Shootings in Paris: I'm from Paris and I don't freak out, so why should you?

Started by Monsieur OUXX, Sat 14/11/2015 11:04:54

Previous topic - Next topic

Monsieur OUXX

Everything's in the title: I'm from Paris and I don't freak out, so why should you?

Let's just hope nobody has forgotten the lesson of 9/11, the "war on terrorism" and all that bullshit.
 

Snarky


Mouth for war

Yeah I'm glad you're fine man! I'm really getting sick of these assholes doing their terrorist bullshit everywhere
mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, next to soccer

selmiak

Yeah, I'm also glad you are okay! Have you been out somewhere on friday? Why can't the violence stop everywhere?

Mandle

Glad to hear you are safe. Stay that way, man!

Mouth for war said it best!

I would like to see the whole of ISIS dumped on an island somewhere with all their guns and ammo and only one cache of food and water hidden somewhere. And there's only enough for three people. See how their solidarity holds up then...

Ali

Glad to hear you're okay. It's funny, it almost seems selfish to be worried about friends after attacks like these.

Quote from: Mandle on Sun 15/11/2015 02:18:47
I would like to see the whole of ISIS dumped on an island somewhere with all their guns and ammo and only one cache of food and water hidden somewhere. And there's only enough for three people. See how their solidarity holds up then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HrDhTZOrw

If you would like to see the 1941 version of this, watch the underrated British war film "49th Parrallel" aka "The Invaders". It was a film designed to encourage US support for joining the second world war, but the plot is quite unusual. A German submarine founders off the coast of Canada (currently in the war) and a small troop of Nazi soldiers have to make their way through Canada to the USA for sanctuary. What is remarkable about the film is that the thing which tears the soldiers apart is the cancer of Nazi philosophy. Those obsessed with a perverse notion of 'purity' eventually turn on each another.

I find it somewhat reassuring to think that these fanatical, murderous cults are ultimately self destructive. Powell & Pressburger were also remarkable in that their war films always made a clear distinction between a German and a Nazi. I think that's so important, at a time when our newspapers and politicians are deliberately conflating IS terrorists and refugees fleeing IS terror.

sketchess

Just the tip of the iceberg, folks. The very tiny tip.
I really don't know, if I shall rofl down the holeway or crying out loud, thinking of all beginnings. No surprises on my side. Sadly that the trick still works.

But happy to see ya OUXX.


Monsieur OUXX

What I would like to see is France, the US and the UK to stop being in the top 5 arms dealers in the world.
What I would like to see is Saudi Arabia to stop being the #1 customer of France in the weapons business.
What I would like to see is France to stop bombing random Arab countries (continuing on the US/british trend). We've already been at war with Mali, Syria, Lybia and Afghanistan.
What I would like to see is NATO (including France) blocking financial circuits (straight from the stock exchange into Daesh's pockets, transitting through Qatar), instead of immediately choosing military solutions to please each country's military-industrial lobby (which is another way to say: "to please the stock holders").
What I would like to see is people to stop agreeing on the vague "we need more security" statement, without realizing that it only means "we will install more spys in your cell phones and more access to your private life" and certainly does not mean: "We will unlock sufficent funds for the police, the justice and more genrally the public service to work properly and stop being a pile of arbitrary, hasty and stress-inducing decisions".

I would like to see all this.

 

Cassiebsg

There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: Cassiebsg on Tue 17/11/2015 17:47:05
We can all dream of Utopia...
Are you kidding me? I didn't write "I want everyone to be friends, and all wars to stop". Instead I wrote a very accurate, practical roadmap, that requires a strong political stand on a handful of  critical topics.
 

Cassiebsg

No, not kidding, am I afraid.
That's actually how much respect, trust and believe that our government will do right by us and the values we care for.

I wish it was as simple as wishing it.
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

SilverSpook

QuoteMonsieur OUXX:  What I would like to see is people to stop agreeing on the vague "we need more security" statement, without realizing that it only means "we will install more spys in your cell phones and more access to your private life" and certainly does not mean: "We will unlock sufficent funds for the police, the justice and more genrally the public service to work properly and stop being a pile of arbitrary, hasty and stress-inducing decisions".

Hey France, this happened to the US after 911.  It was called the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the War on Terror, etc.  Cost multi-trillion dollars, thousands of lives, destroyed civil liberties, started a Golden Age of white collar / financial crime, and was generally a waste, a travesty and a shame.

Feel free to repeat our historical mistakes though.  That's cool too.  We've always been close after pissing off Britain and tearing down authoritarian states, building freedom democracy and equality.  Maybe it's only fitting that the US and France should be the leaders in dismantling egalite, liberte, and fraternite, and all those best parts of the Enlightenment, reinstating overreaching dictators.  Dark Ages II, here we come!

selmiak

Dark Ages? You mean with witchhunts and burning books and all that crazy shit? Cool!

With tragedies like this I'm always curious how and in what frequency the news in different countries report about different thing.
Some german news report this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-14/german-police-arrested-man-with-suspected-ties-to-paris-attacks
in some years this will be food for how could they not stop it when knowing this-conspiracies and so on. for now it looks like a giant fail on international cooperation, too busy reading private persons emails...

Snarky

Quote from: selmiak on Wed 18/11/2015 20:59:22
Dark Ages? You mean with witchhunts and burning books and all that crazy shit? Cool!

Sorry to go off-topic, but neither of those things were really features of the Dark Ages. People hadn't yet got all worked up about witches, and there weren't a lot of book burnings because there were hardly any books (that's what makes the Dark Ages dark). It's only in the early Modern period, after the Reformation, that witchhunts and book burnings became somewhat common (both had a lot to do with religious fanaticism and hysteria driven by the new religious divisions).

sketchess

Do you guys know what the worst part is? No?
To know what's coming and not beeing able to stop it. Just beeing able to wait for it.

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 17/11/2015 15:26:10
What I would like to see is France, the US and the UK to stop being in the top 5 arms dealers in the world.
What I would like to see is Saudi Arabia to stop being the #1 customer of France in the weapons business.
What I would like to see is France to stop bombing random Arab countries (continuing on the US/british trend). We've already been at war with Mali, Syria, Lybia and Afghanistan.
What I would like to see is NATO (including France) blocking financial circuits (straight from the stock exchange into Daesh's pockets, transitting through Qatar), instead of immediately choosing military solutions to please each country's military-industrial lobby (which is another way to say: "to please the stock holders").
What I would like to see is people to stop agreeing on the vague "we need more security" statement, without realizing that it only means "we will install more spys in your cell phones and more access to your private life" and certainly does not mean: "We will unlock sufficent funds for the police, the justice and more genrally the public service to work properly and stop being a pile of arbitrary, hasty and stress-inducing decisions".

I would like to see all this.

I don't entirely share your opposition to military intervention ("bombing random Arab countries"), and I think you're wrong to suggest that it's driven by the weapons industry: if Europe and the US had intervened more forcefully in Syria in the early stages of the conflict, could some of the chaos and misery of the last few years in Syria have been prevented? Hard to say, but I think it's at least possible. (Though Libya provides a good example of how helping to overthrow a dictator and averting genocide is not enough, if you're not committed to stabilize the country in the long run.)

For the other things you mention: Absolutely.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 15:52:59... and I think you're wrong to suggest that it's driven by the weapons industry: if Europe and the US had intervened more forcefully in Syria in the early stages of the conflict, could some of the chaos and misery of the last few years in Syria have been prevented? Hard to say, but I think it's at least possible.
Isn't that an argument in favor of a 'weapons industry driven conflict'? - I mean...if chaos and misery would have been prevented by ending the war quickly and early...then the only people not profiting are the weapons industries. So if we do a simple TV cop show analysis ('follow the money') of how western countries handle conflicts, then the most likely suspect is the ones making the most money from these (lasting) armed conflicts: the people selling weapons.



ps. I'm not saying they are the culprit here, I'm just arguing why I think your argumentation is (or at least can be used) in favor of pointing them out as such.

pps. I'm not saying the people in the weapons industry want continuous everlasting war. But as an industry that is where the money is at. Similarly the people working in the pharmaceutical industry don't want everyone to have chronic diseases; but that doesn't mean it's not their core business, that would go away if everyone were healthy.

ppps. I don't think the weapons industry are the ONLY people profiting (either in money or in power) from this conflict. So my argument is more of a 'what if?' than a statement of fact.

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 19/11/2015 17:58:19
Isn't that an argument in favor of a 'weapons industry driven conflict'? - I mean...if chaos and misery would have been prevented by ending the war quickly and early...then the only people not profiting are the weapons industries. So if we do a simple TV cop show analysis ('follow the money') of how western countries handle conflicts, then the most likely suspect is the ones making the most money from these (lasting) armed conflicts: the people selling weapons.

I wouldn't say so. In various Middle Eastern and North African conflicts involving jihadist groups in recent years, the "West" has taken (at different times) a number of quite different military approaches (combined with various diplomatic and economic efforts), from sending in ground troops, to bombing campaigns, to drone warfare, to enforcing no-fly zones, to a hands-off approach of providing support (non-lethal aid or weapons supplies) to forces deemed the most friendly, to in some cases minimal involvement. It's not obvious that any of these different strategies have had a notably better outcome than the others, or would have worked better in other situations.

I think that points to the explanation that these are devilishly difficult problems. Not only would it be almost impossible for an outright malevolent weapons industry to know which policies to promote to prolong the conflicts, it also seems unnecessary given that the violence seems to continue almost regardless. I think it's more reasonable to say that politicians and military leaders are forced to decide among an array of bad options in a situation with a huge amount of uncertainty, under very tough constraints (budgets, domestic politics and public opinion, prior history, UN diplomacy, a focus on other conflicts â€" e.g. the war in Ukraine, touchy relationships with various nations: Russia, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia...), which vary in each case.

I certainly won't try to defend all the choices that have been made, many of which have no doubt been short-sighted, cynical and/or miscalculated, but I think it's most reasonable to accept that the primary motivations for the interventions have been to stop jihadist groups from coming to power and potentially pose a threat against the West (or destabilize the region even more) and to try to achieve some degree of peace. After all, US and European leaders would have to be pretty dumb to think war in the Middle East is in their own national interest, given recent (and really all historical) experiences.

Perhaps it is foolish to think you can impose peace with bombs or drones or mercenaries, but I think it's also foolish to think that fanatical thugs slaughtering their way across half the world will be defeated without any armed fighting, just by... prayers? flowers? schools? Facebook posts? financial regulations? The alternative to military intervention is not peace, it's leaving the fighting to others (Putin, Assad, El-Sisi...) who won't be any more humane about it, and leaving civilians to die. Maybe that is better in the long run when we don't really have a solution â€" I honestly don't know â€" but let's be honest about the tradeoffs.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 19:33:52Not only would it be almost impossible for an outright malevolent weapons industry to know which policies to promote to prolong the conflicts, it also seems unnecessary given that the violence seems to continue almost regardless.
This argument I don't understand. I would say that this would be the easiest thing, not an almost impossible one. Just sell everyone weapons, and watch the unrest and chaos spread. If your only goal is instability you don't have to worry about policies, supporting single sides, or who is going to win. Yes, I know, this is a caricature Hydra-like description...but fact is war is easy and (to some) profitable. So the question is: is the continuation 'regardless' or 'because of'

Let me be clear, I do not think 'their' actions are excusable just because others provide them with weapons. I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world (if it does exist they never consulted with me on the terrible job they're doing...that much I know). But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict.

Of course maybe I'm just biased towards the weapons industry...then again, they make for much more fun action movies :)


EDIT: I don't want this thread to derail, and I certainly don't want to turn it in a conspiracy theory. We've had enough of those ;)

Mandle

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 19/11/2015 21:50:20
I certainly don't want to turn it in a conspiracy theory. We've had enough of those ;)

I haven't!!! I miss Judy!!! Her videos were always hilarious! :~(

Cassiebsg

There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 19/11/2015 21:50:20I would say that this would be the easiest thing, not an almost impossible one. Just sell everyone weapons, and watch the unrest and chaos spread. If your only goal is instability you don't have to worry about policies, supporting single sides, or who is going to win.

I thought we were discussing whether the policies of Western governments were set by the weapons industry, not whether those companies may be involved in other shit. I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.

And I just don't believe they wield that much influence. The decision of whether or not to go to war is better explained by the familiar factors: protecting national interests by supporting allies and governments open to your influence, trying to expand the reach of your ideology (democracy, capitalism, secularism), curtailing the influence of rival powers, trying to maintain stability when possible, (yes) humanitarian concerns, and in response to domestic public opinion, for example.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 07:58:29I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.
First of all, I think the correct word is cynicism not paranoia (it's not 'believing they are after you', but 'they are in it for themselves'). Also, it's not 'evil mastermind' stuff but industry lobbyist stuff. It cannot be denied that industries and companies with deep pockets have always influenced governments and its officials. That is part of the game.

As pointed out by OUXX, the countries who play the biggest role in deciding how to move forward are also the biggest arms dealers (that is not: the biggest arms dealers come from these countries, the countries themselves are (said to be) these arms dealers). That means that - whether we like it or not - war is part of their business model and thus (potentially) in their national interest (as long as the war is not brought to their own soil).

QuoteAnd I just don't believe they wield that much influence.
How much influence do you believe in? - We are dealing with a multi-billion-dollar industry, so at least some influence can be expected, can it not?

QuoteThe decision of whether or not to go to war is better explained by the familiar factors: protecting national interests by supporting allies and governments open to your influence, trying to expand the reach of your ideology (democracy, capitalism, secularism), curtailing the influence of rival powers, trying to maintain stability when possible, (yes) humanitarian concerns, and in response to domestic public opinion, for example.
By saying it 'better explained' you are denying the power of lobbyists in addition to (as well as related to) these factors. All I'm saying is, that the weapons industry has a clear opinion about how to 'protect national interests', how to 'support allies and governments open to our influence', how to 'maintain stability', how to respond to 'domestic public opinion', etc. I'm not saying they rule the west. But I am saying that they will (try to) influence it in favor of their own interests. And I'm also saying they're doing a better job at it (achieving more favorable results) than you and me (well, maybe not you, I don't know...but no one in government is listening to or consulting with me).


ps.
QuoteI thought we were discussing whether the policies of Western governments were set by the weapons industry, not whether those companies may be involved in other shit.
Question is, how much difference there is between these subjects if certain western countries are themselves the biggest weapons dealers (as has been reported over and over). You are then dealing with a single (schizophrenic?) entity (the fact that the companies building the weapons are not owned by the government becomes irrelevant; especially if you look at who pays for and dictates their R&D...but maybe the influence of military in these companies is also greatly exaggerated in movies, TV shows, and news outlets).

sketchess

Oh please, give me a break!

Don't grap at straws, guys, if you don't really know what's going on in the world of today. And just for the minutes, my better half was shooting gun fire, while sleeping, out of his mouths for two years. Screaming, shouting and crying... so yeah I have a pretty good idea of what surrounded us.

And for the record, a pretty good example on how the world works in today. Don't worry, it's English.
Youtube: sneak peek

Misj'

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 10:34:39
Oh please, give me a break!

Don't grap at straws, guys, if you don't really know what's going on in the world of today.
Could you elaborate that statement, because I think neither Snarky or I are grasping at straws. I also don't think the clip you shared contradicts his or my opinion (because they only differ on a minor detail concerning the decision-making process). I also don't understand the foundation of the "don't really know what's going on in the world"-statement.

So please elaborate. I just want to understand your view (and what you think my or Snarky's view is).

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 19:33:52I wouldn't say so. In various Middle Eastern and North African conflicts involving jihadist groups in recent years--

I like that. Recent years. Why recent years? Because the truth is that these groups would not be any threat if it were not for the training and equipment provided to them (directly or indirectly) by the US-led interference in Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everywhere else that has natural resources not already belonging to the empire. Take the very well known brand new Toyota trucks. Even the official story is that they were given to "legitimate" governments and then lost. Whoops. Let's not talk about the fact that the taliban wouldn't have existed to be blamed for 9/11 if it weren't for the US involvement in Afghanistan during their proxy war with Russia.

How are things in Iraq these days, BTW? Military intervention go well for the people, has it? Or would they trade BP and Shell for their dictator back any day of the week?

But we don't talk about the people killed daily in bomb blasts in the country that the US ruined, do we? Or the innocent civilians that the US drone program calls collateral damage? Or the more than 100,000 civilians that have been killed in Iraq since the occupation started.

Everything the US has been doing, tripled the "islamic state" territory? Whoops?

Very well. Let's keep it on public record and not delve into conspiracy theories. Let's not follow the money or ask who benefits. Let's assume the USG has nothing but good intentions and are unfortunately hampered by terminal incompetence. How is it that you think they will make things better?



Links for those who can read:

‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular'

Does Obama know he's fighting on al-Qa'ida's side?

This one Toyota pickup truck is at the top of the shopping list for the Free Syrian Army â€" and the Taliban

Revealed: What the West has given Syria's rebels

Moderate? Syrian rebels post image of selves by burning U.S. Capitol on Facebook page

monkey424

Quote from: Mandle on Thu 19/11/2015 22:37:08
I miss Judy!!!

You and me both, Mandle me old mate!

Sorry.... I don't have any new Judy videos.... but here's one I found that people might find interesting and perhaps a bit more sobering (yet still with a conspiracy vibe to it, for old times' sake).

Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw
    

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 20/11/2015 09:12:46
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 07:58:29I think it takes an unreasonable amount of paranoia to think that arms manufacturers dictated that Europe and the US not intervene more decisively in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, on the calculation that this would mean a longer, more brutal and therefore more profitable war for them in the end. That's "evil mastermind" stuff.
First of all, I think the correct word is cynicism not paranoia (it's not 'believing they are after you', but 'they are in it for themselves').

No, it's paranoia if it amounts to believing that the world is ruled in secret by unseen forces, and that any decision that is made, whatever it is, is ultimately in their interest.

It's one thing to argue that arms manufacturers lobby for military intervention in foreign conflicts because that means they'll sell more weapons. We can debate how much that ultimately affects the political decisions, but it's a straightforward, plausible argument. It's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. And when you start to argue that even lack of military intervention is part of their evil scheme, you've constructed theory that is no longer tethered to empirical fact: any observation whatsoever can be fit into the story.

(I would tend to think that because of the length and turnaround time on military contracts, the industry's lobbying is more about convincing governments that they need to prepare for future conflicts, as well as lobbying for permission to export to questionable buyers, than actively trying to get countries embroiled in wars. That's just my intuition, though.)

QuoteAs pointed out by OUXX, the countries who play the biggest role in deciding how to move forward are also the biggest arms dealers (that is not: the biggest arms dealers come from these countries, the countries themselves are (said to be) these arms dealers). That means that - whether we like it or not - war is part of their business model and thus (potentially) in their national interest (as long as the war is not brought to their own soil).

It does not mean that "war is part of their business model" (even if the US exports arms for 10 billion dollars a year – much of that in military aid, so at a loss – the US GDP is 16.7 trillion dollars). It means that military superiority (and the ability to share that with whom they choose) is part of how they project power internationally.

And are you seriously claiming that these wars are turning a financial profit for the West? Even before getting into things like economic disruption (depressing the world economy), refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects, I find that wildly implausible.

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 10:34:39
Oh please, give me a break!

And for the record, a pretty good example on how the world works in today. Don't worry, it's English.
Youtube: sneak peek

What are you saying? The US (and other nations) have been supporting certain rebel groups in Syria to fight against Assad and ISIS? Sure, there's nothing secret about that. And I think the video shows some of the difficulties of the situation, and the comparative powerlessness of the US (and by extension its European allies).

sketchess

I suggest changing the angle of perspective for a better view. Well Busra is the perfect location to begin with and than to follow the bread crumbs into the modern world.

Misj'

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 12:38:36No, it's paranoia if it amounts to believing that the world is ruled in secret by unseen forces, and that any decision that is made, whatever it is, is ultimately in their interest.
Which is neither what I believe nor what I argued (which, incidentally are the same thing). What I argued was that they try to lobby the decision in their favor, not that EVERY decision made is in their favor. By claiming otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. I also never said there were secret unseen forces that rule the world. So by (your own) definition it's not paranoia. What it is, is cynicism: it's not believing there's unseen forces, it believing people are in it for themselves.

QuoteIt's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
And again, I never argued that. At best I argued that your earlier argument was (or could easily be interpreted as) in favor of this explanation. By definition what I argued was not a conspiracy theory; as a matter of fact I clearly stated: I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world ... . But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict. And that has been the basic starting-point for all my arguments. So again, you're arguing something I didn't say, and put a label on it (paranoia, conspiracy theory) that is not valid.

QuoteAnd when you start to argue that even lack of military intervention is part of their evil scheme, you've constructed theory that is no longer tethered to empirical fact: any observation whatsoever can be fit into the story.
First of all, I didn't construct a theory, I stated - as a response to you saying that 'I think you're (OUXX) wrong to suggest that it's driven by the weapons industry' because 'if Europe and the US had intervened more forcefully in Syria in the early stages of the conflict ...' it might have prevented 'some of the chaos and misery of the last few years in Syria' - that ending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling the weapons (some of whom are western governments as OUXX pointed out). That does NOT argue an evil scheme, a pupetmaster, or even that 'lack of military intervention' is in any way proof of either. So anyway, it's a good thing I never argued what you throw at me here.

QuoteAnd are you seriously claiming that these wars are turning a financial profit for the West? Even before getting into things like economic disruption (depressing the world economy), refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects, I find that wildly implausible.
Are you claiming no one in the west (including government officials who make the decision to go to war) has made any profit of it?

While it is absolutely fair to include things like economic disruption, refugees, increased oil prices, and other pricey effects into account, you should then also do it the other way around: technical and scientific advances thanks (in part) to military funding (like GPS, the internet, Apple's SIRI), private contracts and business opportunities in war-time, etc.

US general Smidley D. Butler argued in his book 'war is a racket' (1935) that the profitability of war (not to all, but to some) causes it to be both fraudulent and continuous. So it can be argued that the only way to stop war it not make sure it's not profitable to anyone. Now, much has changed since he published that book, but I honestly don't believe that things have change that much.

So am I saying war is profitable to 'the west' (if such a thing exists)? - No. Am I saying war is profitable (financially) to ALL those making the decisions? - No. Am I saying that war is (financially) profitable to some people, and that some of these people are directly or indirectly involved in the decisions regarding the course and direction of said war? - History has shown this to be very likely.


Snarky

Quote from: sketchess on Fri 20/11/2015 13:59:13
I suggest changing the angle of perspective for a better view. Well Busra is the perfect location to begin with and than to follow the bread crumbs into the modern world.

Can't you just say what you mean instead of giving vague hints and leaving it to us to guess what you're trying to imply?

selmiak

Quote from: selmiak on Wed 18/11/2015 20:59:22
With tragedies like this I'm always curious how and in what frequency the news in different countries report about different thing.
Some german news report this:
*link*
in some years this will be food for how could they not stop it when knowing this-conspiracies and so on. for now it looks like a giant fail on international cooperation, too busy reading private persons emails...

this is too unbelievable, am I spreading FUD and nobody knows anything? or do I know everything? war is not the solution fuckers!
does anybody else on this international forum have some more rather regional national community news?

Snarky

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 20/11/2015 14:07:14
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 20/11/2015 12:38:36It's quite another thing to argue that they deliberately conspire to sow and prolong wars, and make sure that their governments don't do the things that would actually help resolve the conflicts. That is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
And again, I never argued that. At best I argued that your earlier argument was (or could easily be interpreted as) in favor of this explanation. By definition what I argued was not a conspiracy theory; as a matter of fact I clearly stated: I also don't believe in some shadow government that controls the world ... . But then again, I don't think you need some 'higher power' to create chaos and conflict. And that has been the basic starting-point for all my arguments. So again, you're arguing something I didn't say, and put a label on it (paranoia, conspiracy theory) that is not valid.

My point is that in order for this argument (that reluctance to intervene in Syria supports the idea that Western countries go to war to make money for the weapons industry) to work, you do have to assume that they have an almost occult ability to foresee the future, are unrepetantly evil, and are able to wield decisive influence over such policy decisions. And if you accept the argument, what you end up with is:

-Whenever Western countries go to war, that decision is made to benefit weapons manufacturers
-Whenever Western countries choose not to intervene resolutely in a conflict, and things still get worse, that decision was also made to benefit weapons manufacturers

Quoteending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling the weapons (some of whom are western governments as OUXX pointed out). That does NOT argue an evil scheme, a pupetmaster, or even that 'lack of military intervention' is in any way proof of either.

Like I said, I think it does. But also, I think you're committing a logical fallacy here. OK, let's grant that all things being equal, prolonging the war in Syria might benefit weapons manufacturers (we'd need some info on where they're getting most of the weapons from to say how much Western companies are profiting, but let's assume they do). And yes, some Western governments are big weapons exporters. But here's where it falls down, because governments are much more than that, and all things are definitely NOT equal. If you look at just a slightly bigger picture, it's obvious that ongoing chaos and misery in Syria is NOT in the best interest of these countries, financially or politically (just look at what's happening!), and the politicians making the decisions would obviously realize that.

QuoteAre you claiming no one in the west (including government officials who make the decision to go to war) has made any profit of it?

No, but I don't think it's a big factor. Corruption exists, obviously, but ultimately the decisions of whether to go to war are up to the highest leaders, who tend to be more concerned with their political careers and legacies than with making a few bucks for themselves (which they can typically do in other ways, anyway).

QuoteUS general Smidley D. Butler argued in his book 'war is a racket' (1935) that the profitability of war (not to all, but to some) causes it to be both fraudulent and continuous. So it can be argued that the only way to stop war it not make sure it's not profitable to anyone. Now, much has changed since he published that book, but I honestly don't believe that things have change that much.

I think things have changed massively since that time, whether or not he was right in the first place.

Look, there are many valid criticisms to be made of US hegemony, the philosophies and practices of foreign intervention, the belief in military solutions to deep-rooted problems, the military-industrial complex and the war on terror. But I don't buy for a second that the reason Western powers start or intervene in these wars is greed (whether an intent to plunder or to sell).

Misj'

@Snarky

I have decided not to respond to your post (and as a result end this discussion for my part) for a number of reasons:

1. You keep trying to push a worldview onto me (conspiracy theories and paranoia) that are in direct contradiction/disagreement with both me and my arguments. I kept making that clear from the start but I feel you keep twisting my arguments. When I talk about influence you imply it only makes sense if I mean absolute power, selfish/self-centered behavior must mean unrepentatly evil, lobbyists and consultations suddenly become a shadow government, and experience and data-analysis are turned into some occult fortune-telling oracle. You then argue against these twisted absolutes by claiming that they only make sense from a conspiracy theory's point of view...which might be true, but they are not my arguments.

2. You claim that I'm committing logical fallacies simply because - from my point of view - you don't seem to grasp my argumentation (which makes sense because you twisted it into something it is not: a conspiracy theory). While you could argue that I'm making a number of wrong initial assumptions and that - as a result - the conclusions I make are wrong (I would disagree with that notion), that is not what you did. In my opinion most of your arguments are intrinsically flawed, but I can understand where they are coming from (even though I disagree on several specifics). I have no problem with that. But based on earlier discussions we had I expected more from you than using the flawed 'logical fallacies'-argument (which itself is a fallacy by the way). Maybe I'm just more susceptible to it at this moment, but for me it's a discussion no-no, and for that reason I cannot - at this point - continue.

3. I have some personal stuff in the coming weeks that prevent me from spending time on this discussion...so I'd rather end it now.

Cheers Mate,
and 'till next time we cross swords. :)



ps. please do continue this discussion...even though I won't participate, I do look forward - when I have the time again - to find out where this is going.

MiteWiseacreLives!

I am a little surprised at the zeal you have for your opinion too, Snarky.
Although I'd rather stay neutral on the matter There's a few commonly known facts at play here.
1) War is good for the US economy
2) War gets the citizen buy in to increase the national debt via such spending
3) Going to war historically = a second presidential term
4) The US would prefer to control global natural resources than deplete their own.
Therefore, the powers that be don't mind going to war very much. We live in a corrupt world. I know there are other factors at play, but don't be blind to the reality.
I apologize if my opinion offends anyone.

Khris

Quote from: Misj' on Sat 21/11/2015 23:00:37I expected more from you than using the flawed 'logical fallacies'-argument (which itself is a fallacy by the way). Maybe I'm just more susceptible to it at this moment, but for me it's a discussion no-no, and for that reason I cannot - at this point - continue.
How is pointing out flawed reasoning a fallacy?
If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, therefore every prolonged war was caused by lobbying, how is it a no-no to point out the obvious non sequitur?

Edit after reply:
*SIGH*

Misj'

Quote from: Khris on Sun 22/11/2015 13:41:40How is pointing out flawed reasoning a fallacy?
If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, therefore every prolonged war was caused by lobbying, how is it a no-no to point out the obvious non sequitur?
Sigh!

In this specific case:

Because for one I never claimed that EVERY prolonged war is caused by lobbying (I never argued in any absolutes). I merely pointed out that Snarky's statement that the absence of early intervention means he doesn't believe the weapons industry was involved was unsatisfying because the 'absence' could easily be explained both ways.

Secondly, since general statement that was claimed to be a part of the fallacy (the existence of a conspiracy/shadow government) wasn't mine to begin with it is - by definition - a fallacy to claim that I was committing a logical fallacy based on that statement to be true.

Thirdy, the specific quoted argument that was referred to as a logical fallacy was that "ending the war quickly and early might not be in the best interest of those selling weapons does NOT argue an evil scheme, puppet-master, or that lack of military intervention was proof of either". So he claimed that a statement stating that A neither argues in favor of nor proves B is a logical fallacy because he quote-unquote thinks it does (argue in favor and/or proves it). So to put it in perspective of your argumentation: If I said that lobbying can prolong wars, but that prolonged wars do not argue or proof a shadow government, then that would be an obvious non sequitur. To that, yes, I say fallacy!

Anyway, I don't have the desire to defend something that is in direct opposition and contradiction of all my arguments (the existence of some conspiracy that I don't believe in); and given my lack of time...


EDIT: I think I've gotten way too off-topic (this post is an off-topic of and off-topic)...plus I really don't want to insult the moderator (although I know Snarky can take it, I don't want him to feel insulted in anyway). Finally, I'm glad OUXX is ok, and I agree with the world he would like to see. I really don't have anything more to say than that.

Snarky

Misj', I respect your decision, but let me try to clarify a couple of points:

I wasn't really trying to argue that you believe in a conspiracy-theory view of the world. I was rather trying to explain why I think the argument you were making (specifically about what early non-intervention in Syria could imply) only works if we accept a conspiracy-theory view. If you reject conspiracy theories, I think your argument has to be rejected as well. I don't feel you ever really responded to that.

You're also mischaracterizing the logical fallacy I accused you of. It was directed very specifically at the assertion I think can be paraphrased as "War is good for arms dealers. Western governments deal arms. Therefore war is good for Western governments." I hold that this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition To be clear, I don't think everything you've been saying is a fallacy as a whole (even if I disagree), just this particular bit.

Snarky

Quote from: MiteWiseacreLives! on Sun 22/11/2015 03:03:53
I am a little surprised at the zeal you have for your opinion too, Snarky.

I've had a particular dislike for this, IMO, myth ever since the "No blood for oil" slogans against the Iraq war. I think it's a dangerous distortion of what most modern wars are really primarily about: achieving policy objectives.

QuoteAlthough I'd rather stay neutral on the matter There's a few commonly known facts at play here.
1) War is good for the US economy

[Citation needed]

Quote2) War gets the citizen buy in to increase the national debt via such spending

Why would this matter? This is a matter for Congress (which routinely votes to increase it, except when trying to use it as a lever against other policies), and most citizens have only a vague notion that it is huge.

Quote[3) Going to war historically = a second presidential term

Not really true. Since WWII, the only presidents who have not gotten a second term are Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41. Kennedy was killed, and Ford was done in by his pardon of Nixon (on top of having become president by default in the first place, having never been popularly elected). Of the remaining, the main reason LBJ didn't seek a second term was that the Vietnam war had made him deeply unpopular. George Bush lost even though the first Gulf War had been (from the US perspective) a great success just a few months earlier. Carter's big problem was the Iranian hostage crisis. In that case, perhaps a more martial response would have improved his prospects.

But overall, modern history does not support the idea that wars help presidential reelections.

Quote4) The US would prefer to control global natural resources than deplete their own.

In fact, the opposite is true. The US is all about "energy independence", achieved in the short term by US oil and gas drilling.

Nor does the US to any meaningful extent "control" natural resources in other countries any more. They do generally support extraction and sale on international markets as part of the worldwide capitalist trade system, and US companies own stakes or are otherwise involved in many of those activities, but that's not the same thing.

MiteWiseacreLives!

Perhaps my headspace on the matter in still stuck in the nineties, your clearly pretty read up on the matter.
Although you will have a hard time convincing me that the entire world is interested in getting involved in the Middle-East because they love SAND so much. I think the flow of oil is higher on the priority list than the spread of democracy if that's what you mean by:
QuoteI think it's a dangerous distortion of what most modern wars are really primarily about: achieving policy objectives.
There are alot of valid points like removing threats to security etc., but saving the world is probably not one of them.
This thread was about the tragedy in Paris, a sad loss of life and disgusting show of hate. 

Snarky

Yes, let's get back to the topic at hand. I just read this, which I think is a good overview of the past and possible future of the war in Syria: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 19:33:52
Perhaps it is foolish to think you can impose peace with bombs or drones or mercenaries, but I think it's also foolish to think that fanatical thugs slaughtering their way across half the world will be defeated without any armed fighting, just by...

I explained exactly how. Fell free not to listen. Fanaticals are stopped by stability and economic heatlh. The exact opposite of military interventions. They're incompatible. They don't mix. At all. Ever.
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Mon 23/11/2015 17:11:33
I explained exactly how. Fell free not to listen. Fanaticals are stopped by stability and economic heatlh.

Perhaps (it certainly can't hurt), but many of the ISIS/Daesh fighters come from Europe, and most of the Paris attackers were French or Belgian. If France and Belgium aren't stable/economically healthy enough to avert fanaticism, it'll be a long time before the Middle East is.

QuoteThe exact opposite of military interventions. They're incompatible. They don't mix. At all. Ever.

That's just not true. You're reasoning as if the alternative to military intervention is peace, like everything is going to be fine as long as we don't meddle, but that's usually not the case. Military interventions have defended democratically elected governments against attempted military coups (e.g. in the Philippines), ended (or averted likely) ethnic cleansing (e.g. in Cambodia and Kosovo), forced belligerents to lay down their arms (e.g. in Liberia), brought civil wars to an end (e.g. in the Ivory Coast), and restricted the operation of marauding guerillas and pirates.

Is military intervention enough by itself to bring lasting peace? No, of course not. But in a number of cases it does appear to have been a necessary component. Whether an intervention in justified or well-advised in a particular case, under what circumstances an intervention is likely to be successful, its pros and cons, and the moral or utilitarian calculus of even a successful intervention are matters for debate, but it's simply wrong to claim that military interventions have never helped secure stability.

Also, as a mattter of unpleasant fact, there have been fanatical insurgencies that have been defeated simply by crushing them militarily. For example, the Mahdist War in the Sudan was ended when British troops finally beat the mahdist fighters and killed the leaders. More recently, the civil war in Sri Lanka was ended with the brutal crushing of the equally brutal Tamil Tigers.

RickJ

I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more.  People who believe they can get whatever they want through violence will not be persuaded otherwise until they are met with force and utterely defeated.  It's as true now as it has been throughout history. 

NickyNyce

Dr. Judy Wood's new book will be hitting the shelves any day now.


Snarky

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 23/11/2015 20:55:09
I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more.  People who believe they can get whatever they want through violence will not be persuaded otherwise until they are met with force and utterely defeated.  It's as true now as it has been throughout history.

But that's not true either! There are plenty of examples throughout history of terrorists and other violent groups that eventually laid down their arms without ever being "utterly defeated" by force (or achieving their ultimate goal). Take the IRA and their Unionist foes, for example. Or communist revolutionaries in many countries who eventually moderated their views and formed modern, democratic Labor parties.

Of course, it seems impossible to make peace with ISIS/Daesh right now. (Their stated aim is to provoke war between the West and the Muslim world, so when you say we mustn't "give them what they want" ...) But things change. People change, leadership changes, ideas change. Compromises that once seemed impossible may, in time, turn out to be livable. All is possible.

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 23/11/2015 20:55:09
I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more. 

This is not what I said at all. Like, at all. Wanting stability in these countries is not the same as "trying to satisfy fanaticals". How did you even


Also, about the fanaticals coming from France and Belgium: you'd be surprised by the poverty in some areas. In the US, very poor people are called "white trash" and some of them turn to tea parties and that sort of fanatism. In France and Belgium, the poorest class in society is (because of historical circumstances and colonialism) mostly made of the second or third generation of North-African immigrants who have more bonds with some trashy-fantasy version of Islam, just like white trash in the US has this trashy-fantasy version of Christianity. And even then, at least in the US, living in a caravan in the middle of nowhere can still be sort-of glorified because there's still this Far West fantasy from the 1800's. In France, if you live in a project housing, are unemployed, and on top of everything if you have the Arabian type, then you're virtually  at the very bottom of society. But they're the same. And it's all caused by poverty, lack of education, and rejection. They're the "left behind".
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 24/11/2015 14:25:49
Also, about the fanaticals coming from France and Belgium: you'd be surprised by the poverty in some areas. [...] In France, if you live in a project housing, are unemployed, and on top of everything if you have the Arabian type, then you're virtually  at the very bottom of society. But they're the same. And it's all caused by poverty, lack of education, and rejection. They're the "left behind".

Yes, but my point is that if France can't successfully solve these social problems at home, what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa? It's absolutely something we should work toward for its own sake, but it's not going to eliminate fanaticism, because "richer and more stable (and freer and more socially just) than France" is not a realistic goal for the foreseeable future. (We could also point to Saudi Arabia, which is about as rich and stable as any country in the region, and still the main exporter of radical Islamic ideology.)

Edit: To make a positive argument instead of just disagreeing with everyone, I'm forced to the conclusion that we cannot "solve" modern jihadism and the civil wars and terrorism it brings, no matter what strategy we choose. Eventually it will burn itself out, lose its fervor as it becomes institutionalized (like the Maoists in China), or the world will simply change so that it's no longer relevant (like the anarchists a hundred years ago). In the mean time, there will be more Muslim battlefields, and more attacks by radicalized homegrown terrorists in the West. We'll just have to muddle through, trying to contain the damage and address related problems without making the cure worse than the disease. The most appropriate means will vary depending on the situation, and will take a great deal of experimentation and study to identify.

I'm actually also increasingly skeptical of the effectiveness of military force in the long run, but I don't agree with ruling it out in principle in every case.

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 24/11/2015 14:55:21
what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa?

Well the roadmap is pretty clear:
1) Stop relying on oil, (that, you do at home, by investing in renewable energies)
2)Stop maintaining chaos there only to please some financial partners (either to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, or to not upset Israel when it comes to Palestine).

All of that sounds fairly easy, provided there's the will. It's not even about willpower, it's purely about stop believing in fairytales like "it helps more to divide local populations to maintain control than it would help to let them live". It's all about post-colonization management and outdated, colonial beliefs.

PS: Maoism died out in China only because the country gained sufficient financial stability and political independance at some stage. Before Mao arrived, it was a rotting feudal empire, dealing with a stagnating economy and invasive neighbours (Japan, Russia...).  Now China is more about middle class and consumerism than whatever revolutionary movement.
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 24/11/2015 16:09:09
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 24/11/2015 14:55:21
what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa?

Well the roadmap is pretty clear:

You're dodging my point: Will this make, in the foreseeable future, the Middle East more prosperous, stable, free and socially just than France? Because according to the logic of your argument, that's what it will take to end fanaticism and the violence it brings.

Quote1) Stop relying on oil, (that, you do at home, by investing in renewable energies)

So take away one of the main pillars of the economies of many Middle Eastern countries. This helps them how?

Quote2)Stop maintaining chaos there only to please some financial partners (either to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, or to not upset Israel when it comes to Palestine).

As I've argued in several posts now, I don't think the basic assumption here is true. The link between these claims is also obscure. Are you saying that the main motivations for US and European foreign policy in the Middle East are the presumably vast profits earned from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and from "not upsetting Israel"? (How do they even get money from the latter?) It sounds more like you're just throwing together various points you don't like about the foreign policy, without really bothering to articulating a coherent pattern.

QuoteAll of that sounds fairly easy, provided there's the will. It's not even about willpower, it's purely about stop believing in fairytales like "it helps more to divide local populations to maintain control than it would help to let them live". It's all about post-colonization management and outdated, colonial beliefs.

So would you say your basic assumption is that all the problems in the Middle East are caused by Western meddling, and that if Western powers stopped actively "maintaining chaos", things would rapidly work out to a happy conclusion?

QuotePS: Maoism died out in China only because the country gained sufficient financial stability and political independance at some stage. Before Mao arrived, it was a rotting feudal empire, dealing with a stagnating economy and invasive neighbours (Japan, Russia...).  Now China is more about middle class and consumerism than whatever revolutionary movement.

Maoism was effectively abandoned in China because Mao died, and other old-school ideologues were purged. This happened soon after the enormous upheavals of the Cultural Revolution (with massive political instability and economic hardship), hardly proving your point.

RickJ

QuoteIn the US, very poor people are called "white trash" and some of them turn to tea parties and that sort of fanatism.
White trash is a derogatory American English racial slur referring to poor white people and you are a bigot for using the term to describe a political movement of which you appear to be entirely ignorant.   

QuoteBut that's not true either! There are plenty of examples throughout history of terrorists and other violent groups that eventually laid down their arms without ever being "utterly defeated" by force (or achieving their ultimate goal). Take the IRA and their Unionist foes, for example. Or communist revolutionaries in many countries who eventually moderated their views and formed modern, democratic Labor parties.
I don't know much about the IRA, other than they have or had some 200 ytear old beef with the gov. According to a Scottish friend of mine the British authorities hand killed off quite a few of them in the early 1980s. 

I can be persuaded me to take back the "utterly defeated" qualifer but believe that sooner or later the use of force will be required.

I agree that the fanatical muslims may stop blowing shit up when they achieve their goal, which is what?  Oh yeah that's right conquer the world! :=

Jack

YouTube: Die Anstalt: ISIS terrorism documentary doku 2015 terrorist - English subtitles ENG SUB

political satire by Max Uthoff and Claus von Wagner
Topic: ISIS and terrorism in general and how it all began - An entertaining summary with real facts.

*mic drop*

RickJ

That's funny ...  two German guys who are experts on evil dictators and against U.S. intervention in such matters...;-D

(edit)
Oh, they left out the part about how the Ottaman Empire was on the losing side of WWII and they gave all of their territory now referred to as the middle east to victors to do with as they pleased.

All the U.S. (and I suppose Briton and France also) wanted was stable and free countries there.  But that sort of thing seems to be incompatible with the dominate philosophy of the people who live there.  The problem is that nobody in the west wants to recognize that fact.

Jack

So, show of hands...

Who advocating military intervention will be putting on their army boots to go to a foreign country to kill for "stability"?

Snarky

That "argument" (ad hominem, rather) makes about as much sense as asking how many people in favor of universal healthcare are planning to qualify as doctors.

Edit: Or, maybe a more relevant comparison, whether people advocating for letting in more refugees are getting their guest bedrooms ready.

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 27/11/2015 23:59:36
That "argument" (ad hominem, rather) makes about as much sense as asking how many people in favor of universal healthcare are planning to qualify as doctors.

Edit: Or, maybe a more relevant comparison, whether people advocating for letting in more refugees are getting their guest bedrooms ready.

Should I take it to mean that you consider hosting Syrian refugees as dangerous as going to war in the middle east?

Because if you don't you might want to try again.

EDIT: Come to think of it, that's a really good question. Who advocating the debugging of foreign countries with drone strikes is willing to host the people displaced by their invasion?

Snarky

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sat 28/11/2015 00:07:26
Should I take it to mean that you consider hosting Syrian refugees as dangerous as going to war in the middle east?

No, I mean that all policies involve people having to do something. Individuals may support such policies without personally wishing to carry them out, for any number of reasons. Instead, the government hires dedicated people for the task. That's what we have a government and pay taxes for.

It is ridiculous to suggest that thinking a job should be done even if it's not something you want to do yourself is somehow hypocritical. I don't want to be a teacher, so if there's a policy to widen education, I must oppose it?

But I also don't consider you a serious debater, so I'll refrain from further response.

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 28/11/2015 00:41:36
No, I mean that all policies involve people having to do something. Individuals may support such policies without personally wishing to carry them out, for any number of reasons. Instead, the government hires dedicated people for the task. That's what we have a government and pay taxes for.
Unlike being a garbage man, or having to host refugees, or any other job you may consider beneath you, going to war comes at great human cost, one which any "serious debater" would be able to recognise or consider.

So when you're advocating military intervention to a foreign country, you're not only asking many faceless people to risk their lives, but also their sanity, and too frequently a catastrophic loss of quality of life even if they do survive. That is not to mention the high number of civilian deaths which get so easily filed away as "collateral damage".

So when you pay taxes to have someone else fulfil your policies that you don't personally wish to carry out yourself, you are largely dealing with resources. But when you start dealing with war you are dealing with human life and suffering on a gross scale. It should never be treated like a public convenience.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk