Terror attack in Manchester...

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, I hear there was something going on in Russia at that time too.

[Ben No.3]

I hear someone wants to deport all members of a certain religion which his is on the verge of mistaking for a race out of some rise of nationalist ideology?

 

It seems Sharp_one has found the final solution for the Muslim-question! Wonderful.

[HoonDing]

Can the Bosnian muslims stay? They're white.

[Gorgon]

 

How do you define that exactly. Does not sound easy at all. 

 

Easy, university education - tested, check on the work experience where applicable, knowledge of the language - tested, money of at least 20k EUR/USD or a bank guarantee for this amount. Does not get right to import other members of the family until 5 year probation is done and the person is working in an average pay salary area with no long gaps of unregistered work/unemployment (3+months).

 

EZ - we have enough bumps to cover minimum wage jobs.

 

Your criteria does not include the Manchester attacker who was born in the UK and a citizen. So, not so easy. 

[Ben No.3]

 

Hm, how many generations can you go back ?

You deport 3 generations back and 3 generations forth. You don't deport only those who informed authorities about activities of the criminal in their family.

Here

[Meshugger]

 

If you want to remove Islamic terrorism, then just deport all muslims. Then deal with with your own terrorism.

Or you could shut down the Saudis and Israel.

 

 

I see that you're playing the game of realpolitik in hard mode, i like it.

 

 

If you want to remove Islamic terrorism, then just deport all muslims. Then deal with with your own terrorism.

 

 

'Hello sir, are you a muslim ? You know the ones we are deporting en masse rigth now. No you say, well carry on then'

 

 

That's the point, western society has managed to get into the paradox of having an open society and actively import people who are against it. Enjoy the ride, because they are getting more incentive from the passiveness and for forgiving their murders by the ideals that provide them.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Hm, how many generations can you go back ?

You deport 3 generations back and 3 generations forth. You don't deport only those who informed authorities about activities of the criminal in their family.

Here

So you claim ALL muslims have terrorists in their family and NONE of them will inform about a terrorist to authorities?

That's harsh, man.

I'm just making fun of you, man.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

Hm, how many generations can you go back ?

You deport 3 generations back and 3 generations forth. You don't deport only those who informed authorities about activities of the criminal in their family.

Here

So you claim ALL muslims have terrorists in their family and NONE of them will inform about a terrorist to authorities?

That's harsh, man.

I'm just making fun of you, man.

So it's true. Germans have no sens if humor.

Not Germans, just me Edited May 26, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Darkpriest]

 

 

How do you define that exactly. Does not sound easy at all. 

 

Easy, university education - tested, check on the work experience where applicable, knowledge of the language - tested, money of at least 20k EUR/USD or a bank guarantee for this amount. Does not get right to import other members of the family until 5 year probation is done and the person is working in an average pay salary area with no long gaps of unregistered work/unemployment (3+months).

 

EZ - we have enough bumps to cover minimum wage jobs.

 

Your criteria does not include the Manchester attacker who was born in the UK and a citizen. So, not so easy. 

 

i meant initially, - obviously it is a bit harder now when you have 2 generation of outcasts, who'd ratehr live in their enclosed communities. If you'd want to get rid of that yu'd need to use methods straight out of nazi books, and that's something noone sane would go for, however you can prevent from escalating the issue, and turn back all the first gens who came in to EU in the last 3-5 years, that you can do. and put the big border sign on the borders of europe... US has fairly strick screening australia as well, japan even more strict, so why not the hell europe?

[213374U]

The difference between those is even though there were collateral casualties, those people were not prime targets. When you are fighting for independence, you do not want to target the local populace, because then you get no support for your actions.

 

Do you think that there were no collateral deaths during any uprising / fight for independence / against an occupant? there always were, it's a part of a warfare, that collateral damage is there. The only way to avoid it, is to have your wishes granted in a peaceful manner, the problem is, the other side not always wants to co-operate, and lose their influence

 

Ideally yes, such means should not be used, but I can understand those measures if you don't get it via political and peaceful means and the military power is hugely asymmetrical.

