were well armed and knew the feds were coming for them, but still ended up burning to death at the hands of the United States DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. (Talk about an agency with a mixed agenda!) That's what led to the Oklahoma bombing. (Oklahoma is an Arapaho word for "gawd awful waste".)

The problem here is that the fight in Syria isn't so much about democracy, but religion. — ssu

This plays into my point in my first post about the need for an Enlightenment in the Islamic world. The problem indeed stems primarily from religion, not from Western imperialism.

I believe you brought up bin Laden a while ago. Well, one of the principal reasons why he hated the US (as opposed to Sweden), was because we backed the East Timorese resistance to Indonesian occupation with military aid. He and like-minded Islamic terrorists could care less about Western imperialism or its history, so long as it doesn't thwart their plans for instituting Islamic theocracy, their real aim. That many liberals in the West seem to take these terrorists' word for it that they're really just miffed about the legacy of Western colonialism is hilarious to me.

So Thorongil, will you want to go to WW3 because of Syria? That could affect even your own life, you know. — ssu

Sure, I suppose it could happen, but I very much doubt that it would. In any event, I'm neither a utilitarian nor a pacifist, so yes, I would take out Assad, the Russians be damned. The West sat idly by when genocide occurred in Rwanda and in Sudan, which I find unconscionable, and it infuriates me that we're now doing the very same thing in the case of Syria. Well, now we know the consequences of inaction: large scale attacks in Europe and a truly massive influx of refugees (not to mention endless carnage in the Middle East itself).

Strong military intervention should have occurred a long time ago. And do not forget that ISIS, Assad, and even Russia (in light of the annexation of Crimea) are the aggressors here. There is no good reason not to stamp out ISIS and Assad except for the fear that it will turn into another Iraq/Afghan quagmire. That's a legitimate fear, but not good enough to convince me that no serious military action should be taken.

Last night on the BBC a Northeastern University [Boston] professor who studies terrorism made a useful observation:

"What did the terrorists want to achieve? Well, most people observe what happened after the terrorist attack and cite those consequences as the intended result. So, the purpose of 9/11 was to involve the US in a mid-eastern war -- and they were successful. Or, 'the purpose of the attack was to make life more difficult for ordinary people.' And sure enough, life was more difficult for ordinary people.

In fact, we generally have no idea what the intended result was. Perhaps the terrorists had rather grandiose intentions which totally failed. Or perhaps they had not thought through the long range consequences of their terrorist attack -- perhaps they had rather minimal objectives."

What point are you trying to make?

And do not forget that ISIS, Assad, and even Russia (in light of the annexation of Crimea) are the aggressors here. There is no good reason not to stamp out ISIS and Assad except for the fear that it will turn into another Iraq/Afghan quagmire. That's a legitimate fear, but not good enough to convince me that no serious military action should be taken. — Thorongil

Well, the problem with your thinking is that you are basically attacking both sides in a conflict. Add the Al Nusfra front and basically bomb everybody! But it could really work: all the Syrian factions could call it a temporary armstice and continue together fighting the Americans. What a wonderfull way to unite the country.

So it really doesn't make any sense. Or actually it makes a lot of sense... because the American policy is basically as totally nonsensical as this. And this is why Putin gets so much credit by many on his policy in Syria: because he put Russia to help one side in the conflict. Basically Russia, Syria and Iran share similar objectives here. (Hence Iran had no trouble of Russian cruise missiles flying over it's territory to hit targets in Syria) As Assad, views the various opposition groups (that also fight each other) the enemy, there is no trouble of finding just who is an acceptable actor (as with the US).

This nonsensical foreign policy can be seen for example in Egypt.

