Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Tyzack

The War on Terror

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Nolder said:

Ban Muslims.

 

Enlighten me on what you mean by this without engaging in genocide or ethnic clensing? I'm assuming you're against those strategies, but to be honest, I'm not entirely sure.

 

The "War On Terror" as constituted and as implemented has never, and should never, be a war against any particular religion or ethnic group. The point of the article is that we've been fighting a war for over 17 years (the longest war in US history), with no clear goals, no clear definition of success. We have, on the surface, failed to create a stable country in any of the places we have invaded and we have failed o stabilize - and reduce the ability of terrorist to be exported - in any of the places in which we have engaged asymetrically. 

 

Terrorism - the use of asymetric non-state violence against target populations - hasn't gone away. It hasn't even gone away in the areas we've been agressively trying to make it go away. 

 

 

Quote

A lack of confidence in our own values due to past mistakes and shameful violations of our own values are fueling an inclination to reduce our efforts against groups that use terror because of a belief that we are the cause of this increase in terror. Just as the invasion of Iraq was an overreaction inspired by fear, our possible disengagement from the fight against violent extremists could end up as an overreaction to a failure to make an impact on the level of terror violence, and used by populist politicians to justify retrenchment.

Distaste for concepts like limited war against the jihadists, meaning limited objectives as well as limited resources, could force us to use illogical constructs like victory to judge success. Until our politicians embrace these distinctions, or at least refrain from using them against their government opponents, we will never understand the war that we have been fighting, a war that will continue. This war plays out in fits and spurts, and the intensity of it ebbs and flows. The anniversary of 9/11 is a great time to conduct introspection; our governments owe us some real talk on what will continue to be a long struggle to reduce terror attacks around the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Terrorism - the use of asymetric non-state violence against target populations - hasn't gone away. It hasn't even gone away in the areas we've been agressively trying to make it go away. "

 

However, it's use against trgets in the US and US targets generaly have basicly been thwarted. Many of the attacks in other countries are due to those countries blase attitude towards Islamists entering their countries and the fact that Muslims in their countries make up a significant portion of the population and are for whatever reason easily radicalized.

 

To the extnet it had a meaningful goal the War on Terror has largely succeeded. To the extent that the threat of terrorism still exists is due to the fact that the War on Terrorism was never meant totally eradicate it but rather to make sure it did not effect the American mainland. 

 

As such the War on Terror can not be judged by the rules applied to conventional wars but should be viewed similarly to the Cold War which took 45 years to achieve its fundamental aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

Enlighten me on what you mean by this without engaging in genocide or ethnic clensing? 

 

No immigration, no mosques, no religious headwear, no halal.

Pretty sure those are excellent starts which do not require any genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nolder said:

no religious headwear

Nuns can't wear them?

Or Jews?

Nor Hindu's wearing Turbans?

Should probably make Halloween and Cosplaying illegal to.

 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nolder said:

No immigration, no mosques, no religious headwear, no halal.

Pretty sure those are excellent starts which do not require any genocide or ethnic cleansing.

 

Where? How would it be enforced? How does this pass anything close to 1st amendement muster domestically?  why would other countries agree to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

As such the War on Terror can not be judged by the rules applied to conventional wars but should be viewed similarly to the Cold War which took 45 years to achieve its fundamental aims.

 

Then we should be more long term and strategic in our deployments of our forces. The on going force presence in Germany, Japan and Korea were worth in the cold war because we had both transformed those countries to be our allies, and having a physical pressence in the those countries further both our strategic and economic goals.

 

What is the long term benifet of occupy afghanistan? We have become quiet capable, as proved else where, in deploying asymetric warfare to counter asymetric threats. The same question stands for Iraq, Syria and the countries in Afireca in which we have a growing overseas presance. 

 

Remember the faux-debate last year about whether or not trump called the window of a fallen soldier? Remember how we had no conversation about why they were doing there, why they were there, or why that deployment was never talked about or debated in congress? 