 

Even that incident that you quoted, it is still disputed that it could have been avoided, as the warning call was made, and it is possible that it was negligence on the police part.

 

The moment your primary target is not the politicians and agents of governmental power arm, and you shift it to civilian populace, you lose any credibility and should be hunted down and removed with any support base you got.

 

The muslim attacks on western societies is not a freedom fight, it's a fight to remove rights or even outright erradicate the individuals who do now want to bow down to a certain set of religious beliefs.

 

Why should I suddenly accept such reality near me? Why would I agree to importing more of the potential trouble?

 

You insist on romanticizing the past, but that requires that you ignore facts.

 

As I said: they did sometimes attack the local populace, they did consider them valid targets. They simply went for higher value targets, whenever possible, but not to the exclusion of any others. Granted, what they didn't do is kill members of their own ethnic group who were *also* politically close to them, much like jihadis don't bomb wahhabist mosques. I already gave you specific examples how, but you keep hand waving them away, because they are justified if fighting for muh freeduhm. But that's really beside the point, rationalizations are like аssholes. Yours is valid for you, jihadi Joe's is valid for him.

 

As for the phone call: it was a common tactic to wrongly call it in so the blast would hit responders and cops, too. Even if they genuinely tried to give warning, you plant a bomb in a ****ing mall. What exactly do you expect will happen? How is that not indiscriminately targeting civilians?

 

And I didn't say anything about accepting anything or importing more trouble. I was simply commenting that your view that the 80's and 90's were "better" doesn't reflect reality. You are dismissing the counterexamples that don't fit your narrative as "not true terrorism" (rather, "freedom fighting", yes?). Well, sure. There was no Salafist terrorism to speak of in the 70's, the 80's and 90's, so if "better" means exactly less Salafist terrorism, then yes, it was a "better" time. That's just shifting the goalposts rather an accurate assessment, though.

Edited May 27, 2017 by 213374U

[Oerwinde]

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

I thought they were justifying their acts because Muhammed was a terrorist warlord who killed Jews and Christians and wanted Islam spread across the world and he is the model for all muslims to live their lives by. 

[BruceVC]

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

I always respect your attempts to find balance on these debates especially around how you put real effort into integration and understanding the Muslim community who have immigrated to the USA , its admirable  because most Muslims in the USA  just want a peaceful and stable country where they can raise there families 

 

But to suggest the USA military is involved in all these Muslim countries and collateral damage is why suicide bombers kill innocent people is an appalling and inaccurate assessment of how the USA operates in ME countries 

 

Perhaps you misunderstand where the USA  is active, what would be examples of US troops committing deeds of collateral damage in Muslim countries ?

 

The issue here is 100 % the blame of how groups like ISIS  operate and how they have warped and corrupted parts of the Islamic faith. You also have a real identity crisis in the ME where this reality exists  that Sharia law works and its okay to marginalize and exclude certain people from economic transformation and inclusiveness from society

 

Lets not make excuses for bad governments and lack of interest in reconciliation. Also it needs to be clearly communicated to anyone immigrating to any Western country that you can live and thrive in the West but you will accept the values that define the West, so no forced marriages or honor killings or homophobia for example . The Muslim community is unequivocally expected to report and inform on any hate preaching or any anti-western sentiment. If this is an issue then people must immigrate somewhere else, preferable a Muslim country 

[HoonDing]

"Muhammed was a terrorist warlord who killed Jews and Christians and wanted Islam spread across the world and he is the model for all muslims to live their lives by. "

 

fake news

[algroth]

Professor David Hirsh from Goldsmiths, UoL, posted this on his Facebook. I don't agree with all of it but I do think he brings up a number of good points about the event all the same.

 

 

 

How do we fight Jihadi Islamist terror?

Some people want to hold vigils and to come together and to say we're not going to allow division or racism in our communities; some people insist that this kind of horror is a routine horror, like car accidents, which devastate some people, but only a very few; a risk which most of us just learn to live with. We carry on as normal, with the blitz spirit.

