[Able-Archer]

First I would like to say WW2 and other events that happened so far in the past are irrelevant many treaties and international norms have come into being since then so drop that.

ISIS is an insurgency that uses terrorist tactics in addition to various other tactics. Technically this is at least in a significant part the fault of the U.S. mainly Obama who was so keen on being the one to end the war in Iraq no matter what the cost. The quick withdrawal which he was warned about opened the road for ISIS. The U.S. withdrew leaving a Shiite in charge of a majority Sunni country. Don't forget Saddam was a Sunni so the experienced soldiers and officers were (RIGHT) Sunni. So when Obama announced the date of U.S. withdrawal the Sunni's just had to sit back and wait for that day then BOOM experienced fighters and officers led an attack picking up military supplies left behind by the U.S. on the way complementing their know how and now you have a crazed religious group using brutal methods to establish an Islamic State.

Those of you who think this doesn't matter because your in America or Europe don't be fooled. They may not have the power to take down the U.S. on its own soil but how many lone wolf or lone attacker events have to happen for you to give a damn.
Any attack in my mind on my civilian population is a failure.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

There seems to be a popular sentiment that to "win," what the USA really needs to do is to stop being a pussy (ie disregard all rules of decency and kill family members of combatants and civilians in unlimited amounts), and use overwhelming force (millions of soldiers which would require a large draft and reorganizing the economy on a war footing).

Maybe a WW2 level of effort would succeed in defeating ISIS and the Taliban. But what then? How long to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for? Years, decades, forever? These places aren't Germany or Japan, they are completely fucked up backwaters without 1/100th of the organization, capacity, etc those countries have. You will never turn them into stable or nice places.

A few points:

- Perception of warfare in the Middle East has been tainted by the Iraq War and Afghanistan, where a lack of political will, clear military strategy, and the reluctance of political leaders to provide adequate manpower resulted in a long-term, drawn out conflict. These deficiencies wouldn't exist in a fight against ISIS where the conventional fighting could be done entirely by the U.S., and the post-war occupation by Muslim armies (Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
- The Ottomans, British, Persians, and even Arabs pacified the region multiple times. It's the method that counts and is the ultimate deciding factor in a post-war scenario. With enough force and bloodshed, no one challenges the victors. This is a fact of life, not a hypothetical situation or wishful thinking. Brute force conquers and pacifies. Insurgencies never pop up if enough force is applied in the beginning. The Japanese are the best example of this because they were, by far, the most fanatical opponent the U.S. has ever faced. Millions of Japanese women and children trained in the fields with bamboo sticks to fight the invaders. The men, if they hadn't died in battle in suicide attacks, would sometimes hold out on their own in caves 20-30 years after the war, unwilling to surrender. Yet we were still able to conquer the country and maintain peace immediately afterwards.
- As I mentioned above, no post-war occupation is needed by the U.S. or other Western nations when we have so many willing Muslim allies in the fight. Turkey, for example, would love to carve up northern Syria and influence the region. Iran is another good example - most of Iraq is firmly under their influence.

So let's imagine a scenario where ISIS is brutally eliminated, without any regard for political correctness or mercy. Do you think other insurgencies will sprout in the Middle East if they know the West (and other Islamic countries) would kill them all off without blinking an eye? We have a full-blown case of Stockholm Syndrome from the last 30 years of fighting Islamic terrorism like politicians, rather than warriors.

[Able-Archer]

While I would like nothing more than to see the U.S. just bomb the hell out of ISIS I don't think that would work. Saddam ruled Iraq with an Iron fist that seems to be what these people need in order to keep some level of normalcy. But the situation IS political if you act too harshly you will only push others to think of the west or the U.S. as a brutal force at war not with ISIS but with Islam this is what these groups make people believe, that the west is a threat to Islam not just to them personally.

Don't forget these guys don't fear death rather they love death like we love life.

[Bushido]

Made the mistake of watching this video last night. These ISIS thugs are animals who need to be put down.

You guys making relativist arguments...you are naive to the extreme. Watch the video again and tell me how we are "just as bad" as ISIS.

"ISIS and Muslims do not have a monopoly on extreme and deliberate savagery.
People of all the major superstitions have plenty of horrific actions."

