The all things Political Topic - When the sun Rises, the shadows must retreat Fleeing in fear from the Fires of dawn

[Gorth]

17 minutes ago, rjshae said:

It seems like every time the US gets involved in an extended war, mission creep becomes inevitable. We tried to do too much here as well, investing ourselves in the nation's women's issues, for example. I don't agree though that the money was completely wasted. With time, perhaps they will come around just like Vietnam did. We're almost certainly leaving the country in a better condition than we found it. If things fall apart, that's on the Taliban.

Maybe it's a painful phase a country just has to go through? As much as I dislike the Taliban and their (lack of) human values, they do have one thing in common with Mussolini's Fascist party in the 1920's... they are effective at stomping out corruption and organized crime (The Fascist party made mortal enemies of the Italian mafia by regularly decorating streetlights with dangling Mafiosi and their henchmen, summarily executed). The conservative part of Afghanistan actually appreciate the stability and lack of corruption in the areas the Taliban control, hence why it's at this point in time at least, a steep, uphill battle winning the hearts and minds of the rural Afghan population. The cesspool that is the established politicians were never going to be able to hang on to power. The corruption and inefficiency is simply too rampant. Every man for himself and his wallet.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

It seems like every time the US gets involved in an extended war, mission creep becomes inevitable. We tried to do too much here as well, investing ourselves in the nation's women's issues, for example. I don't agree though that the money was completely wasted. With time, perhaps they will come around just like Vietnam did. We're almost certainly leaving the country in a better condition than we found it. If things fall apart, that's on the Taliban.

I'd have to disagree about women's issues being mission creep, it (in the context of Taliban extremism) was one of the more fundamental reasons given for intervention, behind terrorism. Whether it was practically attainable... look for an easier question to answer, because that one's hard. But if you aren't going to at least try there's not even the pretense of actual nation building going on and the blame for any collapse on western withdrawal shifts more towards nation building having not even been tried instead of having failed.

If you wanted to show progress to people to justify continuation one of those measures is women's rights; and it's at least in theory one of the easiest to show progress in too. Just show girls actually going to school: massive improvement. That's also of course one of the things that c/would, longer term, alter the culture to a more receptive one to other western values that would make any further interventions unnecessary, and it is of course a worthy goal in its own right- if your goal is nation building you want 50% of your population to not be uneducated chattel. But that's also a super long term project- as below way more than even 20 years- as you really need a generational shift to educated parents who want all their children to be too.

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

there is no fundamental difference in nation building efforts 'tween so-called advanced nations and afghanistan save for cost to modernize.

Yes there is, unless we're going to go to extremes in terms of defining cost and what a 'fundamental' difference is.

Just for one Germany and Japan already had the vast majority- practically all- of their population educated, with education being culturally valued. In contrast Afghanistan has the vast majority of its population uneducated, and a culture that (largely) does not value education (except, to an extent Koranic studies). That's a monumental difference, and one that can only be changed gradually, on a generational level.

Give the Japanese and Germans time and they could have rebuilt their country to a modern level, themselves, with all the teachers, engineers, factories etc supplied domestically- that's what the Marshall Plan less Soviets did, after all. Way easier of course with more outside help, but it's not necessary.

You can't throw money at Afghans and have them suddenly educated to German or Japanese (or Bosnian, or Soviet) level though. You need trained teachers who can speak the language(s). You need parents who care and want their children educated. You need a societal structure that values knowledge. You need religious types who don't think science is a tool of shaitan. Or you need a strong state that believes education strengthens their control.

Educating their populations and industrialising took the soviets and chinese ~40 years, and that with totalitarianism and a lot of excess baggage. But if you want imposed nation building in Afghanistan that is the reference time frame required, not the ~10 years for Germany and Japan post WW2; and that 40 years is a, hmm, 'best case' scenario for the Afghans where there is a strong national government.

Bosnia is also a poor example of nation building, since it's not really 'nation' building. It was already 'advanced' as part of Yugoslavia, certainly compared to Afghanistan. It still has two parallel governments, and ultimate power rests in an externally imposed Bremmer style Vizier who isn't even Bosnian- you'd think that an essential part of being a nation is control of your own country rather than ultimate authority being vested in an EU Gauleiter. Given a free choice the Serbs areas would still join Serbia and the Croats would still join Croatia. If there was a free choice.

