I do see another side having an annual budget that's getting closer to a cool trillion dollars (got investments?) and that's killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, (whether directly or indirectly by pliant henchmen) and probably more as we speak... Oh wait, that's your side.
In case you haven't noticed, they are backing up their hysterical fear-mongering statements with hysterical fear-mongering deeds.
They walk their talk, unlike everyone else. You still refuse to recognize jihad and the goal of a Caliphate for what they are. Did you forget that they knocked off the bank in Mosul picking up a cool half a billion in cash plus a nice stash of American weapons ? And they further finance themselves with selling Iraqi oil to the tune of a couple of million bucks a day ? Then they have a small thing going with kidnapping and ransoming. These guys are not boy scouts. That and they work social media better than Obama, who is supposed to be the propaganda master of social media of all time.
While Obama states that only one tenth of one percent share these views that is still well over 1 million. Now if we accept the more widely accepted number of ten percent, that's at least 10 million.
Y'all can think in terms of percentages. In this case, 1 million of anything is not a small group of people. 10 million is more than the world's standing armies combined.
I do see another side having an annual budget that's getting closer to a cool trillion dollars (got investments?) and that's killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, (whether directly or indirectly by pliant henchmen) and probably more as we speak... Oh wait, that's your side.
Their hysterical fear-mongering statements are about as credible as your own. Two sides of the same coin. Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.
In case you haven't noticed, they are backing up their hysterical fear-mongering statements with hysterical fear-mongering deeds.
They walk their talk, unlike everyone else. You still refuse to recognize jihad and the goal of a Caliphate for what they are. Did you forget that they knocked off the bank in Mosul picking up a cool half a billion in cash plus a nice stash of American weapons ? And they further finance themselves with selling Iraqi oil to the tune of a couple of million bucks a day ? Then they have a small thing going with kidnapping and ransoming. These guys are not boy scouts. That and they work social media better than Obama, who is supposed to be the propaganda master of social media of all time.
While Obama states that only one tenth of one percent share these views that is still well over 1 million. Now if we accept the more widely accepted number of ten percent, that's at least 10 million.
Y'all can think in terms of percentages. In this case, 1 million of anything is not a small group of people. 10 million is more than the world's standing armies combined.
Stick to global warming ... percentages are more fun there.
(...) While ISIS is trying to draw the USA into a ground war on their turf, they are not stopping and waiting to be engaged. They have many fronts, not just one as your quote myopically states. ISIS has stated that they are going after Rome (and Europe) by means of launching their assault by sea from Libya. We are witnessing the early stages of the re enactment of the Moorish (Islamic) invasion of Europe which brought about the Crusades as the response to that invasion. (...)
Don't forget the babies thrown from incubators...
Their hysterical fear-mongering statements are about as credible as your own. Two sides of the same coin. Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.
the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have givenbaya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?
Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.
The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest.
We are going to find out the consequences of another botched job. The one in Libya.
While you will surely agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly all Bush 43's doing, will you also agree that Libya is Obama's all by himself ?
We went into Libya on a phony premise of genocide. That seems to be the democrats excuse for going to war in the same thought that the republicans use WMD's as their excuse.
Here's what all you bleeding hearts have to get over:
Stability is a good thing, even if it is maintained by some despot. Everyone says that ISIS only exists now because Bush went in and took out Hussein and left a power vacuum behind. Well in Libya, we had Qadaffy on a leash and he was keeping things cool and stable, his threats to the world at large diminished. Then along came the Arab Spring and Obama got this grand idea that we could help things along and promote the outlandish idea of self determination through the Arab world. Didn't we just learn the hard way in Iraq that this idea is a non starter ? What history has shown is that peaceful and respectful self determination has a 1 in 100 chance of working ? Especially in cultures that are only a few steps out of tents and the Middle Ages ?
And Egypt, another Obama / Arab Spring enterprise. First Mubarek was our guy and then he wasn't and then he was and then he wasn't. Obama had to do this dance to cover his favoritism of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had to pretend to reluctantly endorse the MB, inspite of his full on approval of them from the get go. We all know what happened in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood and they have since been harshly dealt with and outlawed again as was before the Arab Spring. Yet Obama still welcomes the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House with open arms. Fortunately, IMO, Egypt survived Obama's intentions.
We cannot eliminate all the despots in the world, no matter how noble our intentions. Its up to those living under them to deal with them, in their own way and especially in the case of the Arab world, without interference or support from Christian interlopers. If they don't get around to dealing with it, we the Western World must accept it.
And here is where your quote gets it wrong. While ISIS is trying to draw the USA into a ground war on their turf, they are not stopping and waiting to be engaged. They have many fronts, not just one as your quote myopically states. ISIS has stated that they are going after Rome (and Europe) by means of launching their assault by sea from Libya. We are witnessing the early stages of the re enactment of the Moorish (Islamic) invasion of Europe which brought about the Crusades as the response to that invasion.
So using the logic of its all Bush's fault in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is all Obama's fault for fucking up Libya. And yes, it is soley Obama's fault, because it was made quite clear at the time that it could not have been done without the help and support of the USA because Europe did not have the military means or might to deconstruct Libya and take out Qadaffy.
No wonder Obama is so fixated on the Crusades. He seems to be taking the side of the Moors in this re enactment.
My definition of pragmatic is not really consistent with neoconservative approaches to dealing with terrorist groups, be it Al-Qaeda or ISIS or Boko Haram. (...)
Pragmatism ultimately relies on realistic desirable outcomes, as opposed to outcomes that are quite amenable to wishful thinking. Recent history has borne this delusional thinking out sufficiently. However, there is the tendency to repeat the same thing again and again, while expecting different results, often accompanied with more special pleading (bad press, not long/fierce enough, etc.)
I can definitely imagine empathy being a learned trait among homo sapiens. Having experienced the pain of grabbing a hot stove, for example, I can empathize with someone who makes the same mistake. As our kids were growing, they seemed to be able to develop the capacity for empathy without such obvious cues. Was it genetics taking hold, or being more receptive to the grown up idea of imagining what it felt like to be in someone else's shoes?
You're empathetic to someone else being burned on a hot stove because you care, and you know it hurts. The stove taught you that, but it didn't teach you to make the leap of feeling someone else's pain.
I can definitely imagine empathy being a learned trait among homo sapiens. Having experienced the pain of grabbing a hot stove, for example, I can empathize with someone who makes the same mistake. As our kids were growing, they seemed to be able to develop the capacity for empathy without such obvious cues. Was it genetics taking hold, or being more receptive to the grown up idea of imagining what it felt like to be in someone else's shoes?
We, and other species, can put ourselves (vicariously) in the place of others without having to experience the pain or pleasure first hand. We have the evolved hardware at our disposal to do that. There are studies of very young infants, without the obvious experience, that show such innate responses. Ultimately the behaviour must be based on brain architecture that supports such behaviour (if the hardware is partly faulty you get expected aberrant behaviour, though you might get that too with indoctrination to override the innate).
PS: We can often still go on to decide/verify and put our tongue to the cold metal to see if it really sticks...
I think you are right. I believe there is recent work suggesting a genetic basis for altruism, which is an aspect of morality, no?
Not familiar with this, and a lot of the evolutionary behavior models are built out of nothing more than blue sky so I haven't paid attention to the field in general.
I'd imagine there is a genetic basis for empathy tho, as there seem to be very few who don't posses it, and it doesn't appear to be a learned trait in them.
I can definitely imagine empathy being a learned trait among homo sapiens. Having experienced the pain of grabbing a hot stove, for example, I can empathize with someone who makes the same mistake. As our kids were growing, they seemed to be able to develop the capacity for empathy without such obvious cues. Was it genetics taking hold, or being more receptive to the grown up idea of imagining what it felt like to be in someone else's shoes?
Are you suggesting an alternate to a pragmatic strategy to deal with ISIS? If so, name it.
And stay on topic: specifically ISIS. Or do you support #JobsForISIS per the wack job Marie Harf deputy spokesbot for State aka a very good impersonation of an SNL skit?
My definition of pragmatic is not really consistent with neoconservative approaches to dealing with terrorist groups, be it Al-Qaeda or ISIS or Boko Haram.
The invasion of Iraq, a wasteful and costly strategic military failure, as a strategic/political response to Al Qaeda's attacks on the US Cole, 9/11, and the WTC bombing of 1993 was not my idea of a sensible and realistic attempt to weaken or destroy Bin Laden's organization. At best it was an emotionally driven response to provocation. Switching from focusing on Afghanistan to Iraq based on a changing parade of justifications to sway public opinion (with nonexistent WMD finally being settled on) revealed a policy approach (vizCheney's one percent doctrine) that was not only disconnected from reality but devoid of sense, as subsequent events proved.
the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have givenbaya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?
Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.
The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest.
I think you are right. I believe there is recent work suggesting a genetic basis for altruism, which is an aspect of morality, no?
Not familiar with this, and a lot of the evolutionary behavior models are built out of nothing more than blue sky so I haven't paid attention to the field in general.
I'd imagine there is a genetic basis for empathy tho, as there seem to be very few who don't posses it, and it doesn't appear to be a learned trait in them.
So the first question that pops into my head is, is this innate morality genetic or learned behavior? I mean from the standpoint of how it originated when we evolved into homo sapiens. Is it something we're genetically wired to do? Or did we learn it, say, by mimicking other species?
Given its ubiquitous nature it has to have a genetic component.
I think you are right. I believe there is recent work suggesting a genetic basis for altruism, which is an aspect of morality, no?
Perhaps we need a fence. On one side, there's people like me with pragmaticpsychopathic views to this problem. On the other side ... you and your head in sand ilk can hang out. Darwin, etc.
So the first question that pops into my head is, is this innate morality genetic or learned behavior? I mean from the standpoint of how it originated when we evolved into homo sapiens. Is it something we're genetically wired to do? Or did we learn it, say, by mimicking other species?
Given its ubiquitous nature it has to have a genetic component.
So the first question that pops into my head is, is this innate morality genetic or learned behavior? I mean from the standpoint of how it originated when we evolved into homo sapiens. Is it something we're genetically wired to do? Or did we learn it, say, by mimicking other species?
Murder is a bit tricky, since its definition is usually unlawful killing (so there is the law part). There's plenty of killing that is considered lawful (capital punishment, war, euthanasia, animals, etc.) and morally acceptable (or not), and then some might consider unlawful killing ok (the means and the end).
I'd say morality is both innate and learned (you can't do that!). The innate part (based on biology in both shared genes and evolved body parts) likely existed before we became modern humans, and is to some extent found in other sentient species. Other forms of morality are taught/learned, though I wouldn't say by mimicry of other species, but first and foremost by cultural transmission of experience, and trial and error in general. We keep around what seems to work, and improve incrementally.
Some religious thought maintains that there was a specific point when morality was given to us via some sort of divine implant.
