Islam in Europe: perception and reality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Holy shit, Mudhammam, this isn't hard. NO ONE HERE is saying that there's never a time when the US is justified in taking military action, even when it causes civilian casualties... what we're saying is that the US has not demonstrated that its motives are even a fraction as pure as you seem to believe.

You just said that "a case" could be made for intervening in places like Rwanda, Darfur, etc... yet we only intervene when US corporate interests are at stake (or we're trying to dominate and ensure the Capitalists/Capitalism control a region that's in danger of rejecting the "free" market). If we really were doing what we do to stop the rapes (etc) by religious radicals you describe, we'd be bombing Boko Haram with everything our Air Force and Navy can lift.

The people of the Mideast are not stupid or irrational, except for some radicals. The rest of them grasp the history of Western domination of and intervention in their regions, to ensure our own profits at their expense, and they're furious at us for doing it. Try looking up the number of identified homicide bombers who have degrees in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

And don't you dare fucking say that I'm justifying their actions, or that I dislike the USA. I'm ex-military and I still stand by my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. I'm simply pointing out that your rose-colored-glasses version oversimplifies both our motivations and theirs, and does no justice to either group of people.

What was our corporate stake in Somalia or Yugoslavia as a recent example? Or our stake, corporately, in Korea? Or WW2? Sure we made some business choices after the fact but going in I don't see how that was a motive. It wasn't what was painted to the public and the public approved. You can't have it both ways. Sure some US wars have been corporate tie-ins. But that doesn't mean painting all US military action as such.

Corporate stake in WW2 was control of the Dutch and British oil industries in the South Pacific and Mid-East regions. Japan wanted a piece of that action, and we provoked them into war while the Brits and Dutch were busy fighting for their lives. As a result, American industry got a huge boost that led us out of the remnants of the Depression... and oil would have to be purchased in "Petro-Dollars" by any nation.

That's not to say every conflict is about making money or controlling a resource; sometimes, it's a battle between our Capitalist national leanings and the socialism-nations.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh okay, so we can go bomb a family and show up at the house greeting the lucky survivors whilst their mourning their loved ones and just be like

"Hey I know we just killed your son and all but do you want some money, like cash or something? What? Why aren't you welcoming us in with open arms? Hey listen here lady we're the good guys okay, we don't have to offer cash but we are doing it simply out of the goodness of our hearts. I would never stoop to the level of our enemies. I mean we're not MONSTERS!"

I mean I did my best to imagine a scenario but it's just too ridiculous a claim for me to realistically imagine it. The thought that we can kill innocent lives, but help out the families of whom we've killed members of as if we are the good guys, and expect instant forgiveness is literally insane. That we can bomb a country to shit but if we simply go down to the country after the fact and clean up the mess WE CREATED it makes it all right, and how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality. I doubt you mean the things you claim, but the implied value of human life being substituted for financial or some other form of aid as equal pay is a disgraceful disregard for human kind.

Hmm... There didn't seem to be an answer to my question there. But... Are you so naive to believe that wars can be fought without loss of innocent, civilian life? Or are you perfectly aware of that reality, and simply morally confused so as to fail to mark the difference between how we wage war versus those who would target civilians and literally use children as human shields? Perhaps you're not drawing a moral equivalency between our attempts to minimize casualties and willingness to compensate families by some means and the groups that must justifiably be eliminated--that would be sheer idiocy--but then, what is your point?

I'm sure that Heat can answer for himself, but I'd guess that his point is that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Intentions, may I add, that likely don't mean a damned thing to the family just finished with burying Mom.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Also I don't know if you were sarcastic when you said America bombs places that reject the free market, America doesn't have a complete free market and a corporation if it's run by the state isn't free market if I understand correctly.  

Additionally when you say "we" profit, I don't know who "we" means but surely it's not all Americans who profit from the wars.  Wars cost the tax payer trillions.

"We" profit certainly does not include the average American. However, since our politicians are generally more-heavily influenced by large donors (billionaires and corporations) than by the common people (who are generally influenced by the work of media outlets that serve the interest of said corporations and billionaires via propaganda designed to fool people who don't want to think too much, and prefer their information pre-digested.

The American taxpayers foot the bill while the companies rake in billions. If you think I'm just making this up, look up the speech by President Eisenhower (former five-star general and Commander of the Allied armies) about the Military-Industrial Complex.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, but you can frame that argument, hang it over your bed and feel good about it. It doesn't matter. For you to constantly repeat it either points to a complete inability to walk in the shoes of the ones being on the receiving end or to a complete unwillingness to do so.

It's something for the garbage bin of reality.

Actually, it does matter, but I wouldn't expect you to see it that way in your utter moral confusion.

A strategy that does not take into account the enemy's viewpoint is oftentimes worse than useless. Look into the Battle of Britain, or the Allied bombing of Germany, to see how bombing can actually be used to strengthen enemy morale. Modern weapons, in an urban environment, don't produce much better results ... and even when they do they still piss the targets off. And another thing -- in that culture, the unwillingness to come to grips directly, as we have by resorting to drones, engenders a contempt that is used as a recruiting tool as well.

[abaris]

That's not to say every conflict is about making money or controlling a resource; sometimes, it's a battle between our Capitalist national leanings and the socialism-nations.

