Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote:

Coffee wrote: Number of terrorist attacks in the past week committed in the name of Judaism or Christianity:  Zero.

I assume we're leaving out drone strikes, doors kicked in in some Afghanistan village and whatever we might be doing at our 1,000+ foreign military bases that we will never know about, right?

Two points:
1. "Terrorism" excludes government action, by definition. Governments don't have to use terror, because they can just use their official armed forces. And it's obviously MUCH better to be killed or maimed by official armed forces than by terrorists!
2. The US government isn't fighting in the name of any religion. Again, it's much better to be killed or maimed for secular geopolitical reasons than for religious ones!

So our victims should be happy that we aren't terrorists or religious fanatics!

"As you've indicated, they're more than happy to kill each other. Why get in the way and give them a juicy external target when they seem to be already in the middle of destroying their own societies?"

Because they are at least equally as happy in killing us as well.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coffee wrote: Why? Do drone strikes cause more collateral damage than carpet bombing we did in Vietnam?

No. But we stopped carpet bombing in Vietnam. If we resumed it with drones I would definitely expect Vietnamese terrorism.

Coffee wrote: Even with conventional rockets, when terrorists hide behind schools and hospitals, do you think counter strikes at those targets create less collateral damage than drones?

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If your brother is blown up in a drone strike, are you going to say to yourself, "Well, at least those Americans spent billions of dollars developing precision-guided munitions, or else my sister and mother might have gotten it too!" ?

Dead is dead. Angry about it is angry about it.

Muslims don't have a monopoly on the use of terrorism.

Coffee mentioned a few non-Muslim nations that don't engage in terrorism, but terrorism has broad appeal when your opponent is much stronger than you.

The Native Americans' methods of resisting anglo expansion into their lands looked a lot like terrorism (as did some of the U.S. methods of retaliating, including what were essentially biological attacks).

To cite more recent examples, wouldn't it be correct to describe Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Hitler as terrorists?  They used the arbitrary infliction of violence on civilians as a means of instilling a sense of fear in the populace.  That's terrorism right?

Harry Truman was the subject of two assassination attempts.  The first was through a letter bomb sent in 1947 by a group of radical zionists (isn't it ironic that Truman would be the subject of an assassination attempt by people who supported the creation of an independent state of Israel?).

The second assassination attempt on Truman was by a group of Puerto Rican nationalists who were unhappy with U.S. policy toward Puerto Rico (sort of like the 9/11 hijackers were unhappy with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East).

Cuba has long been considered a state-sponsor of terrorism.  The Castro regime is far from an Islamic state.

The Irish Republican Army was involved in many incidents that were clearly acts of terrorism.

The FARC in Colombia is a terrorist organization (or a group of freedom fighters, depending on your perspective).

How about the MRTA in Peru (remember the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage episode?).

While Nicaragua may not be smuggling bombs across our borders, they are apparently acting as hosts for a Hezbollah training camp, sort of like Afghanistan did for the Taliban in the 1990s.

Panamanian terrorists?  Meet the Sovereign Panama Front:

The Sovereign Panama Front (FPS) is a nationalist organization committed to ending foreign intervention, mainly that of the U.S., in Panama. The group reportedly claimed responsibility for a September 1992 bombing of three government buildings in Panama City, and a group into which the FPS later assimilated was implicated in attacks during Panama Canal transfer ceremonies in December 1999. Otherwise, the FPS and its leadership have advocated organized resistance to foreign military presence in Panama through picketing and demonstrations.

The leader of the FPS was a physician and active member in Panamanian politics named Jorge Gamboa Arosemena. Little is known about the group's founding, though similar nationalist groups formed in the wake of the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama in Operation Just Cause, which deposed President Manuel Noriega and led to hundreds of Panamanian military and civilian deaths and thousands of displaced citizens.

On the night of 18 September 1992, three bombs exploded in Panama City at the buildings of the Electoral Tribunal, the Foreign Ministry, and an office of the Tocumen International Airport. The attacks injured two people, and two different groups -- the Sovereign Panama Front and the Esteban Huertas Patriotic Front -- reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, though the claims could not be verified. A separate organization called M-20 (Movement of the 20th of December, referring to the date of the U.S. invasion) did not claim involvement but had been responsible for similar terrorist attacks.

I agree that there haven't been any Vietnamese-led hijackings of U.S. planes, but I'll bet if you had asked the French government in the 1950s about the #1 foreign terrorist threat, they might have said that it was Vietnamese nationalist groups.

I think that part of the reason the U.S. hasn't struggled with Vietnamese terrorism is that the U.S. left Vietnam after the war.

