TRUCKING #58 VANEROO BOOGALOO

[jbird4049]

/quote]

I love it when people say "This is what AQ wanted to do." As though just because we take a more realistic policy we get defeated. You do realize that if we let in the entire middle east and changed our demographics to muslims overnight, AND withdrew our entire military from the middle east, we'd still get attacked right? [/color]Take a look at Germany. How many foreign wars are they fighting on muslim soil? How repressive are their immigration policies?
Also, you take a very strange view on freedom, as though it is this free hanging Platonic form that just happens to exist outside of human reality. The reason that freedom exists and rights exist, is because of the power of the state. Without the state and security forces guaranteeing it, freedom would not exist, and your freedom would come from your ability to project power personally.[/color] Since you have said you are a pacifist, the absence of the state would leave you with no freedom or rights. Maybe it would be great if people just ignored terrorist attacks. Mathematically, you have a greater chance dying of a coronary. Unfortunately, thats not how people, gov'ts, and the media treats this stuff. Terrorism represents a threat to the peace, and this sadly, more than protecting freedoms, is the chief purpose of the government. Try reading some Hobbes.[/color] If people do not believe that their government can keep the peace, they will opt for a new government, leading to even less peace. You can dispute these conclusions all you want, but every government in history reacts this way when there is a threat to order.

Moreover, I find it pretty unusual that you are pontificating on freedom when people like you on the left are the first to advocate ridiculous hatespeech laws against speaking ill of Islam. I'm guessing you were for Merkel's plan of letting in the Syrian Refugees as well. Isn't it interesting how that policy seems to have led to all kinds of restrictions in speech and mobility for European citizens?

The United States armed, trained, and has gave money too various Muslim resistance groups in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, and then left Afghanistan completely with no aid of any sort when the Soviets left. Hello warlords, and decades of more civil war (google pictures of Afghanistan pre-civil war). The country has been a war zone for over thirty years now. Also led to the formation of the Taliban.

We invaded Iraq, blockaded it for around 15 years, invaded it again, and all during this time routinely bombed it. Destroyed the electrical grid, sewage, roads, bridges, the entire government, the military, the formerly good educational system, the whole society, and then botched the reconstruction with incompetent, corrupt, and inadequate efforts. Which gave the founders of ISIS their chance to found and build it in western Iraq.

We have supported, armed, defended, and helped in anyway we can the despotic Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since before the Second World War. Said kingdom has funded the creation of Wahabist groups through out the entire Muslim world except for Iran helping to fuel terrorist organizations, and wars, in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. See the 9/11 Bombings also. The government is also disliked because of either its despotism, or because of its religious policies. The government is also systematically destroying Yemen for ostensibly the same reasons Iraq was destroyed. Not to mention, the government, and/or its supporters have, and still are giving support of various kinds to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS right this moment.

We have supported murderous, torture mad, democracy hating, backward despotic governments in various Muslim countries because it serves our political purposes. Which of course drives extremism, including religious extremism, in the populations of those countries trying to overthrow, or at least reform, those governments.

The policy of continuously bombing via drones thousands of times people often just suspected of being "terrorists" in independent nation-states without the approval of either the governments, or the populations of those states has also helped the various terrorists organizations. People do not like having fellow citizens, friends, and family murdered, often on very dubious reasons. They tend to want to fight back anyway they can.

All of this has caused the collapse of effective government, functioning economies, civil and religious organizations, radicalized many people, and created massive amounts of refugees fleeing our mess.

It is as if our policy is 'the beatings will continue until moral improves" and the only real tool is our military killing and destroying evermore people, organizations, societies, and governments. We are now at war with entire nations of people right now. Are you prepared for genocide? Osama bin-Laden said he was hoping we would invade the entire Muslim world in response to his attacks. We obliged him.

The more power, authority, and control we give the government, the less freedom we have, and ultimately the greater chance we have to lose it. It is a balancing act. Right now there is no balance, and we are in the process of losing that freedom we are trying to protect. As a society, a nation, and a government, we keep using a hammer to get more safety, yet only succeed in being less safe, because we destroy the very order we are seeking. The more we destroy the world outside our boundaries, the more that destruction will come here. We cannot, can not, win using such tactics. We must develop new tactics, and accept the truth that there is risk in life.

Where did I say I am a pacifist? I prefer peace, and I am against war, but I support the unfortunate need for a military.

