Reason Rally

[Sudanna]

Quote:

I'm sure there's some quote or other about never assuming malice when apathy suffices as an explanation that I would put here if I had the time or inclination to find it.

The actual quote involves malice and incompetence.

[Harehunter]

Slarty,

I accept your reprimand with humility and respect. My intention was not to cause offense but to lament the changes of attitude within this country with regard to religious expression. It puzzles me that such great offense is taken with things now that were tolerated before. In addition, I regret the tension that has risen to such a high level since that fateful event 10 years ago.

 

In light that there have been numerous, and recent, attempts of terrorism in this county and around the world in the name of a certain religion, it foments a certain paranoia with respect to the origins of those actions. I seek understanding of why so many have died, and what can be done to stop it. I seek to understand the motivation that was behind the destruction of a thousands of years old monument in Afghanistan, of the senseless killing in Somalia, of trains being blown up in Spain a few years ago, of a shooting spree on a military base here in the U.S. There is still a great deal of paranoia about the recent events in the middle east, a distrust that has grown over the past 1/2 century. Is such paranoia still justified? I don't know.

 

As I have stated in the past, I do not come here to have my views confirmed, but to have them challenged. Many of my views were established years ago from various inputs, including personal contact with people from that region. Those views may be, are most likely are, outdated. I find in your challenges motivation to re-research the foundations of those views in order to validate or expire them as appropriate.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Harehunter: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of the reasons people in the middle east have for disliking America make sense to me. That in no way justifies atrocities like the 9/11 attacks, but I think some measure of distrust and antipathy toward the US and western Europe makes sense. The example that comes immediately to mind is the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran: while he was not a perfect ruler, he was one of the best in a region plagued by hereditary autocracies and military dictatorships. The CIA (at the behest of the British government) orchestrated a coup, and reinstated the powers of the Shah, a hereditary autocrat. A hereditary autocrat that the Iranian people hated, because he had dissenters imprisoned or executed, and was more interested in pleasing his American backers than his people. The coup was entirely self-serving: Mossadegh had no ties to communism, and had only made an enemy of the British because he had stopped their expropriation of Iranian oil. Is it any great surprise that the people of Iran instituted an anti-American theocracy when we'd ruined any chances of them having a secular democracy?

 

Granted, Mossadegh is one of the most egregious cases of destructive American intervention in the middle east, but hardly the only one. Dealing harshly with Nasser and the other members of the Arab Nationalist movement was more understandable, since they aligned themselves explicitly with the communist bloc, but it's also understandable that many Arabs hold a grudge against America and its allies for frequently undermining their countries. As for the groups that would become the Taliban, we gave them a substantial amount of support, but only because and for as long as they were fighting the Soviets. And while I think Israel deserved support in the conflicts of 1967 and 1973, which were threats to its existence, the US has also supported Israel in much more draconian and less defensible actions.

 

In conclusion, America has demonstrated time and again in the post-WW2 era that it will pursue its own interests in the middle east and southwest Asia, regardless of the collateral damage this causes. Not all of our interventions have been selfish or malevolent, but we've done enough harm to make ourselves justifiably hated. The invasion of Iraq has only made this worse.

[Aoslare]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

In light that there have been numerous, and recent, attempts of terrorism in this county and around the world in the name of a certain religion,

Citations please.

That's a serious request. I'd like to know what the "numerous attempts of terrorism in this country" have been. Because there haven't been very many acts of terrorism here, compared to what other countries have experienced. I also don't think most recent acts of terrorism in this country have been committed in the name of any religion, although I could be wrong about that. Again, citations please!

[Kelandon]

As far as I can tell, other than 9/11, the so-called "terrorist" attacks in the past decade or so have been random acts of violence perpetrated by lunatics, rather than organized terrorist assaults (with one or two exceptions). You could more easily call Jared Loughner a terrorist than most of the people listed.

[Sudanna]

9/11 was more than a decade ago.

[Dintiradan]

"or so"

[Harehunter]

@Slarty.

I'm only going to cite the past years events.

 

A short summation. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...t-united-states

 

An index of worldwide events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

 

May 12, 2011

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/arrested-y...74#.T0JPpnKwWL4

 

Sep 28, 2011

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...8db0bb1b454.491

 

Oct 11, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15266992

 

This is the most recent.

Feb 17, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/arr...p;ref=terrorism

 

A report from the Dept of National Intelligence, Feb 2, 2012.

