|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
If it's an elephant in the room, then we had been refusing to discuss it before the killings already...
Then the problem is not refusing to discuss it after the killings, but refusing to discuss about it even before the killings..
We have to trust the system, trust the process. Whatever changes were going to occur, should occur outside of being triggered by mass killings...
If mass killings can trigger positive changes, then there will be more mass killings...
Let's take an exaggerated example. Let's say some state law allowed an innocent man to be locked up for 10 years in prison w/o getting just compensation. Let's say he got so frustrated w/ this raw deal, when he got out of jail, he went to the police station and killed 10 cops, 1 for every year he was locked up. His message: he wants to shock the world to bring light to this raw deal and hope no one else suffers his fate.
This spurs meaningful talk which spurs changes to the law and now there's a new state law that will ensure that people who are locked up unjustly will be justly compensated...
What do you think? |
The relationship in the numbers isn't right. We've killed somewhere along the lines of 125 - 175 people in foreign lands for every American that's been killed in the name of Islamist terrorism in the past 20 years. And 2/3 or so were innocent civilians. So I think the better example would be that an innocent man was locked up for at least 83 years, and when he was finally released from prison, he killed one cop. That's a more accurate ratio. Still not a happy or desirable outcome, but a bit more understandable, right? |
Well, the numbers aren't important to the point?
Yeah, if you're asking me to understand a random killing, I can't and I won't.
I mean, what if the killings happened to be a bunch of international Chinese students, does that make a difference?
The killer was targeting American students to make a point, ended up killing a bunch of Chinese international students..
Still doesn't matter. It's a mass killing. Shouldn't happen. Shouldn't spur any meaningful talk.
All my emotions are for the innocent lives lost. That's all.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | the association wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
If it's an elephant in the room, then we had been refusing to discuss it before the killings already...
Then the problem is not refusing to discuss it after the killings, but refusing to discuss about it even before the killings..
We have to trust the system, trust the process. Whatever changes were going to occur, should occur outside of being triggered by mass killings...
If mass killings can trigger positive changes, then there will be more mass killings...
Let's take an exaggerated example. Let's say some state law allowed an innocent man to be locked up for 10 years in prison w/o getting just compensation. Let's say he got so frustrated w/ this raw deal, when he got out of jail, he went to the police station and killed 10 cops, 1 for every year he was locked up. His message: he wants to shock the world to bring light to this raw deal and hope no one else suffers his fate.
This spurs meaningful talk which spurs changes to the law and now there's a new state law that will ensure that people who are locked up unjustly will be justly compensated...
What do you think? |
The relationship in the numbers isn't right. We've killed somewhere along the lines of 125 - 175 people in foreign lands for every American that's been killed in the name of Islamist terrorism in the past 20 years. And 2/3 or so were innocent civilians. So I think the better example would be that an innocent man was locked up for at least 83 years, and when he was finally released from prison, he killed one cop. That's a more accurate ratio. Still not a happy or desirable outcome, but a bit more understandable, right? |
Well, the numbers aren't important to the point?
Yeah, if you're asking me to understand a random killing, I can't and I won't.
I mean, what if the killings happened to be a bunch of international Chinese students, does that make a difference?
The killer was targeting American students to make a point, ended up killing a bunch of Chinese international students..
Still doesn't matter. It's a mass killing. Shouldn't happen. Shouldn't spur any meaningful talk.
All my emotions are for the innocent lives lost. That's all.... |
OK, I accept what you're saying and how you feel about this particular tragedy ...
Allow me to ask you one final question, though.
When 60 innocent wedding guests, plus an innocent bride and groom and their innocent families, were slaughtered in the Iraqi desert by a U.S. drone operated by a young man sitting at a desk in an air-conditioned office in Arizona (desert-to-desert combat, I guess), did you feel the same way? Did you feel less sad? More sad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | the association wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
If it's an elephant in the room, then we had been refusing to discuss it before the killings already...
Then the problem is not refusing to discuss it after the killings, but refusing to discuss about it even before the killings..
We have to trust the system, trust the process. Whatever changes were going to occur, should occur outside of being triggered by mass killings...
If mass killings can trigger positive changes, then there will be more mass killings...
Let's take an exaggerated example. Let's say some state law allowed an innocent man to be locked up for 10 years in prison w/o getting just compensation. Let's say he got so frustrated w/ this raw deal, when he got out of jail, he went to the police station and killed 10 cops, 1 for every year he was locked up. His message: he wants to shock the world to bring light to this raw deal and hope no one else suffers his fate.
This spurs meaningful talk which spurs changes to the law and now there's a new state law that will ensure that people who are locked up unjustly will be justly compensated...
What do you think? |
The relationship in the numbers isn't right. We've killed somewhere along the lines of 125 - 175 people in foreign lands for every American that's been killed in the name of Islamist terrorism in the past 20 years. And 2/3 or so were innocent civilians. So I think the better example would be that an innocent man was locked up for at least 83 years, and when he was finally released from prison, he killed one cop. That's a more accurate ratio. Still not a happy or desirable outcome, but a bit more understandable, right? |
Well, the numbers aren't important to the point?
Yeah, if you're asking me to understand a random killing, I can't and I won't.
I mean, what if the killings happened to be a bunch of international Chinese students, does that make a difference?
The killer was targeting American students to make a point, ended up killing a bunch of Chinese international students..
Still doesn't matter. It's a mass killing. Shouldn't happen. Shouldn't spur any meaningful talk.
All my emotions are for the innocent lives lost. That's all.... |
OK, I accept what you're saying and how you feel about this particular tragedy ...
Allow me to ask you one final question, though.
When 60 innocent wedding guests, plus an innocent bride and groom and their innocent families, were slaughtered in the Iraqi desert by a U.S. drone operated by a young man sitting at a desk in an air-conditioned office in Arizona (desert-to-desert combat, I guess), did you feel the same way? Did you feel less sad? More sad? |
Yeah, I don't want to get into comparing tragedies. It's sad.
But you don't go to one funeral to talk about another funeral....
So this thread is about this tragedy.
If America never sinned against any foreign country, would you feel differently about this tragedy?
You shouldn't....
The victims here had nothing to do w/ what happened at a Yemen wedding, nor what America chose to do...
We could start another discussion about that tragedy in another thread. You can start one.