Others are sick and nauseous with the banality of that response. They want action against the murderers and their whole disgusting global project.

The way Nazism was defeated is not a bad model for the struggle against this totalitarian movement. Yes, the blitz spirit, yes, a bit of stiff upper lip, yes, we won't be corrupted by this foe; *and also* yes we're angry, yes we're going to fight it fiercely and remorselessly both here and across the globe.

Which still leaves the question of what we're going to fight. This is not a fight against Islam, it is a fight against a specific political movement which claims to be the sole authentic practice of Islam. It is not the sole authentic Islam; but it is one iteration of Islam. Historically and globally it is a minority movement within Islam. I'll leave it to the liberal Muslim theologists to fight over what is authentic; but I'll side with those who embrace a liberal politics over those who embrace the politic of hatred and death. Jihadi totalitarianism is a form of Islam, but it is only one form; there are other traditions, there are better ones; and they are much more widespread. Most Muslims hate the Jihadis.

The first victims of the Jihadis are Muslims: gay Muslims, women Muslims, secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, Yazidi Muslims, Nigerian Muslims, British Muslims, ordinary Muslims who just want to get on with their lives. Anti-Jihadi Muslims must be central to the anti-Jihadi coalition.

Some people are saying: "Enough with human rights and political correctness, we have to fight them with all we've got". But they're not thinking through what they mean by "them".

What are we fighting for? We're fighting for the democratic state, freedom, liberty and equality, we're fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality; we're fighting for the state to guarantee our fundamental rights but after that to leave us alone to live as we please; we're fighting for a state which looks after us if we are in real trouble but which doesn't stifle us when we're not.

We fight the Jihadis in the name of this notion of democratic politics. It is the Jihadis who see the world divided by race, who hate the Jews, who hate people with women leaders and with daughters who dance to women singers; who hate anybody who doesn't share their view. It is not us who hate liberty. We offer something better.

So we don't put democracy on hold while we deal with the threat to democracy, we mobilize democracy against what threatens it.
The notion of the legitimate monopoly of violence isn't just something dry and dusty out of a textbook. The democratic state has armed men and women; police; security services; it has machine guns, cruise missiles and air forces. The violence of the state is legitimate because it is fundamentally defensive; it is legitimate because it is in the name of the people and it is under the control of democratic institutions and it follows the rule of law. And, above all, it is mobilized to defend democracy against those who would threaten it.

One of the key problems is that many of us are used to thinking of the state as the enemy and we are used to thinking of violent anti-democratic movements as the bearers of liberation of the oppressed. We have to take ownership of our democratic republics, first in our own heads. We have to understand that what we have is worth defending. We have to learn to recognise the threat of the kind of politics which tells us things could get no worse and we need to start by tearing everything down.

The Jihadi totalitarian movement is not the only threat to democracy. There are also the radical intellectual critiques, which cynically de-value the state and which get a vicarious thrill out of anti-hegemonic violence. There is the form of cynicism which becomes conspiracy theory, satisfying itself with a completely twisted view of reality.

There are also the racists, who want to situate everything bad within whole layers of other human beings; what did Katie Hopkins mean when she used Hitler's term 'final solution'? She was hinting at a war of extermination against Muslims; and of course the Jihadis are very happy with such a notion because it is the one they say is already in train.

The democratic world needs to re-find some confidence and some clarity. The vulgar adolescent worship of ignorance and resentment which won the Presidential election in America is not going to help; Theresa May's plan to launch a war of words and trade within the democratic community of Europe is not going to help; calls for internment and repression against Muslims are not going to help. The Jihadis love Trump, they love Brexit, they love Le Pen and Wilders, they love the EDL.

Instead of carping at the Islamophobia of the state we need to support the state, join it, help it, make sure it isn't islamophobic, support those who educate against democracy-hatred and those who hunt those who support the global totalitarian movement.

