The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
from the sorry-ostriches dept
As Mike recently mentioned, there is a heated debate throughout the internet and the country over whether or not social media and content sharing sites like Facebook and YouTube should be actively taking down videos of American journalist James Foley being beheaded by ISIS/ISIL. The issue, which I've chosen to write about here before, is even more important and serious than perhaps it appears on the face for most people. Mathew Ingram's post dealt with many good aspects of the debate, some of which we'll discuss, but I think he leaves out a large part of the equation. More on that in a moment.
Let's start this off by reiterating that this is a subject that needs to be dealt with openly, honestly, and with the kind of seriousness the loss of a journalist to a group like ISIS/ISIL deserves. It is, in that context, incredibly easy to understand why family members of Foley, or his friends, might request the images and video of his death by beheading be removed.
It’s easy to understand why the victim’s family and friends wouldn’t want the video or screenshots circulating, just as the family of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl — who was beheaded on video by Al-Qaeda in 2002 — or businessman Nick Berg didn’t want their sons’ deaths broadcast across the internet. And it’s not surprising that many of those who knew Foley, including a number of journalists, would implore others not to share those images, especially since doing so could be seen as promoting (even involuntarily) the interests of ISIS.No doubt. The actions taken in that video were as barbaric as can be imagined, glorifying the murder of a non-combatant strictly for being a kafir. An infidel. A non-believer. It takes a stone-heart to watch the video and not wince, cringe, cry. For those close to Foley, it must be agonizing.
It's also necessary.
After Ronan Farrow compared ISIS content to the radio broadcasts in Rwanda that many believe helped fuel a genocide in that country in the 1990s, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci argued that in some cases social platforms probably should remove violent content, because of the risk that distributing it will help fuel similar behavior. But others, including First Look Media’s Glenn Greenwald, said leaving those decisions up to corporations like Twitter or YouTube is the last thing that a free society should want to promote.And Greenwald is right, in part because the entire concept of a platform like Twitter lends itself poorly to being policed by overseers, but also because we don't need hosts of user-generated content scrubbing the decks for us. Some will say that such despicable acts have no place on Twitter, but ISIS/ISIL has been posting videos to Twitter of beheadings of non-Americans for months without much outcry. Others might suggest that Twitter should actively police their users and disallow extremist groups from the platform entirely, but who gets to decide which group is too extremist to be heard from? And still others will claim that allowing the video to be seen gives ISIS/ISIL exactly what they want and moves their message into the public's eye when it might otherwise be hidden.
I say that's a good thing.
“I say to America that the Islamic Caliphate has been established,” Abu Mosa, a spokesman for the terror group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), told VICE Media in a video interview posted online Thursday. “Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House,” he added.Abu Mosa was featured in Vice Media's outstanding reporting from inside ISIS/ISIL. But the claim that they will raise their flag over the White House is only one half of the threat; the video of James Foley is how they intend to behave once they've done so. Now, will ISIS/ISIL ever actually achieve this? Likely not, of course, but that isn't the point. Whatever your opinions on the Middle East, on the War on Terror, on the Iraq War, whatever your politics, one must acknowledge that if America truly has any enemies in this world, and we do, then ISIS/ISIL must be counted amongst the most grave of those threats.
Think back to the year 2000 and ask yourself how much the average citizen knew about Al Qaeda. The answer should be "very little." So, when the attacks came, the most horrific the American public had ever seen, they came out of seemingly nowhere. Sure, people may have known the name "Osama bin-Laden", but they didn't know what his group was about in detailed form. They didn't know the history. They may not have been able to pick out Afghanistan on a globe.
If we're to avoid that history repeating itself, the American public should at least be granted the option of viewing material that highlights exactly who the enemy of secular freedom is and what they are about. Both are on display in the video of ISIS/ISIL beheading James Foley. If the actions of the barbarians in this world are of importance, and they are, then hiding them from the cowering masses does nothing to serve those masses. Does ISIS/ISIL want their video to be seen? Of course, because they think their actions will frighten us into inaction and retreat. It's important that the public not be denied the opportunity to disabuse them of that foolish notion. There is a battleground here and that reality must be dealt with on reality's terms. Burying our heads in the sand must not be an option.
James Foley went to the battleground in an attempt to give us a glimpse of the reality that is occurring there. It dishonors him to erect an opaque sheen of censorship before the price he paid.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beheadings, free speech, isis, james foley, videos
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
"the real reason we are fighting terrorism isn't policy, it's survival."What a complete load of crap. There is no terrorist threat that comes even close to posing an existential crisis for the US. However, our response to such things certainly does.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That said...
There is a battleground here
There is no battleground at all. That's the problem with the US. They have a big military hammer and they see every problem as nails that must be dealt with that hammer. What has the war on terror brought so far other than the erosion of your own cherished freedom, privacy etc? I'm not disputing that some military intervention is needed but other peaceful messages will fly much higher and farther than simple aggression.
There are plenty of examples of actions the US took that other countries did not agree or even condemned or actions and situations that the US endorsed alone even though most people were outraged. This is not how you gather goodwill.
The US used its soft power for quite a while very successfully. Right now they've been using their hard power without rest for a while and their reputation degraded overall. And I'm not even mentioning your rogue law enforcement/intelligence that is generating even more animosity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'll forgive me, but I don't know that I wrote that the battleground was going to be boots on the ground war. I'm more concerned about the battle between civility and barbarism, secularism and theocracy. A war of ideas, which WILL indeed be occasionally be fought with guns and bombs and, unfortunately, terrorist attacks.
ISIS/ISIL has kept their promises thus far when it comes to horror and violence. They said before "See you in New York" and claimed to want to raise their flag over our capital. I prefer to take them at their word rather than wait and see what happens....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My bad I understood the ballistic sense. But I still think we shouldn't treat this as a war of ideas. For instance, instead of greeting this beheading with hostility why not promote memorials for the people killed in terroristic events where you perform a mess, a ritual or whatever you call it for a plurality of religions and yes that would include Islam. I like to use the example that happened just here: Jewish people and Islamics made a joint protest against what is happening at Gaza right now. That's a powerful message. Sure it doesn't solve the problem but it further discredits the aggressors (and I'm pointing at both sides in this case even though Israel is being the bigger aggressor but I digress).
Terrorism kind of win when they make the US fall into a police, surveillance state. The solution would have been more freedom and more alliances with the Muslim world. Sure there could be some more deaths but they'd serve only to discredit these lunatics even further. Instead the path chosen lead only to more violence. I'm not saying that some intervention in some places there aren't somewhat justified but it could have been done in a better way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yea, eventually the planet will be nothing more than a graveyard of our heart strings.
Its a war of ideals... if you are unable to recognize it no one can help you... just don't die surprise when the bullet hits you for it.
There is always 1 form of speech that I say should end all manor of good will on the global battlefront. Once a Group or Nation has declared "They will Destroy" something then it should be grounds for immediate and lethal retribution.
No torture, no prisoners, just straight up dead. Simply put, nothing is more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Supporting Indonesian nations maintaining democracy and repelling attempts to instill Sharia
2. Supporting free speech and open ideas and cartoon depictions of religious figures in Europe
3. Installing a military base on holy land WE WERE INVITED TO by the government there
If you aim to appease these people, you'll have nothing left at the end. You actually have to read what they say to understand that, rather than spending your time apologizing for your own guilty and unnecessary feelings....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
are you aiming to prove the aphorism that those who refuse to pay attention to his story are condemned to repeat it ? ? ?
1. gee, since you're all read up on these issues, please tell me WHEN all this shit started and WHO started it ? ? ?
is it al qaeda or hamas or isis who IMPOSED THEIR state boundaries on US ? ? ? dividing areas of the world on THEIR SAY SO ? ? ? ...or was that the arrogant westeners who PURPOSEFULLY divided countries/tribes so they were at each other's throats and we could steal 'our' oil from them ? ? ?
2. gee, remind me again, how many divisions al qaeda/hamas/isis/WHOEVER has landed on amerikan soil and occupied us whenever, where ever, however the fuck they feel like, for no reason except world domination and unrestrained greed... will you PLEASE FUCKING TELL ME THAT...
3. goshies, it just breaks my heart how often other countries and terrorists like al qaeda/hamas/isis have undermined our country, thrown out/killed elected our leaders, subverted our laws, imposed their will upon us all, controlled our behavior as a state, fomented revolution against our 'legitimate' gummint, etc, etc, etc...
oh, wait, that has NEVER HAPPENED; that's what WE DO TO EVERYONE ELSE, and the ingrates get mad at us for 'saving' them... some nerve, huh...
4. when i go outside every day, i can't tell you terrified i am with all the drones of al qaeda/hamas/isis that circle overhead 24/7/365, dealing death to us from a cave in pakistan...
oh, wait, that's US again...
so let's summarize, shall we:
unka sam (by definition, 'good') can bomb the world, take their shit, imprison/torture whoever we want, however we want, blow up HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS (but not, you know, beheading them with a knife, 'cause THAT is barbarous!), enforce draconian laws on them, ignore laws and treaties with NO CONSEQUENCES, be the arms dealer to the world, and it is the PEOPLE whose throats are under our hobnail boots that are to blame 'cause they beheaded a handful of white devils ? ? ?
WTF ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
is it al qaeda or hamas or isis who IMPOSED THEIR state boundaries on US ? ? ? dividing areas of the world on THEIR SAY SO ? ? ? ...or was that the arrogant westeners who PURPOSEFULLY divided countries/tribes so they were at each other's throats and we could steal 'our' oil from them ? ? ?"
Interesting, because I thought it was the British and French colonialists who did most/all of the dividing in Northern-Africa and the Middle East, yet the US appears to be the prime target. It's almost as if those things aren't really the issue, isn't it?