But we shouldn't in here. It's not appropriate to the victims in this killing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | The US government has fueled the cycle of violence IMO, but that does absolutely nothing to alleviate any personal responsibility this guy has, especially when he targeted random civilians. |
I agree with you in principle, FOB17, but what do you suggest would be a more appropriate target? Of course, I recognize that all of us would like to respond "There should be no targets!". But that's impractical, right? So should he have tried to attack an Ohio-class submarine? Or a Nimitz-class carrier? What about an F-35? Or should he have just tried to storm Camp Pendleton? I mean, at some point, the argument that these individuals who do these things should limit their retaliation to non-civilian targets lacks credibility, IMO. It's (bleep)-up and terrible, but c'mon now ... if the argument is simply that the person who believe his oppression is caused by the U.S. is told he must only try to fight the full military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, we're just going to sit at loggerheads w/r/t/ the reality on the ground.
This is war. We have no alternative but to live with the consequences of war, unfortunately. And the asymmetry of this particular war means that the scenes we have all watched in historical dramatizations of war over the years, where certain rules of engagement meant that certain targets (i.e., high-level officers) were off-limits ... ? That's not reality any longer ...
It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ... |
What would be a more appropriate target? Anyone but civilians would be a good start to answering that question. Your suggestion that he has no choice but to do this practically speaking, because how is he to take on the full might of the US military, is a false equivalency to an absurd degree, because did he take on the full might of the US citizenry? I mean, you want to talk about what's practical? As far as pragmatism is concerned, anything this guy does on his own, is entirely impractical, regardless of his target. Nothing he could've done on his own would've bore any meaningful fruit for his cause. I mean, hell, the most successful terrorist attack in world history only emboldened the US to get even more involved in the middle east, and probably sealed that foreign policy for a very very long time. Practical? Get real.
"It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ..."
And our role in world affairs doesn't change his responsibility, so what's your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3983
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well the attacker allegedly felt oppressed by the government that allowed him to immigrate and even attend college. If he felt so oppressed during his 4 years in the US he should have gone back to his home country where he would not have felt oppressed I guess. The US has no exit visa. Could have easily left the land of his oppression. Being of fighting age I guess he could have enlisted in the Somali army and fought against Al-Shabab. Or if he felt differently he could have gone and joined up with Al-Shabab and fought against his own government. Instead he attacked a bunch of students in the country that o pressed him by giving him sanctuary. Cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25076
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: |
The victims here had nothing to do w/ what happened at a Yemen wedding, nor what America chose to do...
We could start another discussion about that tragedy in another thread. You can start one.
But we shouldn't in here. It's not appropriate to the victims in this killing. |
This is what I wanted to say, one does not justify the other |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | Can we get real here? As a nation, we've endured what? Maybe 9,000 - 10,000 Americans killed by adherents of radical Islamism in the past 20 years? At least 2/3 on foreign soil, right? While we've been invading and occupying their sovereign lands, right? And while we've been forcibly removing the leaders of three sovereign states (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya), right? While we've been actively fomenting a civil war in Syria, right?
And during that same period, we've killed what? 75 - 100x that number? Maybe another 50 - 75x indirectly (e.g., during our instigation in Syria)? I'm not going to bother with non-death casualties, as the numbers are too difficult to source properly.
So for every American killed by "them", we've "settled the score" with 125 - 175 (or more) lives on the other side? And I would venture to guess that at least 3/4 of those were civilian deaths. Anyway, every American should strive to better understand these numbers and the ramifications ...
Radical Islamism is predominantly a byproduct of U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, especially the past 65 years or so. That's just the fact of the matter. The manufactured narrative regarding a "clash of civilizations" is the window dressing to quiet the natives who subjugate themselves without too much fuss. That said, I think the righteous indignation is misguided when others (living in a world of abject hopelessness and desperation, largely shaped by U.S. foreign policy) use whatever means they can possibly find to "fight back". As the saying goes, war is hell. And we created this hell. Unfortunately, many of us think the hell is reserved for "them" alone. |
Didn't this individual arrive in the US as a refugee as a teenager? So while your writing indicates you feel the fault falls at the feet of the United States (surprise, surprise  ), and only enlightened individuals such as yourself are able to discern this truth....how do you correlate this individuals actions with your claim of failed U.S. foreign policy? |
I wanted to follow-up on two points. First, I don't recall how you might know anything about me, so the "surprise, surprise" remark is curious. Please elaborate re: how my view(s) come as no surprise to you. And second, are you actually suggesting that U.S. foreign policy hasn't been an unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years? If so, what's your example of ANYTHING we've done right? I guess just provide the Top 5 examples of constructive U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, since most of the destructive examples are pretty well known.
As for the underlined ... save the snark next time. |
whenever these weak pathetic "blame America" arguments are made, snark is the low bar for what should be expected. Those random students had nothing to do with US Foreign policy....they were victims of terrorism. There is never an excuse or justification for terrorism.
Your claim that US Foreign policy has been an "unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years" is based on what? in comparison to what? During that period, the United States has rose to be the lone Super Power in the world while creating the most powerful global economy. This is your definition of an "unmitigated disaster"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's no justification for this individual's actions, which were heinous acts by any definition. My intention is to highlight the fact that IF one wanted to understand WHY such an individual might be motivated to resort to such acts, one need look no further than U.S. foreign policy. The fear industrial complex that has saturated our empire is at the root of most, if not all, of these attacks.
I'm not sure that was the source of this individual's motivation, but I'm pretty sure enmity toward the U.S. is the motivation in most of these cases. And that enmity doesn't exist because they despise our way of life. And it doesn't exist because they hate freedom. And it doesn't exist because of their faith or way of life, though those distinctions are admittedly being used within their societies to distort some to take up arms. No, it exists because of our foreign policy AND our aggression (and manipulation) in foreign lands over the past 80 years or so. That's my primary point.
So if anyone cares to better understand how we actually do business abroad, rather than dismiss others who don't agree that the U.S. is above reproach, it might be worthwhile to read Chalmers Johnson, John Perkins and others who at least cut through some aspects of the mythology. Particularly as it relates to the Middle East and Islam (which is exactly where most of these terrorism stories take root, though Islam isn't the progenitor faith of 20th century terrorism), the breadth and depth of manipulative narrative is astounding once the veil is pierced. But ultimately, it takes more than reading the NY Times, or the LA Times, or The Washington Post or USA Today to navigate through these issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | Can we get real here? As a nation, we've endured what? Maybe 9,000 - 10,000 Americans killed by adherents of radical Islamism in the past 20 years? At least 2/3 on foreign soil, right? While we've been invading and occupying their sovereign lands, right? And while we've been forcibly removing the leaders of three sovereign states (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya), right? While we've been actively fomenting a civil war in Syria, right?
And during that same period, we've killed what? 75 - 100x that number? Maybe another 50 - 75x indirectly (e.g., during our instigation in Syria)? I'm not going to bother with non-death casualties, as the numbers are too difficult to source properly.