We defeated Nazism in the name of democracy and using largely democratic means. We replaced Nazism with democracy. We didn't adopt the Nazi view of the world and launch a global fight against "Aryans" - we refused the term "Aryan" and we launched a global fight for democracy; which also brought a wave of decolonisation and equality in its wake throughout the world; the fight for democracy was by no means finished; but it was gaining momentum.

Edited May 28, 2017 by algroth

[BruceVC]

 

Professor David Hirsch from Goldsmiths, UoL, posted this on his Facebook. I don't agree with all of it but I do think he brings up a number of good points about the event all the same.

 

 

 

How do we fight Jihadi Islamist terror?

 

Some people want to hold vigils and to come together and to say we're not going to allow division or racism in our communities; some people insist that this kind of horror is a routine horror, like car accidents, which devastate some people, but only a very few; a risk which most of us just learn to live with. We carry on as normal, with the blitz spirit.

 

Others are sick and nauseous with the banality of that response. They want action against the murderers and their whole disgusting global project.

 

The way Nazism was defeated is not a bad model for the struggle against this totalitarian movement. Yes, the blitz spirit, yes, a bit of stiff upper lip, yes, we won't be corrupted by this foe; *and also* yes we're angry, yes we're going to fight it fiercely and remorselessly both here and across the globe.

 

Which still leaves the question of what we're going to fight. This is not a fight against Islam, it is a fight against a specific political movement which claims to be the sole authentic practice of Islam. It is not the sole authentic Islam; but it is one iteration of Islam. Historically and globally it is a minority movement within Islam. I'll leave it to the liberal Muslim theologists to fight over what is authentic; but I'll side with those who embrace a liberal politics over those who embrace the politic of hatred and death. Jihadi totalitarianism is a form of Islam, but it is only one form; there are other traditions, there are better ones; and they are much more widespread. Most Muslims hate the Jihadis.

 

The first victims of the Jihadis are Muslims: gay Muslims, women Muslims, secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, Yazidi Muslims, Nigerian Muslims, British Muslims, ordinary Muslims who just want to get on with their lives. Anti-Jihadi Muslims must be central to the anti-Jihadi coalition.

 

Some people are saying: "Enough with human rights and political correctness, we have to fight them with all we've got". But they're not thinking through what they mean by "them".

 

What are we fighting for? We're fighting for the democratic state, freedom, liberty and equality, we're fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality; we're fighting for the state to guarantee our fundamental rights but after that to leave us alone to live as we please; we're fighting for a state which looks after us if we are in real trouble but which doesn't stifle us when we're not.

 

We fight the Jihadis in the name of this notion of democratic politics. It is the Jihadis who see the world divided by race, who hate the Jews, who hate people with women leaders and with daughters who dance to women singers; who hate anybody who doesn't share their view. It is not us who hate liberty. We offer something better.

 

So we don't put democracy on hold while we deal with the threat to democracy, we mobilize democracy against what threatens it.

The notion of the legitimate monopoly of violence isn't just something dry and dusty out of a textbook. The democratic state has armed men and women; police; security services; it has machine guns, cruise missiles and air forces. The violence of the state is legitimate because it is fundamentally defensive; it is legitimate because it is in the name of the people and it is under the control of democratic institutions and it follows the rule of law. And, above all, it is mobilized to defend democracy against those who would threaten it.

 

One of the key problems is that many of us are used to thinking of the state as the enemy and we are used to thinking of violent anti-democratic movements as the bearers of liberation of the oppressed. We have to take ownership of our democratic republics, first in our own heads. We have to understand that what we have is worth defending. We have to learn to recognise the threat of the kind of politics which tells us things could get no worse and we need to start by tearing everything down.

 

The Jihadi totalitarian movement is not the only threat to democracy. There are also the radical intellectual critiques, which cynically de-value the state and which get a vicarious thrill out of anti-hegemonic violence. There is the form of cynicism which becomes conspiracy theory, satisfying itself with a completely twisted view of reality.

 

There are also the racists, who want to situate everything bad within whole layers of other human beings; what did Katie Hopkins mean when she used Hitler's term 'final solution'? She was hinting at a war of extermination against Muslims; and of course the Jihadis are very happy with such a notion because it is the one they say is already in train.