Relativism is almost as bad as siding with the enemy in this case. Evil is evil. You water down the horrific nature of these acts by suggesting that "Oh well, it's not only ISIS who do this shit". Volando you should be ashamed of yourself.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-04-2015 09:20 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

Made the mistake of watching this video last night. These ISIS thugs are animals who need to be put down.

You guys making relativist arguments...you are naive to the extreme. Watch the video again and tell me how we are "just as bad" as ISIS.

"ISIS and Muslims do not have a monopoly on extreme and deliberate savagery.
People of all the major superstitions have plenty of horrific actions."

Relativism is almost as bad as siding with the enemy in this case. Evil is evil. You water down the horrific nature of these acts by suggesting that "Oh well, it's not only ISIS who do this shit". Volando you should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed for being weak and emotional.
Talk of relativism is a distraction from the real issue.
I bought up those issues only as a counterweight to the foolish arguments that we need to go fight some emotionally charged battle of good versus evil to make everything right in the world.
You need to grow up and see this in cold, dispassionate terms of national interest and statecraft.
Look at this situation the way the Chinese would.
Is the United States being attacked? Is our security being threatened? Is there any prize to be had? No, no, no.
Does it make sense for us to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from China and others to go fight indefinite wars of choice in a land torn apart by religious and ethnic strife? No.
But, go ahead and be emotional, and get angry, and feel righteous. It is exactly what ISIS wants. It also serves the interests of our rivals.

[speakeasy]

I don't know why but I just decided to watch the video. That was truly the ugliest thing I've ever seen. And the fact that it was shot like a Hollywood movie made it all the more eerie.

If I was their prisoner, I would just attack anyone holding a machine gun in the hope that they would shoot me on the spot. Knowing that you will likely meet a torturous death otherwise.

[Saga]

(02-04-2015 10:05 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

You should be ashamed for being weak and emotional.

So you're saying that any argument that evokes a sense of ethos is "weak and emotional"?

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-04-2015 10:10 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I don't know why but I just decided to watch the video. That was truly the ugliest thing I've ever seen. And the fact that it was shot like a Hollywood movie made it all the more eerie.

If I was their prisoner, I would just attack anyone holding a machine gun in the hope that they would shoot me on the spot. Knowing that you will likely meet a torturous death otherwise.

Wouldn't happen. You say that not being in that situation.
What if you have been beaten, electrocuted, and starved, and kept awake for days?
You won't be thinking clearly. You won't have energy.
They could also make it very clear that if you don't do what you are told they will slowly cut you apart, finger by finger, take your eyes one at a time, etc etc.
If someone was especially brave, they could always take one of their child captives, and say look, do what we say, or we are going to torture this child to death in front of you slowly, and then repeat as many times as necessary with additional children.
No man could resist.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-04-2015 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:05 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

You should be ashamed for being weak and emotional.

So you're saying that any argument that evokes a sense of ethos is "weak and emotional"?

I'm saying that any argument that justifies wars of choice on the basis of ethos/morality/emotion is dangerous and inappropriate to the national interest.
War/military force should be used only to defend and advance vital national interests.
Realpolitik is how you play to win. Game of Thrones.
This go solve the world's problems bullshit will not work, and will cause the 21st century to be the time when America's supremacy fades. China will be pleased though.

[NovaVirtu]

This is an unpopular idea but it needs to be said: This all happened because the US/coalition pulled out of Iraq.

Seriously, where do people get this ridiculous idea that you can invade a country, smash everything, prop up a "friendly" government and just leave, and everything will be all sunshine and kittens afterward?

There are still US forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Thousands of them, in PERMANENT bases.

This is was done because they know only a LONG TERM standing presence there would ensure stability and prevent hostile factions from taking power there. And you know what? It works.

Should the US have invaded Iraq in 2003? NO. Saddam Hussein was an old-school Arab nationalist and as bad as he was, he kept those people the fuck in line. Removing a dominant presence like that, and then just fucking walking away, creates a power vacuum that scum like ISIS are more than happy to fill. OIF was a mistake, but it's too late. You can't turn back the clock.