The 20k surge was also 20k for a single province and on top of those already there, ie ~160k troops in total. Fundamentally we're in agreement on that in any case, not enough initially, not enough in the surge, not enough long term.

The fundamental problem with all of this is one of arguing practicalities vs theoretics. Theoretically, the US could have sent 500k troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. Theoretically they could send a million. Theoretically they could stay in Afghanistan for 40 years. But if practically they can't/ couldn't then the theoreticals of it are of merely academic interest.

 

[Gromnir]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9241.html

Priorities. The prime objective of any nation-building operation is not to make an authoritarian government democratic or a poor nation rich, but to make a violent society peaceful. If basic needs for safety, food, and shelter are not being met, money spent on political or economic development is likely to be wasted.

(achieving advanced is not a priority and as you should see, is not considered one o' the primary hurdles. advanced is what in your mind distinguishes, but is not a noteworthy factor or element. also, the china discussions in the other thread should also make abundant clear advanced is hardly a necessity for stability. the afghani tribalism would indeed be an obstacle to attaining "peaceful" but advanced is just something zor imagined as a necessity. )

Security is provided by soldiers, police, and a judicial and corrections system. Establishing a modicum of security requires a military force that is large enough—as many as 20 soldiers per thousand inhabitants—to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate former combatants. Military or international civilian police forces are needed to protect citizens from criminals and violent political groups and to mentor a reformed local civilian police force. Sufficient support and funding must be extended to the police force and the judicial and corrections system.

(initial security is the practical insurmountable hurdle in selling nation building to the US public. the sheer numbers o' troops required is improbable, although such numbers were indeed achieved in bosnia. huzzah.) 

Humanitarian relief agencies are, for the most part, professionally staffed and well resourced. The challenge is in coordinating with the intervening military organizations, with which most humanitarian agencies are reluctant to align themselves, because any such alignment could limit their access to people in need.

Governance is a high priority because local institutions will have to provide education, health care, electricity, telecommunications, water, and sanitation. Funding from the intervening authorities will have to run around 10 percent of the country's preconflict gross domestic product.

(again, advanced is not pivotal. however, a substantial investment o' capital needs be anticipated.) 

Economic stabilization requires a reasonably stable medium of exchange. Early attention should be given to creating or strengthening a central bank and other financial institutions. Donor support will be required to balance government expenditures and revenue.

Democratization should be viewed as a way to redirect the competition for wealth and power from violent into peaceful channels, not as an abstract exercise in social justice. Ideally, elements of civil society should be allowed to develop before national elections are held. However, institutions based on representative government are typically the only form of reconstituted state authority acceptable to most of the population.

Infrastructure and development will depend on the ability of the intervening authorities and the host government to control inflation and finance the government's budget, among other things. Early efforts should focus on the repair, not the improvement, of existing infrastructure. Improvements should be funded via loans, not grants.

all the above were clear achievable in a place such as afghanistan.

is notable we mentioned education as part of developing infrastructure. again, not need advance. japan education in the 30s and 40s were indeed universal but ended at sixth grade. the vast majority o' the population were not well educated; only elites were given access to higher education. that changed with the nation building efforts. is not as if nation building would require placing afghanistan into educational or industrial parity with european nations, but getting the process started to the point where it became self perpetuating were hardly unforeseeable. in fact, one o' the true tragedies o' the taliban regaining power in afghanistan is that it is gonna wipe out the considerable improvements the US brought to education in Afghanistan in spite o' the fact US efforts to improve education were relative meager. anybody know japanese enrollment in its few select universities were pre occupation? dunno. we do know current afghanistan university enrollment is ~300k, a substantial (if still vast underrepresented) portion o' whom are women... women who are now facing a terrible future, yes? what a waste. what a tragedy.

furthermore, japan, unlike afghanistan, had been devastated by mass bombings attacks. tokyo alone had a million homeless and hundreds of thousands dead. tens o' thousands o' buildings gone and manufacturing capacity complete wiped out. compared to afghanistan, took a great deal more effort rebuilding portions o' japan so they were capable o' sustaining populations w/o the fear o' rampant disease and hunger.

