News/Current Events, discussion (Bullets, Ballots & Bombs)

[Minkhoi]

came home from a night out , seeing my father watching the news and telling me that bombs exploded in paris and that people are dying in the concert hall.
I was shocked and i instantly glued my face on my phone for updates on the Reddit Live thread.

really sad. prayers goes out to the victims

[rublev]

quite an extraordinary day in parliament today. speech from hilary benn was really one of the best political speeches i've seen in a while.

how does care tags vote?

[meatjacket]

Prayers to those in California

[tomsfood]

How can anyone at all take anything Donald Trump says seriously? The man is deluded, holy shit. Is blatantly islamophobic/xenophobic and racist, but it's supposedly okay because he's doing it to "make america great again" and because he's rich. And how can anyone in their right mind think erecting a literal wall on the US-Mexico border is a good idea in any way? Man, knowing that a good chunk of america likes this guy is seriously depressing. Makes me so upset aragaghaggghhhh

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders seems to be amazing.

[Ques]

the sooner people stop writing off him off as a joke candidate the better. just as europe is full of illiberal demagogues spouting nativist populist drivel, the US has it's own offshoot in the form of trump, and it's obviously resonating with a certain subset of the population. we can't continue lying to ourselves and saying that type of person doesn't exist in the US.

[mc-lunar]

[mc-lunar]

:(

[INNIT]

[Suquida]

[Cowboy]

Yeah people who vote for trump are angry white people who complain that political correctness is going to far and that authority should be respected. And they say alllivesmatter and shit like that

Here's a high quality roast concerning minorities supporting trump that's worth a watch

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/12/01/ ... t-nothing/

[jrisk]

[rublev]

, , why against the airstrikes? are you also against the airstrikes in iraq?

(no subtext to that question btw, genuinely interested etc!)

[germinal]

I don't profess to understand all the ramifications of the airstrikes, nor did I watch any of the debate, but from what little I've read I don't believe that strikes will benefit people in Syria or prevent attacks in the UK and elsewhere. I think the biggest motivator for Cameron is to save face in front of our allies and to construct a legacy for himself as a man of action. I don't believe opposing military action is tantamount to inaction, which seemed to be the rhetoric. I'd rather see the money spent offering asylum, aiding refugees etc.

[bels]

What gram said. Additionally bombing in the middle east plays into the domestic terrorist rhetoric.

I don't have enough information but my gut feeling is that if you really want to keep people safe you could spend the money on the intelligence services who actually are in a position to stop a domestic terror threat.

[Suquida]

So then what sort of military action regarding isis do you support? Arming people fighting them? Putting people on the ground? Doing fuck all and letting them expand unhindered? They don't care about having an excuse to coordinate and encourage attacks, which is what people seem to think is the only purpose airstrikes are serving

And to clarify if it weren't already known, I'm almost always anti war or any sort of conflict but I can't see any world where avoiding any military conflict with isis is a reality, military conflict is certainly the lesser of two evils when the other option is to let them become more and more capable of attacks completely unchecked

[bels]

I don't know that I support any military action against ISIS. Possibly arming people fighting against them (though then who do we arm? I have no idea.)

[Suquida]

I agree that one of the better scenarios is that the Kurds and more moderate groups fighting them are able to win the war themselves (or with outside help if need be) because that would ensure the most stability in the region afterwards (I also greatly support the idea of an independent Kurdistan while we're at it) but again I really feel the notion of absolutely no military conflict is overly idealistic at best and dangerously naive at worst

But I'm also just some chump like the rest of you commenting from a place far separated from any of this so what can I really know

[bels]

There are a lot of conflicts in the world and I don't see what elevates IS in Syria over say, IS in Iraq or Taliban in Afghanistan or any of the litany of sad things happening the world over that we would like to stop.

[Suquida]

Well regarding IS in Afghanistan I should clarify that I'm not just talking about the conflict in Syria but all conflict involving IS

Regarding them compared to the Taliban (or really any extremist group in the world) I'd definitely give them priority given the fact that they're much bigger, richer, and more capable than any of these groups, they've already killed many more people than any terrorist or otherwise extremist group in recent history

Believe me it'd be great if groups like Aum Shinrikyo would cut it out already but they don't really have the same capability to kill people and cause problems around the globe as isis does

[rublev]

IS in Syrian and IS in Iraq are the same thing - we're already bombing IS in Iraq, so 'militarily' it makes sense to be then able to follow them over the now fictional border. You certainly can't tackle IS in Iraq without tackling IS in Syria, and vise versa

I'm not sure comparing conflicts helps really. The Taliban are much more territory based than IS, in that they're mainly concerned with Pakistan / Afghanistan Pashtun land. It's religious but decidedly state orientated in a traditional sense. You certainly don't have Taliban 'franchises' elsewhere across the region let alone another continent. They are also 'internal' in the sense that they don't 'bring the fight' externally (shooting up a concert venue in Paris). The Taliban just aren't as much as a threat (just now).

I will post more later, I have to move some logs before they become flooded *battens down the hatches*

[bels]

I agree with what you're saying, especially about bombing them in Iraq, so why not bomb them in Syria too. I think that's quite a salient argument, though it assumes we should have been bombing them in Iraq (should we have? i don't know?)

I don't believe that bombing them in either location will stop them bringing the fight to the west though. I'd like to know what is it exactly that domestic terrorists need from Syria that we can stop them getting? Is it just financial aid?

[Yoder]

We could definitely start by not radicalizing more people through bombing their homes.

The cultural war is also important in my opinion, new atheists, the far right, and others attempting to justify further imperialism because of this evil strawman of a muslim that hates the west and their "freedom" also creates more willing soldiers for ISIS to draw from.

What we can do is individuals is not much, but i think combating the fear felt by many we know in our personal lives is a good place to start. Statistically, foreign terrorism is not really a risk we should even bother worrying about on a day to day basis, especially in america - NDT tweeted the following, paraphrased "3500 deaths due to guns in the last 5 weeks, 3500 deaths due to terrorism since 9/11"

This kind of conversation can also be a good way to start talking about the environment. Pointing out the impact that food and water instability has on the middle east can be convincing to many people. I read something recently about how over half of Yemen is in a state of emergency wrt food.

[Suquida]

[Yoder]

I meant the personal we, not the royal we. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but I think in context it was plenty clear.

It is irresponsible fear mongering to perpetuate the idea that you are at risk of being attacked by terrorists while at the supermarket in america.

Many of these daily things we take for granted as safe, like going to the are not safe for millions of middle easterners, and your answer is more bombing and war?

ISIS can obviously not be ignored and I never said that was the solution. I don't really feel comfortable suggesting a solution and its kind of moot anyways as i'm not being consulted.

[Suquida]

[Yoder]

I would prefer priority over apathy. The more you feed into "our way of life is at risk" narrative, the more it is validated. ISIS is pretty damn bad and i'm concerned as heck about them, but they are not a doomsday threat to the entirety of the western world like many would want you to believe. If you worry that we will slip into barbarism and become indistinguishable from them, I think waging all out war with no thought to consequences is not far off from the mission of ISIS.

I guess I will expand that I believe the only justifiable war in the middle east is one sponsored by the resources of the west, but backing more peaceful states, preferably the Kurds, but pretty much any new enemy is better than what we are facing now.

[Suquida]

You and I don't disagree on much then because I'm finding all of that pretty agreeable, I just get really bothered when I see people preaching mindless, naive pacifism to something that can't be ignored like this, sorry if I came off too hostile

[rublev]

sorry i dropped the ball here

This is what isn't happening, as so many people have posted on facebook and our internet



I think it's important to remember that the vote was not for bombing Syria, it was for the continuation of air strikes against IS in Syrian territory. The way it was debated in the HoC was more akin to preparations for WW3 rather than giving the green light to a couple of Tornadoes. Like i said above, it makes little 'military sense' to bomb IS in Iraq and then not being able to follow targets over the now fictional border. I have no doubts about not being able to bomb an ideology, but it exists in a vacuum unless it has territory in which it can propose and evidence it. Aerial bombing 'can' act to limit the geographical space an organisation can inhabit, stop it from building infrastructure (as well as destroy it), generally harm its capacity to function with any regularity. It can also help ground troops to take territory - air strikes in Iraq and Syria have been effective in helping the various actors (army, Kurdish forces etc) to take back areas and keep them under control. So i understand the arguments made for it. Of course the difficulty is that significant parts of IS retreat to civilian populated areas / melt into the population (see page 1 'guerrilla warfare'). My other worry would be over committing to something we (the UK) actually has little influence over. IS will be defeated by 'locals' and involving surrounding countries (getting Sunni populations on side). the Gulf, Russia and the US will also play a role. UK are a bit-part player.

To talk about whether we should be bombing them in Iraq - here the Iraqi government requested (through the UN) for military assistance from several different countries (UK included). For the bombing in Iraq has been based in several narratives; self defence ('inherent right' customary int. law etc), and collective self defence on behalf of a state unable to adequately protect itself from an armed attack. Bombing certainly made a difference here - IS were miles from Baghdad (genuine concern) and the Iraqi army had proved incapable of defeating them without the brute air power from the US coalition. More recently Sinjar was retaken by Kurdish and Yazidi forces with help from some pretty unremitting airstrikes. Questions of how we got to this position (Iraq war / organisation post 2003 etc) is another matter.

Your other point - In the short term, the current round of bombing won't 'stop them bringing the fight to the west'. As we saw in Paris, most of them didn't have to bring it far... just across from Brussels. Mere bombing is a blunt tool. Without a wider political strategy (everything from diplomacy abroad to deradicalization at home) would be nonsensical. After all, as Clausewitz reminds us... war is only a continuation of state policy / politics by other means. War has a grammar of its own but its logic is not peculiar to itself. War can never be separated from political. Should this link be broken we have but a senseless thing without an object.

[rublev]

Two interesting editorials post Le Pen result in France:

[rublev]