30 thoughts on “In The Changing Fashion”

1. What a load of simplistic and factually inaccurate bullshit Joe. Your premise only works if you ignore substantial parts of actual history.

   Did you forget that we were not a nation when the individual colonies came together in a revolution? Are you ignorant for example of the Yankee Pennamite War – yes WAR – which began while the territory involved was comprised of colonies and continued after the end of the American Revolutionary War. It was a real war; people fought and died. And let us not forget or conveniently ignore all of the conflicts with first peoples, including our own national experience with Native Americans.

   We ARE still in danger of seeing another World War III. That we have other kinds of asymmetrical conflicts does not preclude that kind of nation-driven international conflict.

   And you are of course factually wrong that our President doesn’t recognize or understand terrorism as war. Benghazi was not terrorism in the way that the attack in Brussels was, it was a part of a larger civil war in Libya, and the reason that the President sent the FBI to investigate was because they were best qualified to deal with the investigation of a burned site that was American territory — you DO understand that embassies and consulates and other diplomatic compounds are our national territory, right? It had nothing whatsoever to do with prosecuting criminals. That is pure rubbish.

   But hey, I’m sure you would rather obfuscate yesterday’s tragedy in order to smear Obama, no matter how unfair or inaccurately, than for example to look at the dirty political circus elephants in the room here:
   http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/
   5 Outrageous Examples of Voter Suppression in the Arizona Primary

   or look at the funny business by Republicans in Polk County Florida where the Republicans tried to turn away Democrats, telling them they couldn’t vote in the primary there.

   Definitely distracting your readers with bullshit is more appealing to the right than the dirty Republican news.

2. Sounds to me like we have gone full circle. We are back to religious wars.

   Oh, and did DG just piss up a hydrant?

3. Joe, while my words might be a bit lower in tone than DG’s, I generally agree with her.

   Long and short, terrorism, asymmetrical warfare, insurgency, rebellion, whatever you want to call it, has existed without relent from 1000 BCE to now. The reason to use criminal investigative tactics isn’t due to some antiquated notions about terrorism, it’s because it’s what works most effectively. Invading, bombing, broad stroke violence only delegitimizes your own position and reinforces the insurgent’s. This was the point of David Patreaus’ approach in Iraq (which worked). He had the US Army engage in far less direct conflict and far more cooperation with local leadership, more engagement and use of local custom, in short, the kinds of things law enforcement do. I told Mitch in 2005 or so that the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate stated very clearly why were failing in Iraq and it was because were fighting a “war” using war-making capabilities when we needed to instead fight against an environment where there was instability and uncertainty. We needed to ensure there were jobs and safety, we needed to delegitimize the insurgents by making their message look like a lie and so give them no place to hide because the locals wouldn’t help them hide, and then “arrest” them/seek them out as individuals in the manner you would do with criminals. That’s exactly what treating like crime does. Conversely, I’m not sure what you think treating it like a war would look like but if it would look like what we did in Iraq, make no mistake, alienating sympathetic Muslims by carelessly bombing, by creating extra levels of security for them alone, whatever you might think of outside of using smart, investigative tools while trying to not alienate the locals, would fail just as totally as it failed in Iraq.

   So, bluntly Joe, the US is now doing what worked and works, worked in Iraq. That Iraq dissolved after we left wasn’t due to a lack of “making war” on insurgents, it was because the Shia government essentially abandoned the Sunni areas and so a radical power filled the vacuum. ISIL in Iraq is being squeezed by the combined efforts of the Iraqis, the Kurds, the US, the Turks and others. They are far less wealthy and far more controlled, but they are NOT controlled on the internet, the appeal of this fantasy of a Caliphate is not, how exactly outside using intelligence gathering and criminal investigative tactics, would you make war on that activity? Who do you want to bomb? Google?

4. A further thought Joe; perhaps you are unaware of the common definition of terrorism, which is not war specific.
   NOUN
   1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
   You might also want to look at the FBI definition of terrorism which bifurcates into two types, domestic and international.
   https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

   The definitive characteristic of terrorism is not war, but intimidation. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism, because the intent is to act as a catalyst for some kind of change, large or small, by instilling fear in both the individuals who are the direct victim, but also in those who associate or identify with the targeted group to which the victim belongs (or is perceived to belong).

   I was struck by that fear-causing factor yesterday while watching the news coverage of the Brussels attacks. It reminded me in part of a high school class lecture by a Belgian man working at 3M who had been a leader of the Maquis resistance in WW II as well as liaising with other resistance groups in different parts of Europe.