I do not support the suppression of free speech. So were I have said so. Saying I do, is at best a mistake, or at worse, a lie.

Who is this "left"? People keep creating this strawman, filling it with anything that this "left" supposedly is, and then ascribing these things to anyone they deem of the left. How convenient. Of course, it is a common tactic used by many on all sides. Including the left.


Hobbs wrote during and after a civil war so his philosophy was formed by that. He was more concerned with order than anything else. Personally, I like John Locke, and John Taylor (although I need to study Taylor's ideas much more deeply).

[heydaralon]

/quote]

I love it when people say "This is what AQ wanted to do." As though just because we take a more realistic policy we get defeated. You do realize that if we let in the entire middle east and changed our demographics to muslims overnight, AND withdrew our entire military from the middle east, we'd still get attacked right? [/color]Take a look at Germany. How many foreign wars are they fighting on muslim soil? How repressive are their immigration policies?
Also, you take a very strange view on freedom, as though it is this free hanging Platonic form that just happens to exist outside of human reality. The reason that freedom exists and rights exist, is because of the power of the state. Without the state and security forces guaranteeing it, freedom would not exist, and your freedom would come from your ability to project power personally.[/color] Since you have said you are a pacifist, the absence of the state would leave you with no freedom or rights. Maybe it would be great if people just ignored terrorist attacks. Mathematically, you have a greater chance dying of a coronary. Unfortunately, thats not how people, gov'ts, and the media treats this stuff. Terrorism represents a threat to the peace, and this sadly, more than protecting freedoms, is the chief purpose of the government. Try reading some Hobbes.[/color] If people do not believe that their government can keep the peace, they will opt for a new government, leading to even less peace. You can dispute these conclusions all you want, but every government in history reacts this way when there is a threat to order.

Moreover, I find it pretty unusual that you are pontificating on freedom when people like you on the left are the first to advocate ridiculous hatespeech laws against speaking ill of Islam. I'm guessing you were for Merkel's plan of letting in the Syrian Refugees as well. Isn't it interesting how that policy seems to have led to all kinds of restrictions in speech and mobility for European citizens?

The United States armed, trained, and has gave money too various Muslim resistance groups in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, and then left Afghanistan completely with no aid of any sort when the Soviets left. Hello warlords, and decades of more civil war (google pictures of Afghanistan pre-civil war). The country has been a war zone for over thirty years now. Also led to the formation of the Taliban.

We invaded Iraq, blockaded it for around 15 years, invaded it again, and all during this time routinely bombed it. Destroyed the electrical grid, sewage, roads, bridges, the entire government, the military, the formerly good educational system, the whole society, and then botched the reconstruction with incompetent, corrupt, and inadequate efforts. Which gave the founders of ISIS their chance to found and build it in western Iraq.

We have supported, armed, defended, and helped in anyway we can the despotic Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since before the Second World War. Said kingdom has funded the creation of Wahabist groups through out the entire Muslim world except for Iran helping to fuel terrorist organizations, and wars, in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. See the 9/11 Bombings also. The government is also disliked because of either its despotism, or because of its religious policies. The government is also systematically destroying Yemen for ostensibly the same reasons Iraq was destroyed. Not to mention, the government, and/or its supporters have, and still are giving support of various kinds to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS right this moment.

We have supported murderous, torture mad, democracy hating, backward despotic governments in various Muslim countries because it serves our political purposes. Which of course drives extremism, including religious extremism, in the populations of those countries trying to overthrow, or at least reform, those governments.

The policy of continuously bombing via drones thousands of times people often just suspected of being "terrorists" in independent nation-states without the approval of either the governments, or the populations of those states has also helped the various terrorists organizations. People do not like having fellow citizens, friends, and family murdered, often on very dubious reasons. They tend to want to fight back anyway they can.

All of this has caused the collapse of effective government, functioning economies, civil and religious organizations, radicalized many people, and created massive amounts of refugees fleeing our mess.

It is as if our policy is 'the beatings will continue until moral improves" and the only real tool is our military killing and destroying evermore people, organizations, societies, and governments. We are now at war with entire nations of people right now. Are you prepared for genocide? Osama bin-Laden said he was hoping we would invade the entire Muslim world in response to his attacks. We obliged him.