bosnia is also a very good example given the actual goals. but again you are stuck on the "advanced" aspect for some reason. 

and yeah, US total troops for iraq in 2007 were approx 168k which would include the ~20k surge. the 168k were well below required estimates... which is kinda how we came up with the "3x" observation.  

which brings us back to the start and the primary issues: troops and money. the troops were available, but am not seeing how such woulda' ever been ok with the american public. the money were available, but the billions more it woulda' cost were untenable, and the billions which actual were spent were wasted 'cause the US did not direct how the money were spent. is kinda puzzling why the US thought the afghanistan troops could police themselves and handle their own infrastructure efforts.  eventual the afghanistan and iraqui people coulda' taken over such tasks, but pretending like they were capable from day one were stoopid and actual a bit cruel. throw a kid into the deep end o' a pool and then shake head sadly as she struggles to swim is not helpful.

the biggest mistake were lack o' honesty. US knew they could achieve nation building with enough troops and treasure, and it wouldn't have taken anywhere near 40 years. the folks at the pentagon had good estimates on costs and troop requirements to achieve nation building based on past expericens in japan and bosnia, but tell americans they are sending 500k troops and many billions to afghanistan so that the country might become economically self sufficient and reliably peaceful were gonna be difficult to sell.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 13, 2021 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

Maybe it's a painful phase a country just has to go through? As much as I dislike the Taliban and their (lack of) human values, they do have one thing in common with Mussolini's Fascist party in the 1920's... they are effective at stomping out corruption and organized crime (The Fascist party made mortal enemies of the Italian mafia by regularly decorating streetlights with dangling Mafiosi and their henchmen, summarily executed). The conservative part of Afghanistan actually appreciate the stability and lack of corruption in the areas the Taliban control, hence why it's at this point in time at least, a steep, uphill battle winning the hearts and minds of the rural Afghan population. The cesspool that is the established politicians were never going to be able to hang on to power. The corruption and inefficiency is simply too rampant. Every man for himself and his wallet.

The thing is we mustnt forget the salient and most important reason the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan and overthrew  the barbaric and anachronistic Taliban. It was only because of 9/11 and the Taliban were giving refuge to AQ and specifically Bin Laden

The Taliban were given the option before the invasion to hand him over and they refused. So the invasions primary objective was the destruction of AQ in Afghanistan which the US more or less achieved 

They also became deeply involved in attempts to rebuild Afghanistan since 2001 and lots of effort was put into that like spending over $1 Trillion in aid  and training the Afghan army and police several times. But it was never about sustaining the new Afghan  government permanently  either financially or militarily

And since the Taliban cannot be " defeated " militarily for several reasons that arent the US fault ,like  the reality of the porous Pakistan border where the Taliban cross when they want and find succour and shelter in tribal controlled regions of Pakistan,  their is no real military objective 

So the pullout is understandable, I just dont think its been done in the right way  considering the real imminent collapse of the country. Biden should have done the withdrawal in a staged and phased approach and just assess each phase before moving on to the next one 

As I mentioned previously this will reflect on Bidens legacy especially if Kabul falls....then we will all witness terrible human rights abuses 

Edited August 13, 2021 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

7 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm at a loss about Afghanistan. I don't really understand how to win the ideological part of such a war. The Taliban are terrible and it is hard to understand how people embrace that kind of rule in such large numbers. But barging in with Western rule and ideas seems to be pretty dang ineffective, so clearly we need a new strategy.

It isn't ideological part of the war which was lost, but reality of everyday citizens.

Corruption has been rampant in Afghanistan in past 20 years, one major example is how people have been tolled using roads. Person first pays toll to central government, then local clan leader/warlord demands their own toll and then when you drive to area controlled by  another clan you need to pay tolls again to their leader and local leader of central government forces. Taliban has gained support by creating system where you pay toll once to them and then you are free to travel on area controlled by them for day.