 

I would suggest that the Bush strategy of national building has been proven to not be productive in preventing, in the long term, terrorist threats, or, in the short term, of being worth the price in men and material it costs. 

 

Despite very strong liberal opposition to the asytimetric war  part of Obama's policy, and republican opposition to the "not war enough" party, I'd argue that it was far more successful in fulfilling it's objectives than Bushes.

 

Further more, I would say that the Saudi/Isreali strategy of pay them all/kill them all - which the Trump white house seems to be embracing - is not as bad as the Bush strategy, not as quiet as the Obama strategy, but still not fully flushed out. 

 

Also,  and it comes up every year, we need to recind the authorization for military force passed after 9/11. If we are going to engage in a multi-administration, mutli-party, multi-generational miltary conflict against asysemtric threats to the "international order" then we definietly need to do it under the rules and legislation crafted for that mission, not for retaliation after 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nolder said:

Nope.

 

Every evangelical religion is far more dangerous to the planet and all her species than any terrorists ever could be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nor Hindu's wearing Turbans?"

 

Actually Hindu's do not wear turbins, Sikhs do.

 

"The on going force presence in Germany, Japan and Korea were worth in the cold war because we had both transformed those countries to be our allies, and having a physical pressence in the those countries further both our strategic and economic goals."

 

Actually during the Cold War (and in South Korea today) are forces were deployed their to provide a trip wire. Invasion of Germany or Japan by the Russians and South Korea by the South Koreans would instantly mean that the US was directly involved and that American blood would have been spilled during the first hours of the conflict. 

 

"What is the long term benifet of occupy afghanistan?"

 

We are not "occupying Afghanistan our troops are deployed in a few strategic bases offering traing and back up to the Afghani forces. The same role that the Bush administration had hoped to provide in Iraq at the end of that administration.

 

"We have become quiet capable, as proved else where, in deploying asymetric warfare to counter asymetric threats. The same question stands for Iraq, Syria and the countries in Afireca in which we have a growing overseas presance. "

 

US forces in Iraq and Syria today are mainly their to rap up the war with the Islamic State that actually fought an old fashioned symmetrical type of war in the Caliphate. Presumably US troops in Syria are also their to counter the conventional threat which the Syrian army presents to the remaining remnants of the resistance.

 

As for American troops in Aftrica almost all of them (outside of advisers in Egypt) are special foces offering training to the local national troops and a force that can handle asymetric welfare when and if that becomes necessary.

 

"Remember the faux-debate last year about whether or not trump called the window of a fallen soldier? Remember how we had no conversation about why they were doing there, why they were there, or why that deployment was never talked about or debated in congress? "

 

The same can be asked of 95% of US foreign deployments at least as far back as the end of the Spanish American war. Deployments by Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative administrations.

 

 

"I would suggest that the Bush strategy of national building has been proven to not be productive in preventing, in the long term, terrorist threats, or, in the short term, of being worth the price in men and material it costs. "

 

And I would suggest that any gains which that strategy offered was squandered when the Obama Administration did not even attempt to persuade the Iraq's to the extension of time that  American troops were allowed to be deployed in Iraq. But I generally agree that attemting to create a liberal democratic state in an Arab-Muslim country without first fundamentally changing the underlying culture is doomed to fail.

 

"Despite very strong liberal opposition to the asytimetric war  part of Obama's policy, and republican opposition to the "not war enough" party, I'd argue that it was far more successful in fulfilling it's objectives than Bushes.'

 

Are you really arguing that the conditions in Lybia are actually better then those in Iraq today? Are you seriously arguing that the Obama Administration policy of encouraging the revolt in Syria but offering no real help did anything but insure that up to a million people died and several million left the country as refugges. with over a million ending up in Europe and seriously eroding the unity of the EU?

 

 

"Further more, I would say that the Saudi/Isreali strategy of pay them all/kill them all - which the Trump white house seems to be embracing - is not as bad as the Bush strategy, not as quiet as the Obama strategy, but still not fully flushed out. "

 

Finally something we agree with, the Trump policy which mirrors the Saudi and Israeli policies is one built on notions of Real Politik. The policy is neither fully flushed out nor its tenants explicitely expressed but I agree it offers  a much better channce for succes then the nieve notion that you can force someone to accept liberal democracy without fundamentally altering the underlying culture and the schizophrenic policies of the Obama Administration that wanted to be all things to all people and ended up being a none policy like or appreciated by no one.

 

 

"Also,  and it comes up every year, we need to recind the authorization for military force passed after 9/11. If we are going to engage in a multi-administration, mutli-party, multi-generational miltary conflict against asysemtric threats to the "international order" then we definietly need to do it under the rules and legislation crafted for that mission, not for retaliation after 9/11."

 

I think every Administration imaginable would like to alter part of the authorization passed after 9/11. However, none of them is goind to support recinding the 9/11 powers unless it simultaniously gets a revised mandate to use force in an asymetric world. Since the chances of  getting such an authorization passed in the present political climate is nill every American administration is going to opt to keep the present authorization. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Every evangelical religion is far more dangerous to the planet and all her species than any terrorists ever could be'

 

Not true. First I think you are confusing evangelical with fundamentalist. Moreover, almost no christian or Jewish fundamentalist sect really poses any real threat to the survival of anyone. That they think that some people are going to hell and no not want to associate with them is rather different from believing that God wants you to kill everyone who is not a fundamentalist adherent of your religion. Not that that was always the case, but two thousand years of Rabbinical judism and 500 years of the reformation, counterreformation and the enlightenment have fundametally changed both christianity and Judism the same can not be said of Islam. Moreover, since most terrorists today are fundamentalist Muslims, the idea that evangelical religions as a whole present a greater threat then terrorists is nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Krakalakachkn said:

 

Every evangelical religion is far more dangerous to the planet and all her species than any terrorists ever could be

That's a stupid statement, grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Not true. First I think you are confusing evangelical with fundamentalist. Moreover, almost no christian or Jewish fundamentalist sect really poses any real threat to the survival of anyone.

I believe Krakalakachkn is talking more about their threat to global climate change, due to the power they wield in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that when measured against the causualties and cost of the Iraq war, the cost of limited intervention of the Libyan and Syrian operations were comparitively successful. 

 

You are correct in saying that of the at least 7 countries in which we have committed serious resources, none of the 4(5) in which we have engaged in, or support kentic regime change have turned out well for the people of those countries. 

 

What the authors, I believe, were warning against was the overall theme of disengagement which is common between both Obama and Trump administrations and the policy of regime change of the Bush administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The policy of regime change of the Bush administration. "

 

Exactly what was the Obama policy in Libya if not regime change. Also at least the Bush Administration nievely thought it could create a liberal democracy ala Minnesota, or possibly Spain or Belgium in Iraq and actually tried to create one. The Obama Administration simply washed its hands of Libya once Kadafi was dead.

 

"You are correct in saying that of the at least 7 countries in which we have committed serious resources, none of the 4(5) in which we have engaged in, or support kentic regime change have turned out well for the people of those countries."

 

 

Would one of those countries include Ukraine where the Obama Administration and it's European allies manufactured a que against the democraticly elected leader because he choose to accept economicly aligning Ukraine with Russia instead of the EU (based on the fact that the Russians offered a better deal)?

 

"I think that when measured against the causualties and cost of the Iraq war, the cost of limited intervention of the Libyan and Syrian operations were comparitively successful. "

 

Well let's see, as a proportion of the population the number of dead Iraqis is about the same as the number of dead Libyans. Also today Iraqi is a semi stable state where the remnants of the Caliphate and Sunni terrorism is being slowly eradicated while Lybia is a failed state that is  a haven to every sort of radical Islamist group. True, Iraq haas close ties with Iran and is not a liberal democracy but the conditions in Iraq are a hell of a lot better then those in Libya.