   He described both his activities, which included acts intended to cause fear and demoralization in both the Nazis and the Nazi collaborators as distinct from acts which had more direct military purposes. He also described being captured very near the end of the war, of being tortured (and no, it did not elicit information against other resistance fighters), and of being rescued just a day ahead of being executed by the Nazis. He still had impairment from some of his injuries resulting from torture.

   My take away from his lecture was that those Belgies can be pretty tough patriots, that terrorism is intended to frighten rather than to gain other military advantage, and to understand the distinction between different kinds of war and/or political action. I also took away the value of being multi-lingual, which was core to what the man was able to do.

   I thought about this man as well – he happened to be a friend of my uncle, which was how he came to be invited to speak – while watching the televised hearings in our legislature regarding raising the penalties and classification of hate crime.

   Hate crime is different from other crime in that it is a kind of proxy crime intended to or having the effect of influencing more than just the original victim. Rather it victimizes both the individual AND a larger targeted group of people. It causes a kind of fear and intimidation and terror beyond the damage of the direct act.

   That element of terror MATTERS. Yet conservatives consistently try to block and obstruct the perpetrator of a hate crime from being penalized for the terror aspect of their crime or being held accountable for affecting more than the direct individual victim.

   Over and over in the hearings, mirroring what has been written here and elsewhere, was the claim by conservatives that the law couldn’t do that. That to do so would be to ELEVATE or exalt the victim of a hate crime over the victims of other crimes.

   What a load of bullshit. The purpose of classification of crime and for severity of penalty is to be an appropriate consequence of the act, and secondarily to act as a deterrent. I have never for example heard the more severe penalties ascribed to crack cocaine over powdered cocaine to be in any way about exalting or giving preferential treatment of any kind to those victims.

   Rather this seems to be an attempt to give legal cover against penalties to those who are conservative committing hate crimes, like the crime committed against a woman who testified to the committee, who was struck by a woman waving a beer mug for not speaking English in a private conversation. The woman’s family, who were also speaking another language, were also clearly terrorized by the assailant’s action for their ethnic cultural heritage and religion.

   So it is funny to me how conservatives are really big on minimizing terroristic acts as just crime when it suits them, but want to classify it as war if there is some double standard they can contrive when that suits their purpose. Fairness and honesty are not part of the exercise.

5. As if she did not piss enough on the first pass, she had to take a crap as well. Geez…

6. Justplain, good to see scatological ad hominem is something we can consistently look forward to from you.

   Joe Doakes, seriously, what would you do differently than is being done? It’s a fair question and a worthwhile debate. Do you believe the President is ignoring the best advice of the top experts on this? If so, which advice? I will tell you my impression is that in fact he is listening far better than his predecessor.

7. DG actually returned to her vomit. That’s a change.

8. penigma said: “Justplain, good to see scatological ad hominem is something we can consistently look forward to from you. “
   The scatological characterizations were initiated by DG (3 instances of “bullshit”). Crudeness and ad hominem attacks are always a “feature” of DGs missives so please spare us the false sanctimony. Or if you object to that kind of language teach your stablemate some manners.

9. What we need to have practical plans for is 10-20 years of Middle Eastern instability and warfare, with accompanying terrorism worldwide. We are very unlikely to fix the source of the problem; only time and great violence are likely to put in place a new political order in the Middle East.

10. kel, for a libturd, it is all about “do as I say”, not “as I do”.

11. I will tell you my impression is that in fact he is listening far better than his predecessor.

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha… .Snort, Chuckle, Cough, Bleech. Ptooyee.

12. DG,

    You refer scatologically to Joe’s premise. And to “support” it, you say:

    Did you forget that we were not a nation when the individual colonies came together in a revolution?

    None of which addresses, much less refutes, Joe’s premise; the idea of war as an activity of one nation-state vs another came and went.

    And let us not forget or conveniently ignore all of the conflicts with first peoples, including our own national experience with Native Americans.

    Nation states versus tribes. Not a huge stretch from Joe’s premise.

    We ARE still in danger of seeing another World War III.

    Right. It’s not like there’s a big cosmic switch flipping nations from one type of war to the other.

    You’ve not shown even seriously point of disagreement with Joe, much less shown his point wrong.

    And you are of course factually wrong that our President doesn’t recognize or understand terrorism as war. Benghazi was not terrorism in the way that the attack in Brussels was, it was a part of a larger civil war in Libya,

    A war between whom?

    Asymmetrical militias, perhaps?