It is similar strategy that ISIS used in Iraq. When you are fixing problems people are facing every day people are willing to ignore lot of bad stuff you do.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

[stuff]

Yeah, you need more troops for better security, sure. But was there ever a realistic chance of the US/ NATO sending... ~600k troops to Afghanistan or 470k to Iraq though, especially for the time required? No, not any realistic one. If there was no realistic prospect of it arguing as if it was realistic is simply pointless. 60k troops in the middle of Europe is, well, an order of magnitude easier in multiple respects.

The point about an 'advanced' society is that it doesn't become a non advanced one by being bombed for a few years or whatever. The culture is maintained, the education is maintained, the knowledge base is maintained. It takes time to get there, but it also takes time to drop back from there. That provides a far higher platform for recovery than not having that base

Gotta be honest, there an awful lot of classic thinktankism there- common sense stuff coupled to doctrinaire assertions made for philosophical reasons. For example, what do 'reintegrated' Afghan fighters actually do- or is it just a way to make it sound like there's an easy solution to a complex problem? Pay them to sit around? Don't pay them and leave them unemployed, per Bremmer in Iraq? Prayer beads or mat weaving? You need an alternative to fighting or opium, and that's far easier to do with advanced countries where you can rely on a set knowledge base, literacy, numeracy etc to provide jobs.

I'm also highly amused by them touting infrastructure improvements via loans, not grants, and not just because the Marshall Plan was almost exclusively grants. Loans for infrastructure, that approach cries out for a catchy name to sell it. Belt & Road, perhaps?

[Gorth]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And since the Taliban cannot be " defeated " militarily for several reasons that arent the US fault ,like  the reality of the porous Pakistan border where the Taliban cross when they want and find succour and shelter in tribal controlled regions of Pakistan,  their is no real military objective

You can no more defeat the Taliban militarily than you could the Viet Cong. You would think people had learned the lessons from the 60's and 70's but obviously not. You want to fight a movement that is rooted in a population, you need to either genocide them away (like the English did with the Boers) or win over the population by offering them a notably better life. Building the odd water purification system for a village or a school here or there is not going to cut it. You have to really show them better alternatives worth striving for. So far, it hasn't happened.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You can no more defeat the Taliban militarily than you could the Viet Cong. You would think people had learned the lessons from the 60's and 70's but obviously not. You want to fight a movement that is rooted in a population, you need to either genocide them away (like the English did with the Boers) or win over the population by offering them a notably better life. Building the odd water purification system for a village or a school here or there is not going to cut it. You have to really show them better alternatives worth striving for. So far, it hasn't happened.

Yes but the original military objective was the destruction of AQ in Afghanistan and Bin Laden seeing justice for 9/11

I dont mean to repeat myself but what I am saying is the defeat of the Taliban was not part of the initial objective. Yes it became part of trying to enable Afghanistan to become a modern and functioning country which the US and its allies tried to achieve but failed for several reasons

So if Kabul falls to the Taliban  the reasons for this failure shouldn't been seen as primarily because " the US failed to defeat the Taliban militarily due to a bad strategy " .....their was no effective strategy to defeat the Taliban for  numerous reasons and most of them are not about the US. Like the corruption that Elerond mentioned and the Pakistan border 

[Gorth]

True. You could argue, that nobody really had any business in Afghanistan after Bin Ladens death

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

It isn't ideological part of the war which was lost, but reality of everyday citizens.

Corruption has been rampant in Afghanistan in past 20 years, one major example is how people have been tolled using roads. Person first pays toll to central government, then local clan leader/warlord demands their own toll and then when you drive to area controlled by  another clan you need to pay tolls again to their leader and local leader of central government forces. Taliban has gained support by creating system where you pay toll once to them and then you are free to travel on area controlled by them for day.

 

reminds us how the US contributed something over $2.8 billion to road improvements in afghanistan, and by 2016 there were very little actual improvement.

link

But those development dollars often lined the pockets of insurgents, shady contractors and corrupt government officials. And roads have little benefit if they are controlled by militants or criminals.

is more than a little justification in being angry with American foreign wars, but am actual personal just as angry with the stoopid. didn't take a prophet to foresee the endemic corruption and it were hardly surprising that american military commanders would be less than capable o' sniffing out swindlers and crooks. is not as if state department couldn't hire folks to do oversight. is actual the one job trump mighta' been suited for in government, 'cause if anybody knew 'bout construction swindels, it were trump. oh well, missed opportunities. 

