Printable View
Since his observation was a reflection of being comparatively uninformed and speaks about that state, he would naturally be right. Which is of course why you share it, you're always uninformed when it comes to structures, processes, and how things work. The workings of a parliamentary party are also confusing. . . to those who aren't familiar with them. The rest of your post is of course your usual garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If there's no alternative then we should do it. Though no I'd say that isn't the primary reason there's this issues we have in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That's what intelligence services exist for although ultimately the buck stops with the President in the US or PM here. As for no alternative well if there is an alternative that safely takes out the terrorists without innocent casualties then that is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And if it isn't black and white? You know, real world stuff. Where you can carpet bomb, but also target specific locations, contain, use special forces raids, track them, and stop them before they can strike here. It's never a question of either carpet bombing them to prevent x attacks and x casualties or allowing that to happen.
Lewk, do you think that the nazis bombing London, Rotterdam etc was justified?
Honestly? I think that's a difficult question for me to answer, partly due to my limited knowledge of WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Let's look at the bombing of German cities first. It was done by the good guys, so that was great. But that in itself is not sufficient and gives good guys carte blanche to do horrible things. It was ostensibly done for good reasons, eg. to put an end to bad things (ranging from the horrific persecution of millions of innocents to eg. little things like protecting citizens and the national interests of the Allied forces), and that's a good defense, but it leaves a lot of room for questionable actions. I guess one might argue that it was the only feasible course of action, because that's just how that war had to be fought. That doesn't negate the moral harm involved with indiscriminately killing civilians, but it's a reasonable defense. Based on these lines of reasoning, I'm okay with saying that the carpet-bombing of German cities by Allied forces during WWII was probably morally defensible. However, that does not imply that I believe carpet-bombing cities would be morally defensible today. Nor do I feel the compulsion, as you seem to do, to eliminate any moral ambiguity or discomfort by categorically stating that there was no moral harm because the civilian casualties were probably not so innocent and that they probably deserved it because of the company they kept.
When it comes to nuking Japan, I do not believe that's as easy to defend, morally. You may believe otherwise, but I'm reasonably sure there's a good case to be made for the position that its moral status is not clear-cut.
Okay so how do you propose to go about determining how many innocent civilians those terrorists will kill unless you take them out with a method that simultaneously kills 1000 innocent civilians? How great is the level of uncertainty in your predictions? Based on that, how many extra potential civilian casualties do you need to avoid in order to make the whole thing worthwhile and defensible? 1? 10? 100?Quote:
The answer your question... it depends. Like RB said if those 100 terrorists kill > than 1000 than the cost/benefits fit.
Let's say 100, so we have some margin. If each terrorist will "certainly" kill 11 people, and you're offered a strategy that will kill 10 terrorists but no civilians, thus saving the 110 people those terrorists would have killed, would you use that strategy even if it meant leaving 90 terrorists alive a while longer? Or would you prefer a strategy that will kill more terrorists even though it will also kill more non-terrorists?
Anyway, at the end of the day it's not just about the number of lives. I mean, if it were just about the number of lives, you'd probably be much more willing to consider policies at home that may save hundreds of thousands of lives, for a price (in terms of money and perceived freedoms).
Do you believe that the US has other options available beyond carpet-bombing Agrabah?Quote:
*Where possible* civilian casualties should be limited however sometimes it isn't.
It would be interesting to see how many of Agrabah's citizens actually want to help their terrorist jailers. It would also be interesting to see some research on what effect collateral damage and civilian casualties have on terrorists' support among locals, in scenarios where the locals aren't held hostage or for other reasons less able to escape.Quote:
In general if you bomb terrorists every chance you get most civilians will get the idea that maybe they shouldn't be near terrorists. The ugly not so secret is that many of the people in that region actually support what the terrorists are doing and regularly assist them.
Btw, what the hell is UP with attitudes towards Muslim Americans? :bulb: I guess Muslims should be happy they aren't just being ignored, like eg. Jews and Hindus :o
Nope. They Germans were the aggressor and invaded multiple countries for little reason other than they could. They murdered millions of people and attempted genocide. Now if it was England who did all that (gassed the Jews etc) than just the bombing of their citizens would have been acceptable. WWII was total war, it wasn't just about attacking military assets but also about destroying the means of production to create those military assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I said part, you changed it to primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Considering the nature of this war, so easily brushing off collateral damage isn't helping whatever cause we are trying to promote. Bombing hospitals, weddings, leaving our interpreters high and dry, all these "facts of wars" only make it harder for that region to see us as helpful instead of bullying and exploitative.
These terrorists groups are evil, vile, and should be removed from power, but they aren't stupid. They bring order, they bring a sense of stability, even if its a REALLY REALLY screwed up sense of it to a western mind. When we roll through and bomb them out, not only are we taking innocent lives, we are creating chaos for the innocents we don't kill.*
*For the love of god don't start some half ass tirade trying to make this mean I said we should leave it all as is.
What attitudes are you on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And people's religion being ignored is a good thing. If you want to believe in some form of medieval sky pixies you should do so privately in the comfort of your own home/pixie's church. It shouldn't be a public matter.
So bad things happen but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I agree with you completely. Shit happens, we don't live in a perfect world and there aren't perfect choices, if there was an easy and perfect choice we'd likely have done it already.
I'm talking about Islamophobia in the US, where have you been?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What Islamophobia?
I've been around. Islamophobia is more spoken about than real.