It's also a very big difference between being attacked and interventions. WWII was the classic case of being attacked. Japan with bombing Pearl Harbor and Hitler with formally declaring war on dec 11. The only war he ever declared. One can also argue that Afghanistan falls into this category, since it harbored the person being responsible for the attacks on the USA.

Korea was the classic cold war battlefield. Driven by interests, as Truman in a speech openly admitted. He was the first using the so called domino theory, without calling it that. Not only did he tell his audience that it would cost more money to defend at home, if Korea were to fall, he also spoke of corporate interests being threatened.

However, the last shred of altruism flies out the window when looking at Syngman Ree being installed as South Korea's leader. His biography speaks volumes, as well as his actions, after being appointed.

[Mudhammam]

I'm sure that Heat can answer for himself, but I'd guess that his point is that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Intentions, may I add, that likely don't mean a damned thing to the family just finished with burying Mom.

Of course. Nor do they mean a damned thing to imbeciles who believe the U.S. is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world, or the most evil regime on the planet. Remember that the debate here of recent began with this little gem of stupidity:

how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality

[abaris]

Of course. Nor do they mean a damned thing to imbeciles who believe the U.S. is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world, or the most evil regime on the planet. Remember that the debate here of recent began with this little gem of stupidity:

how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality

And from that little sarcastic quote you derrive the conclusion of Heat saying it's the most evil regime on the world? Or a gem of stupidity?

Truth is, the US, since WWII, always acted under what their current administration considered to be in their best interests. That goes for Korea, as well as helping to overthrow Mohammad Mossadegh, being instrumental in overthrowing Allende in Chile and several other instances that backfired royally, because they either were lacking in information or they pissed off people that later came to power. Which, again, could have been seen, given the right level of information.

You're constantly arguing from the being better ivory tower. Not really. It's not hard to be better than ISIL, but if we come to Allende vs Pinochet, the territory gets very blurry. When we come to which regimes are still supported vs the ones being up for regime change, the lines blur even more.

What I can't stand in this kind of discussion, is someone trying to draw conflicts and politics down to a philosophical mattter. To make themselves feel better over something that may be necessary, but always will stay a dirty job, desperately in need of the best information and intel available. Even more so, since it's all about interests. Never motivated by altruistic reasons.

And please, don't repeat WWII. I pointed out before that the US had been attacked before entering the war. It's always the last defense line for anyone trying to justify what's been going on since then.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sure that Heat can answer for himself, but I'd guess that his point is that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Intentions, may I add, that likely don't mean a damned thing to the family just finished with burying Mom.

Of course. Nor do they mean a damned thing to imbeciles who believe the U.S. is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world, or the most evil regime on the planet. Remember that the debate here of recent began with this little gem of stupidity:

how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality

Well, the thing is, this isn't a court of law, and the folks on the receiving end of the ordnance are not going to assess intent in determining "manslaughter", "murder", or "negligent homicide" as the charge.

This is the crux of the difficulty you and Abaris are having. You personally may consider intent to be so important as to forgive your wife's killer, but you'd be a rare man indeed for it.

I know that we're not the moral equivalent of ISIS, but I know that we have done our own morally-despicable things in that part of the world that have engendered hatred of and distrust for us.

[Mudhammam]

I know that we're not the moral equivalent of ISIS, but I know that we have done our own morally-despicable things in that part of the world that have engendered hatred of and distrust for us.

THAT (in bold) has been the entire point of my argument here, despite others either disingenuously or ignorantly twisting my words to make me seem a champion of every foreign policy decision U.S. lawmakers have ever made (an obvious straw man). And how would you judge the difference between how we execute war versus those groups (such as ISIS), which in many ways are the very embodiment of evil, if not largely examining their stated and apparent intentions?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know that we're not the moral equivalent of ISIS, but I know that we have done our own morally-despicable things in that part of the world that have engendered hatred of and distrust for us.

THAT (in bold) has been the entire point of my argument here, despite others either disingenuously or ignorantly twisting my words to make me seem a champion of every foreign policy decision U.S. lawmakers have ever made (an obvious straw man). And how you would judge the difference between how we execute war versus those groups (such as ISIS), which in many ways are the very embodiment of evil, if not largely examining their stated and apparent intentions?

I would also assess it by methods. Assessing it by intent is tricky anyway because people can and do lie about their intent. Yes, this includes people in the military hierarchy.

US bomber crews in WWII were given alternate targets in the event their primary was clouded over. If their secondaries were also clouded over, they were permitted to bomb "targets of opportunity" which could and did simply list an entire city as a target.

Many were also given instructions to not bring bombs back to the base in such a case. (this info comes from Bendiner's memoir, The Fall of Fortresses).

However, to this day the USAF insists on using the term "precision bombing" in describing 8AF operations ... this when fewer than 20% of their bombs landed inside the target zone. Hap Arnold, Carl Spaatz, Ira Eaker, and Jimmy Doolittle all knew of this gross disparity between PR and actual facts, yet slept easily at night with their intentions being to minimize civilian casualties. Yet to the half-million Germans who died under RAF and USAAF bombardment those intentions were and are entirely irrelevant.