 

As for Syria, do you really believe it's in anyway a succes? I do not know exactly the parameters of how you measure things, but the fact is that we egged on the Syrian opposition to revolt and then did almost absolutely nothing to help them. Estimates are that 233,000 civilians have lost their lives in Syria so far, 6 million have been "internally displaced" and 5.6 million have left he country and are now considered refugees. Moreover, the fighting continues with the chance that gvernment forces will commit mass murder and other atrocities as they mop up the remnants of the opposition becoming clearer. I will grant that egging on dissidents to revolt and then standing by as they are massacred is a more limited "intervention" then actually sending your own troops to topple the regime and then attempt to stop sectarian violence but I think morally, the actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq are heads and shoulders above those of the Obama Administration in Syria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 12:47 PM, SinisterDeath said:

Nuns can't wear them?

Or Jews?

Nor Hindu's wearing Turbans?

Should probably make Halloween and Cosplaying illegal to.

 

Just Muslims.

Jews aren't typically into committing open terrorism (outside of Palestine).

I mean if you want to take it further we could but I'm not going to push for it or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, Tyzack said:

 

Where?

Preferably the West in general but I'll settle for the United States.

Several European nations have already enacted some of this stuff anyway so really they are ahead of the game.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, Tyzack said:

How would it be enforced?

You know, with police and guns and courts like any other law.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, Tyzack said:

How does this pass anything close to 1st amendement muster domestically? 

Make a new Amendment declaring Islam the one exception.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, Tyzack said:

why would other countries agree to this?

Like I said several have already enacted some of those.

I think the Chinese are putting Muslims in camps currently iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think that when measured against the causualties and cost of the Iraq war, the cost of limited intervention of the Libyan and Syrian operations were comparitively successful. "

 

At least 10 European countries now ban or restrict Muslim veils or other religiously required clothing.

 

 

Hundreds took to the streets of Copenhagen on Wednesday to protest the new ban on wearing face veils - or the niqab - in public.

Activists have said they intend to continue protesting the ban, and Muslim women who wear the niqab have vowed to defy it.

The new measure, which came into force on Wednesday, gives police the power to issue on-the-spot fines to people who cover their faces in public without a "recognisable purpose".

Offenders can be fined 1,000 kroner ($157) on the first three occasions, rising to 10,000 kroner ($1,570) for a fourth offence.

Guidance issued to police says officers can arrest people for refusing to comply with the law if they consider it necessary, but that police should "proceed as gently and considerately as the situation allows".

Members of the Danish parliament justified the law as a means towards safeguarding the "democratic" and "secular" values of Denmark.

While opposition continues to mount against Denmark's ban on the face veil, the Scandinavian nation joins a host of other European countries that have restricted religious attire for Muslim women.

France

Since April 2011, France has banned face coverings, including the burqa and niqab. Women found in violation of the ban are fined 150 euros.

In 2016, a ban on burkinis, full-body swimsuits, by mayors in the French Riviera caused global outrage. It was later lifted after a legal challenge in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet. France's top administrative court ruled that the ban "breached fundamental freedoms".

Belgium

Belgium banned face veils, including the niqab and burqa, in July 2011. Women in violation of the ban can be jailed for up to seven days or pay a 137.5 euro fine.

Russia

Hijab headscarves were banned in public school in the region of Stavropol, in the southwest of the country. The controversial measure was upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2013.

In February 2015, Russia's Supreme Court also ruled to uphold a hijab ban in schools in the Republic of Mordovia.

Italy

In the northeastern region of Lombardy, officials imposed a ban on entering public buildings and hospitals with a covered face, which includes the burqa and niqab, in December 2015.

 

Switzerland

In the southern Italian-speaking region of Ticino, the full face veil was banned in 2016; offenders can be fined up to 9,200 euros.

In June 2018, a campaign for a ballot proposing a nationwide ban on facial coverings in public gathered 100,000 votes, prompting a binding referendum expected later this year under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria’s parliament banned face veils in public in October 2016. Individuals who break this ban face a fine of 1,500 levs ($1,115).

Germany

In 2017, the German parliament approved a ban on face veils, including the niqab and burqa, for women who work in the civil service, judiciary, and military. This was followed by a prohibition of full-face veils in schools, polling stations, universities, and government offices, instigated by the southern state of Bavaria.

German teachers are also banned from wearing headscarves in eight of Germany's 16 states. In 2015, the constitutional court struck down a blanket ban on the hijab for teachers in public schools.

Austria

The “anti-face-veiling act” came into force in October 2017, which prohibited full-face veils, including the niqab and burqa, in public places. Violations are punishable by a fine of up to 150 euros. The majority of warnings were issued against people covering their faces with scarves, masks and animal costumes.

The Netherlands

In June 2018, the Dutch Upper House of Parliament passed a law banning face coverings, including the burqa and niqab, in public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport and government buildings.

Norway

In June 2018, Norway’s parliament voted to ban the burqa in schools, nurseries and universities. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/these-countries-have-banned-clothing-particular-muslim-women-827919477

 

 

I do not necessarily agree with the ban (at least I would require that face coverings and such could not be used in Drivers licenses Passports and such and that the authorities have every right to request that the veils be removed in situations like entry into the country or lawful stops of vehicles where identifying the identity of the person would override the right to modesty.) but the notion that the Us would be an outlier in the West in enacting such a ban is rediculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islmaphobia is as alive and well now as it was in the fall of 2001.

 

It is just as sad, disgusting, vial and counter-productive is as ever.

 

But, you know, keep on banning people's religon for freedom or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 7:03 AM, Nolder said:

Like I said several have already enacted some of those.

I think the Chinese are putting Muslims in camps currently iirc.

 

To be perfectly honest, I thought that one of the lessons everyone learned in school was that putting people in camps is evil, driving people out of your country is bad, and walls should be celebrated when they are torn down, not cheered when they were put up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

To be perfectly honest, I thought that one of the lessons everyone learned in school was that putting people in camps is evil, driving people out of your country is bad, and walls should be celebrated when they are torn down, not cheered when they were put up.

 

 

"To be perfectly honest, I thought that one of the lessons everyone learned in school was that putting people in camps is evil, "

 

Death camps certainly, concentration camps depends the reasons for doing it and how it's done.

 

 

"driving people out of your country is bad"

 

Really, I was taught that drinving invaders from your homeland was a good act.

 

"and walls should be celebrated when they are torn down, not cheered when they were put up."

 

"Good Fences make good neighbors."  Walls keeping people in are bad, walls keeping outsiders out make for good relations.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

Islmaphobia is as alive and well now as it was in the fall of 2001.

:rolleyes:

 

13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

It is just as sad, disgusting, vial and counter-productive is as ever.

:rolleyes:

 

13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

But, you know, keep on banning people's religon for freedom or something.

They can be Muslim in a lot of places. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries. 

I don't want Sharia in Minnesota and I'm not going to apologize for that.

 

13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

To be perfectly honest, I thought that one of the lessons everyone learned in school was that putting people in camps is evil,

Of course we did. But that lesson is not only wrong, it ignores reality.

There is literally nothing to do with large groups of people whether you're trying to hurt them OR help them but put them into camps.

 

You've never heard of a refugee camp?

 

13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

driving people out of your country is bad,

A people should have sovereignty over their own nation else what is a nation?

What is freedom if not an expansion of property rights in most cases?

You have the right and the freedom to decide who comes into your home and I think a nation has that same right and freedom.

 

13 hours ago, Tyzack said:

and walls should be celebrated when they are torn down, not cheered when they were put up.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×