Politics

[Chewy509]

I guess we're lucky in that regard, we only get a few months to ponder who the next dictator beloved emperor will be...

Well, the Australian Federal 2016 election has come and gone, with the Liberal/National Coalition remaining in power (by the thinnest of margins).

So our NBN will continued to be implemented with 2nd rate technology, public education, social services and health systems* will have funding either cut or stagnated for the next 3 years, and an expected erosion of the middle class as the employment market worsens... (and the coalition plans for jobs growth policy has been attacked on many levels as either inadequate or just plain helping the rich get richer**).

* We have a (so called) universal health system in Australia, were visiting your local GP/Hospital is either free or very low cost and a lot of prescription medication is heavily subsidised by the government. Many believe that the current government (the LNP) wish to dissolve/erode these systems, so Australia moves to a more US style healthcare system. (Yep, that very system that the US wants to get away from).

** Part of the policy to assist in creating jobs has been to reduce corporate tax rates for Australia's largest companies. It's mostly feared that the tax reduction will be feed into stock dividends for shareholders rather than being used to employ more people. There are few tax concessions expected for the SMB sector (which traditionally employ 80% of the population in most countries in the world).

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think anyone here is particularly surprised that the world of politics has more in common with Mos Eisley than main street.

 

[Stereodude]

I'm sure if the RNC email servers were hacked we'd find the same type of emails. Different sides of the same coin.

Maybe, maybe not. They may have had some grand plans to make Jeb the nominee, clearly they were pikers compared to the rigged system the DNC set up for the coronation of Hillary. After all, their plan went up in smoke and they've got Donald Trump now. :rofl:

I'm looking forward to when they release the 20k e-mails she deleted from her server.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm looking forward to when they release the 20k e-mails she deleted from her server.

That makes two of us. Should make for interesting reading.

 

[Howell]

I'm sure if the RNC email servers were hacked we'd find the same type of emails. Different sides of the same coin.

We should see them if they are there. Krebs says they all have had tragically pitiful security. If it's true I'm still not ok with it. This is exactly the kind of toxic bullshit that fueled the trump and Sanders rise.

 

[ddrueding]

One of the radio programs has talked about the divide between those "inside" and "outside" being larger than "democrat" and "republican". I don't think we are there yet, but it is awfully close.

 

[mubs]

How DNC, Clinton campaign attacks fit into Russia’s cyber-war strategy

Was it to cover for hack, or part of info-war on NATO? Putin won't tell.

 

[Howell]

Probably much more simple than that.Still pitifully hypocritical to criticise Russia for trying to manipulate the processthe DNC was trying to manipulate.

 

[ddrueding]

From my perspective, this isn't about manipulating the process. Of course everyone does that. It is about who your friends are.

 

[Stereodude]

It is about who your friends are.

No, it's about who donated to your crime family foundation who will be expecting favors in return for their bribes donations later.

 

[Mercutio]

The corruption is just a lot more transparent this election cycle. There's no doubt in my mind that these leaks happen one some level every presidential election, it's just that this time the public gets to bear witness to it.
At the end of the day, I'm still going to vote for the people who are going to draw decent congressional districts in 2020 and appoint judges who don't think corporations are people and religion is a great excuse to deny rights.

Mostly I'm just happy that Governor Pigfuc... I mean Pence has hitched his car on to the Trump Train and will be riding it out of the Indiana Governor's mansion in November.

 

[ddrueding]

No, it's about who donated to your crime family foundation who will be expecting favors in return for their bribes donations later.

Are you talking Clinton or Putin? Both are true.

 

[Howell]

Are you talking Clinton or Putin? Both are true.

So we are choosing between the Chinese and the Russians?

 

[Stereodude]

Citizens United makes me laugh. The case was about whether the gov't could ban a movie critical of someone running for political office. The gov't argued in the case that they could ban a book of they wanted to.

But somehow we're supposed to think it was wrongly decided. Because you know, free speech doesn't exist...

 

[Stereodude]

Are you talking Clinton or Putin? Both are true.

I'm referring to the Clintons. Because once your wife becomes the Secretary of State it makes perfect sense that the speaking fees of a former President would triple.

Bill would get hired to give a $750k 20 minute speech and within a few weeks the State Department would make a decision favorable to the entity that paid for the speech. No impropriety there... Not even a hint.

 

[Mercutio]

This has to be one of my favorite election stories of the last few weeks: Donald Trump's Social Media Handlers appear to have locked him out of Twitter.

 

[jtr1962]

Given his penchant for putting his foot in his mouth, I'm not surprised.

 

[CougTek]

You Americans have to choose to elect a sure-to-be bad president or the american version of Mouammar Kadhafi. At least with crooked Hilary, you shouldn't start a war for frivolous reasons, annihilate your diplomatic relationships with most countries and probably destroy your economy for an entire generation. With Hilary Clinton, you can expect a lot of corruption, a lethargic economy and a moderate recession, shitty and shady laws (much like what happened with the Patriot Act). That's it. Yes, she and her husband will fill their pockets and those of their friends with tax payers money, but it won't be any worse than the Bush cartel takeover of the White House. Point is: you'll recover quickly from crooked Hilary. You won't from Donald Drumph.

In case any American plans to tell me or other foreigners not to get involved with your election, I'll remind you that your country is the most invasive of all in the business of other countries, so we're just returning the favor. Anyway, american diplomacy has global impact so the rest of the world will be affected no matter what.

 

[jtr1962]

You're right to concerned. If Trump screws up the US bad enough, you might have a flood of American refugees at your border, including me. I guess at that point Trump might emigrate to Canada, run for Prime Minister, and offer to build a wall, all while uttering the lines "When the US sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 

[Mercutio]

At least with crooked Hilary, you shouldn't start a war for frivolous reasons, annihilate your diplomatic relationships with most countries and probably destroy your economy for an entire generation. With Hilary Clinton, you can expect a lot of corruption, a lethargic economy and a moderate recession, shitty and shady laws (much like what happened with the Patriot Act).

The Patriot Act is a creation of a particular moment in time. I believe it had already been written at some right wing think tank or other that was just waiting for the right moment to spring it on the country. It is literally impossible to read, because it is not a document that describes new laws but rather a lengthy list of modifications to pre-existing ones. It was not written by a politician or a politician's staff, and it was passed in a moment of insane patriotic fervor. Even now, acting to limit the powers of the Patriot Act is seen as, well, unpatriotic.

In any case, Hillary is going to continue business as usual, much as Obama has. We'll have at least four years of relatively sane foreign policy and four more years of financial institutions running roughshod over public interest. Hopefully, we'll continue to see stronger control from regulatory agencies. I can live with that. We're also going to get probably four new Supreme Court Justices and a solid 12 or 16 years of stacking the Federal Bench with left-of-GOP judicial appointments. Given that Congress and the Executive branch have been deadlocked since approximately 15 minutes after Obama took office (yes, even from his own party) and that we've seen real changes over the last decade or so primarily from judicial mandate, this is the main benefit of her forthcoming term in office.

But then, I'm still thinking I might vote Vermin Supreme this year. It's not like my vote for Hillary would be meaningful in this state anyway.

 

[Stereodude]

At least with crooked Hilary, you shouldn't start a war for frivolous reasons...

Libya anyone? Kadhafi was scared straight by Bush and minding his own business when Hillary and Obama thought it would be a good idea to overthrow him and help put ISIS in charge of the country.

The Patriot Act is a creation of a particular moment in time. I believe it had already been written at some right wing think tank or other that was just waiting for the right moment to spring it on the country. It is literally impossible to read, because it is not a document that describes new laws but rather a lengthy list of modifications to pre-existing ones. It was not written by a politician or a politician's staff, and it was passed in a moment of insane patriotic fervor. Even now, acting to limit the powers of the Patriot Act is seen as, well, unpatriotic.

It sounds like you just described Obamacare, the TPP, and countless other legislation. They have these several thousand page bills sitting in drawers waiting for the right opportunity to pass. They're written by lobbyists. No one reads them, they're impossible to understand, they're not good legislation, but they get passed.

We'll have at least four years of relatively sane foreign policy...

Relatively sane? Are we on the same planet? Setting up Iran to be a nuclear armed superpower in the middle east and helping the militant Islamists come to power in multiple countries is sane?

 

[Mercutio]

As opposed to, you know, starting another round of wars in the middle east, yes. Taking a hard line is just going to create more and more intractable conflict. We can't truly put a stop to any other nation's nuclear ambitions without military force of some sort. We got concessions in exchange for not spending a measurable fraction of our GDP and another generation's youth looking over Iran's shoulders.
I'm a lot more afraid of some Bible Banging True Believer (e.g. Ted Cruz) trying to hurry along the Rapture than I am of Iran having fissionables and no delivery system more meaningful than sticking them in the back of a truck.

 

[Stereodude]

As opposed to, you know, starting another round of wars in the middle east, yes.

Obama got the US involved in more conflicts in the middle east than Bush. He also squandered the victory in Iraq by pulling all the troops out and letting the country go to crap with some nonsense jibber jabber about a status of forces agreement.

I'm a lot more afraid of some Bible Banging True Believer (e.g. Ted Cruz) trying to hurry along the Rapture than I am of Iran having fissionables and no delivery system more meaningful than sticking them in the back of a truck.

The cognitive dissonance here is near breathtaking. You should educate yourself on Islam and the 12th Imam. Iran is full of Shi’ites who believe they can bring about the arrival of the 12th Imam by starting a world war where many Muslims are killed. A nuclear strike by Iran would be a a great way for that to happen.

 

[Mercutio]

SD, the Iraq withdrawal was set by a timetable agreed to by the Bush administration before Obama ever took office. I think you know that. You're just choosing to ignore it. We didn't squander a damned thing. We changed the regime and installed a friendly regime. Everything beyond that was sending good money after bad. And it was bad from the moment we chose to put boots on the ground in Iraq the second time.

And if Iran wants to make itself a glass parking lot with some kiloton-range nukes, let them. If their oil fields are that important, one of their allies can go secure them. If they're so immature as a nation to try using one outside their own borders, there will be a 150 nation coalition ready to reap that particular whirlwind. We don't have to be Team America: World Police.

 

[jtr1962]

Iran is full of Shi’ites who believe they can bring about the arrival of the 12th Imam by starting a world war where many Muslims are killed. A nuclear strike by Iran would be a a great way for that to happen.

First nuclear terror attack by Iran will likely cause a rain of ICBMs on their entire country. That's true whether the attack is on Russia, or on a US run by Trump. Problem solved. It'll also keep the remaining Muslim ME nations in line.

I did and still do think an appropriate response to 9/11 would have been to level the entire ME with our nuclear arsenal. You're correct about Islam. You're not reasoning with these people. Bombing them back into the stone age is the only way you're preventing them from continuing to kill those they see as infidels.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm a lot more afraid of some Bible Banging True Believer (e.g. Ted Cruz) trying to hurry along the Rapture than I am of Iran having fissionables and no delivery system more meaningful than sticking them in the back of a truck.

Fissionables in the back of a truck can do quite a bit of damage in a place like Times Square. Try hundreds of thousands, perhaps low millions, dead from a blast of a few tens of kilotons. Not to mention upwards of $1 trillion in property damage, and who knows how much in long term economic damage.

This isn't to minimize the danger from jackasses like Ted Cruz but last I checked they're not killing innocent US civilians.

 

[Mercutio]

Fissionables in the back of a truck can do quite a bit of damage in a place like Times Square. Try hundreds of thousands, perhaps low millions, dead from a blast of a few tens of kilotons. Not to mention upwards of $1 trillion in property damage, and who knows how much in long term economic damage.

For that to happen Iranian actors would have to buy or manufacture a suitcase nuke and construct it within US borders. Maybe they could drive one from Tehran to Berlin, Paris or Moscow. A dirty bomb made with radioactive waste is a lot more achievable, but they can do that right now and that has nothing to do with refining materials of their own. The only country that might reasonably sell them some other delivery vehicle is North Korea and they're kind of on their own technological short bus as it is.

 

[Stereodude]

SD, the Iraq withdrawal was set by a timetable agreed to by the Bush administration before Obama ever took office. I think you know that. You're just choosing to ignore it.

I'm not ignoring anything. We still have troops in Japan, Germany, Korea and other places. Iraq wanted us to leave some troops behind, several times more than Obama offered to leave. Ultimately, Obama wanted to bring them all home to score points on his campaign promise so his administration made sure that an agreement couldn't be reached with the Iraqi gov't by refusing to leave the number of troops Iraq wanted. They offered to leave a number of troops too small to be effective and the Iraqi gov't decided it wasn't worth the political hit of agreeing to allow US troops if it wasn't going to be effective. So, a new status of forces agreement wasn't negotiated, all the US troops came home, and Iraq has fallen apart.

We didn't squander a damned thing. We changed the regime and installed a friendly regime. Everything beyond that was sending good money after bad. And it was bad from the moment we chose to put boots on the ground in Iraq the second time.

Sure we did. Iraq is in worse shape now than it was when Obama took office because we didn't leave some number of troops behind as a stabilizing force. Most of the middle east is in worse shape now than it was when Obama took office. Of course, that is totally intentional by design.

And if Iran wants to make itself a glass parking lot with some kiloton-range nukes, let them. If their oil fields are that important, one of their allies can go secure them. If they're so immature as a nation to try using one outside their own borders, there will be a 150 nation coalition ready to reap that particular whirlwind. We don't have to be Team America: World Police.

First nuclear terror attack by Iran will likely cause a rain of ICBMs on their entire country. That's true whether the attack is on Russia, or on a US run by Trump. Problem solved. It'll also keep the remaining Muslim ME nations in line.

That's exactly what they want. They want someone to retaliate against them to bring about the appearance of the 12th Imam.

 

[Stereodude]

For that to happen Iranian actors would have to buy or manufacture a suitcase nuke and construct it within US borders. Maybe they could drive one from Tehran to Berlin, Paris or Moscow. A dirty bomb made with radioactive waste is a lot more achievable, but they can do that right now and that has nothing to do with refining materials of their own. The only country that might reasonably sell them some other delivery vehicle is North Korea and they're kind of on their own technological short bus as it is.

Iran has a ballistic missile program and they are continuing to conduct test launches. As far as making a viable nuclear weapon, they're not terribly hard to make. Making one with very high yields for a given amount of fissile material requires expertise, but making a working several kiloton bomb is something a few graduate level physics students can do. The nuclear deal with them has paved the way to them having plenty of fissile material in short order.

 

[Will Rickards]

I did and still do think an appropriate response to 9/11 would have been to level the entire ME with our nuclear arsenal.

Holy shit dude. That's Trump level shit right there. Super surprising coming from you.

 

[jtr1962]

Holy shit dude. That's Trump level shit right there. Super surprising coming from you.

I lost a friend on 9/11 and saw the effects first hand less than two weeks afterwards, including the smell of burnt flesh lingering in the air. I also explored the site a bit after (illegally) going inside the perimeter but didn't get too far inside for fear of falling into a hole. This was worse than what could be seen by most people by about a factor of 100. It was a killing field for lack of any better description. This attack was a stab right in the proverbial heart of NYC, and by extension the country, given the importance of NYC economically and culturally.

Given all that, I felt a proper response was to end future threats like this for all time. It would be nice if diplomacy could work but based on past results in that area of the world the chances of this were close to nil. Consider this scenario. Let's say you and your neighbors have a nice peaceful town, you mind your own business, don't interfere with anything outside your town. However, to protect your own self interests perhaps you have a cache of guns, grenades, and so forth. And as a back up you have a few missiles (not necessarily nuclear). Now hypothetically let's say you have a compound of fundamentalist Christian wack jobs. They've attacked you before, but you've managed to repel them. They really had no rational reason to attack you except that for some reason it bothers them that you're not following their religion. And they're determined to mount bigger and bigger attacks until you either convert or they wipe you out. Up until now they haven't been a major threat but they're increasing in numbers and getting better weapons. One day they may well mount a successful attack which will be devastating, perhaps even one which you'll be unable to recover from. So what do you do? Three options here as I see it. You can do nothing but continue to repulse their attacks with the prospect of eventually losing. Option two, you can attack them first on their home base with your guns and grenades but chances are good for every one you kill ten will be ready and willing to replace them. Or option three is to launch your missiles on the compound and wipe out this threat for all time. Now option three of course carries the downside that you'll kill all those on the other side who don't necessarily agree with the radicals. And you'll also kill children. It's a hard moral choice, but in the end options 1 and 2 don't guarantee your survival while option three does.

Now let's look at the Muslim world. I'll grant they're not all radicals. I imagine some are good people, to paraphrase Trump. However, if you do what we've been doing, which is to go after the problem piecemeal, you'll probably create 5 or 10 new radicals for every one you kill. You might have people who are neutral or even supportive of the US, at least until they see the US take out some of their neighbors. That's true even if these neighbors were terrorists. ISIS or Al Queda will sugar coat them, make it seem like they were just innocents, and a fair number of the population will believe them. The bottom line is we've tried the equivalent of options 1 and 2 for the last 15 years. It doesn't seem to be working all that well. It really can't. You're not dealing with reasonable people here. I'll even grant some of their radicalism is justified given US interference in the Middle East but that's not the sole reason they attack us. In their mind we're infidels because we don't follow their religion. You can't reason with something like that. You just have to wipe it out, as difficult as it may be for civilized people to accept. This is quite a different threat than Japan and Germany in WWII, or the USSR in the cold war. Whatever their faults, the Germans, Japanese, and Russians were more like us than not. We were able to reach a peace and now we coexist just fine. I can't see that happening in the Middle East. I'd love for one or more nations there to rise to the occasion and prove me wrong but so far I'm not seeing it. Even our supposed allies, like Israel or Saudi Arabia, are at best fair weather friends. The Saudis couldn't even keep a leash on Bin Laden. I suspect they may have not wanted to.

BTW, I think Trump is wrong on just about every other issue except how to deal with terrorism.

 

[fb]

I'm sorry that you lost a friend in 9/11, but I still don't understand your arguments. At all.

Adolf Hitler and a few others have already tried the genocide method. Besides, only ~20% of all muslims live in the middle east, perhaps there's a risk that some of the other 80% in the world would become a bit upset with USA?

 

[jtr1962]

So then you're basically OK with continued terror attacks because that's what's going to happen if we don't wipe out the threat? I don't know why you're comparing the Muslims elsewhere to those in the Middle East, either. The conditions in the Middle East have bred radicalism for centuries. That's the primary source of the problem. Whatever radical Islam is elsewhere is small and easily contained, just as the radical Christian elements in the US are.

As I've said, we've tried other methods. They're not working. It's only a matter of time before we have a nuclear terror attack. Will you still feel the same if that happens?

I'm not the only one who feels that way, either. In fact, doing a search on the subject, I'm honestly amazed how broad support for something like this is.

Of course, another acceptable alternative is to see that nuclear weapons and medium-range delivery systems somehow find their way to these countries. Chances are great they would use them against each other in short order. Thanks to ISIS the people of the Middle East are already performing genocide on each other. Maybe at this rate we don't need to do anything except not interfere. Amazing there hasn't been peace in that area of the world in two millennia.

Adolf Hitler and a few others have already tried the genocide method.

This is not genocide and I hate when people say it is. It's an attack on other nations using the full military capability of the US, just as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were. We don't necessarily have to go all in. Start by nuking targets which are most likely to be terrorist camps. Threaten to attack other targets unless the locals stop giving cover to known terrorists. My guess is after a small number of bombs you'll see members of ISIS and Al Queda swinging from lamp posts, hung by the locals who don't want to be caught in the next wave of bombing. Upon such "cooperation" from the locals you can end the bombing campaign. For now. Just keep them aware that it will remain on the table as an option forever should they start harboring terrorists again.

 

[fb]

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.

 

[Stereodude]

The idea that we make more terrorists by killing terrorists is silly. Their ideology makes terrorists. That said, I don't think nuking them is the answer. However, we should get much more aggressive in the fight against them.

Unless we're willing to face the reality of who they are and what motivates them we're never going to be successful against them. Unfortunately, a large portion of the liberal left has a huge soft spot for Islam due to a mutual hatred of Christians and the Judeo-Christian influence on the world, so they're unwilling to face the reality that Islam has a violence problem within its ranks and that yes, terrorists are motivated by their religion.

 

[Mercutio]

Project much, Seth?

 

[Striker]

So then you're basically OK with continued terror attacks because that's what's going to happen if we don't wipe out the threat? I don't know why you're comparing the Muslims elsewhere to those in the Middle East, either. The conditions in the Middle East have bred radicalism for centuries. That's the primary source of the problem. Whatever radical Islam is elsewhere is small and easily contained, just as the radical Christian elements in the US are.

As I've said, we've tried other methods. They're not working. It's only a matter of time before we have a nuclear terror attack. Will you still feel the same if that happens?

I'm not the only one who feels that way, either. In fact, doing a search on the subject, I'm honestly amazed how broad support for something like this is.

Of course, another acceptable alternative is to see that nuclear weapons and medium-range delivery systems somehow find their way to these countries. Chances are great they would use them against each other in short order. Thanks to ISIS the people of the Middle East are already performing genocide on each other. Maybe at this rate we don't need to do anything except not interfere. Amazing there hasn't been peace in that area of the world in two millennia.


This is not genocide and I hate when people say it is. It's an attack on other nations using the full military capability of the US, just as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were. We don't necessarily have to go all in. Start by nuking targets which are most likely to be terrorist camps. Threaten to attack other targets unless the locals stop giving cover to known terrorists. My guess is after a small number of bombs you'll see members of ISIS and Al Queda swinging from lamp posts, hung by the locals who don't want to be caught in the next wave of bombing. Upon such "cooperation" from the locals you can end the bombing campaign. For now. Just keep them aware that it will remain on the table as an option forever should they start harboring terrorists again.

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?

The idea that we make more terrorists by killing terrorists is silly. Their ideology makes terrorists. That said, I don't think nuking them is the answer. However, we should get much more aggressive in the fight against them.

Unless we're willing to face the reality of who they are and what motivates them we're never going to be successful against them. Unfortunately, a large portion of the liberal left has a huge soft spot for Islam due to a mutual hatred of Christians and the Judeo-Christian influence on the world, so they're unwilling to face the reality that Islam has a violence problem within its ranks and that yes, terrorists are motivated by their religion.

It is ridiculous and pretty telling that you're going to make a blanket statement that the liberals hate Christians, like they aren't Christians also because they're not YOUR kind of Christians.

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.
What's the solution? I don't know, but I really doubt it is more violence.

 

[Stereodude]

Project much, Seth?

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.

 

[Stereodude]

It is ridiculous and pretty telling that you're going to make a blanket statement that the liberals hate Christians, like they aren't Christians also because they're not YOUR kind of Christians.

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.

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.

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.

What's the solution? I don't know, but I really doubt it is more violence.

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?

 

[Howell]

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?

Excellent point.

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.

Terrorism is simply an unorthodox exercise of power from a position of weakness. If you are not powerful enough to fight people at their front, you must fight them at their back.

If the subsistence poor get more benefits from going along than the drawbacks then they will. This does not necessarily mean identical ideologies, just not unbearably conflicting ones.

Indeed, the neighbors of Pablo Escobar did not protect him because he was a drug kingpin, but because of the infrastructure the money bought and the relative safety they lived in.