First Mubarak was a friend. Egypt was an ally of the US (after the peace accord with Israel). Then he wasn't. Then democracy was supported. Then that democracy gave in elections the "wrong" people the power. Then it wasn't supported. Then Egypt wasn't an ally, but wasn't a foe either. Then came the military coup in 2013 that got rid off the Muslim Brotherhood and then the US condemned the action and cancelled some weapon sales. Egypt then started making arms deals with Russia and France, with 46 MiG-29 and S-300 Surface-to-air-missiles. Now I have really trouble to know just where the US policy is towards Egypt. The Egyptian view is basically a lot of distrust and suspicion. From a Congressional Research Service memo;

Egypt’s government describes its Islamist adversaries as terrorists and portrays U.S. attempts to dictate terms or impose conditions related to Egypt’s internal affairs as naïve, malign or both. As an alternative, Egypt’s rulers have welcomed the support of like-minded Arab governments in the Gulf region that view political Islam as an existential threat. -

Well, the problem with your thinking is that you are basically attacking both sides in a conflict. Add the Al Nusfra front and basically bomb everybody! — ssu

There's no need to exaggerate. We have the Syrian rebels as our allies, as well as the Kurds and Iraqis. Turkey might also change their stance and aid efforts at combating ISIS more directly.

I agree that policy concerning Egypt has been ridiculous.

That might have been true centuries ago, but not any more.

The Iraq war was less than 10 years ago, the ousting of Gaddafi was less than 5 years ago. What the fuck are you talking about?

I see my point was lost on you then. So be it.

You claim that the West is attempting to thwart specifically Islamic theocracies, but both Gaddafi and Hussein were both not leaders of theocratic regimes, yet the west still ousted them, not "centuries" ago, as you claim, but less within the last decade.

In the relationship between Western liberal democracies and Islamic culture, a general point that comes to mind is this.

Liberal democracies went through centuries of struggle before such principles as the right of free speech, freedom of assembly and conscience, the practice of government with a 'principled opposition' became established. Along with these was the principle of pluralism, which is that it is possible for people with very different points of view to actually co-exist.

But I don't know if there is any inherent recognition of these principles in Islamic political systems. If you look at Iran, for instance, which is kind of coming into from the cold, after the nuclear deal was signed, it is still basically a theocracy, and people still routinely dissappear for being critical of the government. Turkey is a secular democracy, but it seems perilously unstable much of the time. And it doesn't look as though democracy, as such, is remotely possible in Egypt. (Tunisia remains a bit of beacon, but overall the Arab Spring doesn't seem to have culminated in the sudden establishment of liberal democracies in the Middle East.)

So the question is, should 'the principle of tolerance' accommodate political ideologies that don't actually recognize tolerance themselves? Ought not that be part of the deal? What if the principle of tolerance were extended by a liberal society, towards a totalitarian ideology, with the result that the totalitarian ideology was able to abolish the principle of tolerance?

I seriously doubt that any of the Islamic governments we see today would be really capable of presiding over a genuinely pluralist and democratic social order; among other things, Islam doesn't recognize the separation of church and state.

Incidentally, the overall aim of the various Islamic terrorist organisations is to precipitate the battle at the end of the world and the establishment of a universal caliphate overseen by the Mahdi (roughly equivalent to the 'second coming' for Christians.) 'The West' is seen by the conservative Islamists as being under the control of Satan and the battle is a cosmic battle of good and evil. (Of course not every or even hardly any Muslims believe any such thing, but there is a radical core that does. And when those are the stakes, there is nothing that seems unreasonable, I would think.)

Liberal democracies went through centuries of struggle before such principles as the right of free speech, freedom of assembly and conscience, the practice of government with a 'principled opposition' became established. Along with these was the principle of pluralism, which is that it is possible for people with very different points of view to actually co-exist.

But I don't know if there is any inherent recognition of these principles in Islamic political systems. — Wayfarer

If I get Marx right, one of the reasons the present countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere didn't develop liberal democracies is that they did not go through a long period of industrial development which could have helped them build more inclusive communities, a more secular society, more tolerance, and so forth.

The fissure of Islam is sort of (crudely) like the major fissure of Christianity into Roman and Greek wings. The conflict between these two wings was unproductive. It wasn't until the Latin church was split by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, and John Wycliffe that the benefits of reformation began to accrue to the western churches. Islam hasn't had its reformation, yet.

Islam has existed, for the most part, in relatively poor countries where there has been strong tribalism. In the last century oil, of course, lifted the prosperity of various nations, while maybe not doing all that much for the individual citizen.

So we have... a couple billion people who follow a moderately to extremely conservative faith, do not have democratic traditions, do not have a lot of prosperity, do not have a strong secular education system, and so forth. Thanks to technology, they are now drenched in access to all sorts of culturally abrasive content, some of which they probably like, and some of which they don't.

Fundamentalist Islam is as bound to be as resentful as fundamentalist Christianity. By its nature, extreme conservatism is a resentment against all that is modern. The conservative Christian preachers who backed the clock up to some vague pre-20th century point in time and are always calling down damnation on so-and-so or affirming that an earthquake is the result of rampant sodomy and pornography, or what have you, is of a piece with the ranting mullahs. A conservative Christian enclave would be about as pleasant as the ISIS caliphate.

it might be a good idea if liberal, secular, and democratic areas such as North America and Europe became more articulately supportive of cultural virtues and more explicitly proactive about cultural evils. The world needs tolerance of fundamentalism (Christian, Islamic, or Hindu) like it needs a return of the black plague.

Outrages like the mob murder of a Moslem in India for allegedly eating meat from a sacred cow shouldn't be swept under the cultural relativity rug. India should investigate and punish the mob. There are religious outrages in America instigated by fundamentalists that shouldn't be tolerated either -- like teaching creationism in schools (secular or religious schools). Maybe liberals should get off their duff and wreck the place. Anyone advocating, teaching or recruiting suicide bombers and terrorists should, perhaps, be executed forthwith. Prospective suicide bombers and terrorists can go to the same wall. If madrasas in Europe or the US (or anywhere else, as far as I am concerned) are teaching anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-secular doctrine, then be gone. If moslem prisoners are being radicalized in prisons, then isolate the teachers and subject the students to political reeducation.

I can't think of any effective way to change Saudi antediluvian theology. If there is so much oil around, maybe we should organize a boycott of Saudi grease. Maybe the remotely controlled self-destruct mechanisms in the AWACS we sold them should be activated.

Too harsh? Too violent? Not enough cultural sensitivity and respect? What's your suggestion?

Outrages like the mob murder of a Moslem in India for allegedly eating meat from a sacred cow shouldn't be swept under the cultural relativity rug. India should investigate and punish the mob. There are religious outrages in America instigated by fundamentalists that shouldn't be tolerated either -- like teaching creationism in schools (secular or religious schools).

- Bittercrank

I think 'the teaching of creationism' ought really not be compared to 'beating people to death'. I personally think 'teaching creationism' is a matter of free speech, and if the market place of ideas is not savvy enough to recognize it for the bollocks that it is, then that marketplace will not win the contest of ideas, and in true Darwinian fashion, it will become extinct. But if you legislate against it, then you have a scientific theocracy! (Of the kind that the ridiculous 'Freedom from Religion Foundation' would gladly foist upon us.)

Nonsense. People have to be able to express whatever ideas they want - well, provided they don't scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre. But if some crank wants to argue crank ideas, that is exactly the kind of thing freedom of speech is there to protect. Otherwise you then get into censorship - but anyway that is a totally different topic to the OP.

Nonsense. If I claim that it is a scientific fact that you won't get burned if you set yourself on fire, I'm making false claims as to whether that is a scientific fact. — Πετροκότσυφας

You're entitled to make false claims within the limitations of the law. Others are not obligated to believe you. If you can't see the difference between making an argument for creationism vs talking someone into setting themselves on fire or someone being beaten to death then I'm not sure what else could convince you.

As long as certain versions of creationism willfully distort established scientific facts, then it might be seen as the duty of a state to protect its citizens from fraud, the same way it ought to do it for products, such as power balance bracelets, which make fraudulent claims. — Πετροκότσυφας

I can hardly imagine a sentiment further from the spirit of science and free enquiry.

In ideal lalaland we could simply ban everything factually wrong and only allow factually correct statements. However, since the state is a biased entity...

Liberal democracies went through centuries of struggle before such principles as the right of free speech, freedom of assembly and conscience, the practice of government with a 'principled opposition' became established. Along with these was the principle of pluralism, which is that it is possible for people with very different points of view to actually co-exist.

