Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

So, genocide?

Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

That they are good at blending in.

Now answer the second question.

[alway]

So, genocide?

That is generally the intended goal of people pushing this sort of hate against minorities, yes. When you've radicalized to the extent you believe a billion people are out to murder you for no real reason, what other than an ideology of extermination will satisfy your hatred?

[redwallzyl]

So, genocide?

Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

That they are good at blending in.

Now answer the second question.

Killing an innocent is never worth it in that context. Their are plenty of less then lethal methods of hunting murders then blowing up random people. and if that's what you do are you any better than them?

[Lagslayer]

How many more will die in your quest to do so?

Killing an innocent is never worth it in that context. Their are plenty of less then lethal methods of hunting murders then blowing up random people. and if that's what you do are you any better than them?

Cut off a finger to save the hand

[Starver]

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

Continuum.

Now draw your line.

[Lagslayer]

Tell that to the innocents you'll send to the slaughter. Tell that to their families, their children. I'm sure they'll take it well.

Unless you propose doing the same to them, in case they might be radicalized from your actions.

Would I kill 9 innocents and a murderer, to save 100 innocents? You bet your ass I would. If you don't, you would condemn far more to death.
Would I kill an equal amount of the other guys, in order to save my guys? You bet your ass I would. If you don't, how do you reconcile betraying your own people?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

Continuum.

Now draw your line.

At the very least, deal with every single problem individual as it crops up, though, it may be more efficient to deal with larger chunks around the individual as well, to shock the now relative moderates into compliance. The alternative is that they all inevitably become extremists, or the current extremists continue indefinitely, unopposed. And I think we can all agree that "terror attacks are just going to be a part of daily life" is not an acceptable solution.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Terrorism in a material sense doesn't accomplish much: A country will never be defeated by terrorism, killing soft targets does no good for that. You'll note that terrorists never target military and only rarely target state institutions. Why is that? We know what the actions of terrorism are, but what is the purpose of terrorism?

Don't say they're just crazy fanatics, because true or not that's not enough. There are a lot of crazy fanatics in the world. Even among the group of violent crazy fanatics, only a portion of them commit terrorism. What draws the line between Heaven's Gate and Timothy McVeigh?

Well, Heaven's Gate wanted to go on the mothership and Timothy McVeigh wanted to destroy the US government. But Timothy McVeigh could not seriously have believed that the act of blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, no matter how ridiculously successful it could have been, would destroy the US government.

So was he just stupid or something? Perish the thought. Someone who reads radical literature, learns how to gather weapons, learns how to handle explosives, and meticulously plans the act of terrorism isn't so stupid as to believe that their action magically leads to the goal unless it contains a path to that goal.

So why did he blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building and kill over one hundred people? The answer is the "propaganda of the deed", as old school revolutionaries would have put it. The attack on Oklahoma City was plastered all over America's media, and reached everybody in the country. It, through happening, ignited a low-scale civil conflict between federal police and the nation's militia movements that before this point in time did not exist. The FBI kept tabs on those people, sure, but they were not concerned about them without the existence of actionable intel. Oklahoma City changed that for decades, such that only in the last few years have we seen militias start to operate openly again.

Islamic terrorists, then. What is their real goal? It's not to kill the infidel or attain Paradise. Those are a bonus at best, and anybody smart enough to pull off terrorism is smart enough to have some degree of doubt in their mind about God and what God wants. There is a greater geopolitical goal to Islamic terrorism, which at least terrorist suppliers know even if some of the triggermen don't.

And that goal is not a secret. I don't think it's controversial to say that the highest magnitude singular terrorist action is 9/11. 9/11 was planned but not personally executed by Osama bin Laden, and he told us exactly and in plain tongue what his goal of terrorism was. Funny that almost all of us just sort of glossed over that. He wanted the removal of America's influence from the Islamic world. How does 9/11 accomplish that goal, then?

I mean, we invaded two separate Islamic nations over it and basically never left, so it seems to be a failure in a military sense. Laden should have, as an educated person, known perfectly well that invoking American military strength is an unwinnable fight.

So was he just stupid or something? No. What is the goal of terrorism? What is the goal of radical Islamic terrorism?

I say it's to make the Western world kill itself. Not be invaded by Muslim refugees, not be meaningfully turned towards adopting Islam, but to invoke the West's own ideology and make that unstoppable cultural, economic, and military force turn on the West and destroy it.

So when people say "we're in a war with all Muslims, we need to take extreme action against them, they're not even our people anyway"? They're the goal of terrorism. It's a grand irony. The same people who say those concerned with human rights are the cat's paw of terrorists are themselves the cat's paw of terrorists. The "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric is true, it's just not being applied correctly. The real clash is the West being told a message through terrorism, and that message is: "Hey, you see that huge gun you've got there? Man, you really want to kill me, and if you just put that gun to your head and pull the trigger I'll be gone forever. What do ya say?"

"Hell yeah, let's abandon our humanity to 'protect ourselves', the final war is now motherfuckers" reactions are the goal of terrorism. Why would Islamic terrorists ever want Muslims living in the West to become integrated with it? That's the end of their rope. They need the West to attack and reject Muslims in general, otherwise they'd run out of recruits willing to sacrifice themselves.

[Starver]

At the very least, deal with every single problem individual as it crops up, though, it may be more efficient to deal with larger chunks around the individual as well, to shock the now relative moderates into compliance. The alternative is that they all inevitably become extremists, or the current extremists continue indefinitely, unopposed. And I think we can all agree that "terror attacks are just going to be a part of daily life" is not an acceptable solution.

Hard to parse what you said.  Kill extremists, to possibly convert moderates over the line into extremism?  No, you're probably likely to do this. And how does this even support your approach?

[alway]

Oh look, genocidal fascism. It's almost as if it was obvious that was what they were advocating from the start.

[Lagslayer]

...see...

You're not killing 9 innocents and a murderer, though. You're killing 10 individuals in the fear that one may turn into a murderer.

Additionally, they are your own people. Unless you're going to tell me that they're all foreigners, and you know that's a lie.

Define "foreigner". If someone is technically, legally classified a citizen, but doesn't share any of the culture, history, or even the same language as you, can they really be considered kin? They would be foreigners in everything but name only.

muh fascism

Go back to tumblr. We're trying to feign a civil discussion, here, and you're ruining it with your buzzwords.

[alway]

feign a civil discussion

You got the feign part right. Nothing civil about advocating the murder of a billion people.

[Lagslayer]

feign a civil discussion

You got the feign part right. Nothing civil about advocating the murder of a billion people.

Everyone in the thread knows what this is boiling down to, and it's against the rules to discuss it. One side hides behind this, comfortable in the though that any attempt to challenge them would lead to the thread being killed, or someone getting banned or otherwise censored.

[Starver]

In plainer terms- kill the extremists and possibly anyone else associated with them if it's easier, as a "shock into submission" strategy for the rest. Otherwise they'll all turn into extremists, eventually.

(edit: see below editedit: top of next page)
You can't see it, but I am laughing at you. I shouldn't be, but am assuming that you have no ability to institute such a terrible cascade of "kill those people, then kill the people who would bemupset at you killing the first people, then kill those who are upset that you've killed the second lot of people, then... oh look... there's some people upset at you for killing the third lot of people, you better kill them...."

And that's if you do this perfectly. Miss some people, and they come back to bite you. Kill some people not yet upset at you and you upset more people, more strongly, than you otherwise would have done at this stage...


You're familiar with Dwarf Fortress, and the concept of a Tantrum Spiral, yet don't see where your basic error lies here..?

[Starver]

I'm explaining what he said. I do not agree with what he said, but that is what he said.

Darnit, I thought I'd clicked to reply to a Lagslayer message, sorry your quote got caught up in there.  I was genuinely laughing so hard that I probably misclicked when my eyes came back to the screen.

[Lagslayer]

In plainer terms- kill the extremists and possibly anyone else associated with them if it's easier, as a "shock into submission" strategy for the rest. Otherwise they'll all turn into extremists, eventually.

(edit: see below)
You can't see it, but I am laughing at you. I shouldn't be, but am assuming that you have no ability to institute such a terrible cascade of "kill those people, then kill the people who would bemupset at you killing the first people, then kill those who are upset that you've killed the second lot of people, then... oh look... there's some people upset at you for killing the third lot of people, you better kill them...."

And that's if you do this perfectly. Miss some people, and they come back to bite you. Kill some people not yet upset at you and you upset more people, more strongly, than you otherwise would have done at this stage...


You're familiar with Dwarf Fortress, and the concept of a Tantrum Spiral, yet don't see where your basic error lies here..?

You say this, and yet, countless wars have come to an end from exactly such a thing.

Also, DF is a work of fiction. Makes you wonder why some people can't think outside their fantasy land.

HAHA! We made a rule that makes your opinions illegal! Give up and do what we say!

This is why I'm investing heavily in cocytus.