"2. gee, remind me again, how many divisions al qaeda/hamas/isis/WHOEVER has landed on amerikan soil and occupied us whenever, where ever, however the fuck they feel like, for no reason except world domination and unrestrained greed... will you PLEASE FUCKING TELL ME THAT..."
Don't confuse the lack of ability with the lack of will, or did you miss the part about ISIS/ISIL saying the want to raise the flag of Allah over the White House? I prefer to take these people at their word. If you want to ignore them, feel free, though I think you do so at your peril.
And by the by, when Danish offices were rushed and when their was violence there in reaction to the government refusing to censor cartoons in society that honors free speech, that's an invasion of societal values. When journalists are murdered in the name of religious expansionism, that isn't something to ignore. When citizens are murdered in the thousands in the name of exporting theocracy, that is absolutely them "landing on our soil". Hide your head in the sand all you want, the war of ideas between secularism and theocracy has already started, and you'll either be a part of it or a complicit bystander. I want to be on the side of secularism.
"3. goshies, it just breaks my heart how often other countries and terrorists like al qaeda/hamas/isis have undermined our country, thrown out/killed elected our leaders, subverted our laws, imposed their will upon us all, controlled our behavior as a state, fomented revolution against our 'legitimate' gummint, etc, etc, etc...
oh, wait, that has NEVER HAPPENED"
Nonsense, that has happened constantly, it just so happens that the system of secularism is especially good at repelling those attacks. It's quite easy to mockingly use words like "amerika" and "gummint" and paint us secularists as war hawks. It's more difficult to formulate an alternative plan to dealing with threats, other than calls to ignore them simply because we're not yet looking those threats in the eye.
"4. when i go outside every day, i can't tell you terrified i am with all the drones of al qaeda/hamas/isis that circle overhead 24/7/365, dealing death to us from a cave in pakistan...
oh, wait, that's US again..."
I'm not pro-drone policy in general, though I do think they have their place. That said, drone use isn't exactly high on the priority list of reasons why ISIS/ISIL is threatening us directly, so this seems apropos of nothing.
"unka sam (by definition, 'good') can bomb the world, take their shit, imprison/torture whoever we want, however we want, blow up HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS (but not, you know, beheading them with a knife, 'cause THAT is barbarous!), enforce draconian laws on them, ignore laws and treaties with NO CONSEQUENCES, be the arms dealer to the world, and it is the PEOPLE whose throats are under our hobnail boots that are to blame 'cause they beheaded a handful of white devils ? ? ?"
It's high time people begin to take this issue much more seriously than the above paragraph intones. Nothing in my writing indicates that the American government is without fault, is inherently good, or that we have not done horrible things. But that isn't the point. It is possible to have a mostly-good system of government that has done wrong be threatened by something FAR WORSE. That is exactly what is happening here.
Look, guys, if you want to be on the side that either apologizes for ISIS/ISIL or else claims that they don't represent any serious threat, feel free, but I won't agree with you, I won't respect that opinion, and I will be very angry the next time ISIS/ISIL is able to pull off their barbarism due to our inaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The people living in the middle east may not perceive the US, UK and France to be in any way separate - and certainly the US has taken a lead in Western foreign policy since WW2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's their problem, not ours.
"and certainly the US has taken a lead in Western foreign policy since WW2."
That's absolute horseshit. America influences the region, as does most of Europe (France and England particularly), not to mention the Russians. The difference in America is that we're the biggest target on the block, we support Israel to insane levels, and we have more secularism here than in most other places. THAT'S the reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually it is your problem, even if that problem was caused by somebody else.
"and we have more secularism here than in most other places."
Uhm... Creationism in schools? Please!
You've got god on your Dollar bills!
It may be more secular than a lot of countries in the Middle East, but that's not saying much.
"America influences the region, as does most of Europe (France and England particularly), not to mention the Russians."
America is a superpower, France and England aren't. There you have the root for your problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, where is creationism taught in American public schools? Because, for the most part, it ain't....
"You've got god on your Dollar bills!"
As far as failure to secularize goes, that's a pretty small one....
"America is a superpower, France and England aren't. There you have the root for your problems."
Then we're right back to America not bowing to terrorist demands, because we aren't going to stop being a superpower just because some bad guys don't like it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hee hee hee
must be a quite logical and reasonable folk...
ho ho ho
oh, wait, i'm a lot germanic...
ha ha ha
but mostly aspie...
ak ak ak
i read helmet heads immediate response, and a handful of his others, and i am left not only unconvinced, but kind of stunned at the obtuseness...
(not to mention more than a few tangential slights and ad homs, which he would normally otherwise excoriate in his adversaries...)
*something* must have triggered his reflexive uber-patriotic response in this regard, because it otherwise belies his normal -i was going to say 'level-headedness', but that might just be the helmet talking- ratiocination which is more his forte...
technically, did NOT say "US" in terms of who split up many of the countries involved in all sorts of ethnic, territorial, and tribal conflicts the world over...
i said "WESTERN"...
BUT, in modern times, either directly/indirectly led, or aided and abetted behind the scenes by uncle samuel and his little evil minions of doom in the MIC & the spooks...
do you want me to go all smedley butler on you ?
(go to archive dot org and search, he has about a 17 page booklet outlining his repentance at being a mercenary for Big Korps (oh shit! he used another inappropriate k ! ! ! i pee'ed myself a little !)
same ole same ole, cuz...
i'm not sure you are saying the stoopid terrorists should be bombing frenchies and brits exclusively, or something; but that is quite the odd 'argument'...
WHO is the 900# gorilla on this planet ? ? ? c'mon, man...
WHO is it who enforces THEIR hegemony on the planet ? ? ?
WHO is it who has effective control of nearly all major national and international, public and private institutions which would be able to stop the k(!)rimes against humanity WE -OUR COUNTRY- HAS perpetrated for a LONG time ? ? ?
HOW many military bases does al qaeda/hamas/isis/WHOEVER have ALL OVER THE PLANET ? ? ?
HOW many million troops ? ? ?
HOW many planes, aircraft carriers, drones, MRAPS, subs, ICBMs, satellites, howitzers, helicopters, fighters, bunker busters, and nukes do ALL THE TERRORISTS in the his story of the universe have ? ? ?
maybe 1 / one hundred millionth of what twitchy, scared, defensive, offensive, paranoid, trigger-happy amerika has...
*maybe*...
but still the 900# gorilla is afraid of the caterpillars...
lastly, i will say this: your major (only?) argument appears to be "some sect of violent moose limbs wrote/said/posted some psycho bullshit and so that means they really do (and WILL!) plant their tacky flag on our pretty, white, spotless, blameless, really, really totally kindhearted white house..."
something like that...
um, here's the thing, helmet hair, you can go back to our OFFICIAL, GOVERNMENTAL (see, i do know how to spel it), ELECTED LEADERS proclamations, speeches, sunday show blustering and posturing, and the most powerful country in the world is threatening the rest of the world in general, moose limb/oil countries in particular, and anyone who won't go along with our economic domination and extortion schemes...
the 900# gorilla threatens to squish any/all caterpillars if they don't do EXACTLY as the gorillas wish, and you wonder why the caterpillars are afraid and hate you ? ? ?
*heh, spel czech, fuck you very much, you useless squiggly red lining moron...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Supporting Indonesian nations maintaining democracy and repelling attempts to instill Sharia
2. Supporting free speech and open ideas and cartoon depictions of religious figures in Europe
3. Installing a military base on holy land WE WERE INVITED TO by the government there
These are not the reasons - they are the publicity material used by the extremists to attract people to their cause.
To find the reasons you have to look further back in history.
The reasons lie in the foolishness of allowing the foundation of two new religiously defined states in the period immediately after the second world war. (and yes I think Israel and Pakistan were equally bad ideas). This normalised the idea of a religious state at a time when we should have been pushing the idea of secular states with religious toleration.
Actually the mainstream of Arab nationalism remained secular for a long time. Remember Yasser Arafat's wife was a Christian and Saddam Hussein's government was multi-faith!
Years of frustration and failed attempts to create a palestinian state eventually delivered a siginificant number of people into the camp of the fanatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
first sensible thing I have read in here. If someone were to bomb your family no matter who it is would you not spent the rest of your existence trying to get revenge. I would.
The arms dealers must love this shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True enough, but it sure looks like they're going to have their hands full for the foreseeable future, because Mr. Mosa made a hugely boneheaded move:
Pulling out the C word like that is an act of supreme arrogance. The Islamic Caliphate is not a Muslim version of the abstract "Kingdom of Heaven" that Christians believe in; it was an actual Islamic empire, established by blood and horror and conquest, that lasted for quite a long time. By openly proclaiming a new one, they're likely to make enemies of the entire region.
Imagine how a whole lot of nations (including our own) would react if a high-ranking UK government official declared the re-establishment of the British Empire, and you'll have some idea of what this guy just stepped in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a cancer on this planet which threatens all of mankind.
They need to be killed pure and simple, every last one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't agree more, however, this is why I have a problem with the position:
'No reason for this slaughter': Parents of beheaded American journalist recall 'hero' son
That's just one of many headlines which completely takes away the power behind your post, Tim. Sites are already dehumanizing the victim to put the beheading in the forefront. And this isn't the only article taking out James Foley's name.
This is why I support the decision of social media outlets taking a stand. There's absolutely no reason to allow this travesty to be marred further by "Dude! Check out this guy's head being cut off!" because that completely strips Foley's work down to a few minutes of a gore fanatic's curiosity to be satiated.
It's no different than the current ice bucket challenges we're seeing, where the cause is not even being mentioned anymore. It's all about the fucking ice water now, and this is how social media turns purpose into childish stupidity.
"It takes a stone-heart to watch the video and not wince, cringe, cry."
There's only one emotion of that list I find acceptable to allow anyone to watch the video and it's neither "wince" nor "cringe".
If all one can muster a "wince" or "cringe" from watching the video, then get the hell off this planet. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt the witness of the video wasn't about Foley or ISIS, but a sickening self-interest to see it.
I have no tolerance for these types of people, who'll then turn and send the link to others for sheer audacity of having feelings which aren't on any level of compassion.
I've not seen the video and I have no intention to. I don't need to see it to know his death was needless for a cause I do not support.
That was all given to me by other journalists who didn't need to show me the video at all and, here's the point, I didn't need a video to express my emotions of the loss, which were never anywhere close to "wince" or "cringe".
So kudos to Twitter and others for taking the high ground to keep people from trivializing this into a scene from Final Destination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with pointing to sensationalized headlines looking for eyeballs is that those people only watching the video out of a sick compulsion are both few and unimportant. They don't matter in this equation. The people that matter are the 20 somethings who haven't been paying attention and might not otherwise be able to conceptualize an enemy that is very much worse than Al Qaeda and likely more dangerous....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, the video should not be removed if it's not breaking any laws. You know, First Amendment and all. At the same time that there are some less than good people that will watch it out of morbid pleasure there are those who will do it and spark discussion and analysis of how things came to this. By your own logic those photos of kids dying of famine in Africa should be removed too after all we "have no tolerance for these types who will then forward the link", right? Maybe there are Vyollas out there that think like you of these pictures and yet they are a reminder to us of the horrors that are happening with our African brothers and sisters.
Don't be so fast to judge and censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Private corporations and their contracts can remove what they want because, well, private contracts.
The Government doesn't have to be the ones to remove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will go one step further on this: I don't think anything additional is brought to the table by seeing the actual beheading. Show the video up to that point, and stop. It's enough to know the end result without having to show it. Showing it turns it into a freak show, rather than a very serious subject.
I've not seen the video and I have no intention to.
you and me both. I have seen the lead up to the beheading, it's more than enough. There is nothing more to be gained by seeing the rest of it. We already know it's gruesome, and we already know that someone who was just trying to inform us paid the ultimate price.
So yes, judos to the social media and video sites that are wise enough to realize that on balance, there isn't any reason to show it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where exactly did I say that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am sorry, but "wince" or "cringe" would probably be my reactions, not "cry".
It's not due to lack of empathy. It's just not a typical reaction for me. Different people express their emotions in different ways.
Your judgment seems a bit harsh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Stick
If they want no rules, no problem. Let them know we have a nuke with their names on it. Drop a small one... let them see what they will be facing. Let them know their caves aren't going to save them.
These are people... they are a pestilence. And like a pestilence, you exterminate them.
If they want to change their tactics and act like human beings instead of rapid animals, then we change our tactics. But until they show they ARE human beings and not lunatics, they deserve no mercy and no quarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Stick
The US has kidnapped and tortured people because they might have been terrorists(and had that torture made effectively 'legal' and 'acceptable', at least to the government, by their refusal to investigate or prosecute those involved), has a no-trial-required prison(Guantanamo) where they they stick people who again, might be terrorists, permanently, have performed drone-strikes on a wedding and in other situations where non-combatant fatalities are all but guaranteed...
By the logic of 'if you're not willing to act in a humane and civil manner, neither will we', they and similar groups would likely claim they're just returning the favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Stick
If I had my way, we'd inoculate them with ebola and send them back home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
good going, unka sammie would be proud of your jingoistic violence...
now, WHAT -besides your pale skin and privileged position in society- separates you from the *other* terrorists you are excoriating ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
We will never win because we become what we hate. If we cannot abide by our own rules, if we cannot rise above the slaughter, we don't deserve our freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
I disagree. We won't win the war on terror because there is no "win" in this type of war. Most dont get it, or choose not to recognize it, the real reason we are fighting terrorism isn't policy, it's survival.
Extremists, terrorists, holy warriors, whatever the fuck you want to call them. They want us dead.. and when I say us, I mean anyone that doesn't believe as they do. You have two choices, convert to Islam or die. You say they are a small minority in the middle east, yet they seem to be the ones in charge, and making shit happen. It's been like that for hundreds of years... they don't really need the U.S. or it's policies to have a reason to terrorize, the very fact that were alive is an insult to their religion and reason enough to kill us.
Just one of those maniacs gets a dirty bomb, nuke, gas bomb, or whatever, and lets it loose in a major city, and we could have WW3 on our hands. This is about survival, not winning, no one will ever "win" this war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
What a complete load of crap. There is no terrorist threat that comes even close to posing an existential crisis for the US. However, our response to such things certainly does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
.. get the capabilities to attack us they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Do you know where the weapons they use probably come from?
You could try to do something about that. It's not like they've got their own arms industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
But lets be clear about the motivations. We want them to stop doing what they are doing to us and our allies, a somewhat stable middle east, cheap oil, greed and safety... whatever
They just want us converted to their religion or dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
With this statement, your implicitly agreeing with me that there is no existential threat. Regardless of what their intent may or may not be, they don't have the means to attack us in a way that could destroy us.
If and when they do, we may have a different discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here. The reason they don't have the weapons and ability to attack us is in part because we are keeping them from getting them.
Do you remember 911? No existential threat you say? Open your eyes, the threat is all around you.
"If and when they do, we may have a different discussion."
You go ahead and wait for them to get a WMD to recognize and attack the problem, I would prefer keeping them from getting it in the first place if possible, even if that means war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Yes. I agree. Not all the people in that region are crazy radical Islamist. I spent quite a while over there and that was evident.
How to help them, without helping the radicals and/or getting them killed, is a question I hope we are able to answer one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
I'm not splitting hairs at all. I'm saying that someone who doesn't have the ability to destroy the US is not an existential threat no matter what their attitude or intention is.
"We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here"
That is one of the sayings that strongly indicates the cowardice and immorality of the US response, in my opinion.
"Do you remember 911? No existential threat you say?"
Of course I do. And how did 9/11 in any way indicate an existential threat? We suffer greater losses every year on the highway. Do you even know what "existential threat" means?
"You go ahead and wait for them to get a WMD to recognize and attack the problem"
This is a complete strawman. I never said, and don't believe, that we should just sit back and do nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Bullshit. They ARE destroying the U.S., and doing so in a most devious way. They have used terror to manipulate our Government (not that they really need much of a push) into destroying our way of life. NSA, TSA, Stop and Frisk, Militarization of our police, secret courts and countless loss of our civil liberties all in the name of terrorism.
"Do you even know what "existential threat" means?"
I was thinking more on the lines of an Existential Crisis. Post 911; As in changing the way Americans look at the world, and because of this, allowing the slow methodical destruction of our liberties.
You call the Government response cowardly and immoral, then you say we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing.What exactly is your opinion then? You think we can talk to them? You think that they can be sanctioned or reasoned with? Stop throwing rocks from the cheap seats, and put some skin in the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Ahhhahahahaha "they destroying our way of life", cmon you big pussy, you really want to blame everything on The Tehrorists?! Tehrorism (TM) is an excuse from your government to do all the things the above lettersoup orgs do, and you and your people letting them do it.
I'll refrain quoting you founding fathers about who will destroy the US and who deserves liberty and should keep the govt in check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
That's pretty much what I implied you fucking troll.
"I'll refrain quoting you founding fathers about who will destroy the US and who deserves liberty and should keep the govt in check.'
Good, because if your comments are any indication of your intellect, I would prefer you just kept your mouth shut and didn't waste our time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Stick
Indeed you implied. /s
What you really imply is that cave monkeys with 60 y/o AK-s somehow manipulate hundreds of USG officials to try to crush your precious democracy into a blend of police state and corporate oligarchy.
It's the other way around. You let corporations pressure your government into unnecessary, never ending wars for profit, then blame the poor idiots who raise against you and use them as an excuse to further their agenda - for more profit.
Good, because if your comments are any indication of your intellect, I would prefer you just kept your mouth shut and didn't waste our time.
"our time" how many of you are there? You shouldn't skip your pills, MPD is no joke.
Ad hominems aside, please show me a trollish or unintelligent comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Stick
"Ahhhahahahaha "they destroying our way of life", cmon you big pussy, you really want to blame everything on The Tehrorists?! Tehrorism (TM)"
Laughing and calling someone a big pussy is a trollish comment. Don't be ashamed, you are who you are.
"cave monkeys"
Careful, your racism is showing.. very trollish.
Corporations pressure all governments. If you think whatever country your in is void of any corporate interference or influence, your even more of an idiot that I thought you were.
"precious democracy "
You seem a little jealous. Don't worry, we don't have any special exclusions for trolls, you can still come here if you want.
Ad hominems not aside, you are a fucking troll. A troll of the worse kind... one that doesn't know he's a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Not. I won't elaborate on why laughing out someone and using sarcasm isn't trolling.
I called you out on your childish blaming of terrorists for your own governments actions, and your failure to act against it. It seems it went straight over your head.
Careful, your racism is showing.. very trollish.
My fine disregard of "political correctness" is what shows. Because, you know, driving home a point is more important in a conversation (for me, at least) than speaking nicely about everyone.
You seem a little jealous.
Oh, don't worry, my shitty little country's government resembles more to a democracy than yours. I gave up all desire to come to yours a long time ago (mainly because you becoming a police state, fuckin' crazy IP laws and waging war on every poor sod on this plane)
Ad hominems not aside, you are a fucking troll.
Keep repeating it. Maybe someone will believe you someday.
Ad hominems aside - from your side. Like this one: "if your comments are any indication of your intellect".
So, will you finally address the points I raised about your comment, or continue to whine about fictional creatures?
Namely:
- Why do you think terrorists have the sophistication to influence a big government (intentionally) like yours?
- Why do you think it's not the other way around, and your govt using said groups as an excuse to do what they already doing?
- Why do you think it's someone else's duty to keep your government in check?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
- Why do you think terrorists have the sophistication to influence a big government (intentionally) like yours?
You don't have to be sophisticated to know how the U.S. will react to mass killings using terror attacks. We knee jerk react to everything. Not sure why, but we do.
- Why do you think it's not the other way around, and your govt using said groups as an excuse to do what they already doing?
No doubt that is happening. Hell, I'm sure we've even started conflicts for that reason. Some believe our own FBI hatched fake terror plots to push agendas..
- Why do you think it's someone else's duty to keep your government in check?
I don't. I take the time and write and call my reps myself. I take full responsibility, as a citizen, of this mess of a government we've created... but i wont give up on it, I'll roll up my sleeves and try to pitch in and fix it.
I said;
"They ARE destroying the U.S., and doing so in a most devious way. They have used terror to manipulate our Government (not that they really need much of a push) into destroying our way of life."
You replied:
"I called you out on your childish blaming of terrorists for your own governments actions, and your failure to act against it. It seems it went straight over your head."
I do blame them (terrorists), they know full well what they are doing... and its a fantastic tactic, one that has been used for hundreds of years and is the very foundation of terrorism. As usual, our Government is falling for it hook line and sinker, and that makes me very angry.
Questions Answered! Now get back under your bridge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
If i were a troll, I'd claim "Mission Accomplished".
Now, if you're finished your ravings, let's get to the point.
So you admit that your government reacts badly to terrorism, even that your country created much of the reason for them to exist (bombing the shit out of a country tends to negative responses, you know. I doubt they're just jealous of your freedoms), and you still blame the towelheads?
We knee jerk react to everything. Not sure why, but we do.
Maybe this have something to do with it. Placing blame on others for your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
No. All your examples are how we are destroying ourselves.
"What exactly is your opinion then?"
I've stated my opinion bunches of times, but I'll do so again. First, we have to acknowledge that a military response to domestic terrorism is inappropriate and accomplishes the opposite of what we want to accomplish. 9/11, for example, should have been treated as a law enforcement matter, not an excuse to go to war against nations that had nothing to do with it. A better approach would have been to treat it as a law enforcement matter. We work with other nations that are involved so that we can target specific threats. Work with doesn't mean the bullying we are used to engaging in, it means actual cooperation. If the nations don't want to cooperate, then fine. We know how to deal with that sort of thing without lifting a rifle.
Also, the government and pro-war cheerleaders need to stop with the fearmongering. Most of the damage of 9/11, for example, didn't come from the attack itself. It came from all the talking heads telling everyone how they need to be terrified. That stoking of fear is what allowed all of the bad things that followed.
We have been acting in a cowardly and immoral way. It's hard for me to see how our actions can be interpreted in any other fashion. We are like someone who got shot in the leg from a window in an apartment building and responded by blowing the entire building up. That's a coward's response. The brave and noble response is to actually investigate and find who it was that shot us, instead of "kill them all and let god sort it out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Getting us to destroy ourselves is how I believe they are being devious... your cherry picking my argument.
I think John, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I've been on the battlefield with these animals and I can tell you for sure that it is war. It will always be war, you cant pacify them, reason with them, they don't care about your investigations or police actions.. it all means nothing to them.
Pacification doesn't work on people that don't value human life.
Tell you what, you spend some time over there talking with them and understanding their culture.. and if you still have your head at the end of that, lets have this same discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Let me say this John; I called you out for an opinion and you delivered a well thought out, well written response. I appreciate that. I enjoy having conversations with adults, especially intelligent ones.
But I have a somewhat tainted view on this subject. It will never change, I cannot be convinced otherwise as my opinions were formed first hand.. face to face with these animals. But keep your hopeful view on things, it's refreshing.. and though i can be somewhat sarcastic and condescending in my posts it doesn't mean I wont give serious thought to your replies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
In fact, we lost about the same number in traffic deaths just that month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: throw away justice for vengeance.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Assigning blame is easy. Blame is a concept that all to often is used to shrug off responsibility, as if the two were the same.
The fact of the matter is: If you drop a bomb you, and no one else, are responsible for every death caused. There is no way around that.
"If I had my way, we'd inoculate them with ebola and send them back home."
Fortunately you don't have it your way.
Unfortunately people in charge seem to think similarly to you, that means, without thinking about the consequences.
Instead of eradicating Ebola, they think of using it as a weapon, diminishing the chances to ever get rid of this scourge for mankind, lowering the living quality for the whole of mankind and thus promoting the terrorism they are supposedly fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
Says the one who's military using drones to bomb innocent people, because it's too much hassle to get your asses over there and kill them personally.
Tell you what, let's have an invading enemy, technologically far superior, with wastly more resources and soldiers, on your own territory, and then talk about bravery and tactics. If you expect them to 'come out and fight like a man', then you're a greater idiot then they are.
I have my doubts about the innocence of any of the guests at Gitmo.
So, your opinion and doubt is now enough to prison someone for life - just as well we should chop the guys head off. It's nice to see you're not one ounce better than the idiots at ISIL.
If I had my way, we'd inoculate them with ebola and send them back home.
Then why do you get so worked up when others have their way and blow up two an almost empty towers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who decides who can be heard?
I'll volunteer for the job. I am honestly willing to say "if you're proud of all the beheadings of innocent people you're doing, we as a society can draw a line there." Honestly, I'm just not worried about slippery slopes - I feel like reasonable people can probably understand the basis for the "beheadings" objection and not extend it to Catcher in the Rye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who decides who can be heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who decides who can be heard?
These are people that may have seen thousands of bodies of Iraqis (many of them innocent) exploded into little bloody bits by American weapons over the past decade. Showing Americans the killing of one of our own may not seem quite as extreme and brutal from their perspective as it does to you or I.
I'm not saying that what they did is right, but I'm not sure that these people are really the Skeletor-like personification of evil that they are portrayed as.
(However, their PR image might have a better chance of improving if they didn't try to kill reporters that try to talk to them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who decides who can be heard?
So also the US government PR image might have a better chance of improving it didn't hide from the justice declared war criminals wanted by the Europeean Genocide Network, a division of the EU's judicial co-operation unit Eurojust.
Not joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Says the people who hide their faces. If Allah is really with you, why do you need to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dressed as a typical construction worker I gave the appearance of a protester.
Lost, exploring the sights, I observes some sort of demonstration about a thousand (1000) yards/meters away when a reporter through a brick hitting me in the head and knocking me down.
There not being any other person within 800 yards of us I knew immediately it had to be the TV news reporter or Superman. And, I do not believe it was Superman as he lives only in the comics.
I learned two things from this:
1. If you are white, southern, and male you are guilty even if the event occurs miles away so stay away.
2. News reporters lie. Not all of them but tere is a percentage that form an opinion and then fabricate facts to support that opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey Cletus; was he from Al Jezeera?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did watch the video and did not wince, cringe or cry. It steeled my resolve to support a policy of eradicating this human garbage from the face of the earth.
I also believe this video should not be censored. It serves as an important clue to identifying the coward who sawed the head off of a handcuffed, non-combatatant. If this piece of shit is from Britain, chances are someone will recognize him by his voice, height, body shape, etc. Identifying him brings him one step closer to his inevitable rendezvous with a Hellfire missile or a 50 calibre round from a Special Forces sniper rifle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While a military response to some extent will likely have it's place dealing with groups like this, when you're talking about extremist fanatics who believe that martyrdom is something to look forward to, going in guns blazing isn't really going to deter them in the slightest, and isn't likely to lead to a long-term solution, as even if you squash one, another, similar group will pop up, and use the 'persecution' of the previous group as just more PR for their cause.
Also, 'They're sub-human, they deserve to die', take a wild guess what other group(s) follow that line of thought, sure you want to be counted among them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How far are you willing to go to appease them? You heard these fucks talk of raising their flag over the White House. Do you want to wait to deal with them after they consolidate their power and accumulate oil wealth and perhaps nuclear weapons and a delivery system? Or are you stupid enough to think they'd show restraint and not use nukes or other WMD's that they may come to possess in the future?
Also, 'They're sub-human, they deserve to die', take a wild guess what other group(s) follow that line of thought, sure you want to be counted among them?
The Nazis murdered Jews because they were Jewish. The Muslim extremists murder non-believers. If anyone compares to the Nazis, its the terrorists you like to make excuses for.
The ones I'm talking about are the guys out there on the field of battle- not the peaceful ones trying to live their lives and provide for their families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, you're talking about a group that strongly believes that martyrdom is a good thing, that dying for your cause is something to look forward to, jumping straight to 'gun them down, blow them up' isn't likely to be the most effective method, and it's certainly not going to deter the more fanatical members. If anything it will just drive them on.
Military responses do have their place, but as far as a long-term solution to fanatics like this and the way of thinking that drives them, I rather doubt it's going to come from the barrel of a gun. Better to undercut them entirely, make everyone around them see how insane and dangerous they are, so that they die off simply because no-one is willing to put up with or join them.
The Nazis murdered Jews because they were Jewish. The Muslim extremists murder non-believers. If anyone compares to the Nazis, its the terrorists you like to make excuses for.
Make excuse for? Hardly, people like this are scum, plain and simple, but you don't have to look very hard through the history books to see what happens when you de-humanize a group of people for whatever reason, whether it's religion, race, or whatever, and the result is never a good one.
Deal with people like them who threaten others in the most efficient, effective, and humane manner, but don't do it in such a way that you become no better than them(like say, infecting them with a disease and then sending them back home to infect others...), and never, never start claiming that a person or group no longer count as 'real' people, so the regular limits as to what is and is not acceptable no longer apply when dealing with them. Going down that road inevitably leads to more atrocities, on both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought I explained that it is the terrorists I characterized as sub-human; not Muslims as a whole. This particular piece of shit is a Westerner. His ethnicity and religion are of no consequence to me whatsoever. The terrorists have dehumanized and debased themselves with these atrocities. I will forever believe that any group that embraces the beheading of a shackled non-combatant to advance its political (and economic) agenda are less than human and have forfeited their right to live amongst us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will believe this with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, classifying, seeing, or treating a group as 'less than human' never goes well, and more often than not, just leads to more atrocities on both sides. You don't fight monsters by acting monstrous, that defeats the purpose.
Do what you can to stop them and others like them, and keep innocent lives safe, but never, never deny someone's basic humanity, no matter how evil or twisted they may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember that to hate those who hate you in the same way as them makes you no different to them.
I fully agree that a different way is needed. One definition of insanity is to uses the same method repeatedly expecting the results to be different this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually Hitler got really angry with the Jewish people when on WWI some factories that were supposed to send ammunitions to the German war efforts simply turned them down. He was incredibly patriotic at the time and it would be reasonable to put the specific hatred against Jewish in this tab. He was some racist bigot for sure but remember Judaism is a RELIGION, not a race. I can pretty much be alien and Jewish.
The Jewish elite that currently owns the American financial system (and on other places too) with their actions is what fuels the hatred against Jewish people in general. Which is a shame because I know good Jewish people and most of them disagree with much of what the ones in power are doing. Basically for the orthodox this planet is theirs by right because God gave them this planet. All the rest of humanity are sinners and usurpers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? Did you seriously just say that? I'd always figured you were a big time loser, but now you reveal yourself as bigot too.
What a scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the real problem is that these fundamentalist idiots are no better than (I'd say they're much worse) the fundamentalist idiots in the middle east beheading people, all the while giving bad name and fuel to hate groups against their own religion.
Fundamentalist jews believe in Mein Kampf II (living space, supreme race, enslaving or exterminating everybody else etc), and they have the means to do much more damage than a few towelheads with worn down weapons.
Hitler were a fuckin idiot for trying to do what AJ suggest: punish an entire group of people for the actions of a few extremist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may want to read up on some logical fallacies before arguing again, particularly false dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Why would I address the question when you can't even make a coherent argument? Anyway, enough other people are refuting your vile philosophy. I know your mind won't be changed, but it's good for anyone else reading this to see the opposing view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please don't run and hide this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I remember criticizing is dehumanizing our enemies. I have no idea how best to deal with IS. Ignoring them sounds like a bad idea. Going back into another war in Iraq sounds like we'll throw away more lives and money just to be back here again in 10 years. Aerial attack doesn't sound like it would be effective. Iraq's military appears unable to deal with the threat. So that leaves us... where? I don't know. What do you think we should do, reoccupy Iraq?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nasch (profile), Aug 21st, 2014 @ 2:08pm
Re: Re: Re:
So we should have them over for tea? We should stand by as they slaughter innocents in their quest to spread their perverted brand of Islam? Maybe turn a blind eye to their conquest and control of the region and its oil assets?
"You may want to read up on some logical fallacies before arguing again, particularly false dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nasch's comment was a critical of your piss poor debate tactics, that's all. I happen to agree that your debate skills need some work.
After reading your comments here, my guess is that you are this guy:
http://schindlertweets.tumblr.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's correct. I was pointing out that your argument was a logical fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that that was a criticism of your proposed policy, because what I quoted wasn't even a proposed policy, just a nonsensical attack on someone disagreeing with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their version of government, backed by American firepower, with hopefully some assistance from the UN, is the answer to the ISIS/ISIL riddle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No thanks. I'd rather my country use its power to do some good in the world, particularly since we've certainly caused our share of harm. Isolationism ain't going to cut it, especially in this case. Inaction leading to an ISIS takeover of Iraq and Syria would equate to blood on our hands, at least in part because of the way we've meddled in the region before.
It's quite easy to say, "just stay out of the fight". Easy, and cowardly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's quite easy to say, "just stay out of the fight". Easy, and cowardly...."
It's a nice sentiment, but as I said, your country seems to completely lack the political and religional understanding of these people, yet you're so eager to jump in and "make order" in an area your govt previously destabilized itself. As it is, I doubt your government's sincerity and benignness on helping these people out, and hence would prefer if you just stayed the fuck out of it.
TLDR: you caused enough problems there already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm curious what your definition of "human" is, and where you get the idea that humans don't do horrible things to other humans. Or do you just need to feel justified in your rage against these people, and don't feel comfortable expressing these thoughts about other humans? Dehumanizing the enemy, after all, is designed specifically to make it easier to do terrible things to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder who things this is a good idea...
We have numerous modern examples of this, from WW2 (Both the Nazi and Allied bombings), Vietnam, all the way up both the Israeli and Palestinian sides in the current middle east conflict).
All i can see is more chance of the US getting further involves because a greater part of the population will be demanding heads on a stick..
Are IS really this stupid? or do they for some reason WANT the US to get further involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
I think it is pretty well accepted that the widespread bombing of Germany destroyed its industrial capacity and broke the will of its civilian and military population.
In Japan, there's no question it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
This would be the Japan whose people demanded retribution but whose Emperor realized the war was lost? Such actions can crush the will of a government or an army, who expected to be attacked and thought they could turn those attacks back.
A civilian population sees things through a very different lens, and ISIS arose from an incensed civilian population. It is not yet very far from its roots. Shock and awe are things that these people have seen before, and their response is what we see before us.
Einstein's definition of insanity applies to continued military intervention in the region.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that we should do nothing. You're the only one that brought it up. Most of the reasonable arguments are more about finding an answer to the problem without losing everything we claim we stand for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
That vast oil wealth isn't ours to give. It belongs to those nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
The problem right now is that we're acting like there's a real war when there isn't. The only real war that's happening is the one we're making ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
Operation Gomorrah killed 42,600 people, left 37,000 wounded and caused some one million German civilians to flee the city.[3] The city's labour force was reduced permanently by ten percent.[3] Approximately 3,000 aircraft were deployed, 9,000 tons of bombs were dropped and over 250,000 homes and houses were destroyed. No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of similar weight would force Germany out of the war. The industrial losses were severe, Hamburg never recovered to full production, only doing so in essential armaments industries (in which maximum effort was made).[11] Figures given by German sources indicate that 183 large factories were destroyed out of 524 in the city and 4,118 smaller factories out of 9,068 were destroyed. Other losses included damage to or destruction of 580 industrial concerns and armaments works, 299 of which were important enough to be listed by name. Local transport systems were completely disrupted and did not return to normal for some time. Dwellings destroyed amounted to 214,350 out of 414,500.[12] Hamburg was hit by air raids another 69 times before the end of World War II.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
Here's a decent quote:
What actually impacted Germany's ability to make war wasn't the destruction of industrial capacity as such. Although the Allies did make a dent in it once they changed tactics in 1944, it arguably wasn't enough of a dent to make any difference.
What made the difference was that we also bombed key links in the German railroads, preventing Germany from moving their stuff around. So the bombing that worked for us was not bombing the cities at all -- bombing the cities just encouraged the civilians to work harder and with more determination.
This wasn't just a German thing, either. When Germany was bombing the crap out of Britain, we saw the same effect -- British citizens worked harder and with greater determination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViUBNrFDx5g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder who things this is a good idea...
From wikipedia:
From 1942 onward, the intensity of the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive, increasingly targeting industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas.[19][20] By 1943, the United States had significantly reinforced these efforts. The controversial firebombings of Hamburg (1943), Dresden (1945), and other German cities followed.[21] The effect of strategic bombing varied depending on duration and intensity. Both the Luftwaffe and RAF failed to deliver a knockout blow by destroying enemy morale. However, strategic bombing of military targets could significantly reduce enemy industrial capacity and production.[22][23]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, ISIS is not a threat
No. They don't have to be. And that's because they're not. ISIS does not constitute an existential threat to the US -- any more than Al Queda did or does. They're no more than buzzing little annoying flies who can and will be swatted into oblivion if and when the annoyance rises to an unacceptably high level.
We have stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, heck, we even have nukes -- so ISIS could be incinerated to the last man on command.
This doesn't mean that they're not bad people. They are. This doesn't mean that they haven't issued threats. They have. This doesn't mean that they don't intend to carry them out. They do. But they're not a serious military threat to the US, and if it looks like they'll become one, then it will be a simple matter to exterminate them.
So let's not see ISIS used as the next bogeyman to justify anything and everything. They're not nearly as frightening as their PR would like you to believe, and as a military power, they're inconsequential. (Although I'd sure like to send the Ferguson police into combat against them to work a little of their aggression.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
ISIS does pose a major threat to the US, if left unchecked they will find a way to perform another attack like 9/11. Or do you not consider that an "existential threat"?
TSA is a joke, NSA spying on it's own citizens doesn't help detect external threats. The terrorists are using private, encrypted VPNs for communication that the NSA may be aware of but cannot crack as they are using foreign developed encryption, whose source code wasn't weakened by NSA development teams.
Let's start using those weapons and wipe ISIS from the face of the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
Of or relating to existence.
9/11, or another attack like it, is most certainly NOT an existential threat.
ISIS may pose a threat to the US but I'm fairly certain it will not wipe the US off the face of the earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
Please learn what the word existential means before commenting again. 9/11 does not even come close; as pointed out above there were just as many US road deaths in the same month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
I suggest YOU learn what the word existential means before before spewing your arrogance in the comments again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
Terrorism didn't alter our way of life, counter-terrorism did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
I disagree, but even if that were true, that does not imply that our response was the best possible one, or that it did not come with heavy costs to our society.
Your blaming the fix (or the attempted fix) for the problem.
No, I think you're confusing the issue. Terrorism can kill people, but that is all. It is our response to terrorism that is the real threat to our society. If we had just taken some time to institute some moderate and reasonable security measures after 9/11, we might not now be dealing with a whole host of problems that are caused not by the attack, but by our response to it.
Sure, we tend to knee jerk react and over react, but we wouldn't have had to react in the first place if there wasn't something to react too.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not arguing that the response to 9/11 wasn't actually a response to 9/11. I'm arguing that the response is a much graver threat to our way of life than the attack was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
I agree with the response not being the best possible. We reacted, as usual, way over the top.. but the terrorist know that, and in some cases that is the actual desired result.
"No, I think you're confusing the issue. Terrorism can kill people, but that is all. It is our response to terrorism that is the real threat to our society. "
I think we may have to disagree on the above statement. If they were to get a Nuke, and detonate it in a major city, it would do a hell of alot more than just "kill people". The long term physical, emotional, and psychological effects would be devastating... Reaction aside, there are many still dealing with the emotional scars of 911.. IMO that attack did alot more than just kill people.
"institute some moderate and reasonable security measures after 9/11, we might not now be dealing with a whole host of problems that are caused not by the attack, but by our response to it."
I agree, we love reacting way out of proportion. Perhaps its our political system...
"I'm arguing that the response is a much graver threat to our way of life than the attack was."
I agree. That attack yes, the next one.. who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
I think we may have to disagree on the above statement. If they were to get a Nuke, and detonate it in a major city, it would do a hell of alot more than just "kill people".
OK, conventional terrorism then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, ISIS is not a threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The comments here and elsewhere demonstrate clearly how US citizens feel about IS and what they plan to do about them in return.
The acts on the video are an example of why most US citizens feel that way.
Do you see the imbalance? Where is the debate about why IS feels this way towards the US?
It is exactly the arrogance demonstrated by the desire to remove the video from the internet that enrages so many people around the world. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut because somebody hates you.
The utterly repulsive levels of dishonesty, greed and thuggery demonstrated by the US government in their actions in their own country and in countries not their own is fuelling this fire to the point that even US citizens are revolted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The transgressions against the people of Ferguson are real and tangible, and they're something I'm against. I'm not against supporting freedom abroad (not to be confused with toppling legitimate governments), I'm not against Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad, and I'm not against defending our allies at their request.
There's no comparison here, hence no hypocrisy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Believing that our policies have created these problems (as I do) ins't the same as endorsing any particular list - especially not one that emanates from people like ISIS themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their solution is to bury woman and children alive, force people to convert from one religion to another, cut off peoples heads, and commit acts of genocide. One of their end goals is to destroy the United States, and every other free (ish) society on this planet. Policy has nothing to do with it, they want us converted to Islam, or fucking dead. They don't give a rats ass about policy!!
They have believed this way and have been committing these atrocities for thousands of years. Pointing the finger at U.S. policy is just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free(ish) societies
>>every other free (ish) society on this planet.
And, with this in mind, what has been the terrorists' greatest Victory?
The Patriot Act!!! When the sheeple let our government undermine the freedoms that our Constitution protects, then the terrorists win. Instead of subverting the Constitution with a reason of 'because terrorists,' how about supporting it, instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: free(ish) societies
The Patriot Act!!!"
I could not agree with you more. We are our own worst enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of my closest friends at my last job was a South American immigrant of native descent. He has all sorts of knowledge about the history of his people, and one of the most interesting things he told me was that, for all the bad things that Europeans have done since discovering the Americas, he's grateful for the destruction of the Aztecs and their abominable culture of slavery and death-worship.
That's kind of how I view militant Islam today. Freedom of religion is a great thing, and I'm all for it... except for these guys. There are limits to everything, and reducing this ideology to nothing more than a footnote in the history books of tomorrow would be a good thing, for the entire world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Ferguson thing did start because of an extreme response by a police officer then it escalated because of more extreme responses from police officers. The cause and effect can be easily followed in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry - but it isn't nonsense. It is simply the realisation that it is pointless to continue to blame others for your problems.
Instead you need to concentrate on the things that you could do differently to make things better. It si simply what Mr Spock would have called "logical".
None of which means that the beliefs and behaviour of people like ISIS aren't distasteful in the extreme - it's just that you can't DO anything directly about that whereas you CAN avoid the kind of policies that radicalise people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Democracy for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However I don't think our (the west's) policies in the middle east have been about promoting democracy until very recently (and then very superficially).
Unfortunately when you have a long track record of doing bad stuff and then you suddenly introduce a system of voting (based on your own practice) it is unlikely that you will get the outcome you are looking for. Any system of democracy has to be adapted to the lie of the land in terms of ethnic groups, distribution of wealth etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Place for ISIS
The only way to deal with these fanatics is to wipe them from existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to categorize this crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Foley paid the ultimate price in showing us the reality of what is occurring. We shouldn't dishonor his sacrifice by censoring that reality just because it is so horrific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No.
The only significant threat that America faces is itself.
None of these groups has the capability to inflict damage to America beyond what America constantly does to itself.
For example, as an American you are far more likely to be killed by an American policeman than by ISIS.
However all of this activity is noise on the general run of accidental death, let alone health related avoidable death.
A threat to America would be something capable of destroying American civil society and the rule of law.
The erosion of rights and liberties in response to so-called threats is in itself a far bigger threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: far bigger threat
Precisely! And that agenda is being moved forward almost exclusively because of real and implied terrorist threats. The continual erosion of liberty around the world is a reaction to fear of terrorist actions. People do not give up liberty easily or willingly, they do it only in the face of fear. Yes there are people capitalising on and actively trying to make people more fearful. But they are only opportunists, they have no interest in the outcome, only profits. The problem is extremist and totalitarian behavior and beliefs ... on all sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if honor was somehow a commendable value! As if it even was somehow well defined instead of something that often has been used to drive people to do insane and crazy things.
It's exactly what those insane terrorists are using to further their agenda. It's as useless as a basis for your morals as justice. You can define it in almost any way you want and any discussion based on how honorable something is is bound to devolve into group-think or a fight.
In the same way "cowardice" is used as a way to silence your opponents. "Oooh, look, the terrorists hide, what cowards!"
Yeah, sure. I can see the people writing this, sitting at home, feeling so much better than those terrorists "hiding". If you were hunted, you'd hide, too. And it's what I would expect of you.
If they didn't hide, they wouldn't exist anymore. What does it help anyone to call them cowards? How does it make their actions less threatening, how does it help the people who are hunting for them, how would not being cowards make them better persons in any way?
I just don't get this mindset. It's like I'm back in the fucking middle ages here - only with Internet, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second: Way to go on the sexism here. Fuck you.
I somewhere read a quote that went something like this: "I don't get why having balls is seen as being tough and being a pussy as being sensitive. Balls are the organ most susceptible to pain while a pussy... well, a pussy can take a beating."
Third: How does me being a pacifist *or* a "pussy" invalidate anything I said?
Are you thinking with adrenaline or something? That's what the brain is actually for, adrenaline is not made for thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not hard to figure out
It's not like I was saying you shouldn't shoot the terrorists or something. "Honor" is not required to fight and being a coward doesn't prevent you from fighting either.
It's pretty clear you don't have the stomach fighting of any kind.
Second: Way to go on the sexism here. Fuck you.
I somewhere read a quote that went something like this: "I don't get why having balls is seen as being tough and being a pussy as being sensitive. Balls are the organ most susceptible to pain while a pussy... well, a pussy can take a beating."
Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, fraulein.
Third: How does me being a pacifist *or* a "pussy" invalidate anything I said?
Are you thinking with adrenaline or something? That's what the brain is actually for, adrenaline is not made for thinking.
It is evident. The terrorists have you cowed. You are a cringing, sniveling coward incapacitated by fear. I guess being humiliated in two world wars has really taken the fight out of you. And here I thought the French were soft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, while I wish such violence weren't necessary, I'm eager for the day when ISIS/ISIL is extinguished like the plague they are....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
selfish people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: selfish people
Maybe if the Palestinian people stopped shooting rockets into civilian cities, or stopped allowing the people doing so from using their schools and homes as launch platforms, Israel would stop attacking them.. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: selfish people
We have a serious illegal immigrant problem in the US, but because they mostly keep their heads down and don't cause trouble, we tend to ignore it. But you can bet your last dollar that if they started acting the way these fake "Palestinians" are, claiming that large parts of territory on our southern border actually belonged to them and not to the US, and blowing up anyone who tried to disagree, that we'd respond exactly the way Israel is, and we would be completely justified in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: selfish people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: selfish people
If you get invaded by military forces, that's a war. There are well-understood protocols for how to handle a war, and it involves everyone considering that you're justified in killing the military forces that invaded you.
If you get invaded by civilians, which is what happened to Israel when the Jordanians came in and colonized their land, the response suddenly look very different to outside observers. So what's the appropriate way to get rid of them without ending up "up to your ears in wrongdoing"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: selfish people
Both sides have (and continue to) savage each other, murder each other, and basically do everything they can to try to wipe the other from the face of the planet. There are no saints there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Visceral videos and radicalisation
I believe strongly that we shouldn't be hiding from ugliness. I don't think that works, and we shouldn't be censoring things merely because they are ugly.
At the same time, there's a lot of merit to Violynne's point about the media treatment of the video. The video *is* being sensationalised, and it *is* being used to radicalise American sentiments.
We have an example right here in these comments, we have an Anonymous Coward throwing around words like subhuman and "nuke 'em all" sentiments being expressed publicly. One piece of ugliness is provoking a whole lot more ugliness.
James Foley's goal was to expose what's actually happening in Syria. The video helps accomplish that goal. We should honour that.
At the same time, ISIS' goal is to polarize Americans and provoke enemies. The video *also* helps accomplish that goal. We should absolutely not be supporting that.
I can't speak for US law, but in Canada, the video would almost certainly violate our hate-speech laws. There's plenty of other jurisdictions that have similar laws. So, I don't think the legal argument is very clear-cut. I'm also not sure it matters.
Ultimately, the solution to this is cultural, because the effect of the video depends more on the viewer than the video itself. I haven't watched the video and I'm not going to. The list of people who *need* to see the video is a very short one; I don't need the trauma and hate that goes with seeing something like that. I don't think anyone else does either — especially those who are at risk of radicalisation.
So ... how do we deal with this in the long term? Use education to make our culture more media literate.
In the short term? I have no idea. I'm glad to see sites like YouTube recognizing that they have some responsibility for how this imagery is viewed. I'm inclined to say that the video is acceptable in some contexts and not in others, and that situations without context (i.e. the raw video on YouTube) is probably not appropriate.
We can take a more nuanced view here; I think it is possible to restrict access responsibly so that the video is publicly available in a context that isn't easily sensationalised, and that doesn't provoke polarisation. I don't think it is possible to encode this kind of responsibility in law, but I *do* think that, for the most part, big media companies could proactively be responsible and have policies about setting context for controversial / graphic / extreme content. And, if big media companies can do this, that takes care of much of the problem; the fact that the video might be available out of context on smaller sites matters much less because they have much less power to provoke large scale change.
So, I'm in favour of YouTube and other sites treating this as a special case. But, I'd rather they would do it by providing context rather than simply deleting the videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also the video lacked both the beheading, the "allahackbarr" we hear way too much and the music too.
Not saying it was fake, but remember that it was the US government who had evidence on things like the WMD's in iraq or the gas attack in syria, both turned out to be a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rational Debate vs. Kool-Aid
... and that's assuming that some of the worst straw men aren't just trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rational Debate vs. Kool-Aid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter and Facebook can make their own decisions about the video. Anyone who wants a censorship free internet experience isn't using Facebook and Twitter anyways. They're using something more decentralized like Freenet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credible Threats and Terror Threats
Much of what ISIS/ISIL say in relation to the USA and others is based on terror threats (make threats for the purpose of creating a heighten fear in those threatened). This seems to be working on the governmental authorities within the USA and UK and on selected parts of the populations.
There are those who do not see ISIS/ISIL as being able to carry out a credible threat so can it be ignored.
Well, the problem with credible threats is that you cannot necessarily see them. For instance, how easy is it to kill the population of Washington D.C.without the use of massive amounts of weaponry. Surprisingly, quite easy.
There are quite a few different low-tech methods that can be used effectively to kill many people without the offenders being so affected. Unless the medical profession actually know the symptoms and what needs to be done, you can have thousands, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people killed in a short period of time.
The first effected would be children and the elderly.
The point is that even though these methods are available, they are typically one-shot methods. They certainly don't give you the high profile high impact news-worthy coverage of executions or plane attacks against buildings.
A group like ISIS/ISIL has its own enemies in the area of its influence. They are a danger (deadly and vicious) to the local inhabitants. I have a friend whose extended family is on the run from them currently.
The biggest problem for the USA and UK and others is that the leadership will use the terror threats to bring about increasing control of their citizens. If they need credible threats to support their control, they will undertake it against their own populations and then blame the originators of the terror threats.
Tim you make a mistake to think that it is secular freedom that is under attack. Anything that is not in accordance with their ideas is under attack. To think that secular freedom is the one that stands out as being attacked misses the main thrust of their approach.
It is even less about the USA. It is about promoting their ideology to those who are inclined to join them and be a part of their regime. The targeting of the USA is simply a means of getting their message across to those who have been adversely affected by their own governments.
I find it interesting that many (but by no means all) who promote secular freedom are also at the forefront of stifling religious freedoms. They are in effect minor examples of what ISIS/ISIL has become. This by no means excuses those who under the guise of their religious persuasion call for the death and destruction of those who are different or believe differently to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Foley Beheading Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Foley Beheading Video
That is unfortunate, but it's impossible to keep all the terrible things away from every child while allowing adults to see them, and at least in the US we subscribe to the notion that adults should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. We don't want companies deciding for us what we're allowed to see and what we're not, and of course it's illegal for the government to make that decision.
Once you give people the power to censor, they will do it, and by its nature the public will not be in control of what gets censored, but whatever group of people have been put in control of information. Sounds like a dystopian future to me. There is no individual or group I trust to control what information I'm allowed to access. In this particular case, I just chose not to watch the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Foley Beheading Video
I agree that videos like that shouldn't be seen by young children. That's one of the main jobs of parents: to shield their children from things that they aren't yet prepared for.
However, I disagree with including "the general public" in your statement. The general public are not children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put your money where your mouth is.
Put your money where your mouth is.
I don't like having to visit crazy foreign, middle-eastern sites where I have to guess which of the many sites trying to run cross-site scripts is the video player. (Techdirt is not alone, I see the following sites trying to run scripts. At least here, I recognize about half of them:
postrelease.com
akamai.net
google.com
googleapis.com
flattr.com
facebook.net
googleusercontent.com
twi tter.com
scorecardresearch.com
quantserve.com
bizographics.com
google-analytics.com
gstatic.com
reddit.com
amazon.com
googletagservices.com
Am I missing any?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put your money where your mouth is.
Put your money where your mouth is.
What is it you're responding to here? Did Tim claim to know which videos would be removed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put your money where your mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I_ntegrated S_ecret I_nsurgency S_ervices
Gotta make Terrorism more like the Hollywood version if you want to make the US Public crawl back under the bed again and beg to renew all of those lucrative Anti-Terrorist budgets for the military. The only way to pull that off is of course, to become the very terrorists themselves.
After all, you simply cannot depend on a bunch of angry muslim men who have had their homes and wives and children blown up by drone strikes, to be able to act like Hollywood's Die Hard Terrorists. That takes talent and experience. Like that possessed by the US and British Special Operations Squads and rental mercenaries.
How quickly we forget that Al Qaeda was completely manufactured by the CIA as a Freedom Fighter Army against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. How quickly we forget that Bin Laden was a recruited CIA asset and that his family was buddy-buddy with the George W. Bush Family.
ISIS is well funded and well trained. American and British tax payer money is funding them and members of the US and British Special Operations forces along with a number of the Mercenary Organizations used by the US in Afghanistan are training them. Most of the higher ranking members are indeed British and US Special Forces. Its why they all wear masks of course.
Ah well, in a year or so, they'll have made enough mistakes and will have been exposed often enough that even the US public, hiding under their beds, will start to realize the truth. Hopefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
addendum
I mean, hell, they blew up a marathon in Boston and hardly anyone crawled under their beds. Its time to up the ante and put the face of horror back on Terrorism... before people decide to put a stop to the waste of taxpayer's wealth called the War on Terror.
To keep those Multi-Billions of Tax Payer Dollars a Year coming in for the Phony War Against Non-existent Muslim Terrorists, the US and British Federal governments and their corporate cronies in power would happily kill thousands of British and American civilians.
Again.
And again.
And again.
You're all being Pearl Harboured once again folks.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: addendum
Yeah, we got it. We were just ignoring you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: addendum
That is the nicest thing you've ever said to me. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: addendum
It appears as though he may have been actually speaking for a small cadre of long-time poster regulars here on TechDirt, who have decided through PMs to jointly ignore my posts, or at least pretend to.
I am sincerely flattered and momentarily speechless!
I think I just blushed!!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
I was speaking for everyone who ignored that particular post, without knowing exactly who that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Well that is awfully big of you.
But....
I thought you and all those that "you speak for" were ignoring my posts.
It would appear that you were, as I suspected, only pretending to ignore them, by not responding in any way.
However, here you are now... responding.
So, what changed??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: addendum
Just heard on - of all places - the TV, that a large percentage of the ISIS is made up of Brits!!
Well hooda thunk it eh. :)
Seems they wear those masks because they really aint what they appear to be. Wonder how many of them are Yanks.
Eventually they'll make enough mistakes that even die hard US & Brit "Capital P" patriots will be unable to avoid the obvious.
In the meantime, lots of folks will be killed and maimed for the sake of instilling terror into the hearts of American and British civilians, so the fascists they trust can carry on carrying on, while the public begs them to take away the last of their rights - for their own protection.
So, no more thinking now! Back under the bed, quickly, before the spanking brand new Hollywood boogie man sneaks into your bedrooms. After all, you're paying for the new boogie-man's masks, guns, bombs, videos and wages, so you might as well act the part of the terrorized public and get your money's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: addendum
There's step 1! Now to prove they're government agents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
A member of ISIS, who is also a member of a British Armed Forces Special Ops team, confessing to CNN???
A memo directive issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to an American Special Ops team to start training operations in the Middle East with specific emphasis on training local CIA recruited Jihadi terrorists in torture techniques and video falsification processes?
I suspect that you, and "those you speak for", would be utterly unsatisfied with either of the above, as they might be entirely faked.
So again, now that you're apparently no longer pretending to ignore my posts, what would constitute, in your mind, proof of the above conjecture.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
I'm satisfied with your characterization of it as conjecture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
You thought I was using a crystal ball? A time machine?
Of course its conjecture.
I don't have omniscient revelations of intent, universal or individual. I simply add 2 + 2 and usually end up with 4.
The fun part is when it comes out 3 or 5, or 172.
Would you prefer that I end each post with something like:
"In my opinion only."
Don't bother answering that, cuz it aint gonna happen.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Some people espousing similar theories seem to believe them quite firmly, to the point of considering anyone who doesn't believe them naive and foolish. I didn't know what your position was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Hardly ever fails to lead to the real bad guys.
And just about every other trail available is a manufactured wild goose run. Criminal modus operandi.
And in truth, I consider anyone - who does not accept my conjectures as being at least close to accurate - to be generally normal. Especially those who still watch TV. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Well that is a breath of fresh air. I guess I'd have to consider you a non-nutjob conspiracy theorist. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
After years of being "eliminated", I decided to try various "tricks" to get my point across while not ringing the powers-that-be alarm bells.
I eventually noticed that True Wack Jobs, who espouse blatantly silly theories and obviously looney concepts, were ALWAYS allowed to continue unchecked and unhindered.
I also noticed that these people never wrote in terms of possibility, or even probability, but always wrote as given fact, the most insane and absurd of notions.
After a bit of pondering, it occurred to me that those who control content were allowing these folks to spew their wind because it produced tons of misleading ideas, reams of bad "conspiracy theories" to point back to and generally gave anyone who postulated non-official ideas, a bad name.
So I developed the method I use today, in order to keep on posting longer, because the boys at the top of the food chain think that by including no "could be" or "might be" in my message, that I am indeed a wack job conspiracy nut who can be ignored. I think they hope people read my posts and immediately dismiss the message as impossible, thereby aiding and abetting the official lies.
I could of course be entirely wrong about all of this, given that I was "gently prevented" from posting on TruthDig after a couple years, but it still works better than posting conjecture filled with "may be" and "might be" apologies. Saves a lot of words too.
Nuff sed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
I don't usually go in for personal shit, but I'll make an exception this time. It will not happen again.
I wrote that silly Royal We post specifically to see if you were telling the truth, and ignoring my posts, or if, as I suspected, the claim was false and you were simply trying to intimidate a poster in order to eliminate a source of irritating concepts and ideas.
In truth, I had considered you to be one of the more thoughtful and intelligent of the "old hands" who post here regularly. I had actually dubbed you "The Corrections Officer", because it appeared as though you were intentionally seeking out errata and falsehoods and demanding corrections.
There are shills out there who are simply trying to eliminate factual information and reroute public thought for the people in power who are truly profiting from human suffering, in return for favors and cash. I have no master.
I extrapolate from know data, in order to determine unknowns before they fully hatch. I present my conjectures in a fashion that pre-supposes truth, without any sense of "may be" or "could be" and I know this pisses off a lot of people. I make no apologies, however, I am always open to new information and always willing to admit I was wrong, although that is very seldom the case.
In most cases, the owners of the blog or posting area will eventually end my ability to post, through "technical problems" or simply by cancellation of my account, so intimidation is both futile and un-necessary as my time here is probably nearing its normal limit anyway.
nuff sed.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
I think you may have taken it a little too seriously but at any rate it was meant as a commentary on the lack of attention to that particular post, not that we're all ignoring you on purpose.
Thank you for the compliment, and I don't go looking for errors, they just jump out at me. And I hope and believe that the techdirt editors will prove you wrong. I think all viewpoints are permitted here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Not at all, really. I take physical blows personally, and little else. I had always assumed that my postings were simply late and that everyone had already said their piece and wandered off to other topics, because my posts appeared to always be the very last one under any particular article.
For this reason I long ago stopped bothering to check for responses after a week passed. Since I post my responses immediately after receiving the TechDirt digest, there was no way that I could respond to articles earlier anyway, so - so be it.
Your apparent claim that you and others were purposely ignoring my posts put another face on the situation that I could not avoid investigating further.
One can hardly post here for more than a month and not notice the obvious rapport which is shared by a number of the "old hands" here.
Your use of the term WE told me there just might be more to the story than late postings. It would be incredibly simple for any number of long standing friends and associates on a blog to PM each other and decide to unanimously "boycott" a specific poster in the hopes of elimination through ostracism.
Its not exactly a new concept.
I wanted to see if that was why there were seldom any new posts after I published mine.
So I presented my suspicion as fact to illicit a response from you or one of the un-named others, because "We were just ignoring you." does sound as if it was being done rather "on purpose" and by many, some or most of whom you appeared to know were also ignoring the posts.
Because your response was immediate, I choose to think your group ostracism, or omniscient revelation of universal intent, is not the reason for my posts killing dialogue and that it is as I suspected, late posting, or as you say, a lack of interest.
---
"And I hope and believe that the techdirt editors will prove you wrong. I think all viewpoints are permitted here."
I really love TechDirt's attitude and format and have sought such a place for a long time, however, I'm 60 plus years old and have been posting on the web for decades under handles such as GEM, N0Mad, Montster and others, yet, aside from a few posts about UFOs from an Astronomy forum more than a decade ago, and a couple posts from Usenet pertaining to hemp during Canada's attempt to prevent the legalization of pot, nothing remains. Even my old website, CopyFreeGEMs.org, where I used to publish Bryce 5 and Poser images for "no strings attached" public use, was cancelled without notice.
I don't blame the websites. I doubt they have a choice.
I bring all this personal shit up simply to let you know that I am not intimidated by words and can no more shut up about what I know than I can stop breathing. So, if you wish to ignore my posts, that is absolutely your right and I'll defend that right to the death.
However, telling me you're ignoring my posts merely triggers my curiosity and starts the process of discovery over which I have little control.
Thank you for not ignoring my baited post and for alleviating my curiosity. It is an itch I cannot not scratch.
My apologies to one and all who have waded through all of this off topic dialogue. It will not happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: addendum
Well I can't speak for anyone else but the extent of my contact with any other commenter outside of Techdirt has been noticing someone posting on another site with the same handle.
However, telling me you're ignoring my posts merely triggers my curiosity and starts the process of discovery over which I have little control.
Thank you for not ignoring my baited post and for alleviating my curiosity. It is an itch I cannot not scratch.
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before we react to the content of the video...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged .html
Personally I think the fakery is blatant, but I don't think most of us are paying attention to the stagecraft and manipulation, despite deception and manufactured consent being the heart of modern war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before we react to the content of the video...
Makes complete sense.
Hollywood Terrorists make a Hollywood Beheading Movie.
After all, the idea is to scare the bejeezus outta Brit and Yank civilians and that's exactly what Hollywood has been trying to do for decades... usually gorier than the real thing too.
So the masked Brits are weapons and warfare training experts and the masked Americans are Hollywood directors and special effects technicians.
No surprises here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube warfare
Sticks and stones won't break my bones. (26 second youtube clip.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube warfare
Ever since the US made conventional warfare obsolete by introducing nuclear weapons to the equation, its been impossible to get a decent sized war started when all of the big players have nukes. One cannot spend radio-active gold and raping radio-active women and children is not recommended by the military, so warfare and nukes simply do not mix well.
It has thus been absolutely necessary for the US Military Industrial Complex to earn its War-Bucks by waging war on tiny, disadvantaged, (usually Muslim) nations where the highest level of technology is the wheel, in order to insure that the victims of US corporate agression would not be able to retaliate in a nuclear fashion.
This is why they invented the Terrorist Crisis - so that attacking tiny villages with high explosive (but not nukes) bombs could be shown as defending America from the Invisible Terrorist Menace, rather than simply as testing million dollar bombs on innocent foreign peasants.
Great side effect of drone bombing tiny muslim villages is that the survivors will be really angry and thus make great photo-op images of the members of the Invisible Terrorist Menace you need the US Public to fear and loathe.
In lieu of having a really big war, its still a win win situation for the American Industrial War Machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why this is happening
Let me recommend the work of Chris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill (Dirty Wars), Mark Crispin Miller, Greg Palast, Counter-Intelligence or any of the other Metanoia films, or a host of other resources that don't come immediately to mind about the driving forces and methodologies of US foreign policy. Heavens, you could even go to Zbigniew Brzezinski if you want a look directly into the thinking of the schemers. General Wesley Clark has also had some revealing things to say. What is the overall geopolitical strategy, and why, and who came up with it? And how it is being effected?
For ISIS in particular, you could start here. You may not like the content, but you can verify it.
http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why this is happening
I've always made it a habit to try and think the unthinkable at least once a day.
What's most amazing though, is how often those thoughts turn out to be the internal policies practiced by what is traditionally considered to be the good guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www .truthdig.com/report/item/how_america_made_isis_their_videos_and_ours_their_caliphate_and_ours_20140 9
There is a particularly interesting article today on TruthDig about how the US has quite literally manufactured ISIS through 13 years of screw-ups, bad decisions and head-up-its-ass thinking.
The author considers it all to be simply coincidence and bad planning of course. Or at least he appears to think this, by the way the article is written.
I have suggested repeatedly that these Screw-ups and Bad Decisions were entirely intentional and designed to manufacture the next Evil Enemy of the United States of America.
The Visible Terrorists.
To replace the PNAC type Invisible Terrorist Menace of 9/11 that is now failing to scare all Americans into hiding under the bed and relinquishing all their rights to the War on Terror.
The article goes into great details about the methods used to create the Invisible Terrorist Menace that 9/11 was blamed on, who, as I've said, could not really be manufactured from the poor survivors of the destruction of small Muslim villages and towns by US military actions and so needed to remain Invisible.
Such victims could never be expected to perform like Hollywood Terrorists from the Die Hard movie franchise - and thus be perceived as something evil enough and dangerous enough that it necessitated the loss of American Freedoms and the continued financing of the War on Terror.
The article points out how the administration is now about to escalate the war in the middle east, because of this new "totally Evil Menace to Freedom" using the exact same plan that it had already decided upon for the original War on Terror. In other words, ISIS is the exact thing needed to prove the need for the continuation and escalation of the War on Terror.
Read: The continuation and escalation of the FUNDING via Taxpayer's dollars, for the War on Terror.
It is an excellent article and specially good if you're interested in seeing the library of US snuff films and war crimes that lead directly to the creation of the ISIS snuff film. US activity since 9/11 makes the ISIS snuff film pale by comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]