http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18032968
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... gn_v11.pdf
I reserve my comments on this until others have a chance to read it. Except for Joseph, who will comment without reading it.
A step too far?
A step too far?
Last edited by ladajo on Sat May 12, 2012 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
P.S. Although obvious parallels exist, this is not intended as a furthering of the "Roasted NUTs" campaign. It is meant to serve as an example of the internal politics of the US Government and DOD, and also that things may not be as they appear when cooler heads do not prevail.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: A step to far?
Something weird was going on. Truth not PC.ladajo wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18032968
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... gn_v11.pdf
I reserve my comments on this until others have a chance to read it. Except for Joseph, who will comment without reading it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: A step to far?
Well - I guess it beats teaching people to kill goats by staring at them?ladajo wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18032968
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... gn_v11.pdf
I reserve my comments on this until others have a chance to read it. Except for Joseph, who will comment without reading it.
Talk about doing AQ's job for them!This model asserts Islam has declared war on the west
It beggars belief that anyone could think this rubbish anything more than Al Qaeda propaganda from a sleeper who has somehow infiltrated DOD. Not that the rational analysis of different views within Islam is all wrong - just that it is presented in a way that will make it much more difficult for anyone taking this seriously to make sensible decisions in real life situations. And make great propaganda for AQ.
Al Qaeda has succeeded in recruiting in the West precisely because it represents a political struggle against Western support for Israel in the Middle East as a religious struggle to preserve Islam against external threats.
The way to deal with this is not to accept their propaganda and work out how better to defeat Islam. Religions don't get defeated that way. It is to realise that the two things, extremism with a political agenda and Islam, are quite distinct.
Just because nuts with a liking for mass murder say they are doing this in the name of a major world religion does not mean you should agree with them!
You CAN bring them more into alignment, of course. But only by pursuing public policies which attack Islam. That BTW happened in the aftermath of 9/11 and recovering from that propaganda coup for the terrorists has taken a long time. I think we are about there.
BTW I'm all for less political correctness when dealing with subcultures that have social values different from our own who live in our country. Female circumcision, forced marriage, honour killings, child abuse under the guise of exorcism: they should all be dealt with as the crimes they are, not treated as culturally expression. (BTW the last is a Christian fundamentalist issue imported from the Congo and Southern Nigeria, but the same principles apply). Countries need to preserve values. But that is not best done by associating all Islam with a specific culturally and socially extreme view. In fact it is much best done by pointing out that Islam, truly and spritually understood, has much in common with the other book religions, as it formally admits, and is in no way antithetical to Western democratic values, as nearly all serious Islamic scholars in US or UK would agree.
Last edited by tomclarke on Sat May 12, 2012 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is rather like war. In the middle of a battle you don't assume that you have lost and tell everyone this even though things look bad.
Suppose (which I don't agree for a moment) that the AQ message "the west is at war with Islam" is correct. The way to change this is to make it clear publicly that there is no war against Islam. That includes necessarily separating those aspects of extreme Islam which give rise to terrorism from the religion that people believe.
It is often a matter of perspective, the difference between terrorism and legitimate war. What level of civilian casulaties do you accept to attain a military end?
We all agree that violence whose only purpose is to kill civilians is wrong. But violence directed at military personel operating militarily in a foreign country is more difficult. Imagine a world 50 years hence in which a US religiously divided has a pro-Turkish administration which half the country hate. There is civil unrest. Forces from Turkey (now economically more powerful than US) are invited in to deal with the right supremacist military coup against the elected administration...
Personally, I believe IEDs to be absolutely wrong, as are land mines and cluster bombs. All too indiscriminate. But were I struggling in the UK resistance against a second world war German occupation perhaps I would have a different viewpoint?
Suppose (which I don't agree for a moment) that the AQ message "the west is at war with Islam" is correct. The way to change this is to make it clear publicly that there is no war against Islam. That includes necessarily separating those aspects of extreme Islam which give rise to terrorism from the religion that people believe.
It is often a matter of perspective, the difference between terrorism and legitimate war. What level of civilian casulaties do you accept to attain a military end?
We all agree that violence whose only purpose is to kill civilians is wrong. But violence directed at military personel operating militarily in a foreign country is more difficult. Imagine a world 50 years hence in which a US religiously divided has a pro-Turkish administration which half the country hate. There is civil unrest. Forces from Turkey (now economically more powerful than US) are invited in to deal with the right supremacist military coup against the elected administration...
Personally, I believe IEDs to be absolutely wrong, as are land mines and cluster bombs. All too indiscriminate. But were I struggling in the UK resistance against a second world war German occupation perhaps I would have a different viewpoint?
In UK we have a large muslim population. Many of them my friends.MSimon wrote:tom,
I dunno. Gates of Vienna.
There was a time when Islam was at war with the west. The war has waxed and waned for centuries. How can you be so sure it is not waxing again?
They (my friends) take their religion seriously (more so than most Christians) but they no way support any sort of religious violence, nor do they see anything in their religious beliefs that would allow criminal activity. They are good people.
Now there are of course many other muslims in UK, some poor, some not culturally UK. Maybe these have views I would not approve of. Maybe they would not be my friends.
Wars between countries are bad things. Sometimes cannot be avoided. Religious wars between countries are inherently wrong. They are ideological. I will never agree to such a thing and hope to God my country is never so foolish as to take part in a religious war.
Should an (Islamic) country declare war on UK then I hope most UK muslims will support the UK. Some, as soldiers, will fight.
There is no way I can affect the religious choices of UK Muslims. But I can change how many of them see that their religion is separate from the (bad) political decisions made by governments in Islamic countries who might go to way with the UK.