    Again, you’ve not attacked Joe’s facts in the least.

    and the reason that the President sent the FBI to investigate was because they were best qualified to deal with the investigation of a burned site that was American territory — you DO understand that embassies and consulates and other diplomatic compounds are our national territory, right? It had nothing whatsoever to do with prosecuting criminals. That is pure rubbish.

    Point being, the Administration *continued* to treat it as an episode of crime rather than an attack.

    But hey, I’m sure you would rather obfuscate yesterday’s tragedy in order to smear Obama, no matter how unfair or inaccurately,

    Oh, no, DG. We are loyal serfs. We know we must not offend our masters.

13. It’s worth noting, since the leftists here mention Gen. Petreaus, that one huge omission on Mr. Obama’s part was to listen to him. Petreaus vehemently opposed Obama’s Iraq plan, and many argue that this, and not handing classified information to a girlfriend who also had a security clearance, was the thing that sunk him. Certainly it is hard to argue against that when Mrs. Clinton has not been indicted for far greater abuse of classified information.

    And the idea that criminal processes are best? It only works where you’ve got a functioning government that’s willing to impose harsh sentences for violent crimes. Since thanks to Obama, these don’t exist where ISIS is based–Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc..–good luck using criminal law to root them out.

    Plus, the perpetrators yesterday were both convicted of crimes that, if they’d done them in the U.S., would likely have gotten them fairly long sentences. One got into a firefight with the police after robbing a bank, another was convicted of a series of carjackings. Unfortunately for passengers at the airport and the subway, they were convicted in Brussels and not, say, Dallas. Hence they were free men yesterday.

    Belgians need to do some of the same hard thinking our country did back in the 1970s and 1980s, and we need to also make sure we bomb their support networks where there are no police to apprehend them. Obama’s rules of engagement–refusing to hit ISIS oil tanker convoys that fuel the movement with fuel and money–are a big part of this problem.

14. The first thing that has to happen for the US to effectively combat Islamic terrorism is to admit that it is Islamic terrorism. For some reason, people who have no problem associating isolated bits of terrorism (like the Oklahoma City bombing) with a particular political party and a particular religion (I’ve had liberals tell me that McVeigh was motivated by Christianity) recoil at the thought of associating Islamic terrorism with Islam.
    Until they are willing to do that, nothing that they say should be taken seriously.

15. The current historical norm of large standing armies goes back to Buonaparte. The idea of total war — with all of a nations industry co-opted into supporting a large, fighting army made up largely of draftees– goes back as far as the US Civil War. The idea that civilians were a legitimate target goes back to the First World War (or the Boer War, if you want to get picky).
    The Bush Doctrine was an attempt to formulate a method of fighting a new style of warfare. Eliminate rogue states, and international security protocols, and police and intelligence services could effectively dismantle terrorist networks.
    The Bush Doctrine is now in disrepute. It is associated with the dread words “nation building” and “neo-con.”
    But this does not alter the fact that nothing has replaced it. The Obama doctrine (to give it a name) is to use police and security services, with the occasional targeted assassination, while leaving failed states, such as they are, intact. We will fight mosquitoes without draining the swamp, because swatting mosquitoes is less distasteful, and less expensive, than draining the swamp.

16. Bento,earlier examples of civilians as legitimate targets goes of course back to Sherman (the “bummers”), some of the Indian wars (e.g. at Starved Rock), the British campaign in the Carolinas in the Revolution, the Mongol wars (Genghis Khan wanted to kill all of China to create a land of pasture for horses), and even the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

    We can be a lot “better at it” than previously, sad to say, but truly there is nothing new under the sun.

    Agreed that we have a void where we used to have a policy, and hundreds of thousands of graves have been filled in places like Syria as a result. Yes, I do hold Dear Leader accountable in part for this.

17. Penigma,

    What, in your comment, specifically *disagrees* with Joe’s comment?

    Please be specific.

    Thanks.

    MBerg

18. We are agreed on civilians being targets in wars before the Boer War, bikebubba, but these were one-off and made sense within particular contexts. Genocide was often the aim of war in classical times. In modern warfare, killing civilian targets is a given, since civilians are the basis of industrial production, and industrial production is what wins wars (or has until recently). One of the things that came out of the world order that was created in the wake of WW2 is a supra-national agency (the UNSC) that guarantees secure borders. National borders have not changed much since 1948, and of course there has not been a world war since 1945.

19. There is no short term solution, and there is no complete solution. There are only degrees of damage control.

20. Buonaparte. Way to confuse libturds, BG. Now they will be wasting bandwidth to figure out what this “good party” you are talking aboot.