The more power, authority, and control we give the government, the less freedom we have, and ultimately the greater chance we have to lose it. It is a balancing act. Right now there is no balance, and we are in the process of losing that freedom we are trying to protect. As a society, a nation, and a government, we keep using a hammer to get more safety, yet only succeed in being less safe, because we destroy the very order we are seeking. The more we destroy the world outside our boundaries, the more that destruction will come here. We cannot, can not, win using such tactics. We must develop new tactics, and accept the truth that there is risk in life.

Where did I say I am a pacifist? I prefer peace, and I am against war, but I support the unfortunate need for a military.

I do not support the suppression of free speech. So were I have said so. Saying I do, is at best a mistake, or at worse, a lie.

Who is this "left"? People keep creating this strawman, filling it with anything that this "left" supposedly is, and then ascribing these things to anyone they deem of the left. How convenient. Of course, it is a common tactic used by many on all sides. Including the left.


Hobbs wrote during and after a civil war so his philosophy was formed by that. He was more concerned with order than anything else. Personally, I like John Locke, and John Taylor (although I need to study Taylor's ideas much more deeply).

Everyone knows our Afghan and Iraq escapades and our ties to the Saudi Royal family. I'm not defending them. My point is, Germany has not had an aggressive foreign policy, and has an open immigration policy. Before 9/11 Germany let suspected terrorists stay in Germany so long as they were not planning an attack on German soil. It doesn't matter. Germany still gets terror attacks. There are certainly ties to our foreign policy and terrorism, but at this point there is nothing we can do about that. If the US and Israel disappeared off the map tomorrow, there would still be terrorist attacks.In fact, most terror attacks happen in predominately muslim countries. Our foreign policy might have led to increased terrorism, but people on the right like Pat Buchanan, or leftists like Chomsky who think that changing our foreign policy will lead to less terrorism are living in a fantasy land.

Secondly, I am not advocating for a police state. All I am saying is that there has never been a time when the government has not stepped in when there was a threat to order. During the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington personally led a militia to put down riotous settlers in the frontier regions of the West. Eisenhower called in the National Guard to force educational integration in Little Rock. You are acting like we call the shots and have a say in the matter. If the government decided today to enforce martial law, there is nothing that either of us could or would do about it. Lets be honest here.You can dislike the decision, and pretend like some laws are going to stop it, but historically that never works. Politics and human ingenuity simply gets around the laws. It doesn't matter whether it was European Monarchs in 1848 responding to rebellions or Latin American Despots during the 1970s responding to Marxist terrorists-the response of force is the same. If a government cannot protect its citizens, or doesn't attempt to restore peace, a decent case can be made that is not a government. This use of force cuts both ways though, because these rights and freedoms people hold dear only exist because of the government's monopoly on force. This is what modern Liberals don't understand. Without this monopoly, every person would have to secure their rights by having their own army. Think of places like Somalia, Latin America, or anarchic spots in the Middle East. How are women treated? Are rights to privacy, property, and freedom of expression held in high regard? They don't exist unless you are armed and have large numbers. So the government is like fire, it is destructive and beneficial, and can instantly destroy rights, but its mere existence also protects and ensures rights. Personally, I think that the reason some societies have a higher regard for certain liberties has far more to do with culture and strong, legitimate states than any kind of abstract and ephemeral "rights."

[jbird4049]

Everyone knows our Afghan and Iraq escapades and our ties to the Saudi Royal family. I'm not defending them. My point is, Germany has not had an aggressive foreign policy, and has an open immigration policy. Before 9/11 Germany let suspected terrorists stay in Germany so long as they were not planning an attack on German soil. It doesn't matter. Germany still gets terror attacks. There are certainly ties to our foreign policy and terrorism, but at this point there is nothing we can do about that. If the US and Israel disappeared off the map tomorrow, there would still be terrorist attacks.In fact, most terror attacks happen in predominately muslim countries. Our foreign policy might have led to increased terrorism, but people on the right like Pat Buchanan, or leftists like Chomsky who think that changing our foreign policy will lead to less terrorism are living in a fantasy land.

We keep doing the same things over, and over, and over expecting that this time will work. It is like we are marking off a checklist on how to fail. It is a textbook case of folly. It really is. The various countries from which the terrorist organizations work from are steadily degraded into failed states as all the elements of successful states are destroyed by our military, and very of the effort needed for their rebuilding is not done. Millions of people have lost everything, or been injured, or been refugeed, or simple died because of this. How can entire nations of terrorized, impoverish, hopeless, and enraged people not be a incubator of new terror? Yes, we could blame the terrorists for their actions, but it is like blaming an abuse victim for their actions as one is responsible for their own actions, but the abusers are also responsible for the victimization that created the victim, and now, the new abuser.

