Kinja reply list

Read More
김치전!Hamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:53pm

Let that response be just, and wise, and proportional.

I have no ability to fathom what "justice" means in this context. What is a proportional response to the murder of civilians? It certainly can't mean the murder of other civilians, but the perpetrators of many forms of terrorism voluntarily forfeit their lives; is it "just" to demand what's already offered?
Reply
- Read More
  toothpetard김치전!
  1/08/15 2:57pm
  "justice" and "morals" seem to be trigger words for a lot of questionable activity.
  Reply
- Read More
  MuchachosGonnaMuchachtoothpetard
  1/08/15 3:02pm
  Centers for the Reeducation of Basic Shared Values is a just and educational opportunity for us to finally
  
  Reply
Read More
BaneKittyHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:42pm
Please quit using the collective term 'we'.

From what I've seen on my facebook feed and spoken to friends about there is no large outcry about how 'all' Muslims are pieces of garbage.

Do you want to know what helps fuel terrorism? Shit articles like this that project and us vs. them mentality onto EVERYONE when so many people are fighting against that.
Reply
- Read More
  alphashadowBaneKitty
  1/08/15 2:49pm
  What?
  
  1. You and your friends sound like cool people, but have you ever been on the internet? Millions of people are doing just that, condemning all Muslims for the attacks of a few. It was ever thus.
  
  2. "We" is perfectly valid to use here. You may not have voted for the officials who orchestrated "our" "collective" response, and you may not have gone over there and shot anyone yourself, but your countrymen did. That's a "we", the people. It's ugly, but yes, "we" did it. And then voted for those people again. And continue to do so. You can criticize it, but you don't really get to escape the "we". And anyway, this piece is more about the entire world's response to terrorism. Or are you not in that "we", either? It IS us vs. them: terrorists and literally everyone else.
  Reply
- Read More
  BaneKittyalphashadow
  1/08/15 2:58pm
  I wasn't trying to claim I was better than anyone, I mean that with as much sincerity as I can muster.
  
  Policy is not the same as human feelings. 9/11 dramatically changed the landscape of things and I think it's something most US Americans tend to forget. I was watching The Breakfast Club the other day when the supposedly weird girl starts talking about how she wants to visit Afghanistan and no one jumps up and screams 'but the terrorists!!!'. Such a massive change in 15 years.
  
  I just don't particularly agree that a world-wide popular blog needs to start writing essays about how 'terrorists' win and hey, that's just human nature and anyone previously opposed to terrorist activity in the past is marred with the decisions and behavior of some shitty governments. That deep down we all long to hate and to fear and to cannibalize ourselves and that no one is capable of rational thought and that we-yes, we collectively-should be tossed about as just more victims of the effects of terrorism.
  
  I believe human beings are smarter than that. Maybe not widely so, but enough to invoke change.
  Reply
Read More
dothedewHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:45pm
Terrorism. It is. What it is.
Reply
- Read More
  ThePriceisWrongdothedew
  1/08/15 2:46pm
  Gretchen, is that you?
  Reply
- Read More
  chattygalThePriceisWrong
  1/08/15 2:50pm
  Perry White: Yeah, but that's just petty stuff. These guys claim that if the French government doesn't meet their demands, they've got a hydrogen bomb ready to level Paris
  
  Clark Kent: Well, geez Mr. White. That's t... terrible!
  
  Perry White: That's why they call them "terrorists," Kent.
  Reply
Read More
MuckyDuckHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:40pm
This is what I keep telling my conservative acquaintances every time they trot out stupid platitudes about how terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" and then try to characterize liberals as sympathetic with Muslim radicals. Why, exactly, do they hate our freedom? Because they see the West as morally corrupt, sexually depraved, vapidly materialistic; they see equality for women as destructive to the traditional family, and liberal education as an open door to a decay in traditional values. And guess what? Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee believe the exact same shit. You want freedom, you can't condemn people who want to be free. The best way to fight Islamic radicalism is to support gay rights, feminism, democracy, multiculturalism, reproductive rights, etc.
Reply
Read More
Jerry-NetherlandHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 3:02pm

"Terrorism works. But it does not have to.________ Terrorism reduces us to the sort of society that we claim to despise. But it does not have to. The ideals we espouse when times are calm—justice, understanding, rationality, proportionality, a love of peace—are the ones that we must cling to most tightly when things get scary. If we discard them, we have lost the game from the start."