Western forces would need to have permanent presence like in South Korea to ensure that once crushed, entities like ISIS could not rise again in the Middle East. There is no other way.

[Saga]

(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I'm saying that any argument that justifies wars of choice on the basis of ethos/morality/emotion is dangerous and inappropriate to the national interest.

Yet that's a false dichotomy, as there's no reason to believe that ethics and logic are mutually exclusive. In fact, this case is a perfect example of the two coinciding.

Quote:

War/military force should be used only to defend and advance vital national interests.
Realpolitik is how you play to win. Game of Thrones.
This go solve the world's problems bullshit will not work, and will cause the 21st century to be the time when America's supremacy fades. China will be pleased though.

I would argue that stability in the region is a vital national interest, the corollary of which being that a renegade insurgency is contrary to the national interest. As it so happens, it would also rid the world of a group of butchers.

Putting that to one side, I've never watched that TV show but I have read enough Machiavelli to realize that people rarely if ever find collective motivation from purely rational justifications. Underestimate the value of ethics and passion, and you're failing to grasp central facets of all political reality; pay close attention to China's argumentation and you'll see that aplenty. The logos-only approach might work as a leader of computer programs but not so much as a leader of men.

[TheWastelander]

(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:05 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

You should be ashamed for being weak and emotional.

So you're saying that any argument that evokes a sense of ethos is "weak and emotional"?

I'm saying that any argument that justifies wars of choice on the basis of ethos/morality/emotion is dangerous and inappropriate to the national interest.
War/military force should be used only to defend and advance vital national interests.
Realpolitik is how you play to win. Game of Thrones.
This go solve the world's problems bullshit will not work, and will cause the 21st century to be the time when America's supremacy fades. China will be pleased though.

This is hilarious. You advocate realpolitik yet you say we shouldn't be in the Middle East at all. You also don't believe in involving us in 'unnecessary wars.'

Well, those wars are one way you expand your power.

ISIS is threatening our allies and, consequently, our economic interests in the Middle East. Any classical realist worth their salt would advocate for their utter destruction and either overtly or clandestinely go after their supporters with amoral ruthlessness.

Yet you try to shame Americans by bringing up crap like My Lai, acting like that was policy, and comparing our actions to what ISIS does, which is a classic tactic used by far left antiwar activists who hate realpolitik (or hate it when America tries to engage in it against countries they like).

Realpolitik examples of dealing with terrorism:

1. How Hafez al-Assad wiped out the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.
2. How the Soviets allegedly dealt with Hezbollah.
3. How Putin dealt with the Chechen terrorists and continues to deal with them.

Realpolitik is about cunning and brutality when necessary without regard for morality or international norms because power is the only thing that matters, which is exactly the opposite of what you've been ranting about in this thread.

Instead you've been lecturing us on how Americans are just as bad.

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about. You're all over the map.

[Bushido]

My point was independent of the bigger picture. This man died in a way that should never happen to anyone. As did Kenji Goto.

The act was disgusting and truly barbaric. Let's condemn evil for what it is. Imagine how horrific it would be to die this way. It's just unimaginable. As it was, the pilot put a brave face on it, probably to preserve some dignity.

Volando, your earlier posts struck me as callous. You praise the producer of the video on his editing skills. Maybe it was in jest, but that was some bad taste right there dude.

I honestly don't know what the answer is on a larger scale. The whole region is too fucked up for there to be any clear geopolitical answers. But can't we all just agree that this kind of act is a stain on the human race?

[LEMONed IScream]

As someone who studies these things, I can only subscribe to TheWastelander, what the hell has VVVV going on about. You're ashaming yourself man.

[Constitution45]

I was wondering why NATO just don't wipe them all off the planet but they have a strong recruitment pool, cells all over Europe and the world in general most likely. Its a clash of civilisations.

U.S Citizens may treat this as being just a foreign policy but for European countries this is verging on becoming a reality. Fox News got slated for having the "terrorism" expert coming on stage and claiming Birmingham is a no go area, but he is partly right. There are areas in Birmingham which are pretty much no go areas for non muslims, whites in particular. Sky News recently admitted the same but this time to do with France, Paris in particular.

