Org Mobile Site
Thread: US Air Strike Kills 85 Civilians
Originally Posted by Husar:
Aren't you just repeating what he said?
No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.Aren't you just repeating what he said?
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.
Smoked meet.No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.
If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.
I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.
If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.
Hamophone is something that's almost the same, and which involves animals. It's a tight definition and rarely used, which is why I've just invented the word.No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.
I sat it like, "görilla". 
Originally Posted by PFH:
1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.
Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.
Originally Posted by :
4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.
But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces. 4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.
Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803
This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.
Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.
Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.
Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.
That is why the West cannot defeat Islamism other than by offering a direct alternative - in other words, state theology. And that would be difficult.
That is why the West cannot defeat Islamism other than by offering a direct alternative - in other words, state theology. And that would be difficult.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.
Explain. What Muslim societies want their leaders to be spiritual leaders? Are you saying they prefer clerics or conservatives over monarchs or army veterans?Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.
No. Islamism is modern and progressive. It believes that Islam in its religious institutions and its spiritual principles must permeate political organization and action, among other things. Do not refer to it in terms of Church and State; both are only a subset of Islamic life.
This is what most modern Muslims want or welcome. This new and inclusive ideology - or at least its ideal - is exactly what so many Western Muslims identify with, and ultimately why so many find purpose in anti-Western commitments.
To spell it out (now I'm speaking more directly to the issue of Islamist violence):
"Radical terrorists", native to the Middle East, attack the West because obviously the West usually would act to counter their influence.
"Disenfranchised Muslim youth", native to Western states, attack the West because they have found their identities outside the West AND in particular (for those who favor the most violent approaches and factions) because they recognize the capacity and obligation for it.
Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.
This is what most modern Muslims want or welcome. This new and inclusive ideology - or at least its ideal - is exactly what so many Western Muslims identify with, and ultimately why so many find purpose in anti-Western commitments.
To spell it out (now I'm speaking more directly to the issue of Islamist violence):
"Radical terrorists", native to the Middle East, attack the West because obviously the West usually would act to counter their influence.
"Disenfranchised Muslim youth", native to Western states, attack the West because they have found their identities outside the West AND in particular (for those who favor the most violent approaches and factions) because they recognize the capacity and obligation for it.
Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla
http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla
They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.
In American, perhaps, but not in English which I shall now call "Commonwealth English".Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla
http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla
They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.
You're right, Germany and Japan don't deserve democracy - neither does the Arab world. Today, now more than ever, states have tools that allow them to suppress their own populace so long as they have a few men willing to operate them. Today dictators have air forces, to defeat them you need one of your own Air Force. It's not like outside help for rebels is a new thing.I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.
Originally Posted by Showtime:
Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.
I think I acknowledged that it's not the only Western philosophical strain - it is none the less an important one.Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.
Arab miss-trust of the Western "Liberal Agenda" is miss-placed. It comes, I think from a basic miss-understanding of how a Liberal Democracy works. I have observed, from the Arab Spring, and now in Turkey that authoritarian Muslim governments are primarily concerned with retaining power. This fundamentally different to Western governments which are primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The reason for this is that Western governments are necessarily transient they will be voted out of office, usually in a decade or less.
So what do the "Liberal" Western governments want in the Middle East? Just the same - peace and prosperity - peace in the Middle East means peace in Europe and prosperity means trade.
Previously there was a third concern - containing Communism - and this led the West to support Tyrants as the lesser of two evils. By keeping Tyrants in power we ensured a degree of peace and Prosperity in the Middle East at the expense of some freedoms, and we kept the Communists out. Now the imperative to "hold the border" against the "Red Menace" has receded. The Middle East is now no longer a major proxy battleground and we have had time to reflect on the consequences of our policy.
The reality is that we don't want Tyrants, we want Democratic governments we can partner with, governments that are also more concerned with maintaining peace and prosperity than holding on to power.
So, yes, there is a degree of self-interest but Western Powers are entirely sincere when they say they want democracy in the region because democracy will benefit us over the long term and will not do us serious harm in the short term, for the aforementioned reasons.
Originally Posted by :
But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.
Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803
This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.
Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.
As I recall he was in exile in Iran until we overthrew Saddam and he has always been in favour of attacking British and American troops. We could walk around without weapons handing out bread and milk and so long as we wore uniforms he's call on his followers to shoot us.But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.
Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803
This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.
Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.
Originally Posted by :
Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.
Behold - the reason we don't always support democracy in the Middle East, apathy. Not malice.Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.
You can suppress an army with an air force, but not a "populace".
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
No. Islamism is modern and progressive. It believes that Islam in its religious institutions and its spiritual principles must permeate political organization and action, among other things. Do not refer to it in terms of Church and State; both are only a subset of Islamic life.
I feel this is a strawman. How exactly are you addressing what I said about Islamism not being inherent all over? Again, there are a handful of societies that are over this "promise." You're saying that Islamism is what people ultimately aspire to. If I'm being pedantic, your claims are way too broad. I don't disagree with your comparison to the effects of Marxism, but you're presenting a narrow view pitting Islamism with a western alternative when the alternative already exists in that world.No. Islamism is modern and progressive. It believes that Islam in its religious institutions and its spiritual principles must permeate political organization and action, among other things. Do not refer to it in terms of Church and State; both are only a subset of Islamic life.
Originally Posted by PFH:
This fundamentally different to Western governments which are primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The reason for this is that Western governments are necessarily transient they will be voted out of office, usually in a decade or less.
Still, this presents its own problems as elected western officials have little experience in foreign policy as opposed to the lifelong middle eastern presidents who have shown better compliance to international laws and peaceful complacency. Adventurist attitudes and impulsive actions have not made things better.This fundamentally different to Western governments which are primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The reason for this is that Western governments are necessarily transient they will be voted out of office, usually in a decade or less.
Originally Posted by PFH:
The reality is that we don't want Tyrants, we want Democratic governments we can partner with, governments that are also more concerned with maintaining peace and prosperity than holding on to power.
Again, this does not show in the policies chosen so far. It's one way of looking at it through some constructivist lens. The west often endorses torture methods by these regimes by sending terrorists there to carry out methods that are illegal in the west, constantly fund the Islamism they are supposed to be combatting, and break bread with dictators. I find it mind-boggling that nobody here wants to admit that western policy conflicts with the liberal vision they're supposed to encompass. The reality is that we don't want Tyrants, we want Democratic governments we can partner with, governments that are also more concerned with maintaining peace and prosperity than holding on to power.
Agree to disagree at this point. There's some whitewashing here as if the west safeguards international laws and doesn't regularly violate them.
Originally Posted by PFH:
Behold - the reason we don't always support democracy in the Middle East, apathy. Not malice.
That was directed at him personally. Not all people from the west.Behold - the reason we don't always support democracy in the Middle East, apathy. Not malice.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
You're right, Germany and Japan don't deserve democracy - neither does the Arab world. Today, now more than ever, states have tools that allow them to suppress their own populace so long as they have a few men willing to operate them. Today dictators have air forces, to defeat them you need one of your own Air Force. It's not like outside help for rebels is a new thing.
You missed out the all-important first step before we established Germany and Japan as working liberal democracies. As a preliminary step to refashioning them in our image, we first obliterated them. We left them with no working society whatsoever, on the brink of starvation unless they took whatever we offered them, political as well as economical. And they starved at first as well, hammering home the lesson that they're dead unless they followed whatever we dictated to them. Then we rebuilt them from ground up, knocking aside anything we didn't like.You're right, Germany and Japan don't deserve democracy - neither does the Arab world. Today, now more than ever, states have tools that allow them to suppress their own populace so long as they have a few men willing to operate them. Today dictators have air forces, to defeat them you need one of your own Air Force. It's not like outside help for rebels is a new thing.
Are you willing to do that with any of the Arab states?
If rebels can't topple dictators who have air forces, why is it any problem of mine?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO