So now again we're devising methods of killing people that make it easier for the killers. That's the same problem that the overseers of death camps faced and solved.
the solution is never the violence as it will only bring more violence. I wonder why some humans persistently fail to understand that.. oh wait.. it's money.
There are people quick to condemn drones, still other condemn troops on the ground, finally others who condemn providing weapons.. yet, not yet has one of those proposed an actual, concrete solution to ending the Islamic State. This isn't a group that responds to "talks" or "negotiation" or "diplomacy." They are fanatics. They are rabid dogs. While many ISIS fighters weren't born rabid, they quickly get infected. They make the Taliban seem positively liberal. And, life under the Taliban was pretty close to hell -- especially if you were a woman.
Have a look at this story from a former ISIS fighter as to what that group does: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-isis-member-explains-why-...
It feels that these anti-drone, anti-fighting, pacifist, appeasement types would have us sign a Munich Agreement, condemning the people of the "Sudetenland" to Nazi rule while proclaiming that betrayal as "peace for our time."
Using smarter, technology assisted targeting would make it easier to stop the pure evil of ISIS -- who, if given the opportunity, would suffocate Europe under a veil of oppression that would make even Hitler blush.
I get it "drones," "Dick Cheney," "Bush, Bush, Bush, "NSA," "CIA," "US Imperialism" -- I know these are dog whistles to rile up progressives to make them instinctively oppose anything the US does in the region.
It could be argued that defeating ISIS is one of the most progressive causes on the planet today. Defeating an enemy that throws suspected gays from rooftops, enslaves minority women, requires unrelenting devotion to a government-imposed religious system, wants all Jews dead, straps bombs to puppies, destroys historical sites, burns books -- I think I just described almost the entire cannon of anti-progressivism possible. And yet, there is a subset of progressives that actually suggest violence isn't the answer?
I guess if ISIS were global warming skeptics, maybe then we should try harder to kill them?
On the other hand, if the US were to invest billions in building up the economies of the region, perhaps providing billions to small businesses and entrepreneurs -- then the US would be accused of economic imperialism. If the US just stays out of the region completely, that's no different that the US staying neutral in World War II, while China was conquered by the Japanese, Europe and North Africa became a sea of Nazi red and millions of people, by virtue of dubious genetic "inferiority," are shipped off to the camps.
Have we learned nothing from history? Evil, left unchecked, doesn't respond to calm reasoning, it responds to overwhelming force.
If ISIS were in your front yard raping your sister and your mother, setting your toddler brother on fire with gasoline while eating your pet dog for dinner -- would you attempt to negotiate? Would non-violence really be the answer? What if groups of heavily armed Republicans rolled into the Castro in Toyota Hiluxes and started open firing on LGBT people?
It's easy, and quite frankly arrogant for any of us to sit in front of our shiny computers, some of us on Aeron chairs making several thousand times more money than the average person in ISIS territory will ever see in their lifetime -- and talk about non-violence. It's that salon-pseudo-liberalism that let the Nazis waltz right into Paris and sent the Jews from the Gare de l'Est straight into the ovens.
Even Bernie Sanders supports violence when the threat is of enough significance. In 1998, he voted for the US policy of regime change in Iraq. He called Saddam a "brutal and illegitimate dictator" who should be removed from office." Sanders again in 2012 voted to arm Syrian rebels against Al-Assad. Hillary Clinton's policy proposal against ISIS featured this:
"Defeat ISIS in the Middle East by smashing its stronghold, hitting its fighters, leaders, and infrastructure from the air, and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground."
Even GHANDI supported using violence in the defense of the innocent. "I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."
This idea of absolute non-violence is naïve.
Let us throw Daesh or whatever away and focus on a war against terror that is easier to measure. The taliban. Do you feel that the campaign to remove them from power was successful?
I'm relatively happy to rationalise killing lots of people, I just get uncomfortable around the idea of measuring success by "but it would be worse if we didn't, probably, after all - Nazis".
According the metrics used by the BBC, yes, hugely successful.
ISIS didn't emerge ex nihilo. There's nothing in Aleppo's water supply that turns people into mindless killers. They formed as a direct consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Syrian regime. If we've learned anything from our history of "intervention" in the middle east, it should be that it's incredibly easy to make matters worse through poorly-planned military intervention. The evidence of our failures in this respect is abundant, going back beyond the 1953 Iran coup to The Great Game and the first Anglo-Afghan war.
Drone strikes and bombing sorties might make you feel better, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're actually improving the situation. It's equally likely that the bombing campaign in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere is just giving another generation a plausible reason to despise the western world.
>If ISIS were in your front yard raping your sister and your mother, setting your toddler brother on fire with gasoline while eating your pet dog for dinner -- would you attempt to negotiate?
I'd take up arms to defend myself, and pray that nobody drops a bomb on my house and calls my death "collateral damage".
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-drones-work-the-case-...
"Drones have turned al Qaeda’s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders."
A lot of this is reminiscent of the drug war. Taking out a kingpin looks like a victory, but it only creates short-term instability and a surge in violence. The root causes remain unchanged.
How many people do you need to arrest to eradicate the drug trade? How many people do you need to kill to eradicate extremist ideologies?
https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/exploiting-disorder-al-qa... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-...
I just wish there was a bit more emphasis on prevention. Build up their economies, erase their cultures (nicely...), and in a century or two maybe there'll be less cause for war.
I'm actually totally for killing ISIS members in any way possible. I just think we oughta own up to what we're doing. We're killing people because they are evil. They are evil because of how we have actively handled governments et al in that area.