I do hear the line coming from plenty of moderate muslims, that Islam is a victimised group and is actually incredibly compatible with liberalism, more so than the nationalist Europeans voting for UKIP and Le Pen. But then the next post or comment will be something along the lines of the Charle Hebdou magazine being in the wrong and how they shouldn't of insulted the prophet. It is a strong academic consensus among international theorists, that if you have a society with different religions and ethnic groups, poor government and financial structures; you will see trouble. Yet the conception coming from the government and wider media is that you can have a compatible multicultural society as long as you have prosperity that is generated from the new waves of immigration and certain groups are willing to yield and be more tolerant.

This is a form of projection as on the whole, these statements are coming from intellectuals and generally, thinkers who derive from very comfortable middle class backgrounds. For them yielding and giving themselves away in order to conform and be nice is an easy thing to do. For muslims its not going to be and even for a lot of Europeans particularly from working class backgrounds, realistically they can't oblige this.

[samsamsam]

There is so much craziness related to the video, not sure where to begin. Fortunately, I didn't watch the video, but indications are the pilot was burned in the beginning of Jan and ISIS has been negotiating in bad faith (no surprise). Some analysts are saying it was timed to be released when the Jordanian king was visiting the U.S. It was supposed to be some Hollywood political film. There is footage of Jordanians working with the U.S. etc.

I swear if someone says this is acceptable with Islam then you are a nut. This is psychopaths who needed something to justify all the cruelty and anger that has been sitting inside them. If they were truly mad at the U.S. and it's allies take the fight to their lands. But killing other Muslims who are not Muslim enough, etc just makes me think people were missing the signs when these leaders of ISIS were killing pets as kids. It is easy for mad men to convince weaker men to follow.

[Able-Archer]

I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that some of these people just have a warped version of reality, what they learn growing up is much different from those in the west. These guys may seem crazy but to many of them they believe this crap they have been exposed to all kinds of radical material and ideologies from guys like Abdullah Azzam or Qutb who wrote a very influential book for radical islamists milestones. Perhaps the best thing we can do is bomb them to their "paradise" which they so strongly believe in.

[Saga]

(02-04-2015 11:27 AM)Able-Archer Wrote:  

I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that some of these people just have a warped version of reality, what they learn growing up is much different from those in the west.

On the contrary, with thousands of members coming in from the heart of western Europe, many are learning this madness while growing up in the west. It seems hard to believe, but there it is.

However you are right, they're operating on such a twisted view of the world that we cannot expect them to act rationally...in fact we should expect them to act irrationally more often than not.

[Seamus]

(02-04-2015 01:31 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 07:39 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 04:01 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

** On an unrelated note, I really really wish I knew how to edit video as well as they do. The technical value of the production seems very good to me. I wonder what they use.

Out of curiosity: Am I misreading, or does this mean you tracked down and watched the video of this guy being burned alive? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that

I consider pictures of torture obscene, not pictures of sex. I'm not criticizing anyone, someone has to know what's going on-- I just don't want to see the details myself.

I would respectfully request people to include "Warning Graphic Violence" or the like in any posts where they have photos of brutality.

I completely agree. I understand that someone (e.g. CIA folk) needs to analyze these videos to glean strategic information, but why any random person would watch this stuff is beyond my ability to comprehend. I get Volando's point about watching the beginning to better understand how these people view themselves, but once the execution starts I'm out. I'm informed by reading that this guy was burned alive, I don't need to see his screaming face as the flames lick up his body.

And that fact that there's apparently a website called "Best Gore" just disgusts me, honestly.

[Able-Archer]

Saga, Your right I did not write anything in relation to the radicalisation process abroad which accounts for the foreign support but again many of these foreigners many grow up with views related to islam and are part of the muslim community become radicalised and then join groups like ISIS. (Not all of them)

Similar thing happened in the Afghan Soviet war thousands came from all over to join the fight for different reasons but they came to protect their muslim brothers and muslim lands. Then the Afghan Alumni went home with their radical ideas and the rest is history.

[H1N1]

(02-04-2015 11:48 AM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:31 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 07:39 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 04:01 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

** On an unrelated note, I really really wish I knew how to edit video as well as they do. The technical value of the production seems very good to me. I wonder what they use.

