[quote]rainjack wrote:
Citizens are “they”. Inhabitants are “they”. Terrorists are part of “they”, but not all of it.
This is quite elementary logic. I have no idea why it is so confusing to you. I will leave it to you to actually read what I have already written about my stance, instead of wasting my time explaining my position for the umpteenth time. [/quote]
I think backing off is indeed the wisest move you could have at this point. By now, you probably realized the inherent flaw of your black or white perception of the issue - if not the world.
[quote]orion wrote:
What does matter is why even someone like you perceives terrorism as such a threat.
Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are practically zero, there are hundreds of thousands lives that could be saved by the money you throw after fighting terrorism.[/quote]
This is the mentality that I will never understand.
It has to happen to you before it really matters? I lost a shit pile of money in a market that was very much affected by 9/11.
I would rather fight terrorism as we do now, rather than shrug my shoulders and say, “meh, it doesn’t affect me, so why should I care?”
Our nation was attacked. Therefore all of us was attacked as well. I don’t expect you to understand - but that is how it is.
I want the sorry motherfuckers to pay for what they did. They haven’t paid a dime yet.
What is wrong with that? Money? It costs you nothing, so what do you care? The odds of me getting attacked by a terrorist are probably a fraction of you actually having to pay for our actions.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Citizens are “they”. Inhabitants are “they”. Terrorists are part of “they”, but not all of it.
This is quite elementary logic. I have no idea why it is so confusing to you. I will leave it to you to actually read what I have already written about my stance, instead of wasting my time explaining my position for the umpteenth time.
I think backing off is indeed the wisest move you could have at this point. By now, you probably realized the inherent flaw of your black or white perception of the issue - if not the world.
Smile. The important thing is to participate.[/quote]
I am not backing off. I am just not inclined to run errands for you.
You need to go sit with vroom if you want someone to discuss the beauty that is gray.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
What does matter is why even someone like you perceives terrorism as such a threat.
Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are practically zero, there are hundreds of thousands lives that could be saved by the money you throw after fighting terrorism.
This is the mentality that I will never understand.
It has to happen to you before it really matters? I lost a shit pile of money in a market that was very much affected by 9/11.
I would rather fight terrorism as we do now, rather than shrug my shoulders and say, “meh, it doesn’t affect me, so why should I care?”
Our nation was attacked. Therefore all of us was attacked as well. I don’t expect you to understand - but that is how it is.
I want the sorry motherfuckers to pay for what they did. They haven’t paid a dime yet.
What is wrong with that? Money? It costs you nothing, so what do you care? The odds of me getting attacked by a terrorist are probably a fraction of you actually having to pay for our actions.
[/quote]
The people that attacked you are dead. They died in the attack.
A lot of al Quaedas heads are dead. Finish Bin Laden and be done with it.
What have Iraq and Iran to do with this? How is meddliing in their affairs making the US more safe or retaliate for terrorism?
You are spending 500 billion and will spend at last another trillion in Iraq because Saudis financed by Saudis and harbored by Afghans attacked in New York.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are spending 500 billion and will spend at last another trillion in Iraq because Saudis financed by Saudis and harbored by Afghans attacked in New York.
How does that make sense?
[/quote]
It’s not your money. Why do you care?
We have killed thousands of terrorists in Iraq. We have effectively beheaded the al qaeda - in Iraq. Terrorists bent on destroying the great satan are having to make a side trip - to Iraq.
It beats sitting on our ass and letting them attack us on our soil.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
So, pointing out excess dehumanization, in my own opinion, that is occurring and arguing against the “wipe them all out” type of talk…
Who is espousing this view here?
[/quote]
Rainjack, I know you’ve been away a while, but from time to time we have people talking in extreme terms and/or equating civilians with terrorists.
Do I have to be “calling someone out” every time I post about an issue I’ve seen?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s not your money. Why do you care? [/quote]
It’s pure speculation, but I’m guessing that had you not invaded Iraq, Britain and Spain would have not been attacked.
Your actions are fueling extremist factions around the world. I’m guessing Orion isn’t too fond of living in a world where extremism gains even more ground.
For my part, I don’t like your soldiers shooting unarmed civilians, raping little girls, and bombing whole villages.
There was virtually no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. More importantly, Ba’athists and Sadrists aren’t terrorists, yet, the majority of people shooting at you over there are from those two factions.
Wow, I think you are heading a bit “out there” with this post Thunder…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I would add that the “dehumanization” angle is more of a “pop theory” than anything quite reliable as real criticism. After all, war is full of hard, difficult choices, and “total war” advocates believe that the trade-off of a harsher war actually saves lives in the long run.