While we're in that part of the world, though, isn't North Korea considered a state sponsor of terrorism?  They're not Muslims (not even close).

I agree that there are a lot of Islamic terrorists in the world, but there are also a lot of non-Islamic terrorists as well.

***

The U.S. has a knack for seeing its shady foreign friends turn into enemies, which then requires lavish spending to get rid of them.  Consider the following U.S. sponsored individuals who did the dirty work of U.S. foreign policy, but who later required liquidation after they turned hostile toward the U.S.:

Manuel Noriega
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden

Rather than going to the massive trouble of getting rid of people like this, why not just avoid creating them in the first place?

From the BBC today:

"Suspected Islamist gunmen have attacked a college in north-eastern Nigeria, killing up to 50 students.
The students were shot dead as they slept in their dormitory at the College of Agriculture in Yobe state."

When was the last droning of Nigerians ? I don't remember. Are these guys "defending their homeland" or slaughtering in the name of Allah? You decide.

MT: Really?  You can't see the difference between targeting a military commander or military installation vs. targeting children in a pizzeria?  To you, they're morally equivalent?

Coffee wrote: MT: Really?  You can't see the difference between targeting a military commander or military installation vs. targeting children in a pizzeria?

Didn't most of the non-Islamic terrorists MT mentioned target civilians? Like FARC, The IRA, and heck, the Tamil Tigers, for that matter.

Terrorism is a strategy. You don't use it when you have better options.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coffee wrote: MT: Really?  You can't see the difference between targeting a military commander or military installation vs. targeting children in a pizzeria?

Didn't most of the non-Islamic terrorists MT mentioned target civilians? Like FARC, The IRA, and heck, the Tamil Tigers, for that matter.

Terrorism is a strategy. You don't use it when you have better options.

It's not just a military tactic.

Ter·ror·ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Nowhere in this definition (dictionary.com) does it limit "terrorism" to a military tactic.

That definition easily includes many acts of government. I would say that our drone strikes easily result in "the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization". And every invasion ever has been "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes".

You can say anything "results" in anything.  That's not the point of drone strikes.  The point of drone strikes is to employ targeted assassinations.  The point of terrorism is to kill innocents that leads to political objectives.

From Al-Jazeera, no less:

"The seismic rise of Islamist terrorist groups, like al-Shabab, starting in the 1980s and 1990s has had a snowball effect on the lethality of religious-oriented terrorist groups. Available empirical data shows that between 1968 and 2005, 94 percent of all terrorist attacks, and 87 percent of all casualties caused by religious-oriented groups, were perpetrated by Islamist groups.

...

"... An ideology that is embedded in radical Salafism and their adherents are purportedly influenced by the Quranic phrase: "Anyone who is not governed by what Allah has revealed is among the transgressors." Group members view it as their necessary duty and goal to engage in a violent struggle against the "enemies of Islam", both at home and abroad. Its members see the overthrow of secular government as justified since their rulers are viewed as accepting or leaning towards the ways of Islam's enemies.

...

"Al-Shabab's Westgate attack in Kenya should be understood in the light of the blood-soaked global jihadist campaign of the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation - a rather loose association of radical Salafist groups operating in many countries around the world that revere foundational members such as Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the late Jordanian/Palestinian figure Abdullah Azzam and led by a transnational coterie of veterans of Islamist struggles around the world.

Al-Qaeda's agenda is ideological, religious and political in nature, including (a) unifying the Islamic world under a puritanical interpretation of Sunni Islam, the rejection of both secular rule and the institution of the nation-state in the Muslim world leading to the overthrow of all existing Muslim countries and the integration of all Muslim societies into a Caliphate, the liberation of Muslim territories from foreign occupation, and the use of holy war (lesser jihad) to bind Muslims together and lead them through a "clash of civilization" that will rid the Muslim world of non-Muslim cultural and political influence."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 27603.html

To sum it up: Drones or no drones: We are at war.  The war extends beyond our borders, but will be coming to a shopping mall near you, soon.  The Libertarian position is in denial of that fact, despite that our enemies freely admit it.

If Islam is the existential threat you believe it to be, coming to a mall near me, then why stop at drone strikes? Why not nuke them all and be done with it? If I genuinely believed what you believe I think I would be in favor of that.

notsheigetz wrote: If Islam is the existential threat you believe it to be, coming to a mall near me, then why stop at drone strikes? Why not nuke them all and be done with it? If I genuinely believed what you believe I think I would be in favor of that.

So would I. I'm serious. If their very existence was such a threat, let's nuke Mecca, nuke Tehran, just wipe out the entire region and follow up with an overwhelming conventional invasion to take out the survivors. Unlike the previous existential threat posed by Soviet Union--who we couldn't directly attack without fear of devastating retaliation--the Middle east is mostly made up of primitive economic basketcases with rusting military hardware that would pose no real threat to our military juggernaut if we stopped caring about minimizing collateral damage.

Coffee wrote: 94 percent of all terrorist attacks, and 87 percent of all casualties caused by religious-oriented groups, were perpetrated by Islamist groups.

+1

Denial, it is what is for dinner.

And no one is suggesting nuking them.  But if you are in denial about the problem, you sure as hell have no prayer dealing with it appropriately. 

notsheigetz wrote: ...
Why not nuke them all and be done with it?
...

Too many of them live here.

I'm sorry Coffee, but your arguments are extremely poor and reek of bias.

All I'm hearing is "They."  Who is "they?"  You go on to site a list of attacks, which are horrific, and statistics that show that the majority of religious based terrorism is committed by Muslims.  Nobody is arguing against your position.  You're shouting into a vacuum and taking the lack of a response as validation of your position.  You're absolutely right on THIS ONE POINT. 

However, where you fail miserably is when you then make the jump "if most religious terrorists are Muslim, and most Muslims are religious....then most Muslims are terrorists!"  I'm being generous since your arguments don't even allow for there being a sizable minority of peaceful Muslims, or at least I've not seen you express that.  The truth is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful or your list would be a 1000 feet long.  It would have to be, there are 1.6 billion world wide.  If even 10% seriously wanted to commit acts of terror against the West, do you honestly think we'd have had anywhere near the success at avoiding attacks we've had the last 10 years?  It's a simple numbers game.

notsheigetz wrote: If Islam is the existential threat you believe it to be, coming to a mall near me, then why stop at drone strikes? Why not nuke them all and be done with it? If I genuinely believed what you believe I think I would be in favor of that.

No, not Islam. 
Islamism. There is a difference. 
It scares me that you would be willing to unleash nuclear bombs because terrorists blew up some of our shopping malls?  Damn... you're more of a hardliner than I am!!

Drones employ a tactic of targeted assassinations. They can be employed with minor blow-back (compared to nukes) to target our enemies.  The former (nukes) indiscriminately destroys entire peoples and cultures.  I'm not opposed to that if it's an absolute last resort clash of civilizations/apocalyptic scenario (I.E.  The Japanese during WWII).  But most Muslims are not Islamists. At least not at this point in history.

Simonjester wrote: what vexes me the most is that we insist on fighting an asymmetrical conflict with conventional warfare... no matter how spiffy and advanced drones are, it is still a conventional response, everything we do is conventional warfare thinking, embargoes, sanctions drone strikes, resolutions, its all grade school checkers gamesmanship when we should be playing 3D chess...

the conservatives give the radical Alinsky types so much credit for revolutionary cultural warfare here in the US and how it is being used against our American values... yet we cant come up with anything better than "bomb the crap out of them" when we face a 6th century culture with values that say kill infidel's??

I don't necessarily disagree with your point here.  Although it is hard to say exactly how we're fighting this war, as the CIA's tactics aren't always broadcast on the front page of the Times.  (And when they are, it has a tendency to kill the effectiveness of the technique).  You would think just the advent of photoshop would work wonders?

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm sorry Coffee, but your arguments are extremely poor and reek of bias.

All I'm hearing is "They."  Who is "they?"  You go on to site a list of attacks, which are horrific, and statistics that show that the majority of religious based terrorism is committed by Muslims.  Nobody is arguing against your position.  You're shouting into a vacuum and taking the lack of a response as validation of your position.  You're absolutely right on THIS ONE POINT. 

You're not making any sense.  One one hand, you claim not to know who "they" is... and then you follow it up with, "You're absolutely right on THIS ONE POINT."

"Okay."

My arguments "reek of bias"?  What arguments don't "reek of bias"?  That's the whole point of an argument... You take a position and I take a position.  Positions are biased by their nature.

As for my argument being poor?  Really? This thread has gone on for seven pages.  Pointed Stick has immensely enjoyed himself, and he's no idiot.  He may not agree with me, but he's sure enjoying himself.  Other posters have supported my position.  I'm sure if my argument was really as poor as you say it is, it wouldn't have elicited such response. 

