Why I'm not a terrorist

[The Grand Nudger]

But you just told us that you changed your views to comport with magic book? Both claims can't be simultaneously true. Either you reject what you disagree with in magic book, or you "reshape" your judgement into conformity. These are mutually exclusive propositions on any specific issue.

[WinterHold]

I would say, Atlas, that you're not a terrorisr because you're are far better person than those who are.

We may not agree on everything, religion especially, but I've found you to be a very decent person.

Not agreeing on something never makes us enemies. That's a fool's way.
You're a good person, Valkyrie, notice that it's an atheist forum, but you and the others made me feel healthy and quite home.

[WinterHold]

So..magic book was written in a foolproof magic language too?  How very magical.  Tell us again how you find being lied to insulting.  Personally, I appreciate a well delivered lie.  It's the silly ones that irk me.....

Grammar rules: the website you are using, and the whole network behind it, is not failing because of constraints imposed by the Grammar of -what is in this example-: the programming language.

The science dedicated for that is called "Computer Science". In it, you learn the grammar humans embedded through electricity to operate the modern automaton called the computer; using English-based jargon summed up in what we call "programming languages"; stuff like C, C#, python and Java.

Basically; it's the human-made carbon copying of the logic of the brain. Printed via electricity into microscopic circuits and organized in human-readable form through the English language, then again; the beginning is language. Nothing is magical at all !

But I'm thinking: if I showed the internet to a tribe of cavemen; wouldn't they call it "magical shiny board" ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, maybe.  There's the notion that any sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic...but thats probably more a clever turn of phrase than a truism.  Primitives have been in contact with technological superiority before....being human beings, they often understand that the tools other human beings are holding are...well, tools, not magical objects.

[WinterHold]

Al  queda obviously took a more broad view of that verse and decided that the whole of the U.S. was fighting against them, and thus justified the attacks. Both interpretations seem to have some validity. Theirs makes more sense really.

Al Qaeda and many other Jihadists, are ruling with nationalism when it comes to ruling in war affairs. That's why they pick the broad view.
It might makes more sense because the world is nationalist. Even since ancient times.

"An eye for an eye" is the Islamic way of punishment. The nationalist way, is "any eye for an eye". Al-Qaeda fights under the second banner. That's not Islamic at all in my opinion.

in the French revolution for example; all the rich were taken for the sins of the royalty.

If the allies targeted Nazi party members only; WW2 might have taken a different path.
If Al-Qaeda targeted soldiers only, instead of civilians, maybe they weren't so despised today.
Maybe if America didn't punish all the Japanese for the sins of the emperor and his fans, nuclear bomb use would've been avoided.

[The Grand Nudger]

One of the shittier things about a war...is that you probably won't win it if you let the enemy produce, stockpile, and deploy necessary material and supplies.  That work is done by civilians, pressed into the war effort.  It would have made little sense trying to "target" members of the nazi party to the exclusion of destroying the war infrastructure (we did both).  The same is true of the japanese war machine.  Initially, we did plan to hit the emperors palace..but it wasn't practical (and had already been reduced to rubble by conventional drops).  

Hiroshima was a depot, Nagasaki had the mitsubishi yards.  Both had military and civilians present. They were good targets for the weapon (bad targets for some weapons..incendiaries had been ruled out for nagasaki, iirc), and good targets for the war effort.

The idea of soldiers fighting soldiers in open fields of battle free of civilians just hasn't been anything more than nostalgia for a century (more, I guess). We're not on horseback dueling each other for honor.

[WinterHold]

One of the shittier things about a war...is that you probably won't win it if you let the enemy produce, stockpile, and deploy necessary material and supplies.  That work is done by civilians, pressed into the war effort.  It would have made little sense trying to "target" members of the nazi party to the exclusion of destroying the war infrastructure (we did both).  The same is true of the japanese war machine.  Initially, we did plan to hit the emperors palace..but it wasn't practical (and had already been reduced to rubble by conventional drops).  

Hiroshima was a depot, Nagasaki had the mitsubishi yards.  Both had military and civilians present.  They were good targets for the weapon (bad targets for some weapons..incendiaries had been ruled out for nagasaki, iirc), and good targets for the war effort.

The idea of soldiers fighting soldiers in open fields of battle free of civilians just hasn't been anything more than nostalgia for a century (more, I guess).  We're not on horseback dueling each other for honor.

About winning; humans said the same thing once upon a time in regards of slavery: everybody took slaves under the justification of "they are doing it; so why won't we?".

Eventually, the winners were those who fought against slavery.