[/quote]
People are always willing to justify trade-offs during a period of war. I certainly can’t argue with that. Dehumanizing the enemy, which certainly isn’t pop theory, makes it much easier to toss away principles and morality. Other posters have already discussed as much.
Again, it’s not a trendy term, or some new fangled theory, it’s just a way to make it easier to hate the other side, or them.
What you are really talking about is the age old question of whether or not the ends justify the means. Seriously, it is that simple.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a humanizing process is required. I think, if you look closely at my own words, that there is some excessive dehumanization occurring (around these parts) and it is being used to equate innocent civilians with enemy terrorists so that civilians can be wiped out without guilt.
If you think it is appropriate to argue for that type of equation, then please, go ahead and do so.
War can be, is, and will continue to be an awful and hellish thing even without writing off entire populations of innocent people in the process. And yes, enemies who are fighting will look to any possible advantage in terms of inflicting damage on the enemy.
The above is simply laughable and has no basis in reality as far as I can see.
[quote]
Wage war to win and to break the back of your opponent. That doesn’t always mean “carpet bomb” - but it does mean teaching your enemy to fear you and to think twice about raising arms against you in the first place. “Dehumanization theory” is a trip down a familiar, dangerous road - and should be resigned to coffee house and never the war room.[/quote]
You are going way overboard on this one, perhaps because it is something that I have introduced to the discussion. Who says you should not fight to win? Who says you should not kill your enemies? By my use of the word “excessive” I imply that some level of dehumanization is apparently appropriate and constructive… or did you miss that?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
You are spending 500 billion and will spend at last another trillion in Iraq because Saudis financed by Saudis and harbored by Afghans attacked in New York.
How does that make sense?
It’s not your money. Why do you care?
We have killed thousands of terrorists in Iraq. We have effectively beheaded the al qaeda - in Iraq. Terrorists bent on destroying the great satan are having to make a side trip - to Iraq.
It beats sitting on our ass and letting them attack us on our soil.
[/quote]
This is my whole point-
How does it beat " sitting on our ass and letting them attack us on our soil. " ?
It costs more lives, it creates more terrorists, it costs more money.
In the end it is mindless actionism just to not feel helpless.
It is a gut reaction that enriches the establishment, not a sound political strategy.
It’s pure speculation, but I’m guessing that had you not invaded Iraq, Britain and Spain would have not been attacked.[/quote]
Why would Islamists care if we are in Iraq? According to your own theory, Islamists hated Saddam - so why would they care if we took him out? If what you say is right, Islamists were thanking their lucky stars that we took out “bitter enemy” Saddam - but they attacked Britain and Spain instead?
What happened in Iraq is not their business - they weren’t allies of Saddam. So why would terrorists be angry at Britain and Spain for attacking Iraq when terrorists had nothing to do with “secular” Iraq?
That can’t make sense, can it?
Extremists were already “fueled” - any way of thinking that stands in the way of Sharia is fuel enough. If the US sat still and did nothing, it wouldn’t matter - extremists were in full swing and continue to be. Now, at least, we have to some degree dictated the battlefield.
For everyone else’s part, no one likes any of that either - you think you are unique because you have a basic interest in human decency? Your pathetic stereotypes make for a nice cocoon, Lixy - but non-pacifists no more want raping and civilian deaths than you.
I realize your ideological lines have been drawn and such lazy distinctions as “I am against rape, and proponents of the Iraq war are for it!” make you feel self-righteous, but that is absurd on its face, so such comments only expose your frivolous nature.
There were terror elements in Iraq, to be sure - and I don’t care what they are called or how much the game of “Gotcha!” is used to say “well, al Qaeda technically wasn’t there before you invaded”. We know there were terror elements in Iraq and had been for years - and with al-Qaeda showing up, that just helps put all the chickens in the pen.
People are always willing to justify trade-offs during a period of war. I certainly can’t argue with that. Dehumanizing the enemy, which certainly isn’t pop theory, makes it much easier to toss away principles and morality. Other posters have already discussed as much.[/quote]
The point being addressed is whether “total war” is an abandonment of “principles” or “morals”. My contention is that it is not, and in fact, is more in line with our principles and morals.
It is a trendy term because it is a sociological attempt at explaining that people might find a reason to take arms against one another - no big deal there - but is based on that phenomenon being used to manipulate people into an otherwise unjustified frame of mind. Read your own Wikipedia article - there is nothing novel in saying that humans can act savage toward one another when they otherwise would not outside of war. What the theory is about is the manipulation of people into “dehumanizing” to further an agenda.