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20120202_testimony_wta.pdf

 

@Othar Trygvassen: Gentleman,

You seem to be suggesting that the motivation may be more political than religious. I do not disagree. But how to distinguish the primary motivation? I leave the question for you to answer.

 

When I first read this article, it gave me a deep sense of forboding.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archaeology/2001-03-22-afghan-buddhas.htm

 

[Aoslare]

The first link is from the Heritage Foundation, whose explicit mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies." I'm not saying they can't be trusted, but even the article's title makes it clear it is editorializing, and the article has 3 citations, 1 of which is to another Heritage article. Could be a source for ideas, if you like theirs, but it is clearly not a good source for facts or "summations."

 

The four news articles you link all detail plots or attempts -- not actual terrorism. I know you were only talking about attempts originally, but this is an important point: we see mostly failed attempts, while other countries see many more attempts, some of which succeed and some of which fail. Yes, some of these attempts are made by people motivated by some combination of religion and politics.

 

The intelligence document is very interesting, actually, but it says nothing about the "numerous and recent attempts" you talked about.

 

The Wikipedia page you linked lists 8 attempted or actual terrorist acts in the U.S. in the last year. It lists approximately 300 total. Considering the geographic size and population size of the U.S. as well as its political, economic, and military prominence among the nations of the world, this is an awfully small portion of the total.

 

Of those 8 acts, 3 could be linked to Islamic extremism; you linked to articles about those 3, but not the other 5, which does not make it seem like you are trying to present the situation objectively. Anyway, 3. That means that, if the Wikipedia list is accurate, about 1% of the terrorist acts in the world fit the bill for those "numerous and recent attempts" you talked about.

[Fringy MacGee]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

You seem to be suggesting that the motivation may be more political than religious. I do not disagree. But how to distinguish the primary motivation? I leave the question for you to answer.

Then I shall. While religious ideology might have been the spark that started the fire, I would argue the 'primary' reason a person would suicide bomb anything is because their lives are pathetic and horrible and why not, it's not like they have much to lose in the first place.

Thus society's cure for terrorism is the nice pacifying lifestyle that keeps the rest of us busy. You know, a median income, bills to pay, hamburgers, TV, marriage, 2 children, a mortgage, liquor, pornography, sports, CRPGs... Wow I could go on forever listing all the things that keep us pacified and tethered to society.

(The above is just an example, other players might have different things to pacify them, but we all play the game.)

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

... And re Iran's threats: Nobody takes the seriously. Everybody important in foreign affairs circles realizes that if Iran really, really wants a nuke, they can get it and nobody (not even Israel or the US) can stop them. The fact that they aren't going all-out to do so indicates that Iran's leadership is not going to carry out their when they get one. This, of course, makes sense: Iran's leadership is like that of any other autocratic regime, in that they place their survival above their ideology (Hey, remember when the USSR nuked the US because they wanted to destroy capitalism and institute communism across the globe? Or when North Korea nuked South Korea? Or Pakistan nuked India (or vice versa)? No? Exactly.). Iran's populace is very hostile to their government, and all it would take is one little mistake on the part of the regime for things to start going very badly for those in power. The whole nuke thing is a last-ditch attempt for them to try and cash in on religious extremism and anti-antisemitism for a quick infusion of support, and the people aren't buying it anymore. Although it may not be showing signs of it quite so readily as Egypt or Algeria or Syria or Libya or whatever, Iran is rapidly sliding towards Arab Spring in spite of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk's attempt to stop it. I would be very surprised if Iran is still an "Islamic Republic" in five years, much less ten.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Take from it what you may.

Your point works both ways. Iran could be "bombed back to the stone age" in an attempt to stop their nuclear program. We won't do that (in spite of the saber-rattling of Republican candidates.) Likewise, Iran has every reason to avoid the use of nuclear weapons.

Iran does not represent a current threat to the US. They don't have any nuclear weapons. They don't have rockets capable of reaching the US. The same was true of Iraq, prior to the second war there. The parallels are obvious. Did we learn from (recent) history?

Someone mentioned the threat of a single person in control of a nuclear weapon. I'm reminded of the power of the President of the United States. Can we expect "Imagine Rick Santorum with his finger on the button?" ads?

[Necris Omega]

Part of the issue is, how rational can we expect Iran to be?

