Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

[Donnadogsoth]

Daesh comes from a socio-political situation (Iraq in the last 30 years), instability, political revolutions, chaos, economic sanctions, bombing, invasions. They claim to be fighting on behalf of the oppressed, fighting an invading army to protect innocent people from third parties, along with romantic notions of reestablishing the caliphate all naively taken at face value. Diluting the sentiment by slowing down on the bombing, invading, droning, imprisoning without charges, interfering in governments, arming and propping up oppressive tyrants, and treating countries like a private plaything for money and profit should be a good step. But statistically speaking and based on the threat-level, too much time and money have been wasted on this, and alienating the anti-ISIS Islamic academic and religious authority while acknowledging and contributing to Daesh's narrative doesn't help. How'd Daesh love a "No-Muslims Allowed" sign at the borders.

 

Now what did Trump say? Total and complete shutdown, when asked if this will include Muslim Americans abroad his spokesperson said "Mr. Trump says everyone". Later on he said in an interview that it isn't complete and total and that there will be exceptions, which shows that he is baiting the media and pandering; he is a skilled entertainer, and skilled entertainers (and demagogues) know their audience, and people are more familiar with entertainers than politicians. The sentiment that Muslims are uniquely dangerous and antithetical to American values is actually supported by multiple GOP candidates (Let's ban refugees! Oh, but I wanna add a bill that makes an exception for "proven Christians"). Compare Edward R. Murrow with the cowardly neutral and faux analyticism of most US media:

 

 

Trump decries political correctness, yet at the he is embracing and defining his tribe with victimhood identity politics and attempts to convince us that this plus emotions provides immunity against criticism, rather than defending an ideology and supporting it with logical argumentation. He supports a blind postmodern metanarative filled with obscurity, no different than the one about rape-culture or accusing white cops of crimes they didn't commit. Trump knows he can make all sort of erroneous fear-mongering statements knowing full-well that his supporters will rush to his defense regardless of the inaccuracies of his assertions if it fits their narrative. Paranoid politics to amass more power works (All the people calling Obama a dictator and switching to Trump is amusing). He invokes atavistic notions of a pre-multicultural America that is relatively ethnically pure; but when it comes to waiving conspiracies he is no different from liberals claiming that the National Rifle Association is responsible for the high crime rates; since the liberals are jumping at conspiracy theories it is OK to indulge in it too, huh.

 

He is a 'reality' TV star first; he baits media attention with vaguely inflammatory statements so he can confirm it and take more attention time from his rivals, while attempting as a populist to pander to fear and previously unrepresented demography (the sort that believe Obama is not a US citizen). There is a mountin-worth of data for anyone willing to understand why attacks occur. His rhetoric has nothing to do with preventing terrorism or remedy the issues that contribute to terrorism.

 

 

 

I tried to see it as the media twisting his words to create a controversial headline, but there is no way around it: Trump is pro collective punishment.

 

Thank you for your reply.  Yes, you've characterised the modern liberal media well, "cowardly neutral and faux" with stacked panels and mostly fluffy/sordid distractions.

 

However, as white Christian who opposes Islam on the grounds that it is (a) un-Christian, (b) culturally backward (Sharia), and © a terrorist breeder reactor, I sympathise with those Americans who appreciate Trump's message.  Although he hasn't stated it, people in the know know that Christianity is under attack around the world by Moslems in Moslem countries.  Islam gradually but inexorably squeezes out Christianity whenever the former is hegemonic.  And it's common knowledge that Islam does breed anti-Western terrorists to a unique degree.  And the U.S. does bring in way too many immigrants.  His methods, his proposed solutions may be ham-handed, but they speak to a malaise that white, Christian culture is experiencing in response to wave upon wave of unassimilating aliens.

 

Have you heard anything about Trump's position on either (a) re-institution of the Glass-Steagal law, or (b) provoking a thermonuclear war with Russia?  Those, in terms of the present onrushing financial collapse and the threat of such war provoked by the encirclement and pressuring of Russia, are our crucial existential threats at this moment.  Has he addressed them?

[shirgall]

Regarding this point; if the interlocutor then immediately turns and walks in the direction of his camp (which in this kind of situation I expect he would do), then surely the survivalist is in immediate danger.  There is a known life-threatening, danger (not imagined) and the survivalist likely has no way of getting his [necessary for winter] food and water out of the area before the other guy returns to kill him and steal it.  I don't think the survivalist should have to wait until the other guy returns with and draws his gun.

 

Just because he's going back to camp in may be our experience with the actor that he's a hothead in the moment, and the walk back to his camp will give him a chance to cool off. To me, the immediacy requirement is missing the "opportunity" portion of ability + opportunity + jeopardy until he has the gun. If the gun is ten feet away leaning on a tree, that's one thing, but I posited the camp as a way to separate the opportunity from the actor by a significant piece of time.

 

I am holding this as a moral system, not a legal one. If it supports the legal system, that's great, but I have always proffered my statement as a universal.

[ResidingOnEarth]

Just because he's going back to camp in may be our experience with the actor that he's a hothead in the moment, and the walk back to his camp will give him a chance to cool off. To me, the immediacy requirement is missing the "opportunity" portion of ability + opportunity + jeopardy until he has the gun. If the gun is ten feet away leaning on a tree, that's one thing, but I posited the camp as a way to separate the opportunity from the actor by a significant piece of time.

 

I understand your point.  I like this idea of "ability + opportunity + jeopardy" as a means of analysing the situation.  I think killing someone is a very drastic measure, so it's important that we know when it is acceptable to resort to it.  I hope I never get into a situation like this, but I acknowledge that hope doesn't help you if you're in that situation.  I personally want to know and understand in advance how to deal with a terrible situation like this.  I want to survive and I want to be virtuous.

 

I do think that even though the interlocutor you described is hotheaded, that doesn't mean he isn't going to come back and shoot you.  His hotheadedness also doesn't nullify his threat.  It's my understanding that a death threat is the initiation of force.  This interlocutor has initiated force against you and stated plainly his intent to kill you.  His gun -- in your example -- is far away so he does not have the opportunity to kill you, but I think you are still clearly in great danger and under attack at this point.

 

I've thought about what you said and I now agree that you shouldn't kill the interlocutor (as he does not have the opportunity to kill you), but I do think though that it is acceptable to physically incapacitate him (or her).  This would fall under self-defence.  In a self-defence situation you don't have to wait to be punched or shot at before it is acceptable to defend yourself by striking or shooting.

 

All you know (as the survivalist) is that someone has issued a death threat to you and is claiming to be in the process of carrying it out.  You have the moral right to defend yourself from attack.

 

Practically speaking: if you let the interlocutor leave then he gains a great advantage over you.  He knows where your camp is and he can strike at any time day or night and from one of many directions.  He also knows you can't carry all your food and water away to somewhere else in one go, so you must either stay with it or take only some of it away with you to find safety.  So if you physically incapacitate him in defence, you can then secure your winter supplies and your personal safety.  This is what it's all about: ensuring that empathetic people have a reasonable moral code to live by that allows them to peaceful interact with one another and to also be able to respond to those who do not want peace: the aggressive sociopaths (the interlocutor).

[regevdl]

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to post an actual argument as to why this bad!

 

Come on people!

 

If you turn your child into a fucking stone age version of a ICBM why should you not be treated like a munitions factory?!

 

define "bad".  Morally bad?  Practically bad?  What do you mean by "bad"?  It's 'bad' because it's a logical fallacy.  it's 'bad' because there is empirical evidence that it doesn't work and only produces more stone-age ICBMs.

 

In the immediate you solve that particular stone age version of ICBM.  But there is evidence out there that this doesn't work and I will explain why in the end. 

 

As I mentioned above, I live in Israel.  I don't give a S*** who started what first but let's start with an example from 1979 that has now boomeranged until today.  

 

In 1979, A Lebanonese man, snuck into Israel and killed a family...crushed in their skulls.  The youngest victim was 3 years old.  Maybe he had valid grievence against the Israeli gvt and aggressed against a family among the citizens. Maybe he can claim that since the father was part of the military, he felt he needed to kill the entire family.  I don't know what the excuse was.

 

The man was captured and released in an prisoner exchange of which Lebanon exchanged 2 dead Israeli bodies for this murderer.  With me so far?