Well, I think you misstate the degree of that chatter occurring - but part of the reality of a “war on terror” is that terrorists use their own civilians to beat their enemies, who are larger and better equipped.
A way to deal with that problem is to put civilians squarely on notice that they will feel the wrath of their complicity (at worst) or complacency (at best) if they do not take great pains to exorcise the terror elements that use them. At some point, such tactics cannot control how the war is fought - else we lose. Bring the war to the doorstep of those that give the terrorists sanctuary - even if they do so only indirectly - and raise the cost of waging war against you too high for them to bear.
Interesting that you say so, but offer no explanation as to why. Interesting, but not surprising.
Well, since I directly addressed Hedo, I was offering my own opinions on “dehumanization theory” straightaway, not comments you has particularly made. Since you hadn’t written much on it to begin with, opting to instead by being cryptic and non-committal, I dovetailed on some stuff Hedo wrote. Short answer: it wasn’t specific to anything you said.
I was actually soliciting Hedo’s comments on “dehumanization theory”, as he is very knowledgable in military theory, and not so much you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It’s not your money. Why do you care?
It’s pure speculation, but I’m guessing that had you not invaded Iraq, Britain and Spain would have not been attacked.
Your actions are fueling extremist factions around the world. I’m guessing Orion isn’t too fond of living in a world where extremism gains even more ground.[/quote]
Had Orion offered that argument - I probably would not have said what I said. But he focused on the cost.
My question still stands - why does anyone besides the US care how much we spend?
No one wants to see their military acting in such barbaric ways - especially raping little girls. I believe the offenders were caught and are being punished.
You make it sound as if “little girl raping” is a component of our basic training. it is not, and you cite exceptions rather than the rule.
Bombing villages is part of war, and innocents get shot. That is war.
[quote]We have killed thousands of terrorists in Iraq. We have effectively beheaded the al qaeda - in Iraq.
There was virtually no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. More importantly, Ba’athists and Sadrists aren’t terrorists, yet, the majority of people shooting at you over there are from those two factions.[/quote]
Then the strategy of drawing them in and killing them in their home turf - or close to it - has been a resounding success. Much easier to have them come to Iraq and die than to chase them all over the place.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why would Islamists care if we are in Iraq? According to your own theory, Islamists hated Saddam - so why would they care if we took him out? If what you say is right, Islamists were thanking their lucky stars that we took out “bitter enemy” Saddam - but they attacked Britain and Spain instead?
What happened in Iraq is not their business - they weren’t allies of Saddam. So why would terrorists be angry at Britain and Spain for attacking Iraq when terrorists had nothing to do with “secular” Iraq?[/quote]
First of all, I insisted that it was pure speculation.
I can judge by the way all the Arabs and Muslims were alienated, that many might have snapped to the other side because of that. I witnessed first hand surges of people getting radicalized around that time. It’s got nothing to do with Saddam. Fuck him. Nobody shed tears for him. But then came the permanent bases, bombings of hospitals, pictures of dead infants who were in their crib when a shell hit their building. Your media usulally don’t show the horrific pictured of the war, but in other places, it takes a central aspect. Were those who went to the dark side bound to do so regardless of the Iraq war? I have my doubts about the proportions, but I can say for certain that there wouldn’t have been that many.
Taking the terrorists at their word would be another way of realizing that the London and Madrid attacks were retaliation for their participation in Iraq. They made that point very clear in their statements.
By fueled, I meant that their movement was gaining momentum, drawing it’s power from your army’s murderous rampage.
Sure thing. But there wouldn’t be as many.
No sir. I just happen to notice that those horrors wouldn’t have happened if you had not gone to Iraq. It’s quite simple really.
Now, if you HAD to invade them because they represented a direct threat to you or to the sovereignty of your country, then you would have had no other choice. But as we all know, Iraq was not much of a threat to anyone.
You can bet your ass that there are terror elements everywhere in the world. In some countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, they’re hundreds of times more than what was in Iraq. There are probably terror elements in the majority of countries around the world. Plus, the existing handful was contained by Saddam - as opposed to encouraged by the Al Sauds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The point being addressed is whether “total war” is an abandonment of “principles” or “morals”. My contention is that it is not, and in fact, is more in line with our principles and morals.
[/quote]
We’d have to define total war. Is using nukes to turn the middle east into a “sea of glass” total war? Seriously, I just don’t know what this term would entail as you use it. Is there some limitation on soldiers with respect to firing on known enemy combatants?
It is not “trendy” because you say it is. The term has been around for a long time. You can discount all social theory on the planet if you wish, but it is not all trendy, though I’m sure some topics are.
