Thoughts about revenge killing- Page 2

[tazber]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:12am

Turning the other cheek is of course the best way to handle something where you can personally control the outcome, that is to say no one else gets hurts because you live and forgive. But on a scale such as this turning the other cheek will result in more mass murders and terror.

 

Now, let me say this: my above comment is simplistic in the extreme. To discuss retaliation in this real world situation is more complex. There are so many factions, sub-factions, and sub-sub factions that it becomes a exercise in futility. Ideologically and politically the Middle East is a quagmire of conflicting sides. And within each individual conflict there are more factions, sub-factions, and sub-sub factions.

 

Whenever I think about your question Namo, I inevitably end up in a downward spiral of contradictions that challenges my values and my beliefs with one part wishing for peace and another wishing for security.

 

Are those two things mutually exclusive? I don't know. I just come out the other side thankful that my loved ones are safe.

 

I'm sorry I can't offer a more resonant response.

 

 

Updated On: 11/16/15 at 06:12 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:39am

This Australian commentator nails it on so many levels, please watch

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 7:36am

By the way... America destroyed 100+ of ISIS oil tankers overnight. That's not what we call "revenge killing." That's what we call strategy. Cut out their ability to generate revenue. That is critical. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 8:37am

THIS thread is about what we call revenge killing. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 9:09am

Not if it's based on the false premise you suggest. I repeat: France's Sunday evening airstrikes may have indeed been retaliatory, but they cannot be classified as "revenge killings" (as of 11-16-15). They were strategic with no deaths reported. If you'd like to change the premise of this thread, then go ahead. But until you do, my opinion stands. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 11:50am

Color me taken aback, I thought in starting this thread that Namo was being facetious. I owe you an apology sir. I am sorry. 

I will now go and sit in the corner.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 11:56am

 

I think perhaps one's thoughts about revenge killing may be related to one's thoughts about the death penalty.

 

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 12:16pm

I hadn't thought of it that way, although it seems totes obvs now that you put it that way.

[javero]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 12:19pm

"Whenever I think about your question Namo, I inevitably end up in a downward spiral of contradictions that challenges my values and my beliefs with one part wishing for peace and another wishing for security."

 

Me too...that's why for the first time in a long time I'm frightened by what I suspect lies ahead for the USA.  I hate it when neocons suggest that it's another gut-check time for our nation and its western allies purely for political gain.

 

I also don't claim to intuit how the coalition of the willing could possibly win the so-called war on global terror without fighting fire with fire both literally and figuratively.  Borrowing a tennis analogy, today, the most successful players on tour are the most proficient at first-strike tennis which comes at the expense of an increased number of unforced errors.  In short, if we start out-terrorizing the terrorists, many mistakes will be made along the way.  But, by all appearances we're dealing with extremists who don't give a fig about collateral damage, rules of engagement, or a creed outside their own.

 

Finally, our own history doesn't necessarily grant us instant access to moral high ground.  A certain intelligence agency is largely responsible for civil wars that took place in sovereign nations south of us in this very same hemisphere since many of us came into being.  I always feel like I'm not getting a complete account of events on the ground that provoke either an act of aggression or a show of force at the scale of terror, notwithstanding dogma.  I'm not apologizing for terrorists though, neither the ISIS variety nor domestic ones who terrorize women, children, and the elderly in their homes & communities as well as each other in our corporate-run prisons.

Updated On: 11/16/15 at 12:19 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 12:25pm

Everything from "In short.." to "corporate-run prisons" had me screaming "I KNOW!!!!" in agreement.

 

In our culture we're encouraged to only think of these things "from here on out" because, let's face it, it's really complicated to hold all of these contradictory moves in our past up to much scrutiny.  Speaking of, in our recent history we've been sold a lot of bunk about our own country's strategic skill at only taking out enemies and not civilians.  Only later do we hear about the weddings and the hospitals and once again, we're back to the American frame of "Well, what's past is past, but from here on out..."

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:28pm

"Well, what's past is past, but from here on out..."

yeah, that's me. I'm not like one of those shrinks who wants to go back to the day of birth to try and figure out where the problem started. I'm more like the ones who say ok, we have this problem, what are we going to do about it right now?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:13pm

I think our entire culture hinges on that Jane.  It tells us we can't understand complicated things as it supplies us with simplistic answers.  I saw a five minute video today that covers the situation in Syria and it's really a complicated situation with no obvious all-good or all-bad guys except ISIL, but you can't focus on that and do anything about it if you don't want to look at the various conditions in which it formed.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:22pm

" but you can't focus on that and do anything about it if you don't want to look at the various conditions in which it formed."

 

Yeah, but right now people are being murdered on a daily basis. What is the immediate action to take while we're doing the back research?

[Kad]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:22pm

"Kad, there will be retaliation against anyone who doesn't see it their way and pushes back against them. There is no middle ground here. One of our military leaders said today: " You can deny reality forever. But you can not deny the consequences of reality."

The reality is ISIS has formed due in no small part to Western actions in the Middle East. The young men of ISIS- and they are indeed young- are the ones who came of age during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, during the rise of drone strikes, during the countless other destabilizing endeavors in the region that have occurred.

So let's say we manage to kill each and every member of ISIS. What will their children do, having had their families slain and homes destroyed by the West? How do we reintegrate ISIS-controlled territory into recognized nations without messing up power structures? How do we do this without becoming an occupying force and while enabling the rightful sovereignty of these people? How do we do this without imposing values that these cultures do not, and do not wish to, share?

What is an answer here that does not involve punting the problem back another a few years?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:37pm

"Yeah, but right now people are being murdered on a daily basis. What is the immediate action to take while we're doing the back research?"

Well, to use another example of people being murdered on a daily basis: gun violence in the US.  Many of the same politicians who want to kill to stop killing say the solution to gun violence is more guns.  I don't think they want to look back either.

[javero]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:41pm

I'll add a couple to the list:

(1) what role should covert ops play in advancing our agenda of peace? 

(2) which Constitutional right or long-held privilege am I personally willing to surrender to keep ISIS and other extremist groups at bay?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:45pm

I'm just going to go ahead and answer #2 for myself and say none.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 5:14pm

" I don't think they want to look back either."

 

Looking back in the gun case does no good.  In fact, back when the second amendment was written, it was a different time and btw, it depends on how you translate that amendment. Forget about looking back. We want to get rid of guns. From this day forward.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:09pm

It sounds so easy!

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:25pm

I don't think there is one definitive solution to the problem. Retaliation can be broached in many ways and no matter what course is taken it will almost always offend one (or more) sectors.

 

War is an ugly business and will always have it's share of innocent casualties. 

Updated On: 11/16/15 at 06:25 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:37pm

Tell that to the wolf's mother. Ya know what I mean?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:42pm

Yeah, I know what you mean.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 7:02pm

"It sounds so easy!"

 

No, it isn't easy, I didn't say it was, but I think you got my drift.

[dented146]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 9:37pm

Kad, everything you say is true and as to how we go from killing the parents to peaceful coexistence with the children, I'm not sure. But history affords us some examples. We take what we learned from World War 2, Vietnam, and other conflicts. Most people in that area don't have the ISIL mindset.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 10:12pm

I had a feeling this thread could go to some interesting places, naysayit not withstanding.  It's given me more to contemplate.