Out of curiosity: Am I misreading, or does this mean you tracked down and watched the video of this guy being burned alive? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that

I consider pictures of torture obscene, not pictures of sex. I'm not criticizing anyone, someone has to know what's going on-- I just don't want to see the details myself.

I would respectfully request people to include "Warning Graphic Violence" or the like in any posts where they have photos of brutality.

I completely agree. I understand that someone (e.g. CIA folk) needs to analyze these videos to glean strategic information, but why any random person would watch this stuff is beyond my ability to comprehend. I get Volando's point about watching the beginning to better understand how these people view themselves, but once the execution starts I'm out. I'm informed by reading that this guy was burned alive, I don't need to see his screaming face as the flames lick up his body.

And that fact that there's apparently a website called "Best Gore" just disgusts me, honestly.

My personal opinion is that these videos should be watched as widely as possible, and broadcast on the national news channels. It is all too easy these days to avoid the consequences of policies we advocate, and to sanitise the actions of those we condemn. Sure, you (not you personally) might read an article and say 'oh gosh, that's awfully rough', but until you've seen the molten flesh dripping off a young man's face it is much harder to feel the visceral disgust and fury these actions by ISIS should provoke in any civilized person.

Moral relativism is also far easier when you are describing events in the abstract. Watch a caged young man burn to death screaming in agony, and then try to argue that is the equivalent of accidentally (or even carelessly) killing civilians in a bombing campaign. It is an unfortunate fact of war that there are collateral casualties, and I don't believe anyone who operates a drone, or flies an aircraft, or even mans long range artillery, takes any satisfaction in the death of innocents. To suggest it is the same as the sadistic cruelty perpetrated by the Jihadis is plain ignorant, and that kind of equivocal response has no place in the fight against extremism. You have to take a side.

[Seamus]

(02-04-2015 12:18 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 11:48 AM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:31 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 07:39 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 04:01 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

** On an unrelated note, I really really wish I knew how to edit video as well as they do. The technical value of the production seems very good to me. I wonder what they use.

Out of curiosity: Am I misreading, or does this mean you tracked down and watched the video of this guy being burned alive? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that

I consider pictures of torture obscene, not pictures of sex. I'm not criticizing anyone, someone has to know what's going on-- I just don't want to see the details myself.

I would respectfully request people to include "Warning Graphic Violence" or the like in any posts where they have photos of brutality.

I completely agree. I understand that someone (e.g. CIA folk) needs to analyze these videos to glean strategic information, but why any random person would watch this stuff is beyond my ability to comprehend. I get Volando's point about watching the beginning to better understand how these people view themselves, but once the execution starts I'm out. I'm informed by reading that this guy was burned alive, I don't need to see his screaming face as the flames lick up his body.

And that fact that there's apparently a website called "Best Gore" just disgusts me, honestly.

My personal opinion is that these videos should be watched as widely as possible, and broadcast on the national news channels. It is all too easy these days to avoid the consequences of policies we advocate, and to sanitise the actions of those we condemn. Sure, you (not you personally) might read an article and say 'oh gosh, that's awfully rough', but until you've seen the molten flesh dripping of a young man's face it is much harder to feel the visceral disgust and fury these actions by ISIS should provoke in any civilized person.

Moral relativism is also far easier when you are describing events in the abstract. Watch a caged young man burn to death screaming in agony, and then try to argue that is the equivalent of accidentally (or even carelessly) killing civilians in a bombing campaign. It is an unfortunate fact of war that there are collateral casualties, and I don't believe anyone who operates a drone, or flies an aircraft, or even mans long range artillery, takes any satisfaction in the death of innocents. To suggest it is the same as the sadistic cruelty perpetrated by the Jihadis is plain ignorant, and that kind of equivocal response has no place in the fight against extremism. You have to take a side.

Good post H1N1, that's a valid position and the one reason beyond strategic intelligence I could think of to justify watching this video. I was operating under the assumption that people were already sufficiently shocked just by knowing this happened. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, just reading the article and seeing a still of the pilot in the cage was enough to leave me shaking with rage all day yesterday. Seeing the video would serve no purpose for me.