 

Fast forward, this man was a hero in his country, especially among Hezbollah.  Israel bombed this man and his entire family recently.  Now, Hezbollah is bombing Northern Israel as of 2 days ago.  Now, what's been resolved?  Are his grievences against the Israeli gvt even close to being resolved?  Are Israelis grievences of how Lebanon handles its affairs even close to being resolved.  No and No. Are is the world fewer stone-age ICBMs? no.  

 

It's a game of whack-a-mole that lasts for DECADES....generations.  Has either side been 'scared' into obedience and non-violence?  lol  no...  Keep in mind too that even Israeli history comes from a Communist background and the Islamic states from a theocracy.  So I get that at times people only respond to violence but it doesn't have to be that way.  

 

So, for the R-gene type that want instant gratification, this is wonderful and referred to as 'success'.  But history will show, this will begin and has begun revenge killing.  You mentioned it's becauase they raise them to be stone-age.... so how does bombing help that?  It actually increases more stone-age people because of the trauma and lack of prosperity and opportunity when their town barely has running water.

 

I'd rather people behave because they have been spared of trauma or had proper help and have been introduced to alternative ways to raise children rather than make people so desperate to survive that it's more important they hunt for clean water than continue battling their causes. Because once they can survive...you have only bought time for them to come back with revenge and again, you have not solved the root of the issue.  You have to find out WHY they are raising children to be like this and stop it from the source.  I speak to many middle easterns who are students.  that way I have years to talk with them BEFORE they choose a mate and have children.  I prepare them for challenges they will have when going against their parents' 'ways' of child raising.  I have been in contact with a student in Egypt for almost 3 years now about these topics.  It has changed his life and he is already talking with his parents so it all doesn't come as a shock later on.  

 

So I'm sorry....returning stone-age methods with stone-age methods thinking you are achieving any real change AND even worse...thinking you have the moral and intellectual high ground with this method is silly.  I'm going to condemn killing families because that's bad and doesn't achieve anything, therefore I will stop that bad act by killing families.  The principles is self-imploding, therefore false.  Just like the gvt claims to protect property rights 

 

It's getting people to 'behave' based on a win-lose scenario which has been the theme of the game for as long as governments have been around and how is that working out exactly?  

 

Peaceful parenting.  It won't stop every single psychopath all at once immediately but it is working.  Even in the middle east, you just have to open your eyes and venture out...use the internet to connect with these people.  

 

If you haven't at least used the internet to find middle eastern people (I can refer you to some wonderful sites/pages) and have a civil discussion and be curious then you too can't argue that killing their entire family is the only real answer.  You haven't even tried to ration or reason or introduce peaceful parenting to these people.  

 

This whole mentality reminds me of a local kid here.  his entire family is shunned because the parents are abusive.  We all have tried our best to nurture their children and show them better ways but at the end of the day the boy has to live under his father's roof.  It's sad.  BUt the boy is a wild mess.  EXTREMELY violent.  It's out of control.  So, as hard as it is to shun the children, we have to.  The parents do not respond to anything but aggression which most of us refuse to engage in (pig in mud metaphor).  But, even when the child lashes out at other children and adults (yes...he's 8 and tries to punch adults as well as children), most of us stil use a calm but asstertive tone with him.  We don't shout or act aggressively.  We do try to detain him in a calm but firm way.  His father shouts, doesn't make eye contact, pulls him, pushes him.  So if we also resorted to that, we are lowering ourselves to the father's methods which are part of this problem.  So we are only making the problem worse if we behave like the father towards his child.  

 

Now, when we act calm but assertive, the boy won't immediately calm down (because he hasn't been taught the tools) BUT he is experiencing over and over by many people that there is another way to resolve disputes and disagree.  Again, the goal, we understand, won't change him in a minute....but he will always have this experience. Right now he is dependent on his screwed up mother and father but once he's out on his own he will have to face the fact of how terrible his parents are and how it ruined his childhood BUT that there was an entire community who was compassionate and still tried to help him in a loving way.  

 

When a few people DO shout at him aggressively I tell them, "he hears enough shouting at home, at least try to share your anger calmly" and they do...because they understand how much abuse this boy gets that he HAS to see the world really isn't like that.    

 

So extrapolate that into other problem-solving issues when dealing with human behavior.

[shirgall]

It's my understanding that a death threat is the initiation of force.  This interlocutor has initiated force against you and stated plainly his intent to kill you.  His gun -- in your example -- is far away so he does not have the opportunity to kill you, but I think you are still clearly in great danger and under attack at this point.

 

 

You have just described something specific known as a "credible threat". This is a different animal than the hotheaded claim to violence with no activity to back it up. When he takes steps to get the gun, that's the difference.

 

If you really want to learn more about this, try Mas Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme and if you really want to get ahead of threats, consider Left of Bang.

[ResidingOnEarth]

regevdl: it teared me up reading about the tragedy that is that 8 year old boy's childhood.  It also teared me up reading about the peaceful parenting efforts of you and your community.  You are making the world better

 

You have just described something specific known as a "credible threat". This is a different animal than the hotheaded claim to violence with no activity to back it up. When he takes steps to get the gun, that's the difference.

 

If you really want to learn more about this, try Mas Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme and if you really want to get ahead of threats, consider Left of Bang.

 

Thanks for the recommendations.  I will read them.

[AccuTron]

(I can refer you to some wonderful sites/pages)

 

Please do.

[Des]

Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

I see it as important to note that we are not at the stage where we can take rational, ethical, physical steps against aggressive people (in general [we are compromising, using unethical democracy to improve survival as far as possible]).

 

When we have done all the talking and persuaded enough people to see what the solution is, then: whoever is still showing a preference for aggression - we assign minders to them, put them under 24/7 electronic surveillance, and aggressively destroy every missile-slinger they start work on, from catapult to ICBM. The minders intervene and disrupt every attack the minded-people make, but permit them to do whatever peaceful actions they prefer.

 

I propose something along the lines of the above, for the small minority of aggression-preferring people, when the aggression-preferring people are a small minority.

 

The post below has relevance to the above, it that I propose we first do as below, then as above.

I estimate that the best plan for ending our participation in organised immorality (primarily statism), is:

1. Keep speaking the truth until enough people have corrected their internal errors.
2. Keep re-evaluating the "until" condition in that loop of step one. What does it take to fulfil that condition and end our participation in organised immorality, without having to do immoral acts to exit from participation, and without having to sacrifice our lives (which are the very reason we care about morality [none of us will care when dead]), to exit from participation.
3. Plan the exit from all organised immorality, and publish the date of the exit, widely, so that people can prepare (e.g. I must take insurance against missile strikes, so that someone's money is riding on: me not suffering a missile strike).
4. Hand out shares in assets (and liabilities) that were regarded as public, and cut over to acting morally, on pre-published date
5. Trade shares (sell what you can least understand or influence, buy what you can influence to increase in value).

While we are on step one, I am not very interested in adjusting the immoral system(s), because I don't know if anyone will really benefit in a way I care about. I go vote, but never ask anyone else to vote differently from what they would vote otherwise. I avoid facebook politics and twitter politics, I just post links to Stef's videos. links to my few vids, and say what I think, and reply to the 3 people who care to respond.

 

[Brentb]

I think we're conditioned to view war as something more fair and moral than what it really is. 

 

Most politicians sidestep the horrors of war, and pretend that some sort of "surgical" strike will result in only damage to deserving people. The U.S. government's own statistics have show that the US can't avoid significant collateral damage.

 

A president that is honest with the public about the horrible and dirty realities of war will make it less likely that the US will engage in war.

[Guest Gee]

I meant to quote you, not upvote you.  You make it sound as if he would only target their parents.  If this is the case, do you also support drone-bombing all parents of murderers regardless of religion or nationality?  I mean, if there is an argument there, which I admit is interesting, why not just try them as accomplices, like a civilized society?  But if I understand, I think it was implied that wives, siblings, children, etc. would also be targeted, so...that's completely evil

 

Off the top of my head the argument would be along the lines of punishing the man who beats a dog and the dog then kills gets let off a leash around children and mauls them to death.

 

We know, from bomb in the brain, that terrorists are made, not born, thus the analogy to a weapon factory. I'd be surprised to find an AK-47 spontaneously forming in nature, people have done a lot of work to bring this killing machine into existence and more work yet to point it at the west, I don't see why they should get to wash their hands of the consequences.

 

In the origins of war in child abuse I recall the story of the mother of a suicide bomber crying with joy and being praised by the community because her son had blown himself up and murdered others. I think if the actions of her son resulted not in her exoneration but in her certain death she would not be so happy. If it was known before that this was the consequence she would be doing everything within her power to prevent her son killing himself, and if push really came to shove, she would probably have her son killed to save herself and her family. People respond to incentives.

