Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[Lexicus]

And differing in meaning.
Perhaps ironically

Less wordy, more concise.

Is more wordy than necessary. Bit redundant eh?

 

[Gori the Grey]

And furthermore it employs reduplicative verbiage.

 

[Ajidica]

"It's amazing what happens when kings draw lines on far away maps" says the philosopher.

Borders drawn without adequate insight tends to work poorly. The rule of thumb I was taught was to look for straight lines that were externally imposed. Finding trouble there is usually pretty common

I dunno. I think these borders -and the conspicuous absence of straight lines - were full of trouble.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Redundancy intentional humor. Difference in meaning noted...and was also intentional.

 

[innonimatu]

As far as I can remember in 2011 nobody was quite sure what path the Syrian conflict would take. It seemed like the FSA was making great inroads among the SAR military and it was only a matter of time. That the FSA fell apart under internal contradictions and the SAR proved to have more support than expected was either missed by Intelligence or discounted by politicians.

I disagree. Anyone reading reports from the ground right from the start could see the truth. And the best public reports readily available, which you could read and I often pointed to here in the forum, were by the Vatican from its clergy in Syria. Later on a few good war reporters (Fisk and Cockburn) also wrote excellent pieces.

Both in Syrian and in Libya the "rebels" were a minority from the start. Most people just wanted to get on with their lives. The armed rebels were mostly foreigners put there by certain other governments and local military units bribed to defect. Palace coups were encouraged (generals and ministers bribed) and defeated right at the start, a classical tactic for toppling and replacing with another country's government. The fact alone that these failed was evidence that the governments would not be overthrown without outright war supported from abroad. Lybia's was overthrown only after employing a bombing campaign that lasted months, lots of material transported from Italy, mercenaries and special forces from several counties. All this under cover of a "fake news" campaign orchestrated by intelligence agencies of western countries and targeted at the populations of these very countries, so that would consent to or even support this war of aggression. Remember the viagra for soldiers? The african mercenaries? The pressing need to "save" Benghazi? Where are the humanitarian concerns with Libya now?
One of the main organizer of his fake news campaign was Hillary Clinton, lest people forget. No wonder she would later see "fake news" everywhere...

My point is: the intelligence agencies and the politicians directing these wars knew it wouldn't be easy and quick. They knew they most likely had to go to war in order to achieve their aims, did so in Libya, and only failed to do so (thus far) in Syria because the russians interfered and raised the stakes. Don't fall for their narrative where things just happen. Look behind the curtain. These are not quite evil geniuses, but they are more manipulative than they seem.

 

[Agent327]

I disagree. Anyone reading reports from the ground right from the start could see the truth. And the best public reports readily available, which you could read and I often pointed to here in the forum, were by the Vatican from its clergy in Syria. Later on a few good war reporters (Fisk and Cockburn) also wrote excellent pieces.

Both in Syrian and in Libya the "rebels" were a minority from the start. Most people just wanted to get on with their lives. The armed rebels were mostly foreigners put there by certain other governments and local military units bribed to defect.

My point is: the intelligence agencies and the politicians directing these wars knew it wouldn't be easy and quick. They knew they most likely had to go to war in order to achieve their aims, did so in Libya, and only failed to do so (thus far) in Syria because the russians interfered and raised the stakes.

You started alright, but then you went all conspiracy theory. Sad! (Just pointing out here that the Libyan unrest was pretty much home-grown, as is the Syrian civil war. Civil wars don't keep going simply ' cause 'foreign support; you see wars are actually fought by people on the ground. That's not to say that both conflicts didn't attract foreign attention and support: but the conflict was already there. And, of course, IS lives on foreign support - for cannon fodder and to buy their illegal antiquity sales etc.)

 

[Agent327]

Muslims are the majority of the victims of suicide bombings. I would normally predict that this would make them more empathic towards the horror of them
True. It's merely an expressed high tolerance when they say "they're often justified".

I think we've hit upon the problem. For instance, if Muslims consider Hamas bombings of Israel justified, that goes to the cause of the phenomenon. However, if Shiites bomb Sunnites (or vice versa), I would guess the answer depends on whether you're asking a Shiite or a Sunnite.

We're different people. I'll view baselines and trendlines regarding odious morals with interest. The expansion of that belief will concern me. The shrinking of that belief will relieve me.

Beliefs are personal. If they are expresses publicly, they become political. Regardless, this is freedom of speech. which, as I understand it, is a basic universal value - although there are those that would have you believe it is a Western value. (Which raises the question: Are non-Westerners non-humans?)

There's an underlying 'real issue' absolutely. But you and I barely disagree on that front

We don't need to. That's the wonderful thing about a democratic society.