 

While I agree that it would be national suicide for them to utilize a nuclear weapon openly and publicly, are their dictators still mindful enough to know, and even then, are they mindful enough to care? Furthermore, if they do create such a weapon, what's to stop them from attempting to use it through a second party if they're confident it can't be traced back to them?

 

Ultimately, however, I think this is more a game of chicken - push Israel until they strike first, then cry foul to the rest of the world. Less a question of being able to launch and actual nuclear attack, and more political manipulation.

 

Either they actually DO produce a nuclear weapon, or they get something to add to their antisemitism journal.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

Part of the issue is, how rational can we expect Iran to be?

I don't see any reason not to expect Iran, or North Korea, or any of them to not be rational actors on the international stage. Just because someone comes to power via military or other means does not make them any less capable of thinking through consequences than someone who came to power through democratic means. In fact, they may even have more consideration for the long term than someone who is constantly trying to get reelected, and having to deal with term limit issues.

The United States, as a nuclear power, doesn't really have the right to tell other countries they can't develop nuclear technology. Just because they're Asian, or Muslim, or have a different government structure than the United States does, does not mean that they're any less competent.

[Necris Omega]

Well you certainly are willing to give the governments of those countries more credit than I am.

 

In the end, I don't see the US being the deciding factor in this, or at the very least, it's not just us saying Iran isn't responsible enough to have nuclear technology. No unilateral action here (thank God), at least for the moment.

 

Israel may well get impatient, however, and that's where I see this debate turning bloody.

[Alorael at Large]

I can see why countries with bellicose rhetoric towards specific targets make the world nervous. Iran is explicit about wanting nukes and explicit about hating Israel. Would it use nukes on Israel if it had them? Rationally, it'd be terrible policy for Iran. But if you're Israel, can you afford to play that guessing game? If you're the US and backing Israel, do you take a stand against paranoia or back proactive self-defense?

 

No, I wouldn't claim that a first strike to destroy Iran's nuclear program is justified. I don't know nearly enough to make that call. It doesn't seem so outlandish to me, though. Using nuclear weapons first would be far beyond the pale, but I'm not all that comfortable with hoping that the finger wagging and angry words tossed Iran's way motivate it to avoid using any weapons it might have. It only takes one mistake, one autocrat thinking he can weather the political storm, to kill a whole lot of people.

 

—Alorael, who honestly thinks that Israel taking out Iran's program would be the best outcome for him, personally. He could feel morally superior; he supported no such military action! And yet he's more comfortable in a world with fewer nuclear powers, especially anti-American, anti-Western powers with potentially unstable regimes. At least he's willing to face up to it.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Harehunter: I think the motivation for radical Islamists* is both political and religious. I also think the two motivations are very hard to distinguish in cases like these, in which groups are quick to exercise their religion politically, and believe that religious values and laws are the only legitimate way to practice politics. To elaborate, regarding American interventions and anti-American sentiment: I think actions by the US, and NATO affiliates in general during the cold war both led to the radicalization of a significant portion of middle eastern Muslims, and pushed middle eastern reformers and revolutionaries toward radical Islam.

 

Iran, once again, is a good example of these principles: the majority of the country's population hated the Shah, but US intervention had emasculated Iranian pro-democracy elements. The only people left with the power and influence to speak out against the Shah's government were the Ayatollahs, and unsurprisingly the more moderate among them were inclined to fear reprisal. Even Khomeini, wildly popular as he had become by the 1970s, had to live in exile for years because of the Shah's secret police. The Shah attacked both secular and Islamist foes of his regime, and essentially made it so that Muslims who wished to practice their religion freely found allies only among the radical elements of said religion.

 

American opposition to Arab Nationalism is another example, particularly of the second principle. Once again, this is more justifiable than American intervention in Iran, because the Arab nationalists were moving in the direction of socialism, and actively allied with the Soviet Union. While not explicitly wrong in my view, we still have to understand that these actions had consequences. By working against the Arab Nationalist movement, and contributing to its overall failure, the US weakened a largely secular movement which then bled off into more religious ones. It's important here to emphasize the difference between Muslim and Islamist: many members of these secular movements were Muslims, but they were not Islamists at the time. When secular movements failed, Islamist parties became their only realistic recourse for exacting political change.

 

*As distinguished from their more moderate compatriots, since groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are actually pretty politically diverse. Thinking that the Quran is the only legitimate basis for government is not so different from thinking that the Bible is the only legitimate basis for government. I disagree with all of the above groups, but it bears noting that only some of them express their opinions with guns and bombs.

[Harehunter]

@Slarty,

Yes the Heritage Foundation is biased, just as the Huffington Post is biased. It is truly amazing the things you can read in one, but is totally omitted by the other. I only referenced to give an indication of the number of attempts. I avoided their citations because I know that they are not trusted the left.

 

As for recent, I only considered the past year. You asked for citations. Of the 10 incidents, 2 had no citations, 3 had so little detail that no conclusions could be made, 1 neo-nazi, 3 citations that had enough detail to indicate motive, and 1 more detailed citation that I had missed.

 

a) two postal bombs, but I am uncertain if they were the same incident, since there were so few details.

four pipe bombs, one re MLK day (yes there is still racism in this country, which I consider thoroughly despicable), one outside a federal penitentiary??? and two with no citations.

c) three failed attempts, these had citations which had enough detail to report, I referenced these.

d) a fourth failed attempt, which I had missed.

Nov 11,2011

 

+ one incident this year which I cited.

 

A terrorist threat does not have to be successful in order to accomplish its purpose. The threat itself still causes fear, and makes people willing to sacrifice their liberties in order for the government to have the authority to protect them. The Patriot Act is a prime example of greater authority given to the federal government for that purpose. We have given up due process with regard to wire tapping, internet access, public library access. We submit ourselves to being searched without probable cause. Some of those provisions have been allowed to lapse, but some have not.

 

With regard to my last citation, what would have been your initial reaction?

 

I tried to do some research re Iran/Israel. I cannot report on that with any clear citation. The only information I found was so obviously biased in each direction, all sources are equally suspect. On the one hand, there is an assertion the Amadinajad's speech at the U.N. in 2005, the source of the accusation, was mis-interpreted. There was a reference that the west is more concerned about the middle east than the middle east is. On the other hand, paranoia runs rampant through the pro-Israeli community. Hamas still gets support from somewhere. The only thing that I could glean from 2 hours of intense surfing was the DNI report. Nothing definitive, just a whole lot of speculation.

 

Re Iran and nukes. They pose no direct threat to the U.S. but economic destabilization is still possible, not only in the U.S. but in Europe, India, Japan, and China. Every little bump in one market causes a ripple effect in all the others. As to who should control the proliferation of nuclear technology, the U.N. already has a treaty with that regard.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml

 

@Fringy McGee.

Nice comeback, but about 2 millenia old.

 

@OTG. You only confirm my stance that 'regime change' is something the U.S. should stay away from. It is always short sighted, impresses upon the world that we are as imperialist as the one that we revolted against, and always backfires with the resulting situation being worse than what we started with.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

@Fringy McGee.
Nice comeback, but about 2 millenia old.

How come you can recognize outdated comebacks but not outdated puns?

Dikiyoba.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee

Then I shall. While religious ideology might have been the spark that started the fire, I would argue the 'primary' reason a person would suicide bomb anything is because their lives are pathetic and horrible and why not, it's not like they have much to lose in the first place.

A look at the backgrounds of recent suicide bombers shows that they are middle to upper class, well educated, and have decent jobs. The day of the loser doing it to get money for his/her family is long over.

[Harehunter]

Au contrair, mon ami,

I recognize them quite well, by the intensity of their pungency.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

A look at the backgrounds of recent suicide bombers shows that they are middle to upper class, well educated, and have decent jobs. The day of the loser doing it to get money for his/her family is long over.

As I understand it, though, there have been a couple of studies suggesting that suicide bombers tended to have a number of risk factors for regular suicide. Not sure how reliable they were, but I thought I'd just throw that out there for what it's worth.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Harehunter: Agreed. I think there are a few extreme cases in which regime change from outside is necessary, but the majority of US interventions in the middle east have done more harm than good. This is not to say that we should remain entirely isolated, but we've been far too cavalier about taking military action.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Great Inferior Media

—Alorael, who honestly thinks that Israel taking out Iran's program would be the best outcome for him, personally. He could feel morally superior; he supported no such military action! And yet he's more comfortable in a world with fewer nuclear powers, especially anti-American, anti-Western powers with potentially unstable regimes. At least he's willing to face up to it.

Have you considered what comes after an Israeli strike on Iran? I see no scenario where the US is not dragged into it. [/double negative for dramatic effect]

[Dintiradan]

What we need is a Superman who will take all our nuclear weapons away from us. That will surely solve all our problems. Just hope the White Martians don't attack shortly after.

[Callie]

I tend to lean toward the idea that removing nuclear weapons would make international foreign policy worse. Nukes act as a deus ex machina* in a way, but terribly so.

 

Edit: *As in, screw it, everyone dies now!

[Alorael at Large]

I think the biggest effect of nuclear weapons on the international stage is the fact that world powers haven't been able to really have it out for the last sixty odd years. The escalation can keep going until everyone loses, and what's the point of fighting if you're not going to be serious about it?

 

There's also a problem, though, which is that all wars that superpowers fight are now asymmetrical because symmetrical war is insanity. And the same problem comes up: superpowers can win every war by turning opposition into smoking rubble. To be fair, this isn't even really about nukes anymore; cruise missiles, or just enough conventional bombs, can also reduce enemies to smoking rubble. I don't think the world has ever really figured out how to wage war that's total only one the weaker side.

 

—Alorael, who can easily imagine many outcomes from an Israeli attack. Some involve the US getting involved, but not all. Who's to say that the world would do more than shake its fingers at Israel? More critically, is entangling the US worth preventing Iran from having a nuclear arsenal? These are hard questions for which he has no answers.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Great Inferior Media

I think the biggest effect of nuclear weapons on the international stage is the fact that world powers haven't been able to really have it out for the last sixty odd years. The escalation can keep going until everyone loses, and what's the point of fighting if you're not going to be serious about it?

There's also a problem, though, which is that all wars that superpowers fight are now asymmetrical because symmetrical war is insanity. And the same problem comes up: superpowers can win every war by turning opposition into smoking rubble. To be fair, this isn't even really about nukes anymore; cruise missiles, or just enough conventional bombs, can also reduce enemies to smoking rubble. I don't think the world has ever really figured out how to wage war that's total only one the weaker side.

obviously the solution here is for every country to have nukes so that nobody can sanely declare war on anybody

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Lilith: The risk there is that someone would start off the nuclear equivalent of World War I, in which a regional struggle exploded into a war that killed roughly ten million people. Granted, the powers of the modern world are a lot more skittish about using nuclear weapons than the powers of the 1910's were about starting wars, but it's still a hazard, especially with many smaller powers not being terribly stable.

 

Also, it is entirely possible that you were being facetious (it is difficult to tell on The Internet), in which case disregard this.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

obviously the solution here is for every country to have nukes so that nobody can sanely declare war on anybody

Because that's working out real well for Pakistan and India.

[Sudanna]

. . . Pretty sure she was being facetious, guys.

[Randomizer]

They haven't gone nuclear, but that's not to say some other country might.

[DesertPlah]

Originally Posted By: death I think is no irritant

—Alorael, who agrees with that. As others have said, many religions oppose many things. Allowing exemptions opens the floodgates for abuse of employees. If you are not actually a place of worship, you should get no religious exemptions.

You're still here?!

[Actaeon]

Alorael has always been and always will be.

[Alorael at Large]

I could have disappeared in the last three months, but I didn't. Yes, I'm still here.

 

—Alorael, who hasn't always been, and won't always be barring quantum immortality. He hasn't even always been here.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

terry pratchett has a line like that

something like "yes it's been here for thousands of years. but it wasn't here for thousands of years yesterday!!"

[Trenton.]

Was that really a reason to ressurect a thread? You could've just made a new one titled, "Alorael is still here?"

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: RoYaLlY Ponerific TrEnToN

Was that really a reason to ressurect a thread? You could've just made a new one titled, "Alorael is still here?"

But what would stop us from creating a new one of those every single day? The resurrection was probably more about Desert Pl@h coming back after a three-and-a-half year haitus - naturally, the first thing anybody mentions upon returning is Alorael; it's always smart to locate him so that you can watch for incoming sniper shots.

[Trenton.]

Bah. Unless Alorael enters the state of florida, I am not concerned.

[keira]

Keep pushing your luck and he'll start sniping with ICBMs.

[Micawber]

Cool Avatar, Nikki

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: RoYaLlY Ponerific TrEnToN

Was that really a reason to ressurect a thread? You could've just made a new one titled, "Alorael is still here?"

Necromancy versus a mundane new thread strikes me as more or less a tie.