The same can be applied here. The conventional way of warfare that is quite apathetic when it comes to burning anybody in the line of fire, creates and manufactures terrorists and damaged people. There is nothing you can possibly say to excuse yourself from the intentional burning of Khalid's parents in an airstrike. That creates never ending grudge, and that creates never ending terrorism from both sides.

Eventually; the mistake is the mistake of the person who pressed the button, and the person who followed the person who pressed it, and the person who justified for the person who pressed the button, from the ranks of ISIS to the ranks of the U.S army.

The real sacrifice is in stopping the shooting, even if it meant one's own death. It's better to get unplugged from the simulation, than to draw so many to the same pit one has fallen in.

It's a never ending cycle: WW2 didn't even complete the 100 years span; but blood is being spilled in scary ways and we're in a time that is considered to be "a time of peace". Everybody knows that a third round will happen, humanity even got an authentic doomsday clock right here:

https://thebulletin.org/timeline

[The Grand Nudger]

About winning; humans said the same thing once upon a time in regards of slavery: everybody took slaves under the justification of "they are doing it; so why won't we?".

I'm not sure where it is that you're drawing an equivalence here, but sure, some humans took slaves.  

Eventually, the winners were those who fought against slavery.

It seems like that, right....?  Then the tiki torch brigade shows up right where you'd expect.

The same can be applied here. The conventional way of warfare that is quite apathetic when it comes to burning anybody in the line of fire, creates and manufactures terrorists and damaged people. There is nothing you can possibly say to excuse yourself from the intentional burning of Khalid's parents in an airstrike. That creates never ending grudge, and that creates never ending terrorism from both sides.

Grudges and blood fueds predate civilization.  They existed in tribal societies both in history and prehistory.  It doesn't really matter how or why or with what you kill anyone's kid.  Nobody is or ever has been giving out any mulligans on that one.  Truth be told..you could kill our goats and get the same reaction.  Add it to the list of shitty things about human conflict.  

Eventually; the mistake is the mistake of the person who pressed the button, and the person who followed the person who pressed it, and the person who justified for the person who pressed the button, from the ranks of ISIS to the ranks of the U.S army.

Yes yes, it all comes down to the great satan, thank you again, ayatollah.  

The real sacrifice is in stopping the shooting, even if it meant one's own death. It's better to get unplugged from the simulation, than to draw so many to the same pit one has fallen in.

That's what an intervention force is for.  We get on a plane and travel to some place we couldn't give a shit less about....and try to stand between the people who are shooting and the people getting shot. 

 
It's a never ending cycle: WW2 didn't even complete the 100 years span; but blood is being spilled in scary ways and we're in a time that is considered to be "a time of peace". Everybody knows that a third round will happen, humanity even got an authentic doomsday clock right here:

I suppose that' s a poetic way to put it.  I'd say that conflict is, to some extent, predictable.  That the conditions which produce it have been present for some time, are still present..and in many places are worse than they've ever been.  If we could change those conditions, the conflict can be avoided.  Far from being a cycle that feeds upon itself into perpetuity, the presence of collateral damage in conflict is just one moment in a long chain of decisions not at all related to killing or warfare that could be interrupted at any point.

[WinterHold]

The same can be applied here. The conventional way of warfare that is quite apathetic when it comes to burning anybody in the line of fire, creates and manufactures terrorists and damaged people. There is nothing you can possibly say to excuse yourself from the intentional burning of Khalid's parents in an airstrike. That creates never ending grudge, and that creates never ending terrorism from both sides.

Grudges and blood fueds predate civilization.  They existed in tribal societies both in history and prehistory.  It doesn't really matter how or why or with what you kill anyone's kid.  Nobody is or ever has been giving out any mulligans on that one.  Truth be told..you could kill our goats and get the same reaction.  Add it to the list of shitty things about human conflict. 

No; I mean the deep, dark and twisted kind of grudge, resulting from organized continues acts.
Religion has its resulting grudges, nationalism has its resulting grudges, and pretty much every other faction on earth has its own dark arts of organized steps to manufacture hate and grudge; protected and kept by the institution that controls the faction; usually.
What existed in tribal societies was mere "hate". Not "organized grudges" with roots striking back to thousands of years and require years-worth of work combined with societal rebuilding and re-drawing of culture.
To think about an example; think of the kings and nobles of Medieval Europe. An organized marriage would end a 100 years war and grudge.
Take the modern world's racism between whites and blacks.

The real sacrifice is in stopping the shooting, even if it meant one's own death. It's better to get unplugged from the simulation, than to draw so many to the same pit one has fallen in.

That's what an intervention force is for.  We get on a plane and travel to some place we couldn't give a shit less about....and try to stand between the people who are shooting and the people getting shot.

Intervention; Invasion; what's the difference?
"This is a Crusade ! " - George Bush

 
It's a never ending cycle: WW2 didn't even complete the 100 years span; but blood is being spilled in scary ways and we're in a time that is considered to be "a time of peace". Everybody knows that a third round will happen, humanity even got an authentic doomsday clock right here:

I suppose that' s a poetic way to put it.  I'd say that conflict is, to some extent, predictable.  That the conditions which produce it have been present for some time, are still present..and in many places are worse than they've ever been.  If we could change those conditions, the conflict can be avoided.  Far from being a cycle that feeds upon itself into perpetuity, the presence of collateral damage in conflict is just one moment in a long chain of decisions not at all related to killing or warfare that could be interrupted at any point.

But humans literally solved all the reasons of wars in the past. With the discovery of energy sources, transporting food and even water became so easy. If every wealthy person gave a dollar a day, nobody on earth would die from hunger. Medicine is also there.

The predictability of conflict, is due to bad intentions already being held in place.
Honestly; don't you feel the hypocrisy showering the place, when two asses wearing fancy suites shake hands with a smile, while aiming nuclear ICBMs at each others' capital cities?

Bad intentions are what I call that. We can be better people, but the majority insist on bringing hammers to the table.

[The Grand Nudger]

No; I mean the deep, dark and twisted kind of grudge, resulting from organized continues acts.
Religion has its resulting grudges, nationalism has its resulting grudges, and pretty much every other faction on earth has its own dark arts of organized steps to manufacture hate and grudge; protected and kept by the institution that controls the faction; usually.
What existed in tribal societies was mere "hate". Not "organized grudges" with roots striking back to thousands of years and require years-worth of work combined with societal rebuilding and re-drawing of culture.
To think about an example; think of the kings and nobles of Medieval Europe. An organized marriage would end a 100 years war and grudge.
Take the modern world's racism between whites and blacks.

All grudges are deep and dark and twisted.  That what makes them grudges.  Yes, what existed in tribal societies, was multi generational organized grudges.  The first wars that we know of -were- multi generational organized grudges.  

Ofc, for a medeival despot, interbreeding could be a bargaining chip.  They engaged in conflict in order to possess.  A marriage was another way to gain a stake in possession.  

The modern worlds racism is a good example of such a grudge, and ancient peoples were often more xenophobic than moderns.  That's one thing we've been getting better at, slowly. 

Intervention; Invasion; what's the difference?

If you can't tell the difference between a peace keeper and an invader you've been spending too much time in the wrong kind of mosque.  

But humans literally solved all the reasons of wars in the past. With the discovery of energy sources, transporting food and even water became so easy. If every wealthy person gave a dollar a day, nobody on earth would die from hunger. Medicine is also there.

It doesn't matter how much the wealthy have, or whether or not food or water are easy to transport, or whether medicine exists.  People fight for access to these things, not for their mere existence.  These, ofc, are only the tangibles. People also fight for the intangibles. The value of the love for their child and it;s retributive price (as in our earlier example), or the desire to be meaningfully free and enfranchised within ones home, as another salient example.

The predictability of conflict, is due to bad intentions already being held in place.
Honestly; don't you feel the hypocrisy showering the place, when two asses wearing fancy suites shake hands with a smile, while aiming nuclear ICBMs at each others' capital cities?

If the only reason you can think of for the predictabilty of human conflict is "bad intentions", I don't think you'll ever really understand human conflict.  You always end up saying something silly and chasing it with how it;s the great satans fault.  

Bad intentions are what I call that. We can be better people, but the majority insist on bringing hammers to the table.

It's not a nations job to be paragons of virtue.  That is left to citizens.  Nations, at least conceptually, pursue the interest of the state.  It is in the best interest of a state to be capable of defending itself against foreign and domestic enemies.  Often enough, it's when that ability fails, and particularly when the domestic end fails..that third party military forces arrive. 

"Wouldn't it be nice if this would all just go away, we could just stop".  Well, no, we couldn;t.  We could do  (and would have to do) many things to make any dream of the end of human conflict a reality..and some if it would likely be engaging in human conflict. What can we say; this place wasn't purpose built for us, the vast majority of it is uninhabitable, resources are not evenly distributed where it is habitable, and wealth is not inherently virtuous within favorable geography that is productive.

It's a massive subject, but it could probably be distilled to a single observation. Conflict arises out of disparity..real or imagined. The imaginary great satan shit that's an article of your faith has been the cause of a great deal of conflict, just as our own largess has, point of fact.