Politics

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
I'm not OK with terrorists. But I don't think a nuke in the middle east would have prevented the things that happened in San Bernadino, Paris, Nice and so on. It would only piss normal people off and make it easier for terror organisations to recruit members around the world. We have to fight this another way.
Let's tick off the boxes. We've tried diplomacy. We've tried securing high-value targets, to the point places like NYC are virtual police states. We've tried cutting off funding. We've tried to bring down their communication network. We've tried conventional attacks against terrorists, which incidentally also killed at least six figures of innocents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We've even tried regime changes. So what do you suggest?

Somehow I don't think Muslims who are peaceful US or French or British or German citizens are going to care much about what happens in the Middle East. Did people with German or Japanese background who were US citizens in WWII suddenly become radicalized when we bombed the shit out of these countries? So no, we're not going to create large numbers of new terrorists out of our own citizens by going ahead and dealing with the problem in the ME in the harshest possible manner. The culture in ME countries lends itself to creating large numbers of terrorists more than Islam itself.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
I didn't say anything about terrorizing innocents. I said kill the terrorists. By the way, wars used to be won by punishing the civilian population to the point the military leadership no longer dared go on because they would have a full blown revolt on their hands from their own countrymen.
Exactly. I'm not advocating carpet bombing the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a first step. That would be more like a last step if all else failed. Try selective nuclear strikes designed to kill as few innocents as possible. There's something about nuclear weapons, even small ones, which scares the living crap out of people. All it took were two bombs to bring Japan to her senses. It may not take much more than that here. When the terrorists can't operate with impunity in any Middle East country they'll be on the run like roaches. At that point you can hit them with conventional weapons, wiping them out for good, without killing innocents.

Tell me how you negotiate a settlement or peace with someone who wants to kill you because of who you are and what you represent. You can't talk them out of it. So you agree to let them kill you later?
That's kind of my point. Their fanaticism notwithstanding, at their core the Germans and Japanese in WWII were able to eventually be reasoned with once they saw there was no winning the war. In fact, the true fanatics were tiny minorities in both countries. Islamic terrorists are a significant minority in their countries, and they can't be reasoned with at all. They want one thing-the death of western civilization (probably far eastern civilization as well).
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
Why stop there? Maybe we should bomb the ghettos in the US because the locals are covering for the gang members who cause so much trouble?
Gang members generally only bother you if go in their neighborhood. Last I checked they didn't fly planes into skyscrapers. The police can easily deal with gangs if they want to. Many police forces don't want to because they extort money from the gangs in return for letting them do their thing.

What makes terrorists is a larger power coming in and taking over your lives and dictating to you the way things should be. You feel like the only way to fight back is to terrorize innocents.
Probably this more aptly describes American revolutionaries than today's Islamic terrorists. Sometimes you have to fight an asymmetrical war if you're dealing with superior numbers or weapons. That occasionally means taking out innocents. However, once you meet the goal, the violence generally ceases. Islamic terrorists have one goal, which is to convert or eliminate everyone who worships differently than they do. They're even attacking members of other Islamic sects. So the end goal here is basically our extermination. That's quite different from "normal" revolutionaries who may employ terrorist tactics only if nothing else works but have more conventional goals.

What's the solution? I don't know, but I really doubt it is more violence.
Two instances in my life where I saw that violence worked. One was when I was bullied as a child. We tried everything. The school and my parents talked to their parents. The school punished the bullies. Their parents may have punished them. Nothing worked. What did work was when I'd finally had enough in 7th grade and got one of the bullies on the skull with a crow bar. He actually never saw me do it. Neither did anyone else. When he got out of the hospital he and his friend never bothered me again. Neither did anyone else in the school.

The second instance happened when I was very young, maybe about 4 or 5, so the details are vague. There were two problem kids in the housing projects where I lived. I don't have a list of their offenses, but I knew they were hated by just about everyone. Again, the usual channels didn't work. The housing police couldn't do much. If these kids even had parents they were MIA. Anyone, one day both took the short way off the roof courtesy of some of the older kids. I didn't see it happen but I saw the bodies. When the police came to investigate nobody knew or saw anything. End of story. Problem solved. Probably the best thing for the two kids as well. They likely would have turned up dead eventually anyway, or spent their lives in prison, but not before making life miserable for a bunch more people.
 

Striker

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
269
Well, they do. All you have to do is look at the actions of the elected leadership and related organizations. They're attempting to drive God from society and eliminate the Judeo-Christian foundation the country was built on by any means necessary. Courts, legislation, fear of personal reprisals / intimidation. That's not to say many rank and file Democrat voters would tell you they hate Christians if you asked. They probably don't. But, they'll sure vote for people whose actions speak rather loudly on the subject.


I didn't say anything about terrorizing innocents. I said kill the terrorists. By the way, wars used to be won by punishing the civilian population to the point the military leadership no longer dared go on because they would have a full blown revolt on their hands from their own countrymen.


Tell me how you negotiate a settlement or peace with someone who wants to kill you because of who you are and what you represent. You can't talk them out of it. So you agree to let them kill you later?
Over half of Democrats identify as Christian.

It basically comes down to you don't like their beliefs, no matter how close to yours they are, so you want them to convert, to get out of your country or be eliminated from the planet. Sounds an awful lot like radical islam to me, just a different version.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
It basically comes down to you don't like their beliefs, no matter how close to yours they are, so you want them to convert, to get out of your country or be eliminated from the planet. Sounds an awful lot like radical islam to me, just a different version.
Isn't this the problem with ALL religions, namely that they can be turned around without much effort into a crusade, jihad, etc? I don't really have any good answers to it, either. If you were to ban organized religion, then that's no different than radical Islam or fundamentalist Christianity. You could even call such a ban "radical atheism". So my only hope for mankind is we eventually evolve out of the need for religion, or at least evolve enough so the more radical sects of religion find few takers. Belief in a higher being isn't in itself harmful in any way. It only becomes harmful when you think your beliefs are the truth, to the point that everyone who believes differently is an infidel who must be converted or killed.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
It basically comes down to you don't like their beliefs, no matter how close to yours they are, so you want them to convert, to get out of your country or be eliminated from the planet. Sounds an awful lot like radical islam to me, just a different version.
It is a matter of self defense. In this case the options for the radicals are converting to some ideology that doesn't lead to the systematic removal of all other faiths from the planet or their removal from the planet.
 

fb

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
573
Location
Östersund, Sweden

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Sam, I knew I could count on you for a totally intellectually vapid response.

Considering Christians aren't participating in any sort of organized, or even unorganized effort to kill people who don't follow their religion anywhere in the world I don't have the slightest idea from what imaginary construct you are commenting from or could even possibly be alluding to.
Christians DO engage in fairly organized efforts to kill people. I realize you probably haven't spent much time around any health services provider where someone might go to have an abortion, but they're not worried about Muslims in those places. Do you remember the Colorado Springs shootings last summer? Now, you can say that wasn't organized in the sense that it was a crime committed by multiple individuals, but what it was and what it is, is any example of Stochastic Terrorism - that is, the repeated call to non-specific violence that some person will ultimately enact. Donald Trump's alleged "joke" last week bout a Second Amendment solution regarding Mrs. Clinton and/or her appointed judges is another example, as is a lot of white supremacist rhetoric.

Guess which sort of terror has a far greater likelihood to have real-world consequences on the lives of everyday Americans? I'll give you a hint: It's not the kind that's in the middle east.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I truly don't think it's funny any more. To comment further might invite greater hostility, but after the last few weeks I just want this cycle to be over with. Indiana in particular is bizarro-land about some of this stuff.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,430
Location
Ballarat, Oz
Website
www.redhill.net.au
No sense in trying to ban them, it only encourages the fools.

Nope, the correct response is to point and laugh.

Oh, and to deny appointment to responsible positions to demonstrably daft people. Walking around talking about sky fairies is pretty good evidence of inability to think sensibly: i.e., of being completely daft. That's fine, you can be daft if you want to. It's a free country. Just don't expect any rational person to trust you with anything important, such as running a country, practicing law or medicine, serving in the armed forces, teaching schoolchildren, or running a company.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,430
Location
Ballarat, Oz
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Q: what is wrong with this sentence? "In South American banana republics, it is normal for each new dictator, on winning an election, to throw all of his political opponents in jail, appoint his own corrupt cronies to the government jobs, and change the rules such that he can't ever be voted out again."

A: the word "south".
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Either way, for people who want to make an issue of information security to be running a 13 year old commercial OS is a bit too off-message, isn't it? Was it too much work to install Ubuntu 14.04 and at least claim to be current on patch levels?
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,653
Location
Left Coast
This might be the year to elect a third party candidate. The ones from the two major political parties are unelectable.
That's nonsense. We certainly will elect one of these people.

Furthurmore, only Evan McMullin has any chance of getting votes in the electoral college. The best that he can do is hope for an electoral college tie between other candidates and come in as a dark horse in the House of Representatives.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,972
Location
USA
I'm not involved with the American politics, but we are advised not to travel next week in unlikely case of civil unrest or disturbances.
Two people in the team don't want to go then, so I'm screwed.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
I'd love to see Trump win just to see the reactions from both the mainstream media and Congress. Chances are great he would be impeached before he could do much damage.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,653
Location
Left Coast
I'd love to see Trump win just to see the reactions from both the mainstream media and Congress. Chances are great he would be impeached before he could do much damage.
That's kind of like saying that you'd like to set your house on fire to see if the dysfunctional fire department even answers the phone.

Even if they respond right away, irreparable harm will be done.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I'd kind of like to see Hillary win with 400 electoral votes, just so we can get another four years of republicans yammering that they just didn't nominate a conservative enough candidate.
Who am I kidding? They'll do that regardless.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
That's kind of like saying that you'd like to set your house on fire to see if the dysfunctional fire department even answers the phone.

Even if they respond right away, irreparable harm will be done.
That's kind of what I want to happen at this point. I think the US is done, dead, finished, going the way of the old USSR. Electing Trump will be like a bullet to the head. Death will be quick, probably not all that painful. Hillary will be more like getting shot a bunch of times, none near vital organs, and slowly bleeding out. You'll drag the end out for four years, possibly even eight. I'd rather it be over quickly so we can hopefully build something better out of the ashes. My guess is the US splits into three countries-the two coasts and the middle, which will likely become a right-wing Christian theocracy. I think the coasts will be just fine, perhaps better than before. If we're really lucky NYC can become a city-state along the lines of Singapore or HK. It never really belonged in the US to start with given how different its values are. I don't hold much hope for the middle states. They'll probably become a cesspool of poverty and ignorance (Merc might say they already are). Anyone with half a brain will flee to one of the coasts.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
If NYC breaks off and leaves the US, who will pay for your urban transit services once the gas tax subsidy from the rest of the country is gone? If you can pay for it yourself, why can't you pay for it yourself now?
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
If NYC breaks off and leaves the US, who will pay for your urban transit services once the gas tax subsidy from the rest of the country is gone? If you can pay for it yourself, why can't you pay for it yourself now?
NYC sends far more money to Washington and upstate than it gets back in spending. Without those burdens we can easily pay for what we need and probably lower the overall tax burden to boot. Besides that, the gas tax doesn't even cover the maintenance cost of highways, let alone pay for transit. The fact some of the gas tax is reallocated for transit means nothing. We use money from the general fund to pay for road maintenance to make up for the short fall from the gas tax. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but let's not make it out like drivers are subsidizing transit users because nothing is further from the truth.
 
Last edited:

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
NYC sends far more money to Washington and upstate than it gets back in spending. Without those burdens we can easily pay for what we need and probably lower the overall tax burden to boot. Besides that, the gas tax doesn't even cover the maintenance cost of highways, let alone pay for transit. The fact some of the gas tax is reallocated for transit means nothing. We use money from the general fund to pay for road maintenance to make up for the short fall from the gas tax. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but let's not make it out like drivers are subsidizing transit users because nothing is further from the truth.
I agree, the costs of maintaining the roads should be covered by the users of the roads with a small portion covered by the defense budget. The costs would then be built into the product price (say fresh produce), and would still make its way to the end user. You are right, it should be more transparent.

Drivers are subsidizing transit users in most of the country without any gains on the problems they were trying to solve.

"In some ways, transit is really a New York story. More than one-third of all transit work-trip commuting is to locations in the city of New York. The dominance is even greater for high-capacity subways/elevated services,[22] where New York represents two-thirds of national commuting. The bulk is to Manhattan, by far the most dense area of the nation (in both population and employment), which accounts for approximately one-half of subway/elevated commuting." Link
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...icy-in-an-era-of-the-shrinking-federal-dollar
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,683
Location
Flushing, New York
I agree, the costs of maintaining the roads should be covered by the users of the roads with a small portion covered by the defense budget. The costs would then be built into the product price (say fresh produce), and would still make its way to the end user. You are right, it should be more transparent.
That would also have the secondary effect of making it more cost effective for most freight to go by rail instead of truck. This in turn would considerably reduce the repair bills for highways.

Drivers are subsidizing transit users in most of the country without any gains on the problems they were trying to solve.
In most of the country probably true. I've seen a lot of light rail systems which are boondoggles by any reasonable metric.

"In some ways, transit is really a New York story. More than one-third of all transit work-trip commuting is to locations in the city of New York. The dominance is even greater for high-capacity subways/elevated services,[22] where New York represents two-thirds of national commuting. The bulk is to Manhattan, by far the most dense area of the nation (in both population and employment), which accounts for approximately one-half of subway/elevated commuting." Link
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...icy-in-an-era-of-the-shrinking-federal-dollar
Well, we practically invented mass transit, so what else could you expect? ;) Basically, transit seems to work well in most pre-WWII cities and not so well in most post-WWII cities. That in turn is because of how they're laid out.
 
Top