So for every American killed by "them", we've "settled the score" with 125 - 175 (or more) lives on the other side? And I would venture to guess that at least 3/4 of those were civilian deaths. Anyway, every American should strive to better understand these numbers and the ramifications ...
Radical Islamism is predominantly a byproduct of U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, especially the past 65 years or so. That's just the fact of the matter. The manufactured narrative regarding a "clash of civilizations" is the window dressing to quiet the natives who subjugate themselves without too much fuss. That said, I think the righteous indignation is misguided when others (living in a world of abject hopelessness and desperation, largely shaped by U.S. foreign policy) use whatever means they can possibly find to "fight back". As the saying goes, war is hell. And we created this hell. Unfortunately, many of us think the hell is reserved for "them" alone. |
Didn't this individual arrive in the US as a refugee as a teenager? So while your writing indicates you feel the fault falls at the feet of the United States (surprise, surprise ), and only enlightened individuals such as yourself are able to discern this truth....how do you correlate this individuals actions with your claim of failed U.S. foreign policy? |
I wanted to follow-up on two points. First, I don't recall how you might know anything about me, so the "surprise, surprise" remark is curious. Please elaborate re: how my view(s) come as no surprise to you. And second, are you actually suggesting that U.S. foreign policy hasn't been an unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years? If so, what's your example of ANYTHING we've done right? I guess just provide the Top 5 examples of constructive U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, since most of the destructive examples are pretty well known.
As for the underlined ... save the snark next time. |
whenever these weak pathetic "blame America" arguments are made, snark is the low bar for what should be expected. Those random students had nothing to do with US Foreign policy....they were victims of terrorism. There is never an excuse or justification for terrorism.
Your claim that US Foreign policy has been an "unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years" is based on what? in comparison to what? During that period, the United States has rose to be the lone Super Power in the world while creating the most powerful global economy. This is your definition of an "unmitigated disaster"? |
The bolded says it all re: what you appear to value most. IMO, the "weak pathetic" person is the fearful one who is frightened unless they are already standing atop the mountain, who screams from the mountaintop that everyone should look at him, that he's the best, that he's the badass. I don't think that describes me ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | The US government has fueled the cycle of violence IMO, but that does absolutely nothing to alleviate any personal responsibility this guy has, especially when he targeted random civilians. |
I agree with you in principle, FOB17, but what do you suggest would be a more appropriate target? Of course, I recognize that all of us would like to respond "There should be no targets!". But that's impractical, right? So should he have tried to attack an Ohio-class submarine? Or a Nimitz-class carrier? What about an F-35? Or should he have just tried to storm Camp Pendleton? I mean, at some point, the argument that these individuals who do these things should limit their retaliation to non-civilian targets lacks credibility, IMO. It's (bleep)-up and terrible, but c'mon now ... if the argument is simply that the person who believe his oppression is caused by the U.S. is told he must only try to fight the full military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, we're just going to sit at loggerheads w/r/t/ the reality on the ground.
This is war. We have no alternative but to live with the consequences of war, unfortunately. And the asymmetry of this particular war means that the scenes we have all watched in historical dramatizations of war over the years, where certain rules of engagement meant that certain targets (i.e., high-level officers) were off-limits ... ? That's not reality any longer ...
It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ... |
What would be a more appropriate target? Anyone but civilians would be a good start to answering that question. Your suggestion that he has no choice but to do this practically speaking, because how is he to take on the full might of the US military, is a false equivalency to an absurd degree, because did he take on the full might of the US citizenry? I mean, you want to talk about what's practical? As far as pragmatism is concerned, anything this guy does on his own, is entirely impractical, regardless of his target. Nothing he could've done on his own would've bore any meaningful fruit for his cause. I mean, hell, the most successful terrorist attack in world history only emboldened the US to get even more involved in the middle east, and probably sealed that foreign policy for a very very long time. Practical? Get real.
"It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ..."
And our role in world affairs doesn't change his responsibility, so what's your point? |
I won't convince you to look at these tragedies from a different angle, and all of us won't see an end to these tragedies, unfortunately. I view your approach as the "bury my head in the sand" strategy for dealing with a shocking event. Apparently, you view my approach as off-the-mark, uninformed and insensitive, or simply callous because you don't believe there's a legitimate motivational tether between these events and U.S. foreign policy.
Incidentally, I don't think your views square with the reality of many of the underlying events during this country's formation 250+ years ago, but that's probably too great of a conversation to explore at this point. Anyway, have a great day ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | Can we get real here? As a nation, we've endured what? Maybe 9,000 - 10,000 Americans killed by adherents of radical Islamism in the past 20 years? At least 2/3 on foreign soil, right? While we've been invading and occupying their sovereign lands, right? And while we've been forcibly removing the leaders of three sovereign states (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya), right? While we've been actively fomenting a civil war in Syria, right?
And during that same period, we've killed what? 75 - 100x that number? Maybe another 50 - 75x indirectly (e.g., during our instigation in Syria)? I'm not going to bother with non-death casualties, as the numbers are too difficult to source properly.
So for every American killed by "them", we've "settled the score" with 125 - 175 (or more) lives on the other side? And I would venture to guess that at least 3/4 of those were civilian deaths. Anyway, every American should strive to better understand these numbers and the ramifications ...
Radical Islamism is predominantly a byproduct of U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, especially the past 65 years or so. That's just the fact of the matter. The manufactured narrative regarding a "clash of civilizations" is the window dressing to quiet the natives who subjugate themselves without too much fuss. That said, I think the righteous indignation is misguided when others (living in a world of abject hopelessness and desperation, largely shaped by U.S. foreign policy) use whatever means they can possibly find to "fight back". As the saying goes, war is hell. And we created this hell. Unfortunately, many of us think the hell is reserved for "them" alone. |
Didn't this individual arrive in the US as a refugee as a teenager? So while your writing indicates you feel the fault falls at the feet of the United States (surprise, surprise ), and only enlightened individuals such as yourself are able to discern this truth....how do you correlate this individuals actions with your claim of failed U.S. foreign policy? |
I wanted to follow-up on two points. First, I don't recall how you might know anything about me, so the "surprise, surprise" remark is curious. Please elaborate re: how my view(s) come as no surprise to you. And second, are you actually suggesting that U.S. foreign policy hasn't been an unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years? If so, what's your example of ANYTHING we've done right? I guess just provide the Top 5 examples of constructive U.S. foreign policy over the past 80 years, since most of the destructive examples are pretty well known.