 

The democratic world needs to re-find some confidence and some clarity. The vulgar adolescent worship of ignorance and resentment which won the Presidential election in America is not going to help; Theresa May's plan to launch a war of words and trade within the democratic community of Europe is not going to help; calls for internment and repression against Muslims are not going to help. The Jihadis love Trump, they love Brexit, they love Le Pen and Wilders, they love the EDL.

 

Instead of carping at the Islamophobia of the state we need to support the state, join it, help it, make sure it isn't islamophobic, support those who educate against democracy-hatred and those who hunt those who support the global totalitarian movement.

 

We defeated Nazism in the name of democracy and using largely democratic means. We replaced Nazism with democracy. We didn't adopt the Nazi view of the world and launch a global fight against "Aryans" - we refused the term "Aryan" and we launched a global fight for democracy; which also brought a wave of decolonisation and equality in its wake throughout the world; the fight for democracy was by no means finished; but it was gaining momentum.

 

I enjoyed the read so thanks for posting it 

 

But  I honestly didn't find it revealing or that it offered any new information. It may be that I have strong links to the ME  and ISIS so I am constantly updating what is happening. Just to point out a few observations 

 

• No one has ever seriously suggested this was a fight against Islam. We know Islamic extremism is a small percentage of total Muslims 
• No Western Democracy has ever been seriously threatened in the battle against ISIS, they use limited lone wolf attacks on Western countries. There Caliphate was between Iraq and Syria so ISIS only threatened the ME
• Its mostly Arab soldiers in the fight right now at Mosul and then they will attack Raqqa, 
• Raqqa will fall and then ISIS will be a splintered entity with limited ability to organize attacks, the West will not lose any moral high ground as they wont be the ones killing and being killed in the final battle at Raqqa 

[algroth]

 

 

Professor David Hirsch from Goldsmiths, UoL, posted this on his Facebook. I don't agree with all of it but I do think he brings up a number of good points about the event all the same.

 

 

 

How do we fight Jihadi Islamist terror?

 

Some people want to hold vigils and to come together and to say we're not going to allow division or racism in our communities; some people insist that this kind of horror is a routine horror, like car accidents, which devastate some people, but only a very few; a risk which most of us just learn to live with. We carry on as normal, with the blitz spirit.

 

Others are sick and nauseous with the banality of that response. They want action against the murderers and their whole disgusting global project.

 

The way Nazism was defeated is not a bad model for the struggle against this totalitarian movement. Yes, the blitz spirit, yes, a bit of stiff upper lip, yes, we won't be corrupted by this foe; *and also* yes we're angry, yes we're going to fight it fiercely and remorselessly both here and across the globe.

 

Which still leaves the question of what we're going to fight. This is not a fight against Islam, it is a fight against a specific political movement which claims to be the sole authentic practice of Islam. It is not the sole authentic Islam; but it is one iteration of Islam. Historically and globally it is a minority movement within Islam. I'll leave it to the liberal Muslim theologists to fight over what is authentic; but I'll side with those who embrace a liberal politics over those who embrace the politic of hatred and death. Jihadi totalitarianism is a form of Islam, but it is only one form; there are other traditions, there are better ones; and they are much more widespread. Most Muslims hate the Jihadis.

 

The first victims of the Jihadis are Muslims: gay Muslims, women Muslims, secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, Yazidi Muslims, Nigerian Muslims, British Muslims, ordinary Muslims who just want to get on with their lives. Anti-Jihadi Muslims must be central to the anti-Jihadi coalition.

 

Some people are saying: "Enough with human rights and political correctness, we have to fight them with all we've got". But they're not thinking through what they mean by "them".

 

What are we fighting for? We're fighting for the democratic state, freedom, liberty and equality, we're fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality; we're fighting for the state to guarantee our fundamental rights but after that to leave us alone to live as we please; we're fighting for a state which looks after us if we are in real trouble but which doesn't stifle us when we're not.

 

We fight the Jihadis in the name of this notion of democratic politics. It is the Jihadis who see the world divided by race, who hate the Jews, who hate people with women leaders and with daughters who dance to women singers; who hate anybody who doesn't share their view. It is not us who hate liberty. We offer something better.

 

So we don't put democracy on hold while we deal with the threat to democracy, we mobilize democracy against what threatens it.

The notion of the legitimate monopoly of violence isn't just something dry and dusty out of a textbook. The democratic state has armed men and women; police; security services; it has machine guns, cruise missiles and air forces. The violence of the state is legitimate because it is fundamentally defensive; it is legitimate because it is in the name of the people and it is under the control of democratic institutions and it follows the rule of law. And, above all, it is mobilized to defend democracy against those who would threaten it.

 

One of the key problems is that many of us are used to thinking of the state as the enemy and we are used to thinking of violent anti-democratic movements as the bearers of liberation of the oppressed. We have to take ownership of our democratic republics, first in our own heads. We have to understand that what we have is worth defending. We have to learn to recognise the threat of the kind of politics which tells us things could get no worse and we need to start by tearing everything down.

 

The Jihadi totalitarian movement is not the only threat to democracy. There are also the radical intellectual critiques, which cynically de-value the state and which get a vicarious thrill out of anti-hegemonic violence. There is the form of cynicism which becomes conspiracy theory, satisfying itself with a completely twisted view of reality.

 

There are also the racists, who want to situate everything bad within whole layers of other human beings; what did Katie Hopkins mean when she used Hitler's term 'final solution'? She was hinting at a war of extermination against Muslims; and of course the Jihadis are very happy with such a notion because it is the one they say is already in train.

 

The democratic world needs to re-find some confidence and some clarity. The vulgar adolescent worship of ignorance and resentment which won the Presidential election in America is not going to help; Theresa May's plan to launch a war of words and trade within the democratic community of Europe is not going to help; calls for internment and repression against Muslims are not going to help. The Jihadis love Trump, they love Brexit, they love Le Pen and Wilders, they love the EDL.

 

Instead of carping at the Islamophobia of the state we need to support the state, join it, help it, make sure it isn't islamophobic, support those who educate against democracy-hatred and those who hunt those who support the global totalitarian movement.

 

We defeated Nazism in the name of democracy and using largely democratic means. We replaced Nazism with democracy. We didn't adopt the Nazi view of the world and launch a global fight against "Aryans" - we refused the term "Aryan" and we launched a global fight for democracy; which also brought a wave of decolonisation and equality in its wake throughout the world; the fight for democracy was by no means finished; but it was gaining momentum.

 

I enjoyed the read so thanks for posting it 

 

But  I honestly didn't find it revealing or that it offered any new information. It may be that I have strong links to the ME  and ISIS so I am constantly updating what is happening. Just to point out a few observations 

 

• No one has ever seriously suggested this was a fight against Islam. We know Islamic extremism is a small percentage of total Muslims

 

 

That's not what I'm reading here or elsewhere, though. Already in this thread people are quite seriously suggesting the deportation of Muslims as a means of combatting the issue - likewise the Muslim ban policies earlier this year by the American presidency were responding against Islam as a whole opposite to individuals of an extremist wing, so it has already moved past the point of suggestion and into practice. And I agree that it isn't saying much new, but all the same I thought it was written in an eloquent and level-headed fashion, enough that it conveys many of the issues present in the outrage against 'Islam' following the attack quite nicely. Anyways, glad you liked the piece!

Edited May 28, 2017 by algroth

[redneckdevil]

Very nice read.

[Meshugger]

Pfeh, sunnis can **** off back to kaaba, they are the ones causing a disaster everywhere they go as they dwelve into wahabism and salafism, all funded by KSA across almost all mosques in the EU. Ally yourself with the ones who have already figured out that all this Jihad holy war, pray five times a day, killing all who commit apostasies, doing pilgrimages to mecca and alike is horse****. They exist already, they are called Alevites, Yazedis and to some degree Sufis. 