[quote]
Well, since I directly addressed Hedo, I was offering my own opinions on “dehumanization theory” straightaway, not comments you has particularly made. Since you hadn’t written much on it to begin with, opting to instead by being cryptic and non-committal, I dovetailed on some stuff Hedo wrote. Short answer: it wasn’t specific to anything you said.
I was actually soliciting Hedo’s comments on “dehumanization theory”, as he is very knowledgable in military theory, and not so much you.[/quote]
LOL. I’ve written more and more about what I introduced to the thread every time someone has raised salient points. Is there something more I should be doing? Please, enough with the “you weren’t specific enough” crap. Ask a question, engage in a discussion, surely you are seeing that I am responding.
By the way, Hedo wrote the following which was quite illuminating and goes against your notion of “trendy” and so forth:
All combat is by it’s very nature dehumanizing in that it is very difficult to kill another man. You must fight for something in war, whether it be land, revenge or a way of life. You need to dehumanize the enemy to kill. You shoot a soldier not a man. You aim to destroy a tank not it’s occupants. The death of the man is a consequence.
Personally, I thought it provided a very simple synopsis of the concept.
Taking the terrorists at their word would be another way of realizing that the London and Madrid attacks were retaliation for their participation in Iraq. They made that point very clear in their statements.[/quote]
But once again - just because terrorists claim to be justified doesn’t mean we believe them. So what if they say “do this, and we will attack you”? Back to a conversation we had before - you are complicit in blackmail. Should every terrorist demand be honored in order to keep them from attacking us?
And yet these horrors occur in all sorts of places in the Muslim world - where is your outrage at this? Where are the never-ending posts about it?
You are awfully choosy about your outrage - I suspect that is because you are an ideological prisoner.
You continue to state it, hoping that someone will believe you. Everyone recognizes that Iraq was a threat - and there was a paper trail to prove it.
This is why people ridicule you, Lixy - you just keep writing the same stuff over and over, even when you have been proven wrong, hoping no one will remember. You have been shown the information - and your unwillingness to deviate from your ideological script shows your limits in every debate.
Surely, but each of those countries requires a different approach.
Again, with the “foolish consistency”. We can handle Iraq different from Pakistan and different from Saudi Arabia - and there is no problem with that. To repeat, we are under no obligation to treat every country that has terror elements the same way we treated Iraq - so stop using this an argument.
We’d have to define total war. Is using nukes to turn the middle east into a “sea of glass” total war? Seriously, I just don’t know what this term would entail as you use it. Is there some limitation on soldiers with respect to firing on known enemy combatants?[/quote]
Uh, you like Wikipedia and you know how to Google - knock yourself out.
Here, I’ll do the heavy lifting for you:
Vroom, there is no mystery here - I wanted Hedo’s comments, not yours. My discussion was an invitation to Hedo - I don’t owe you a conversation.
You said I mischaracterized your viewpoint - I merely replied that I was not responding to what you wrote at all, so I couldn’t have been mischaracterizing your viewpoint.
Got it?
[quote]By the way, Hedo wrote the following which was quite illuminating and goes against your notion of “trendy” and so forth:
All combat is by it’s very nature dehumanizing in that it is very difficult to kill another man. You must fight for something in war, whether it be land, revenge or a way of life. You need to dehumanize the enemy to kill. You shoot a soldier not a man. You aim to destroy a tank not it’s occupants. The death of the man is a consequence.
Personally, I thought it provided a very simple synopsis of the concept.[/quote]
Well, you make my point for me - Hedo has some very interesting things to say on the matter. That is why I - wait for it - solicited his comments on what I had said.
And, Hedo’s version of “dehumanization” is not anything I disagreed with - in fact, if you read my replies, I expressly noted that there exists an interesting phenomenon where humans can do things to other humans when they would never otherwise act that way in civilized society. It, to some degree, is natural and can be justfiable.
My criticism is that “dehumanization theory” suggests that the kind of dehumanization Hedo alluded to is never justified and is really a type of manipulation used by “the media”, etc. to get people on board with an otherwise unjustifed war (as they are all presumptively unjustified).
Big difference. I don’t dismiss “dehumanization” as a human phenomenon at all - every time you punch someone in the face, you have dehumanized them at least some. My comments were directed to the idea that “dehumanization” is an unnatural occurrence used by power elites to get people to support wars (proto-Marxist “false consciousness” garbage and so forth).
That was the jist of my original comments, again, directed at Hedo. If you have no interest in addressing those points, super simple solution - don’t reply to my post.