On to the lighter stuff:

Here's Biden in an interview with Larry King http://www.weeklystandard.com/biden-once-called-iraq-one-of-obamas-great-achievements/article/794909
The situation on the ground was stabilizing before Obama pulled out everybody without concern for what would happen. This is fact.

Actually, it isn't. Since you are repeating yourself, let me do the same. The decision to pull out troops was already made. The Obama administration merely implemented a promise made by the Bush Jr administration - after delaying it. (I'd also like to point out that the vice-president isnt in charge of either foreign policy or defense; so he's hardly an expert.)

Here's what happened when the democratic controlled Congress cut funding to South Vietnam http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/31400
With sufficient funding the South could have held off the North but instead they fell due to inadequate funding. This is fact.

Actually, it isn't. You're ignoring some other facts. The fact that the Nixon administration already recognized the Vietnam War could never be won. Withdrawal of funding was a consequence of that, not a cause. Secondly, if South Vietnam could only be sustained with massive US aid, it was a failed regime in the first place. Lastly, South Vietnam didn't collapse financially (surprising perhaps, given the rate of corruption), but it collapsed militarily. Entire units were simply defecting.

An insurgency falls apart when the remaining living care more about living than getting revenge. The problem is that effectively committing genocide is frowned upon if the facts get out. How did Russia sort out Chechnya? They did by basically killing most every male that they could catch and keeping the media away from what they did. Stopping terrorism and stopping an insurgency are two different things. Insurgencies requires support of the people and if you kill enough of the people the rest just want to live. Terrorism is a belief and you can't kill a belief with bullets, you need a better belief. Afghanistan has an insurgency problem and a tribalism problem, not a terrorism problem.

I think you are in need of some actual study of insurgencies. That's one. Secondly, Chechnyan terror bombings show how Russia 'solved' its Chechnya problem. I'm surprised that you recognize that Afghanistan's problems can't be solved militarily. (To wit, the Soviets had already found that out first hand.)

But the real problem here is this: if you wish to promote genocide as a means to counter insurgencies, perhaps you shouldn't be in the military in the first place - and I do mean any military.

 

[KmDubya]

Obama was bound by a Bush-era treaty that would see US combat forces out of Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and completely out of Iraq by 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Now, one could make the argument he could have tried to renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi Government; but in 2011 the Syrian Civil War was just starting and it was unclear what would happen and ISIS wasn't a Thing. The current regional conflagration we see now was in no way foreseeable in 2011.


You don't think propping up a French puppet government for over a decade had something to do with "regional destabilization"?



If South Africa won, remind me again why there is no longer white rule in South Africa? Despite giving the MPLA and its Cuban allies a thrashing at Cuito Cuanavale; the South African military leadership realized that without fellow white-rule states in Angola, Mozambique, and Rhodesia, it was only a matter of time before a general armed insurgency would erupt against continued white rule in South Africa. Aparthied didn't end because the National Party woke up one morning and decided it was really terrible and they needed to reach out to their fellow humans. What happened was the same thing that happened in Rhodesia (SA military intelligence happened to notice it faster than Rhodesian intelligence did to their credit); military leaders told the political leadership they can either accept majority rule, seek a political solution, and work with moderate black politicians (like Mandela) or they could repeat what Rhodesia did and discover what happens when you kill off or disenfranchise the moderate opposition leadership.
No amount of military victory allowed the preservation of white rule in South Africa - the goal of National Party politicians.

We disagree on what would have happened if Obama had not been in a rush to abandon Iraq. I think that staying there would have improved conditions in Iraq and possibly have affected Syria and iSIS. Its all theory crafting now as what happened happened.

Similar to the above with regards to what could have happened in South Vietnam.

My comments on SA winning the bush war was with the communists in Angola. SA did not fall to the communists and I that there is the victory of which I spoke. The end of Apartheid was inevitable, a product of simple math - 5% can't rule 95% when the world is against the 5%. I was not trying to say anything about Apartheid in my comments about SA and its success in fighting an insurgency.

 

[El_Machinae]

Beliefs are personal. If they are expresses publicly, they become political.

I am merely noting a correlation between an expressed belief and its manifestation in society, and also stating that I think there's a non-linear arrangement. Additionally, I am noting a social norm that will itself create friction.

And so, while you wouldn't apparently care if an acceptance of suicide bombing civilians shifted, I will continue to. I think that an expressed high level of tolerance for such things is a barrier to integration. Barrier to integration kinda suck, since it slows down making the world nicer.

In fact, you shortly thereafter expressed concern about 'pro-genocide theories' becoming more accepted in the military. You seem to understand the gist of my concern (since I would share such concerns), even if you cannot apply it regarding suicide bombing of civilians. Baby-steps, I guess.

But the real problem here is this: if you wish to promote genocide as a means to counter insurgencies, perhaps you shouldn't be in the military in the first place - and I do mean any military.

You're the first person who reacted as if that Km's theory on 'is' was an 'ought', you know?

I was just going to bump his post stating relief that no one had.

 

[Lexicus]

SA did not fall to the communists

Except the ANC won the first election held in South Africa? The ANC, which was identified as a Communist-aligned terrorist organization by Saint Ronnie and his racist friends?

Not to mention that your ideological cohorts literally defined the end of white rule as communism:

 

[KmDubya]

Except the ANC won the first election held in South Africa? The ANC, which was identified as a Communist-aligned terrorist organization by Saint Ronnie and his racist friends?

Not to mention that your ideological cohorts literally defined the end of white rule as communism:

Willingly ceding power to the ANC (which was a communist aligned terrorist group) is not the same as losing the war with Angola and the communist forces backing them.

As far as the ANC winning the election that's obviously what would happen. They were the only organized black party and sheer numbers would guarantee their victory. In fact up until now I believe the ANC has never lost, they are pretty much a one party state. I wonder how that will turn out in the long run?

 

[Lexicus]

Willingly ceding power to the ANC (which was a communist aligned terrorist group) is not the same as losing the war with Angola and the communist forces backing them.

Willingly surrendering is not the same thing as losing? Real interesting definition you have of either losing, willingly surrendering, or both.

 

[KmDubya]

Willingly surrendering is not the same thing as losing? Real interesting definition you have of either losing, willingly surrendering, or both.

The difference is that one was political and the other is militarily.

The Soviet and Cuban backed Angolan insurgents never rolled into downtown Johannesburg. Accepting the inevitable and ceding political power to the ANC was a political decision. The ANC was not the same as the Soviet backed Angolans.

 

[Lexicus]

The difference is that one was political and the other is militarily.

 

[Agent327]

I am merely noting a correlation between an expressed belief and its manifestation in society, and also stating that I think there's a non-linear arrangement. Additionally, I am noting a social norm that will itself create friction.

And so, while you wouldn't apparently care if an acceptance of suicide bombing civilians shifted, I will continue to. I think that an expressed high level of tolerance for such things is a barrier to integration. Barrier to integration kinda suck, since it slows down making the world nicer.

That is your belief. According to polls (not the most accurate measuring device) Muslim minorities (as in: minorities within the Muslim communities) tend to have different beliefs. All of which is fine. People have the right to believe the most bizarre things while living in a functioning democracy..

In fact, you shortly thereafter expressed concern about 'pro-genocide theories' becoming more accepted in the military. You seem to understand the gist of my concern (since I would share such concerns), even if you cannot apply it regarding suicide bombing of civilians. Baby-steps, I guess.

Not quite. But I appreciate the diversion you created there: suicide bombings equate genocide?

You're the first person who reacted as if that Km's theory on 'is' was an 'ought', you know?

I was just going to bump his post stating relief that no one had.

I've read this twice, but I've honestly no clue what you are saying here.

Willingly ceding power to the ANC (which was a communist aligned terrorist group)

That's not nearly correct. Armed revolutionary group might be a bit more accurate.

As far as the ANC winning the election that's obviously what would happen. They were the only organized black party and sheer numbers would guarantee their victory. In fact up until now I believe the ANC has never lost, they are pretty much a one party state. I wonder how that will turn out in the long run?

The ANC are a one-party-state? South Africa certainly isn't, so you can't be meaning that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Agent, you've now accused me multiple time of diverting. You consistently refuse to try to work within analogies.

I'm done. I can no longer tell if you actually don't understand or merely insist upon a hostile reading​

 

[Farm Boy]

Agent, Km described a(the?) method by which insurgency is crushed. One I observed made the wrath of the Old Testament God look a bit wishy washy and too soft to be effective. But if you can describe the is of how something works these days it's somewhat easy to conflate that as something you ought to do.

Is that at all accurate? I get lost.

 

[KmDubya]

Agent, Km described a(the?) method by which insurgency is crushed. One I observed made the wrath of the Old Testament God look a bit wishy washy and too soft to be effective. But if you can describe the is of how something works these days it's somewhat easy to conflate that as something you ought to do.

Is that at all accurate? I get lost.

This is what I was trying to convey. The indiscriminate use of massive violence against a civilian population will stop an insurgency once the few left alive care more for living than for revenge. I'm not saying that that is what should be done or that it is the only way to win but that it is a possible path to victory.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I think the US military wanted to keep troops in Iraq longer but the Iraqi government refused.
"We don't need your help. Get out!"
*not long later
"Why did you leave? We needed you!"

 

[Lexicus]

This is what I was trying to convey. The indiscriminate use of massive violence against a civilian population will stop an insurgency once the few left alive care more for living than for revenge. I'm not saying that that is what should be done or that it is the only way to win but that it is a possible path to victory.

Jawohl, Herr Obergruppenführer!