As for the underlined ... save the snark next time. |
whenever these weak pathetic "blame America" arguments are made, snark is the low bar for what should be expected. Those random students had nothing to do with US Foreign policy....they were victims of terrorism. There is never an excuse or justification for terrorism.
Your claim that US Foreign policy has been an "unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years" is based on what? in comparison to what? During that period, the United States has rose to be the lone Super Power in the world while creating the most powerful global economy. This is your definition of an "unmitigated disaster"? |
The bolded says it all re: what you appear to value most. IMO, the "weak pathetic" person is the fearful one who is frightened unless they are already standing atop the mountain, who screams from the mountaintop that everyone should look at him, that he's the best, that he's the badass. I don't think that describes me ... |
I am not....but as an aggregate nation we are. I cant even claim I have contributed a fraction of my fair share...but yeah, the United States of America is a badass on the world stage....and the world should take a look at why we hold that title. It was generations of blood, sweat and tears that put us in this position. I have zero shame is making this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: |
Your claim that US Foreign policy has been an "unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years" is based on what? in comparison to what? During that period, the United States has rose to be the lone Super Power in the world while creating the most powerful global economy. This is your definition of an "unmitigated disaster"? |
The bolded says it all re: what you appear to value most. IMO, the "weak pathetic" person is the fearful one who is frightened unless they are already standing atop the mountain, who screams from the mountaintop that everyone should look at him, that he's the best, that he's the badass. I don't think that describes me ... |
I am not....but as an aggregate nation we are. I cant even claim I have contributed a fraction of my fair share...but yeah, the United States of America is a badass on the world stage....and the world should take a look at why we hold that title. It was generations of blood, sweat and tears that put us in this position. I have zero shame is making this claim. |
Last point I'll make right now ...
There are MANY, MANY, MANY reasons to be proud of America. We are in accord on that general point. I'm not suggesting that America is responsible for all of the problems across the globe, or even most of them. But our foreign policy maneuvers over the past 80 years are simply not in that ample basket of reasons. And more broadly, focusing on being the "badass" in an evolving world doesn't provide the safe harbor you might think.
By way of example, give thought to how that strategy works in some elementary schools or middle schools or high schools with "the bully" who rules the school. Sure, he can beat everyone up and steal their money, and rightfully claim that he's the boss in the school (i.e., the lone superpower) and that he now has the most money (i.e., he also has the most powerful global economy). But what happens when someone decides to fight back? Or when someone bigger, stronger, faster and more ruthless matriculates into the school? Or when a collective of classmates conspire to beat his brakes off after having had enough of his abuses? Or a more clever group of classmates conspire to unravel his power through more nuanced means?
That's the problem with the logic of this "the man with the gold, rules" logic ... the bullseye is big enough, but when you add the antagonistic flair of celebrating the idea of being a "badass", the recipe for disaster is set ... it's just a matter of time. Anyway, that's my view ... have a great day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | the association wrote: | | adkindo wrote: |
Your claim that US Foreign policy has been an "unmitigated disaster in most regards for the past 65 - 80 years" is based on what? in comparison to what? During that period, the United States has rose to be the lone Super Power in the world while creating the most powerful global economy. This is your definition of an "unmitigated disaster"? |
The bolded says it all re: what you appear to value most. IMO, the "weak pathetic" person is the fearful one who is frightened unless they are already standing atop the mountain, who screams from the mountaintop that everyone should look at him, that he's the best, that he's the badass. I don't think that describes me ... |
I am not....but as an aggregate nation we are. I cant even claim I have contributed a fraction of my fair share...but yeah, the United States of America is a badass on the world stage....and the world should take a look at why we hold that title. It was generations of blood, sweat and tears that put us in this position. I have zero shame is making this claim. |
Last point I'll make right now ...
There are MANY, MANY, MANY reasons to be proud of America. We are in accord on that general point. I'm not suggesting that America is responsible for all of the problems across the globe, or even most of them. But our foreign policy maneuvers over the past 80 years are simply not in that ample basket of reasons. And more broadly, focusing on being the "badass" in an evolving world doesn't provide the safe harbor you might think.
By way of example, give thought to how that strategy works in some elementary schools or middle schools or high schools with "the bully" who rules the school. Sure, he can beat everyone up and steal their money, and rightfully claim that he's the boss in the school (i.e., the lone superpower) and that he now has the most money (i.e., he also has the most powerful global economy). But what happens when someone decides to fight back? Or when someone bigger, stronger, faster and more ruthless matriculates into the school? Or when a collective of classmates conspire to beat his brakes off after having had enough of his abuses? Or a more clever group of classmates conspire to unravel his power through more nuanced means?
That's the problem with the logic of this "the man with the gold, rules" logic ... the bullseye is big enough, but when you add the antagonistic flair of celebrating the idea of being a "badass", the recipe for disaster is set ... it's just a matter of time. Anyway, that's my view ... have a great day. |
but I do not see it as antagonistic, because I do not view it on an individual level. I am strong believer in "American Exceptionalism", but that means nothing on an individual level. I do not think my life holds any more value than that of a person born in Ethiopia or Germany....to the contrary, I welcome those born in other lands that feel that America and her ideas create an exceptional nation to join me in being a part of that nation.
America being great or even a badass does not make me either....as I need the other 300+ Million residents in combination with our democratic ideals and belief in personal liberty to create that greatness. I get the "Americans think they are so special", and I just counter with its not that I am special, but yes I do think we are very special. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | The US government has fueled the cycle of violence IMO, but that does absolutely nothing to alleviate any personal responsibility this guy has, especially when he targeted random civilians. |
I agree with you in principle, FOB17, but what do you suggest would be a more appropriate target? Of course, I recognize that all of us would like to respond "There should be no targets!". But that's impractical, right? So should he have tried to attack an Ohio-class submarine? Or a Nimitz-class carrier? What about an F-35? Or should he have just tried to storm Camp Pendleton? I mean, at some point, the argument that these individuals who do these things should limit their retaliation to non-civilian targets lacks credibility, IMO. It's (bleep)-up and terrible, but c'mon now ... if the argument is simply that the person who believe his oppression is caused by the U.S. is told he must only try to fight the full military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, we're just going to sit at loggerheads w/r/t/ the reality on the ground.
This is war. We have no alternative but to live with the consequences of war, unfortunately. And the asymmetry of this particular war means that the scenes we have all watched in historical dramatizations of war over the years, where certain rules of engagement meant that certain targets (i.e., high-level officers) were off-limits ... ? That's not reality any longer ...
