IS

[kochman]

There can still be grass roots, but the system is building more and more away from that... the wall is getting higher, you know?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It doesn't really take 'grass roots'.

People don't like wars. Neither party can afford to openly be a 'war party'. Since wars are pretty hard to hide the clandestine war party has now been caught out and neither party can afford to be associated with them. The differences between 'well yeah they were our guys but they aren't now' and 'well we went along with them when they had too much power but they weren't really our guys ever' are still being hashed out.

The whole crime/police/war on drugs fiasco is another one that is still being hashed (!) out, but ultimately we have turned a corner where the majority of people are now 'criminals' so both parties are recognizing the necessity of cultivating (!) the pot vote.

Endless list. When you really have the numbers the politics come around.

 

[kochman]

To "really have the numbers" though, you have to have more.

And people in the US do like wars. Every time we have one, approval ratings go through the roof... until our guys start dying anyway.

The war on drugs is a good example for my case, it took how long, how many deaths, how many tax dollars, etc? Not just in the US, but elsewhere... because trust me, it rages on in S and C America.
It's ludicrous that it should be so costly before we start to get hints.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To "really have the numbers" though, you have to have more.

And people in the US do like wars. Every time we have one, approval ratings go through the roof... until our guys start dying anyway.

The war on drugs is a good example for my case, it took how long, how many deaths, how many tax dollars, etc? Not just in the US, but elsewhere... because trust me, it rages on in S and C America.
It's ludicrous that it should be so costly before we start to get hints.

We only have wars when the bulk of the population has somehow gotten behind the idea. That may be a direct result of being lied to, but it is still a prerequisite.

As to the war on drugs...again, the bulk of the population was for that when it started. The process of those people dying off and being replaced by voters who recognize the absurdity of it has taken a long time.

 

[kochman]

I might question the idea of "bulk of the population", though nothing is popping to mind... It's certainly the case in the most recent, major invasions (Panama, Iraq x 2, Afghanistan).
On a smaller scale there wasn't widespread support for the interventions in Yugoslavia or Somalia.

Though the public does seem susceptible to being talked into it.

 

[Agent327]

Counter-terrorism/state terrorism, largely the same.
Look at the French Rev for the first sample in a Republic.

The Terreur of the French Revolution wasn't counter-terrorism: it was the employment of terror to strike down reactionary counter-revolution. To my knowledge, terrorism only entered politics with the late 19th century Russian nihilists. In which case the state chose to infiltrate the terrorist opposition, thereby actually increasing terrorism.

As to House and Congress supporting drone strikes: that is immaterial. If the president is perceived to violate the Constitution, this can be taken to the Supreme Court if deemed necessary. It seems to me the slow encroachment upon civil liberties in the War on Terror (as exemplified in the Patriot Act, the illegal abduction, torture of and refusal of due process to terror suspects and such) is the more serious issue. Drone strikes are merely the next step in this.

 

[kochman]

The Terreur of the French Revolution wasn't counter-terrorism: it was the employment of terror to strike down reactionary counter-revolution. To my knowledge, terrorism only entered politics with the late 19th century Russian nihilists. In which case the state chose to infiltrate the terrorist opposition, thereby actually increasing terrorism.

I'm fully aware of what it was, it was state terrorism in order to crush a counter-revolution which was, in their minds, a terror that also needed to be dealt with.
To say terrorism only entered politics in the late 19th century, when "the Terror" was already named as such, is quite short sited.

As to House and Congress supporting drone strikes: that is immaterial. If the president is perceived to violate the Constitution, this can be taken to the Supreme Court if deemed necessary. It seems to me the slow encroachment upon civil liberties in the War on Terror (as exemplified in the Patriot Act, the illegal abduction, torture of and refusal of due process to terror suspects and such) is the more serious issue. Drone strikes are merely the next step in this.

You've failed to understand what I said.
What I said it, not that the Congress necessarily supports strikes, but that as soon as the word "impeachment" is put on the table it turns into a mess. Screams of partisanship, yet less cooperation, etc, result (primarily as a result of the Republicans abusing the process over Slick Willy and his beluga whale intern).

You'll get no argument from me about the US sliding toward a police state, I fully agree and witness it first hand.

 

[Agent327]

I'm fully aware of what it was, it was state terrorism in order to crush a counter-revolution which was, in their minds, a terror that also needed to be dealt with.
To say terrorism only entered politics in the late 19th century, when "the Terror" was already named as such, is quite short sited.

You still don't see the difference between state-employed terror and terrorism as a means to achieve certain political aims. The notion of state terrorism is actually 20th century and not named after the revolutionary Terror - which is just a synonym for fear. We might nowadays call the Terror state terrorism, obviously, but that's not where the term came from.

You've failed to understand what I said.
What I said it, not that the Congress necessarily supports strikes, but that as soon as the word "impeachment" is put on the table it turns into a mess. Screams of partisanship, yet less cooperation, etc, result (primarily as a result of the Republicans abusing the process over Slick Willy and his beluga whale intern).