59 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

stuff

tell us the start point is better for an educated population following a war?  argue with your self on that point if it makes you feel better 'cause am not contesting, but is not relevant to your earlier observations. yeah, education becomes a priority for nation building if you don't have education, which is precise why the US spent so much effort trying to make japan's educational system a bit more egalitarian. regardless, is nothing you have stated which suggests not advanced is preventative insofar as nation building efforts or that such would resulting in 40 years before the nation building sponsors could see some kinda success worthy results. 

 thinktankism? *chuckle* will take it it as 'posed to naked correlation reasoning.  japan was relative advanced by some subjective scale, so of course afghanistan nation building failed because it was not. is same reason the yokels believe 5g towers cause covid-19. stability is not direct linked to advanced, and advance woulda' happened natural in time with the benefit o' peaceful stability and continued real support from the US. the US didn't need bring advanced to afghanistan if it had managed peaceful stability and had helped develop the foundation o' basic infrastructure (which includes education). again, w/o much useful practical input from the US, afghanistan has made impressive strides in improving one o' the worst educated populations on the planet. all those gains is gonna be erased, and we genuine shudder to think what is now gonna happen to all those educated afghani women. 

*shrug*

regardless, there were never enough committed troops in iraq or afghanistan and is unlikely the US public woulda' agreed to either occupation if the US government were honest 'bout costs in troops and treasure. however, with honest we sure as heck wouldn't be facing the humanitarian crisis in afghanistan we see today. tell the US public the real costs o' anticipated nation building or, tell 'em nation building is off the table, but that an extended US presence would prevent any major terrorist actions for many decades to come at the admitted yearly cost o' american blood and a relative small pile of loot.  given the events o' 9/11, am thinking there is a decent chance the american people woulda' agreed to less than nation building, but we were never trusted with that option.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am thinking it also should be self evident, but in the case o' iraq, the US efforts at nation building likely woulda' purposeful avoided genuine commitment to achieve advanced, whatever you might think is the essential qualities o' that rather non-specific descriptor. being dependent on resource exports as 'posed to capital good production has been a trap many o' the world's major oil producers has been unable to escape. have iraq become an example o' how to bootstrap at least into industrialized competition would not be in the interest o' the US or many other western powers. advanced as a goal? doubtful.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, in a data set of successful US nation building efforts consisting of a grand total of two it could be mere coincidence that they were both advanced, while the failures were considerably less so. Could be, but it's way more likely that the two successes weren't randomly advanced while the failures were less advanced. It might be true too that debt trap infrastructure loans are a great idea instead of the aid and grants the two successes received, but again it's far more likely to be the reverse- and that the loans are suggested instead for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with successful nation building. All you can do is look at the data you have, and that says 100% of successful nation building exercises were with already advanced nations.

(I do agree that the US government should have been honest about the required costs or just have explicitly not gone in for nation building but to keep the fight offshore- but that isn't what they did, they explicitly went the nation building route. However, frankly, you might as well hope for Dr Manhattan to turn up in Afghanistan as wish for a long term deployment of 600k US soldiers there. If you're going to wish for the impossible, at least wish for the cheap impossibility)

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

So if Kabul falls to the Taliban  the reasons for this failure shouldn't been seen as primarily because " the US failed to defeat the Taliban militarily due to a bad strategy " .....their was no effective strategy to defeat the Taliban for  numerous reasons and most of them are not about the US. Like the corruption that Elerond mentioned and the Pakistan border 

There isn't much the US could do except keep troops deployed.

The ANA falling apart isn't really surprising, it's just the speed that is. You can't magic in esprit de corps. Having said that, there are obvious elements that the US could have improved on. The Najibullah government lasted years after the soviet withdrawal without significant help, and the Northern Alliance at least held a significant chunk of the country for years; neither were exactly corruption free and neither received massive foreign support (post 1989 for Najibullah, obviously).