It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ... |
What would be a more appropriate target? Anyone but civilians would be a good start to answering that question. Your suggestion that he has no choice but to do this practically speaking, because how is he to take on the full might of the US military, is a false equivalency to an absurd degree, because did he take on the full might of the US citizenry? I mean, you want to talk about what's practical? As far as pragmatism is concerned, anything this guy does on his own, is entirely impractical, regardless of his target. Nothing he could've done on his own would've bore any meaningful fruit for his cause. I mean, hell, the most successful terrorist attack in world history only emboldened the US to get even more involved in the middle east, and probably sealed that foreign policy for a very very long time. Practical? Get real.
"It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ..."
And our role in world affairs doesn't change his responsibility, so what's your point? |
I won't convince you to look at these tragedies from a different angle, and all of us won't see an end to these tragedies, unfortunately. I view your approach as the "bury my head in the sand" strategy for dealing with a shocking event. Apparently, you view my approach as off-the-mark, uninformed and insensitive, or simply callous because you don't believe there's a legitimate motivational tether between these events and U.S. foreign policy.
Incidentally, I don't think your views square with the reality of many of the underlying events during this country's formation 250+ years ago, but that's probably too great of a conversation to explore at this point. Anyway, have a great day ... |
Well, I'll try to overlook the condescension of your post best I can. Actually, the reality about what I think is that I consider the US government active participants in the cycle of violence. The thing is though, for it to be a cycle, requires other active participants that I find just as guilty, more or less. Even if I do think US foreign policy can lead to attacks like these (although they could still happen regardless of what they do because some radical Muslims are just dicks and don't need provocation to be violent towards a group,) it really doesn't color how I see this person in terms of moral condemnation. I don't see him as a freedom fighter in any respect whatsoever, but rather just a multiple murderer, absolutely no different than Elliot Rodger or those of that ilk. If I'm being completely honest, I suspect that you do see this person sympathetically, along the lines of a freedom fighter, but just don't want to outright say it for fear of social shaming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | The US government has fueled the cycle of violence IMO, but that does absolutely nothing to alleviate any personal responsibility this guy has, especially when he targeted random civilians. |
I agree with you in principle, FOB17, but what do you suggest would be a more appropriate target? Of course, I recognize that all of us would like to respond "There should be no targets!". But that's impractical, right? So should he have tried to attack an Ohio-class submarine? Or a Nimitz-class carrier? What about an F-35? Or should he have just tried to storm Camp Pendleton? I mean, at some point, the argument that these individuals who do these things should limit their retaliation to non-civilian targets lacks credibility, IMO. It's (bleep)-up and terrible, but c'mon now ... if the argument is simply that the person who believe his oppression is caused by the U.S. is told he must only try to fight the full military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, we're just going to sit at loggerheads w/r/t/ the reality on the ground.
This is war. We have no alternative but to live with the consequences of war, unfortunately. And the asymmetry of this particular war means that the scenes we have all watched in historical dramatizations of war over the years, where certain rules of engagement meant that certain targets (i.e., high-level officers) were off-limits ... ? That's not reality any longer ...
It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ... |
What would be a more appropriate target? Anyone but civilians would be a good start to answering that question. Your suggestion that he has no choice but to do this practically speaking, because how is he to take on the full might of the US military, is a false equivalency to an absurd degree, because did he take on the full might of the US citizenry? I mean, you want to talk about what's practical? As far as pragmatism is concerned, anything this guy does on his own, is entirely impractical, regardless of his target. Nothing he could've done on his own would've bore any meaningful fruit for his cause. I mean, hell, the most successful terrorist attack in world history only emboldened the US to get even more involved in the middle east, and probably sealed that foreign policy for a very very long time. Practical? Get real.
"It's horrifying, but here we are ... and of course he's personally responsible. That doesn't change the fact of our role in world affairs ..."
And our role in world affairs doesn't change his responsibility, so what's your point? |
I won't convince you to look at these tragedies from a different angle, and all of us won't see an end to these tragedies, unfortunately. I view your approach as the "bury my head in the sand" strategy for dealing with a shocking event. Apparently, you view my approach as off-the-mark, uninformed and insensitive, or simply callous because you don't believe there's a legitimate motivational tether between these events and U.S. foreign policy.
Incidentally, I don't think your views square with the reality of many of the underlying events during this country's formation 250+ years ago, but that's probably too great of a conversation to explore at this point. Anyway, have a great day ... |
Well, I'll try to overlook the condescension of your post best I can. Actually, the reality about what I think is that I consider the US government active participants in the cycle of violence. The thing is though, for it to be a cycle, requires other active participants that I find just as guilty, more or less. Even if I do think US foreign policy can lead to attacks like these (although they could still happen regardless of what they do because some radical Muslims are just dicks and don't need provocation to be violent towards a group,) it really doesn't color how I see this person in terms of moral condemnation. I don't see him as a freedom fighter in any respect whatsoever, but rather just a multiple murderer, absolutely no different than Elliot Rodger or those of that ilk. If I'm being completely honest, I suspect that you do see this person sympathetically, along the lines of a freedom fighter, but just don't want to outright say it for fear of social shaming. |
I didn't intend to convey condescension (instead, I was going for "OK, we're not going to agree on this issue, I guess"), but I see how my words can be read that way. The "head in the sand" part was about refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, not an accusation of ignorance. But I apologize for the tone.
However, no ... I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for this individual. Do I have sympathy for those with broader feelings of (legitimate) resentment toward the U.S. ... ? Yes, I know our history so I often do. But this individual ... ? He's a terrorist. My point is about attempting to participate in the process of understanding and addressing WHY these events are occurring with greater frequency. Fighting for freedom is a bigger picture concept that, as I alluded to earlier, isn't quite achievable when the U.S. is on the other side of the asymmetrical conflict.
So these individuals are not freedom fighters because freedom from whatever oppression they've experienced isn't really possible in any event. They are hopeless souls lashing out to hurt anyone they can possibly find. But again - WHY ... ? How responsible are we as a nation for the feelings of enmity that continue to strike at our shores over and over and over again ... ? Beyond that discussion, the resulting actions are part of a different discussion.
Incidentally, for the record, my demographical profile is wholly unlike this individuals's profile. So in case you're wondering, I don't have a dog in this fight, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW.. I have been banned for telling the truth of our belligerent transgressions against the arab peoples
I have started threads endlessly
I believe we must stop murdering people if humanity is to ever heal
You believe I should stop and mourn the few dead Americans and neglect the Hundreds of thousands of dead arabs
Call me sick disgusting I don't care
BUT
When the Boston Marathon bombing happened.. my first thought was how lucky we are that is all they have done.
we have murdered approximately 150,000 Iraqis in the past 14 years
My thread creations in many forums was "Can you tell me the last time Iraq attacked America?"
ooooh while they were cheering SHOCK AND AWE they couldn't even answer when Iraq last attacked America or even be bothered by it.
Can you tell me the last or first time Iraq attacked America? ON OUR soil.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the beginning of what got me banned and the political discussion thread to have the page 123 warning
Zionist Mobsters murdered the first UN Peacekeeper who came to the area to try and negotiate peace after Britain created Israel unjustly...
Those same Zionist Mobsters created the government and became prime ministers of "the dove of peace"
look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
The United States has supported Genocide or mass murder against countries that neighbor Israel
Had a friend with a 170 IQ told me the most violent of all species is supposedly the most intelligent.. Chimpanzees have been recorded dismembering Mothers and babies of tribes they go to war with
Israel and the US have no heart.. bombs are their strength |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | FWIW.. I have been banned for telling the truth of our belligerent transgressions against the arab peoples
I have started threads endlessly
I believe we must stop murdering people if humanity is to ever heal
You believe I should stop and mourn the few dead Americans and neglect the Hundreds of thousands of dead arabs
Call me sick disgusting I don't care
BUT
When the Boston Marathon bombing happened.. my first thought was how lucky we are that is all they have done.
we have murdered approximately 150,000 Iraqis in the past 14 years
My thread creations in many forums was "Can you tell me the last time Iraq attacked America?"
ooooh while they were cheering SHOCK AND AWE they couldn't even answer when Iraq last attacked America or even be bothered by it.
Can you tell me the last or first time Iraq attacked America? ON OUR soil.... |
Nope, you don't have to stop and mourn at all....
You didn't even have to stop in this thread...
You don't have to neglect "the Hundreds of thousands of dead arabs"
No one is stopping you from mourning them, even now.
You can start a thread right now mourning them...
These 2 things are not mutually exclusive...
You don't have to stop in here and mourn " the few dead Americans"
You chose to come in here, and bring up the topic of America's sins....
No one is stopping you from creating another thread condemning America for their sins...
It's still your choice to do it here...
Imgaine if this thread didn't exist, would your thinking be, man, there's no thread on the Ohio State attack for me to mourn for "the Hundreds of thousands of dead arabs" and for me to condemn America for all its sins...
How can you say:
| Quote: | | I believe we must stop murdering people if humanity is to ever heal |
And in the next breadth say:
| Quote: | | You believe I should stop and mourn the few dead Americans............Call me sick disgusting I don't care |
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | There's no justification for this individual's actions, which were heinous acts by any definition. My intention is to highlight the fact that IF one wanted to understand WHY such an individual might be motivated to resort to such acts, one need look no further than U.S. foreign policy. The fear industrial complex that has saturated our empire is at the root of most, if not all, of these attacks.
|
That goes for every killing/attack/shooting association. We can dissect every killing if we wanted to understand WHY. There's always a reason. Why did Timothy McVeigh bomb Oklahoma. That's been dissected.
There's been 2 recent shootings/killings/attacks in the past week. You've posted in both. The Joe McKnight shooting and this attack.
In the Joe McKnight shooting, you were interested in swift justice. You've shown no interest to dissect that shooter's motives to understand WHY.
| the association wrote: | | I don't know how they're going to maneuver out from under the crushing weight of these inconvenient details, but it's a travesty that the individual who took McKnight's life is enjoying unsupervised freedom in the community right now. If the details of this previous arrest and the details provided by purported witnesses in this killing don't warrant detention, we're all (bleep) ... do they need a signed confession, accompanied by a self-narrated audio + video recording of the incident? What the (bleep) already ... |
Here, you are very interested as to WHY.
Both are unjustified killings. You're only interested in the WHY for one of them.
Let's change the scenario of the Joe McKnight shooting. Let's say, the killer was Muslim, and as he was shooting Joe McKnight, he is heard screaming "this is for all the atrocities in Yemen! America must pay! This black guy who cut me off must pay for America's sins!!"
Does that change how you view the shooting? Are you still interested in swift justice or are you now more interested in understanding WHY?
I suspect it's not that you are interested in WHY a killing happens. But, only when the WHY aligns w/ a cause that you are interested in, then you want to understand THAT particular killing.
Ask yourself this, if the Ohio State attacker was just some random student that went on a killing spree (and we don't know or suspect what his motives were), would you be as interested in finding out WHY?
Would you be pushing for a "meaningful discussion" as to WHY?
Or would you just be in here mourning for the innocent lives lost?
You also brought up the point that if you're not interested in understanding WHY then your strategy is one of "burying your head in the sand."
So, since you're not interested in understanding WHY the Joe McKnight shooter killed him, are you "burying your head in the sand?"
Are you saying we should try to understand every killing? Or only the killings that are connected to America's actions in the Middle East? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | the association wrote: | There's no justification for this individual's actions, which were heinous acts by any definition. My intention is to highlight the fact that IF one wanted to understand WHY such an individual might be motivated to resort to such acts, one need look no further than U.S. foreign policy. The fear industrial complex that has saturated our empire is at the root of most, if not all, of these attacks.
|
That goes for every killing/attack/shooting association. We can dissect every killing if we wanted to understand WHY. There's always a reason. Why did Timothy McVeigh bomb Oklahoma. That's been dissected.
There's been 2 recent shootings/killings/attacks in the past week. You've posted in both. The Joe McKnight shooting and this attack.
In the Joe McKnight shooting, you were interested in swift justice. You've shown no interest to dissect that shooter's motives to understand WHY.
| the association wrote: | | I don't know how they're going to maneuver out from under the crushing weight of these inconvenient details, but it's a travesty that the individual who took McKnight's life is enjoying unsupervised freedom in the community right now. If the details of this previous arrest and the details provided by purported witnesses in this killing don't warrant detention, we're all (bleep) ... do they need a signed confession, accompanied by a self-narrated audio + video recording of the incident? What the (bleep) already ... |
Here, you are very interested as to WHY.
Both are unjustified killings. You're only interested in the WHY for one of them.
Let's change the scenario of the Joe McKnight shooting. Let's say, the killer was Muslim, and as he was shooting Joe McKnight, he is heard screaming "this is for all the atrocities in Yemen! America must pay! This black guy who cut me off must pay for America's sins!!"
Does that change how you view the shooting? Are you still interested in swift justice or are you now more interested in understanding WHY?
I suspect it's not that you are interested in WHY a killing happens. But, only when the WHY aligns w/ a cause that you are interested in, then you want to understand THAT particular killing.
Ask yourself this, if the Ohio State attacker was just some random student that went on a killing spree (and we don't know or suspect what his motives were), would you be as interested in finding out WHY?
Would you be pushing for a "meaningful discussion" as to WHY?