But I don't know if there is any inherent recognition of these principles in Islamic political systems. — Wayfarer

What you are here forgetting is that democracy, something that may have it's roots in the West, is now something universal. I don't think that South Korea or Japan share at all a history of going through centuries a similar history as in the West, but they are democracies.

So the question is, should 'the principle of tolerance' accommodate political ideologies that don't actually recognize tolerance themselves? Ought not that be part of the deal? What if the principle of tolerance were extended by a liberal society, towards a totalitarian ideology, with the result that the totalitarian ideology was able to abolish the principle of tolerance? — Wayfarer

If a country is democratic and has a somewhat functioning justice system and electoral system, that doesn't mean the people have similar liberal thoughts as you might have. Above all, a democratic system doesn't mold the people to be permissive liberals. There might be that university grad who studied philosophy who thinks the same way as you do. Yet this idea, that democracy will inherently make people Western liberals, to make them think like we do or whatever we have in mind as the objective is an unrealistic idea filled with hubris and self-centered egotism.

One could argue similarly then that because the US has capital punishment, tortures people and doesn't respect habeas corpus when it comes to "war on terror", that indeed this what you are telling is happening in the US. So should we then start a discussion on what is wrong with Americans contrary to "real permissive liberal democracies" we have in Europe? No. Because that kind of talk would be simply condescending. The majority of Americans do favour capital punishment. They are OK with the way the War on Terror is fought. And their liberal democracy functions quite well. Americans have what they want. Period.

Now there are indeed those universal values of what is right and wrong, all the cultures or religions don't differ so much in the end, yet still, if the Muslim countries would be functioning democracies and justice states, a lot of the laws would be different from ours basically because of democracy. And thus there would be the liberals here that would accuse them of not being liberal and democratic enough.

Yet the obvious fact is that the vast majority of these countries aren't functioning, have huge problems and that is the real cause why some extremists think that going to the roots of their religion will solve the problems. (Which it won't, but so didn't communism either...)

I don't think that South Korea or Japan share at all a history of going through centuries a similar history as in the West, but they are democracies.

ssu

Yes, very clever people, too. Adaptable, industrious, and principled. Would that there were more like them.

You can make as many arguments for creationism as you want. Full stop. I wouldn't like a government deciding what I can and cannot say.
In the US, one of the most important values espoused by the government is the freedom of speech.

If you're talking about it being taught in schools as god's truth, then I agree. But if you're saying that no one should be able to teach creationism in any setting then I do not.

I do see your skepticism, Tiff. You believe that your government is out to exploit you or something, I guess that's why you want Americans to own guns.

I have another good one about hard-wired national qualities. My ex Prime minister once said that the Greeks have anti-racist DNA. — Πετροκότσυφας

I am thrilled that you can see my skepticism because it took a lot of years, a lot of layers to peel back and a LOT of heavy lifting by international friends like Benkei and Tobias to get to the point I am yet I recognize I have a long way to go.

Now you shifted the context Tiff.

There is a difference between qualified security being armed and non-qualified audience members being armed.

The main point is, you simply do not attend a concert and expect an attack by terrorists out of the blue. This sort of attack can happen anywhere at any time, so is the solution to have everyone out of fear armed with firearms in the event that something might happen? To live as such is to gives into the desire to create a life of fear allowing the terrorists to win. — Mayor of Simpleton

I didn't want to have to shift the context and I will tell you why I did. It is a point of clarification to make sure that those who do not live in a right to carry a concealed weapon state, understand that even though it is YOUR right to legally carry a firearm, carrying a firearm onto private property (Concert Venues/Movie Theaters/Starbucks/Bars) or into a Federal/State government building (Airports/Military Installations/Court Houses/Police Stations/Motor Vehicle Departments,ect) is still strictly forbidden.
In an effort to balance the forbidding of attendees from legally being able to protect themselves, if someone decides to hold a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Texas, they are implored (not mandated) to provide protection equal to the implied risk. It does not give the desire to create a life of fear, quite the opposite happens, it allows a sense of security that is yours to uphold, if you chose to do so.

Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Texas — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This leaves me speechless...

... the SIOA (AFDI) is a horrible organization. Such hate groups should be illegal.

I really cannot comment on this any further.

Meow!

GREG