 

The sunnis are the nazis of Islam. Too bad they are the majority let in.

[Zoraptor]

Yazidis aren't muslims, and certainly don't consider themselves muslim either unlike actual muslim sects that get their muslimness questioned. Should also be noted that 'takfir' (ie labelling other muslims as unbelievers) is considered to be both extremely serious and regarded extremely negatively by most muslims of any type except the most radical.

 

Most Sunnis are fine too- a good thing, since they're by far the majority- it's almost exclusively the Hanbali derived groups that are bad. Unfortunately Saudi Wahhabism is one of those with basically no redeeming features and they've decided the best way to spread influence is to radicalise other countries.

[Elerond]

 

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

yeah, the problem is, why are we even there in the first place?

 

 

In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).

[Darkpriest]

 

 

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

yeah, the problem is, why are we even there in the first place?

 

 

In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).

 

 

The only campaign against 'terrorist' was the Afghan one - and it had some ups and downs, but overall the propaganda target was achieved.

 

Other campaigns led only to removal of safety barriers in the region...

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

yeah, the problem is, why are we even there in the first place?

 

 

In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).

 

 

The only campaign against 'terrorist' was the Afghan one - and it had some ups and downs, but overall the propaganda target was achieved.

 

Other campaigns led only to removal of safety barriers in the region...

 

What do you mean by propaganda target ?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

yeah, the problem is, why are we even there in the first place?

 

 

In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).

 

 

The only campaign against 'terrorist' was the Afghan one - and it had some ups and downs, but overall the propaganda target was achieved.

 

Other campaigns led only to removal of safety barriers in the region...

 

What do you mean by propaganda target ?

 

Bin Laden dead

[Elerond]

 

 

 

The collateral damage argument versus terrorism is an interesting one, because we have our militaries actively engaged in many Muslim countries. It's pretty clear terrorists are justifying their acts based on the collateral damage that is happening there.

 

yeah, the problem is, why are we even there in the first place?

 

 

In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).

 

 

The only campaign against 'terrorist' was the Afghan one - and it had some ups and downs, but overall the propaganda target was achieved.

 

Other campaigns led only to removal of safety barriers in the region...

 

 

You forget that also Iraq war and Libya's intervention were partially justified with claims that Saddam and Gaddafi give support for terrorist and also in both of them propaganda target was achieved. Then there are constant drone strikes against possible terrorist targets. And now there are the fight against ISIS, strikes in Somalia, support operations in Nigeria, supporting Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen and so on. And then there are home front hunt of terrorists and constant increase in security and ways to spot terrorist in internet and so on. Countries have spent trillions after trillions in fight against terrorism in only to claim that there is more terrorism in world than ever and even bigger need for new operations and new security measures.

[Zoraptor]

I wouldn't say that either Iraq or Libya actually got their propaganda target achieved- mostly because their propaganda target either got discredited or is well on the way to being discredited.

 

It's hard to discredit going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden for 9/11 when he admits and nearly everyone accepts that his organisation did it. OTOH, there were significant signs of Iraq going bad almost immediately (looting etc) and it never recovered PR wise from the mess and contradictions of its justification/ propaganda base- no meaningful WMDs, troops dying for years, Saddam's capture doing nothing, Zarqawi and Baghdadi, the government being favourable to Iran etc. That trumps any PR achievements. Libya is much the same, just not quite so well covered as the situation in Iraq.

 

Certainly you aren't going to get anyone trying to justify intervention by quoting Iraq and Libya as successes, and at heart that's what you need to be able to do to have them be propaganda successes; you need to be able to use them again for more propaganda. Kosovo would be a propaganda success, since basically nobody knows that nearly half its economy is black market, most of the other half comes direct from NATO/ EU, it has more refugees entering Europe than Afghanistan, of the certified massacres there a disproportionate number were serbs rather than albanians and there has been systemic ethnic cleansing of serbs; and it can thus be used to justify 'freeing' whoever it's currently convenient geopolitically to free.