So we have helped to created this horror show by our own actions. Not intentionally, but we did so nonetheless. Trapped in a cycle of horrific abuse on a global level, and unless we disenthrall ourselves from the notion of just bombing, droning, shooting evermore people, to think of new actions, we are only ever going to stay on this cycle of horror.

Secondly, I am not advocating for a police state. All I am saying is that there has never been a time when the government has not stepped in when there was a threat to order. During the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington personally led a militia to put down riotous settlers in the frontier regions of the West. Eisenhower called in the National Guard to force educational integration in Little Rock. You are acting like we call the shots and have a say in the matter. If the government decided today to enforce martial law, there is nothing that either of us could or would do about it. Lets be honest here.You can dislike the decision, and pretend like some laws are going to stop it, but historically that never works. Politics and human ingenuity simply gets around the laws. It doesn't matter whether it was European Monarchs in 1848 responding to rebellions or Latin American Despots during the 1970s responding to Marxist terrorists-the response of force is the same. If a government cannot protect its citizens, or doesn't attempt to restore peace, a decent case can be made that is not a government. This use of force cuts both ways though, because these rights and freedoms people hold dear only exist because of the government's monopoly on force. This is what modern Liberals don't understand. Without this monopoly, every person would have to secure their rights by having their own army. Think of places like Somalia, Latin America, or anarchic spots in the Middle East. How are women treated? Are rights to privacy, property, and freedom of expression held in high regard? They don't exist unless you are armed and have large numbers. So the government is like fire, it is destructive and beneficial, and can instantly destroy rights, but its mere existence also protects and ensures rights. Personally, I think that the reason some societies have a higher regard for certain liberties has far more to do with culture and strong, legitimate states than any kind of abstract and ephemeral "rights."

This is a parallel to the "War on Terror." It does not matter what is being asked, for what does matter is what is actually happening. For at least two decades, the country has become more militarized, securitized, fenced, armed, controlled, made increasingly fearful, and spied on all for our "safety." Every time I go to the airport, or to the courthouse, there are more gates, locked doors, fences, guards, cameras, and screeners. More thorough, embarrassing screenings. The schools are also this way to the point that having lockers are frowned on. Why? Crime has been decreasing for decades, violence has been decreasing for thirty years and yet reasons are found to every increase the level of spying or other "security" measures.

Almost all of those examples given earlier of violence was caused by corruption, and violence of the state on the people. Frequently done, in the 19th and 2Oth century, with the aid of European, and later, American governments, often in support of financial interests. We could go on for days, write entire books to each other on the subject of governments, which at the urging of the wealthy, and powerful, meddle in the affairs of others, often with violence, often destroying the local social, political, and physical infrastructure, causing violent blow back.

Finally, the people do not exist for the government, the government is supposed to exist for the people. When the government forgets that, people tend to respond badly. For example, the Revolution was driven by shame, by embarrassment of the government's actions on the American Colonies. Hell, the Bill of Rights was written by the founders as a response to the police, and military, actions of the British government. Which are now being repeated by our current government. As has been said before, history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.

[heydaralon]

We keep doing the same things over, and over, and over expecting that this time will work. It is like we are marking off a checklist on how to fail. It is a textbook case of folly. It really is. The various countries from which the terrorist organizations work from are steadily degraded into failed states as all the elements of successful states are destroyed by our military, and very of the effort needed for their rebuilding is not done. Millions of people have lost everything, or been injured, or been refugeed, or simple died because of this. How can entire nations of terrorized, impoverish, hopeless, and enraged people not be a incubator of new terror? Yes, we could blame the terrorists for their actions, but it is like blaming an abuse victim for their actions as one is responsible for their own actions, but the abusers are also responsible for the victimization that created the victim, and now, the new abuser.

So we have helped to created this horror show by our own actions. Not intentionally, but we did so nonetheless. Trapped in a cycle of horrific abuse on a global level, and unless we disenthrall ourselves from the notion of just bombing, droning, shooting evermore people, to think of new actions, we are only ever going to stay on this cycle of horror.