 

But yeah, if such a society existed I wouldn't just support it. I'm sure I'd happily enforce it and if it was someone I cared for who was murdered the drone wouldn't be needed.

[Guest Gee]

 

 

Thank you for the response.

 

I don't know how you propose the Islamic nations need to be financially secured when living in Israel, you must know that lending at interest, Riba, is condemned by the Quran.  

Presumably you understand the important role of lending at interest in stabilizing and growing economies.

Presumably you must know that Islam is a socio-political ideology and not just a religion.

So I think you must know then that financial stabilization of the ME is impossible because of the cleric's control of fiance which is guarantied to be maintained because of Islams dominance of almost all aspects of life.

I think then that financial stabilization would require economic freedom (to lend for profit) which would require the separation of Islam and the state which is impossible because Islam is the state and thus requires to end of the Islamic faith.

 

Also you have said this hasn't ever been tried so you can't say it can't work based on your observations.

 

With respect to the man who murdered the Israelis...

I personally think Israel should say to Hamas this....

 

Dear Hamas, the life of a single Israeli is infinitely valuable, it is worth more to us than all of you put together.

If anyone attacks Israeli citizens then they die and anyone who knows about it dies. 

And then they just do it.

Problem solved.

 

It will never happen sadly. It would require Israel as a nation to talk about and accept the origins of war in child abuse. 

 

*by know about it I mean anyone who could reasonably be expected to see the behavior that must be exhibited by a unstable and or murderous pathology and then would be reasonable expect to act upon it. specifically family and church.

[Thomasio]

I believe the world has gotten itself into a mess where anything one could have done or should have done in the past is no longer an option.

Not sure how far back you would have to go to prevent the chain of events from starting, maybe 1953 the overthrowing of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, where the US and the UK wanted to prevent him from restricting western access to Iranian oil, which led to Rezà Pahlavi getting to power, which led to monarchy until again the US overthrew his regime in 1979, which might have been the origin of the hate from the Arabian world towards the US and which led to countless follow up problems up to todays ISIL.

Maybe you have to go even further back to the times when the western world colonized and enslaved a big part of Africa.

 

Either way, the situation has grown into a problem, where the western world now faces the decision, either we continue war against an increasing amount of enemies we keep making, until we have eliminated them all (literal genocide), or we pull back and let their revenge come over us.

 

I'm not really sure which of these would be better from a global perspective, because it means death and suffering for millions of people either way.

From a western perspective surely it would be "better" if the suffering were some place else, but from a moral point of view it's rather questionable, whether you should apply the force of war to prevent yourself from the revenge to your previous crimes.

The moral high ground is definately not in the western world.

[Donnadogsoth]

I believe the world has gotten itself into a mess where anything one could have done or should have done in the past is no longer an option.

Not sure how far back you would have to go to prevent the chain of events from starting, maybe 1953 the overthrowing of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, where the US and the UK wanted to prevent him from restricting western access to Iranian oil, which led to Rezà Pahlavi getting to power, which led to monarchy until again the US overthrew his regime in 1979, which might have been the origin of the hate from the Arabian world towards the US and which led to countless follow up problems up to todays ISIL.

Maybe you have to go even further back to the times when the western world colonized and enslaved a big part of Africa.

 

Either way, the situation has grown into a problem, where the western world now faces the decision, either we continue war against an increasing amount of enemies we keep making, until we have eliminated them all (literal genocide), or we pull back and let their revenge come over us.

 

I'm not really sure which of these would be better from a global perspective, because it means death and suffering for millions of people either way.

From a western perspective surely it would be "better" if the suffering were some place else, but from a moral point of view it's rather questionable, whether you should apply the force of war to prevent yourself from the revenge to your previous crimes.

The moral high ground is definately not in the western world.

 

Neither is the moral high ground possessed by those who would invade and possess the current residue of Western civilisation.  The West has given the world many good things, and treacherous factions within the West have promoted a policy of imperial looting and clash of civilisations.  The current situation was planned, and now that it has been delivered, the order is for a new feudal condition of rotting countries existing under some manner of Anglo-American empire.

 

The option out is to opt out of the clash of civilisations and instead spark a neo-Renaissance.  If the Western countries can take back their destinies they can demand a new discipline, where Western values are made to be mandatory, Western borders are maintained and defended, and economic progress becomes the basis for worldwide progress pipelined through the Asian-Russian-BRICS cooperation.  If the current, bankrupt and toxic financial system can be routed around, as by BRICS New Development Bank, we have a chance.

 

We're not licked yet, as long as we remember our greatest power is not merely our science but also our classical art, which alone is capable of effecting a transformation of opinion towards defense of our now-globally-extended European civilisation.

[ResidingOnEarth]

Either way, the situation has grown into a problem, where the western world now faces the decision, either we continue war against an increasing amount of enemies we keep making, until we have eliminated them all (literal genocide), or we pull back and let their revenge come over us.  [emphasis added]

 

The "western world" is a concept that refers to a collection of nations (another concept).  As such it cannot make a decision.  Concepts can't make decisions.

 

We are not at war so we don't need to pull back.  There are a small percentage of western-people that are statists of the violent-fanatic kind (eg they have willingly joined the Army).  They are the ones carrying out these campaigns of murder and  destruction.

 

The statists that support these violent-fanatics share some moral culpability, but not to the same degree as those they support: those that are actually pressing the buttons and pulling the triggers.  It is important to note that these supporters are not at war and neither are those of us who are non-supporters.  The word "war" itself is problematic if you want to have a philosophical discussion, as it refers to combat between nations.  I prefer to avoid that term.  I don't think it helps us solve moral or other practical problems.

 

I for one, would never support these violent-fanatics.  I am however, trying to keep an eye on what these western-origin, violent-fanatics are doing.  I accept that many of the people they are attacking are under a similar spell as the one they are under.  I think many of the victims and many of the aggressors falsely believe that there are nations and that I belong to one of those nations (the UK).  I think many of the attackers believe they are acting on my behalf and many of the victims agree with them.  I expect the recent attack on those people in the Paris concert hall was performed by attackers who believed those people in the concert hall belonged to an imaginary nation call France and as such they are in some way responsible for the attacks that had been made against people from the land they came from.

 

When I hear people say the following terms it becomes quickly obvious to me that they are under some kind of spell or trying to cast one on another:

• "Bring our troops home".  I don't have any troops.  If I did I'd ask them to help me with some gardening.
• "We are at war".  No we're not.
• "America attacked".  No it didn't.  People in the American government organisation attacked.  There are no nations.  "Nation" is a poorly defined, internally-inconsistent concept which children are tricked into believing before they have the capacity to reasonably conclude that it is false.

 

Now here are some things we can do...

• Spread voluntarism to make the world a more peaceful, safe and prosperous place to live in.
• If you can't make a voluntaryist out of a statist, then you can still discourage them from becoming violent-fanatics (joining the Army / Air-force etc).  It's pretty easy these days to make a case to people that these violent-statist campaigns in the middle east are not solving the problems that they claim to be solving.
• Raise your children peacefully and teach them to think for themselves at an early age.  These children will be drawn to voluntarism like flies to light bulbs.
• Finally: if the time comes where retaliatory-attacks from middle-eastern people become a significant threat, then you need to think about how best to defend yourself.  The people who perform these retaliatory-attacks probably wont understand that you are not personally responsible for any suffering done to them, their family or more generally: to the people of the land they came from.  If you're from France, the UK or the USA you may be a target.  I hope this time never comes as, I don't know how on earth I will defend myself.  The attackers in Paris has fully automatic, rifles.  The French government organisation uses threat of violence against people in France to stop them from obtaining similar weapons to defend themselves with.

I hope what I've said helps you think more clearly about this situation.

[Thomasio]

• "Bring our troops home".  I don't have any troops.  If I did I'd ask them to help me with some gardening.
• "We are at war".  No we're not.
• "America attacked".  No it didn't.  People in the American government organisation attacked.  There are no nations.  "Nation" is a poorly defined, internally-inconsistent concept which children are tricked into believing before they have the capacity to reasonably conclude that it is false.

 

That's where you are completely wrong.

In a democracy, whether it works as it should or is influenced by propaganda and corruption, ALL people in a country decide EVERYTHING together.