We have roaming groups of armed wanna be militants that harass Muslim gathering centers. Does that count?
:bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
that's appalling
What? :bulb: What's your definition of Islamophobia? How much of it do you want to see before you can acknowledge its existence? What does "I've been around" mean? ::bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do the Americans on this forum also share RB's view that Islamophobia or the like basically doesn't exist in the US?
It would be interesting to learn more about how you interpret this: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9822452...mophobia-trump
Remember, saying that all Muslims are terrorists and calling for the government to monitor them and set up databases of Muslims and stop Muslims from travelling into the country while interring the ones already there in camps... it's just being prudent and enlightened and critiquing theology :o
Define what constitutes Islamophobia and what threshold needs to be met for "exists." There are over 300 million people in the country, I guarantee that pretty much everything possible exists in at least a minor level somewhere, over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think protesting in the streets is silly but I don't understand why liberals are all up in arms about people being armed. If they use those weapons outside of self defense then absolutely the hammer of the law should squash them like a bug, until then? They are simply exercising their constitutionally protected rights.
For the sake of discussion I guess I can agree with the definition offered on the Gallup site on Islamophobia:
That definition of Islamophobia would encompass most of the examples given in the Vox article I linked to, esp. things like believing Islam should be illegal and that Muslims should be banned from entering the country, barred from the presidency etc. In the same category I think I'd put public support for political figures who say that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US or that American Muslims should be tracked and monitored or that it may be defensible to treat Muslims Americans like Japanese Americans were treated during WWII. One poll in Iowa found that 30% of republican caucus-goers believe Islam should be illegal. I don't think it's a representative sample but even if 30% of caucus-goers in Iowa represent 10% of Iowans that would, in my view, constitute a significant prevalence of Islamophobia.Quote:
An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life.
Similarly, even if the 40% of people (polled by notorious pollsters Yougov) who support or strongly support a govt registry of Muslims only represent 10% of Americans, I would view that attitude as being an expression of Islamophobia, esp. given that far fewer seem to support the registration of members of other religious groups such as Jews and Christians.
Anecdotally, whenever I see an article that touches on Muslims without directly condemning them the comments (eg. on social media) seems (to me) to be full of vitriolic hate-filled anti-Muslim rants that often go unopposed. Obviously these anti-social and deranged assclowns are not themselves representative of normal people but I can't help but interpret their boldness and frank bigotry as a signal that anti-Muslim sentiment is widespread and tacitly approved of by a sufficiently large number that it's become socially acceptable.
Now I'm interested in learning more about your definition as well as RB's because I want to understand how it is that our views can differ so much on this matter.
We are discussing Islamophobia. The guns are present as an intimidation tactic by these people who are very obvious Islamophobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What about Islamaphobia-phobia?
I don't know, what about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Well, what is an exaggerated fear in a time of conflict when strikes continue to be made across both sides of the line? Given that definition of exaggerated fear/hate/hostility and the present context I would say that Islamophobia is somewhat more overtly expressed but less pervasive overall than anti-semitism in the US right now, a comparison I make by way of example as antisemitism levels are lower in the US than in most other Western countries (the Nordic territories, as usual, being an odd exception going by ADL estimates). I think that given a context in which we strike at groups like IS, and when unaffiliated but thematically-related radicals like the Beltway snipers, the bomber of the Boston Marathon, or the shooters in San Bernardino last year make domestic attacks, a level of sentiment which might otherwise be considered Islamophobia ceases to be an exaggeration. Simmering attitudes no longer became a useful metric for looking at it, nor even necessarily calls for policies which don't go anywhere. Overt action still would, as would possibly be endorsement of such policies at high levels like during a Presidential race but otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sadly that in itself is part of a feedback cycle which generates more radicalization but the fear and hostility is no less understandable and empathizable for that negative consequence. I'm certainly not going to support the proposals for registrations or bans or concentration camps but those who make a comparison to the rounding up of the Japanese-American population neglect a salient point. There is nowhere a record of any sympathizers or spies of Japanese descent in the mainland US that would or could have been countered by that action. Here we already have a well-publicized death-toll from such local radicals. One I strongly suspect outweighs the total that might so far be placed on the Islamophobic side of the ledger, at least domestically. The victims of both sides in this quarter are unfortunately not likely to be people who were contributive to the wider perceived conflict.
Can we please get a moderator to move this off topic discussion to another thread?
Back on topic...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ies-republican
If you don't want to click the link vain man 10; evil man 2.
Quote:
Trump won both men and women, won the married and the unmarried, won college graduates and non-graduates, won high earners and low earners, and won both those who called themselves “conservative” and among those who called themselves “moderate/liberal.”
The few sub-groups that Trump did not win included those who called themselves evangelical or born-again: Cruz won that group with 24 percent. But his victory in that group – a core part of Cruz’s support – came by just a single percentage point. In second place, with 23 percent, was Trump.
I don't see how it's the least bit off-topic in a thread about Trump. And yes, Trump did very well. But looking at the returns, it highlighted to me that the mainstream candidates are fracturing each other's support which is what giving Trump that lead over them individually.
The mainstream candidates are splintering about 1/3 of the votes while the whackjobs are splintering about 2/3rds.
Except most of the mainstream candidates are fairly similar and one can reasonably expect most of the people voting for one to vote for another if the first wasn't in the race. It's not at all clear that Cruz' voters would go to Trump or Trump's voters would go to Cruz should one bow out so no, they are not obviously fracturing each other's support the way Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, etc. are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade