Dutch soldiers told not to wear their uniforms for fear of Muslim aggression

[ForumMember77]

Just because something is easier does not make it a viable solution.

I'm sure the republicunts would take the idea and run with it, though.

Why such a negative view of republicans ?

Is the republic idea or just a bias towards those specific to your locale ?

[Anomalocaris]

snip

I would sincerely doubt they are jealous of our humanism.

They are not jealous of it. Rather they see it as indication of asymmetrical weakness that they can exploit to offset our advantages in other areas.

They see dedication to a cause as not merely the willingness to sacrafice and die for it itself. They see true dedication to any cause as the willingness to sacrafice any number of other people in order to advance one's cause. In our unwillingness to sustain casualties, they see a lack of true dedication on our part.

They therefore conclude that our overwhelming advantage in money and material, and our ability to deal death using technology need not be decisive. Those advantages only means we can inflict far higher damage casualties on them then they on us. They conclude their ability to absorb casualty is greater than ours by an even larger margin. We may kill 100 of theirs for each of ours they behead. But they may judge their own pain threshold at 20 million and ours at 2 thousand, and therefore we will cry uncle before they even though we killed a hundred of theirs for each of ours they killed.

I suspect there is an overlooked factor behind the rise in credibility of jihad in the Islamic world after 1980s. I think before 1980, the perception of the west in the Islamic world would have been heavily colored not only by memory of colonial wars, but particularly the bloodletting of WWI and WWII. This created the impression that the west is willing to absorb astronomical causalties, civilian and military, in pursuing its perceived interests. This, coupled with the technical superiority of the west, made jihad look like a losing bet against the west because the west can kill all the Muslims out from under any jihad before the jihad could inflict enough pain to exceed the pain threshold of the west.

After 1980, particularly after the Vietnam war, gulf war, as well as soviet war in Afghanistan, I think the Muslim world had acquired a new perception of the west. It think in Muslim perception while the west' ability to inflict casualties is undiminished, it's ability to absorb casualties has vanished. This means jihad now has a chance. Muslim world would still suffer far more pain than the west in any jihad, but jihadis now are confident that west would reach its pain tolerance much sooner than the islamic world.

[ForumMember77]

I would sincerely doubt they are jealous of our humanism.

They are not jealous of it. Rather they see it as indication of asymmetrical weakness that they can exploit to offset our advantages in other areas.

They see dedication to a cause as not merely the willingness to sacrafice and die for it itself. They see true dedication to any cause as the willingness to sacrafice any number of other people in order to advance one's cause. In our unwillingness to sustain casualties, they see a lack of true dedication on our part.

They therefore conclude that our overwhelming advantage in money and material, and our ability to deal death using technology need not be decisive. Those advantages only means we can inflict far higher damage casualties on them then they on us. They conclude their ability to absorb casualty is greater than ours by an even larger margin. We may kill 100 of theirs for each of ours they behead. But they may judge their own pain threshold at 20 million and ours at 2 thousand, and therefore we will cry uncle before they even though we killed a hundred of theirs for each of ours they killed.

I suspect there is an overlooked factor behind the rise in credibility of jihad in the Islamic world after 1980s. I think before 1980, the perception of the west in the Islamic world would have been heavily colored not only by memory of colonial wars, but particularly the bloodletting of WWI and WWII. This created the impression that the west is willing to absorb astronomical causalties, civilian and military, in pursuing its perceived interests. This, coupled with the technical superiority of the west, made jihad look like a losing bet against the west because the west can kill all the Muslims out from under any jihad before the jihad could inflict enough pain to exceed the pain threshold of the west.

After 1980, particularly after the Vietnam war, gulf war, as well as soviet war in Afghanistan, I think the Muslim world had acquired a new perception of the west. It think in Muslim perception while the west' ability to inflict casualties is undiminished, it's ability to absorb casualties has vanished. This means jihad now has a chance. Muslim world would still suffer far more pain than the west in any jihad, but jihadis now are confident that west would reach its pain tolerance much sooner than the islamic world.

“You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.”
― Hồ Chí Minh

Indeed, this is not a concept lost on any of those that would call us enemies.

There would have to be some sort of crazy nationalist movement to cause a sufficient response that would quell the threat, like the fourth Reich.

Unless you are holding out for the Islamic enlightenment, were pacifism and tolerance wash over the religion of peace. Which is what is currently happening.

That's why our politicians are the first in line to call Islam a peaceful religion, in a grotesque fashion parade of capitulation, as immigrant Muslim rape gangs target children and murder us on a scale unheard of for 'peace'. They are trying to light the spark and hope that it catches on. I wouldn't get my hopes up though.

[Aractus]

The Aussie government has said the same thing.

Um, no the Aussie govt. said no such thing. I think you're confused...

A spokesman for the ADF said this: "ADF members have been advised to consider where they are going, to be aware of their surroundings, and to exercise commonsense and judgement when considering where and when to wear uniform in public", the government did not make such a comment.

[downbeatplumb]

The Aussie government has said the same thing.

What we need to do instead is to make it clear to the extremists that attacks on us/our military personnel will not be tolerated and we'll take whatever actions are necessary to defend or track down these extremists.

Over here in the past, the Navy couldn't wear their uniforms for the risk of Irish aggression. Same old same old.