My issue is more the thought that there are people kicking back in front of their laptops dispassionately watching this thing and discussing editing techniques (not calling you out Volando, but your comment got me thinking). This man suffered a horrible death, may God rest his soul, and the thought that this is getting posted on "Best Gore" style sites for voyeuristic purposes sickens me. You're thinking of people who need to be emotionally traumatized by these videos, I'm thinking of people who've lost the capacity to be.

That's a whole other discussion though, so I won't derail the thread

[TheWastelander]

(02-04-2015 12:37 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 12:18 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 11:48 AM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:31 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 07:39 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

Out of curiosity: Am I misreading, or does this mean you tracked down and watched the video of this guy being burned alive? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that

I consider pictures of torture obscene, not pictures of sex. I'm not criticizing anyone, someone has to know what's going on-- I just don't want to see the details myself.

I would respectfully request people to include "Warning Graphic Violence" or the like in any posts where they have photos of brutality.

I completely agree. I understand that someone (e.g. CIA folk) needs to analyze these videos to glean strategic information, but why any random person would watch this stuff is beyond my ability to comprehend. I get Volando's point about watching the beginning to better understand how these people view themselves, but once the execution starts I'm out. I'm informed by reading that this guy was burned alive, I don't need to see his screaming face as the flames lick up his body.

And that fact that there's apparently a website called "Best Gore" just disgusts me, honestly.

My personal opinion is that these videos should be watched as widely as possible, and broadcast on the national news channels. It is all too easy these days to avoid the consequences of policies we advocate, and to sanitise the actions of those we condemn. Sure, you (not you personally) might read an article and say 'oh gosh, that's awfully rough', but until you've seen the molten flesh dripping of a young man's face it is much harder to feel the visceral disgust and fury these actions by ISIS should provoke in any civilized person.

Moral relativism is also far easier when you are describing events in the abstract. Watch a caged young man burn to death screaming in agony, and then try to argue that is the equivalent of accidentally (or even carelessly) killing civilians in a bombing campaign. It is an unfortunate fact of war that there are collateral casualties, and I don't believe anyone who operates a drone, or flies an aircraft, or even mans long range artillery, takes any satisfaction in the death of innocents. To suggest it is the same as the sadistic cruelty perpetrated by the Jihadis is plain ignorant, and that kind of equivocal response has no place in the fight against extremism. You have to take a side.

Good post H1N1, that's a valid position and the one reason beyond strategic intelligence I could think of to justify watching this video. I was operating under the assumption that people were already sufficiently shocked just by knowing this happened. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, just reading the article and seeing a still of the pilot in the cage was enough to leave me shaking with rage all day yesterday. Seeing the video would serve no purpose for me.

My issue is more the thought that there are people kicking back in front of their laptops dispassionately watching this thing and discussing editing techniques (not calling you out Volando, but your comment got me thinking). This man suffered a horrible death, may God rest his soul, and the thought that this is getting posted on "Best Gore" style sites for voyeuristic purposes sickens me. I sure as hell wouldn't want people streaming my last agonized moments and discussing them on social media if this were me.

I do think it's pretty odd to collect these videos. I watch them once and that's it, because you never forget them. I still remember all the details from Nick Berg's beheading video and I saw that over a decade ago. They make you realize that you're dealing with people who are almost alien in their beliefs and outlooks. Their attitude is medieval and it really is like taking a glimpse into the past.

As a spoiled westerner living in a culture where nihilism, consumerism and a host of other spiritual maladies partially brought on by an excess of comfort and security are commonplace it's simply hard to imagine ever cutting off someone's head off, let alone doing it to a helpless person. I imagine if I had been been born in the Middle Ages I probably would have a different opinion about that.

They are without compassion or mercy and wholly dedicated to their goal of establishing a caliphate by any means necessary and at any cost. I could almost find that admirable in a way if killing and/or subjugating us wasn't on their agenda and they weren't such sick fucks.

Meanwhile the west does not have the political will to wipe them out, which is why it's so funny to me that people rag on America and NATO. Do they think the Roman Empire would've put up with this sort of thing? The USSR? The German Empire? The Third Reich? The British Empire? Just about every empire throughout history would've thoroughly slaughtered them and anyone they suspected might ally with them. Yet here we are, getting chastised about how we're as bad as they are, which is untrue and even pointless in the scheme of things. America and Europe fight with one hand tied behind their back despite having the power to utterly annihilate this bunch of barbaric third world assholes because we would think it morally wrong to do so due to the amount of innocent people that'd be killed in the process.

That a distinctly western point of view. It is an exceptional view not shared by any other civilization I can think of and I can't help but laugh at people who believe we're evil or that we're the bad guys or as bad as they are. Yeah, we do bad things from time to time. We're not perfect. But it's our goodness that keeps us from being the most evil, bloodthirsty, frightening motherfuckers to ever exist on this planet. We got a glimpse of what can happen when we let the reins slip in the early 20th century and it wasn't pretty.

[Baldwin81]

Libertarians are the right-wing's Trotskyists and ISIS is a great example of the Libertarian movement's cognitive dissonance. Their responses essentially come down to this: "If we hadn't gone into the Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess in the Middle East."

^ Great guys, but we did. So then what?

It's really no different than the Trots criticizing Stalin. Stalin didn't have the right kind of Socialism, but he was in charge. Again, what about it?

It's all hindsight 20/20 from the comfort of their own (mostly) middle, upper-middle, and upper-class backgrounds well away from the action. Meanwhile, back on planet earth the US does dirt all around the world for its own (right or wrong) aims... just like our daddy did... back in Britain.

Trotskyists and Libertarians base their opinions or good or bad, right and wrong, (THE CONSTITUTION!!) while the US is only interested in the perceived consequences. While there are many examples of the US miscalculating consequences, we're only holding back now because when we go in - really fucking go in on ISIS - do you think there's going to be any of them will be left standing?

We have the luxury of waiting until we're poked in the proverbial eye - and then waiting some more - because we can wreck house when the time comes.

Same thing with Putin, he's chosen the military option in Ukraine. He knows the consequences and, though it will take time, we know Don Vladimir's days are numbered when you starve the Russian state of economic opportunities.

There are only consequences. I used to be all about that Libertarian stuff until you spend some time in DC. You think the Commander in Chief gives orders to the military? You think military gives orders to contractors? Ha, do me a favor.

No right, no wrong. No good, no bad. Only consequences...

[Grange]

(02-04-2015 01:09 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

Libertarians are the right-wing's Trotskyists and ISIS is a great example of the Libertarian movement's cognitive dissonance. Their responses essentially come down to this: "If we hadn't gone into the Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess in the Middle East."

^ Great guys, but we did. So then what?

It's really no different than the Trots criticizing Stalin. Stalin didn't have the right kind of Socialism, but he was in charge. Again, what about it?

It's all hindsight 20/20 from the comfort of their own (mostly) middle, upper-middle, and upper-class backgrounds well away from the action. Meanwhile, back on planet earth the US does dirt all around the world for its own (right or wrong) aims... just like our daddy did... back in Britain.

Trotskyists and Libertarians base their opinions or good or bad, right and wrong, (THE CONSTITUTION!!) while the US is only interested in the perceived consequences. While there are many examples of the US miscalculating consequences, we're only holding back now because when we go in - really fucking go in on ISIS - do you think there's going to be any of them will be left standing?

We have the luxury of waiting until we're poked in the proverbial eye - and then waiting some more - because we can wreck house when the time comes.

Same thing with Putin, he's chosen the military option in Ukraine. He knows the consequences and, though it will take time, we know Don Vladimir's days are numbered when you starve the Russian state of economic opportunities.

There are only consequences. I used to be all about that Libertarian stuff until you spend some time in DC. You think the Commander in Chief gives orders to the military? You think military gives orders to contractors? Ha, do me a favor.

No right, no wrong. No good, no bad. Only consequences...

You can find plenty of libertarians saying the US shouldn't get involved in the Middle East again not because of right and wrong but because it's foolish. It's a quagmire. What can the US possibly do that will make anyone other than the military industrial complex better off?

The criticism that libertarians aren't realistic is common but I can hardly swallow it. It's everybody else that's talking about taking the gloves off to "win" that's out of touch with reality.