Missed link (the blank underline I inserted) in this paragraph is that terrorism allows opportunistic politicians to impose draconian "security" measures which themselves terrorize the populace, suck billions of dollars from the treasury (to quickly set up enormous operations, often employing bogus anti-terror private contractors), and, as we now know, destroy the "open society" that existed pre-NSA dragnets. So it is not "we", so much as the secondary terrorists (opportunistic politicians) who then perpetually propagandize the immediate, urgent, and perpetual imposition of a police state.

The rest of your paragraph continues seamlessly with the right conclusions.
Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverJerry-Netherland
  1/08/15 3:37pm
  So true. This is why the NRA gains rather than loses power after every Newtown, Sandy Hook, etc etc.
  Reply
- Read More
  Beard_of_Biff_PocorobaJerry-Netherland
  11/16/15 10:45am
  I agree with you and it’s a good point, but I do think you have to extend it out to “we” at some point; because at some point “we” are, even if it’s at sort of a molecular level, complicit in the actions of our elected officials. I’m not saying it’s an easy thing to unpack or correct; it’s not.
  
  But “we” are the ones that comprise our society; all of us as individuals into a collective whole. And collectively we elect these people and have some influence over the process; and these people do this damage you speak of.
  
  So it does at some point connect back to a “We” consisting of you and me and all of us individually.
  Reply
Read More
Eugene GaltonHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:54pm
The diagnosis you've put forward about the psychological effects of Terrorism is spot on. This begs the question, if some guy that got a job writing blog posts can dissect and communicate the problem so precisely why are the highly educated elite officials that are supposed to run our nation only advancing the discussion as if it were a school yard brawl? Who benefits by not addressing the issue with the sophistication you've displayed?
Reply
- Read More
  Arctic16Eugene Galton
  1/08/15 3:02pm
  The military industrial complex, politicians who are elected by pandering to fear, conservatives who are against multiculturalism, etc. I could go one. Fear works, and it is a powerful tool if wielded correctly, both by terrorists and politicians alike.
  Reply
- Read More
  sunburrrrrnedEugene Galton
  1/08/15 3:11pm
  Elections are frequently decided by people who favor action - any action. There are people who have very specific ideas of their own perception, and react ridiculously to any idea that they're seen as "weak" or anything close to it.
  
  As a result, they prefer not to think and just to strike, even if they know they're not aiming at exactly the right target. And when someone else is acting as their representative, that desire stands - they want their representatives to react to any loss of face with a strong right hook.
  
  This is a huge segment of the American electorate and, unfortunately, those are the people demanding instant response from politicians.
  Reply
Read More
MuchachosGonnaMuchachHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:48pm
Well said.

We need to reeducate those not well-versed in the values of Western Civilization. They must accept our values or be turned away from our territories. Make no mistake that there is now a significant portion of Europe that does not embrace European culture or care to assimilate.

People say it's racist to call them out as the problem. It's not. Shared basic values create more peaceful societies. If you do not believe in the freedom of speech or expression, the door is over there.

Without shared values, ideas like "Well, they told you they would do this if you insulted their God again" become a justification for the assassination of cartoonists.

We need a simple set of basic values that we all share. And, we need reeducation complexes to ensure these values are properly instilled.
Reply
- Read More
  MattyWollyMuchachosGonnaMuchach
  1/08/15 3:20pm
  
  And, we need reeducation complexes to ensure these values are properly instilled.
  
  Too bad Pol Pot died. He knew a lot about making these!
  Reply
- Read More
  hotoynoodleMattyWolly
  1/08/15 9:18pm
  let's use empty shopping malls...
  Reply
Read More
elsmerHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:46pm

Reply
- Read More
  3rdPartyVoterelsmer
  1/08/15 2:48pm
  Judging from the reactions and how Muslims are treated in France, I would argue that they are, in fact, very afraid
  Reply
- Read More
  secularmartyr3rdPartyVoter
  1/08/15 2:53pm
  Yup, poor oppressed Muslims in France. Muslim women aren't even allowed to publicly walk around with burkas!
  Reply
Read More
A_Copy_EditorHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:42pm
Excellent piece.
Reply
- Read More
  lalita29A_Copy_Editor
  1/08/15 5:25pm
  You think so? Apart from pointing out the obvious (terrorism developed as a way for small, usually disenfranchised groups to violently respond to the greater power of nation states), I'm not sure there's much useful stuff here.
  