When you elect a government, you elect who shall represent you and fairly obvious that includes the part where you don't agree with the outcome of the elections.

Same as all those who don't agree with the part you like, support indirectly through accepting the government the things you like, you have to support the things you don't like, simply because you have to accept the majority opinion.

 

If you don't like this, if you want to live in an environment where exclusively your own opinion counts, you will have to move out, buy yourself an island or something, declare it independent, install yourself as dictator and make the laws you like best, but if all other people would think the same way, I doubt you'd get any citizens moving into your country, because nobody would like your dictatorship, everybody else would prefer his own dictatorship.

Unfortunately there are no 7 billion islands available in the world, so one way or another humans have to find a way to get along, where democracy is the best system humans have developped so far.

As far as I understand, even a free society is supposed to be somewhat democratically organized, so the fact the US is at war in Syria wouldn't change with a switch to no government and since this US government represents all Americans, including you, you ARE at war in Syria.

[ResidingOnEarth]

That's where you are completely wrong.

In a democracy, whether it works as it should or is influenced by propaganda and corruption, ALL people in a country decide EVERYTHING together.

When you elect a government, you elect who shall represent you and fairly obvious that includes the part where you don't agree with the outcome of the elections.

Same as all those who don't agree with the part you like, support indirectly through accepting the government the things you like, you have to support the things you don't like, simply because you have to accept the majority opinion.

 

This paragraph contains so much irrationality that I feel it would take me days to explain to you all the problems with it.  I personally don't have the time to do that.  I'm not even sure if you would be receptive to a critical analysis of your erroneous beliefs.

 

If you don't like this, if you want to live in an environment where exclusively your own opinion counts, you will have to move out, buy yourself an island or something, declare it independent, install yourself as dictator and make the laws you like best, but if all other people would think the same way, I doubt you'd get any citizens moving into your country, because nobody would like your dictatorship, everybody else would prefer his own dictatorship.

Unfortunately there are no 7 billion islands available in the world, so one way or another humans have to find a way to get along, where democracy is the best system humans have developped so far.

As far as I understand, even a free society is supposed to be somewhat democratically organized, so the fact the US is at war in Syria wouldn't change with a switch to no government and since this US government represents all Americans, including you, you ARE at war in Syria.

 

The first sentence of this paragraph contains manipulation and sophistry.  It feels like you are attacking me.  I am not upset by it, but I will not humour it with a response.  The paragraph as a whole contains numerous false and irrational statements.

 

Perhaps someone else here has the time to help you.  I do not.

[regevdl]

Thank you for the response.

 

I don't know how you propose the Islamic nations need to be financially secured when living in Israel, you must know that lending at interest, Riba, is condemned by the Quran.  

Presumably you understand the important role of lending at interest in stabilizing and growing economies.

Presumably you must know that Islam is a socio-political ideology and not just a religion.

So I think you must know then that financial stabilization of the ME is impossible because of the cleric's control of fiance which is guarantied to be maintained because of Islams dominance of almost all aspects of life.

I think then that financial stabilization would require economic freedom (to lend for profit) which would require the separation of Islam and the state which is impossible because Islam is the state and thus requires to end of the Islamic faith.

 

Also you have said this hasn't ever been tried so you can't say it can't work based on your observations.

 

With respect to the man who murdered the Israelis...

I personally think Israel should say to Hamas this....

 

Dear Hamas, the life of a single Israeli is infinitely valuable, it is worth more to us than all of you put together.

If anyone attacks Israeli citizens then they die and anyone who knows about it dies. 

And then they just do it.

Problem solved.

 

It will never happen sadly. It would require Israel as a nation to talk about and accept the origins of war in child abuse. 

 

*by know about it I mean anyone who could reasonably be expected to see the behavior that must be exhibited by a unstable and or murderous pathology and then would be reasonable expect to act upon it. specifically family and church.

 

 

I'm sorry, the first part of your response seems to be directed to another poster because I don't recall (and re-read my post) discussing interest and financial matters...if you could guide me to the context of that because I'm a bit lost with your response as if it's related to something I mentioned earlier.  Maybe I did but cannot seem to find it.  :-/  Sorry. But Islamic Nations living in Israel?  That's confusing.  Do you mean Muslims living in Israel because Israel is considerd a political state so I am not sure how an Islamic political state/nation can exist inside another, if you can clarify.

 

Many Muslims use Israeli banks.  I am not privy on how they circumvent the interest issue, if at all.  i know in the United States, there are Sharia -friendly banks in which they simply factor in the cost of the interest into the overall loan and that seems to satisfy any of their religious quandaries. Or maybe there are Arab banks.  I am really not sure about that and haven't put much thought into it, or, the Arabs here don't care that much about that particular part of their religion.  I also don't know if that applies to all of Islam. I know that it applies to those who believe in SHaria law.  Again, I don't want to say too much on something I know nothing about.  I will be happy to ask the Arabs I do know about this and share with the group.

 

So, your proposal about Hezbollah or Hamas, are you making that suggestion as if the government of Israel does NOT say such things.  My goodness there have been 2 wars in the 4 years I've been here with Hamas in Gaza and I know, surprisingly, not every word Netanyahu speaks is shared world-wide but that's all he says.  He has no problem making these claims, but you are dealing with a martyr culture, so the 'we will kill you' only feeds into their desire to die and parents sacraficing their children to die to become martyrs....now...no surprise that martyrs families also get gvt benefits once the child is killed...so once again, welfare incentives...sacrafice your child for gub'ment goodies.  

 

Also, Hezbollah and Hamas say exactly the same thing to Israel.  So when Israel assassinates a Hamas member or a Hezbollah member, they fulfill their promise of killing any or as many Israelis (or attempting to) because of prior proposal.  All lives matter....if they happen to be hamas or civilian or otherwise.  So that's how you keep the circle of death in perpetual motion.  I mean they have been at war for 60 years, that should be proof enough that this isn't working, no?

 

You do'nt think Arabs abuse their children?  I do a lot here in Israel to bridge the gap between Isralis and Palestinians and put responsibility where it is due but OMG.... the treatment of children among the Arabs is terrible.  You get an occassional success story but overall, it's terrible.  Many are polygomous and the children are barely cared for, especially the Beduin population.  Please don't mistake Arabs/muslims/Persians in the United States for those still inthe Middle East.  I think unfortunatley, those who have made it to the US/Europe have created a brain-drain in their motherlands.  Pretty much every Arab/Muslim I have spoken to about personal things, whether in Israel or outside in other Middle Eastern nations have suffered physical, verbal or sexual abuse.  This is not just an 'Israeli' Problem.  

 

To credit within Israel (I will never give their gub'ment credit, rather then individuals), it is more acceptable to use more peaceful parenting tactics.  Again, you have to have enough empathy and not be afraid to put responsiblity where it's due as much on Israelis as Arabs as well.  Arabs/Muslims are not as easy to reform in terms of parenting.  They have a VERY tight nit culture, even if not religious.  It's VERY honor based as well... so you have to have some understanding of the hurdles to climb rather than just blame one side because then you are carelessly solving only half of the problem.  Even the Arabs who break from their tribe, usually ran away from Palestine or other countries to be in Israel to escape political or familial persecution.  That deserves some empathy and credit and condemnation on those other nations and familial pacts.

[Guest Gee]

Sorry, I'm being incredibly inattentive, mistakes abound. Here is the post.

 

Gross.  Well.... that's pretty much what Israel does.  They don't kill the family necessarily but they bulldoze their homes or imprison their families.  Seems to be working well for them to stop the conflict (SARCASM FONT).  

 

I"m not saying take the ISIS families in and coddle them but not go on the other end of the pendulum either.  Neither extreme has proven successful.  But we also can't pussyfoot around either.  

 

How about.... stop bombing the M.E.  Stop meddling in civil wars and in countries that pose no threat, maybe, before saying random, useless crap as a candidate of the POTUS, use your capital intel to build up these countries.  It's common knowledge that the best way to deter terrorism is to financially stabilize areas of population.  

 

History shows, especially in Iraq these people won't stop fighting with each other.  I really hope that changes and evolves to a better, more peaceful future.  But He's basically wanting to do the killing for these people.  gross.  

 

So, your proposal about Hezbollah or Hamas, are you making that suggestion as if the government of Israel does NOT say such things.

 

>> I've been inattentive in my writing but I would presume they are not saying they are going to target the family and mosques of terrorist, no?