If there's one thing that really suggests that the US stuffed up it's the diplomatic facet. They can't get the government meaningful support from any of its neighbours which is a death sentence for most practical purposes; and you have former enemies of the Taliban- Iran*, China, Russia- tacitly supporting them now. Any government is going to struggle when all its neighbours want it gone, let alone a weak one.

*I actually asked elsewhere about the Iranian militias since there was a prominent Hazara militia in Syria, and it seems they're armed and ready but not fighting the Taliban, and the Taliban aren't fighting them either. There's also been the rather weird phenomenon of the Taliban saying nice things about shia recently.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

 

. However, frankly, you might as well hope for Dr Manhattan to turn up in Afghanistan as wish for a long term deployment of 600k US soldiers there.out shia recently.

" Dr Manhattan " ....  

The thought of that really made me laugh, I am just thinking of that scene in the movie where  he defeats the Viet Kong, for  the USA, and they all start praying to him 

[HoonDing]

In Afghanistan first you get the poppy, then you get the power, then you get the women.

[Gromnir]

so, need advanced 'cause otherwise it would take 40 or more years to reach advanced, and oh yeah, correlation. circular and correlation is mighty compelling and insightful. 

*eye roll*

and again, the projections were never for long-term deployment o' massive numbers o' troops. 500k and within 3-5 years your presence would be decreasing rapid. didn't need wait for advanced. peaceful and largely self-sufficient? yes. we ended up with decades 'cause the initial investment were deemed too much. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

I guess this time around it won't be a Huey fleeing the capital but a Herc ?

[Gromnir]

americans and a few others will be able to leave on aircraft o' various types. what o' the thousands (millions) whom we enticed with the promise o' a better tomorrow? the new generation school teachers and university students? the businesses owners who catered to foreigners? anybody gonna be shocked by purges where anybody even accused o' working with or for kabul government faces horrible repercussions? 

and again, am not actual suggesting that a perpetual US presence in afghanistan with no end possible were an appealing alternative. tell troops who fought in afghnistan or families o' those who died there that the 2020 situation were what so many had died and suffered to protect is the worst kinda dark humor. we f'd this up at the start by being cheap and by being dishonest about goals. nevertheless, pretend as if the US does not bear considerable responsibility for the predictable atrocities which is gonna happen in our absence is also repugnant.

the plan to go in were bad. not enough troops and treasure to achieve goals.

the "plan" to get out is gonna result in horrors. 

[Gromnir]

"Today's the day Judah."--Messala

"Yes. Today's the day."--Judah Ben-Hur

according to the pillow guy, today, august 13, is the day trump were s'posed to be returned to office. 'course mike lindell weren't the only one embracing wacky.

*cricket chirp*

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

I just heard a funny one. As you all know Barack Obama’s birthday party was held on Martha’s Vineyard this past weekend. I just heard the FAA shut down the air space around his house, no drones allowed. So I heard a comment that “I guess he can dish it out but not take it”.

[Hildegard]

As it turn out in the last 70 years it is better to have an ally such as Italy in a World War than the US. 

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, Hildegard said:

As it turn out in the last 70 years it is better to have an ally such as Italy in a World War than the US. 

Is that because you get better wine?

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Hildegard said:

As it turn out in the last 70 years it is better to have an ally such as Italy in a World War than the US. 

I dont get it, I assume its a joke but I dont get it ?

[Gorth]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I dont get it, I assume its a joke but I dont get it ?

Ask the Kurds in northern Syria for elaboration on the joke

[Raithe]

For a dash of politics , weird and general news..

Plymouth shooting: ‘Incels’ will be treated as terrorists only if there are more attacks, government adviser says

Violent attacks by “incels” such as Plymouth gunman Jake Davison will be treated as terrorism if the movement grows, a government adviser says.

Police have been criticised for not treating the tragedy – which saw the gunman shoot five people and himself, after misogynistic social media posts calling himself an involuntary celibate – as terror-related.

Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the Home Office, said whether or not a threat is categorised as terrorism is a “question of scale”.

But he added: “If we see more of these sorts of attacks, then I have got no doubt that it will be treated more seriously as terrorism.”

 

[Malcador]

All these incels hate their lives. The State should helpfully relieve them of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/12/housing-renter-affordable-data-map

This will have no long-term consequences at all.