The whole impeachment issue is immaterial. One might have 'impeached' Bush on the same grounds and there simply was no interest in that. It's not that I fail to understand what you say, I just don't think that is the main issue.

You'll get no argument from me about the US sliding toward a police state, I fully agree and witness it first hand.

I wouldn't call the US a police state (yet), but civil liberties are being pushed aside in the name of 'patriotism'. What I find worrisome is that no one feels this is in violation of the Constitution. An impeachment procedure is not likely to end this, however. It won't nullify previous legislation.

 

[kochman]

You still don't see the difference between state-employed terror and terrorism as a means to achieve certain political aims.

The differences are clear, there are also similarities.

The notion of state terrorism is actually 20th century and not named after the revolutionary Terror - which is just a synonym for fear.

Wrong. On the day Terror became the "order of the day", 5 September 1793...
Georges Jacques Danton - "let us be terrible in order to stop the people from being so."
It was the direct use of terror/fear (which is what terrorism is) to achieve a political end.
If you want to continue to argue this I can guarantee I will stomp you.

The whole impeachment issue is immaterial. One might have 'impeached' Bush on the same grounds and there simply was no interest in that. It's not that I fail to understand what you say, I just don't think that is the main issue.

It isn't, but you brought up impeachment, and I was telling you why this check has failed to balance... to the loss of the people of America. Another institution failing.

I wouldn't call the US a police state (yet), but civil liberties are being pushed aside in the name of 'patriotism'. What I find worrisome is that no one feels this is in violation of the Constitution. An impeachment procedure is not likely to end this, however. It won't nullify previous legislation.

Right, not yet a police state, but sliding toward it.
A lot of people feel it is in violation, like Tim and I for example. However the crowd that just wants to eat Big Macs while watching American Idol is much dumber and larger.

 

[Tigranes]

The US ruled out working with the government of Bashar Assad in Syria, which the Obama administration says is primarily responsible for the rise of Islamic State.

Nevertheless, Islamic State poses the greatest threat to Assad’s fragile rule in Damascus. On Saturday, video reports suggested his air force struck the city of Raqqa, Islamic State’s nominal capital.

So administration thinks that Assad is responsible for the Rise of IS. I have read some "moderate" Syrian opposition figures claiming that Assad was holding in prisons key figures who are now among the leaders of IS, and then Syrian state deliberately released them in order to ... hurt moderate opposition. Which must include Al Qaeda. So let me get this straight: US is against Assad, so is Al Qaeda, so is IS, but Assad didn't/does not care about IS, except that he does now.
Which means he must be either very smart or very stupid.

But then .. what about this:

After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, al-Baghdadi helped to found the militant group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah (JJASJ), in which he served as head of the sharia committee. Al-Baghdadi and his group joined the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC) in 2006, in which he served as a member of the MSC's sharia committee. Following the renaming of the MSC as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006, al-Baghdadi became the general supervisor of the ISI's sharia committee and a member of the group's senior consultative council.

According to US Department of Defense records, al-Baghdadi was held at Camp Bucca as a "civilian internee" by US Forces-Iraq from February until December 2004, when he was recommended for an "unconditional release" by a Combined Review and Release Board.

So, US, just like Syria, also held current Caliph of IS in their custody, back in a days when some of the veterans from here still been deployed in Iraq. The guy helped to found military group to, I assume, fight those veterans, but he was held as civilian internee. He was unconditionally released. Which cannot be very smart. Which begs a question: whom should smart people blame for rise of IS -- Syrian administration or US administration?

 

[kramerfan86]

If the west had any sense they would ally with Assad at this point. If ISIS is destroyed his government is the only legitimate option to take control of former ISIS territory in Syria. The moderate opposition for all intents and purposes doesnt exist any more and if given a choice between Assad and ISIS Assad is the pretty clear choice.

 

[classical_hero]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11079100/Brussels-museum-shooting-suspect-was-Syria-hostage-torturer.html

A freed French hostage who was held by Isil militants along with the British aid worker David Haines, has identified one of his kidnappers as the jihadist accused of a terrorist attack on the Jewish museum in Belgium.

Mehdi Nemmouche, who is in custody awaiting trial for murder, was named by Nicolas Hénin as one of the Islamists who had held him and three other French hostages at the end of last year.

This is hitting home and will continue to hit home while governments fiddle about what to do with this group.

 

[Agent327]

I wouldn't define bombimg IS positions as governments 'fiddling' - but then I have trouble following your lines of argument habitually.

Wrong. On the day Terror became the "order of the day", 5 September 1793...
Georges Jacques Danton - "let us be terrible in order to stop the people from being so."
It was the direct use of terror/fear (which is what terrorism is) to achieve a political end.
If you want to continue to argue this I can guarantee I will stomp you.

And you will fail. You just quoted yourself that the Terror was exactly that: fear. As opposed to the czarist government's use of terrorism it was also ended by the revolutionary government. State terrorism is the methodical use use terror - which is indeed a similarity with terrorism in general, but 18-19th century states simply lacked the adequate means for this to be viewed as 'state terrorism'. One might see as a precursor, just as one might view Napoleon as a precursor to modern dictators. By way of example, draft dodging was a serious issue for revolutionary France, as well as for Napoleon. In the 20t century this was no longer an issue, because state bureaucracy had become much more effective.

It isn't, but you brought up impeachment, and I was telling you why this check has failed to balance... to the loss of the people of America. Another institution failing.

Impeachment isn't an institution, it's a procedure. If there is insufficient support for it, it can obviously not be used. And I 'brought it up', because you mentioned that the president 'is violating the Constitution'. Apparently there is no consensus on that. But that is not the issue: legislation perceived to be in violation of the Constitution is ultimately a Supreme Court matter.

 

[kramerfan86]

ISIS seems to have stalled now, so the main problem has shifted from "keep Iraq from collapsing" to actually getting rid of them. A lot of that will depend on Assad actually finishing off the civil war and depriving ISIS of a lot of their territory. Considering the snail's pace that war is progressing though it could be years and years before that happens.

 

[Tigranes]

Unless Assad does collapse. It takes one successful suicide assassin from his inner circles or suicide bomber in Damascus to kill him. And then?..

 

[kochman]

And you will fail. You just quoted yourself that the Terror was exactly that: fear. As opposed to the czarist government's use of terrorism it was also ended by the revolutionary government. State terrorism is the methodical use use terror - which is indeed a similarity with terrorism in general, but 18-19th century states simply lacked the adequate means for this to be viewed as 'state terrorism'. One might see as a precursor, just as one might view Napoleon as a precursor to modern dictators. By way of example, draft dodging was a serious issue for revolutionary France, as well as for Napoleon. In the 20t century this was no longer an issue, because state bureaucracy had become much more effective.

The states lacked the adequate means for state terrorism? You're the ONLY person I believe I've ever heard say that, and clearly not a historian. I admire your ability to debate in English, but this is just off the mark.
The French Revolutionary state didn't lack the means, you have no basis for that claim whatsoever, whereas learned historians are in agreement on this.
Here are some names that you are going against...
RR Palmer in The Twelve Who Ruled
Marisa Linton in Choosing Terror
Timothy Tackett in "Interpreting the Terror"
Dan Edelstein in "Do We Want a Revolution without a Revolution" and "The Terror of Natural Right"
Just to name a few...
Please refrain from further ignorant statements, thank you.
P.S. The analogy to draft dodging today versus then is completely irrelevant to the topic, and makes no sense.

Impeachment isn't an institution, it's a procedure.

You've clearly not understood what I wrote. I obviously mean the institution of the presidency.

If there is insufficient support for it, it can obviously not be used. And I 'brought it up', because you mentioned that the president 'is violating the Constitution'. Apparently there is no consensus on that. But that is not the issue: legislation perceived to be in violation of the Constitution is ultimately a Supreme Court matter.

Oh, because something doesn't happen means there isn't consensus?
Your post doesn't seem to display an understanding of what "politics" are.

 

[kramerfan86]

Unless Assad does collapse. It takes one successful suicide assassin from his inner circles or suicide bomber in Damascus to kill him. And then?..

I imagine after that one bomber killed a few upper administration members he has beefed up security to such a degree that an inner circle bombing is a non-threat now. Same for actually going outside into Damascus where a bomber could get him.

 

[Tigranes]

The head of the Arab League urged its members Sunday to confront Islamic State extremists “militarily and politically,” issuing an apparent call to arms as President Barack Obama prepares to go to lawmakers and the American public with his own plan to stop the militants.

Backing from the 22-country Arab League could provide crucial support across the Middle East for Obama’s effort to assemble an international coalition against the Islamic State, the marauding group that has conquered a swath of Iraq and Syria and committed beheadings and mass killings to sow terror.

Arab League! Thaat's what I want to hear in the news. Not US, not NATO, not even UN emergency force -- it's time for Arabs to unite and solve all the problems in region by themselves. Oh, wait...

 

[Tigranes]

Hassan Abboud, the leader of the Syrian Islamist insurgents Ahrar al-Sham has been killed with other top commanders in a bomb blast at a meeting.

Activists say a suicide bomber detonated a vest in the attack in the north-western town of Ram Hamdan.

Ahrar al-Sham is part of the Islamic Front, a coalition of seven Islamist rebel groups.

In February, Ahrar al-Sham blamed the rival Islamic State group for an attack which killed several of its members.

Activist groups say at least 40 people may have died in the attack, although the exact death toll is not clear.

By all indications IS was involved in this. IS and IF had a history of bad blood going back quite some time now. In an interview with the BBC in June, Abboud had denounced IS, saying it represented "the worst image ever of Islam".

Suicide bombers remain effective weapon of relative mass distraction.

 

[kramerfan86]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-deliver-prime-time-address-militants-153515314--politics.html

So Obama's plan is to essentially extend the Civil War longer delaying anyone actually engaging ISIS in a 1 v 1 fight? How in the world is that a logical solution?