Paris terror attacks

[sproketman]

Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.

 

[deltablues]

Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.

Heh. Well, I'm glad you've been paying attention, Sproket.

And seeing as we are exchanging personal opinions here - were I not to exercise my usual Christian forbearance I could say that who knows, when medical science makes brain implants available, you may get up to cruising altitude on these topics. I mean, right now you appear to be still on the runway.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Between this and the Tasmanian AFL team topic, you write a lot of s**t, deltablues.

has always struck me as a faux-intellectual undergraduate with an unhealthy dollop of narcissism

 

[benchwarmer5]

Press conference, bi-annual reviews, advisory panels.......all resulting in a new terrorism advisory system.
These fuks have nothing better to do

 

[deltablues]

has always struck me as a faux-intellectual undergraduate with an unhealthy dollop of narcissism

So absent the ability to enter the arena and debate me you stoop to sniping from the sidelines, complete with a mix of Women's Weekly psychobabble.

Pathetic.

 

[benchwarmer5]

New terror system woot
I challenge anyone to paint a picture where these clowns can be so certain that some dumb damn cant attack

 

[sproketman]

Heh. Well, I'm glad you've been paying attention, Sproket.

And seeing as we are exchanging personal opinions here - were I not to exercise my usual Christian forbearance I could say that who knows, when medical science makes brain implants available, you may get up to cruising altitude on these topics. I mean, right now you appear to be still on the runway.

Bit rich from someone who linked to a Breitbart article comparing the advanced civilisation of Carthage to ISIS.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

So absent the ability to enter the arena and debate me you stoop to sniping from the sidelines, complete with a mix of Women's Weekly psychobabble.

Pathetic.

point proven

It's impossible to debate with a narcissist. The psychopathology allus gets in the way

 

[smokingjacket]

Not bad. No offense mate. I'm sure living in Perth is great.

*may view all Freo posters the same.

I wasn't defending the city, although it has it's charms. Might have been a bit strong in retrospect.

But the point being, 'Australians' aren't always as economically minded as an urgent agenda. During the process of 'solution' we tend to have slightly differing values to others, religious freaks or not.

Issues are inevitable and importantly the freedom of speech and interwined PC drivel of an overwhelming middle class is almost always evolutionary, rather than correctionary.

The bliss of Australian isolation corresponds with the 'BLISS' of Perth.

Australia has always seen a relatively pragmatic politics. Comes with the flavour. The people are smarter than they're given credit for.

I have my issues with the way the current PC debate is being driven but not the general idea. The general principle is a sound one. It's just that in the aim for quick fixes some activists have thrown out first principles. Free speech and the idea that you need to bring the community with you when language has shifted. Partly a fault of a section of identity politics there seems to be a certain combativeness around language within activist groups but when those ideas, bounced around in the echo chamber, are exposed to the general public the response is hostile confusion because people feel they're unfairly being called racists.

 

[smokingjacket]

I don't disagree with some of the points you make, when I penetrate your somewhat hyperbolic polemic, but the Breitbart article was about mindset - not to be taken completely literally. You may want to acquaint yourself with the range of political nuances driving the various responses to Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in the USA as we head into an election year.

As I mentioned in my post on page 59, I am focusing more on the political culture wars and freedom of speech, in which context the Paris murders have been captured, parsed, predicated and prostituted by the extremist on both sides of the table (Left and Right).

Re Islam per see - my thoughts as referenced in my earlier post.

In the meantime the Islamists are getting a free ride in the MSM.

I'm sorry but I don't understand why you linked the article then?

If the take out was just the US needs a mindset of defeating violent Islam then yeah, I guess. They've had several options on the board for many years and taken none. Saudi Arabia is still the ally of the US and Pakistan still funds the Taliban.

The nuance I'm meant to be looking for is assuming that any of the clowns name checked in that piece have even read Huntington. The sort of nuance where the 'reasonable' candidate is the one who says he's only going to bomb Iran after the first cabinet meeting, as opposed to immediately as as being sworn in as President. There is no nuance. The theme is war. Bombs. More Pentagon, less State Department. Solve Americas problems with force rather than guile because yeehah.

 

[deltablues]

point proven

It's impossible to debate with a narcissist. The psychopathology allus gets in the way

Thank you for conceding the point.

PS good luck with your studies in Psychology for Dummies.

 

[deltablues]

I'm sorry but I don't understand why you linked the article then?

If the take out was just the US needs a mindset of defeating violent Islam then yeah, I guess. They've had several options on the board for many years and taken none. Saudi Arabia is still the ally of the US and Pakistan still funds the Taliban.

The nuance I'm meant to be looking for is assuming that any of the clowns name checked in that piece have even read Huntington. The sort of nuance where the 'reasonable' candidate is the one who says he's only going to bomb Iran after the first cabinet meeting, as opposed to immediately as as being sworn in as President. There is no nuance. The theme is war. Bombs. More Pentagon, less State Department. Solve Americas problems with force rather than guile because yeehah.

There is a nuance but it is very dependent on how one views the current Wahabi-infested version of Islam within the PC (USA and EU) political context. And re the US - I commented here or on another thread about the West (read USA) having destroyed Libya (where I spent a very happy 3 years ) and other secular Islamic countries (Iraq and Syria). I mention that in case you think I am some kinda neo-con.

Anyway, my main interest in the Paris murders is from a political perspective (culture wars stuff), as I broadly summarized in an earlier post in this thread. The actual Islam good/bad debate is separate - although I made some comments on that in this thread from my own perspective as one who has lived for a total of 14 years in various Muslim countries and had immersed myself to a reasonable extent in Arab/Muslim culture and mindset and the language (which was good for my working life as well). I actually edited myself on that (I base my comments on my personal in-country diaries) because it was more appropriate for a more robust political forum where there are no glass jaws, compared to a sports forum like Big Footy - where we come to have a bit of fun (I do, anyway).

 

[deltablues]

I wasn't defending the city, although it has it's charms. Might have been a bit strong in retrospect.



Australia has always seen a relatively pragmatic politics. Comes with the flavour. The people are smarter than they're given credit for.

I have my issues with the way the current PC debate is being driven but not the general idea. The general principle is a sound one. It's just that in the aim for quick fixes some activists have thrown out first principles. Free speech and the idea that you need to bring the community with you when language has shifted. Partly a fault of a section of identity politics there seems to be a certain combativeness around language within activist groups but when those ideas, bounced around in the echo chamber, are exposed to the general public the response is hostile confusion because people feel they're unfairly being called racists.

Your first bolded I fundamentally disagree with. But your second bolded is right on the money - and this is the elephant in the PC room.

 

[deltablues]

Bit rich from someone who linked to a Breitbart article comparing the advanced civilisation of Carthage to ISIS.

The common link is/was the threat - not a comparison between the 2 (as you well know).

PS I appreciate the art of sophistry, but I have to call you out on this one.

 

[deltablues]

How is that a cliche?

The machinery of global capitalism will fund Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States regardless of US actions. If not America, then China. Or Russia. Or ... join the dots.

You are essentially saying that a form of either Iranian style sanctions (which has not stopped Iran's theocracy and funding of external Shiite terrorists) or Israel style BDS (which harms them in no way) will blunt Saudi Arabia, a country sitting on the largest supply of oil in the world? Come on, man.

Re your bolded - not true. Oil reserves are a function of price [the lower the price the less the reserves] but overall the US has greater reserves than Saudi and the Saudi fields (stacked 5 high near the Kuwait border) are getting old and moving into high maintenance.

(PS oil and gas EPC infrastructure/exploration/drilling/production sharing etc has been my bread and butter for over 30 years - happy to discuss further in your context as and when)

 

[sproketman]

The common link is/was the threat - not a comparison between the 2 (as you well know).

PS I appreciate the art of sophistry, but I have to call you out on this one.

The threat isn't even the same in kind. Carthage was a sophisticated civilisation that was the equal of Rome and competed with them for influence in the Mediterranean. Settled societies are easer to be victorious against because a path to victory is clear.

ISIS don't exist in the same way Carthage do. They aren't a society you can attack and whose property you can destroy. You 'wipe out' ISIS and what happens? A new ISIS appears, born out of Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc. Just as Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the 'worst thing in the world'. The only comparison that fits with Rome are the barabarians they struggled to defeat conclusively for as long as they had an empire, and were eventually overrun by.

 

[deltablues]

The threat isn't even the same in kind. Carthage was a sophisticated civilisation that was the equal of Rome and competed with them for influence in the Mediterranean. Settled societies are easer to be victorious against because a path to victory is clear.

ISIS don't exist in the same way Carthage do. They aren't a society you can attack and whose property you can destroy. You 'wipe out' ISIS and what happens? A new ISIS appears, born out of Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc. Just as Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the 'worst thing in the world'. The only comparison that fits with Rome are the barabarians they struggled to defeat conclusively for as long as they had an empire, and were eventually overrun by.

I don't see any distinction between the structure of ISIS and Carthage in respect of threat impact and nor in respect of fighting and defeating ISIS and its hydra-headed variants - Al Shabaab and Boko Haram and the rest (all part of the virulent strain of Wahabi Islam). They (ISIS etc) have never been taken on by the West in total war mode.

The Romans defeated Carthage by total war. The Allies defeated Germany and Japan by total war. The Roman Empire continued on for another 500 years or so after Carthage but eventually dissolved into decadence and degeneracy and was overrun from within as a result of what was essentially an open borders policy. [Hello, does this ring any bells?]. This eventually disenfranchised the native Romans - the "Roman" in the Roman Empire was lost, and it was the Roman [i.e. one who culturally identified with Rome] who made the Roman Empire what it was. [And any attempt to extrapolate this into today's context attracts the feral attentions of the cultural relativists].

ISIS can be taken out financially - this is already happening at long last. And ISIS and its ragtag savages on the ground could also be taken out physically, in a heartbeat, if there were to be total war and no ROE. Sure, there would likely be significant collateral damage, but if you go to war you go in to win - not to practice the military equivalent of coitus interruptus.

So how far down that Roman road are we? Quite a long way if we look at some of the absurdities currently in play: e.g. the Left's identity-wars warriors seeking to blur sexual boundaries by treating race/gender as some kind of à la carte option: this is certainly decadent in the true dictionary definition. . And quite a long way also by reference to the West's continuing embrace of effete ROE against an enemy who would make mincemeat out of the Marquess of Queensbury.

Like the Romans eventually did, the West seems to have lost the desire to fight a total war against a threat to its/our institutions. So we are, in effect, post- Carthage Rome on the road to kumbaya. And indeed, threats to Western institutions are welcomed by the Marxist deconstructionists who have by now well and truly captured the campuses and the MSM: multiculturalism and the whole illegal immigrant debate is fuelled by their desire to disenfranchise normative America (I write this from a US perspective) and its Western partners, and to take the West down. This PC framework seeks to sanitize and leverage politically the Paris murders - see the Guardian's damage control, for example.

If you understand the Arab/Middle East mindset, emboldened as it is by the virus of radical Islam, then you understand the solution. As I mentioned earlier, the Breitbart article was a device to call into question the western mindset and political will in the face of arguably an existential threat. My take is that there will be a lot more Parises before the political class is forced to take some significant remedial action in order to avoid civil insurrection.

 

[Thats Wright]

I don't see any distinction between the structure of ISIS and Carthage in respect of threat impact and nor in respect of fighting and defeating ISIS and its hydra-headed variants - Al Shabaab and Boko Haram and the rest (all part of the virulent strain of Wahabi Islam). They (ISIS etc) have never been taken on by the West in total war mode.

The Romans defeated Carthage by total war. The Allies defeated Germany and Japan by total war. The Roman Empire continued on for another 500 years or so after Carthage but eventually dissolved into decadence and degeneracy and was overrun from within as a result of what was essentially an open borders policy. [Hello, does this ring any bells?]. This eventually disenfranchised the native Romans - the "Roman" in the Roman Empire was lost, and it was the Roman [i.e. one who culturally identified with Rome] who made the Roman Empire what it was. [And any attempt to extrapolate this into today's context attracts the feral attentions of the cultural relativists].

ISIS can be taken out financially - this is already happening at long last. And ISIS and its ragtag savages on the ground could also be taken out physically, in a heartbeat, if there were to be total war and no ROE. Sure, there would likely be significant collateral damage, but if you go to war you go in to win - not to practice the military equivalent of coitus interruptus.

So how far down that Roman road are we? Quite a long way if we look at some of the absurdities currently in play: e.g. the Left's identity-wars warriors seeking to blur sexual boundaries by treating race/gender as some kind of à la carte option: this is certainly decadent in the true dictionary definition. . And quite a long way also by reference to the West's continuing embrace of effete ROE against an enemy who would make mincemeat out of the Marquess of Queensbury.

Like the Romans eventually did, the West seems to have lost the desire to fight a total war against a threat to its/our institutions. So we are, in effect, post- Carthage Rome on the road to kumbaya. And indeed, threats to Western institutions are welcomed by the Marxist deconstructionists who have by now well and truly captured the campuses and the MSM: multiculturalism and the whole illegal immigrant debate is fuelled by their desire to disenfranchise normative America (I write this from a US perspective) and its Western partners, and to take the West down. This PC framework seeks to sanitize and leverage politically the Paris murders - see the Guardian's damage control, for example.

If you understand the Arab/Middle East mindset, emboldened as it is by the virus of radical Islam, then you understand the solution. As I mentioned earlier, the Breitbart article was a device to call into question the western mindset and political will in the face of arguably an existential threat. My take is that there will be a lot more Parises before the political class is forced to take some significant remedial action in order to avoid civil insurrection.

With the current soft target approach of the extremists, the timeline and circumstances remain in limbo and are still testing cultural friction.

According to the media, the primitives are in some ways seeking their own version of retrospective equality in a current state.
Retrospective equality assumes a degree of civil respectability to begin with. This is the grey area and brings into question the human rights and general access to oxygen of Islamic extremists and their shadow armies, and questions what actually is the wests role in sheltering humanities lowest echelons.

Isis are as much seeking validation and relevancy in this modern world, as they are retribution. The equivalent of caged animals using basic instinct rather than inner peace or creativity to garner reaction from the beings behind the glass.

They are victims of their own religion and ideology without the ability to adapt. Life itself is rooted in adaptation and humanity has a way of using war or climatic conditions to free it's shackles.

Remove the weapons of isis and you're left with a ghetto disenchantment of a primitive being, demanding a guided solution to its own oblivion and its doctrines relative position in equalities, information and technological advancement.

Without a version of Islamic extremism, the leaking of freedom from within its own ranks leaves a void of worth and perceived vulnerability to more inclusive and evolved systems.

The democratic menu of current affairs doesnt necessarily translate to western meltdown, more temporary apathy and a readjustment of values after recent turmoil.
As you said, they are tolerated and primitive and require a civilized voltage. The dosage remains dependent on them or a creation of a 'thirst' amongst western middle class who many still have a bad taste in their mouths and to an extent are sleeping with the enemy.

The crowd of people living in Sydney or wherever with virtual tags on their toes is a real shame, but is partly resultant from 'leaving the cage door open'. Western society 'peaking' in its version of equality and the feeding of necessary capital structure. The savages have one thing right, peace is proven to not always be the answer and fire occasionally needs to work its magic to determine a higher ground.

Exhausted multiculturalism colliding with blanket minority MSM attacks (Twitter etc) helps create an ignorant benevolence that has its charms but is obviously leading to a path of destruction.

The moral low ground of the lost Islamists and their confused purpose will inevitably demand correction and go through sleeper periods again.

We all instantly view our own mortality while searching the sea of difference. Time has its way, no end and consumes all its restraints as much as it determines a balance.

Just my take for rantsake.

 

[Jiska]

Wouldn't France be equally careful given their pretty good human rights record?

Hahahahahah. That's a classic. Haven't had a good laugh in a while. Cheers.

 

[Summer Nights]

Glad I could give you a laugh but I'm still right. The worst thing France has been criticised for recently is in evicting illegal immigrants forcibly. Whoop de doo.

 

[apparentlydead]

Glad I could give you a laugh but I'm still right. The worst thing France has been criticised for recently is in evicting illegal immigrants forcibly. Whoop de doo.

Oh for Christs sake.

You said...

given their pretty good human rights record

You said nothing about recently.

They have an APPALING human rights record across all of their previous colonies. Ask a Vietnamese. Ask someone from Algeria,(45,000 slaughtered in one uprising). Ask someone from Polynesia.

And yes, I am fully expecting a Force 10 meltdown by yourself over this post.

 

[Summer Nights]

Don't care really

 

[apparentlydead]

Don't care really

You wouldn't, because you're wrong.

Again.

 

[Summer Nights]

Cool, have a good one.

 

[Jiska]

Glad I could give you a laugh but I'm still right. The worst thing France has been criticised for recently is in evicting illegal immigrants forcibly. Whoop de doo.

Nah, you're not, but that's ok.