RuralEngineer wrote: However, where you fail miserably is when you then make the jump "if most religious terrorists are Muslim, and most Muslims are religious....then most Muslims are terrorists!"  I'm being generous since your arguments don't even allow for there being a sizable minority of peaceful Muslims, or at least I've not seen you express that.  The truth is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful or your list would be a 1000 feet long.  It would have to be, there are 1.6 billion world wide.  If even 10% seriously wanted to commit acts of terror against the West, do you honestly think we'd have had anywhere near the success at avoiding attacks we've had the last 10 years?  It's a simple numbers game.

Now you're trying to put arguments into my mouth.  Who cares if most Muslims are peaceful?  Those aren't the one's shooting at us. 

What difference does it make (cue Hillary Clinton) what percentage is it?  Who cares if it's only 1%?? Or .001% of the wider Islamic community?  Islamists are still responsible for more barbarism than any other group.  They are an existential threat and it is only a matter of time (based our on half-assed response to even recognizing that we're at war with these people) before even worse bad things happen on our soil.

Coffee,

What role do you think that Israel has in either stoking tensions that manifest in acts of terrorism OR in helping the world deal more effectively with Islamic extremism?

I'm more interested in the answer to the second part of the question than the first, but I am including the first because some acts of terrorism are justified as acts of retaliation for something Israel has done.

I'm not speaking ill of Israel.  I just think that that topic has to be part of any discussion of Islamic extremism.  Israel is clearly an oasis of productivity and progress in a pretty backward part of the world.

I really don't know the answers to these questions, but killing terrorists one at a time seems as doomed to fail as killing ants one at a time.

I don't mean to sound like a hippy here, but sometimes a problem involving violence simply can't be solved through more violence, no matter how good it feels to blow up more of their shit than they blow up of ours.

MediumTex wrote: because some acts of terrorism are justified as acts of retaliation for something Israel has done.

Really?  In your mind, when is it justified to target innocent women and children?

Coffee wrote:

MediumTex wrote: because some acts of terrorism are justified as acts of retaliation for something Israel has done.

Really?  In your mind, when is it justified to target innocent women and children?

I think he meant justified vocally by the perpetrators.

To your larger question: Israel can teach us tactics for fighting terrorism.  But tactics alone doesn't win wars. 

I agree with most of your post, regarding killing ants.

At it's core, we're fighting an ideology (Islamism).  I'm not clear how you fight an ideology, but my guess is that a good start would be to put an end to the Saudi funding of the Madrassas all over the middle east.  They are Islamism factories.  I figure that if you cut the supply lines to the ideology, it will go a long way toward defeating the ideology.

Would that be enough? Probably not.  We'd need to find someway to infiltrate the radical Mosques and persuade the "influencers."

We defeated Communism in Romania once Ceausescu allowed the Dallas soap opera to be broadcast in their country.  Exposure to our culture brought down Communism, there. 

Communism defeated itself, once exposed to sunlight.

Unfortunately, exposure to our culture doesn't seem to work that way with Islamism.  They don't want what we have.  They want to be stuck in the 6th century.

We defeated Nazism through military force.  We crushed them militarily and it became taboo to be associated with Nazism.  But there was probably something else that made Nazism (post WWII) unpopular in Germany.  If you can figure out what that was, you'll probably be closer to finding an answer to combating Islamism.

dualstow wrote:

Coffee wrote:

MediumTex wrote: because some acts of terrorism are justified as acts of retaliation for something Israel has done.

Really?  In your mind, when is it justified to target innocent women and children?

I think he meant justified vocally by the perpetrators.

Huh?

Coffee wrote:

dualstow wrote:

Coffee wrote: Really?  In your mind, when is it justified to target innocent women and children?

I think he meant justified vocally by the perpetrators.

Huh?

He's not saying they are morally justifiable, he's saying these are the justifications given and not affirming that they are valid.

Kshartle wrote:

Coffee wrote:

dualstow wrote: I think he meant justified vocally by the perpetrators.

Huh?

He's not saying they are morally justifiable, he's saying these are the justifications given and not affirming that they are valid.

Yes.

I'm not agreeing with the terrorists' rationale, I'm just noting what their stated rationale is in some cases.

Gotcha.  If that's the case, then I misunderstood his post.

Despite what you hear in the media, I don't see Israel as being central to conflict in the Middle East.  It is a peripheral issue that is used by all players as a scape goat and a distraction.

The problem with Israel is that the typical Muslim does not see Israel as having a right to exist.  So, any secondary issues will never be put to bed until the underlying issue is resolved. 

For example: We can both argue whether I have a right to park my Camaro on blocks in the street.  But if you don't first accept that I have a right to live in the neighborhood, the issue of where I park my Camaro is irrelevant in the larger scale of things.