This is a parallel to the "War on Terror." It does not matter what is being asked, for what does matter is what is actually happening. For at least two decades, the country has become more militarized, securitized, fenced, armed, controlled, made increasingly fearful, and spied on all for our "safety." Every time I go to the airport, or to the courthouse, there are more gates, locked doors, fences, guards, cameras, and screeners. More thorough, embarrassing screenings. The schools are also this way to the point that having lockers are frowned on. Why? Crime has been decreasing for decades, violence has been decreasing for thirty years and yet reasons are found to every increase the level of spying or other "security" measures.

Almost all of those examples given earlier of violence was caused by corruption, and violence of the state on the people. Frequently done, in the 19th and 2Oth century, with the aid of European, and later, American governments, often in support of financial interests. We could go on for days, write entire books to each other on the subject of governments, which at the urging of the wealthy, and powerful, meddle in the affairs of others, often with violence, often destroying the local social, political, and physical infrastructure, causing violent blow back.

Finally, the people do not exist for the government, the government is supposed to exist for the people. When the government forgets that, people tend to respond badly. For example, the Revolution was driven by shame, by embarrassment of the government's actions on the American Colonies. Hell, the Bill of Rights was written by the founders as a response to the police, and military, actions of the British government. Which are now being repeated by our current government. As has been said before, history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.[/color]

There will always be terrorism of one kind or another. Islamic terrorism as it is practiced today, is relatively recent.It will not be the final or penultimate terror coming from that region. Foreign policy contributes, but when people are dissatisfied of government, they will act violently, even if their rationale only makes sense in their minds. I would even agree that our foreign policy is a result of folly and serious miscalculation in many ways, but I think it is very distasteful how you are basically saying that these terrorists are "victims of our foreign policy." Many of these terrorist attacks are enacted by muslims who have been living in Western countries for many years. Their origin countries might be ravaged hellholes, but they enjoy a standard of living and safety that exceeds the wildest dreams of most people in the middle east, particularly since many of these European countries generous enough to host them have bent over backwards, to the point of restricting free speech if it is critical of Islam, to cater to them. Did the columbine shooters, timothy Mcveigh, the weatherman, the Japanese Red Army, the baader meinhoff gang, or any number of violent domestic groups attack as the result of poor living conditions or foreign policy? Maybe, but they were quite pampered compared to any humans in history who lived before them, and whatever dissatisfaction with them system does not in anyway make them victims, especially considering the real and not "abstract grievance" victims they left in their wake. Political corruption exists, always has and always will, but its not going away. To attempt to victimize terrorists is ignoring that every society has problems, and violent action does not solve those problems, or lead to any kind of better way of living. Ancient people had a far better understanding of perennial human problems then we do. They knew that there was not some perfect society right around the corner that an act of will could bring about. They knew that evil was constant and that human flaws would always be present in government. Its like that Herzen quote I'm paraphrasing where he says, "Why is it that in nature, we look at a termite mound, or a pride of lions and assume that this is how things ought to be, but when we look at human affairs, we always assume things ought to be the opposite?" It might be insanity, for our government to keep trying the same foreign policy and frequent encroachment on civil liberties violations, but it is even more insane for you to think when violent groups disrupt civil society, the government will act differently than it always has. If you have a reubttal on how to reverse this stuff, I'd love to hear it, but just saying "The government is here to serve the people not the other way around" doesn't change the reality. I don't like this stuff either, but I'm not naive about it.

[TheReal_ND]

We keep doing the same things over, and over, and over expecting that this time will work. It is like we are marking off a checklist on how to fail. It is a textbook case of folly. It really is. The various countries from which the terrorist organizations work from are steadily degraded into failed states as all the elements of successful states are destroyed by our military, and very of the effort needed for their rebuilding is not done. Millions of people have lost everything, or been injured, or been refugeed, or simple died because of this. How can entire nations of terrorized, impoverish, hopeless, and enraged people not be a incubator of new terror? Yes, we could blame the terrorists for their actions, but it is like blaming an abuse victim for their actions as one is responsible for their own actions, but the abusers are also responsible for the victimization that created the victim, and now, the new abuser.

So we have helped to created this horror show by our own actions. Not intentionally, but we did so nonetheless. Trapped in a cycle of horrific abuse on a global level, and unless we disenthrall ourselves from the notion of just bombing, droning, shooting evermore people, to think of new actions, we are only ever going to stay on this cycle of horror.

This is a parallel to the "War on Terror." It does not matter what is being asked, for what does matter is what is actually happening. For at least two decades, the country has become more militarized, securitized, fenced, armed, controlled, made increasingly fearful, and spied on all for our "safety." Every time I go to the airport, or to the courthouse, there are more gates, locked doors, fences, guards, cameras, and screeners. More thorough, embarrassing screenings. The schools are also this way to the point that having lockers are frowned on. Why? Crime has been decreasing for decades, violence has been decreasing for thirty years and yet reasons are found to every increase the level of spying or other "security" measures.

Almost all of those examples given earlier of violence was caused by corruption, and violence of the state on the people. Frequently done, in the 19th and 2Oth century, with the aid of European, and later, American governments, often in support of financial interests. We could go on for days, write entire books to each other on the subject of governments, which at the urging of the wealthy, and powerful, meddle in the affairs of others, often with violence, often destroying the local social, political, and physical infrastructure, causing violent blow back.

Finally, the people do not exist for the government, the government is supposed to exist for the people. When the government forgets that, people tend to respond badly. For example, the Revolution was driven by shame, by embarrassment of the government's actions on the American Colonies. Hell, the Bill of Rights was written by the founders as a response to the police, and military, actions of the British government. Which are now being repeated by our current government. As has been said before, history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.[/color]

There will always be terrorism of one kind or another. Islamic terrorism as it is practiced today, is relatively recent.It will not be the final or penultimate terror coming from that region. Foreign policy contributes, but when people are dissatisfied of government, they will act violently, even if their rationale only makes sense in their minds. I would even agree that our foreign policy is a result of folly and serious miscalculation in many ways, but I think it is very distasteful how you are basically saying that these terrorists are "victims of our foreign policy." Many of these terrorist attacks are enacted by muslims who have been living in Western countries for many years. Their origin countries might be ravaged hellholes, but they enjoy a standard of living and safety that exceeds the wildest dreams of most people in the middle east, particularly since many of these European countries generous enough to host them have bent over backwards, to the point of restricting free speech if it is critical of Islam, to cater to them. Did the columbine shooters, timothy Mcveigh, the weatherman, the Japanese Red Army, the baader meinhoff gang, or any number of violent domestic groups attack as the result of poor living conditions or foreign policy? Maybe, but they were quite pampered compared to any humans in history who lived before them, and whatever dissatisfaction with them system does not in anyway make them victims, especially considering the real and not "abstract grievance" victims they left in their wake. Political corruption exists, always has and always will, but its not going away. To attempt to victimize terrorists is ignoring that every society has problems, and violent action does not solve those problems, or lead to any kind of better way of living. Ancient people had a far better understanding of perennial human problems then we do. They knew that there was not some perfect society right around the corner that an act of will could bring about. They knew that evil was constant and that human flaws would always be present in government. Its like that Herzen quote I'm paraphrasing where he says, "Why is it that in nature, we look at a termite mound, or a pride of lions and assume that this is how things ought to be, but when we look at human affairs, we always assume things ought to be the opposite?" It might be insanity, for our government to keep trying the same foreign policy and frequent encroachment on civil liberties violations, but it is even more insane for you to think when violent groups disrupt civil society, the government will act differently than it always has. If you have a reubttal on how to reverse this stuff, I'd love to hear it, but just saying "The government is here to serve the people not the other way around" doesn't change the reality. I don't like this stuff either, but I'm not naive about it.

Mostly agree however

We keep doing the same things over, and over, and over expecting that this time will work. It is like we are marking off a checklist on how to fail. It is a textbook case of folly. It really is. The various countries from which the terrorist organizations work from are steadily degraded into failed states as all the elements of successful states are destroyed by our military, and very of the effort needed for their rebuilding is not done. Millions of people have lost everything, or been injured, or been refugeed, or simple died because of this. How can entire nations of terrorized, impoverish, hopeless, and enraged people not be a incubator of new terror? Yes, we could blame the terrorists for their actions, but it is like blaming an abuse victim for their actions as one is responsible for their own actions, but the abusers are also responsible for the victimization that created the victim, and now, the new abuser.

So we have helped to created this horror show by our own actions. Not intentionally, but we did so nonetheless. Trapped in a cycle of horrific abuse on a global level, and unless we disenthrall ourselves from the notion of just bombing, droning, shooting evermore people, to think of new actions, we are only ever going to stay on this cycle of horror.

This is a parallel to the "War on Terror." It does not matter what is being asked, for what does matter is what is actually happening. For at least two decades, the country has become more militarized, securitized, fenced, armed, controlled, made increasingly fearful, and spied on all for our "safety." Every time I go to the airport, or to the courthouse, there are more gates, locked doors, fences, guards, cameras, and screeners. More thorough, embarrassing screenings. The schools are also this way to the point that having lockers are frowned on. Why? Crime has been decreasing for decades, violence has been decreasing for thirty years and yet reasons are found to every increase the level of spying or other "security" measures.

Almost all of those examples given earlier of violence was caused by corruption, and violence of the state on the people. Frequently done, in the 19th and 2Oth century, with the aid of European, and later, American governments, often in support of financial interests. We could go on for days, write entire books to each other on the subject of governments, which at the urging of the wealthy, and powerful, meddle in the affairs of others, often with violence, often destroying the local social, political, and physical infrastructure, causing violent blow back.

Finally, the people do not exist for the government, the government is supposed to exist for the people. When the government forgets that, people tend to respond badly. For example, the Revolution was driven by shame, by embarrassment of the government's actions on the American Colonies. Hell, the Bill of Rights was written by the founders as a response to the police, and military, actions of the British government. Which are now being repeated by our current government. As has been said before, history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.[/color]

There will always be terrorism of one kind or another. Islamic terrorism as it is practiced today, is relatively recent.It will not be the final or penultimate terror coming from that region. Foreign policy contributes, but when people are dissatisfied of government, they will act violently, even if their rationale only makes sense in their minds. I would even agree that our foreign policy is a result of folly and serious miscalculation in many ways, but I think it is very distasteful how you are basically saying that these terrorists are "victims of our foreign policy." Many of these terrorist attacks are enacted by muslims who have been living in Western countries for many years. Their origin countries might be ravaged hellholes, but they enjoy a standard of living and safety that exceeds the wildest dreams of most people in the middle east, particularly since many of these European countries generous enough to host them have bent over backwards, to the point of restricting free speech if it is critical of Islam, to cater to them. Did the columbine shooters, timothy Mcveigh, the weatherman, the Japanese Red Army, the baader meinhoff gang, or any number of violent domestic groups attack as the result of poor living conditions or foreign policy? Maybe, but they were quite pampered compared to any humans in history who lived before them, and whatever dissatisfaction with them system does not in anyway make them victims, especially considering the real and not "abstract grievance" victims they left in their wake. Political corruption exists, always has and always will, but its not going away. To attempt to victimize terrorists is ignoring that every society has problems, and violent action does not solve those problems, or lead to any kind of better way of living. Ancient people had a far better understanding of perennial human problems then we do. They knew that there was not some perfect society right around the corner that an act of will could bring about. They knew that evil was constant and that human flaws would always be present in government. Its like that Herzen quote I'm paraphrasing where he says, "Why is it that in nature, we look at a termite mound, or a pride of lions and assume that this is how things ought to be, but when we look at human affairs, we always assume things ought to be the opposite?" It might be insanity, for our government to keep trying the same foreign policy and frequent encroachment on civil liberties violations, but it is even more insane for you to think when violent groups disrupt civil society, the government will act differently than it always has. If you have a reubttal on how to reverse this stuff, I'd love to hear it, but just saying "The government is here to serve the people not the other way around" doesn't change the reality. I don't like this stuff either, but I'm not naive about it.

Actually the governments sole job is to administer the commons. Technically they have a duty to chuck people out of a helicopter when they undermine the commons.

[Speaker to Animals]

A government's job is to rule and monopolize the sovereignty (right to make war). Everything else is our limitation upon it, or lack thereof.

At it's crudest, government is the strongest warrior that can impose his will upon a group of people who before lived in a state of anarchy (war of all against all).

Democracy is the people as a single entity exercising the sovereignty. Monarchy is sovereignty resting in one person with a lot of strings attached. Communism is the sovereignty of the council (bureaucracy).

To understand any government, you need to look at how it frames sovereignty and what limitations are imposed upon it. It's similar to the principle of understanding any economic system: look for who decides what is produced and who gets the surplus of that production. Study of various forms of government is about who gets sovereignty and how it is limited. Study of various forms of economic systems is about who decides what to produce and who gets the surplus of that production (in our system, the surplus is capital/profit; in feudal times, the surplus was literally food). Everything we do collectively revolves around those two issues.

[heydaralon]

A government's job is to rule and monopolize the sovereignty (right to make war). Everything else is our limitation upon it, or lack thereof.

At it's crudest, government is the strongest warrior that can impose his will upon a group of people who before lived in a state of anarchy (war of all against all).

Democracy is the people as a single entity exercising the sovereignty. Monarchy is sovereignty resting in one person with a lot of strings attached. Communism is the sovereignty of the council (bureaucracy).

To understand any government, you need to look at how it frames sovereignty and what limitations are imposed upon it. It's similar to the principle of understanding any economic system: look for who decides what is produced and who gets the surplus of that production.

I still get irritated when the government oversteps, but at this point, I think its just how things are gonna be. Civil liberties weren't even a talking point in the 2016 election. In spite of Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Obama's 2008 speeches about wiretaps and guantanamo (which he subsequently reversed as soon as he got in office), Dan's numerous podcasts etc, most people in this country forgot about this stuff, or are willing to accept that this is the new American reality. Its not just America. European countries like the UK are arguably more invasive in this regard, and privacy and free speech is even less regarded there. I don't think making laws limiting the government's power will fix this problem, because governments simply ignore the laws when it suits them or find some smart lawyers to re-interpret the laws in a self-serving way. This is exactly what happened in 2001 in the US. I was reading this book awhile back called Cruel Britannia, and it was about how the British government covertly tortured people throughout the twentieth century, during WW2, the troubles, and the Mau Mau rebellion for a few examples. I think our government probably did the same even before the War on Terror, either directly or via proxy from some sympathetic Latin American, Asian, or Middle Eastern regime. I could be mis-remembering this, but a survey a few years back showed that a little over half of Americans were fine with enhanced interrogation techniques. If our government and people are fine with torture in certain circumstances, then there is little reason to think that any of this other stuff will be stopped. It bums me out, because this stuff is important to me, but I think its a losing battle. Even if the people wanted it, this stuff would probably still go forward.

[TheReal_ND]

A government's job is to rule and monopolize the sovereignty (right to make war). Everything else is our limitation upon it, or lack thereof.

At it's crudest, government is the strongest warrior that can impose his will upon a group of people who before lived in a state of anarchy (war of all against all).

Democracy is the people as a single entity exercising the sovereignty. Monarchy is sovereignty resting in one person with a lot of strings attached. Communism is the sovereignty of the council (bureaucracy).

To understand any government, you need to look at how it frames sovereignty and what limitations are imposed upon it. It's similar to the principle of understanding any economic system: look for who decides what is produced and who gets the surplus of that production.

I still get irritated when the government oversteps, but at this point, I think its just how things are gonna be. Civil liberties weren't even a talking point in the 2016 election. In spite of Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Obama's 2008 speeches about wiretaps and guantanamo (which he subsequently reversed as soon as he got in office), Dan's numerous podcasts etc, most people in this country forgot about this stuff, or are willing to accept that this is the new American reality. Its not just America. European countries like the UK are arguably more invasive in this regard, and privacy and free speech is even less regarded there. I don't think making laws limiting the government's power will fix this problem, because governments simply ignore the laws when it suits them or find some smart lawyers to re-interpret the laws in a self-serving way. This is exactly what happened in 2001 in the US. I was reading this book awhile back called Cruel Britannia, and it was about how the British government covertly tortured people throughout the twentieth century, during WW2, the troubles, and the Mau Mau rebellion for a few examples. I think our government probably did the same even before the War on Terror, either directly or via proxy from some sympathetic Latin American, Asian, or Middle Eastern regime. I could be mis-remembering this, but a survey a few years back showed that a little over half of Americans were fine with enhanced interrogation techniques. If our government and people are fine with torture in certain circumstances, then there is little reason to think that any of this other stuff will be stopped. It bums me out, because this stuff is important to me, but I think its a losing battle. Even if the people wanted it, this stuff would probably still go forward.

You're both wrong. The government serves us to protect the commons. That includes all forms of commons.

[Speaker to Animals]

Government precedes the commons. Can you direct me to the commons of Paleolithic Europe?

[TheReal_ND]

What the beaker culture? That's pointless to speculate about because the last time that was done an uber feminist decided they were matriarchal and nature worshipping.

If you mean post Aryan they were likely egalitarian tribalists. The commons would have been in either case tribal.