I don't worry about Islam "winning" as a religion. Democracy and a liberal tradition (yes that is a good word in UK - it means free speech, freedom from persecution, vigilante law, etc) will also win. We will have enlightened Muslims, like my friends, whose religion I will see as an enriching and good part of the fabric of our country.
The extremists, and those who see Islam as antithetical to democratic values, will not win as long as people in the UK think like me and do not declare war on Islam.
It is just not possible for Islam to declare war on a country. A few unpleasant sects might do this - yes - just as there are nasty Christian or Jewish sects so there are nasty Islamic sects. Any sect doing illegal things is criminal and can be so dealt with.
Best wishes, Tom
Uh. The choice may not be yours. It only takes one side to start a war.I will never agree to such a thing and hope to God my country is never so foolish as to take part in a religious war.
And you know your attitude was rather prevalent in the 30s. It got us the roaring 40s. If you want peace - prepare for war.
The people who learned the lesson of the 40s are dying off. It looks like we are about to go through another cycle. Humans is funny creatures.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: A step to far?
tomclarke wrote: The way to deal with this is not to accept their propaganda and work out how better to defeat Islam. Religions don't get defeated that way.
I kinda think the porn idea will eventually work.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
I'm not letting such egregious misunderstanding go...
True, but it takes two sides to make it a religious war, wth all that meansMSimon wrote:Uh. The choice may not be yours. It only takes one side to start a war.I will never agree to such a thing and hope to God my country is never so foolish as to take part in a religious war.
No comparison. And no statement from me here about how prepared we should be for war now.And you know your attitude was rather prevalent in the 30s. It got us the roaring 40s. If you want peace - prepare for war.
But not always cyclic. You may be right. I hope not. The next world war will be nuclear. Therein lies threat and perhaps salvation.The people who learned the lesson of the 40s are dying off. It looks like we are about to go through another cycle. Humans is funny creatures.
A great deal will be decided by what happens after troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq are complete, and what Iran does. If we have a repeat of muslim extremist terrorist attacks against the west, we can't just reoccupy countries over and over again. At some point you have to address the root of the problem.
CHoff
Not many people think bombing Iran will reduce the threat of militant islamism. Everyone knows that talking about bombing Iran will keep Iranian power in the hands of extremists. And "dealing" with countries is just not easy any more.choff wrote:A great deal will be decided by what happens after troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq are complete, and what Iran does. If we have a repeat of muslim extremist terrorist attacks against the west, we can't just reoccupy countries over and over again. At some point you have to address the root of the problem.
And at the moment power is divided.
I disagree.tomclarke wrote:True, but it takes two sides to make it a religious war, wth all that means
The Nazis (upper echelons of which adhered to Vril and Thule Society religious teachings) embarked on a one-sided religious war of extermination against the Jews.
It would not have been so one-sided if the offending religion had not been occult (hidden).
We were talking here about symmetric war - between countries. Of course a country can wage war on its population and declare this to be religious. I suppose you might say the UK had a history of such wars with Non-conformist/Catholic enmity.DeltaV wrote:I disagree.tomclarke wrote:True, but it takes two sides to make it a religious war, wth all that means
The Nazis (upper echelons of which adhered to Vril and Thule Society religious teachings) embarked on a one-sided religious war of extermination against the Jews.
It would not have been so one-sided if the offending religion had not been occult (hidden).
But suppose that country Y says - "we are declaring war on group X because our Y religion is antithetical to X religion".
Now what if group X clearly says: "Our X religion coexists with and respects all true Y believers - this is no religious war".
Is it a religious war? Or is it just a government using religion as an excuse to go to war. And if you are a Y, do you feel the X people are your enemy just because a government says these things?
In this case the Y people split. A good many (and the truely spiritual religious leaders) say the war on X is wrong. Those who love war say it is right. The X religious leaders all say there is no enmity between Y & X religion, it is just that Y government is behaving in a bad way.
My point being that all religions encompass a wide variety of people: peaceful, aggressive, good, bad, etc. Wars notionally between religions are very common, but only because on both sides religious bigotry is common, and religions make a good excuses for wars that national leaders want for other reasons anyway.
In the case at hand we (in the west) do not have to embark on a religious war with Islam. If we are mature enough to see what is right we will not do so.
Certainly in the UK Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders have more in common with each other on political issues typically than any of them do with governments.
Actually I think, perhaps surprisingly, that we are so grown up.
The funny thing is, the purpose of that seminar was to explore the concepts of Operational Design with a made-up (but based on a real world foundation) circumstances.
It is interesting how in depth they took the grounding assumptions. And that begs to some degree, why, but from experience maybe it was because over several cycles the seminar took critique points on "believability", and thus the lead and reviewers decided to fluff it up some.
Most folks are seeming to miss the stated "caveats" in the slide package, which, I am relatively sure, were amplified in the opening remarks sessions, and probably pointed back to when things got out of hand.
In any event, it does beg an over arcing question about seperation of church and state, as well as what makes a "religious war" religious. I think that the current struggle (to borrow the Vietnamese perspective) is about more than just "religeon" or "ideology". I think these are themes that are woven in and out upon the discretion of the participants from all sides, but the core is simply about "Power and Control".
It is interesting how in depth they took the grounding assumptions. And that begs to some degree, why, but from experience maybe it was because over several cycles the seminar took critique points on "believability", and thus the lead and reviewers decided to fluff it up some.
Most folks are seeming to miss the stated "caveats" in the slide package, which, I am relatively sure, were amplified in the opening remarks sessions, and probably pointed back to when things got out of hand.
In any event, it does beg an over arcing question about seperation of church and state, as well as what makes a "religious war" religious. I think that the current struggle (to borrow the Vietnamese perspective) is about more than just "religeon" or "ideology". I think these are themes that are woven in and out upon the discretion of the participants from all sides, but the core is simply about "Power and Control".
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)