 

My goodness there have been 2 wars in the 4 years I've been here with Hamas in Gaza and I know, surprisingly, not every word Netanyahu speaks is shared world-wide but that's all he says.

 

>> And I'm sure there will be more in the future, why not just finish the job once and for all OR start targeting the people who produce terrorists instead of harming the general population with war and sanctions.

 

no surprise that martyrs families also get gvt benefits once the child is killed...so once again, welfare incentives...sacrafice your child for gub'ment goodies.

 

>> Right, so target the families and I think less parents will be sacrificing their children. Anything you incentive......

 

All lives matter....if they happen to be hamas or civilian or otherwise.  So that's how you keep the circle of death in perpetual motion.  

 

>> I disagree completely, all lives do not matter and all those who do matter are not equal. The life of a man and women who beat a child into the shape of a bomb no value in my eyes. What they have done is irredeemable evil.

 

I mean they have been at war for 60 years, that should be proof enough that this isn't working, no?

+

Many are polygomous and the children are barely cared for, especially the Beduin

population.  Please don't mistake Arabs/muslims/Persians in the United States for those still inthe Middle East.

 

>> So they haven't stemmed the supply of human bombs because they haven't targeted the families, no? 60 years is 3 generations.

 

You do'nt think Arabs abuse their children?  I do a lot here in Israel to bridge the gap between Isralis and Palestinians and put responsibility where it is due but OMG.... the treatment of children among the Arabs is terrible.

 

​>> Completely agree it is inhuman, so provide them with a rather large incentive to parent more peacefully by targeting the families of terrorists, no?

 

 I think unfortunatley, those who have made it to the US/Europe have created a brain-drain in their motherlands.

 

>> I think so as well, I think anyone capable of provoking change from within their community (high iq I would guess) will leave for a better life. I think a policy of allowing the MEs best and brightest to leave is guaranteeing it never changes. No incentive to change if leaving is an option.

 

Again, you have to have enough empathy and not be afraid to put responsiblity where it's due as much on Israelis as Arabs as well.

 

>> I see responsibility with the parents and families and religious and moral instructors, it is with individuals, not concepts, thus I think Trump is right to target individuals.

 

Arabs/Muslims are not as easy to reform in terms of parenting.  They have a VERY tight nit culture, even if not religious.  It's VERY honor based as well... so you have to have some understanding of the hurdles to climb rather than just blame one side because then you are carelessly solving only half of the problem. 

 

>> Right so they need a very large incentive to be peaceful parents, so give them one, no?

 

tl;dr

Hit children because.....? Ok cool. Universalize it and hit the parents and the instructors of said children. And when their children hit other peoples children with bullets and bombs simply hit their parents with bullets and bombs. Not hitting children? Great! Nothing to worry about then, but I would not stand too close to those who do, no?

 

edited a typo but some more food for though, if any government program has continued for 60 years, failed to achieve its stated goal and yet continues, then it is achieving its unstated goal, and a war is just another government program.

 

 

[Guest Gee]

Oh I didn't respond to this initially because.....

 

define "bad".  Morally bad?  Practically bad?  What do you mean by "bad"?  It's 'bad' because it's a logical fallacy.  it's 'bad' because there is empirical evidence that it doesn't work and only produces more stone-age ICBMs.

 

In the immediate you solve that particular stone age version of ICBM.  But there is evidence out there that this doesn't work and I will explain why in the end. 

 

As I mentioned above, I live in Israel.  I don't give a S*** who started what first but let's start with an example from 1979 that has now boomeranged until today.  

 

In 1979, A Lebanonese man, snuck into Israel and killed a family...crushed in their skulls.  The youngest victim was 3 years old.  Maybe he had valid grievence against the Israeli gvt and aggressed against a family among the citizens. Maybe he can claim that since the father was part of the military, he felt he needed to kill the entire family.  I don't know what the excuse was.

 

The man was captured and released in an prisoner exchange of which Lebanon exchanged 2 dead Israeli bodies for this murderer.  With me so far?

 

Fast forward, this man was a hero in his country, especially among Hezbollah.  Israel bombed this man and his entire family recently.  Now, Hezbollah is bombing Northern Israel as of 2 days ago.  Now, what's been resolved?  Are his grievences against the Israeli gvt even close to being resolved?  Are Israelis grievences of how Lebanon handles its affairs even close to being resolved.  No and No. Are is the world fewer stone-age ICBMs? no.  

 

It's a game of whack-a-mole that lasts for DECADES....generations.  Has either side been 'scared' into obedience and non-violence?  lol  no...  Keep in mind too that even Israeli history comes from a Communist background and the Islamic states from a theocracy.  So I get that at times people only respond to violence but it doesn't have to be that way.  

 

So, for the R-gene type that want instant gratification, this is wonderful and referred to as 'success'.  But history will show, this will begin and has begun revenge killing.  You mentioned it's becauase they raise them to be stone-age.... so how does bombing help that?  It actually increases more stone-age people because of the trauma and lack of prosperity and opportunity when their town barely has running water.

 

I'd rather people behave because they have been spared of trauma or had proper help and have been introduced to alternative ways to raise children rather than make people so desperate to survive that it's more important they hunt for clean water than continue battling their causes. Because once they can survive...you have only bought time for them to come back with revenge and again, you have not solved the root of the issue.  You have to find out WHY they are raising children to be like this and stop it from the source.  I speak to many middle easterns who are students.  that way I have years to talk with them BEFORE they choose a mate and have children.  I prepare them for challenges they will have when going against their parents' 'ways' of child raising.  I have been in contact with a student in Egypt for almost 3 years now about these topics.  It has changed his life and he is already talking with his parents so it all doesn't come as a shock later on.  

 

So I'm sorry....returning stone-age methods with stone-age methods thinking you are achieving any real change AND even worse...thinking you have the moral and intellectual high ground with this method is silly.  I'm going to condemn killing families because that's bad and doesn't achieve anything, therefore I will stop that bad act by killing families.  The principles is self-imploding, therefore false.  Just like the gvt claims to protect property rights 

 

It's getting people to 'behave' based on a win-lose scenario which has been the theme of the game for as long as governments have been around and how is that working out exactly?  

 

Peaceful parenting.  It won't stop every single psychopath all at once immediately but it is working.  Even in the middle east, you just have to open your eyes and venture out...use the internet to connect with these people.  

 

If you haven't at least used the internet to find middle eastern people (I can refer you to some wonderful sites/pages) and have a civil discussion and be curious then you too can't argue that killing their entire family is the only real answer.  You haven't even tried to ration or reason or introduce peaceful parenting to these people.  

 

This whole mentality reminds me of a local kid here.  his entire family is shunned because the parents are abusive.  We all have tried our best to nurture their children and show them better ways but at the end of the day the boy has to live under his father's roof.  It's sad.  BUt the boy is a wild mess.  EXTREMELY violent.  It's out of control.  So, as hard as it is to shun the children, we have to.  The parents do not respond to anything but aggression which most of us refuse to engage in (pig in mud metaphor).  But, even when the child lashes out at other children and adults (yes...he's 8 and tries to punch adults as well as children), most of us stil use a calm but asstertive tone with him.  We don't shout or act aggressively.  We do try to detain him in a calm but firm way.  His father shouts, doesn't make eye contact, pulls him, pushes him.  So if we also resorted to that, we are lowering ourselves to the father's methods which are part of this problem.  So we are only making the problem worse if we behave like the father towards his child.  

 

Now, when we act calm but assertive, the boy won't immediately calm down (because he hasn't been taught the tools) BUT he is experiencing over and over by many people that there is another way to resolve disputes and disagree.  Again, the goal, we understand, won't change him in a minute....but he will always have this experience. Right now he is dependent on his screwed up mother and father but once he's out on his own he will have to face the fact of how terrible his parents are and how it ruined his childhood BUT that there was an entire community who was compassionate and still tried to help him in a loving way.  

 

When a few people DO shout at him aggressively I tell them, "he hears enough shouting at home, at least try to share your anger calmly" and they do...because they understand how much abuse this boy gets that he HAS to see the world really isn't like that.    

 

So extrapolate that into other problem-solving issues when dealing with human behavior.

 

The beginning is nitpicking, the middle is not an argument and the ending is an anecdote. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is admirable to do what your doing, but extrapolating what you are doing within your community doesn't follow because its not your community and no one in these communities has a powerful incentive to act as you do. 