21. you DO understand that embassies and consulates and other diplomatic compounds are our national territory, right? It had nothing whatsoever to do with prosecuting criminals. Of course not. How many perps have been prosecuted for murders of four American citizens, including an ambassador? How many? HOW MANY? “WHAT DOES IT MATTER?” Go fuck yourself, DG and penis. You suicidal lemming slaves.

22. DG- “Republicans in Polk Co. tried to turn away Democrats, telling them they couldn’t vote in the primary there..” If true, what possible difference would that have made between the two parties, as it was a primary, not a general election?

23. If we treat terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war, we will open the gates of savagery. Then, the sociologists will complain to legislatures that there are too many Muslim men in jail – disproportionate with the rest of the population.

    See how this works?

24. Regarding Benghazi, if we’d treated it, as JPA notes, as the act of war that it was and flown some air power at least there, we might have had an excellent chance of helping a few hundred jihadis assume room temperature. Yet another weakness of the “terrorism as a criminal matter” thought. It’s the same weakness that Bill Clinton applied to make sure Osama Bin Laden made it to 2001 alive and well, and we know how that worked out.

    For that matter, even if we presume functional governments, by the time we would get extraditions done, etc., you’ve lost the immediacy that is necessary to deter this kind of nonsense. So let’s just say that I’d have to have the “terrorism as a criminal matter” guys running, say, the police in my town. You would lose all connection between crime and punishment. And then you’ve got the issue that Big Stink notes–the DOJ is eagerly pushing “disparate impact” moves all over the country, apparently not caring that it’s innocents that will suffer the most, not to mention minorities.

25. DG says: “Benghazi was not terrorism in the way that the attack in Brussels was…” Yes, it was, and so were Paris and San Bernardino. They’re instances of 4th Generation warriors using small unit tactics to further strategic objectives in the long, slow, low-intensity war brought by fundamental Islam against the West.

    Pen admires General Petraus for adopting counter-insurgency tactics instead of scorched earth tactics. Rightly so, but it doesn’t change the point. Massed cavalry attack, counter-insurgency, ambush, airstrike – these are tactics and so is terrorism. A good commander picks his tactics to achieve the immediate objective in furtherance of the long-term strategic goal of the war. But first, we must admit we’re in a war.

    DG and Pen, you both refuse to admit we are in a war, same as the President, so you default to a law-enforcement response and blame American deaths on internet videos and lone wolves. If the first step in solving a problem is admitting we have one, then you will never solve the problem.

26. Law enforcement has some tools it can use to fight organised terrorist groups (the right wing terrorists the SPLC gets excited about are not organised. They are isolated individuals and small groups that are not coordinated and are not under a single command).
    The tools they have are approximately the same that they have to fight organized crime.They can surveil, within the limits of the law. They can arrest individuals who have broken the law, if they can physically lay their hands on him/her. They can indict individuals. The can seize bank accounts and track financial transactions.
    These tools are great for fighting Tony Soprano types. They are less effective when the criminal organization is being run from outside the United States, especially when the country or countries that they operate from are not in full cooperation with our law enforcement officials. Hence the use of raids on foreign territory, like the raid that got Bin Laden, and the occasional targeted assassination via drone.
    The problem with this approach is that you can never win. It is reactionary. Also, our enemies learn from our actions. They work diligently to improve their defenses against our attacks and to improve the effectiveness of their attacks.
    This is what makes comparisons of deaths due to Islamic terrorist attacks to natural disasters or traffic deaths ridiculous. Our enemies are trying to overcome our defenses and kill more of us. Natural disasters are not trying to kill more of us than last year. Our automobiles are not trying to make car accidents more spectacular, more terrifying, and more deadly.
    People who compare Islamic terrorist attacks to natural disasters and highway deaths should be treated like children, and excluded from adult conversation.

27. dg pops off with a long winded babbling tirade, Joe steps in with “dg, you ignorant slut” and Smenigma is living in a van down by the river.

    SITD is SNL reincarnate

28. All that’s missing is for DG to respond with, “Never mind.” Which she never does, so I just mentally and automatically add that to all of her comments.

    It used to be that I would do that at the end of the comment. Now I do it right at the beginning.

29. You would lose all connection between crime and punishment

    BB, we already have. Look at all the illegal immiigrants. They commit crimes with barely any repercussions. Just like immigration laws, the rest of the penal code does not apply to them. They commit a crime, get deported (but most likely released since they are not citizens and laws under which they could be charged only apply to US citizens) walk right back in. Catch 22.

30. I would dearly love to argue with you on that point, JPA. Until then, I will keep praying that our Agagite in the White House gets stymied. (happy late Purim!)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.