Or would you just be in here mourning for the innocent lives lost?
You also brought up the point that if you're not interested in understanding WHY then your strategy is one of "burying your head in the sand."
So, since you're not interested in understanding WHY the Joe McKnight shooter killed him, are you "burying your head in the sand?"
Are you saying we should try to understand every killing? Or only the killings that are connected to America's actions in the Middle East? |
I'm going to try to address this in explicit detail ...
1. We should all understand WHY terrorist attacks occur - not to absolve the terrorist of their sin(s). But in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks, it behooves us to understand whether and to what extent our actions might be stoking the hostility lapping at our shores.
I would always like to know the WHY, but there are certain cases where the why appears more apparent that others.
2. How does the fact that I've lamented the failure to promptly start the wheels of justice for Joe McKnight's killer make me inconsistent? I've said exactly nothing regarding what I would have liked as it pertains to the Ohio State terrorist, in the event that he hadn't been killed in the wake of his attacks. So again, where is the inconsistency when I've said not a single word to suggest that I would have been against "swift justice" for that individual, too? And point of clarification, if I may ... when you use the phrase "swift justice", you insinuate that someone is supportive of aborted due process. That's not what I've argued, in the event that my posts in the other thread have been unclear. I said the guy should have been detained on the spot and deprived of his liberty while due process began its slow march (toward his inevitable acquittal, unfortunately) ...
3. I have a particular belief that anyone who shoots an unarmed man is almost invariably a coward. It's based on personal experience. That lens shapes my views here with the Joe McKnight shooting. I think SYG, castle doctrine, and all of these vigilante-esque authorizations under criminal statute to take the life of another human being are abused by rounding errors all too often to place their own life above that of another. So again, this shooter took Joe McKnight's life, and it's an irrefutable fact at this point that McKnight didn't have a firearm (or any other weapon) in his hand. Sorry, I don't think anyone has the right to kill a man because he's scared or because he's on the precipice of having his ass whooped in public, or because criminal statute says it's OK. Cowards all ... so I'm unreceptive to the idea of accepting that there's a justifiable MOTIVE in the Joe McKnight shooting. He shot another man who wasn't pointing a weapon at him. I have no sympathy for him (just like I have none for the Ohio State terrorist, who happens to already be dead). But have I expressed any concern for the dead terrorist, or said a single (bleep) word of criticism re: the individual who killed him. The answer is "no" ...
But once more, my "demand for justice" was that McKnight's killer should have been detained to answer for his crime. Where is the inconsistency ... ?
4. If Joe McKnight's killer was Muslim, I would feel precisely the same way. I'm not sure why you think I'm especially sympathetic toward adherents of Islam. They just happen to be the primary group of people that we've (bleep) over in the past few decades. Scratch that, I probably know why you feel that way. Regardless, if that 54 year old was Muslim, I would say he should be detained and held to account the exact same way. FWIW, I was raised a Roman Catholic and I'm now agnostic. I don't have any connection with any Muslim community. I don't owe you or anyone else clarification on that point, but feverishly deceptive posters here sometimes seem to paint anyone who doesn't support U.S. policy in the Middle East as a Muslim in disguise. Therefore, I guess tonight is as good of a night as any to crush 55's dreams with a krav maga hammer fist punch. I'm not muslim, nor are any of my loved ones. Boo!
Not that this particular facet of my identity should matter. Those who prosecute this view don't seem to discount the views of every other group when those other groups lobby for their own tribes, but I guess Muslims are a special case. But I'm not one, so there's that.
5. With the hypothetical Muslim shooter in the Joe McKnight case, I still want justice and I want the shooter detained to face the music, just like I would have in the Ohio State case (where the terrorist is already dead, which would render any discussion of "swift justice" a waste of time - he's already faced the most swift justice possible, last I checked ... the extrajudicial variety).
6. Your interpretation of my motivations (i.e., that I'm crippled by my supposed slavery to confirmation bias) is just off-the-mark. I won't retaliate with a retort directed at your motivations ...
7. As noted in #3 above, there is no need to understand WHY in the Joe McKnight case. IMO, there is no credible argument for using deadly force to repel another man unless that man is pointing a gun at you or another person. Period, full stop. Knowing why bad actors do bad things like shooting an unarmed man isn't a deep conversation. I'm not "burying my head in the sand". I'm applying a view, expressed in #3 above, to a set of circumstances that have already been reluctantly outlined by the POS Sheriff in Jefferson Parish. A man shot another man who wasn't holding a firearm. He should be detained and charged appropriately. Knowing WHY he did it won't change the fact that bad actors will ALWAYS do these things as long as cowards have access to firearms. In contrast, we could possibly derail terrorist attacks if we soberly assessed the role we play in oppression throughout the world and perhaps began acting a bit less bellicose and a bit more evenhanded. One of these tragedies (crimes of terrorism) can possibly be prevented via course correction; the other one can't be changed in our lifetime.
8. We should attempt to understand EVERY killing. However, to hijack an Orwellian turn of phrase: all killings matter; but some killings are less understandable than others.
The Ohio State terrorist is dead. There's nothing to do there, unless we want to try to understand why this (bleep) and those who behave like him hate us so much. On the Joe McKnight side, a man was released from custody after capitulating to his cowardly instincts. He used a device meant only to kill in taking the life of another man, who didn't have a similar device is his hand. The killer and those who share his worldview are only capable in an unfair fight. They are miserable cowards. So too was the Ohio State terrorist. Thus, McKnight's killer deserves to face the music (as a reminder, the Ohio State terrorist ALREADY DID). Again, and again, and again ... I don't see where my positions contradicted one another.
(bleep), thanks for forcing my keyboard to suffer along with me ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
association, you've answered your own question.
| the association wrote: | | Where is the inconsistency ... ? |
Here it is, first you start off with:
| the association wrote: | | There's no justification for this individual's actions, which were heinous acts by any definition. My intention is to highlight the fact that IF one wanted to understand WHY such an individual might be motivated to resort to such acts...... |
So, your initial premise is that, when faced w/ unjust killings, one must seek to understand WHY in order to prevent future killings.....
Then you differentiate between 2 killings, and you conclude that one type of killing deserves your attention as to WHY whereas another does not.
| the association wrote: | | We should all understand WHY terrorist attacks occur |
| the association wrote: | | there is no need to understand WHY in the Joe McKnight case |
So, now, we have to define what makes a killing a "terrorist attack."
What do we know about the Ohio State killer so far?
| Quote: |
1) Investigators believe Ohio State attacker was inspired by ISIS
2) there is no indication so far that Artan communicated with any terror group
3) evidence points to a lone wolf attack.
|
So I asked you, what if the Joe McKnight killer screamed that he was killing on behalf of the Yemen atrocities. Does that make him a terrorist and his killing a "terrorist attack" like Artan?
You said:
| the association wrote: | | If Joe McKnight's killer was Muslim, I would feel precisely the same way. I'm not sure why you think I'm especially sympathetic toward adherents of Islam. |
Is this not inconsistent? Something doesn't add up right? Or am I missing something?
If the Joe McKnight killer screamed that he was killing on behalf of the Yemen atrocities, doesn't that make him a "terrorist attacker" by your definition?
And being a terrorist attacker, wouldn't you now want to know WHY?
But since there are no reports that he killed on behalf of ISIS, you really don't care to know WHY, correct?
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | association, you've answered your own question.
| the association wrote: | | Where is the inconsistency ... ? |
Here it is, first you start off with:
| the association wrote: | | There's no justification for this individual's actions, which were heinous acts by any definition. My intention is to highlight the fact that IF one wanted to understand WHY such an individual might be motivated to resort to such acts...... |
So, your initial premise is that, the killings are unjust. But, to prevent future killings, you should under WHY...
Then you differentiate between 2 killings, and you conclude that one type of killing deserves your attention as to WHY whereas another does not.
| the association wrote: | | We should all understand WHY terrorist attacks occur |
| the association wrote: | | there is no need to understand WHY in the Joe McKnight case |
So, now, we have to define what makes a killing a "terrorist attack."
What do we know about the Ohio State killer so far?
| Quote: |
1) Investigators believe Ohio State attacker was inspired by ISIS
2) there is no indication so far that Artan communicated with any terror group
3) evidence points to a lone wolf attack.
|
So I asked you, what if the Joe McKnight killer screamed that he was killing on behalf of the Yemen atrocities. Does that make him a terrorist and his killing a "terrorist attack" like Artan?
You said:
| the association wrote: | | If Joe McKnight's killer was Muslim, I would feel precisely the same way. I'm not sure why you think I'm especially sympathetic toward adherents of Islam. |
Is this not inconsistent? Something doesn't add up right? Or am I missing something?
If the Joe McKnight killer screamed that he was killing on behalf of the Yemen atrocities, doesn't that make him a "terrorist attacker" by your definition?
And being a terrorist attacker, wouldn't you now want to know WHY?
But since he didn't shout such things, you really don't care to know WHY, correct? |
OK, I'll accept the fact that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on these issues. I never suggested that I didn't understand the WHY. The bolded above, followed by your next few sentences, seems to indicate that the Muslim hypothetical killer of McKnight would necessarily also be a terrorist in your mind (by default, so it seems), which is why I think you can't seem to perceive the difference. But I think we're too far afield at this point.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's meaningful common ground that we're likely to discover through further discussion. Nevertheless, thanks for the effort to understand a different perspective ... have a great night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16135
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I never suggested that I didn't understand the WHY. |
Never said you did. You said in order for America to prevent future killings, we should understand WHY this killing occurred.
| Quote: | | The bolded above, followed by your next few sentences, seems to indicate that the Muslim hypothetical killer of McKnight would necessarily also be a terrorist in your mind (by default, so it seems), which is why I think you can't seem to perceive the difference. But I think we're too far afield at this point. |
Nope, I also stated that he screamed "this is for the Yemen atrocities."
I'm trying to figure out what makes a "terrorist attacker." It's a term you introduced.
| Quote: | | We should all understand WHY terrorist attacks occur |
What made the Ohio State killer a "terrorist" in your mind?
Is it a report that he was influenced by ISIS even though he had no connection to the terrorist group?
| Quote: | | Unfortunately, I don't think there's meaningful common ground that we're likely to discover through further discussion. |
Yeah, because your whole theory is that in order to prevent future killings, we must understand WHY.
Don't "bury your head in the sand," you say
I'm saying, it seems like you're only interested when the WHY has to do w/ the atrocities in the Middle East.
If the WHY is anything else, you're not as interested.
For example, the initial report in the Ohio State killings is that the killer was influenced by ISIS.
Let's say they start to dig deeper and they find out that's not the case. Now, they don't know why he did what he did.
What now? Should they continue trying to find out WHY? Or should they just stop since the WHY is not ISIS related...
My point is, are you only pushing for WHY when it seems the WHY is related to the Middle East atrocities?
Because from America's point of view, we want to end ALL school mass killings, not just mass killings that are connected to/influenced by ISIS...
Which do you want?
You don't have to answer or respond, just honestly ask yourself: Are you more interested in one unjust killing over another due to the WHY being related to the Middle East? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: |
I would always like to know the WHY, but there are certain cases where the why appears more apparent that others.
|
Didn't Peter Quinn explain why and what to do about it in Homeland Season 5?
Peter Quinn Smartest Guy in Room |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: |
I didn't intend to convey condescension (instead, I was going for "OK, we're not going to agree on this issue, I guess"), but I see how my words can be read that way. The "head in the sand" part was about refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, not an accusation of ignorance. But I apologize for the tone.
However, no ... I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for this individual. Do I have sympathy for those with broader feelings of (legitimate) resentment toward the U.S. ... ? Yes, I know our history so I often do. But this individual ... ? He's a terrorist. My point is about attempting to participate in the process of understanding and addressing WHY these events are occurring with greater frequency. Fighting for freedom is a bigger picture concept that, as I alluded to earlier, isn't quite achievable when the U.S. is on the other side of the asymmetrical conflict.
So these individuals are not freedom fighters because freedom from whatever oppression they've experienced isn't really possible in any event. They are hopeless souls lashing out to hurt anyone they can possibly find. But again - WHY ... ? How responsible are we as a nation for the feelings of enmity that continue to strike at our shores over and over and over again ... ? Beyond that discussion, the resulting actions are part of a different discussion.
Incidentally, for the record, my demographical profile is wholly unlike this individuals's profile. So in case you're wondering, I don't have a dog in this fight, either. |
Okay, well if I missed the mark, I apologize.
"Freedom fighters" is just a term, and it's often used towards groups that are fighting against improbable odds, so I don't see how it can't even theoretically be applied to this situation.
I personally would not paint them with the broad brush of "hopeless souls lashing out" because I don't feel like that's the case with all of these brands of attacks, I feel like motivations vary. Some are more calculated, some are just a little more bat (bleep) crazy, and some are just "morally" motivated like the club shooting in Florida.
I didn't assume one way or another, you don't need to share demographics in order to be sympathetic. There are plenty of white liberal atheists who are overly sympathetic towards these types of cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