 

Interestingly though you mention neither side has been scared into violence and I agree but, and I'm going to put this in caps, THE INSTIGATORS OF THIS VIOLENCE ARE NOT BEING TARGETED, so why should they be scared? I think we agree that terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.

 

And if your going to assert that the threat of personal violence does produce compliance I've got to ask, are you paying your taxes?

[mlsv2f]

Cologne just experienced an attack by thousands of Refugees on new years eve. Women raped and assaulted, men beaten, churches attacked.

 

Not much from the news, but appears to be a modern day rape and pillage.

[regevdl]

Sorry, I'm being incredibly inattentive, mistakes abound. Here is the post.

 

 

So, your proposal about Hezbollah or Hamas, are you making that suggestion as if the government of Israel does NOT say such things.

 

>> I've been inattentive in my writing but I would presume they are not saying they are going to target the family and mosques of terrorist, no?

 

My goodness there have been 2 wars in the 4 years I've been here with Hamas in Gaza and I know, surprisingly, not every word Netanyahu speaks is shared world-wide but that's all he says.

 

>> And I'm sure there will be more in the future, why not just finish the job once and for all OR start targeting the people who produce terrorists instead of harming the general population with war and sanctions.

 

no surprise that martyrs families also get gvt benefits once the child is killed...so once again, welfare incentives...sacrafice your child for gub'ment goodies.

 

>> Right, so target the families and I think less parents will be sacrificing their children. Anything you incentive......

 

All lives matter....if they happen to be hamas or civilian or otherwise.  So that's how you keep the circle of death in perpetual motion.  

 

>> I disagree completely, all lives do not matter and all those who do matter are not equal. The life of a man and women who beat a child into the shape of a bomb no value in my eyes. What they have done is irredeemable evil.

 

I mean they have been at war for 60 years, that should be proof enough that this isn't working, no?

+

Many are polygomous and the children are barely cared for, especially the Beduin

population.  Please don't mistake Arabs/muslims/Persians in the United States for those still inthe Middle East.

 

>> So they haven't stemmed the supply of human bombs because they haven't targeted the families, no? 60 years is 3 generations.

 

You do'nt think Arabs abuse their children?  I do a lot here in Israel to bridge the gap between Isralis and Palestinians and put responsibility where it is due but OMG.... the treatment of children among the Arabs is terrible.

 

​>> Completely agree it is inhuman, so provide them with a rather large incentive to parent more peacefully by targeting the families of terrorists, no?

 

 I think unfortunatley, those who have made it to the US/Europe have created a brain-drain in their motherlands.

 

>> I think so as well, I think anyone capable of provoking change from within their community (high iq I would guess) will leave for a better life. I think a policy of allowing the MEs best and brightest to leave is guaranteeing it never changes. No incentive to change if leaving is an option.

 

Again, you have to have enough empathy and not be afraid to put responsiblity where it's due as much on Israelis as Arabs as well.

 

>> I see responsibility with the parents and families and religious and moral instructors, it is with individuals, not concepts, thus I think Trump is right to target individuals.

 

Arabs/Muslims are not as easy to reform in terms of parenting.  They have a VERY tight nit culture, even if not religious.  It's VERY honor based as well... so you have to have some understanding of the hurdles to climb rather than just blame one side because then you are carelessly solving only half of the problem. 

 

>> Right so they need a very large incentive to be peaceful parents, so give them one, no?

 

tl;dr

Hit children because.....? Ok cool. Universalize it and hit the parents and the instructors of said children. And when their children hit other peoples children with bullets and bombs simply hit their parents with bullets and bombs. Not hitting children? Great! Nothing to worry about then, but I would not stand too close to those who do, no?

 

edited a typo but some more food for though, if any government program has continued for 60 years, failed to achieve its stated goal and yet continues, then it is achieving its unstated goal, and a war is just another government program.

 

 

The Israeli strategy is well known and well discussed on both sides.  That is why Hamas puts children as human shields because they KNOW Israel will bomb where Hamas is hiding weapons and key members.  so yes, Israel says...we will take out Hamas and their weapons, etc.  So Hamas, because they are Hamas, use human sacrafice to demonize Israel (Just to be clear this is not my endorsement of Israeli policy overall, this is just one aspect of a very complicated mess, where not each side is innocent)

 

Israel does sometimes drop flyers over Gaza prior to bombing to inform the residents where they will be bombing to give them lead time to escape and yes...they are fully aware that that means even the bad guys are given advanced noticed.  I guess they wager that what are the bad guys without their weapons (in the imediate) knowing that the bad guys will get weapons in the future.  Sometimes they do 'precision bombing' to take out individuals, assassiation bombings etc.  

 

 

Hamas is a socialist program.  They buy their power.  That's how most of these regimes work.  They give free care, education to poorer families in exchange for alliegience and of course it's coated with a gooey, sweet outer shell of 'resisting the oppressor' i.e. Israel.  So it's not like they defeat Israel and then release their grips on their own people...they will only tighten it.  That's the whole point.  Right now they feed off of the terrible infrastructure that part of it has NOTHING to do with Israel yet they direct eveyrone's focus on Israel = evil so people will forget or ignore who is really oppressing them on their day to day lives.  so these people literally have a gun to their head.  It's not like Hamas says, "May we please have your son as a human shield, you will be greatly rewarded and pride and money and heroism and..."  and the mother says, "oh, no thank you, not today, maybe some other time" or "why yes!  I have been waiting for this great opportunity!".  No, they come, with guns and muscle and demand and pay the family and the family has a choice....do or die.  

 

I was not saying that I believe Hamas lives matter, I made that statement as in the context/viewpoint of Hamas.  

 

The problem hasn't been solved for 60 years BECAUSE of revenge killing.  THey can kill off scores of terrorists and families and have done so and because of power-hunger and power vacuums and propagnda and such, people who maybe weren't terrorists before fill the void and take control.  This has been well established even with American internvetion in the Middle East as to why terrorism is getting worse and more wide spread, not better.  Because it's not just dead families, it's destroyed CITIES that hold a lot of innocent people who are now even more hungry, thirsty and desparate and the only people giving them money, were the terrorists, are now dead and they take their place.  That is just ONE aspect.    When these people barely have enough opportunity for education or learning in school or school books or jobs, do you think they will be receptive to peaceful parenting?  They are bogged down with Anti-Israel propaganda, militarized propaganda, fear propaganda.  Even the few who I have contacted that are stilli n Gaza are in total fear of their life just SPEAKING to me over the internet.  Their lines are tapped, internet controlled.  

 

You have to again, really connect with Arabs to understand their dynamics before assuming 'incentives' are the magic bullet.  Those who made it out of the middle east are more easily convinced.  But here the social and familial stigma if you go against the grain is catastrophic.  Do you know how many sucides there are just because a son 'disgraced' his father..and that's at the objectional opinion of the father!  If the father feels disgraced, the son must die...be killed or commit suicide.  That could be something we see as very minor offense (drinking or cohorting with a non muslim).  but to go against parenting styles that directly oppose their parents' style?  OMG.  very little chance.  Remember, most ARabs live in one household....very large with at least 2 or 3 generations of that family in the home.  Grandparents, many wives, many many sons/daughters, aunts, uncles, etc.  There can be 20 people in one large home and if you try to be different..... in the home and then in your social community?  It's almost a death sentence. sometimes literally.

If you can come up with a strong enough social or individual incentive to convince these people it's worth it for them in the long run, please share with me now and I will share it with them.  But it's so far from the world you and I know.  Many of them feel it inutitively and if they are brave enough, they simply leave.  They ironically flee to Israel where they have the freedom but still migh suffer from shunning by other Arabs or they have to flee outside of the Middle East but that is so rare and they don't then mingle with whites, they flock to other Arab communities in Western Nations.  

 

Physical attacks will not solve it.  It won't.  You thinking it will is not making a case for it.  Ok, find an Arab or anyone who aligns with peacefulparenting.  I don't care if they are Christian or Muslim or Jew or atheist.  Ask them if their local church or local family was bombed for being bad if they will see that as a positive?  Because a bomb in their community, even if by taking out an evil family or pastor or priest, will lower the value of their community, cost a ton to rebuild, lower opportunity, create trauma by non evil people, destabalize the area even more putting pepole in panic.  Like you have to really think it out.  THink if a bomb landed 4 houses down from you and you find out later it was a terrorist, but your neighborhood is a disaster OR if they snuck in and shot the whole family and the gvt tells you they saved you from the terrorist.... I mean you wouldn't feel uncomfortable about that?  OR...a FOREIGN nation killed them and then tells you they were terrorists, you would believe that foreign nation completely, right?  I mean of COURSE they know the person 4 houses down from you more than you do.  