  What could have been added to this is:
  
  1) A discussion about how the US government is directly (e.g. Nicaragua) or indirectly (e.g. AlQuaeda) responsible for terrorism throughout the world. Or in other cases helped terrorists through inaction (e.g. dragging their asses on dismantling the LTTE financial network in the US when requested by Sri Lanka).
  
  2) As a result of (1) US citizens need to understand how they are views by the majority of the rest of the world, particularly most places in Asia and South America. They need to understand why probably a majority of people in a country like, say India (a country that has quite a good relationship with the US) think about the 9/11 attacks with some kind of "just desserts" idea.
  
  3) Does drone warfare terrorize populations?
  
  4) Why the "they hate us for our freedoms" idea is nonsense. If they hated us because our liberal values then most terrorist attacks would happen in Scandinavian countries as opposed to the far more conservative US.
  Reply
- Read More
  A_Copy_Editorlalita29
  1/08/15 5:29pm
  I do think it's an excellent piece. And I think your points could also make for compelling pieces, too. I just think Hamilton wrote an excellent piece about this idea. Your points may be outside of the scoop of this particular post.
  Reply
Read More
ThrumbolioHamilton Nolan
1/08/15 2:48pm
Yep, agreed with all of this.

"And yet we happily play into their hands."

Yep, sure do. All the time, and with remarkable ease.

My question, though, is what is the "correct" response? Is it absurd to think that any ground can be gained against this threat? Is it a pipe dream to hope that it can be eradicated, or significantly crippled?
Reply
- Read More
  alphashadowThrumbolio
  1/08/15 3:08pm
  Sort of, actually. Part of why it works is that it's so asymmetrical. It starts with an idea, which we know is impossible to kill. And then, it's all very light, low-footprint operations which require a much larger investment on our part to curtail than on theirs. If you accept that you cannot deal significant damage to the idea (because of the nature of ideas and because they were not very rational to begin with), you are left trying to wield a large, unwieldy apparatus against small, agile enemies. There are great costs and a great deal of collateral damage involved. The question is, is that worth it to us? Has it been worth it? I don't think so.
  
  Of course, I think if their lives didn't suck so much they wouldn't hate others for theirs, but the weapons to counter that are economic and slow, not military and strike-paced. Also they are crazy and hate the things that the rest of the world loves.
  Reply
- Read More
  HijoDePutaThrumbolio
  1/08/15 4:02pm
  We played into Bin Laden's plans better than even he dared to imagine. We invested billions of dollars in trying to secure ourselves against another attack. We stood by and let the Patriot Act get passed without considering the implications that came with that, which include the NSA spying on Americans, and a generation of young people who are now used to the fact that they have no privacy anywhere online, on the phone, or even walking down the street. Yet they don't seem the least bit concerned, because they have known little else. Now that same technology has made its way down to local law enforcement, where it can be targeted against individuals without even the broad excuse of preventing terrorism. The fear of the attacks affecting the economy was so strong that Bush told Americans to "Get out and spend money" just weeks after the attacks. This led to him pushing the idea of home ownership for all Americans and the economic policies he implemented eventually led to the subprime lending crisis and the economic crash of 2008. This was a direct result of their fear that the economy would slow down because of the attacks and the resulting wars. All of this is a blowback from the 9/11 attacks. Some of it took years to manifest, but it can all be directly traced back to 9/11. In many ways, particularly with the NYPD, our current problems with law enforcement can be traced back to 9/11 as well. The police received billions of dollars in Homeland Security funds to turn themselves into pseudo-military organizations. They were taught that they were the last line of defense against terrorism. We gave them very broad powers and taught them that public security trumped individual rights. This has been perverted into what we see in their behavior now. They feel that they are above civilian oversight. They feel that that a few dead kids is not a big deal because they are the last line of defense, and we should be grateful that they are there, and not question them. They respond to protests in riot gear and armored vehicles that they bought with Homeland Security money and as war surplus, and use them on the very people they are supposed to protect. We are quickly losing our right to protest in the streets because we pose a "security risk." Our current surveillance state is a direct result of 9/11. We have given up our freedoms left and right, wrecked our economy and the economies of much of the western world, and raised a generation of children who are not at all disturbed by the complete loss of privacy that we have all suffered. We are living in a near police state. It is certainly not the way it was prior to 9/11. It certainly is not better. It does not feel safer. We have wrecked our economy paying for the very tools that are now being used on us. We are worse off economically. Millions have lost jobs either as a direct result of the attacks or the economic problems caused by our response. Bin Laden himself probably never dared to dream that he could have caused this much of a disturbance to our way of life.
  Reply