 

you have to look at this in real-life experiences.  Not just on paper.  

[regevdl]

Sorry, I'm being incredibly inattentive, mistakes abound. Here is the post.

 

 

So, your proposal about Hezbollah or Hamas, are you making that suggestion as if the government of Israel does NOT say such things.

 

>> I've been inattentive in my writing but I would presume they are not saying they are going to target the family and mosques of terrorist, no?

 

My goodness there have been 2 wars in the 4 years I've been here with Hamas in Gaza and I know, surprisingly, not every word Netanyahu speaks is shared world-wide but that's all he says.

 

>> And I'm sure there will be more in the future, why not just finish the job once and for all OR start targeting the people who produce terrorists instead of harming the general population with war and sanctions.

 

no surprise that martyrs families also get gvt benefits once the child is killed...so once again, welfare incentives...sacrafice your child for gub'ment goodies.

 

>> Right, so target the families and I think less parents will be sacrificing their children. Anything you incentive......

 

All lives matter....if they happen to be hamas or civilian or otherwise.  So that's how you keep the circle of death in perpetual motion.  

 

>> I disagree completely, all lives do not matter and all those who do matter are not equal. The life of a man and women who beat a child into the shape of a bomb no value in my eyes. What they have done is irredeemable evil.

 

I mean they have been at war for 60 years, that should be proof enough that this isn't working, no?

+

Many are polygomous and the children are barely cared for, especially the Beduin

population.  Please don't mistake Arabs/muslims/Persians in the United States for those still inthe Middle East.

 

>> So they haven't stemmed the supply of human bombs because they haven't targeted the families, no? 60 years is 3 generations.

 

You do'nt think Arabs abuse their children?  I do a lot here in Israel to bridge the gap between Isralis and Palestinians and put responsibility where it is due but OMG.... the treatment of children among the Arabs is terrible.

 

​>> Completely agree it is inhuman, so provide them with a rather large incentive to parent more peacefully by targeting the families of terrorists, no?

 

 I think unfortunatley, those who have made it to the US/Europe have created a brain-drain in their motherlands.

 

>> I think so as well, I think anyone capable of provoking change from within their community (high iq I would guess) will leave for a better life. I think a policy of allowing the MEs best and brightest to leave is guaranteeing it never changes. No incentive to change if leaving is an option.

 

Again, you have to have enough empathy and not be afraid to put responsiblity where it's due as much on Israelis as Arabs as well.

 

>> I see responsibility with the parents and families and religious and moral instructors, it is with individuals, not concepts, thus I think Trump is right to target individuals.

 

Arabs/Muslims are not as easy to reform in terms of parenting.  They have a VERY tight nit culture, even if not religious.  It's VERY honor based as well... so you have to have some understanding of the hurdles to climb rather than just blame one side because then you are carelessly solving only half of the problem. 

 

>> Right so they need a very large incentive to be peaceful parents, so give them one, no?

 

tl;dr

Hit children because.....? Ok cool. Universalize it and hit the parents and the instructors of said children. And when their children hit other peoples children with bullets and bombs simply hit their parents with bullets and bombs. Not hitting children? Great! Nothing to worry about then, but I would not stand too close to those who do, no?

 

edited a typo but some more food for though, if any government program has continued for 60 years, failed to achieve its stated goal and yet continues, then it is achieving its unstated goal, and a war is just another government program.

 

 

and you have to remember that often times, these people are not seen as terrorists by their own people.  THey are seen as freedom fighters and if the people are paid or benefit from these groups, they will hold allegience to them, even if they are being propagandized.  THey see them no more as terrorists as most poeople see Obama.  Most people may SAY OBama is a terrorist or some will defend that he is not, those who defend he is not, are the ones who benefit from him and ignore or don't see the bad parts.  And those that say are equally guilty if they can prove it and still do nothing yet want to bomb terrorists overseas.  It's such a cowardly thing when people can't even deal with their own tyrants.  So that's another reason why this whole proposition fails.  

 

And if these people DO recognize it's a terrorist, an individual, often times they DO try to take care of it on their own. But, if the person is part of a larger more powerful violent organization, then they are intimidated and the 'incintive' benefit leans towards complying.  That IS the incentive, unfortunately.  Complying becomes the incentive.  So if you know how to unravel that please, for the love of all, tell me. 

[AncapFTW]

Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

So, basically, you minimize civilian casualties by deliberately targeting civilians?

 

Well, at least it fits with the standard government double-think.

[sweathog1]

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting here on this medium,don't have the education, Why do you want to make things more complicated than they are?  Some history, Africa Corps under Rommel fought very cleanly, the English reciprocated in kind. Germans in Russia came across an entire company of dead Germans (150 men), tied with bob wire, tortured to death early in that campaign, after that it was fought very dirty. Simply tit for tat.

 

Canadians prosecuted Kurt Meyers for executing Canadian prisoners, however found guilty , sentence was not carried out. Why.... is not hard to think it through.

[shirgall]

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting here on this medium,don't have the education, Why do you want to make things more complicated than they are?  Some history, Africa Corps under Rommel fought very cleanly, the English reciprocated in kind. Germans in Russia came across an entire company of dead Germans (150 men), tied with bob wire, tortured to death early in that campaign, after that it was fought very dirty. Simply tit for tat.

 

Canadians prosecuted Kurt Meyers for executing Canadian prisoners, however found guilty , sentence was not carried out. Why.... is not hard to think it through.

 

Every action has costs and benefits. The cost of fighting "clean" is a more difficult victory. The cost of fighting "dirty" is the potential outrage of your allies or countries that have not joined a fight. This worked well when the combatants were all Europeans... but does that same equation carry over with the same result when you spread it to the rest of the world?

 

That radicalized Muslims don't care about killing families is already established. Will we enrage our allies if we respond in kind? Will we radicalize more combatants? That's just the first order calculus of Trump's phrasing. The second order is "Do enough people believe him to be intimidated so he doesn't have to act?" and "Do enough people empathize with what he said to vote for him?" and "Are enough allies and others willing to ignore this statement as 'bluster' as to not upset the status quo?"

[sweathog1]

Every action has costs and benefits. The cost of fighting "clean" is a more difficult victory. The cost of fighting "dirty" is the potential outrage of your allies or countries that have not joined a fight. This worked well when the combatants were all Europeans... but does that same equation carry over with the same result when you spread it to the rest of the world?

 

That radicalized Muslims don't care about killing families is already established. Will we enrage our allies if we respond in kind? Will we radicalize more combatants? That's just the first order calculus of Trump's phrasing. The second order is "Do enough people believe him to be intimidated so he doesn't have to act?" and "Do enough people empathize with what he said to vote for him?" and "Are enough allies and others willing to ignore this statement as 'bluster' as to not upset the status quo?"

Been trying to find a link, read yesterday or the day before, about some ISIS guy executing his own mother for speaking peace. I believe they don't care about their own families and will be doing more of it, to their own.. Also read somewhere that in one of the 3 Brit/Afghan wars, some young fellow standing guard was captured, the next day he was found skinned alive.The Brits.  promptly tied up the next Afghan combatant they caught in the middle of their camp. Everyone had orders to kick the prisoner in the testicles whenever someone passed by this person on daily tasks in that camp. The atrocities stopped after that.  

 

This is a different fanatical animal nowadays. Tit for tat the troopers and allies understand. We do it to their innocent families  we've lost our high ground.

[ResidingOnEarth]

We do it to their innocent families  we've lost our high ground.

 

When I see people talking about "we" in reference to a nation and a state it looks just as insane to me as people talking about "my" in reference to their god.

 

There is no collective mind.  Their is no social-collective agreement.  There is no nation just as there is no god.

 

These people that run these violent, hierarchical organisations referred to as states are doing exactly what they want to serve the interests of themselves and their cronies.  After they've decided what they want they will then ex post facto justify their decision to their slave population and convince them that "we" all decided on this together.  Here are a couple examples of this from very recent history:

• See the "Downing Street Memo".  This contains evidence Tony Blair had already decided to organise a death and destruction rampage in Iraq with Bush.  After deciding this he went through a pretend process of considering his options and having a "public discourse".
• See a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses".  This was written pre-911 and signed by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.  In this document they declare the following countries a threat: Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria and they state their goal of "maintain[ing] American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership."

[Quadrewple]

The conflicts in the Middle East only matter to me in any personal sense because the collateral damage is spilling out into Europe and the West.  So I don't see why I would support the government spending any of my money or future generations' money on trying to bomb all the bad guys and magically leave the good guys unharmed.  Any military action over there is going to result in the degradation of the life of the good people, so anything other than non-intervention is something I can't support.  I would sooner support some type of eugenics program than outright bombing them.

 

When I look at the possible solutions in my head to the Middle Eastern problem it seems unsolvable by anyone other than the people who live there.  I suppose one thing we could do is donate boxes of condoms but good luck getting dogmatic and R-selected people to reduce their sexual pleasure for long-term gain using a device which probably goes against their religious beliefs anyways.

[sweathog1]

Residing on Earth,

 

I suggest you look up the definitions of we in the dictionary. I was responding to shirgall's usage, shall we, you and I agree first to a definition of mind and collective?   Shall we agree first to a definition of shared beliefs,ideas, moral attitudes? That is the definition of collective Yes? Is science not a collective? What is the Bill of Rights if not a social collective agreement, I refuse to touch on the god portion.

 

So many questions

[ResidingOnEarth]

Residing on Earth,

 

I suggest you look up the definitions of we in the dictionary. I was responding to shirgall's usage, shall we, you and I agree first to a definition of mind and collective?   Shall we agree first to a definition of shared beliefs,ideas, moral attitudes? That is the definition of collective Yes? Is science not a collective? What is the Bill of Rights if not a social collective agreement, I refuse to touch on the god portion.

 

So many questions

 

In context, it is clear to me what your intended usage of it was.  Shirgall's use of "we" was in reference Trump's reasoning process.  Trump is clearly referring to "we", as a nation.

[Des]

Been trying to find a link, read yesterday or the day before, about some ISIS guy executing his own mother for speaking peace. I believe they don't care about their own families and will be doing more of it, to their own.. Also read somewhere that in one of the 3 Brit/Afghan wars, some young fellow standing guard was captured, the next day he was found skinned alive.The Brits.  promptly tied up the next Afghan combatant they caught in the middle of their camp. Everyone had orders to kick the prisoner in the testicles whenever someone passed by this person on daily tasks in that camp. The atrocities stopped after that.  

 

This is a different fanatical animal nowadays. Tit for tat the troopers and allies understand. We do it to their innocent families  we've lost our high ground.

Tit for tat is a good summary of the practical motivation for everyone to subscribe to a rational minimum ethic.

Sure, I can't be sure of convincing anyone that there is no supreme deity - however - the olive branch looks like this: sign here to exchange your rational non-aggressive behaviour (towards me) for my rational non-aggressive behaviour (towards you).

Alternatively, don't sign up for that, and maybe you won't like the tit-for-tat.

Functionally, most people are atheist enough to sign up, given the opportunity to sign up for rational exchange of non-aggression.

We have an internet. Why have we not emailed everyone, asking them to sign up for non-aggression?

 

The replies would be valuable.

What if a lot of replies came back saying the deity does not approve of this trade with unbelievers - then the originating group would reply to say: Okay, we'll be watching you. If you build or buy a weapon, we're going to come destroy it. Don't make weapons, don't come near us, then we'll leave you be.

Of course one answer to my question in bold, is that it's silly to try trade non-aggression when you have a government that does aggression for continued existence.

[sweathog1]

In context, it is clear to me what your intended usage of it was.  Shirgall's use of "we" was in reference Trump's reasoning process.  Trump is clearly referring to "we", as a nation.

Well, sounds like we is on first, who's we is on second and someting wong is on third.   I agree Trump is referring to we as a nation, after all he's trying to become leader of that nation and as the leader of that nation also becomes the leader of the west. The west includes you,I ,Shirgall, and the blueblood upperclass on both sides of the pond. No?

Tit for tat is a good summary of the practical motivation for everyone to subscribe to a rational minimum ethic.

Sure, I can't be sure of convincing anyone that there is no supreme deity - however - the olive branch looks like this: sign here to exchange your rational non-aggressive behaviour (towards me) for my rational non-aggressive behaviour (towards you).

Alternatively, don't sign up for that, and maybe you won't like the tit-for-tat.

Functionally, most people are atheist enough to sign up, given the opportunity to sign up for rational exchange of non-aggression.

We have an internet. Why have we not emailed everyone, asking them to sign up for non-aggression?

 

The replies would be valuable.

What if a lot of replies came back saying the deity does not approve of this trade with unbelievers - then the originating group would reply to say: Okay, we'll be watching you. If you build or buy a weapon, we're going to come destroy it. Don't make weapons, don't come near us, then we'll leave you be.

Of course one answer to my question in bold, is that it's silly to try trade non-aggression when you have a government that does aggression for continued existence.

I am uncertain that non-aggression is possible for any government, you as a citizen are taxed at a point of a gun as all conflicts at their root are land claims? You don't pay your taxes they will reclaim their land through their power.

[Guest Gee]

And if these people DO recognize it's a terrorist, an individual, often times they DO try to take care of it on their own. But, if the person is part of a larger more powerful violent organization, then they are intimidated and the 'incintive' benefit leans towards complying.  That IS the incentive, unfortunately.  Complying becomes the incentive.  So if you know how to unravel that please, for the love of all, tell me. 

 

Easy, if they exist in a state such that they are complying with coercion so as to avoid the strong possibility of violence then you simply introduce the certainty of violence. If a binary choice is forced upon you of a 99% chance of death or a 100% chance of death I would presume everyone would chose the 99% chance of death.

 

But as I think I alluded to before, it would never occur because a society which mutilates babies can't really turn around and proclaim child abuse to be evil, eh?

 

The reason I was interested is because this is perhaps the first time I've seen a presidential candidate say to the effect of hold the parents responsible for the criminality of their children. After all, it is a function of childhood abuse. How interesting! To then learn recently that Trump was a peaceful parent blew my mind.

 

I wanted to know if there was a moral case and I am satisfied that there is. If  by the actions of these parents the expectation of my preferred state decreases then force can be said to have been initiated.

 

For example if a man is downing and another man fakes swimming out to save him such that a third man does not attempt to swim out to save the downing man then we can say the man faking has acted so as to decrease the expectation of the drowning man surviving and therefore has initiated force upon the drowning man.

[ResidingOnEarth]

sweathog1: I didn't answer your many questions because I felt like you were asking them as a means to dodge my statements and evidence backed claims as opposed to asking questions as part of a philosophical enquiry.  The quoted portions of our interaction below are revealing to me:

 

When I see people talking about "we" in reference to a nation and a state it looks just as insane to me as people talking about "my" in reference to their god.

 

I suggest you look up the definitions of we in the dictionary. I was responding to shirgall's usage

 

In context, it is clear to me what your intended usage of it was.  Shirgall's use of "we" was in reference Trump's reasoning process.  Trump is clearly referring to "we", as a nation.

 

I agree Trump is referring to we as a nation, after all he's trying to become leader of that nation and as the leader of that nation also becomes the leader of the west.

 

So at this point above you have admitted that you were originally using the term "we" in the context of a nation state.  So why did you say you were not using it in this context and why did you not then explicitly correct yourself?  Instead you immediately went on to say this in your next sentence:

 

The west includes you,I ,Shirgall, and the blueblood upperclass on both sides of the pond. No?

 

I am not sure why you are asking this.  Are you attempting to build a case that because I am from a country which is colloquially referred to as being part of the west, that I am part of some kind of "western" hive mind and I am now responsible for the actions of some murderers working for government armies that also come from the west?

 

Perhaps in my original post to you I came on too strongly by referring to your use of the term "we" as "insane".  I wasn't in a great mood and looking back I recognise that I felt some anger.  The destructiveness of statism and those that support it wears on me and I think that I -- perhaps unfairly -- hold people here at FDR to a higher standard than people I meet AFK.

 

To restate one of my original points more politely...

 

Nations cannot make decisions or perform actions.  "Nation" is a concept.  Concepts can't decide on things or act.  As such it is not possible for a nation to "do it [do physical harm] to their [iSIS] innocent families" as you put it.  I certainly do not share any moral culpability for the actions of some of the other people that inhabit this same land mass as me.  I do not and did not endorse their actions abroad and I did not willingly assist them.

[sweathog1]

I'm an old fart,  definitely crazy to participate here, so no harm done.   Good luck to you all.